Search This Blog

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Israel poisons Palestinian water

Caption: Now you just have to imagine the room with a different color scheme, hardwood floors, and all these people living in the street and the six year-old shot through the head and the rest of the family acting crazy as if things could have been handled differently.

Nothing Israel does surprises me anymore. Zionists seem to be able to justify any atrocity as long as it serves their interests. Must be lovely to tell oneself all actions are mandated by God. I am sure they are not the first to do this.

I can't do much about it: but I can boycott their products. Read
Naomi Klein's renewed call for Israeli boycott and spread the word. The only way to hurt Israel is talk their language: money.

Israel Poisons Palestinian Water

29 June 2009
Ya know, wouldn't it be grand to wake up one day and not have to read where Zionist Racists murdered a non-Jew, attacked a non-Jew, attempted to kill a non-Jew, stolen land from a non-Jew, perpetuated crimes against humanity on a non-Jew. Until they can learn to become humans perhaps they should all be shot into space, yes, that's it!! And be given their own rocky desert planet, so they can live with only their kind forever and always, which, is of course their dream to expel everyone "not" like them from the middle east. Don't they know there is a word for that? "Racist"

Israeli soldiers poured dirt, stones and toxic chemicals in the only well in the hamlet of Khirbat Makehl near the village of Ya’bad in the northern West Bank overnight on Saturday, according to Palestinians in the community.

The village’s official representative, Walid Hamdan, said soldiers riding in three military jeeps entered the community overnight and sabotaged the well. The chemicals caused the water to change color and taste, he said.

The 80 cubic-meter well is the only source of water for the village of 70 to 80 families, Hamdan said.

He also said that, since the village lies near the Israeli settlement of Hermesh, the armed guards of the settlement often harass and assault Palestinians, particularly herders who venture near the edges of the settlement. Israeli forces also sometimes close the road leading to the community, preventing deliveries of food.


Picture of demolitions in Palestine
GAZA gets "Lip Service" but NO JUSTICE
Posted by Sheilanagig at 12:23 PM




June 25, 2009

An ex-candidate in Canada is suing the country's leading Jewish advocacy groups, alleging they ruined her political career.

Lesley Hughes, who was dumped as a Liberal candidate in a Winnipeg-area electoral district, claims the Canadian Jewish Congress and B'nai Brith Canada made false and defamatory accusations that she is anti-Semitic.

In a lawsuit filed June 16, Hughes alleges that as a result of the actions of the CJC and B'nai Brith, former federal Liberal leader Stephane Dion revoked her candidacy in last September's federal elections.

Hughes is suing the organizations, four of its senior members and Peter Kent, now a federal Cabinet minister who represents a heavily Jewish Toronto-area district.

In her lawsuit Hughes acknowledges that in a 2002 article in a Winnipeg community newspaper, she repeated a variation of the Internet canard that legions of Jews avoided death in the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center because the Mossad knew of the attacks in advance.

"Israeli businesses, which had offices in the Towers, vacated the premises a week before the attacks, breaking their lease to do it," she wrote.

Hughes alleges in her suit that CJC and B'nai Brith, using a 6-year-old article, persuaded Dion to revoke her candidacy on the grounds that she was anti-Semitic and unfit for public office.


She says Kent, then a Conservative candidate, issued a news release on Sept. 26, 2008 in which he said Hughes holds "extreme, anti-Israel 9/11 conspiracy theories" and was "unfit to serve for public office."

Hughes claims she has been "branded as an anti-Semite and a person of unsavory character and, as a result, is no longer employable in her role as a freelance journalist/broadcaster." She also says she has suffered mental distress and humiliation.

None of the defendants has filed statements of defense, nor have any of the allegations been proven in court.

IT seems the Zionist media
is up to its usual dirty ricks of
defaming and ruining a woman
who DARES challenge the Israeli party line
by speaking the truth.

Posted by Barbara L at 9:21 PM

"We're Not Racists" Really, We're Not........


Oh, seriously, where to begin.............

Israel takes a page from the American South in 1950.

So called (self labelled) "Liberal" Jews in Israel, have just been smacked in the face with a healthy dose of racist reality. Anyhow these Racists are all a dither that a Palestinian couple has been allowed (by the court no less!) to move into their "special" (Jews Only) neighbourhood. And now, like ALL racists, they are worried that their little world may change and become inclusive. Gasp! Horror! Why is it that racists never realise they are being racists? It's just the strangest thing. So let’s play a little game of “Spot the Racism”
"The label upsets me," South Africa-born lawyer Michael Zetler, who founded the Misgav community of Manof in 1980 with other immigrants from what was then an apartheid state, said Thursday. "It hurt me. I am not a racist."
(Right, and the Pope's not Catholic either. Awe, he must really miss the old days in South Africa, and most likely moved to Israel so he could be around "His Own Racist Kind" after Black South Africans got their freedom. Bet he didn't participate in The Truth and Reconciliation Commission LOL, probably ran screaming from it, directly to the most racist state in existence.....Israel the Apartheid State that plans to fully remain that way.)
the panic is related to the High Court of Justice's ruling two years ago that upheld the right of Ahmed and Fahina Zubeidat, an Israeli Arab couple, to buy a house in the exclusively Jewish community of Rakefet notwithstanding the local admissions committee's objection.

Since then, some residents of Jewish communal settlements in the Galilee fear that the region's substantial Arab population might seek to buy property in their communities, where the standard of living is far higher, causing Jews to move out.
(Oh Dear God, and they claim they are not racists? That entire statement is filled with racism just oozing out in every sentence. Firstly the irrational fear of someone “different” living next to you…..RACIST… Secondly, the Neanderthal belief that they, the Jews, are far better, with a higher standard of living…………RACIST)
"When we decided to move to Manof, we sought a community that chose similar basic principles to our own, such as good education for children, culture, celebrating a Jewish communal lifestyle and protecting the environment," a woman from Manof said. "We joined this community knowing it is founded on these values."
(That's "Racist Code" there, did you notice it? And the translation is that Palestinians have "No Values" Because only people like this racist Neanderthal Zionist want Good Education for their children, culture, and protecting the environment. Palestinians obviously don’t want that, they instead want shitty education and a shitty home for their families. And the local Zionist Racist Welcoming Committee wants to help them out with that. By pointing out the way to the next shanty town, where they will be welcomed to live in shitty squalor. And one more thing, Jaysus, I just have to say that last excuse about “Protecting the Environment” is just seriously way off the charts wacky. What does this racist pig think fer shit's sake, that Arabs are responsible for Fecking Global Warming? Ignorant Ignoramus.)
"High Court justices don't understand what it's like to live in a small community which was founded with great hardships, a community which is trying to hold on to a certain way of life."
Ok here we go: ” community which was founded with great hardships, a community which is trying to hold on to a certain way of life." (Let’s break that one down, a community that was founded with great hardships means that since its inception they’ve managed to keep Arabs out and create a wholly Zionist “No Go Area” for Arabs. And now their “Certain way of life” is threatened. Translation, “There goes the neighbourhood” RACIST) And finally:
A few weeks ago a ceremony was held in Yuvalim, the largest town in the Misgav bloc, which exemplified its inveterate ties to the state of Israel. The regional council unveiled a promenade in memory of slain Israel Defense Forces soldier Arbel Reich, whose father was among Yuvalim's founders.

"This event was part of the community's narrative, part of its spirit, just like the fact that we educate our children to serve in combat units. That's what it's like here and we're proud of that.

"A resident who wishes to join Yuvalim will have to feel comfortable at such a ceremony, and if not he can go elsewhere, where he wouldn't be offended," he said.
Here's a wacky idea: Lets’ re-gig that last section and think African Americans to illustrate how racist this truly is:

The regional council unveiled a promenade in memory of David Duke, whose father was among the neighbourhoods founders.

"This event was part of the community's narrative, part of its spirit, just like the fact that we educate our children to serve in the KKK. That's what it's like here and we're proud of that.

"A resident who wishes to join our neighbourhood will have to feel comfortable at such a ceremony, and if not he can go elsewhere, where he wouldn't be offended,"
I rest my case; they are ALL Zionist Racist Pigs. Racists hate the fact that unless you are the lead dog the view is always the same; racists don’t want to share their view.


Posted by Free Palestine Writers at 12:20 AM

New York Times, the dog that didn't bark


Conspicuous Silences: The New York Times Buries Its Head in the Sinai Sand

by DAVID MORRIS on JUNE 30, 2009

 Image of Three Wise Monkeys in Nikko, Japan, who See no evil, Hear no evil, Speak no evil (courtesy of David.Monniaux via’s like the Sherlock Holmes case of the dog that didn’t bark . Why does the New York Times ignore or bury news that is unfavorable to the State of Israel?

Two examples follow:

Chas Freeman , and the USS Liberty. One recent, and another a willful silence that has continued for forty-two years.

Example 1: The Chas Freeman Affair

This past February, Chas Freeman was appointed to chair the National Intelligence Council, an advisory body that oversees what intelligence is permitted in official government reports. Ambassador Freeman, a distinguished foreign service officer, is known for his clear-eyed views on Israel and the Mideast.

Alarms blared at the Israel lobby. Immediately AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) began an all-out war to kill his appointment. At stake was whether a special interest group could control what foreign policy viewpoints our public officials are allowed to hold, and in so doing, place another country’s interests ahead of America’s.

"Truth squads" were formed to distribute distortions and slanders to their allies in the media and Washington. Steve Rosen, a former leader of AIPAC, kicked off the smear campaign by questioning Mr. Freeman’s loyalty to America. Media organizations like Fox News reported the accusation while failing to disclose that Rosen, himself, under federal indictment for spying for Israel against the United States.

Mainstream media sat back and gave the lobby a free hand.

The Israel lobby enjoys enormous power in Congress. Robert Dreyfuss in The Nation noted "the campaign by AIPAC…using a lot of muscle behind the scenes" to prompt Senate and House committees to come out against Mr. Freeman. Democrat Steve Israel, along with four other congressmen who are the top five recipients of campaign contributions from pro-Israel groups, pushed Congress to initiate a formal investigation of conjectures and allegations. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, indebted friend of AIPAC, declared the nomination "beyond the pale."

Professor Stephen Walt likened these Congressional attacks "to Joseph McCarthy’s infamous witch hunt against communists in the US government, [that] relied primarily on lies, innuendo, and intimidation." And as American media did in the 1950s, our newspapers, radio, and television in March 2009 played passive accomplices by repeating and reporting only the surface of events.

The editorial page of the NY Times is read by members of Congress and their staffs, and has significant influence. But neither the Times nor mass media considered the mauling of Mr. Freeman and the attendant interference with our democratic processes worth reporters’ time or editorial comment. In fact, the paper did not run a single story dealing with Mr. Freeman until after the day he stepped down.

Greg Marx, discussing the Freeman affair in the Columbia Journalism Review noted, "if you get your news from the New York Times , you were totally oblivious to this story as it unfolded."

The lobby, sensing it had free rein, went in for the kill.

After weeks of trying to defend himself, Mr. Freeman withdrew his nomination. This event prompted the NY Times to publish its first story on the affair. The article was so tepid that Philip Weiss, in his influential Mondoweiss blog, wrote "it looks like a whitewash to me, written for a pro-Israel audience that doesn’t want to read anything negative about ‘our staunch ally.’" Another columnist, James Wall, wrote that the article "sounded strangely like something an AIPAC intern might write."

This pattern of conspicuous silences from the New York Times isn’t new. It began forty-two years ago.

Example 2: USS Liberty

Israeli jet fighters and torpedo boats attacked the American Navy ship USS Liberty in international waters on June 8, 1967 during the Six-Day War. For two hours the Israelis attempted to sink the ship using rocket fire, bombs, napalm, and torpedoes.More than 200 Americans — over half the ship’s 358-man crew — were killed or wounded.

Israel continues to call the "incident" a tragic case of mistaken identity, yet for eight hours prior to the attack on a bright and clear day, Israeli reconnaissance aircraft flew over the Liberty , identifying the ship as American .

In the NY Times the following day, the attack merited only a brief article relegated to page 19. Even as damning evidence of Israeli aggression against the ship has come to light from a variety of reliable sources over the past four decades, the Times has continued to follow its initial policy of burying or ignoring the USS Liberty debacle.

My purpose here is not to rehash the details of the attack, nor to judge the evidence of a joint U.S.-Israeli cover-up. The USS Liberty Memorial provides details for those interested in reading more. My objective, rather, is to examine how mainstream media in general and the NY Times in particular have reported on the USS Liberty as new evidence has surfaced periodically over the past 42 years.

Yet it is difficult to examine reporting that has not been reported.

Over the years, evidence has continued to mount that undermines the official Israeli line of mistaken identity and strengthens the argument that the Israeli attack was deliberate — launched and continued with full knowledge that the USS Liberty was an American ship.

Sources corroborating this interpretation include: 1) testimony from a JAG officerresponsible for the 1967 official inquiry; 2) eye-witness accounts from survivors of theLiberty ; 3) declassification of government documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act; and 4) statements and intercepts of Israeli military personnel involved in the attack.

With the notable exception of John Crewdsen’s article in the Chicago Tribune "New Revelations in Attack on American Spy Ship," mainstream media have ignored these developing news stories. Take for example, the comprehensive and independentinvestigation of the Liberty chaired by Admiral Thomas Moorer in 2003, whose findings were not favorable to Israel. Only ten of the 300 leading newspapers in America published the Associated Press’ article on the report, according to Alison Weir. During 2003, the Times ‘ attention was focused more on promoting the war in Iraq than in investigating the truth behind an Israeli attack that killed or wounded 206 Americans.

The New York Times ‘ coverage of the Liberty over the past 42 years is telling. Now and then, in attempts to discredit new evidence and witnesses who came forward, theTimes has relied on columnists William Safire, who doubled as communication consultant to the Israeli government, and Abe Rosenthal, the former managing editor of the Times . In 1991, columnists Evans and Novak obtained copies of incriminating Israeli communications that were intercepted by the CIA on June 8, 1967. In their syndicated column they reported two eye-witness sources confirming that the Israelis knew when they attacked that the Liberty was American. Rosenthal’s hasty effort to debunk their report was amateurish and partisan. Describing Rosenthal’s objectivity, author Eric Alterman said , "I consider myself a defender of Israel. But Abe Rosenthal…he basically uses his column, I believe, as a means of defending Israel whenever possible, even when Israel does things most people feel are not defensible."

When the media raised their curtain of silence about the Liberty , their reports showed a clear pro-Israel bias. For example in 1992, former Ambassador to the United Nations George Ball published a book severely criticizing the official inquiry on the Liberty . Among major US daily newspapers, only the Washington Postdeigned to acknowledged the book’s existence, but to review it, the Post selected a pro-Israel historian who made a career of defending Israel. The review was brief and focused on the Ambassador’s purported anti-Semitism.

American media’s protection of Israel extends to the TV networks. In 1992, for example, NBC produced a documentary on the Liberty promising to let the survivors tell their stories on camera. After the interviews were filmed, NBC assigned a pro-Israel writer and editor to cut, shape, and gloss over information offensive to Israel.

The BBC, by contrast, won an international film award for its documentary "Dead in the Water ." The film presents compelling evidence that Israel did indeed attack the USS Liberty despite knowledge that it was an American ship, and that the Johnson administration orchestrated a hasty inquiry to cover it up.

Today, if you Google "New York Times USS Liberty ," you will find a 2001 TV listing (without review), a 1988 letter to the editor from a survivor of the attack, and not much else. The Times has buried its head in the Sinai sand .


Sherlock Holmes solved the murder case by realizing that the dog didn’t bark a warning because it knew the perpetrator . He was its friend and provider. In matters concerning the Middle East, the New York Times , by playing lap dog to Israel, has become predictable and irrelevant.

This is why the American public is turning away from mainstream media. This is why blogs like this are born.



The Media , Madona and Michael

The old-Devil and the new-Witch !!

For the coming 15 days ,
I beg of you all to carefully watch
which Media shall mention that Michael Jackson
has converted to Islam , and which Media shall never do it.

Make your own statistics
and then make your own conclusions.

As if ,
it were "wrong" to convert to Islam
as Michael obviously did , therefore it is rather irrelevant.....
but otherwise it is perfectly alright to do as Madona recently did,
....converting to Judaism !!

Bearing in mind that you cannot convert into a "race "
.....although Jews pretend to be a race-people-nation-culture.
When it is normal to convert to Islam , which is
a brotherhood of beleivers , a Religion.....the Religion !!

Madona can now " inherit " the Land of Canaan
while probably Michael Jackson , would in theory
enter the Heavens....without ever stealing Mecca.....
nor stealing Jerusalem.

Bearing in mind that Madona , "legaly" ,
may steal Jerusalem now that she became a Jew....

Back to our story !

Watch the news , please ,
and tell us who or what shall ever reveal to us
and indeed to the large public, that Michael Jackson
died as , a converted-Muslim-person ?
and who shall not mention it ?? and how often ??

Raja Chemayel

Posted by Тлакскала at 11:32 PM

Who may dictate to us about the Dictators ??


The main-stream- Media's and the West ,
have decided to call President AhmadiNejad ,
as being a dictator.... .

Of course it is a matter of opinion
and all opinions are subjective.. ...(even mine)

Do we have facts , supporting
the claim or the theory of "Dictator" ????

How different is Mr. Moussavi ???
Or any other presidential- candidate !!

Let us hear it , por favor !!!.

Raja Chemayel

Posted by Тлакскала at 11:23 PM

Very informative: Iran and Washington’s Hidden Hand


June 30, 2009

Has the CIA Been Caught in Iran’s Cookie Jar, Again?

By ESAM AL-AMIN, counter punch

Only weeks after the September 11, 2001, attacks, Charles Krauthammer, the Washington Post columnist and mouthpiece of the neoconservatives, revealed the target list of the Bush administration as it set out on its post-9/11 war footing. The list included six nations: Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, and the Palestinian Authority. While the priority allotted to Afghanistan and subsequently Iraq was not in dispute, the remaining order was in flux.

Israel was given a free hand in dealing with the Palestinian Authority (PA). President George W. Bush completely shunned and isolated PA President Yasser Arafat, until he died under siege in November 2004. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was allowed to use brutal military tactics to crush the Al-Aqsa intifada, reoccupying much of the West Bank, and setting up hundreds of military checkpoints devastating Palestinian life and what remained of the PA.

By January 2002, the Afghan campaign was over as far as Bush was concerned, and preparations for the invasion of Iraq had begun in earnest. Dozens of books have been written explaining in elaborate detail the schemes, plots and deceptions by the neocons for regime change in Iraq. In fact, Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward documented the events and the roles of senior administration officials in a series of books.

As Libyan Leader Muammar Qadhafi watched the toppling of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein in the spring of 2003, he initiated contact with London and then Washington, trying to identify the conditions needed, in an attempt to avoid Saddam’s fate. By January 2004, Libya agreed to all their conditions: accepting responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing, paying over $3 billion in reparations, signing the Chemical Weapons Ban treaty, and perhaps most importantly, giving up its nuclear program, including handing over all equipment purchased over two decades to the U.S.

On the other hand, Syria faced economic pressure and diplomatic isolation, coupled with veiled and direct threats. By April 2005, Syria withdrew its troops from Lebanon after a 29-year presence. Although American pressure succeeded in forcing Damascus to withdraw from Lebanon, Syria remained a target for regime change within the U.S. defense and intelligence establishment. Its alleged role in supporting the Iraqi resistance against the American occupation, as well as hosting the headquarters of the major Palestinian resistance groups represented its major “sins.”

But the toughest nut to crack among all these targets has always been Iran. Ironically, Iran’s strategic situation vastly improved following the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the overthrow of those regimes. By 2004, Iran’s Shiite allies in Iraq were in control of the government, even as the country was still under American occupation. Further, Iran exercised tremendous influence with Muqtada Sadr’s militia, the main Shiite opposition to the occupation in the streets.

After Bush’s second inauguration in January 2005, the National Security Council had an intense internal debate regarding Iran. The conflict did not center on whether there should be a regime change in Iran, but rather, whether to employ soft or hard power to achieve it. Former Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld advocated a series of escalating military strikes, while former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair called for the use of soft power. Eventually, the president’s military advisors ended the debate when they cautioned Bush that with the deteriorating security situation in Iraq, engaging Iran militarily would be highly risky and draining for the U.S. armed forces.

Between 2005-2009, the U.S. Congress appropriated more than $400 million for State Department programs designed to “promote democracy,” among other means of employing soft power in Iran. This was implemented, in part, by funding the activities of Iranian dissident groups. By 2008, Congress included money in the budget that would specifically “go to software programmers to develop programs that thwart internet firewalls erected by the government of Iran, ” and for a program to “provide anti-censorship tools and services for the advancement of information freedom in closed societies.”

On May 24, 2007, Brian Ross, ABC News’s Chief Investigative Correspondent broke a story about the elements of soft power utilized by the CIA and authorized by Bush. “Current and former intelligence officials told ABC News that the CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount what is known as a black or covert operations to destabilize the Iranian regime, and it is underway,” he reported. He then added, “Those officials describe the Iranian plan as non-lethal involving a campaign of coordinated propaganda broadcasts, placement of negative newspaper articles, the manipulation of Iran’s currency and international banking transactions.” The ABC correspondent stated, “Propaganda was one of the most important tools utilized by the CIA.”

Three day later, the British Daily Telegraph, detailed CIA plans for “a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple” the regime. The report said that the presidential finding gave the U.S. spy agency, for the first time, “the right to collect intelligence domestically, an area that is usually the preserve of the FBI, from the many Iranian exiles and émigrés within the US.” In the report, an intelligence official was quoted as saying, “Iranians in America have links with their families at home, and they are a good two-way source of information.”

Part of the CIA program, as reported by ABC News and the Daily Telegraph, was “supplying money and weapons, to the militant group, Jundullah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan.” Since 2007, Iranian officials have announced the capture of dozens of members of violent groups, allegedly tied to the CIA, that carried out bombings around the nation including one that killed 20 people only two weeks prior to the recent elections, on May 30, 2009. The following day, another bombing took place at a campaign office of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Further, about two thousand militia members of the Mujahideen Khalq Organization, a violent group seeking to forcibly topple the Iranian regime by force, have been given sanctuary in Iraq by the American occupation authority, although the group has appeared on the State Department’s list of international terrorist organizations since 1997. The report also quoted Mark Fitzpatrick, a former senior State Department official, now with the International Institute for Strategic Studies, as saying that industrial sabotage was the strategy of choice to combat Iran’s nuclear program “without military action, without fingerprints on the operation.”

The Telegraph report also stated that the CIA was allowed to supply “communications equipment which would enable opposition groups in Iran to work together and bypass Internet censorship” by the regime. The use of this equipment has surfaced prominently in the recent standoff between the government and the opposition in Iran. It should be noted though that this destabilization program by the CIA is totally separate from the State Department’s $400 million program, and is being funded through the CIA budget. Thus, since 2006, the total figure for Iran’s destabilization program could have easily exceeded $1 billion.

During the 1980s, the U.S. Government, and particularly the CIA, was very active in fomenting rebellions, mass unrest and protest movements in Eastern Europe. These efforts have been documented in numerous books and biographies. Former National Security Advisor during the Carter Administration, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, admitted as much in a CNN interview on June 21, 2009.

Commenting on the 1980 founding of the Solidarity movement during the Communist era in Poland, he told his host, “I was up to my ears in dealing with it and trying to steer it and manipulate it.” When asked about regime change in Iran, Brzezinski answered that regime change is desired because it would provide a “greater accommodation” to the U.S., but it requires, among other things, “intelligent manipulation.”

On June 28, CNN program host Fareed Zakaria put a very telling question to Bob Baer, a retired twenty-one year CIA veteran, who served as the top operative in the Middle East for many years. He asked, “Isn’t it true that we do [try to destabilize the regime]? Don’t we fund various groups inside and outside Iran that do try to destabilize the government?” Baer answered, “ Oh absolutely,” then added, “There is a covert action program against Iran where the [U.S.] military is running; a covert action against Iran from Iraq and Afghanistan.”

The overt involvement of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and other U.S. Government-funded NGOs in supporting many of the groups and dissidents that led the colored and flowering “revolutions,” is also well documented. The Orange (Ukraine), Rose (Georgia), Tulip (Kyrgyzstan), Cedar (Lebanon), Saffron (Burma) and now Green (Iran) “revolutions” have involved mostly pro-Western groups or Western-favored individuals against nationalists.

The Guardian claimed that USAID, National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, and Freedom House were directly involved in supporting these revolutions. The Washington Post and the New York Times also reported substantial Western involvement in some of these events.

According to Saeed Behbahani, a fierce critic of the current Iranian regime, and founder of Mihan TV outside Washington D.C., the American administration exchanged messages with the campaign of Mir Hossein Mousavi in early June. He claims that, at that time, an unidentified Iranian-American businessman, who is close to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, met with Mousavi’s campaign manager, Mehdi Khazali, in Dubai.

The following day, Khazali was prominently interviewed and hailed by the Voice of America’s Persian language broadcast. The VOA claims that its broadcast reaches 15 million Iranians. Other Iranian opposition groups complained that the VOA had adopted a policy of supporting the reformist candidates, and had disregarded those who called for a boycott of the elections to deny the regime legitimacy.

The role of the Western media in the few weeks before and in the aftermath of the elections is illuminating. These same outlets traditionally act as enablers to Washington’s agenda, a role notoriously on display in the lead-up to the Iraq war.

In November 2005, Egypt held elections for its parliament. The elections were held in three stages so they could be easily managed by the regime. When the opposition led by the Kefaya (Enough) Movement and the Muslim Brotherhood scored impressive gains in the first stage, the government initiated a crackdown by beating and arresting the opposition candidates and organizers. Thousands of Egyptians took to the streets in protest of the government’s intimidation tactics and manipulation of the elections. Western TV networks provided scant coverage of these events, and never covered the massive protests or crackdown by government authorities.

Furthermore, earlier this year, during Israel’s 22-day onslaught on Gaza, millions of people around the world, including tens of thousands in the U.S., protested daily the brutality of the Israeli military machine against the defenseless civilians. Despite the fact that over 1,000 people were killed and over 5,000 injured – one third of whom were children- there was hardly the wall-to-wall coverage given to the protests in Iran.

The biased performance of the mainstream media in reporting the Iranian elections can be illustrated through the coverage of the over-votes. Soon after the elections, it was reported that a major proof of fraud was that the participation rate exceeded 100 percent in many districts. The clear implication was that the authorities were so sloppy in their election tampering that they simply stuffed the ballot boxes.

Had media outlets consulted any experts on Iranian elections, they would have discovered the simple explanation. In Iran, there is no requirement to vote in a designated district. People do not carry a voter registration card like American citizens. Each voter has a voting book allowing him or her to vote anywhere in the country. After voting, the book is stamped and the index finger is inked to ensure that no one can vote more than once. This fact was not unique to this election. In many previous elections, many districts had a high turnout when compared to the number of registered voters in that district because many Iranians had voted there while traveling or during their summer vacations.

The example of the over-votes, not only demonstrates gross negligence by the media, but also deliberate deception. On June 22, Abbas Kadkhodaei, a spokesperson for Iran’s Guidance Council (GC), the official body in charge of investigating all 646 complaints filed by the defeated candidates, held a press conference. He gave details about the complaints under investigation by the Council.

Kadkhodaei explained that the main complaint filed by Mousavi related to the elections was that the number of over-votes existed in as many as 170 cities, potentially affecting more votes than the margin between the top two candidates. Kadkhodaei then presented the GC’s preliminary findings, which showed that such over-votes existed (as they had existed in previous elections), but in no more than 50 cities across Iran, affecting no more than three million votes. In other words, there were no more than three million voters who had voted outside their districts. He emphasized that, with 11 million votes between the top two candidates, even if all three million votes were to be excluded (although there is no valid reason to do that), clearly the outcome of the elections would not be affected.

But within minutes the German News Agency followed by Reuters, reported that the GC “admitted” that there were an excess of three million votes in 50 cities, leaving the listener and reader with the impression that these were fraudulent votes, rather than valid votes for people voting outside their districts like the spokesman explained. This report was instantly placed on the front pages of every major Western news media websites. The deception continued and made the front page of every major Western paper the following day.

Opposition groups have relied on Internet communication technology such as text messaging, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and political blogs during their protests. In fact, Secretary Clinton took the unusual step in asking Twitter to change its maintenance schedule to accommodate Iran’s time zone and allow opposition groups the ability to utilize it. What is striking is that most of the postings were in English, not Persian, begging the question: who was the target audience of these tweets? Similarly, why were the protesters holding signs saying, “Where is my vote?” in English, rather than the language spoken by the voters of Iran?

But a study by the website,, concluded that during three days after the election, the overwhelming majority of Tweets (over 30,000), were manipulated through a handful of accounts; all created within one day of the elections on June 13. It is interesting to note that only 0.6 percent of Twitter accounts are used by Iranians (as compared to 44 percent by Americans).

In a recent interview with the BBC on June 19, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the foreign policy icon and ultimate insider, exposed Washington’s deep involvement in the Iranian affair.

Dr. Kissinger said, “If it turns out that it is not possible for a government to emerge in Iran that can deal with itself as a nation rather than as a cause, then we have a different situation.” Translation: if our preferred candidate did not emerge a winner after using all our soft power… He continued, “Then we may conclude that we must work for regime change in Iran from the outside,” Translation: then the U.S. (or perhaps Israel) may have to resort to hard power, meaning military strikes.

He then added, “But if I understand the president correctly, he does not want to do this as a visible intervention in the current crisis.” Translation: Whatever President Barack Obama is doing in Iran, he wants to make sure that Washington’s hand is invisible.

Obama faces a Persian rebuff


June 30, 2009

By M K Bhadrakumar, atimes

Twitter can now revert to its plan to shut down its Iran services and attend to maintenance work. Twitter goes into recess pleased that it probably embarrassed a resurgent regional power. The United States government owes Twitter a grand salute for having done something where all other stratagems of war and peace failed in the past three decades.

However, Persian stories have long endings. The Iranian regime shows every sign of closing ranks and pulling its act together in the face of what it assessed to be an existential threat to the Vilayat-e faqih (rule of the clergy) system. Even if the US and Britain want to walk away from their nasty spat with Tehran, which would be an eminently sensible and logical thing to do, the latter may not allow them to do that.

When Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei used a colorful Persian idiom to characterize European and American officials and when he underscored that the ground on which they stood inevitably gets “soiled”, he made it clear that Tehran will not easily forget the fusillades of mockery that the US and Britain in particular fired over the past fortnight to tarnish its rising regional profile. In a veiled warning, Khamenei said, “Some European and American officials with their idiotic remarks about Iran are speaking as if their own problems [read Iraq, Afghanistan] have all been resolved and Iran remains the only issue for them.”

Iran has had a tortuous history, overflowing with what US President Barack Obama in his Cairo speech called “tension … fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies with regard to their own aspirations”. The “red line” for Tehran through the past three decades has always been any foreign attempt at forcing regime change. That line has been breached.

The Iranian security establishment has begun digging deeper and deeper into what really happened. Gholam Hossein Nohseni Ejei, the powerful Intelligence Minister, has alleged from available data that there has been a concerted attempt to stir up unrest by world powers that were “upset about a stable and secure Iran”, and plots to assassinate Iranian leaders.

Unsubstantiated allegations do not stick. But uncomfortable questions will arise in the coming days and weeks. Doubts arise already about the mysterious death of Neda Aqa-Soltan. Again, the dead included eight trained Basiji militiamen. Who killed them? Indeed, who led the charge of the light brigade?

It is a little-known slice of history that in the countdown to the Anglo-American coup in Tehran against Mohammed Mosaddeq in 1953, the US Central Intelligence Agency lost nerve just as the Tehran street protests – eerily similar to the recent unrest – were about to be staged, but the British intelligence outpost in Cyprus which coordinated the entire operation held firm, forced the pace and ultimately created a fait accompli for Washington.

At any rate, Tehran is going after Britain – “the most treacherous of foreign powers”, to use Khamenei’s words. Marching orders have been given to two British diplomats posted in Tehran, and four local employees working in the British Embassy remain under detention for questioning. This is despite robust gesticulations by London that it is not stepping anything up on Tehran’s streets. A Foreign Office statement in London pleaded that it is Iran’s nuclear program that is driving Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and not outrage over civil rights or the death of innocents.

London is manifestly anxious to vacate the scene as quickly as possible, and hopes it can be business as usual with Iran. But Obama faces a much more complex challenge. He cannot emulate Brown. He needs to get engaged with Iran. The challenge facing Obama is that not only has the Iranian regime not cracked, it has shown incredible resilience.

Regime closes ranks

If the rumor was that the intriguing silence of former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani meant he was plotting in the holy city of Qom and challenging Khamenei’s writ, it was not to be so. On Sunday, Rafsanjani openly came out with a statement endorsing Khamenei. We see the unmistakable contours of an understanding.

“The developments following the presidential vote were a complex conspiracy plotted by suspicious elements with the aim of creating a rift between the people and the Islamic establishment and causing them to lose their trust in the [Vilayat-e faqih] system. Such plots have always been neutralized whenever the people have entered the scene with vigilance,” Rafsanjani said.

He lauded Khamenei for extending the Guardians Council’s move to extend the deadline by five days to review issues pertaining to the election and removing ambiguities. “This valuable move by the leader to restore the people’s confidence in the election process was very effective,” Rafsanjani pointed out. In a separate meeting with a delegation of majlis (parliament) members on Thursday, Rafsanjani said his attachment to Khamenei is “endless” and that he enjoys a close relationship with the supreme leader and he fully complies with Velayat-e faqih.

On Saturday, the Expediency Council, which is headed by Rafsanjani, called on defeated candidates to “observe the law and resolve conflicts and disputes [concerning the election] through legal channels”. Meanwhile, Mohsen Rezai, the opposition candidate and former head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, and former majlis speaker Nateq-Nouri, the leading pillar in Iranian politics, have also reconciled.

Thus, Mir Hossein Mousavi stands isolated. Disregarding Mousavi’s demur, the Guardians Council ordered a partial recount of 10% of random ballot boxes across the country in front of state television cameras. The recount reconfirmed late on Monday evening the result of the June 12 poll and advised the Interior Ministry that “the Guardians Council after studying the issues dismisses all the complaints received, and approves the accuracy of the 10th presidential election”.

Monday’s recount showed a slight surge in the votes of President Mahmud Ahmadinejad in the province of Kerman. Mousavi is now left with the dicey option to resort to “civil disobedience” but he won’t exercise it – to the dismay of Western commentators whom he apparently impressed as “Iran’s Gandhi”.

If the prognosis was that the speaker of the majlis, Ali Larijani, was showing promise as a potential dissident leader, it also has been debunked. On Monday, while addressing the executive committee meeting of the Organization of Islamic Conference at Algiers, Larijani lashed out at the US policy of “interfering” in the internal affairs of Middle East countries. He advised Obama to abandon such policy: “This change will be beneficial both to the region and to the US itself.”

The Obama administration has some hard choices to make. It was sustained criticism and pressure mounted by networks of anti-Iranian groups and powerful lobbies ensconced within the US Congress and the political class – apart from quarters within the security establishment which have an old score to settle with Tehran but have an abominable record of misreading the vicissitudes of Iranian politics – that forced Obama to harden his stance.

Softening the hard stance will be a difficult and politically embarrassing process. Much statesmanship is also needed. The best outcome is that Washington can take a pause and resume its efforts to engage Iran after a decent interval.

A meaningful dialogue in the coming weeks seems improbable. Meanwhile, nitpickings such as the denial of visa for the Iranian Vice President Parviz Davoudi to visit New York to attend the United Nations conference on the world economic crisis do not help. (Davoudi is an advocate of liberal economic perspectives.) Nor will the US’s likely decision to pursue the sanctions route towards Iran at the forthcoming Group of Eight summit meeting in Trieste, Italy, on July 8-10. (In May, Iran surpassed Saudi Arabia as the top oil exporter from the Persian Gulf to China.)

In sum, the Obama administration badly fumbled after a magnificent start in addressing the situation around Iran. As the distinguished policymaker and commentator Leslie H Gelb argues in his new book Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy, Obama had an option “to use the Libyan model, whereby Washington and Tripoli put all cards on the table and traded them most satisfactorily”.

Iran will retaliate

Also, the regional milieu can only work to Iran’s advantage. Iraq remains dangerously poised. The US’s fortunes in Afghanistan swing from possible defeat to avoidance of defeat. Turkey has distanced itself from the European stance apropos the recent developments in Iran. Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan have greeted Ahmadinejad’s victory. Moscow eventually concluded the regime wasn’t threatened.

China emerges as the absolute “winner” in correctly assessing from day 1 the undercurrents of Iran’s obscure revolutionary politics. Beijing has never before expressed so openly such staunch solidarity with the Iranian regime in warding off Western pressure. Neither Syria nor Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza showed any inclination to disengage from Iran.

True, Syria’s ties with Saudi Arabia have improved in the past six months and Damascus welcomes the Obama administration’s recent overtures. But far from adopting the Saudi or US agenda toward Tehran, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem questioned the legitimacy of the street protests in Tehran.

He warned last Sunday when Tehran streets were witnessing unrest: “Anyone betting on the fall of the Iranian regime will be a loser. The [1979] Islamic revolution is a reality, deeply rooted in Iran, and the international community [read US] must live with that.”

Moallem called for the “establishment of a dialogue between Iran and the United States based on mutual respect and non-interference in Iran’s affairs”. Equally, success for Saad Hariri as the newly elected prime minister of Lebanon – and the country’s overall stability – will hinge on his reconciliation with rivals allied to Syria and Iran.

All things taken into account, therefore, there has been a policy crisis in Washington. The paradox is that the Obama administration will now deal with a Khamenei who is at the peak of his political power in all his past two decades as supreme leader. As for Ahmadinejad, he will now negotiate from a position of unprecedented strength. Arguably, it helps when your adversary is strong so that he can take tough decisions, but in this case the analogy doesn’t hold.

Ahmadinejad left hardly anything to interpretation when he stated in Tehran on Saturday, “Without doubt, Iran’s new government will have a more decisive and firmer approach towards the West. This time the Iranian nation’s reply will be harsh and more decisive” and will aim at making the West regret its “meddlesome stance”. Most certainly, Tehran will not be replying through the Twitter.

Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.

Hariri Ends Marathon Consultations, Begins "Tough Mission"

Hariri Ends Marathon Consultations, Begins "Tough Mission"
Readers Number : 147

30/06/2009 A few hours after the "marathon consultations" in the Parliament, a "tough job" seems to be waiting for the PM-designate in the formation of a government that guarantees "true partnership" and at the same time fulfills the "multiple demands" of the so-called "allies."

Hariri, who plunged into serious discussions with President Michel Sleiman on Tuesday on the shape-up of the new Cabinet, told reporters at the Baabda Presidential Palace that he briefed the president on the position of each parliamentary bloc regarding the new government.

According to Hariri, the various blocs he held consultations with one day earlier were positive and open to talks. "We will continue in this positive climate to reach a formula capable of facing the challenges," the PM-designate stressed.

Stressing that any formula reached for the cabinet would be transparent, and held responsible by the Lebanese public, Hariri said that the cabinet would be "useless if it does not fulfill the ambitions of the citizens."

Hariri said following the consultations on Monday that MPs showed openness and stressed that Lebanon's "two voices" should be united in the country's interest.

"Consultations were good. There was openness by MPs. Tomorrow I will inform the president about my meetings with the blocs," Hariri said after his last meeting with MP Nayla Tueni Monday evening.

The PM-designate said that he will start discussion on the cabinet following his meeting with President Michel Sleiman. "We hope to open a new page in order to form a cabinet of national unity … in which everyone is represented," Hariri told reporters in parliament. "We hope division would come to an end."

"We should build trust through dialogue," Hariri, who was nominated as Prime Minister for the first time since entering the politics game four years ago, stressed. He also hoped to reach the expected cabinet formula.

"We heard all citizens who cast their ballots on June 7. We should unite the two voices in the interest of the country," said Hariri in the aftermath of the parliamentary elections, adding that the country can no longer tolerate crises.


Meanwhile, local media said that consultations with the various parliamentary blocs demonstrated a semi-unanimity on openness. All various blocs agree on the need to consolidate the general principle of "partnership" in the upcoming government. However, they differ in the interpretation of "true partnership" when it comes to details.

Lebanese daily As-Safir quoted March 14 parliamentary sources as saying that Christian representation remains the "major knot." They said that while the Lebanese Forces hoped to be represented by at least two ministers, the Phalange Party demanded a "respectful" representation, let alone other Christian MPs who also called for a share in the new Cabinet, particularly those representing Beirut 1 constituency.

The sources said the Democratic Gathering bloc of MP Walid Jumblatt also wants no less than three posts in the new government -- two Druze ministers and a Christian - while the Change and Reform bloc of MP Michel Aoun requested seven ministers given that his bloc includes 27 MPs.

Among the seven ministers Aoun is hoping to get, are four Maronites, one Druze, an Armenian and another either Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox.

Two eyewitnesses deny the Basij Involvemen in Neda's assasination


Tension Between Sarkozy & Netanyahu


Last week, French President Nicolas Sarkozy compared Lieberman to Jean-Marie Le Pen, the leader of the far right wing party in France, and called upon Netanyahu to dismiss him from office and make a coalition with Tzippi Livni instead.

Israel Radio News reports:

In the meeting at the Elysee Palace last week, Sarkozy told Netanyahu that he should dismiss Lieberman and replace him with Tzippi Livni. Lieberman's spokesman said last night that if the report was accurate, this was very grave and was an act of crude meddling by France in Israel's domestic affairs.

Itamar Eichner in Yedioth Ahronoth commented:

Relations between Israel and France have become exceedingly tense of late. The reason for this development is the leaked information from the conversation that French President Nicolas Sarkozy held with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu...

The French president felt sufficiently at ease in that forum to discuss Israeli politics with Netanyahu and to criticize Lieberman severely.

"I've always received Israeli foreign ministers. I met with Tzippi Livni in the Elysee Palace, but with that one (Lieberman) I simply can't meet. I'm telling you, you need to get rid of that man. Get him out of the government and bring in Livni. With her and with Barak you can make history."

Netanyahu came to his foreign minister's defense and said: "You don't need to exaggerate. Lieberman is a very nice person, and in private conversations he speaks differently." Sarkozy wasn't persuaded and said: "In private conversations Jean-Marie Le Pen is also a nice person."

At a different stage of the conversation, Sarkozy also spoke about the possibility that Livni might join the coalition government. "I expect that she'll show responsibility and join the government. I told her that I was disappointed when she didn't do that, and that I thought she'd made a

Despite Sarkozy's comment, Barak Ravid in Haaretz reports that Netanyahu still has complete faith in Lieberman...

Posted by G, Z, & or B at 1:18 PM

"Embers and Ashes:" An intellectual's exile, struggle and success

Atef Alshaer, The Electronic Intifada, 30 June 2009

"My homeland, you have spurned me ... I shall never return to you ... I shall never ever return to you ..."

So ends Hisham Sharabi's compelling autobiography, Embers and Ashes: Memoirs of an Arab Intellectual. Sharabi, a leading Palestinian intellectual who died in 2005, uttered these words to himself on board a plane from Amman, Jordan to the United States in 1949. He studied and taught in the US for the rest of his life, retiring as a professor of history at Georgetown University in 1998. Ably translated from Arabic by Issa J. Boullata, Embers and Ashes is a poignant story of an intellectual's exile and struggle.

Sharabi transports the reader seamlessly from his early life in Palestine, where he was born in 1927, to his studies at the American University of Beirut, and finally his own American experience and life as a university professor at Georgetown. While it occasionally lacks cohesion, the book is unmistakably personal and insightful.

Sharabi's departure from Amman was preceded by tumultuous events in Lebanon where he was a prominent activist in the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP), led by Antun Saadeh. Perhaps more than anyone else, it was Saadeh who influenced Sharabi's intellectual trajectory. Saadeh's political line and that of the SSNP was premised on unity between Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine. Sharabi depicts Saadeh sympathetically as a man of deep human values: courageous, inspirational and subtly intellectual. But he also shows other aspects of Saadeh's personality:

"He used to speak of the party as if it were an actual government on the verge of taking power. In his personal behavior and public stance, he acted like a man of state. The party in his view was the only political force that stood up to colonialism and could achieve independence. It was the only force that could liberate Palestine. I think that Saadeh underestimated the depth of sectarian, tribal, and feudal feelings in [Lebanon]" (150-151).

There are two issues regarding Saadeh's approach to which Sharabi submitted uncritically, and on which he later seems to renege. Firstly, he did not oppose Saadah's grandiose vision of the Syrian homeland, which shifted from being confined to Lebanon, Syria, Palestine and Transjordan, to include Iraq, Kuwait and Cyprus. Secondly, Sharabi embraced Saadah's view that "the individual was a mere means that society used to achieve its aims; and that society represented a firm and abiding 'truth,' whereas individuals fell away like autumn leaves," thereby "ascribing a universality to society and considering society an ultimate ideal in itself" (59-60). However, Sharabi developed a more nuanced and critical view of these matters, particularly in his attribution of a more central and visible role to the individual in society.

Sharabi was also influenced by German philosopher Nicolai Hartmaan, who "considered moral values as justice, courage, love, and friendship to be objective and timeless. For him, those values enjoyed an eternal existence, like Plato's ideals" (129).

Embers and Ashes also provides an insightful reading of the Arab and American intellectual landscape. Sharabi is unsparing in his biting criticism of the intellectual and academic environment in the Arab world and points to serious flaws in education. Nor does he hold back in criticizing Arab universities for failing their students. He attributes to them his slowness in grasping the rigorous methods of learning which he encountered in the US. Stating that "I may forgive those to whom I owe my education for their ignorance and their foolishness. But it is far more difficult to forgive them their arrogance and the moral cruelty they practiced in distorting me and calling it an education" (22). For this discussion alone, Sharabi's book deserves a wide reading, particularly by Arab intellectuals, because it is critical of teachers and professors who are too engrossed in themselves and their self-made grandeur.

Sharabi was born in Jaffa and lived in Acre, and his discussion of Palestine is the familiar but ever-relevant Palestinian yearning for a country that was stolen. He tenderly evokes the image of Acre, the beautiful sea stretching before his eyes, the fertile fields of grain glistening in the eye of the sun, the orange, lemon and olive trees with their scent wafting through; the cascade of houses, finely built and designed; the neighbors sitting peacefully together. But there is often something tragic about Palestinians recollecting or being exposed to images of their towns and villages from which they were expelled in 1948. The Acre that Sharabi knows and evokes before 1948 in his book becomes a less recognizable place as he receives a photograph of it from his Jewish friend, Uri Davis: "familiar, but strange at the same time, in another world ... the remaining Arab inhabitants have been forbidden to live in the new city, outside the wall, and have been forced to live within the walled old city, which has become a casbah to the Jews, visited by foreign tourists wanting to buy locally made articles and to see 'the Arab population of Israel.'" (76).

Sharabi does not dwell on his own significant intellectual contributions as such. In the book, he reflects on his observations and involvement in the SSNP and interactions with events in the Arab world from a distance. He does, however, refer to papers he presented at conferences and gives general comments about his contributions. He considered Zionism as part of an imperial project that could only be understood, and as such dealt with, once there is a proper understanding of the broader context of European colonialism. He also refers to the patrimonial and patriarchal characteristics of Arab societies that weakened their sense of resistance against their aggressors and curtailed their individual freedoms. In this sense, the book provides an incisive reading on many levels of the Arab cultural and political landscape by someone who has been at the thick of major historical events: 1948, the emergence of socialist and nationalist parties in greater Syria and the Arab world and his experience as a Palestinian Arab in America. Sharabi rightly saw value in transmitting his experience and thoughts to new generations, and he does so with distinctive astuteness and sensitivity.

Embers and Ashes is not only a story of exile and struggle, but also of well-deserved resounding success. It is a fitting testament to Sharabi's life as a Palestinian beacon of humanity and intellectual honesty.

Atef Alshaer has first graduated from Birzeit University in Palestine, where he studied English Language and Literature. He holds a doctorate in Linguistics from the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.

Related Links