Just In from Angry Arab. To those who don't know him (and who doesn't know Angry Arab ?), Angry Arab writes in allegories, often on the satirical side.
Also from Angry Arab. UN team investigationg soil samples related to the assassination in Saudi Arabia.
So the infighting between Fatah El-Islam in Northern lebanon and the Lebanese government led by the Hariri coalition has had at least one clear conclusion; the establishment by the UN security council of the controversial and controversed international tribunal for the assassination of billionnaire, former PM, and an all time Saudi ally, Rafiq Hariri. Really, in all this mayhem, the presence of a clear military aid from the US, and the tension, Hezbollah and his allies (more than half the Lebanese) who are opposed to the tribunal, are not going to protest or they incur the risk of setting the whole country on fire.
The way the Hariri coalition, backed by the neocons, does Politics in Lebanon is simply appalling !
In addition to subjugating a whole country to a vision of one man and his family, -you may want to have a look at Hariri's neoliberal economic policies through this radio interview. The history of the Hariris' reign on lebanon's destiny is revealing of the relation between neoliberalism and wars.
Members of the Lebanese army and Palestinian civilians have died just to serve as a smokescreen, and to put pressure on all parties, outside and inside Lebanon, into adopting and accepting the tribunal. As if 15 years of civil war are not enough, Lebanon has been plagued, since Taef, by a political elite composed of racist and criminal warlords, corrupted Politicans, foreign influence, notably Syria and Saudi Arabia, and recently the neocons, the whole oligarchy led by a family with ravenous and insatiable appetites for power and money, the Hariris. Welcome to the dark world of unrestrained neoliberal ideology in a non democratic state.
Both UrShalim and Blacksmiths of Lebanon have linked to the text of the resolution.
Early Accounts:
Read an early account from Today's The Guardian on the resolution.
A view on the tribunal from the IHT.
Early Reactions:
Speaker of Lebanese Parliament: UN ignored Lebanon's constitution.
Update: Some afterthoughts on the UNSC Hariri tribunal resolution from Angry Arab.
BBC: Tribunal divides Lebanese
Questions: Who will enforce the tribunal ?
Ask the Expert: Experts in international legal affairs expose their analysis of the controversial tribunal in Le Monde Diplomatique.
Article below
UN manipulates international justice
Lebanon: a court without the law
A climate of distrust reigns in Lebanon, the scene of a silent civil war. The status of the international criminal court invented to prosecute the killers of the prime minister, Rafik Hariri, is part of the problem, further complicating the formation of a government of national unity.
By Géraud De Geouffre de La Pradelle, Antoine Korkmaz and Rafaëlle Maison
The United Nations Security Council began an exceptional international investigation after the death of the Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri, in a bomb attack on 14 February 2005. It may lead to a special tribunal with extraordinary powers. There is nothing surprising about this; consider the jurisdictions established by the UN, or under its aegis, for former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Cambodia (1). But in the case of Lebanon there are no actual international crimes to prosecute. Several aspects of the investigation suggest that international justice is being manipulated. It is too fragile to endure such ill treatment.
We should be in no doubt about the political nature of the Security Council. The UN Charter established it that way. The council enjoys far-reaching discretionary powers, with few legal checks or balances on its actions. However, under the pretence of upholding the law, there have been serious violations of civil liberties, while nothing has been done to resolve the situation in Lebanon. This is particularly so with the Hariri investigation. The special tribunal is still no more than a project, yet it is already worsening tension.
The Security Council set up the international independent investigation commission (IIIC) at the instigation of Beirut. It was to be headed by a German prosecutor, Detlev Mehlis (2). UN Resolution 1595 of 7 April 2005 instructed the commission to assist the Lebanese authorities in “identifying the perpetrators” of the terrorist bomb that killed Hariri and called “for the strict respect of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive authority of the government”. But it also noted that “the Lebanese investigation process suffers from serious flaws and has neither the capacity nor the commitment to reach a satisfactory and credible conclusion”.
On 3 June 2005 the UN and Beirut signed an agreement settling the terms for their cooperation. The IIIC would supervise the work of the Lebanese authorities, which were relegated to a secondary role. The commission would not restrict itself to independent fact-finding, but carry out a complete criminal investigation. None of the usual checks and balances applied. Lebanese authorities, especially the courts, could no longer act on their own initiative, their role being to answer the IIIC’s questions.
In Resolution 1636, adopted on 19 October 2005 after the IIIC’s presentation of its first report, the Security Council commended the Lebanese authorities for their full cooperation and congratulated them on “the courageous decisions they have already taken . . . upon recommendation of the commission, in particular the arrest and indictment of former Lebanese security officials suspected of involvement in this terrorist act”.
The Security Council considered that the crime and its implications were a threat to international peace and security, and so, for the first time, invoked chapter VII of its charter, which covers actions taken in response to such a threat. It required states to take measures against suspects identified by the IIIC. The first report alleged that there was plenty of evidence implicating high-ranking Syrian and Lebanese officials directly or indirectly in the assassination. The second report, submitted on 10 December 2005, prompted another resolution (1644, 15 December).
A new phase
The replacement of Mehlis, the controversial chief investigator, by a Belgian criminologist, Serge Brammertz, began a new phase, different from before. The IIIC became more cautious and less provocative in its behaviour in the field and the content of its reports. Resolution 1644 mentioned for the first time the creation of an international tribunal.
The IIIC presented its third report in March 2006. The Security Council then asked the secretary-general to “negotiate an agreement with the government of Lebanon aimed at establishing a tribunal . . . based on the highest international standards of criminal justice”. The document distinguished “the adoption of the legal basis of, and framework for, the tribunal” and “the gradual phasing-in of its components”. The start of its work would depend on progress with the investigation.
By doing that, the Security Council loosed a spectre that has since haunted both the enquiry and Lebanon’s internal affairs.
The affair became critical when the secretary-general sent a draft agreement to the Lebanese government on 10 November 2006, proposing that most of those who would serve on the special tribunal would be international judges; there would only be a few from Lebanon. The Office of the Prosecutor would be an independent body: a prosecutor appointed by the secretary-general plus a Beirut-appointed deputy prosecutor. The court would be empowered to judge those accused of involvement in the Hariri assassination, and of other murders committed after 1 October 2004.
A system of concurrent competence with the Lebanese courts would be set up to deal with the “other murders”, although the primacy of the international tribunal would be maintained. It would base its judgments on local criminal law. The agreement added: “Appropriate arrangements shall be made to ensure that there is a coordinated transition from the activities of the IIIC . . . to the activities of the Office of the Prosecutor”, confirming the IIIC’s criminal focus. It promised that “the special tribunal shall commence functioning on a date to be determined by the secretary-general in consultation with the government, taking into account the progress of the work of the IIIC.”
The Lebanese government — without its Shia Amal and Hizbullah ministers who had resigned — approved the draft on 13 November 2006 but the court is still a long way from its first hearing. There are several legal and technical hurdles yet to be overcome. Unless the political situation in Lebanon changes, there will be no progress made with the internal constitutional procedure, which is delaying ratification of the agreement with the UN.
President Emile Lahoud, whose approval is required, is against the plan. Parliament must approve the agreement but its Shia speaker, Nabih Berri, has so far refused to do so.
A serious preliminary question
The particular powers of the tribunal raise a serious preliminary question. Under the terms of its draft statutes it will focus primarily on the Hariri assassination, referred to as a “terrorist act”. It can also prosecute other killings committed between 1 October 2004 and 12 December 2005, and even later crimes, if the Lebanese government and the Security Council agree. At least until now, the killings came under the jurisdiction of the Lebanese courts.
UN resolution 1595 originally qualified the attacks as acts of terrorism. Then resolution 1636 added that chapter VII of the UN charter applied to the Hariri assassination. Yet the laws of Lebanon still apply and its courts are still competent to judge these crimes. International conventions on acts of terrorism require states to condemn and prosecute such crimes, this being the preserve of national jurisdictions enforcing national law. Until resolution 1664 the bomb attacks did not count as crimes that needed to be tried by an international tribunal.
In fact, the UN has only previously taken such measures to prosecute the most serious international crimes. The courts set up to prosecute those responsible for ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia and the genocide of the Tutsis in Rwanda have competence over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. They are not competent to prosecute any other crimes, even those covered by international conventions but which fall within the competence of national courts.
The special tribunal for Lebanon would be the first international jurisdiction established exclusively to prosecute less serious crimes that are only international because the Security Council decided they should be so. It would be the only international court with the task of enforcing national law, with the addition of provisions excluding capital punishment. This measure emphasises the importance the UN attaches to prosecuting the murder of leading Lebanese figures. It is unlikely that this episode will enhance the image of the UN or of international justice.
Last summer’s fighting between Hizbullah and Israeli forces claimed 40 civilian lives in Israel and more than 1,000 in Lebanon. On both sides of the border several hundred thousand refugees had to flee their homes under extreme duress. People who came home to Lebanon after the conflict are still in mortal danger and will go on being endangered by unexploded anti-personnel mines and other munitions. The war caused massive destruction of civilian sites in Lebanon and substantial damage on the Israeli side.
Some of the deaths, injuries, population displacement and destruction were the result of serious violations of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Protocol on the protection of the victims of international armed conflicts. These violations were serious war crimes, ranking with crimes against humanity and genocide. But no UN resolution has recognised them as such, or condemned them. There has never been any question of setting up an international commission, let alone a tribunal, to investigate the violations of humanitarian law committed during the 33 days of fighting.
Are some deaths more important than others?
This is in stark contrast with the treatment reserved for Hariri’s assassins. It suggests that the international community thinks some deaths are more politically important than others. It damages the credibility of humanitarian law and gives the impression that political considerations drive international justice.
Undeniably, international criminal justice is a way of restoring and maintaining peace, and as such may serve the fundamental aims of the UN. Until now international criminal tribunals never appeared to serve other aims but this is no longer the case.
The attitude of the forces competing for power in Lebanon towards the tribunal has been partial and self-seeking from the start. The supporters of the current parliamentary majority, which backs the government of Fuad Siniora, believe that only an international court would dare rule that Syrian agents infiltrated deep into the Lebanese state were implicated in the assassination (3). They have the obvious support of the United States, France and influential Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia; and they are convinced that by denouncing crimes said to be carried out on orders from Damascus they will help Lebanon free itself from foreign domination.
The Security Council seems to have been a party to this, and to have decided to encourage the projected tribunal. It is easy to understand why the Syrian authorities should oppose what they see as a hostile move. The Lebanese opposition, especially Hizbullah and the Free Patriotic movement led by General Michel Aoun, support this view. The opposition groups see themselves as the true defenders of Lebanese independence, combating its real enemies — the powers that enslave the peoples of the Middle East and want to disarm the Lebanese resistance led by Hizbullah. They are convinced the international tribunal is a tool in the hands of these powers and that talk of punishing Hariri’s killers is a pretext. They are afraid the UN might decide to extend the tribunal’s powers and have cited this as a reason for resigning from the government, which deprived the government of its legitimacy. (It now seems to be hardly more than a pawn moved by foreign powers.)
One side has always seen the court as a way of avenging the death of political figures while combating the Syrian regime; the other side saw it as a tool for the US, Israel and France. These views have mobilised opposing factions in Lebanese society, paralysed the country and triggered fighting. The court is a hostage in this conflict, having lost its way before it even had a chance to operate as a real court, prosecuting crimes.
Worse still, under the pretence of setting up the tribunal, rough justice has been meted out to the suspects taken into custody by the IIIC. They include four Lebanese generals, officially designated as the perpetrators of the attack on Hariri. The Security Council repeated this allegation in resolution 1636, intended to oblige the Syrian government to cooperate with the IIIC. Those in custody have been denied their legal rights, in violation of the most basic standards upheld by the UN, especially the international covenant on civil and political rights of 16 December 1966.
A succession of mistakes
As with the other prisoners, the predicament of General Jamil al-Sayed is the result of a succession of mistakes by the commission and the lack of an impartial independent court to which to appeal. The behaviour of the IIIC was reprehensible when Mehlis was in charge. Although al-Sayed said that he had no knowledge of the preparation and execution of Hariri’s assassination, he was pressed to name credible culprits — that is, to give false testimony. The IIIC has proof, provided by al-Sayed, of this attempt to pervert the course of justice. The offer was made in relatively friendly terms before his arrest, then repeated more forcefully once he was in custody.
He was arrested on 30 August 2005 on a search warrant issued by the commission, which alleged that he was directly implicated in the planning and execution of the attack on Hariri. Not until three days after his arrest did a Lebanese prosecutor formally register that after a brief interrogation he had been taken into custody. The IIIC subsequently ruled that al-Sayed should not be released on bail; officially it was not empowered to make arrests or to take decisions on bail.
Brammertz, the chief investigator, has since made it quite clear in his letters to the defence that only the Lebanese courts have such powers. But abuses of this sort are part of the rationale beneath the Security Council’s decision to set up the tribunal.
No specific charges have been brought against al-Sayed or the other suspects. They have not been able to consult evidence submitted to the Lebanese authorities during the IIIC investigation. Hearings have been conducted with or without defence lawyers, who have never been allowed to talk to their clients in private. Al-Sayed, despite repeated requests, has never been confronted with the “witnesses” cited by IIIC reports, apart from one person who was wearing a mask.
After Mehlis left office, these abuses stopped, and the IIIC has not interrogated al-Sayed since. Its conduct of the investigation now seems acceptable. All the evidence cited in its first two reports has been checked and shown to be unfounded; the last four reports do not refer to the suspicions to which the Security Council unwisely reacted.
However al-Sayed and his fellow suspects have not been able to lodge any complaints. Officially it is up to the Lebanese courts to uphold the law of the land. Having hurriedly complied with the commission’s recommendations when Mehlis was in command, they are now refusing to assume any responsibility for those in custody. There is no higher authority to which those in custody may appeal.
All the talk about an international criminal tribunal seems to have been a cover-up for a travesty of justice at national and international level. The problem is the system invented by the Security Council in resolution 1595. The projected international tribunal is a key factor in the failure to uphold law and order.
30.5.07
Gaza: The Jailed State
Found on Pierre Tristam's Candide's Notebooks. This article was published originally in the New Statesman on May 28th.
A dark portrait of occupation and of a popualtion's descent into hell. Go the end of the original article in the New Statesman to read the readers comments.
Key dates in history of the Gaza Strip. Note that this chronology, published at the end of the article, omits 1948 and can potentially mislead people into thinking that Gaza was an Egyptian territory and never a Palestinian one. Before 1949, Gaza had some 45 Palestinian villages
1949 Egypt occupies strip following 1948 Arab-Israeli War
1956 Occupied by Israel after Suez War, in which Israel, France and Britain attack Egypt. International pressure forces Israel to withdraw in 1957
1967 Recaptured by Israel in Six Day War. United Nations calls on Israel to withdraw
1970 First Jewish settlement in Gaza
1987 First Intifada. Hamas is formed
1993 Oslo Accords. First Intifada ends. Palestinian Authority takes control of strip
2000 Ariel Sharon visits al-Aqsa Mosque, sparking the Second Intifada
2005 Israel withdraws troops but maintains control of the strip's borders and airspace
2006 Hamas wins elections. Crippling economic sanctions imposed on new government because of its refusal to renounce violence and recognise Israel. Clashes between Hamas and Fatah militants become commonplace
2007 Fatah and Hamas form unity government but fail to prevent factional fighting. Israeli air strikes continue to kill civilians.
BLOG: Tabula Gaza
In French: Le désarroi des Palestiniens, Gilles Paris, Le Monde
A dark portrait of occupation and of a popualtion's descent into hell. Go the end of the original article in the New Statesman to read the readers comments.
Key dates in history of the Gaza Strip. Note that this chronology, published at the end of the article, omits 1948 and can potentially mislead people into thinking that Gaza was an Egyptian territory and never a Palestinian one. Before 1949, Gaza had some 45 Palestinian villages
1949 Egypt occupies strip following 1948 Arab-Israeli War
1956 Occupied by Israel after Suez War, in which Israel, France and Britain attack Egypt. International pressure forces Israel to withdraw in 1957
1967 Recaptured by Israel in Six Day War. United Nations calls on Israel to withdraw
1970 First Jewish settlement in Gaza
1987 First Intifada. Hamas is formed
1993 Oslo Accords. First Intifada ends. Palestinian Authority takes control of strip
2000 Ariel Sharon visits al-Aqsa Mosque, sparking the Second Intifada
2005 Israel withdraws troops but maintains control of the strip's borders and airspace
2006 Hamas wins elections. Crippling economic sanctions imposed on new government because of its refusal to renounce violence and recognise Israel. Clashes between Hamas and Fatah militants become commonplace
2007 Fatah and Hamas form unity government but fail to prevent factional fighting. Israeli air strikes continue to kill civilians.
BLOG: Tabula Gaza
In French: Le désarroi des Palestiniens, Gilles Paris, Le Monde
27.5.07
Inside North Lebanon's Turmoil
A first hand account published on Angry Arab blog from a telephone conversation between him and Abu Jabir, one of the leaders of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, who is inside the Nahr El-Bared camp.
Abu Jabir has stayed inside. He told me that he will not do it again: that he will not leave the camp except to return to Palestine. He feels that there is a conspiracy against the Palestinian camps in Lebanon in accordance of UNSC 1559. The humanitarian situation is quite dire, he said: there is no water, no electricity, and no medicine. The Lebanese Army bombardment of the camp is unquestionably indiscriminate he said. He said that the market was bombed, as were 6 mosques inside the camp. A bomb landed on his desk, for example. It is not true that the Lebanese Army is only bombing the north of the camp where Fath-Al-Islam is concentrated. Hospitals (they are more like clinics) were bombed as well, including Mu'assassat Ash-Shifa' which is run by the PFLP. Two general physicians are now forced to perform all sorts of medical practice, including surgery. As for the claim by the lying Lebanese government that "a mere Palestinian civilian was killed and 19 injured" in the camp, it is utterly false, Abu Jabir told me. He has the names of: 18 Palestinian civilians killed, and 105 Palestinian civilian injured. He told me that there are still civilians all around, and women were around when I was talking to him. There are reports, he said, of Hariri goons shooting at the camp and at the refugees but he was careful to add that since he is inside he can't verify that. There are 200 houses that are fully or partially destroyed in the camp. And those who leave the camp are not allowed back in by the lousy Lebanese Army. He then told me about Fath-Al-Islam. He said that the number of Palestinians among them can be counted on the fingers of "one hand." He said that they are non-Palestinians, and he said that the people of the camp would like them to leave the camp, that they don't belong there. He said: let those who fund them and who brought them in, take them out. They don't belong here, he told me. He said that initially, by late 2006, there were no more than 40 members of Fath-Al-Islam inside the camp. He said that suddenly by early 2007, something very suspicious started to happen: that hundreds of fighters (from fanatical groups inside At-Ta'mir (which is run by Hariri Inc, and where a Hariri militia operate) and `Ayn Al-Hilwah and other places) were brought into the camp to join the ranks of Fath-Al-Islam. He said that the camp is watched and controlled by the Lebanese Army and security forces from all sides. He asked how those fighters were permitted to enter the camp under the watch of the Lebanese Army. He wondered why is it that the same governments that met with Condoleezza Rice during her visit were the ones that sent arms and ammunition to the Lebanese Army this week. It is clear that people in the camp feel unfairly caught in a battle between Fath-Al-Islam and the Lebanese Army. They have no say in this battle that is hurting the refugees.
A first person account by blogger EDB from Anecdotes From A Banana Republic
Frank Lamb is reporting for Counterpunch from inside palestinian refugee camps in north Lebanon. Here are two of his recent articles:
Who's Behind the Fighting in North Lebanon?
Nahr el-Bared is 7 miles north of Tripoli near the stunning Mediterranean coast and is home to more than 32,000 refuges many of whom were expelled from the Lake Huleh area of Palestine, including Safed. Like all the official Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon, plus several 'unofficial' ones, Nahr el-Bared suffers from serious problems including no proper infrastructure, overcrowding, poverty and unemployment.
Tabulated at more than 25%, Nahr el-Bared has the highest percentage of Palestinian refugees anywhere who are living in abject poverty and who are officially registered with the UN as "special hardship" cases.
Its residents, like all Palestinians in Lebanon are blatantly discriminated against and not even officially counted. They are denied citizenship and banned from working in the top 70 trades and professions (that includes McDonald's and KFC in downtown Beirut) and cannot own real estate. Palestinians in Lebanon have essentially no social or civil rights and only limited access to government educational facilities. They have no access to public social services. Consequently most rely entirely on the UNRWA as the sole provider for their families needs.
It is not surprising that al-Qaeda sympathies, if not formal affiliations, are found in the 12 official camps as well as 7 unofficial ones...
"Another Waco in the Making"
The Welch Club wants the army to "wipe out the terrorists", and "protect our Palestinian brothers". Not one Palestinian in either camp or observer I know believes that. Rather the Palestinian community here believes that the whole Fatah al-Islam "very strange case" was designed to assault their 420,000 population here...
Seven PLO factions operate in both camps. They jointly chased Fatah al-Islam out of Bedawi on September 21, 2006 not long after they split from Abu Musa's Fateh Intifida which has been based in Badawi since 1983. Fatah Intifada still man's the entrance to Bedawi but they seem to have only about 100 members left. When one interviews them they are almost apologetic about their step-brothers, Fatah al-Islam. "We expelled them because we did not like their friends (Hariri intelligence staff) they were too religious and acted strange but we did not think things would come to this") but the al-Barad PLO factions do not have arms or power to confront FAI...
Abu Jabir has stayed inside. He told me that he will not do it again: that he will not leave the camp except to return to Palestine. He feels that there is a conspiracy against the Palestinian camps in Lebanon in accordance of UNSC 1559. The humanitarian situation is quite dire, he said: there is no water, no electricity, and no medicine. The Lebanese Army bombardment of the camp is unquestionably indiscriminate he said. He said that the market was bombed, as were 6 mosques inside the camp. A bomb landed on his desk, for example. It is not true that the Lebanese Army is only bombing the north of the camp where Fath-Al-Islam is concentrated. Hospitals (they are more like clinics) were bombed as well, including Mu'assassat Ash-Shifa' which is run by the PFLP. Two general physicians are now forced to perform all sorts of medical practice, including surgery. As for the claim by the lying Lebanese government that "a mere Palestinian civilian was killed and 19 injured" in the camp, it is utterly false, Abu Jabir told me. He has the names of: 18 Palestinian civilians killed, and 105 Palestinian civilian injured. He told me that there are still civilians all around, and women were around when I was talking to him. There are reports, he said, of Hariri goons shooting at the camp and at the refugees but he was careful to add that since he is inside he can't verify that. There are 200 houses that are fully or partially destroyed in the camp. And those who leave the camp are not allowed back in by the lousy Lebanese Army. He then told me about Fath-Al-Islam. He said that the number of Palestinians among them can be counted on the fingers of "one hand." He said that they are non-Palestinians, and he said that the people of the camp would like them to leave the camp, that they don't belong there. He said: let those who fund them and who brought them in, take them out. They don't belong here, he told me. He said that initially, by late 2006, there were no more than 40 members of Fath-Al-Islam inside the camp. He said that suddenly by early 2007, something very suspicious started to happen: that hundreds of fighters (from fanatical groups inside At-Ta'mir (which is run by Hariri Inc, and where a Hariri militia operate) and `Ayn Al-Hilwah and other places) were brought into the camp to join the ranks of Fath-Al-Islam. He said that the camp is watched and controlled by the Lebanese Army and security forces from all sides. He asked how those fighters were permitted to enter the camp under the watch of the Lebanese Army. He wondered why is it that the same governments that met with Condoleezza Rice during her visit were the ones that sent arms and ammunition to the Lebanese Army this week. It is clear that people in the camp feel unfairly caught in a battle between Fath-Al-Islam and the Lebanese Army. They have no say in this battle that is hurting the refugees.
A first person account by blogger EDB from Anecdotes From A Banana Republic
Frank Lamb is reporting for Counterpunch from inside palestinian refugee camps in north Lebanon. Here are two of his recent articles:
Who's Behind the Fighting in North Lebanon?
Nahr el-Bared is 7 miles north of Tripoli near the stunning Mediterranean coast and is home to more than 32,000 refuges many of whom were expelled from the Lake Huleh area of Palestine, including Safed. Like all the official Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon, plus several 'unofficial' ones, Nahr el-Bared suffers from serious problems including no proper infrastructure, overcrowding, poverty and unemployment.
Tabulated at more than 25%, Nahr el-Bared has the highest percentage of Palestinian refugees anywhere who are living in abject poverty and who are officially registered with the UN as "special hardship" cases.
Its residents, like all Palestinians in Lebanon are blatantly discriminated against and not even officially counted. They are denied citizenship and banned from working in the top 70 trades and professions (that includes McDonald's and KFC in downtown Beirut) and cannot own real estate. Palestinians in Lebanon have essentially no social or civil rights and only limited access to government educational facilities. They have no access to public social services. Consequently most rely entirely on the UNRWA as the sole provider for their families needs.
It is not surprising that al-Qaeda sympathies, if not formal affiliations, are found in the 12 official camps as well as 7 unofficial ones...
"Another Waco in the Making"
The Welch Club wants the army to "wipe out the terrorists", and "protect our Palestinian brothers". Not one Palestinian in either camp or observer I know believes that. Rather the Palestinian community here believes that the whole Fatah al-Islam "very strange case" was designed to assault their 420,000 population here...
Seven PLO factions operate in both camps. They jointly chased Fatah al-Islam out of Bedawi on September 21, 2006 not long after they split from Abu Musa's Fateh Intifida which has been based in Badawi since 1983. Fatah Intifada still man's the entrance to Bedawi but they seem to have only about 100 members left. When one interviews them they are almost apologetic about their step-brothers, Fatah al-Islam. "We expelled them because we did not like their friends (Hariri intelligence staff) they were too religious and acted strange but we did not think things would come to this") but the al-Barad PLO factions do not have arms or power to confront FAI...
25.5.07
La situation au Liban nord: Entrevue avec Angry Arab
Cliquer sur le titre pour atteindre le site qui a traduit l'entrevue de l'anglais.
24.5.07
Is the Hariri family financing Al Qaida and are the neocons profiting from the operation?
Enough of the Hariris, their Saudi mentors, and their neocon 'friends'. Since Rafiq Hariri died, Lebanon is on the brink of civil war again. The political heir, Saad Hariri, has been, like his father, pressuring the international community into accomplishing his political goals in Lebanon, at the expenses of the stability of the country. With his wealth, his closeness to the Saudi reigning family and, by extension, with the world class neocons including the newly elected French president Nicolas Sarkozy and his foreign affairs minister Bernard Kouchner (a doctor who supported the Iraq war), and his friendship with Chirac, former French president, Hariri has been pulling all the strings in order to establish a permanent vassalization of Lebanon to the west with himself as the self appointed viceroy. My husband calls him Harmani. When we visited Lebanon in 2005 it was after a victorious parliamentary election for Hariri won in the wave of indignation about his father's assassination. He was on all posters, sometimes under his father's picture (Lebanon is the only country where dead people can campaign in elections), sometimes standing with a smile, a well trimmed beard, a hand in his pocket (which we all know is anything but empty) and a cellphone in another hand. My husband asked who was on the poster and I told him. We laughed when he confided that he thought that this might have been an ad for Armani. Since then we call him Harmani. But now is not the time to laugh. Now is the time to cry. Lebanon is on the brink of civil war again, thanks, among other things, to this little corrupt rich brat and his overambitious father.
Now is also the time for some less narrower perspective from what we read in the press on what is going on in lebanon now. And as always these perspectives cannot be found easily in the mainstream press, especially when it comes to matters related to the middle east.
Alain Gresh writes on his blog:
More than one party can be interested in taking profit from the actual instability in Lebanon. Syria, without doubt. But also the actual Lebanese government trying to force the international community into adopting an authoritarian UN security council resolution imposing on Lebanon an international tribunal on the assassination of Rafiq Hariri, despite a clear hostility to this kind of tribunal from the Lebanese opposition. The actual Israeli government as well as the US also have interest in destabilising Lebanon. However, contrary to what is generally written in the press, what is hapenning in lebanon now is not a confrontation between the Lebanese people with the backing of the international community, and Syria and its « agents ». There is a multilayered confrontation in Lebanon. One of these layers is the division of the country between two distinct political camps with equal importance. On one side we have the Sanyura government backed by Hariri and the Sunnis, the Lebanese forces and half the Christian community, and the Druzes. On the other side we have the Shias with the Amal and Hezbollah movements, as well as the Free Patriotic Movement of Michel Aoun with half the Christian community. Is France making a good choice by taking sides in this conflict ? Bernard Kouchner, Sarkozy's foreign minister, and notable French neocon, is today in Beyrouth to support the Lebanese people and the Sanyura government while it is the Palestinian people who are being bombed. For what ? For a bank robbery that turned ugly ? Or for what to come in Lebanon ?
Bien des gens ont intérêt à l’instabilité au Liban. Le gouvernement syrien sans doute, mais aussi la majorité libanaise actuelle (qui cherche à pousser la communauté internationale à une résolution autoritaire pour créer un tribunal international sur l’assassinat de Rafic Hariri), le gouvernement israélien, les Etats-Unis, etc. Mais, contrairement à ce qui s’écrit généralement, ce qui se passe dans ce pays n’est pas un affrontement entre, d’un côté, le peuple libanais allié à la communauté internationale et de l’autre la Syrie avec ses « agents ». Se superposent plusieurs affrontements, dont le premier divise le Liban lui-même en deux camps d’à peu près égale importance. En privilégiant l’un des deux, la France fait-elle le bon choix ?
Nidal, at Loubnan Ya Loubnan, has an interesting perspective. Nidal's perspective shows the ideological and practical links between the different parties interested in Lebanon's descent into chaos. One can fairly say that these parties are organised in a loose network of interests in which the main puppeteers of the unfolding tragedy are the Hariri family closely linked to the Saudis, and by extension to the neocons. Nidal shows also how the Hariri family is financing Muslim Sunni extremists in Lebanon and worse, their migrations into Lebanon. One can fairly assume that we have here a paradigm for both the mobility and the survival of global sunni jihad relying entirely on local respectable sources of money totally immune to scrutiny and close to the neocons.
Nidal starts with an article written today by the Lebanese and Hariri paid journalist Michael Young in which Young tries to refute Seymour Hersh's assertions of March 2007 about the financing and the support provided by Hariri and the Lebanese government to Sunni extremist groups in Lebanon in order to counter the influence of Hezbollah. In his article, Young explains that if the Hariri family did in fact paid for a bail out of prison for members of Jund-Al-Sham, who later joined Fatah El-Islam already implemented in Nahr El-Bared in Northern Lebanon, it was to buy peace in the south. However, this assertion, claims Nidal, which Lebanese consider as normal political dealings, has the potential to open to us a window on how the Hariri family does Politics in Lebanon.
What is interesting about Jund Al-Sham is that this organisation, who is on the Russian list of terrorist organisations but not on the US list, has claimed responsibility for the Hariri assassination but this was discarded by the Mehlis commission who operated entirely under the mentorship of Hariri. Jund Al-Sham has nonetheless claimed responsibility for three of the fourteen carbombs investigated by the Mehlis commission. Jund Al-Sham has also claimed responsibility for the 2006 bombing fo the US embassy in Damascus and for the killing of a Hezbollah member in 2004. Moreover, two of its members who infiltrated the Ain El Hilweh camp in south Lebanon, were arrested by the Lebanese army in June 2006 for the murder of two members of the Islamic Jihad in south Lebanon. One of them confessed working for the Mossad. The army seized at his house documents proving that some members of this extremist organisation have actually trained in Israel. Hussein Khattab, brother to prominent sheikh Jamal Khattab suspected of organising recruitement fro Al Qaida Iraq, was also arrested in June 2006 by the Lebanese army on the charge of directing a spy netwrok for Irsael in palestinian refugee camps in southern Lebanon. There was very little information in the news about this incident.
Knowing all this, how the Hariri family, as Michael Young claims, could have given money to members of Jund El-Sham ? Michael Young seems to considerthis as a gaffe. I think we should consider this as a serious financing for extremists groups with the goal of destabilising Lebanon opening wide the doors for foreign intervention as in Iraq. It is more than time to hold this family, who claims to have reconstructed Lebanon and who is now pushing the whole country into civil war and destruction, accountable.
One of the many links between Fatah El-Islam, Fatah organisation in Palestinian camps, and the Hariri family, the last two being the actual and semi-official allies of the US administration in its 'war on terror'.
And between assassinations, denials and justifications the march 14th movement and the Hariri clan are confirming in a way their ties to Sunni extremist groups related to Al Qaida. Here is two more:
Ahmad Fatfat, minister of sports and interior minister by interim during the Israeli agression on Lebanon.
Bahiyya Hariri, sister of Rafiq and aunt of Saad (the chief of the actual parliamentary majority in Lebanon and major fund provider) deputy member of the Lebanese parliament.
Assassination of Abu Jandal by Lebanese Security Forces (special army of Sanyura and Hariri.
Fatah El-Islam's alleged bank robbery: nothing more than a scheduled visit gone awry at the cashier to collect the regular amount send by Hariri. They discovered that the payments were stopped and helped themselves.
A very important and remaining question is how the lebanese army, which is under the authority of the president (who is opposed to the Hariri family), was drawn into this fight ? The answer is here. This answer also explains why the Hezbollah is supporting the army. Hassan Nasrallah will be speaking to Lebanese on Friday evening to explain his party's position. Stay tuned.
Now, the US in all that ? As Always in the Frontline when it comes to fighting Al Qaida.
Please read these short notes from prominent blogger Angry Arab, with links:
Lebanese government asks the US for 280 millions in military aid to fight 200 members of Fatah El-Islam.
Six US cargo flights with ammunitions are scheduled to land in Lebanon over the next two days.
US assistant secretary of state David Welsh met with Lebanese army chief last week.
Interview
There is a wealth of information in this interview on Nahr El-Bared's conflict of Angry Arab blogger As'ad Abu Khalil by Ali Abunimah from Electronic Intifada.
Now is also the time for some less narrower perspective from what we read in the press on what is going on in lebanon now. And as always these perspectives cannot be found easily in the mainstream press, especially when it comes to matters related to the middle east.
Alain Gresh writes on his blog:
More than one party can be interested in taking profit from the actual instability in Lebanon. Syria, without doubt. But also the actual Lebanese government trying to force the international community into adopting an authoritarian UN security council resolution imposing on Lebanon an international tribunal on the assassination of Rafiq Hariri, despite a clear hostility to this kind of tribunal from the Lebanese opposition. The actual Israeli government as well as the US also have interest in destabilising Lebanon. However, contrary to what is generally written in the press, what is hapenning in lebanon now is not a confrontation between the Lebanese people with the backing of the international community, and Syria and its « agents ». There is a multilayered confrontation in Lebanon. One of these layers is the division of the country between two distinct political camps with equal importance. On one side we have the Sanyura government backed by Hariri and the Sunnis, the Lebanese forces and half the Christian community, and the Druzes. On the other side we have the Shias with the Amal and Hezbollah movements, as well as the Free Patriotic Movement of Michel Aoun with half the Christian community. Is France making a good choice by taking sides in this conflict ? Bernard Kouchner, Sarkozy's foreign minister, and notable French neocon, is today in Beyrouth to support the Lebanese people and the Sanyura government while it is the Palestinian people who are being bombed. For what ? For a bank robbery that turned ugly ? Or for what to come in Lebanon ?
Bien des gens ont intérêt à l’instabilité au Liban. Le gouvernement syrien sans doute, mais aussi la majorité libanaise actuelle (qui cherche à pousser la communauté internationale à une résolution autoritaire pour créer un tribunal international sur l’assassinat de Rafic Hariri), le gouvernement israélien, les Etats-Unis, etc. Mais, contrairement à ce qui s’écrit généralement, ce qui se passe dans ce pays n’est pas un affrontement entre, d’un côté, le peuple libanais allié à la communauté internationale et de l’autre la Syrie avec ses « agents ». Se superposent plusieurs affrontements, dont le premier divise le Liban lui-même en deux camps d’à peu près égale importance. En privilégiant l’un des deux, la France fait-elle le bon choix ?
Nidal, at Loubnan Ya Loubnan, has an interesting perspective. Nidal's perspective shows the ideological and practical links between the different parties interested in Lebanon's descent into chaos. One can fairly say that these parties are organised in a loose network of interests in which the main puppeteers of the unfolding tragedy are the Hariri family closely linked to the Saudis, and by extension to the neocons. Nidal shows also how the Hariri family is financing Muslim Sunni extremists in Lebanon and worse, their migrations into Lebanon. One can fairly assume that we have here a paradigm for both the mobility and the survival of global sunni jihad relying entirely on local respectable sources of money totally immune to scrutiny and close to the neocons.
Nidal starts with an article written today by the Lebanese and Hariri paid journalist Michael Young in which Young tries to refute Seymour Hersh's assertions of March 2007 about the financing and the support provided by Hariri and the Lebanese government to Sunni extremist groups in Lebanon in order to counter the influence of Hezbollah. In his article, Young explains that if the Hariri family did in fact paid for a bail out of prison for members of Jund-Al-Sham, who later joined Fatah El-Islam already implemented in Nahr El-Bared in Northern Lebanon, it was to buy peace in the south. However, this assertion, claims Nidal, which Lebanese consider as normal political dealings, has the potential to open to us a window on how the Hariri family does Politics in Lebanon.
What is interesting about Jund Al-Sham is that this organisation, who is on the Russian list of terrorist organisations but not on the US list, has claimed responsibility for the Hariri assassination but this was discarded by the Mehlis commission who operated entirely under the mentorship of Hariri. Jund Al-Sham has nonetheless claimed responsibility for three of the fourteen carbombs investigated by the Mehlis commission. Jund Al-Sham has also claimed responsibility for the 2006 bombing fo the US embassy in Damascus and for the killing of a Hezbollah member in 2004. Moreover, two of its members who infiltrated the Ain El Hilweh camp in south Lebanon, were arrested by the Lebanese army in June 2006 for the murder of two members of the Islamic Jihad in south Lebanon. One of them confessed working for the Mossad. The army seized at his house documents proving that some members of this extremist organisation have actually trained in Israel. Hussein Khattab, brother to prominent sheikh Jamal Khattab suspected of organising recruitement fro Al Qaida Iraq, was also arrested in June 2006 by the Lebanese army on the charge of directing a spy netwrok for Irsael in palestinian refugee camps in southern Lebanon. There was very little information in the news about this incident.
Knowing all this, how the Hariri family, as Michael Young claims, could have given money to members of Jund El-Sham ? Michael Young seems to considerthis as a gaffe. I think we should consider this as a serious financing for extremists groups with the goal of destabilising Lebanon opening wide the doors for foreign intervention as in Iraq. It is more than time to hold this family, who claims to have reconstructed Lebanon and who is now pushing the whole country into civil war and destruction, accountable.
One of the many links between Fatah El-Islam, Fatah organisation in Palestinian camps, and the Hariri family, the last two being the actual and semi-official allies of the US administration in its 'war on terror'.
And between assassinations, denials and justifications the march 14th movement and the Hariri clan are confirming in a way their ties to Sunni extremist groups related to Al Qaida. Here is two more:
Ahmad Fatfat, minister of sports and interior minister by interim during the Israeli agression on Lebanon.
Bahiyya Hariri, sister of Rafiq and aunt of Saad (the chief of the actual parliamentary majority in Lebanon and major fund provider) deputy member of the Lebanese parliament.
Assassination of Abu Jandal by Lebanese Security Forces (special army of Sanyura and Hariri.
Fatah El-Islam's alleged bank robbery: nothing more than a scheduled visit gone awry at the cashier to collect the regular amount send by Hariri. They discovered that the payments were stopped and helped themselves.
A very important and remaining question is how the lebanese army, which is under the authority of the president (who is opposed to the Hariri family), was drawn into this fight ? The answer is here. This answer also explains why the Hezbollah is supporting the army. Hassan Nasrallah will be speaking to Lebanese on Friday evening to explain his party's position. Stay tuned.
Now, the US in all that ? As Always in the Frontline when it comes to fighting Al Qaida.
Please read these short notes from prominent blogger Angry Arab, with links:
Lebanese government asks the US for 280 millions in military aid to fight 200 members of Fatah El-Islam.
Six US cargo flights with ammunitions are scheduled to land in Lebanon over the next two days.
US assistant secretary of state David Welsh met with Lebanese army chief last week.
Interview
There is a wealth of information in this interview on Nahr El-Bared's conflict of Angry Arab blogger As'ad Abu Khalil by Ali Abunimah from Electronic Intifada.
21.5.07
Unpopular and failed governments in Israel and Lebanon and the sacrifice of Palestinian civilians
The last Israeli agression on Lebanon that was supposed to crush Hezbollah was a disaster to both countries, a disaster to peace in the region, and a bigger disaster for Palestinians. Palestinians are so let down by the Arab and international community that killing them isn't a big deal anymore. And that is exactly what is happening in Lebanon under the cover of fighting Muslim extremists.
The defeat of Israel in its last agression on Lebanon has produced, on top of the civilian casualties, and the cluster bombs that continue to kill in Lebanon, and the 800000 refugees, and the destruction of the country and the land and the harvest for a long time to come, two unpopular and rotten governments hanging on power against the odds and against democratic common sense. Olmert for example enjoys a popularity rate under the margin of error. As for Lebanon's PM Sanyura (Siniora in the western press), there was no investigation committee on his role during the war and no opinion polls to test his popularity. But you know that things have gone wrong when this PM, who is hanging on an amputated government contested since November by more than half the population, orders his army, who never lifted a finger against any agression on Lebanon, not even during the Israeli agression, to attack Palestinian refugee camps inside Lebanon.
The Muslim extremists whom Sanyura is fighting were able to infiltrate the camps thanks to Sanyura's all time ally Hariri and his Saudi mentors. One can recognize here the neocon doctrine at work; maintaining muslim extremists at hand in order to justify wars and civilian casualties. These confrontations, which Sanyura and his allies seem to attribute to Syrian interference in Palestinian refugee camps in northern Lebanon, are tailored to pressure an increasingly hesitant national security council towards establishing a special tribunal for Lebanon, officializing the vassalization of Lebanon to US and French interests and consequently tipping the balance of power toward an increasingly unpopular US sponsored Sanyura government and its March 14th ally, against the will of more than half the population, the Shias led by Amal and Hezbollah, and half the Christians led by general Michel Aoun, in addition to support form a sizeable part of other communities (sunnis and druzes).
But thanks to investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, the Lebanese government move should not be considered otherwise than a survival manoeuvre. Like Olmert, whose army is continuing to kill palestinians in order to distract his political detractors inside Israel, the political survival manoeuvres launched by the Sanyura government in northern Lebanon are made on the dead bodies of civilians to distract from his government unpopularity and lack of support. More than cluster bombs and more than nuclear weapons, failed politicians in the ME are the most dangerous weapons againt civilian populations and against regional and international peace. Failed Politicians in the ME are Weapons of Mass Destruction. Yet, the US foreign policy has been doing just that, implementing Weapons of Mass destruction in the ME by supporting failed politicians (and sometimes removing them when they become disobediant and replacing them by other failed ones more obediant), feeding wars and conflicts, in total disregard for human life.
Here are some excerpts from Hersh's article 'The redirection' shwowing clearly the link between the US supported Sanyura and Hariri government and the sunni extremists they are pretending to fight now in norhtern Lebanon. I let you draw the conclusions...
''In 2005, according to a report by the U.S.-based International Crisis Group, Saad Hariri, the Sunni majority leader of the Lebanese parliament and the son of the slain former Prime Minister—Saad inherited more than four billion dollars after his father’s assassination—paid forty-eight thousand dollars in bail for four members of an Islamic militant group from Dinniyeh. The men had been arrested while trying to establish an Islamic mini-state in northern Lebanon. The Crisis Group noted that many of the militants “had trained in al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan''.''
''In an interview in Beirut, a senior official in the Siniora government acknowledged that there were Sunni jihadists operating inside Lebanon. “We have a liberal attitude that allows Al Qaeda types to have a presence here,” he said. He related this to concerns that Iran or Syria might decide to turn Lebanon into a “theatre of conflict.”''
''Martin Indyk, of the Saban Center, said, however, that the United States “does not have enough pull to stop the moderates* in Lebanon from dealing with the extremists.” He added, “The President sees the region as divided between moderates and extremists, but our regional friends see it as divided between Sunnis and Shia. The Sunnis that we view as extremists are regarded by our Sunni allies simply as Sunnis.”''
''Alastair Crooke, who spent nearly thirty years in MI6, the British intelligence service, and now works for Conflicts Forum, a think tank in Beirut, told me, “The Lebanese government is opening space for these people to come in. It could be very dangerous.” Crooke said that one Sunni extremist group, Fatah al-Islam, had splintered from its pro-Syrian parent group, Fatah al-Intifada, in the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp, in northern Lebanon. Its membership at the time was less than two hundred. “I was told that within twenty-four hours they were being offered weapons and money by people presenting themselves as representatives of the Lebanese government’s interests—presumably to take on Hezbollah,” Crooke said.''
*Please note that what the US (and neocon Indyk) call 'moderates' in Lebanon refers only to US allies without regard to their local political or religious allegiances.
The defeat of Israel in its last agression on Lebanon has produced, on top of the civilian casualties, and the cluster bombs that continue to kill in Lebanon, and the 800000 refugees, and the destruction of the country and the land and the harvest for a long time to come, two unpopular and rotten governments hanging on power against the odds and against democratic common sense. Olmert for example enjoys a popularity rate under the margin of error. As for Lebanon's PM Sanyura (Siniora in the western press), there was no investigation committee on his role during the war and no opinion polls to test his popularity. But you know that things have gone wrong when this PM, who is hanging on an amputated government contested since November by more than half the population, orders his army, who never lifted a finger against any agression on Lebanon, not even during the Israeli agression, to attack Palestinian refugee camps inside Lebanon.
The Muslim extremists whom Sanyura is fighting were able to infiltrate the camps thanks to Sanyura's all time ally Hariri and his Saudi mentors. One can recognize here the neocon doctrine at work; maintaining muslim extremists at hand in order to justify wars and civilian casualties. These confrontations, which Sanyura and his allies seem to attribute to Syrian interference in Palestinian refugee camps in northern Lebanon, are tailored to pressure an increasingly hesitant national security council towards establishing a special tribunal for Lebanon, officializing the vassalization of Lebanon to US and French interests and consequently tipping the balance of power toward an increasingly unpopular US sponsored Sanyura government and its March 14th ally, against the will of more than half the population, the Shias led by Amal and Hezbollah, and half the Christians led by general Michel Aoun, in addition to support form a sizeable part of other communities (sunnis and druzes).
But thanks to investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, the Lebanese government move should not be considered otherwise than a survival manoeuvre. Like Olmert, whose army is continuing to kill palestinians in order to distract his political detractors inside Israel, the political survival manoeuvres launched by the Sanyura government in northern Lebanon are made on the dead bodies of civilians to distract from his government unpopularity and lack of support. More than cluster bombs and more than nuclear weapons, failed politicians in the ME are the most dangerous weapons againt civilian populations and against regional and international peace. Failed Politicians in the ME are Weapons of Mass Destruction. Yet, the US foreign policy has been doing just that, implementing Weapons of Mass destruction in the ME by supporting failed politicians (and sometimes removing them when they become disobediant and replacing them by other failed ones more obediant), feeding wars and conflicts, in total disregard for human life.
Here are some excerpts from Hersh's article 'The redirection' shwowing clearly the link between the US supported Sanyura and Hariri government and the sunni extremists they are pretending to fight now in norhtern Lebanon. I let you draw the conclusions...
''In 2005, according to a report by the U.S.-based International Crisis Group, Saad Hariri, the Sunni majority leader of the Lebanese parliament and the son of the slain former Prime Minister—Saad inherited more than four billion dollars after his father’s assassination—paid forty-eight thousand dollars in bail for four members of an Islamic militant group from Dinniyeh. The men had been arrested while trying to establish an Islamic mini-state in northern Lebanon. The Crisis Group noted that many of the militants “had trained in al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan''.''
''In an interview in Beirut, a senior official in the Siniora government acknowledged that there were Sunni jihadists operating inside Lebanon. “We have a liberal attitude that allows Al Qaeda types to have a presence here,” he said. He related this to concerns that Iran or Syria might decide to turn Lebanon into a “theatre of conflict.”''
''Martin Indyk, of the Saban Center, said, however, that the United States “does not have enough pull to stop the moderates* in Lebanon from dealing with the extremists.” He added, “The President sees the region as divided between moderates and extremists, but our regional friends see it as divided between Sunnis and Shia. The Sunnis that we view as extremists are regarded by our Sunni allies simply as Sunnis.”''
''Alastair Crooke, who spent nearly thirty years in MI6, the British intelligence service, and now works for Conflicts Forum, a think tank in Beirut, told me, “The Lebanese government is opening space for these people to come in. It could be very dangerous.” Crooke said that one Sunni extremist group, Fatah al-Islam, had splintered from its pro-Syrian parent group, Fatah al-Intifada, in the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp, in northern Lebanon. Its membership at the time was less than two hundred. “I was told that within twenty-four hours they were being offered weapons and money by people presenting themselves as representatives of the Lebanese government’s interests—presumably to take on Hezbollah,” Crooke said.''
*Please note that what the US (and neocon Indyk) call 'moderates' in Lebanon refers only to US allies without regard to their local political or religious allegiances.
20.5.07
Un Président Sous Surveillance: Résistances Françaises à Sarkozy
Si l'élection de Sarkozy, comme celle de Bush, paraît s'être réalisée sur un discours signant la fin des solidarités en dressant une partie de la population contre une autre et en stigmatisant l'étranger ou l'immigré comme terroriste potentiel et comme une menace pour l'identité, dans un climat de malaise social et économique découlant de 12 ans de gouvernance de Sarkozy lui-même et son parti,l'UMP, la similarité s'arrête là. Il n'en ira certainement pas de même pour Sarkozy quant à la subjugation que Bush a pu produire dans la scène politique et sociale dans son pays. A moins bien sûr que Al-Qaida ne lui fasse un cadeau similaire à celui qu'elle a fait à Bush le 11 septembre. Et même là, les français ne lui donneront jamais carte blanche comme les citoyens US l'ont fait pour Bush. Et il n'en ira pas de même pour Sarkozy quant à une permanente base fanatique de support pour sa politique en France qui joue le rôle que les chrétiens extrêmistes ont joué pour Bush. A moins bien sûr que les juifs français ayant supporté Sarkozy, pour la seule raison d'un support inconditionnel à Israel contre les Arabes et les musulmans, ne se joignent à ces électeurs de Le Pen qui haissent les Arabes et les musulmans, créant ainsi une alliance contre nature du type de celle qui existe aux US pour Bush et qui a donné naissance au Christianisme sioniste et anti-semite, ce qui reste tout de même peu probable dans l'hexagone.
Élu sur un projet diviseur, Sarkozy vient de constituer un gouvernement qu'il veut rassembleur, mais ce que Sarkozy est en réalité, tout comme son projet politique, relève beaucoup de l'opportunisme et de la manipulation. Alors, président Sarkozy, personne n'y croit...La France, malgré un vote 'démocratique' largement manipulé par les médias, vit un coup d'état avec l'élection de Sarkozy.
Un conseil de surveillance a été mis en place par des acteurs de la société civile.
Le paysagiste Gilles Clément explique qu'il annule ses engagements avec l'Etat. Décision dictée par l'élection de Sarkozy, qu'il juge porteur d'un projet néfaste pour la planète.
Un groupe d'universitaires quitte la Cité nationale de l’histoire de l’immigration. Ils s'opposent à l'instauration «inacceptable» du ministère de l'Immigration et de l'identité nationale.
De son côté la revue Politis a mis en place l'observatoire du 6 mai. Constitué comme un organisme d'alerte supporté par des personnalités des milieux scientifiques et culturels, il a pour but de:
''Déceler rapidement les périls sociaux, démocratiques et environnementaux que peut annoncer une déclaration ou un projet (de Sarkozy).''Créer ''un état de veille permanent à l’orée d’une période (présidence de Sarkozy) qui s’annonce difficile.''
Enfin dans un registre satirique des jeunes de l'UDF-Mouvement Démocrate publient régulièrement sur leur blog Grozbulles l'actualité en général et celle de Sarkozy en particulier, en caricatures et animations.
Sarkofrance est un autre blog créé au lendemain de l'élection de Sarkozy et qui se veut partie de cette vigilance citoyenne sur le mandat de sarkozy.
Toujours dans la même veine satirique s'est tenue à Paris une fausse manif de droite vantant les valeurs de Sarkozy à l'outrance. On y demande notamment à ceux qui sont appelés à manifester de ''respecter la charte: les hommes devant, les femmes derrières, tenue correcte exigée et… pas de chien de plus de deux kilos.''
Regardez ici une video de la fausse manif de droite.
Élu sur un projet diviseur, Sarkozy vient de constituer un gouvernement qu'il veut rassembleur, mais ce que Sarkozy est en réalité, tout comme son projet politique, relève beaucoup de l'opportunisme et de la manipulation. Alors, président Sarkozy, personne n'y croit...La France, malgré un vote 'démocratique' largement manipulé par les médias, vit un coup d'état avec l'élection de Sarkozy.
Un conseil de surveillance a été mis en place par des acteurs de la société civile.
Le paysagiste Gilles Clément explique qu'il annule ses engagements avec l'Etat. Décision dictée par l'élection de Sarkozy, qu'il juge porteur d'un projet néfaste pour la planète.
Un groupe d'universitaires quitte la Cité nationale de l’histoire de l’immigration. Ils s'opposent à l'instauration «inacceptable» du ministère de l'Immigration et de l'identité nationale.
De son côté la revue Politis a mis en place l'observatoire du 6 mai. Constitué comme un organisme d'alerte supporté par des personnalités des milieux scientifiques et culturels, il a pour but de:
''Déceler rapidement les périls sociaux, démocratiques et environnementaux que peut annoncer une déclaration ou un projet (de Sarkozy).''Créer ''un état de veille permanent à l’orée d’une période (présidence de Sarkozy) qui s’annonce difficile.''
Enfin dans un registre satirique des jeunes de l'UDF-Mouvement Démocrate publient régulièrement sur leur blog Grozbulles l'actualité en général et celle de Sarkozy en particulier, en caricatures et animations.
Sarkofrance est un autre blog créé au lendemain de l'élection de Sarkozy et qui se veut partie de cette vigilance citoyenne sur le mandat de sarkozy.
Toujours dans la même veine satirique s'est tenue à Paris une fausse manif de droite vantant les valeurs de Sarkozy à l'outrance. On y demande notamment à ceux qui sont appelés à manifester de ''respecter la charte: les hommes devant, les femmes derrières, tenue correcte exigée et… pas de chien de plus de deux kilos.''
Regardez ici une video de la fausse manif de droite.
19.5.07
Un conseiller de Nicolas Sarkozy inculpé en Belgique
Patrick Ouart, fraîchement nommé conseiller à la justice du président Nicolas Sarkozy, pourrait prochainement être cité devant un tribunal bruxellois, a indiqué, vendredi 18 mai, le site Internet Capital.fr. M. Ouart a effectivement été inculpé - mis en examen - en Belgique pour son rôle présumé dans une affaire baptisée "l'Electragate", un piratage informatique nocturne organisé, en 2004, chez Electrabel, la filiale belge détenue à 50,01 % par le groupe Suez. Le parquet a réclamé sa comparution. La date d'un éventuel procès n'est pas fixée. Les réquisitions du ministère public visaient, en 2006, M. Ouart, ex-secrétaire général de Suez, et Jean-Pierre Hansen, patron belge du pôle énergétique et numéro 2 de Suez. Trois informaticiens français ont été également mis en examen.
Maintenant la question est de savoir depuis combien de temps cette information est un secret de polichinelle dans la presse et depuis combien de temps Le Monde sait...Car le problème avec des politiciens comme Sarkozy ce n'est pas seulement qu'ils sont malhonnêtes et qu'ils s'entourent de personnes malhonnêtes, le problème est leur capacité à échapper à toute poursuite, ou tout devoir de rendre des comptes, par manipulation de l'information et de l'opinion publique; la façon avec laquelle l'information est présentée, le temps, l'opération de relations publiques entourant cette information... Tout cela s'appelle du contrôle de dommages et relève des agences de communication. 'Vitupération toxique' comme dirait un de mes collègues bloggeurs. Non seulement nous allons devoir avaler les affaires de M. sarkozy mais nous allons aussi devoir avaler la réthorique de contrôle de dommage lié à ces affaires. Tout cela est très dommageable pour les esprits...Et la presse, la presse qui ne fait plus de l'investigation une éthique, sera en grande partie responsable de l'empoisonnement des esprits comme elle fut responsable de l'élection de Sarkozy.
Maintenant la question est de savoir depuis combien de temps cette information est un secret de polichinelle dans la presse et depuis combien de temps Le Monde sait...Car le problème avec des politiciens comme Sarkozy ce n'est pas seulement qu'ils sont malhonnêtes et qu'ils s'entourent de personnes malhonnêtes, le problème est leur capacité à échapper à toute poursuite, ou tout devoir de rendre des comptes, par manipulation de l'information et de l'opinion publique; la façon avec laquelle l'information est présentée, le temps, l'opération de relations publiques entourant cette information... Tout cela s'appelle du contrôle de dommages et relève des agences de communication. 'Vitupération toxique' comme dirait un de mes collègues bloggeurs. Non seulement nous allons devoir avaler les affaires de M. sarkozy mais nous allons aussi devoir avaler la réthorique de contrôle de dommage lié à ces affaires. Tout cela est très dommageable pour les esprits...Et la presse, la presse qui ne fait plus de l'investigation une éthique, sera en grande partie responsable de l'empoisonnement des esprits comme elle fut responsable de l'élection de Sarkozy.
17.5.07
Why did the US go to war in Iraq and why France will be joining in against Iran
Because both countries are financially flat broke. And because the neocon dogma (and France now has a neocon president) dictates that instead of fixing internal problems, which is time consuming and not profitable for those who are at the top of the financial pyramid, it is easier, in order to stay in power and satisfy the Big Money who elect presidents now, to invade another country in order to hide these internal problems and open new economic opportunities, not for the country, but for the few financiers in the country,s top corporations and the Politicians whom they feed. The New 'humanitarian' wars are conducted on the expenses of the people to open new economic and financial opportunities for Big corporations looking for new business horizons in a national context of economic stagnation. This is exactly what happened in the US with the Iraq war and this what will happen in France with the coming Iran war.
Thanks to fellow blogger Stef for finding and displaying the information below.
The CIA publishes, among other things, information about the current accounts of the balance of payments for different countries. What is interesting in this information is that the countries who led the war against Iraq have actually the worst balance of payments.
The current account of the balance of payments is the sum of the balance of trade (exports minus imports of goods and services), net factor income (such as interest and dividends) and net transfer payments (such as foreign aid). A current account surplus increases a country's net foreign assets by the corresponding amount, and a current account deficit does the reverse. Both government and private payments are included in the calculation.
We know very well that Jacques Chirac did not go to war against Saddam, not because of some humanitarian principle but because of Chirac's proximity with eminent sunni Arab Politcians including Saddam. Rumsfeld and the US had the same old friendship with Saddam but everybody knows that the US treats its friends very badly . We also know that Sarkozy, the new french president, was sorry for Chirac's attitude toward the US at the onset of the Iraq war and always wanted to apologize. Well now that he is a president, he may be able to apologize in a very special way and France's attitude toward US wars in the ME might change very quickly.
There is actually a war being prepared by the neocons, it is the war against Iran which entered, according to some specialists, its final phase, and Sarkozy is impatient to embark on this one. First, he is going to choose as his foreign minister Bernard Kouchner, the liberal French doctor who advocates conflicts for the purpose of Humanitarian intervention and who was an advocate for the Iraq war. At the same time, Sarkozy is preparing the public opinion for a long war like the one the US is waging in Iraq. He asked that a text written by communist French resistant Guy Mocquet to his parents, while he was 17 and fighting in the French resistance to the Nazi occupation, be read by college students. Although the wars against Iraq or Iran are colonial wars and not wars of resistance, Sarkozy has been defending, all along his campaign for presidency, colonial wars as civilizing missions. And although Sarkozy is a neocon, it does not bother him to read a text written by a communist. Indeed neocons have revealed themselves as much dogmatic and indoctrinating as old commies. Because despite the demise of the communist party, communist resistance to Nazis in France is part of the common glorious history of the nation and its identity. An identity Sarkozy wants to restore to the French people by pitting them against immigrants...He even alluded that this loss of identity is due to immigration by creating a ministry for national identity and immigration.
The letter of Guy Mocquet goes like this (my translation): My Life was short.
«[...] I am going to die! All I ask and all I want from you my 'petite maman' is to be courageous, which is how I am right now, exactly as other brave people before me. My natural choice was to live. But from the bottom of my heart I hope now that my death can serve a purpose. [...] 'Petit papa', I take my leave from you, for the last time, knowing all the sorrow I caused to both of you. I want you to know that I did my best to follow the path you traced for me. I send my adieu to all my friends and to my brother whom I love very much. I want him to study hard and to become a worthy man. Seventeen and a half, my life was so short. I regret nothing except leaving you all. I am going to die. [...] I embrace you with a child's heart. Courage ! [...]»
Read here my article about the moral dilemma of our modern societies sending their children to war. Sarkozy is not going to make France any better...He is going to hide France's ailing economy and his inability to do anything about it by sending France's youths to wars against foreign countries. This is the core idea of the new triumphant capital. After having failed to deliver on economic progress and reforms, the new capital, aided by the neocon ideology, conducts policies of wars, not only to hide the ailing economy but to subjugate the working and struggling classes and silence their dissent. Sarkozy has already shown us his colours, from his vacation on the yacht of the billionnaire Vincent Bolloré to his choice of the young Guy Mocquet letter, and to his closeness to Tony Blair, the man who played second fiddle to George Bush and the neocons and who is happy with the election of Sarkozy and cannot wait to meet with him as a president. Blair will be giving Sarkozy some advise on how to lie into going to war and staying the course. Sarkozy will surpass Blair as a neocon, he already stifled rational debate in France while thriving on the misery and the divisions of the French people....He will build his popularity exactly like celebrities by radicalising the presidency around his persona, provoking, instead of rational debate, flat admiration, hate or indignation, all of which contributing to his omnipresence in the media and the minds of the French people who will become obsessed and addicted to him for some time to come...Sarkozy strives for our attention, negative or positive, and his policies will thrive on the bed of hate and indignation...
The only way to counter Sarkozy is to fight him on facts without emotions, positive or negative, without rethoric, without sentiments, without anger. Because he will be seeking to provoke, above everything else, sentiments and emotions, in order to stifle rational debate. We have an arduous task before us and we have the obligation to do it well for the sake of France's destiny and the destiny of its people...
P.S. Bush threatens Iran with new sanctions
Thanks to fellow blogger Stef for finding and displaying the information below.
The CIA publishes, among other things, information about the current accounts of the balance of payments for different countries. What is interesting in this information is that the countries who led the war against Iraq have actually the worst balance of payments.
The current account of the balance of payments is the sum of the balance of trade (exports minus imports of goods and services), net factor income (such as interest and dividends) and net transfer payments (such as foreign aid). A current account surplus increases a country's net foreign assets by the corresponding amount, and a current account deficit does the reverse. Both government and private payments are included in the calculation.
We know very well that Jacques Chirac did not go to war against Saddam, not because of some humanitarian principle but because of Chirac's proximity with eminent sunni Arab Politcians including Saddam. Rumsfeld and the US had the same old friendship with Saddam but everybody knows that the US treats its friends very badly . We also know that Sarkozy, the new french president, was sorry for Chirac's attitude toward the US at the onset of the Iraq war and always wanted to apologize. Well now that he is a president, he may be able to apologize in a very special way and France's attitude toward US wars in the ME might change very quickly.
There is actually a war being prepared by the neocons, it is the war against Iran which entered, according to some specialists, its final phase, and Sarkozy is impatient to embark on this one. First, he is going to choose as his foreign minister Bernard Kouchner, the liberal French doctor who advocates conflicts for the purpose of Humanitarian intervention and who was an advocate for the Iraq war. At the same time, Sarkozy is preparing the public opinion for a long war like the one the US is waging in Iraq. He asked that a text written by communist French resistant Guy Mocquet to his parents, while he was 17 and fighting in the French resistance to the Nazi occupation, be read by college students. Although the wars against Iraq or Iran are colonial wars and not wars of resistance, Sarkozy has been defending, all along his campaign for presidency, colonial wars as civilizing missions. And although Sarkozy is a neocon, it does not bother him to read a text written by a communist. Indeed neocons have revealed themselves as much dogmatic and indoctrinating as old commies. Because despite the demise of the communist party, communist resistance to Nazis in France is part of the common glorious history of the nation and its identity. An identity Sarkozy wants to restore to the French people by pitting them against immigrants...He even alluded that this loss of identity is due to immigration by creating a ministry for national identity and immigration.
The letter of Guy Mocquet goes like this (my translation): My Life was short.
«[...] I am going to die! All I ask and all I want from you my 'petite maman' is to be courageous, which is how I am right now, exactly as other brave people before me. My natural choice was to live. But from the bottom of my heart I hope now that my death can serve a purpose. [...] 'Petit papa', I take my leave from you, for the last time, knowing all the sorrow I caused to both of you. I want you to know that I did my best to follow the path you traced for me. I send my adieu to all my friends and to my brother whom I love very much. I want him to study hard and to become a worthy man. Seventeen and a half, my life was so short. I regret nothing except leaving you all. I am going to die. [...] I embrace you with a child's heart. Courage ! [...]»
Read here my article about the moral dilemma of our modern societies sending their children to war. Sarkozy is not going to make France any better...He is going to hide France's ailing economy and his inability to do anything about it by sending France's youths to wars against foreign countries. This is the core idea of the new triumphant capital. After having failed to deliver on economic progress and reforms, the new capital, aided by the neocon ideology, conducts policies of wars, not only to hide the ailing economy but to subjugate the working and struggling classes and silence their dissent. Sarkozy has already shown us his colours, from his vacation on the yacht of the billionnaire Vincent Bolloré to his choice of the young Guy Mocquet letter, and to his closeness to Tony Blair, the man who played second fiddle to George Bush and the neocons and who is happy with the election of Sarkozy and cannot wait to meet with him as a president. Blair will be giving Sarkozy some advise on how to lie into going to war and staying the course. Sarkozy will surpass Blair as a neocon, he already stifled rational debate in France while thriving on the misery and the divisions of the French people....He will build his popularity exactly like celebrities by radicalising the presidency around his persona, provoking, instead of rational debate, flat admiration, hate or indignation, all of which contributing to his omnipresence in the media and the minds of the French people who will become obsessed and addicted to him for some time to come...Sarkozy strives for our attention, negative or positive, and his policies will thrive on the bed of hate and indignation...
The only way to counter Sarkozy is to fight him on facts without emotions, positive or negative, without rethoric, without sentiments, without anger. Because he will be seeking to provoke, above everything else, sentiments and emotions, in order to stifle rational debate. We have an arduous task before us and we have the obligation to do it well for the sake of France's destiny and the destiny of its people...
P.S. Bush threatens Iran with new sanctions
16.5.07
Western Liberals Humanitarian Values on Trial: Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Darfur, Somalia, Congo, and the rest...
Where anti-Arab prejudice and oil make the difference
The UN estimates that 3 million to 4 million Congolese have been killed, compared with the estimated 200,000 civilian deaths in Darfur. A peace deal agreed in December 2002 has never been adhered to, and atrocities have been particularly well documented in the province of Kivu - carried out by paramilitary organisations with strong governmental links. In the last month alone, thousands of civilians have been killed in heavy fighting between rebel and government forces vying for control of an area north of Goma, and the UN reckons that another 50,000 have been made refugees.
How curious, then, that so much more attention has been focused on Darfur than Congo. There are no pressure groups of any note that draw attention to the Congolese situation. In the media there is barely a word. The politicians are silent. Yet if ever there were a case for the outside world to intervene on humanitarian grounds alone - "liberal interventionism" - then surely this is it.
Read the whole article
The same people who are calling for a humanitarian intervention in Darfur were calling for the continuation of Israeli bombings of south Lebanese populations last summer with cluster bombs and for the non intervention of the UN and the international community to stop these bombings. These people are making more harm than good to the people of Darfur because their voice is sullied by their calls for belligerant and lethal policies elsehwere...
The UN estimates that 3 million to 4 million Congolese have been killed, compared with the estimated 200,000 civilian deaths in Darfur. A peace deal agreed in December 2002 has never been adhered to, and atrocities have been particularly well documented in the province of Kivu - carried out by paramilitary organisations with strong governmental links. In the last month alone, thousands of civilians have been killed in heavy fighting between rebel and government forces vying for control of an area north of Goma, and the UN reckons that another 50,000 have been made refugees.
How curious, then, that so much more attention has been focused on Darfur than Congo. There are no pressure groups of any note that draw attention to the Congolese situation. In the media there is barely a word. The politicians are silent. Yet if ever there were a case for the outside world to intervene on humanitarian grounds alone - "liberal interventionism" - then surely this is it.
Read the whole article
The same people who are calling for a humanitarian intervention in Darfur were calling for the continuation of Israeli bombings of south Lebanese populations last summer with cluster bombs and for the non intervention of the UN and the international community to stop these bombings. These people are making more harm than good to the people of Darfur because their voice is sullied by their calls for belligerant and lethal policies elsehwere...
14.5.07
CSA, Le Monde, Vincent Bolloré et les vacances controversées de Sarkozy
Le futur président de la république française, aussitôt les résultats annoncés le 6 mai au soir, a plongé dans les symboles d'opulence de la république. Du Fouquet's au yacht de son ami Vincent Bolloré, l'une des premières fortunes de France et du monde, la rupture fut rapide et brutale. Son attitude a causé une controverse et il n'a pas voulu s'excuser. Jamais auparavant un politicien Français n'a autant affiché une telle proximité avec les pouvoirs de l'argent. Non pas que les Français n'aiment pas l'argent, mais ils y ont un rapport particulier. Ils peuvent en avoir mais c'est de mauvais goût de l'afficher. Leurs politiciens font leurs études dans les écoles et les universités d'élite de la république, leurs carrières au service de l'état, lequel, on le sait, même s'il paie bien son élite, ne permet pas de construire des fortunes. Les politiciens Français sont, contrairement à leurs homologues américains, modestes dans leur mode de vie et modestes dans leurs fortunes personnelles. Leur gratification vient des honneurs qui leurs sont dévolus par la républqiue et son peuple. Or il semble que Nicolas Sarkozy veuille changer tout cela. Non seulement il s'affiche avec les milliardaires, attitude tout de même entamée par Chirac mais avec discrétion, balayant d'un coup de main le tabou des inégalités hérité de la révolution française, mais il rejette aussi les acquis sociaux de mai 68 et son esprit de rebellion individualiste contre les contraintes sociales et communautaires.
Nicolas sarkozy, le petit aristocrate hongrois de souche, a commencé son mandat sous le signe de la démolition de ce qu'il y a de plus cher aux français et de ce qui constitue le socle de leur identité. Mais comme il va les déposséder de leur identité, il faudra bien qu'il leur en trouve une autre. Il leur promet un ministère de l'identité nationale et de l'immigration. Le message étant que, dorénavant, l'identité se définira, non de l'intérieur sur ce que les français ont bâti ensemble, mais par rapport à l'autre, celui qui vient de l'extérieur. En faisant, Sarkozy détournera l'attention des français de ce qu'ils sont en train de perdre de l'intérieur en la focalisant sur une menace extérieure, l'immigration. En liant les deux mots et les deux problèmes dans un seul ministère, Sarkozy brouille les cartes dans les esprits en désignant un responsable du malaise qu'il est en train de fabriquer pour les français; l'immigration.
Car malaise il y en aura. On ne dépouille pas un peuple de son identité et de son héritage par une décision électorale sans créer un malaise et même une révolte. Dans son entreprise de démolition Sarkozy sera aidé non seulement par le ministère de l'identité nationale et de l'immigration mais aussi par les médias contrôlés par les groupes financiers qui auront à profiter de cette chute des barrières culturelles dans la société française. Sarkozy est-il allé passer trois jours avec sa famille sur le yacht de Bolloré dans un voyage au coût exhorbitant de 200000 Euros? Qu'à cela ne tienne, l'institut CSA, détenu par Bolloré publie le 9 mai, alors que sarkozy n'est même pas encore rentré en France, les résultats d'un sondage donnant 65% des français non émus de cet écart de la part de leur futur président. Le journal Direct Matin, cofondé par Bolloré et le Monde, relate le séjour de sarkozy sous le signe de la retraite active et studieuse, narration destinée à détourner l'attention du lecteur du véritable événement et la focaliser sur la tâche présidentielle. Enfin, Le Monde, ardent défenseur de sarkozy tout au long de la campagne, se fend aussi d'un sondage 'non scientifique' publié sur son site auprès de ses lecteurs.
Chose bizarre, le Monde ferme le sondage le 10 mai (voir photo ci-dessus), alors que Sarkozy est à peine retourné de ses vacances luxueuses, sur un chiffre d'opinion positif pour Sarkozy, et alors que le Monde n'est pas soumis aux mêmes contraintes de nombre de participants comme les instituts de sondage. le Monde aurait-il eu peur de ses lecteurs ? En tout cas il n'a pas eu peur de publier une petite remontrance entre amis de la part du pseudo-philosophe Alain Finkielkraut qui défend Sarkozy sur les questions sociales et coloniales (comme la non repentance) mais qui ne semble pas à l'aise avec lui sur les questions financières et le nouveau rapport à l'argent.
M. Finkielkraut n'a encore rien compris. Les politiques sociales et coloniales de Sarkozy vont de pair avec une attitude belliqueuse signant la fin des solidarités et le début des affrontements. La fin des solidarités du blanc avec le noir, l'arabe, et le juif, avec les pays sous-développés et entre ceux qui ont de l'argent et ceux qui n'en ont pas. Cette fin des solidarités ne sert qu'à une seule chose, faciliter le chemin pour le capital triomphant, agressif et inhumain. Le très gros capital comme celui des amis de M. Sarkozy. C'est aussi le début des affrontements entre une France qui a de l'argent et une France qui n'en a pas. Et pour dissimuler ces affrontements sous-jacents on désigne l'immigré comme le bouc émissaire de ce malaise interne. L'Amérique de Bush a fait la même chose sauf que dans l'Amérique de Bush il n'est pas aisé de désigner l'immigré comme bouc émissaire car cette Amérique est composée essentiellement d'immigrés. Alors l'Amérique de Bush a désigné des boucs émissaires en Irak, en Afghanistan, en Iran et dans l'axe du mal'.
Finkielkraut n'en est pas à sa première contradiction, il attaque le communautarisme et défend Sarkozy, il attaque l'argent et défend Sarkozy. Que chacun qui appuie Sarkozy se pose la question: pourquoi ? Car après, je ne voudrais pas entendre les mea culpa et les 'je ne savais pas'. Le temps du questionnement et de l'autoévaluation est venu. On est avec Sarkozy ou on ne l'est pas...
Dans toutes ces contradictions, Sarkozy risque de faire son chemin tout de même car son succès se nourrira autant de ses mauvaises actions que de notre indignation. Que vogue la galère !
P.S: Je crois que nos meilleures armes contre cet état des choses qui nous est imposé seront l'ironie, l'humour et et la satire. Quand 53 % des français sont en arrêt momentané de raison, il faut leur parler autrement qu'avec les mots de la raison. Thomas Guénolé m'a envoyé cette excellente animation pleine d'humour autour des vacances de Sarkozy, construite autour du thème 'La croisière s'amuse' (The Love Boat).
10.5.07
l'UMP, Chirac, Sarkozy, et les milliardaires
Vous me direz qu'il n'y a pas beaucoup de points communs entre Chirac et Sarkozy. Le deuxième a voulu trahir le premier, il l'a fait plus d'une fois, et y a bien réussi en fin de compte.
Sarkozy a voulu placer sa présidence sous le signe de la rupture...Toutefois, Sarkozy montre, vis-à-vis de l'héritage Chiraquien, tous les signes d'un ado qui s'est révolté contre ses parents mais qui a fini par les émuler jusqu'à la manie. La 'rupture' aura eu une courte vie, le temps d'une victoire électorale, et les affaires continuent. A chaque président son milliardaire, et à chaque milliardaire sa cause à défendre auprès de son président. Les relations de longue date amicales, familiales et chaleureuses ne peuvent cacher les intérêts réciproques qu'aux yeux des idiots. L'amitié entre Chirac et les libanais Hariri (père et fils) est au coeur d'une mesure très controversée en matière de politique étrangère et affaires internationales. Lire à ce sujet Le Monde Diplomatique (à ne pas confondre avec Le Monde): Lebanon, a court without the law.
L'amitié entre Sarkozy et Bolloré est au coeur d'une campagne électorale dans laquelle l'implantation du groupe dans les instituts de sondage (CSA), et dans les médias (Le Monde avec lequel ils lancent un journal d'information gratuite), est au coeur du projet, déjà bien entamé de Sarkozy, anti-démocratique de mainmise sur les médias et, en retour, d'attribution de marchés publics et facilitations de toutes sortes pour le groupe Bolloré aux dépends d'autres, aux dépends même de la libre concurrence si chère aux 'principes' ultralibéraux de Sarkozy.
La photo ci-dessus montre le milliardaire Libanais Saad Hariri entre Chirac et Sarkozy. Je l'ai trouvée sur le site de Angry Arab.
C'est un aspect de la passation des pouvoirs quand la France choisit 'La Rupture'. Je te passe mon milliardaire, tu me passes le tien. Aurez-vous remarqué, en passant, le tein bronzé de Sarkozy ? C'est inouï ! Comment a-t-il pu avoir ce tein en deux jours de vacances ? La présidence people-fric est prête à tout pour plaire. On chuchote même dans les couloirs de la rédaction du Monde que tout cela, l'UMP, les présidents, le bronzage minute, les milliardaires, le fric...serait génétique ! Pauvre France.
Sarkozy a voulu placer sa présidence sous le signe de la rupture...Toutefois, Sarkozy montre, vis-à-vis de l'héritage Chiraquien, tous les signes d'un ado qui s'est révolté contre ses parents mais qui a fini par les émuler jusqu'à la manie. La 'rupture' aura eu une courte vie, le temps d'une victoire électorale, et les affaires continuent. A chaque président son milliardaire, et à chaque milliardaire sa cause à défendre auprès de son président. Les relations de longue date amicales, familiales et chaleureuses ne peuvent cacher les intérêts réciproques qu'aux yeux des idiots. L'amitié entre Chirac et les libanais Hariri (père et fils) est au coeur d'une mesure très controversée en matière de politique étrangère et affaires internationales. Lire à ce sujet Le Monde Diplomatique (à ne pas confondre avec Le Monde): Lebanon, a court without the law.
L'amitié entre Sarkozy et Bolloré est au coeur d'une campagne électorale dans laquelle l'implantation du groupe dans les instituts de sondage (CSA), et dans les médias (Le Monde avec lequel ils lancent un journal d'information gratuite), est au coeur du projet, déjà bien entamé de Sarkozy, anti-démocratique de mainmise sur les médias et, en retour, d'attribution de marchés publics et facilitations de toutes sortes pour le groupe Bolloré aux dépends d'autres, aux dépends même de la libre concurrence si chère aux 'principes' ultralibéraux de Sarkozy.
La photo ci-dessus montre le milliardaire Libanais Saad Hariri entre Chirac et Sarkozy. Je l'ai trouvée sur le site de Angry Arab.
C'est un aspect de la passation des pouvoirs quand la France choisit 'La Rupture'. Je te passe mon milliardaire, tu me passes le tien. Aurez-vous remarqué, en passant, le tein bronzé de Sarkozy ? C'est inouï ! Comment a-t-il pu avoir ce tein en deux jours de vacances ? La présidence people-fric est prête à tout pour plaire. On chuchote même dans les couloirs de la rédaction du Monde que tout cela, l'UMP, les présidents, le bronzage minute, les milliardaires, le fric...serait génétique ! Pauvre France.
Sarkozy: les discours de la haine
Jean Véronis montre, à travers une analyse de 'La France qui se lève tôt' dans les discours de Sarkozy, comment Sarkozy utilise cette expression pour s'adresser tour à tour à différentes parties de l'électorat jusqu'à même en user, dans les deux derniers mois de la campagne, pour dresser une partie de l'électorat contre une autre.
La stratégie de la haine a payé sur le court terme mais elle ne pourra aider à poser une action politique constructive pour le pays ni même soutenir un projet politique au pouvoir pour le moyen et long termes.
La stratégie de la haine a payé sur le court terme mais elle ne pourra aider à poser une action politique constructive pour le pays ni même soutenir un projet politique au pouvoir pour le moyen et long termes.
9.5.07
Pourquoi est-il important de bloquer Sarkozy ?
Il est tard vous me direz, mais non, il y a encore les législatives. Il ne faut pas donner une majorité confortable à Sarkozy aux législatives.
Voici les arguments de Jean Bricmont, à la veille du deuxième tour, pour les esprits rationnels seulement. Clairement, il faut reconnaître à Bricmont son honnêteté intellectuelle; homme de gauche et scientifique, il met une partie de la responsabilité dans la montée de Sarkozy, et du désir de Sarkozy, sur la gauche française.
Beaucoup de gens de la « gauche de gauche » semblent hésiter à se mobiliser à fond pour faire barrage à Nicolas Sarkozy, ou, à tout le moins, à limiter les dégâts, c’est-à-dire en pratique, à voter et à encourager à voter pour Ségolène Royal.
Je ne peux pas le prouver, mais je suis convaincu que l’immense majorité des progressistes et des amis de la France à l’étranger, de la Russie au Venezuela, en passant par le Moyen-Orient, sont atterrés par cette attitude, et cela pour une raison très simple : ils ont en face d’eux, dans leur pays, une droite qui sait ce qu’elle veut et qui veut Sarkozy. Les gouvernements américains et israéliens veulent Sarkozy. Bien sûr, ils s’accommoderont de Ségolène Royal, mais, si elle gagne, ce ne sera pas leur victoire. La victoire de Sarkozy sera une nouvelle révolution « colorée », après la Serbie, le Liban, l’Ukraine, une victoire obtenue par une manipulation médiatique massive-sur les thèmes de l’insécurité et du déclin. (Sarkozy - Liban : "De combien de temps l’Etat d’Israël a-t-il besoin pour terminer le travail ?")
Il y a trois facteurs qui empêchent la mobilisation contre Sarkozy : une sous-estimation de la dimension symbolique des luttes, une vision essentialiste des partis politiques et une attitude quasi-religieuse vis-à-vis du vote. Commençons par le premier point, qui est le plus important et le plus long à discuter.
En gros, on peut dire que la gauche, lorsqu’elle n’a pas de projet politique autonome, et elle n’en n’a plus depuis le tournant de la rigueur sous Mitterrand en 1983, fait la même politique que la droite, mais en traînant les pieds et avec moins d’éclat. L’inconvénient de la gauche au pouvoir, c’est qu’elle réussit souvent mieux que la droite à museler le mouvement social. C’est pourquoi il est souvent légitime de dire « blanc bonnet et bonnet blanc » lors d’une confrontation gauche-droite et de s’abstenir. Ce serait sans doute le cas si on avait affaire à un affrontement Chirac-Royal, par exemple. Mais, bien que ce soit impossible à prouver, il est probable que, si Gore avait été élu à la place de Bush en 2000, des centaines de milliers d’Irakiens seraient encore vivants, ce qui n’est pas un détail. La question du « blanc bonnet et bonnet blanc » ou du « vote utile » dépend des circonstances, et ne peut pas être tranchée a priori.
Ce qui caractérise Sarkozy, c’est qu’il sort du cadre habituel des politiciens de la 5ème République, comme Le Pen si on veut, sauf qu’il est un Le Pen éligible. Aucun politicien « normal » n’a sa vulgarité (racaille, Karscher etc.), digne d’un Berlusconi. Aucun politicien « normal » ne fait à ce point allégeance aux États-Unis et à Israël. Aucun politicien « normal » ne parle de Jeanne d’Arc ou du christianisme comme il le fait. Aucun politicien « normal » n’a fondé à ce point sa carrière sur les médias, ainsi que sur l’exploitation des thèmes de la sécurité et du déclin. Il faut aussi comprendre que si tant de gens de droite le craignent et voudraient l’arrêter (de Chirac à Bayrou), c’est parce que, contrairement à beaucoup de gens de gauche, ils le connaissent personnellement, et qu’en termes d’ambition personnelle et de caractère, il est aussi hors norme. On peut très bien être de droite et hésiter à confier à Sarkozy le feu nucléaire.
Ce qui caractérise aussi Sarkozy, et c’est ici que la lutte se joue au niveau des symboles, c’est qu’il est l’espoir de la réaction au niveau mondial. Les Français, vivant dans un pays capitaliste et « mondialisé », en réalité pas très différent des autres, ne comprennent pas toujours bien comment la France est perçue à l’étranger. Elle y est vue comme le seul pays européen important qui résiste à l’hégémonie culturelle et politique américaine, qui continue à considérer l’égalité comme un idéal, et qui est un bastion de la laïcité. Bien sûr, comme toutes les images, celle-ci est à la fois surfaite et basée sur des réalités historiques. Néanmoins, la victoire de Sarkozy sera vue comme la victoire de la France de la Restauration, de Versailles et de Vichy sur l’autre France, celle de la Révolution, de la Commune et de la Libération, que les bourgeoisies du monde entier détestent.
Bien sûr Royal ne fera pas une « autre politique », et certainement pas une politique progressiste. Mais c’est elle la candidate de la continuité, et Sarkozy celui du bouleversement (réactionnaire) et c’est bien pour éviter le pire qu’il faut voter Royal. Il faut également situer le problème dans un cadre plus général- celui de la crise du néo-libéralisme au niveau mondial et de l’échec du projet néo-conservateur au Moyen-Orient. Même la banque mondiale ne défend plus le consensus de Washington, et, en Amérique Latine, le rejet populaire du néo-libéralisme est général. Aux États-Unis les seules questions que l’on se pose, parmi les dirigeants, c’est comment quitter l’Irak sans perdre trop de plumes, arrêter le déclin du dollar et stopper la crise de l’immobilier.
Évidemment, vu que la politique néo-libérale a été verrouillée au niveau européen par le Traité de Maastricht, aucune autre politique n’est possible, à moins de changements bien plus radicaux que ce qu’une élection peut produire. Mais ce qui est important, et qui donne un certain espoir pour l’avenir, c’est que les mouvements populaires en Amérique Latine, le mouvement altermondialiste, et les résistances au Moyen-Orient ont provoqué une crise dans l’offensive pro-capitaliste et pro-impérialiste commencée avec Reagan et Thatcher à la fin des années 70, et à laquelle la gauche européenne (toutes tendances confondues) n’a jamais trouvé de réponse. En France, la droite comme la gauche ont essentiellement suivi un mouvement réactionnaire global, mais sans véritable enthousiasme et certainement sans en prendre l’initiative ou la direction. En France, le seul vrai croyant, le seul analogue français de Reagan, Thatcher, Blair ou Bush, c’est Sarkozy. Il serait paradoxal, et catastrophique pour les luttes dans le reste du monde, que le « modèle » ultra-réactionnaire qui domine le monde depuis près de trente ans, finisse par triompher en France, au moment même où il fait eau partout ailleurs.
Beaucoup de gens invoquent les diverses « trahisons » du parti socialiste (guerre d’Algérie, Mitterrand, guerre du Kosovo) pour ne pas voter Royal. Mais le parti socialiste, comme les autres partis et comme d’ailleurs les parlements, est une « caisse d’enregistrement » qui réagit aux mouvements idéologiques et sociaux qui se passent en dehors de lui. Le parti socialiste a aussi participé au Front Populaire et à la création de la sécurité sociale. Bien sûr, il ne fera rien d’aussi progressiste aujourd’hui, parce que les circonstances ne l’y contraignent pas, mais un vote Royal sans illusions permettrait d’éviter le pire, surtout vis-à-vis de l’étranger, et de continuer à reconstruire un véritable mouvement social, en dehors du PS.
Finalement, il est curieux de remarquer que ce sont souvent ceux qui dénoncent le plus violemment les « illusions du cirque électoral », et qui en tirent argument pour ne pas voter, qui sont en fait les principales victimes de ces illusions. En effet, si la démocratie représentative, combinée à la concentration des moyens d’information entre des mains privées, est effectivement très imparfaite, c’est une raison de plus pour ne pas sacraliser le vote et, par conséquent, pour voter. Il ne faut pas voir le vote comme une délégation (ou abdication) de pouvoir (comme le veut le discours dominant sur la démocratie), mais comme une forme de lutte parmi d’autres, au même titre que signer une pétition ou manifester. Il est parfaitement cohérent de voter pour X demain, comme « moindre mal », et de lutter contre sa politique après-demain.
La « gauche de gauche » doit utiliser le 1er mai pour lancer une gigantesque mobilisation contre Sarkozy, non pas en effrayant les gens par des discours radicaux, comme elle aime tant le faire, mais en expliquant patiemment que sa politique non seulement ne va pas sauver la France, mais, au contraire, va en faire le dernier pays à subir l’expérience amère d’une thérapie de choc et d’un alignement sur Washington qui sont peu à peu rejetés partout ailleurs.
Jean Bricmont
Jean Bricmont est professeur de physique théorique à l’Université de Louvain (Belgique).
Voici les arguments de Jean Bricmont, à la veille du deuxième tour, pour les esprits rationnels seulement. Clairement, il faut reconnaître à Bricmont son honnêteté intellectuelle; homme de gauche et scientifique, il met une partie de la responsabilité dans la montée de Sarkozy, et du désir de Sarkozy, sur la gauche française.
Beaucoup de gens de la « gauche de gauche » semblent hésiter à se mobiliser à fond pour faire barrage à Nicolas Sarkozy, ou, à tout le moins, à limiter les dégâts, c’est-à-dire en pratique, à voter et à encourager à voter pour Ségolène Royal.
Je ne peux pas le prouver, mais je suis convaincu que l’immense majorité des progressistes et des amis de la France à l’étranger, de la Russie au Venezuela, en passant par le Moyen-Orient, sont atterrés par cette attitude, et cela pour une raison très simple : ils ont en face d’eux, dans leur pays, une droite qui sait ce qu’elle veut et qui veut Sarkozy. Les gouvernements américains et israéliens veulent Sarkozy. Bien sûr, ils s’accommoderont de Ségolène Royal, mais, si elle gagne, ce ne sera pas leur victoire. La victoire de Sarkozy sera une nouvelle révolution « colorée », après la Serbie, le Liban, l’Ukraine, une victoire obtenue par une manipulation médiatique massive-sur les thèmes de l’insécurité et du déclin. (Sarkozy - Liban : "De combien de temps l’Etat d’Israël a-t-il besoin pour terminer le travail ?")
Il y a trois facteurs qui empêchent la mobilisation contre Sarkozy : une sous-estimation de la dimension symbolique des luttes, une vision essentialiste des partis politiques et une attitude quasi-religieuse vis-à-vis du vote. Commençons par le premier point, qui est le plus important et le plus long à discuter.
En gros, on peut dire que la gauche, lorsqu’elle n’a pas de projet politique autonome, et elle n’en n’a plus depuis le tournant de la rigueur sous Mitterrand en 1983, fait la même politique que la droite, mais en traînant les pieds et avec moins d’éclat. L’inconvénient de la gauche au pouvoir, c’est qu’elle réussit souvent mieux que la droite à museler le mouvement social. C’est pourquoi il est souvent légitime de dire « blanc bonnet et bonnet blanc » lors d’une confrontation gauche-droite et de s’abstenir. Ce serait sans doute le cas si on avait affaire à un affrontement Chirac-Royal, par exemple. Mais, bien que ce soit impossible à prouver, il est probable que, si Gore avait été élu à la place de Bush en 2000, des centaines de milliers d’Irakiens seraient encore vivants, ce qui n’est pas un détail. La question du « blanc bonnet et bonnet blanc » ou du « vote utile » dépend des circonstances, et ne peut pas être tranchée a priori.
Ce qui caractérise Sarkozy, c’est qu’il sort du cadre habituel des politiciens de la 5ème République, comme Le Pen si on veut, sauf qu’il est un Le Pen éligible. Aucun politicien « normal » n’a sa vulgarité (racaille, Karscher etc.), digne d’un Berlusconi. Aucun politicien « normal » ne fait à ce point allégeance aux États-Unis et à Israël. Aucun politicien « normal » ne parle de Jeanne d’Arc ou du christianisme comme il le fait. Aucun politicien « normal » n’a fondé à ce point sa carrière sur les médias, ainsi que sur l’exploitation des thèmes de la sécurité et du déclin. Il faut aussi comprendre que si tant de gens de droite le craignent et voudraient l’arrêter (de Chirac à Bayrou), c’est parce que, contrairement à beaucoup de gens de gauche, ils le connaissent personnellement, et qu’en termes d’ambition personnelle et de caractère, il est aussi hors norme. On peut très bien être de droite et hésiter à confier à Sarkozy le feu nucléaire.
Ce qui caractérise aussi Sarkozy, et c’est ici que la lutte se joue au niveau des symboles, c’est qu’il est l’espoir de la réaction au niveau mondial. Les Français, vivant dans un pays capitaliste et « mondialisé », en réalité pas très différent des autres, ne comprennent pas toujours bien comment la France est perçue à l’étranger. Elle y est vue comme le seul pays européen important qui résiste à l’hégémonie culturelle et politique américaine, qui continue à considérer l’égalité comme un idéal, et qui est un bastion de la laïcité. Bien sûr, comme toutes les images, celle-ci est à la fois surfaite et basée sur des réalités historiques. Néanmoins, la victoire de Sarkozy sera vue comme la victoire de la France de la Restauration, de Versailles et de Vichy sur l’autre France, celle de la Révolution, de la Commune et de la Libération, que les bourgeoisies du monde entier détestent.
Bien sûr Royal ne fera pas une « autre politique », et certainement pas une politique progressiste. Mais c’est elle la candidate de la continuité, et Sarkozy celui du bouleversement (réactionnaire) et c’est bien pour éviter le pire qu’il faut voter Royal. Il faut également situer le problème dans un cadre plus général- celui de la crise du néo-libéralisme au niveau mondial et de l’échec du projet néo-conservateur au Moyen-Orient. Même la banque mondiale ne défend plus le consensus de Washington, et, en Amérique Latine, le rejet populaire du néo-libéralisme est général. Aux États-Unis les seules questions que l’on se pose, parmi les dirigeants, c’est comment quitter l’Irak sans perdre trop de plumes, arrêter le déclin du dollar et stopper la crise de l’immobilier.
Évidemment, vu que la politique néo-libérale a été verrouillée au niveau européen par le Traité de Maastricht, aucune autre politique n’est possible, à moins de changements bien plus radicaux que ce qu’une élection peut produire. Mais ce qui est important, et qui donne un certain espoir pour l’avenir, c’est que les mouvements populaires en Amérique Latine, le mouvement altermondialiste, et les résistances au Moyen-Orient ont provoqué une crise dans l’offensive pro-capitaliste et pro-impérialiste commencée avec Reagan et Thatcher à la fin des années 70, et à laquelle la gauche européenne (toutes tendances confondues) n’a jamais trouvé de réponse. En France, la droite comme la gauche ont essentiellement suivi un mouvement réactionnaire global, mais sans véritable enthousiasme et certainement sans en prendre l’initiative ou la direction. En France, le seul vrai croyant, le seul analogue français de Reagan, Thatcher, Blair ou Bush, c’est Sarkozy. Il serait paradoxal, et catastrophique pour les luttes dans le reste du monde, que le « modèle » ultra-réactionnaire qui domine le monde depuis près de trente ans, finisse par triompher en France, au moment même où il fait eau partout ailleurs.
Beaucoup de gens invoquent les diverses « trahisons » du parti socialiste (guerre d’Algérie, Mitterrand, guerre du Kosovo) pour ne pas voter Royal. Mais le parti socialiste, comme les autres partis et comme d’ailleurs les parlements, est une « caisse d’enregistrement » qui réagit aux mouvements idéologiques et sociaux qui se passent en dehors de lui. Le parti socialiste a aussi participé au Front Populaire et à la création de la sécurité sociale. Bien sûr, il ne fera rien d’aussi progressiste aujourd’hui, parce que les circonstances ne l’y contraignent pas, mais un vote Royal sans illusions permettrait d’éviter le pire, surtout vis-à-vis de l’étranger, et de continuer à reconstruire un véritable mouvement social, en dehors du PS.
Finalement, il est curieux de remarquer que ce sont souvent ceux qui dénoncent le plus violemment les « illusions du cirque électoral », et qui en tirent argument pour ne pas voter, qui sont en fait les principales victimes de ces illusions. En effet, si la démocratie représentative, combinée à la concentration des moyens d’information entre des mains privées, est effectivement très imparfaite, c’est une raison de plus pour ne pas sacraliser le vote et, par conséquent, pour voter. Il ne faut pas voir le vote comme une délégation (ou abdication) de pouvoir (comme le veut le discours dominant sur la démocratie), mais comme une forme de lutte parmi d’autres, au même titre que signer une pétition ou manifester. Il est parfaitement cohérent de voter pour X demain, comme « moindre mal », et de lutter contre sa politique après-demain.
La « gauche de gauche » doit utiliser le 1er mai pour lancer une gigantesque mobilisation contre Sarkozy, non pas en effrayant les gens par des discours radicaux, comme elle aime tant le faire, mais en expliquant patiemment que sa politique non seulement ne va pas sauver la France, mais, au contraire, va en faire le dernier pays à subir l’expérience amère d’une thérapie de choc et d’un alignement sur Washington qui sont peu à peu rejetés partout ailleurs.
Jean Bricmont
Jean Bricmont est professeur de physique théorique à l’Université de Louvain (Belgique).
8.5.07
Goodbye to la belle France?
The French seem to have the perfect lifestyle: long lunches, short hours, great food and plenty of ooh-la-la. But their new president is determined to make them work harder, faster, more efficiently - just like the British and Americans. Merde alors, says Stuart Jeffries
Read more
Read more
7.5.07
Les traîtres pour Sarkozy
Traître lui-même, Sarkozy attire les traîtres de tout bord, y compris ceux du parti socialiste. Après Besson, c'est maintenant quelqu'un qui fait partie de la garde rapprochée de Lionel Jospin.
Claude Allègre, minstre de Lionel Jospin, sortant du QG de Sarkozy par la porte arrière, deux jours avant le deuxième tour.
Claude Allègre, minstre de Lionel Jospin, sortant du QG de Sarkozy par la porte arrière, deux jours avant le deuxième tour.
Les Français du Canada élisent Ségolène Royal
La communauté française au Canada a inversé les pourcentages nationaux. Elle a voté à hauteur de 53,89% pour Royal et 46,11% pour Sarkozy. Les Français de Montréal ont marqué, pour une communauté urbaine, le plus fort taux de participation au Canada, et ont donné 55% de leurs voix à Mme Royal.
5.5.07
Family Portrait: La cousine hongroise de Sarkozy
Mariann Sarkozy derrière les portraits des arrières grand'parents de Nicolas Sarkozy.
Source: Libération
Nicolas Sarkozy ou l'Obscenité du pouvoir par Gérard Miller, Psychanalyste
Who Is Nicolas Sarkozy ?
Neocon with a French passport
Contre Sarkozy, pour Royal
Autres ''perles'' Sarkoziennes: A 8 et 11 ans ils sont menacés de fichage génétique pour vol de jouets.
Le portrait de Sarkozy dans le Guardian d'aujourd'hui
Nicolas Sarkozy and the popular science of genes
4.5.07
Children of Holocaust Survivors Plan Suit against Germany
''An Israeli charity is making plans to launch a class action suit against Germany on behalf of thousands of children of Holocaust survivors who need psychological treatment. But the German government says it will only make payments to those directly affected.''
Read here how Israel and Israeli banks are keeping compensation money from holocaust survivors.
Read here my impressions while visiting Berlin and its holocaust museum during the summer of the latest Israeli agression on Lebanon.
Also, Chris Hedge's 'Coveting the holocaust'
2.5.07
Les présidentielles en France: petit tour d'horizon à J-4
Tout d'abord cette admirable analyse de Jean Véronis sur son blog qui conclut que le nombre de fois que le nom d'un candidat est mentionné dans la presse, quelque soient le contenu et le propos, est un bon indicateur du vote, même aussi fiable, si ce n'est plus fiable, que les sondages. La corrélation entre l'occurrence du nom et le nombre des votes est grande et positive. Je vous recommande d'ailleurs de visiter, si vous ne le connaissez pas encore (car il bénéficie d'une reconnaissance assez méritée en France), le blog de Jean Véronis qui fait un travail remarquable d'information impartiale, tout simplement en analysant les mots et leurs utilisations.
Les résultats de son enquête nous montrent que ce qui compte pour le succès électoral c'est l'exposition du candidat dans les médias, que l'exposition soit positive ou négative, l'essentiel c'est qu'on parle de vous. Cela fait réfléchir au rôle des médias dans les démocraties occidentales. 'Manufacturing consent' de Chomsky, qui propose l'hypothèse que les démocraties occidentales se servent des médias comme un relai pour 'formater' l'opinion publique aux politiques menées, se confirme par ces données. Ce qui compte alors ce n'est pas le contenu, c'est le 'formatage' ou l'encadrement des esprits. Malgré une opposition mondiale forte, la guerre de 2003 contre l'Irak a eu lieu, sans provoquer beaucoup de remous après, parce qu'elle est entrée dans nos vies, dans les titres de nos journaux et, par le matraquage médiatique, cette chose qui semblait impensable, appartient désormais au domaine du possible tout simplement parce qu'elle a côtoyé en continu d'autres informations plus triviales dans nos esprits.
Vient ensuite, en réponse aux attaques de sarkozy contre Mai 68 et ses acquis, que j'ai qualifiées de néoconisme à la française et d'attaque en règle contre la société civile, le cri du coeur de deux anciens soixante-huitards, Daniel Cohn-Bendit et Alain Geismar, en défense de Mai 68, intitulé 'Nous sommes coupables'.
''Nous sommes génétiquement coupables d'un désir d'égalité, de solidarité et de liberté. Nous sommes génétiquement coupables de penser que le pouvoir n'est pas la propriété privée d'un homme ou d'une femme. Nous sommes génétiquement coupables de rêver d'une mondialisation écologiquement et socialement régulée. Nous sommes génétiquement coupables de croire que le kärcher ne résout rien et que la police ne peut pas tout.''
Et puis il y a ce film : 'Réfutations' qui nous décrypte Sarko via des interventions de penseurs, magistrats, chercheurs, etc...Allez le voir sur ce site car après vous ne pourrez pas dire que vous ne saviez pas !
Ah oui, j'oubliais la servilité quotidienne du Monde et de son directoire pour Maître Nicolas, avec aujourd'hui un petit article, glissé comme cela dans la rubrique Société, sur le fait que le petit Nicolas n'a rien fait de mal dans ses transactions immobilières douteuses à Neuilly. Le but de l'article est de focaliser plutôt les feux de l'info sur le groupe Lasserre, loin de leur candidat favori. Voilà au moins un journal qui pourra s'enorgueillir de ne pas avoir 'martyrisé' le petit Nicolas !
Les résultats de son enquête nous montrent que ce qui compte pour le succès électoral c'est l'exposition du candidat dans les médias, que l'exposition soit positive ou négative, l'essentiel c'est qu'on parle de vous. Cela fait réfléchir au rôle des médias dans les démocraties occidentales. 'Manufacturing consent' de Chomsky, qui propose l'hypothèse que les démocraties occidentales se servent des médias comme un relai pour 'formater' l'opinion publique aux politiques menées, se confirme par ces données. Ce qui compte alors ce n'est pas le contenu, c'est le 'formatage' ou l'encadrement des esprits. Malgré une opposition mondiale forte, la guerre de 2003 contre l'Irak a eu lieu, sans provoquer beaucoup de remous après, parce qu'elle est entrée dans nos vies, dans les titres de nos journaux et, par le matraquage médiatique, cette chose qui semblait impensable, appartient désormais au domaine du possible tout simplement parce qu'elle a côtoyé en continu d'autres informations plus triviales dans nos esprits.
Vient ensuite, en réponse aux attaques de sarkozy contre Mai 68 et ses acquis, que j'ai qualifiées de néoconisme à la française et d'attaque en règle contre la société civile, le cri du coeur de deux anciens soixante-huitards, Daniel Cohn-Bendit et Alain Geismar, en défense de Mai 68, intitulé 'Nous sommes coupables'.
''Nous sommes génétiquement coupables d'un désir d'égalité, de solidarité et de liberté. Nous sommes génétiquement coupables de penser que le pouvoir n'est pas la propriété privée d'un homme ou d'une femme. Nous sommes génétiquement coupables de rêver d'une mondialisation écologiquement et socialement régulée. Nous sommes génétiquement coupables de croire que le kärcher ne résout rien et que la police ne peut pas tout.''
Et puis il y a ce film : 'Réfutations' qui nous décrypte Sarko via des interventions de penseurs, magistrats, chercheurs, etc...Allez le voir sur ce site car après vous ne pourrez pas dire que vous ne saviez pas !
Ah oui, j'oubliais la servilité quotidienne du Monde et de son directoire pour Maître Nicolas, avec aujourd'hui un petit article, glissé comme cela dans la rubrique Société, sur le fait que le petit Nicolas n'a rien fait de mal dans ses transactions immobilières douteuses à Neuilly. Le but de l'article est de focaliser plutôt les feux de l'info sur le groupe Lasserre, loin de leur candidat favori. Voilà au moins un journal qui pourra s'enorgueillir de ne pas avoir 'martyrisé' le petit Nicolas !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Since March 29th 2006