"Hurra pelo Egipto" de Uri Avnery

Uri Avnery
January 28, 2012

                Hurrah for Egypt!

THE IMPOSSIBLE has happened. The Egyptian parliament, democratically elected by a free people, has convened for its first session.

For me this is a wonderful, a joyful occasion.

For many Israelis, this is a worrisome, a threatening sight.


I CANNOT but rejoice when a downtrodden people arises and wins its freedom and human dignity. And not by the intervention of outside forces, but by its own steadfastness and courage. And not by shooting and bloodshed, but by the sheer power of nonviolence.

Whenever and wherever it happens, it must gladden the heart of any decent person around the globe.

Compared to most other revolutions, this Egyptian uprising was bloodless. The number of victims ran in the dozens, not thousands. The current struggle in Syria claims that number of victims every day or two, and so did the successful uprising in neighboring Libya, which was greatly assisted by foreign military intervention.

A revolution reflects the character of its people. I always had a special liking for the Egyptian people, because they are - by and large - devoid of aggressiveness and violence. They are a singularly patient and humorous lot. You can see this in thousands of years of recorded history and you can see it in daily life in the street.

That is why this revolution was so surprising. Of all the peoples on this planet, the Egyptians are among the most unlikely to revolt. Yet revolt they did.

THE PARLIAMENT convened after 60 years of military rule, which also started with a bloodless revolution. Even the despised king, Farouk, who was overthrown on that day in July 1952, was not harmed. He was bundled into his luxurious yacht and sent off to Monte Carlo, there to spend the rest of his life gambling.

The real leader of the revolution was Gamal Abd-al-Nasser. I had met him several times during the 1948 war – though we were never properly introduced. These were all night battles, and only after the war could I reconstruct the events. He was wounded in a battle for which my company was awarded the honorary name “Samson’s Foxes”, while I was wounded five months later by soldiers under his command.

I never met him face to face, of course, but a good friend of mine did. During the battle of the “Faluja pocket”, a cease-fire was agreed in order to bring out the dead and wounded lying between the lines. The Egyptians sent Major Abd-al-Nasser, our side sent a Yemen-born officer whom we called “Gingi” (Ginger), because he was almost totally black. The two enemy officers liked each other very much, and when the Egyptian revolution broke out, Gingi told me – long before anyone else – that Abd-al-Nasser was the man to watch.

(I cannot restrain myself from voicing a pet peeve here. In Western films and books, Arabs often bear the first name Abdul. Such a name just does not exist. “Abdul” is really Abd-al-, which means “servant of”’ and is invariably followed by one of Allah’s 99 attributes. Abd-al-Nasser, for example, means “Servant of (Allah) the Victorious”. So please!)

“Nasser”, as most people called him for short, was not a born dictator. He later recounted that after the victory of the revolution, he had no idea what to do next. He started by appointing a civilian government, but was appalled by the incompetence and corruption of the politicians. So the army took things into its own hands, and soon enough it became a military dictatorship, which lasted and steadily degenerated until last year.

One does not have to take Nasser’s account literally, but the lesson is clear: now as then, “temporary” military rule tends to turn into a lasting dictatorship. Egyptians know this from bitter experience, and that’s why they are becoming very very impatient now.

I remember an arresting conversation between two leading Arab intellectuals some 45 years ago. We were in a taxi in London, on our way to a conference. One was the admirable Mohammed Sid Ahmad, an aristocratic Egyptian Marxist, the other was Alawi, a courageous leftist Moroccan opposition leader. The Egyptian said that in the contemporary Arab world, no national goal can be achieved without a strong autocratic leadership. Alawi retorted that nothing worthwhile can be achieved before internal democracy is established. I think this case has now been settled.


AS WINSTON CHURCHILL famously said, “democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried.” The bad thing about democracy is that free elections don't always turn out the way you want them to.”

The recent Egyptian election was won by “Islamists”. The tumultuous first session produced by this whiff of freedom was dominated by deputies with religious beards. Elected members of the Muslim Brotherhood and the more extreme Salafists (adherents of the Salafiyeh, a Sunni tendency which claims to follow the teaching of the first three Muslim generations) form the majority. The Israelis and the world’s Islamophobes, for whom all Muslims are the same, are aghast.

Frankly, I don’t like religious parties of any stripe – Jewish, Muslim, Christian or what have you. Full democracy demands full separation between State and religion, in practice as well as in theory.

I would not vote for politicians who use religious fundamentalism as a ladder for their careers – whether they are American presidential candidates, Israeli settlers or Arab demagogues. Even If they were sincere, I  would still vote against them. But if such people are elected freely, I accept them. I certainly would not let the success of the Islamists spoil my joy at the historic victory of the Arab Spring.

The way it looks now, Islamists of various shades are going to be influential in all the new parliaments that will be the products of Arab democracy, from Morocco to Iraq, from Syria to Oman. Israel will not be a “villa in the jungle”, but a Jewish island in a Muslim sea.

Island and sea are not natural enemies. On the contrary, they complement each other. The islanders catch fish in the sea, the island shelters the young fish.

THERE IS no reason for Jews and Muslims not to live peacefully together and cooperate. They have done so many times in history, and these were good times for both.

In any religion, there are many contradictions. In the Hebrew Bible there are the inspiring chapters of the prophets and the abominable calls for genocide in the Book of Joshua, for example. In the New Testament, there are the beautiful Sermon on the Mount and the disgusting (and obviously false and later inserted) description of the Jews calling for the crucifixion of Jesus, which has caused anti-Semitism and untold suffering. In the Koran are several objectionable passages about the Jews, but they are overshadowed by the admirable command to protect the “peoples of the book”, Jews and Christians.

It is up to the believers of any religion to pick from their holy texts the passages they want to act upon. Once I saw a Nazi book composed entirely of quotations from the Talmud – hundreds of them. I was certain that they were all false and was shocked to the core when a friendly rabbi assured me that they were all authentic, only taken out of context.

JEWS AND Muslims can and did live peacefully together, and so did Israelis and Egyptians. 

Just one chapter: in November, 1944, two members of the pre-state underground Lehi organization (aka Stern Gang) assassinated Lord Moyne, the British Minister of State for the Middle East, in Cairo. They were caught, and their trial in an Egyptian court turned into an anti-British demonstration. Young Egyptian patriots filled the chamber and made no effort to hide their admiration for the accused. One of the two (with whom I was acquainted) reciprocated with a rousing speech, in which he dismissed Zionism and defined himself as a freedom fighter out to liberate the entire region from British imperialism.

When Israel was founded soon after, some of us suggested that the new state use this and other acts in order to present ourselves as the first Semitic state that had liberated itself from foreign rule. In this spirit, we publicly welcomed Abd-al-Nasser’s 1952 revolution. But in 1956, Israel attacked Egypt in collusion with France and Great Britain, and was branded as an outpost of Western colonialism.


AFTER ANWAR SADAT’S historic visit to Jerusalem, I was one of the first four Israelis to arrive in Cairo, For weeks we were the heroes of the city, lionized by one and all. Enthusiasm for peace with Israel gave rise to a carnival mood. Only later, when the Egyptians realized that Israel had no intention whatsoever of allowing the Palestinians to achieve their freedom, did this mood evaporate.

Now is the time to try to restore this mood. It can be done, if we resolutely turn our face toward the Arab Spring and its winter offshoots.

That raises again one of the most basic questions for Israel: Do we want to be a part of this region, or an outpost of the West? Are the Arabs our natural allies or our natural enemies? Does the new Arab democracy arouse our sympathy and admiration, or does it frighten us?

This leads to the most profound question of all: Is Israel just another branch of world Jewry, or is it a new nation born in this region and constituting an integral part of it?

For me, the answer is clear. And therefore I salute the Egyptian people and their new parliament: Congratulations!

"Shukran (obrigado), Israel" por Uri Avnery

Uri Avnery

December 31, 2011

                                               Shukran, Israel

IF ISLAMIST movements come to power all over the region, they should express their debt of gratitude to their bete noire, Israel.

Without the active or passive help of successive Israeli governments, they may not have been able to realize their dreams.

That is true in Gaza, in Beirut, in Cairo and even in Tehran.

LET’S TAKE the example of Hamas.

All over the Arab lands, dictators have been faced with a dilemma. They could easily close down all political and civic activities, but they could not close the mosques. In the mosques people could congregate in order to pray, organize charities and, secretly, set up political organizations. Before the days of Twitter and Facebook, that was the only way to reach masses of people.

One of the dictators faced with this dilemma was the Israel military governor in the occupied Palestinian territories. Right from the beginning, he forbade any political activity. Even peace activists went to prison. Advocates of non-violence were deported. Civic centers were closed down. Only the mosques remained open. There people could meet.

But this went beyond tolerance. The General Security Service (known as Shin Bet or Shabak) had an active interest in the flourishing of the mosques. People who pray five times a day, they thought, have no time to build bombs.

The main enemy, as laid down by Shabak, was the dreadful PLO, led by that monster, Yasser Arafat. The PLO was a secular organization, with many prominent Christian members, aiming at a “nonsectarian” Palestinian state. They were the enemies of the Islamists, who were talking about a pan-Islamic Caliphate.

Turning the Palestinians towards Islam, it was thought, would weaken the PLO and its main faction, Fatah. So everything was done to help the Islamic movement discreetly.

It was a very successful policy, and the Security people congratulated themselves on their cleverness, when something untoward happened. In December 1987, the first intifada broke out. The mainstream Islamists had to compete with more radical groupings. Within days, they transformed themselves into the Islamic Resistance Movement (acronym Hamas) and became the most dangerous foes of Israel. Yet it took Shabak more than a year before they arrested Sheik Ahmad Yassin, the Hamas leader.  In order to fight this new menace, Israel came to an agreement with the PLO in Oslo.

And now, irony of ironies, Hamas is about to join the PLO and take part in a Palestinian National Unity government. They really should send us a message of Shukran (“thanks”).

OUR PART in the rise of Hizbollah is less direct, but no less effective.

When Ariel Sharon rolled into Lebanon in 1982, his troops had to cross the mainly Shiite South. The Israeli soldiers were received as liberators. Liberators from the PLO, which had turned this area into a state within a state.

Following the troops in my private car, trying to reach the front, I had to traverse about a dozen Shiite villages. In each one I was detained by the villagers, who insisted that I have coffee in their homes.

Neither Sharon nor anyone else paid much attention to the Shiites. In the federation of autonomous ethnic-religious communities that is called Lebanon, the Shiites were the most downtrodden and powerless.  

However, the Israelis outstayed their welcome. It took the Shiites just a few weeks to realize that they had no intention of leaving. So, for the first time in their history, they rebelled. The main political group, Amal (“hope”), started small armed actions. When the Israelis did not take the hint, operations multiplied and turned into a full-fledged guerrilla war.

To outflank Amal, Israel encouraged a small, more radical, rival: God’s Party, Hizbollah.

If Israel had got out then (as Haolam Hazeh demanded), not much harm would have been done. But they remained for a full 18 years, ample time for Hizbollah to turn into an efficient fighting machine, earn the admiration of the Arab masses everywhere, take over the leadership of the Shiite community and become the most powerful force in Lebanese politics.

They, too, owe us a big Shukran.

THE CASE of the Muslim Brotherhood is even more complex.

The organization was founded in 1928, twenty years before the State of Israel. Its members volunteered to fight us in 1948. They are passionately pan-Islamic, and the Palestinian plight is close to their hearts.

As the Israeli-Palestinian conflict worsened, the popularity of the Brothers grew. Since the 1967 war, in which Egypt lost Sinai, and even more after the separate peace agreement with Israel, they stoked the deep-seated resentment of the masses in Egypt and all over the Arab world. The assassination of Anwar al-Sadat was not of their doing, but they rejoiced.

Their opposition to the peace agreement with Israel was not only an Islamist, but also an authentic Egyptian reaction. Most Egyptians felt cheated and betrayed by Israel. The Camp David agreement had an important Palestinian component, without which the agreement would have been impossible for Egypt. Sadat, a visionary, looked at the big picture and believed that the agreement would quickly lead to a Palestinian state. Menachem Begin, a lawyer, saw to the fine print. Generations of Jews have been brought up on the Talmud, which is mainly a compilation of legal precedents, and their mind has been honed by legalistic arguments. Not for nothing are Jewish lawyers in demand the world over.

Actually, the agreement made no mention of a Palestinian state, only of autonomy, phrased in a way that allowed Israel to continue the occupation. That was not what the Egyptians had been led to believe, and their resentment was palpable. Egyptians are convinced that their country is the leader of the Arab world, and bears a special responsibility for every part of it. They cannot bear to be seen as the betrayers of their poor, helpless Palestinian cousins. 

Long before he was overthrown, Hosni Mubarak was despised as an Israeli lackey, paid by the US. For Egyptians, his despicable role in the Israeli blockade of a million and a half Palestinians in the Gaza Strip was particularly shameful.

Since their beginnings in the 1920s, Brotherhood leaders and activists have been hanged, imprisoned, tortured and otherwise persecuted. Their anti-regime credentials are impeccable. Their stand for the Palestinians contributed a lot to this image.

Had Israel made peace with the Palestinian people somewhere along the line, the Brotherhood would have lost much of its luster. As it is, they are emerging from the present democratic elections as the central force in Egyptian politics.

Shukran, Israel.

LET’S NOT forget the Islamic Republic of Iran.

They owe us something, too. Quite a lot, actually.

In 1951, in the first democratic elections in an Islamic country in the region, Muhammad Mossadeq was elected Prime Minister. The Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who had been installed by the British during World War II, was thrown out, and Mossadeq nationalized the country’s vital oil industry. Until then, the British had robbed the Iranian people, paying a pittance for the Black Gold.

Two years later, in a coup organized by the British MI6 and the American CIA, the Shah was brought back and returned the oil to the hated British and their partners. Israel had probably no part in the coup, but under the restored regime of the Shah, Israel prospered. Israelis made fortunes selling weapons to the Iranian army. Israeli Shabak agents trained the Shah’s dreaded secret police, Savak. It was widely believed that they also taught them torture techniques. The Shah helped to build and pay for a pipeline for Iranian oil from Eilat to Ashkelon. Israeli generals traveled through Iran to Iraqi Kurdistan, where they helped the rebellion against Baghdad.

At the time, the Israeli leadership was cooperating with the South African apartheid regime in developing nuclear arms. The two offered the Shah partnership in the effort, so that Iran, too, would become a nuclear power.

Before that partnership became effective, the detested ruler was overthrown by the Islamic revolution of February 1979. Since then, the hatred of the Great Satan (the US) and the Little Satan (us) has played a major role in the propaganda of the Islamic regime. It has helped to keep the loyalty of the masses, and now Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is using it to bolster his rule.

It seems that all Iranian factions – including the opposition – now support the Iranian effort to obtain a nuclear bomb of their own, ostensibly to deter an Israeli nuclear attack. (This week, the chief of the Mossad pronounced that an Iranian nuclear bomb would not constitute an “existential danger” to Israel.)

Where would the Islamic Republic be without Israel? So they owe us a big  “Thank you”, too.

HOWEVER,  LET us not be too megalomaniac. Israel has contributed a lot to the Islamist awakening. But it is not the only – or even the main – contributor.

Strange as it may appear, obscurantist religious fundamentalism seems to express the Zeitgeist. An American nun-turned-historian, Karen Armstrong, has written an interesting book following the three fundamentalist movements in the Muslim world, in the US and in Israel. It shows a clear pattern: all these divergent movements – Muslim, Christian and Jewish - have passed through almost identical and simultaneous stages.

At present, all Israel is in turmoil because the powerful Orthodox  community is compelling women in many parts of the country to sit separately in the back of buses, like blacks in the good old days in Alabama, and use separate sidewalks on one side of the streets. Male religious soldiers are forbidden by their rabbis to listen to women soldiers singing. In orthodox neighborhoods, women are compelled to swathe their bodies in garments that reveal nothing but their faces and hands, even in temperatures of  30 degrees Celsius and above. An 8-year old girl from a religious family was spat upon in the street because her clothes were not “modest” enough.  In counter-demonstrations, secular women waved posters saying “Tehran is Here!”

Perhaps some day a fundamentalist Israel will make peace with a fundamentalist Muslim world, under the auspices of a fundamentalist American president.

Unless we do something to stop the process before it is too late.

“Para o ano em Jerusalém, capital das duas Nações”.

Em 29 de Novembro de 1947, a Assembleia Geral das Nações Unidas adoptou, pela resolução 181, o Plano de Partilha da Palestina que consubstanciava a criação de dois estados independentes, um Árabe e outro Judeu ("Independent Arab and Jewish States") e para Jerusalém um regime especial ("Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem") sob administração das Nações Unidas.

Em 14 de Maio de 1948 foi declarada unilateralmente a independência de Israel.

Em 15 de Maio de 1948 cinco estados árabes – Egipto, Jordânia e Síria apoiados por contingentes da Arábia Saudita e do Iémen - dos sete estados (os outros dois eram o Líbano e o Iraque) que então compunham a Liga Árabe invadiram a Palestina.

Em 1977, passados 30 anos, a Assembleia Geral da ONU, "profundamente preocupada por não ter sido alcançada nenhuma solução para o problema da Palestina, e por este continuar a agravar o conflito no Médio Oriente, de que é o cerne, e a pôr em perigo a paz e a segurança internacionais adoptou a resolução 32/40 B em que se proclama o “Dia Internacional de Solidariedade com o Povo Palestino”, a celebrar em cada 29 de Novembro, convidando "todos os Governos e organizações a cooperar na implementação da presente resolução".

Hoje, passados que são outros 34 anos, sem que haja fim à vista para um conflito que se mantêm porque Israel pretende consolidar e expandir a sua colonização sobre os territórios palestinos ocupados, na construção do Grande Israel (Eratz Israel), celebramos mais um dia de solidariedade cheio de palavras mas vazio de acções concretas por parte da comunidade internacional.

Parafraseando o antigo voto judaico “Para o ano em Jerusalém”, digamos:

“Para o ano em Jerusalém, capital das duas Nações”.

A jogada de Abu Mazen por Uri Avnery

Uri Avnery

September 24, 2011

                                                           Abu Mazen’s Gamble

A WONDERFUL SPEECH. A beautiful speech.

The language expressive and elegant. The arguments clear and convincing. The delivery flawless.

A work of art. The art of hypocrisy. Almost every statement in the passage concerning the Israeli-Palestinian issue was a lie. A blatant lie: the speaker knew it was a lie, and so did the audience.

It was Obama at his best, Obama at his worst.

Being a moral person, he must have felt the urge to vomit. Being a pragmatic person, he knew that he had to do it, if he wanted to be re-elected.

In essence, he sold the fundamental national interests of the United States of America for the chance of a second term.

Not very nice, but that’s politics, OK?

IT MAY be superfluous – almost insulting to the reader – to point out the mendacious details of this rhetorical edifice.

Obama treated the two sides as if they were equal in strength – Israelis and Palestinians, Palestinians and Israelis.

But of the two, it is the Israelis - only they – who suffer and have suffered. Persecution. Exile. Holocaust. An Israeli child threatened by rockets. Surrounded by the hatred of Arab children. So sad.

No Occupation. No settlements. No June 1967 borders. No Naqba. No Palestinian children killed or frightened. It’s the straight right-wing Israeli propaganda line, pure and simple – the terminology, the historical narrative, the argumentation. The music.

The Palestinians, of course, should have a state of their own. Sure, sure. But they must not be pushy. They must not embarrass the US. They must not come to the UN. They must sit with the Israelis, like reasonable people, and work it out with them. The reasonable sheep must sit down with the reasonable wolf and decide what to have for dinner. Foreigners should not interfere.

Obama gave full service. A lady who provides this kind of service generally gets paid in advance. Obama got paid immediately afterwards, within the hour. Netanyahu sat down with him in front of the cameras and gave him enough quotable professions of love and gratitude to last for several election campaigns.

THE TRAGIC hero of this affair is Mahmoud Abbas. A tragic hero, but a hero nonetheless.

Many people may be surprised by this sudden emergence of Abbas as a daring player for high stakes, ready to confront the mighty US.

If Ariel Sharon were to wake up for a moment from his years-long coma, he would faint with amazement. It was he who called Mahmoud Abbas “a plucked chicken”.

Yet for the last few days, Abbas was the center of global attention. World leaders conferred about how to handle him, senior diplomats were eager to convince him of this or that course of action, commentators were guessing what he would do next. His speech before the UN General Assembly was treated as an event of consequence.

Not bad for a chicken, even for one with a full set of feathers.

His emergence as a leader on the world stage is somewhat reminiscent of Anwar Sadat.

When Gamal Abd-al-Nasser unexpectedly died at the age of 52 in 1970 and his official deputy, Sadat, assumed his mantle, all political experts shrugged.

Sadat? Who the hell is that? He was considered a nonentity, an eternal No. 2, one of the least important members of the group of “free officers” that was ruling Egypt.

In Egypt, a land of jokes and jokers, witticisms about him abounded. One concerned the prominent brown mark on his forehead. The official version was that it was the result of much praying, hitting the ground with his forehead. But the real reason, it was told, was that at meetings, after everyone else had spoken, Sadat would get up and try to say something. Nasser would good-naturedly put his finger to his forehead, push him gently down and say: “Sit, Anwar!”  

To the utter amazement of the experts – and especially the Israeli ones – this “nonentity” took a huge gamble by starting the 1973 October War, and proceeded to do something unprecedented in history: going to the capital of an enemy country still officially in a state of war and making peace.

Abbas’ status under Yasser Arafat was not unlike Sadat’s under Nasser. However, Arafat never appointed a deputy. Abbas was one of a group of four or five likely successors. The heir would surely have been Abu Jihad, had he not been killed by Israeli commandoes in front of his wife and children. Another likely candidate, Abu Iyad, was killed by Palestinian terrorists. Abu Mazen (Abbas) was in a way the choice by default.

Such politicians, emerging suddenly from under the shadow of a great leader, generally fall into one of two categories: the eternal frustrated No. 2 or the surprising new leader.

The Bible gives us examples of both kinds. The first was Rehoboam, the son and heir of the great King Solomon, who told his people: “my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions”. The other kind was represented by Joshua, the heir of Moses. He was no second Moses, but according to the story a great conqueror in his own right.

Modern history tells the sad story of Anthony Eden, the long-suffering No. 2 of Winston Churchill, who commanded little respect. (Mussolini called him, after their first meeting, “a well-tailored idiot.”). Upon assuming power, he tried desperately to equal Churchill and soon embroiled Britain in the 1956 Suez disaster. To the second category belonged Harry Truman, the nobody who succeeded the great Franklin Delano Roosevelt and surprised everybody as a resolute leader.

Abbas looked like belonging to the first kind. Now, suddenly, he is revealed as belonging to the second. The world is treating him with newfound respect. Nearing the end of his career, he made the big gamble.

BUT WAS it wise? Courageous, yes. Daring, yes. But wise?

My answer is: Yes, it was.

Abbas has placed the quest for Palestinian freedom squarely on the international table. For more than a week, Palestine has been the center of international attention. Scores of international statesmen and -women, including the leader of the world’s only superpower, have been busy with Palestine.

For a national movement, that is of the utmost importance. Cynics may ask: “So what did they gain from it?” But cynics are fools. A liberation movement gains from the very fact that the world pays attention, that the media grapple with the problem, that people of conscience all over the world are aroused. It strengthens morale at home and brings the struggle a step nearer its goal.

Oppression shuns the limelight. Occupation, settlements, ethnic cleansing thrive in the shadows. It is the oppressed who need the light of day. Abbas’ move provided it, at least for the time being.

BARACK OBAMA’s miserable performance was a nail in the coffin of America’s status as a superpower. In a way, it was a crime against the United States.

The Arab Spring may have been a last chance for the US to recover its standing in the Middle East. After some hesitation, Obama realized that. He called on Mubarak to go, helped the Libyans against their tyrant, made some noises about Bashar al-Assad. He knows that he has to regain the respect of the Arab masses if he wants to recover some stature in the region, and by extension throughout the world.

Now he has blown it, perhaps forever. No self-respecting Arab will forgive him for plunging his knife into the back of the helpless Palestinians. All the credit the US has tried to gain in the last months in the Arab and the wider Muslim world has been blown away with one puff.

All for reelection.

IT WAS also a crime against Israel.

Israel needs peace. Israel needs to live side by side with the Palestinian people, within the Arab world. Israel cannot rely forever on the unconditional support of the declining United States.

Obama knows this full well. He knows what is good for Israel, even if Netanyahu doesn’t. Yet he has handed the keys of the car to the drunken driver.

The State of Palestine will come into being. This week it was already clear that this is unavoidable. Obama will be forgotten, as will Netanyahu, Lieberman and the whole bunch.

Mahmoud Abbas – Abu Mazen, as the Palestinians call him – will be remembered. The “plucked chicken” is soaring into the sky.

Acordo entre Hamas e Fatah para pôr fim a quatro anos de ruptura

Notícia do Público assinada por Ana Fonseca Pereira.

Os comentários em itálico são de minha responsabilidade.

Salienta-se a perspectiva de acordo entre o Hamas e a Fatah; o papel do Egipto nesta reconciliação; a posição desesperada de Israel; a continuação do "frete" da Administração Obama à posição indefensável de Israel, tendo por base a retórica estafada de o Hamas ser "uma organização terrorista que visa civis"

Entendimento mediado pelo Egipto prevê governo interino e eleições. Netanyahu avisa que paz com Hamas afasta paz com Israel.

Quase quatro anos depois da guerra que colocou palestinianos contra palestinianos nas ruas de Gaza, Hamas e Fatah chegaram ontem, sem que ninguém o esperasse, a um acordo de reconciliação. Sob mediação do novo regime egípcio, os dois movimentos decidiram formar um governo interino que terá como missão organizar eleições gerais ainda neste ano.

O acordo - essencial para qualquer iniciativa destinada à criação de um Estado palestiniano - surge num momento em que ambos os movimentos estão sob pressão: a suspensão das negociações com Israel deixou a Fatah, do presidente Mahmoud Abbas, mais isolada; a revolta contra o regime sírio ameaça fragilizar o Hamas, forçando o movimento islamista a procurar outras alianças. Mas é sobretudo a revolução no Egipto que é vista como o principal catalisador do acordo, já que "a nova administração decidiu adoptar uma posição mais equilibrada", rompendo com a maior proximidade de Hosni Mubarak à Fatah, [e acrescentaria, com o ditakt israelo-americano] disse à Reuters o analista Hany al-Masri, comentador político sediado em Ramallah.

As negociações "resultaram num entendimento completo sobre todos os pontos em discussão, incluindo a formação de um governo interino com tarefas específicas e a marcação de eleições" presidenciais e legislativas, adiantou um comunicado dos serviços secretos egípcios, que mediaram as negociações, realizadas em segredo.

O chefe da delegação enviada por Abbas ao Cairo, Azzam al-Ahmad, disse à AFP que o novo executivo "será composto por figuras independentes" e que os palestinianos serão chamados às urnas "dentro de oito meses". À televisão Al-Jazira um representante do Hamas explicou que o acordo prevê ainda a libertação de presos de ambos os movimentos e a "conjugação" das respectivas forças de segurança.

O entendimento deve ser carimbado na próxima semana numa cerimónia oficial, para a qual foram convidadas todas as facções e que, adiantou a Reuters, deve contar com Abbas e Khaled Meshal, o líder político do Hamas, exilado em Damasco.

A concretizar-se, o acordo põe fim a quatro anos de cisma entre a Cisjordânia, controlada pela Fatah, e Gaza, tutelada pelo Hamas, desde que, em Julho de 2007, o governo que unia as duas facções caiu  [De facto o Hamas ganhou a maioria nas eleições parlamentares de 25 de Janeiro de 2006, de forma democrática, - como estabeleceram, na altura, os observadores internacionais; Ismail Haniyeh foi nomeado primeiro-ministro em 16 de Fevereiro 2006 e demitido em 14 de Junho de 2007 por Mahmoud Abbas, com o respaldo dos EUA e da UE que, desde o primeiro momento, optaram por uma política de boicote e sanções económicas, a este governo. Acresce  dizer que, se o presidente da Autoridade Nacional Palestina, tem o poder constitucional de demitir um qualquer primeiro-ministro, não pode nomear um outro sem a aprovação do Conselho Legislativo Palestino, o que não aconteceu quando nomeou o seu correligionário Salam Fayyad, pervertendo assim a legalidade constitucional e democrática.] e as milícias islamistas [leia-se o Hamas] tomaram pela força o poder naquela estreita faixa de território. [Há que ter em conta que esta "tomada de poder" foi a resposta a uma tentativa da Fatah, com o apoio dos EUA e de Israel, de esmagar o Hamas em Gaza (ver artigo do Público intitulado "EUA patrocinaram tentativas da Fatah para derrubar Governo do Hamas" de 2008.03.04).]

As tentativas de reconciliação feitas desde então esbarraram nas exigências de um e de outro movimento, mas o cenário alterou-se depois de, em Setembro, Abbas ter rompido os contactos com Israel face à recusa do Governo de Benjamin Netanyahu em suspender a colonização. Desde então, Abbas tenta conseguir o reconhecimento internacional, com ou sem acordo de paz, do Estado palestiniano segundo as fronteiras de 1967, uma iniciativa que desembocará numa votação, em Setembro, na Assembleia Geral das Nações Unidas. Um esforço que, admitiam os próprios palestinianos, estaria condenado ao fracasso sem um acordo de reconciliação.

Mas mesmo depois do entendimento, os analistas mostram-se cautelosos, alertando para os obstáculos que se colocam à sua concretização, a começar pela tarefa quase impossível de unificar sob um mesmo comando as forças do Hamas e da Fatah.

E apesar de ser pouco provável a participação de dirigentes do Hamas no novo governo (a fim de evitar o bloqueio externo após a vitória dos islamistas nas legislativas de 2006), é incerta a reacção internacional a este executivo - ontem a Casa Branca disse estar ainda a estudar o acordo, mas recordou que o Hamas "é uma organização terrorista que visa civis". Quem não tem dúvidas sobre este acordo é Netanyahu, que ontem deixou um claro aviso a Abbas: "A Autoridade Palestiniana tem de escolher entre a paz com Israel e a paz com o Hamas. A paz com os dois é impossível."

Egipto: Emendas constitucionais decepcionantes

É longo, está em inglês e é sobre as emendas constitucionais propostas pelos generais do regime de Mubarak, acantonados no Supremo Conselho Militar. No entanto o interesse  justifica, em minha opinião o esforço, para tomar o pulso à luta política no Egipto.

Claro que a revolta - e não revolução - do 25 de Janeiro, abriu espaço a algumas alterações na composição do poder - veja-se quem é o novo primeiro-ministro Essam Sharaf - e abriu espaço para alguma liberdade.

Mas o estado de excepção  está em vigor, os presos políticos não foram libertados, as prisões e os "desaparecimentos" continuam, a tortura e a liquidação física estão presentes como denunciam diversas organizações de direitos humanos, nomeadamente a Amnistia Internacional.

Traduzi apenas a introdução do press realese do CIHRS antecedendo o documento original. Aqui fica:

"O Instituto para o Estudo dos Direitos Humanos do Cairo lamenta anunciar que as emendas constitucionais propostas, programadas para serem apresentadas antes de um referendo popular em 19 de Março, são profundamente imperfeitas e frustraram a esperança dos egípcios de que elas precederiam uma transição democrática ou abordasse o problemático sistema eleitoral antes das eleições parlamentares e presidenciais.
 

Em conjunto, estas alterações pouco reflectidas e mutilando o período de transição, - somente seis meses - são susceptíveis de excluir as emergentes forças políticas e da juventude, que desencadearam a revolução da representação e participação na construção do futuro do país, especialmente já que as eleições terão lugar nos termos de legislação que restringe o direito de associação cívica e cercea a livre formação de partidos políticos, ONGs e sindicatos.
 

Por outras palavras, às forças responsáveis por acender a revolução será negada legitimidade, apesar da partida de Mubarak e certos pilares do antigo regime."

The Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS) urges the Supreme Military Council to reconsider the proposed amendments prior to referendum

Press Release CIHRS
07/03/2011

The Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies regrets to announce that the proposed constitutional amendments, slated to be put before a popular referendum on March 19, are deeply flawed and have frustrated Egyptians’ hope that they would usher in a democratic transition or address the problematic electoral system before parliamentary and presidential elections. Taken together, these ill-considered amendments and the truncated transitional period—only six months—are liable to exclude the emergent political and youth forces that unleashed the revolution from representation and participation in shaping the country’s future, especially since elections will take place under laws that restrict the right of civic association and curtail the free formation of political parties, NGOs, and trade unions. In other words, the forces responsible for igniting the revolution will be denied legitimacy, despite the departure of Mubarak and certain pillars of the former regime.

As such, the CIHRS urges the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces to reconsider the amendments and revise the agenda and priorities of the transitional period in accordance with the following observations:

I. CIHRS observations on the proposed constitutional amendments

1. The proposed amendment to Article 75 tailored the conditions for presidential candidates in such a way as to deny the right of candidacy to figures who have already announced their intention to run for president. Particularly egregious is the amendment’s exclusion of dual citizens, even those who renounce their non-Egyptian nationality or have held a second nationality in the past, and those with non-Egyptian spouses. These provisions specifically exclude Ahmed Zuweil, who had already announced his intention to run.

This narrow, chauvinistic view of national loyalty is inconsistent with provisions in Egyptian law that uphold the right of Egyptian citizens to dual nationality, and it disregards the fact that hundreds of thousands of Egyptians were forced to emigrate over the past five decades, either to escape persecution or because the country failed to foster an adequate environment that would respect the competencies, abilities, and aspirations of all Egyptians without discrimination. This restriction is a grave insult and impeaches the patriotism of an enormous number of Egyptians who gambled on their ability to succeed in free, competitive societies. It tells Egyptians abroad considering returning to their homeland after the revolution to help build a new country not to bother, and it establishes a broad category of second-class citizens.

It should be noted that the former president—whose departure was seen by Israel as the loss of a strategic treasure—had no nationality other than Egyptian. The same is true of spies convicted by Egyptian courts and some of the most reviled symbols of corruption and oppression in the Mubarak era.

The amendment not only assumes that state secrets will be the subject of pillow talk with the president’s non-Egyptian spouse, it shows little faith in the capacities of Egyptian women themselves, refusing to recognize their right to run for president, as is clear from the official text of the amendments posted on the website of the Information Bureau.

2. The amended Article 76 retains the provision making the chief justice of the Supreme Constitutional Court the chair of the commission overseeing presidential elections, even though the chief justice is appointed by the president. It also insulates the commission’s decisions from judicial review, an issue that was under severe criticism during the 2005 presidential elections. The Supreme Administrative Court stated in one of its rulings at that time that this immunity to the decision of the Presidential Elections Commission contradicts other constitutional principles as it takes away from the right to litigate guaranteed in article 68 of the constitution. In addition this constitutes an attack on the mandate of the State Council according to article 172 of the constitution.

The amendment details several routes by which one may declare presidential candidacy. Although this provision complies with the principle of equal opportunity, one unified method should have been specified, preferably the collection of citizens’ signatures, instead of multiple means, which gives unearned status to parties with no real political weight by granting them the right to nominate a presidential candidate if they hold even one seat in the People’s Assembly or Shura Council. Moreover, instituting a single rule for the declaration of candidacy—citizen endorsements—would make it possible to convene the presidential poll before the parliamentary elections.

3. Article 139 should have been revised to make the position of the vice-president an elected office rather than a presidential appointment, providing for the election of the president and his vice-president on one ticket.

4. Although the amendments meet the demand for full judicial supervision of elections, the proposed amendment of Article 88 is formulated in extremely general terms and defers to the implementing legislation, which in practical terms demotes judicial supervision of elections from a constitutional principle to a less secure legal guarantee. Moreover, the amendment allows for the participation of “judicial bodies” in election oversight rather than limiting supervision to sitting judges. In turn, this allows participation by judicial bodies that do not enjoy full independence.

Instead, Article 88 should have put all general elections—including presidential elections—under the oversight of one permanent supreme agency or commission that includes well-established impartial, independent experts with judicial experience, as well as experts from the legal, human rights, and civil society communities. This commission should enjoy full guarantees of financial and administrative independence and the necessary immunities, as well as a judicial police force working under its supervision in electoral periods. To prevent a conflict of interest, the law establishing this commission should ban members from running for or occupying public office at least five years after their membership on the commission.

5. Although the proposed amendment of Article 93 ends the ability of fraudulently elected parliaments to disregard court rulings and Court of Cassation investigations about the validity of its members’ status, it makes no sense to task the Supreme Constitutional Court with the mission of hearing challenges to parliamentary membership and issuing final rulings, given that court’s questionable independence, the small number of sitting justices, and their lack of professional qualifications to rule on these cases. More logical is to give this mandate to the Court of Cassation or the Supreme Administrative Court, as both of these bodies enjoy more independence, have more experience in dealing with the election-related issues, and have a sufficient number of judges to rule on challenges in a timely manner.

6. The proposed amendments proposes the abolishment Article 179 of the constitution, which was created during Mubarak’s tenure to normalize the exceptional prerogatives of state police bodies on the pretext of combating terrorism. Nevertheless, it is unfortunate that the same sweeping change not introduced to Article 148, which regulates the declaration of a state of emergency. Under the proposed amendment, the president maintains his right to declare a state of emergency with no restrictions on the cases in which he may take this exceptional step. These prerogatives go beyond the strict limitations for the declaration of states of emergency established in the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights and the constitutions of many democracies, including those in the developing world.

The amendment is also deeply flawed insofar as it mandates a referendum to extend the state of emergency—a process that will be impossible to carry out if the country is indeed facing a true emergency. Rather, the decision to extend the state of emergency should be left to parliament.

7. Assuming that for practical purposes the constitution required immediate changes prior to the impending elections, it is astonishing that the constitutional provision was maintained that allots farmers and workers 50 percent of the seats in the two houses of parliament—a provision that has always been used, even before the Mubarak era, to create a false popular front that successive regimes have manipulated for the commission of crimes and errors for over five decades. Cosmetic representation for workers and farmers has only exacerbated political corruption in the electoral process and representative institutions, as these seats more often than not go to businessmen, high-level administrators, landowners, and senior police officers.

8. Although the proposed amendment of Article 77 is sound, it would be more appropriate for the new constitution that will be drafted by a constituent assembly. In contrast, this transitional period requires a president with specific qualifications suitable for the interim period who will occupy the post for one term only—perhaps for four years, as the amendment stipulates, or even less. The principal mandate of the first, transitional president should be to oversee the establishment of foundations for Egypt’s transition to a real democracy that respects human rights in the framework of international conventions and declarations. This requires drafting a new constitution, dismantling the police state, and building and liberalizing democratic institutions such as the two houses of parliament, municipal councils, political parties, labor unions and trade syndicates, and NGOs.

Based on these observations and critical comments from other judicial, political, human rights and intellectual forums, as well as prominent public figures, CIHRS urges the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces to reconsider these amendments before putting them before a public referendum.

To be fair to the committee responsible for drafting these amendments, the CIHRS wishes to note that some of its reservations and those of other sources of public opinion are the inevitable product of the fact that the 1971 constitution has long outlived its usefulness. Subsequent amendments introduced over the years, particularly in 2005 and 2007, have robbed it of any internal coherence. Attempts to introduce piecemeal changes, even with good intentions, can only exacerbate to the flaws and distort it further, creating more problems than it solves.


II. Toward a new agenda in the transitional period

In joint statements with the Forum of Independent Human Rights Organizations, CIHRS has already expressed its grave concern over the brevity of the transitional period and the intention of holding parliamentary elections within six months. We believe this will only reward the traditional forces that were defeated and marginalized by the January 25 revolution by handing them the two houses of parliament on a silver platter, before nascent political forces have the opportunity to organize within parties or other structures that will be capable of competing in general elections, organizing election campaigns, and harnessing the necessary human and material resources.

Moreover, under the proposed amendment of Article 189, the two houses of parliament, which will no doubt be dominated by traditional forces, will be charged with forming the constituent assembly that will draft the new constitution, which will likely entrench the same power relations and values which the January 25 revolution rose up against.

Ending the political process set in motion by the January 25 revolution with the election of two legislative bodies controlled by traditional forces and the establishment of a similarly comprised constituent assembly to draft a new constitution will necessarily push Egypt into a longer phase of instability as a result of the marginalization of the forces of the January 25 revolution, which will have the right to resist this marginalization by all available political means.

Insofar as the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces does not welcome the extension of the transitional period and formation of a joint civilian-military council to manage the interim period, we propose the following measures as a compromise:
1. Start with presidential elections and postpone elections for the People’s Assembly and Shura Council. It makes little sense to elect a parliament that will be dissolved within one year after the drafting of a new constitution. Moreover, reconstituting and restructuring the police will require much time, which will make it difficult to secure and organize general elections in such a short period.

2. The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces shall issue a temporary constitutional declaration regulating the second interim period. In particular, this declaration should limit the powers of the president and should require a popular referendum for all supplementary legislation to the constitutional declaration issued prior to the new constitution. The declaration should be issued after consultation between the Supreme Council of Armed Forces, the elected president, the State Council, the Court of Cassation, the Supreme Constitutional Court, the Youth Coalition of Egypt’s Revolution, and human rights organizations. The Supreme Council of the Armed forces may then transfer power to the elected “interim” president at the end of this first transitional phase.

3. The “interim” president shall form a constituent assembly to draft a new constitution, in consultation with the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, the State Council, the Court of Cassation, the Supreme Constitutional Court, the cabinet, the executive bureau of the Youth Coalition of Egypt’s Revolution, human rights organizations, and selected legal and intellectual figures, in order to guarantee that the constituent assembly includes all the necessary professional expertise for the task and also genuinely reflects Egypt’s political, intellectual, religious, ethnic, and racial diversity. The draft of the new constitution shall be put before a public referendum.

4. All representative assemblies shall be elected under the new constitution and the relevant amended laws.

--
HREA - www.hrea.org

Human Rights Education Associates (HREA) is an international non-governmental organisation that supports human rights learning; the training of activists and professionals; the development of educational materials and programming; and community-building through on-line technologies.

Quem é Essam Abdel-Aziz Sharaf, o novo primeiro-ministro do Egipto. e a sua posição sobre a Palestina

Talvez fosse altura de tentar saber quem é Essam Abdel-Aziz Sharaf (Giza, Egipto, 1952), o novo primeiro-ministro do Egipto desde o passado dia 3 de Março.

E já que parece não ser importante para a Comunicação Social portuguesa – que eu me tenha apercebido - atrevo-me eu a fazê-lo, até porque tem interesse no tocante à questão da Palestina.

Essam Sharaf licenciou-se em Engenharia Civil (1975) na Universidade do Cairo; tirando o mestrado (1980) e doutorando-se em Engenharia Civil (1984), na Universidade de Purdue, Indiana, EUA. (Esta universidade é reconhecida pela sua excelência no domínio das ciências de engenharia aeronáutica e da astronáutica, sendo conhecida como o “berço dos astronautas).

O percurso de Essam Sharaf é essencialmente o de um professor universitário que, naturalmente tem dado o seu contributo como especialista e consultor em diversas funções e projectos, nomeadamente junto da União dos Emiratos Árabes..

Em termos políticos foi nomeado em 1999, Conselheiro do Ministro dos Transportes, e mais tarde, em 2004, Ministro dos Transportes, (Julho de 2004-Dezembro de 2005), cargo de que se demitiu depois de um grave acidente ferroviário, em protesto com o que caracterizou com uma falta de visão e de recursos para melhorar o sistema ferroviário egípcio.

De regresso à Universidade manteve as suas críticas ao regime de Mubarak, nomeadamente no tocante à sua esfera de conhecimento: as infra-estruturas e sistemas de transporte públicos do Egipto.

No tocante à questão palestina, Essam Sharaf é conhecido por ser contra a normalização das relações com Israel, considerando que a resolução do conflito israelo-palestiniano é pré-requisito para a cooperação entre as duas nações, mesmo em questões científicas

A 3 de Março foi convidado para formar Governo pelo Conselho Militar que detém o poder no Egipto.

É de destacar que, embora tendo sido membro do Partido Nacional Democrático e do seu Comité de Políticas, Essam Sharaf esteve presente e participou activamente nos protestos da Praça Tahrir, uma das razões por certo, para que o seu nome fosse sugerido pelos líderes do movimento pró-democracia para primeiro-ministro.

Aliás esta manhã Essam Sharaf dirigiu-se à da Praça Tahrir, como que para legitimar o seu poder perante o povo.

Depois de homenagear os mártires da revolução, afirmou que foi à praça para legitimar o cargo que vai ocupar. Falando da “grande responsabilidade, do grande fardo” que o cargo representa, Essam Sharaf disse que para o exercer é preciso uma grande “força de vontade” e que a praça Tahrir é o melhor lugar para ir buscar essa força de vontade.

Essam Sharaf afirmou aos manifestantes que fará o que puder “para concretizar as suas exigências” e que, se não o conseguir fazer, juntar-se-á de novo aos que protestam nas ruas. Essam Sharaf disse ainda que quer que as forças de segurança «sirvam o povo».

A multidão que sempre o aplaudiu carregando-o em ombros à sua chegada até ao palanque, carregou-o, de novo, em ombros, no final do seu discurso.

Sextas-feiras da Liberdade, por Tariq Ramadan

Tariq Ramadan
February 25, 2011

Freedom Fridays

Today, more than ever, homage is due to the historical uprising of the Tunisian people. Millions of women and men overcame fear and faced down terror. The Egyptian people followed their example and brought down the despot.

While the regimes may still be in place, an irreversible, uncontrollable movement has begun. North Africa and the Middle East will never again be the same. Whatever the schemes of military and the Western powers for political, geopolitical and economic control, a new dynamic has been created. Non-violent, determined and courageous mass movements have shown that anything is possible, that History is now forging ahead in the Arab world and the Muslim majority countries. 

From now on, it will be impossible to silence the craving for freedom and to halt the onward march of liberation, even though setbacks and missteps may occur.

The people of Libya have now taken to the streets and, city after city, freed its country from the grip of the eccentric dictator of Tripoli. The despot’s madness, as cunning as it is unpredictable, has not yet spoken its last. But it is clear that he too will fall ; that Libya will be freed of the horrors of his long reign. 

He too stole, tortured, summarily eliminated, and lied. For more than forty years he cleverly manipulated, provoked and humiliated the Western powers. Today, his own people have courageously chosen to confront him empty-handed. 

It is a question of vital importance to salute them, encourage them, assist them and support them. 

There is little that can be done from outside. But the movement is gathering strength ; we must do all we can to convince our own authorities to take a clear and forthright position. It will not come a moment too soon ! For how dismal is the now-confirmed revelation of years of silence, hypocrisy and falsehood : the Orient now stands as a revealing and distorting mirror in which the craven policies of the United States, of Canada, of Europe and Australia are reflected. 

Today, the people in revolt are chanting not a word of reproach toward the West. It could do no better than shake itself out of its stupor, as the Arab world is now doing. Courageous self-criticism is worth far more than guilty silence. Wait not a moment longer !

In Yemen, Bahrain, and Iraq ; in Morocco, Algeria, Iran, and Jordan… peoples are calling out their desire for freedom and dignity. Expressed in their Friday gatherings, the power of the people defies description ; the symbolism is overwhelming, irresistible. Muslim women and Muslim men, praying together, give voice to the universal human aspiration for liberty, justice and dignity, for the power of sovereign people. 

For those who have, over the years, painted Muslims as impermeable to the ideals of liberty and democracy, and naturally inclined to violence—due to the very essence of Islam—the answer is clear-cut and unequivocal : tens of millions of Muslims, on these Fridays, have chosen the path of resistance, of sacrifice and of liberation in a spirit of non-violence, respect for life, without ever criticizing the West, its values and its betrayals. They have done so alongside Christians, Anglicans and Copts, alongside atheists, communists, and citizens of all beliefs and ideologies. What finer answer could there be to the simple-minded, racist analyses propagated by populist parties in the West? 

On Freedom Fridays, with its massive crowds coming together to pray in the name of resistance and liberty, we witness, in real time, Islam—and of Muslims—joining forces with liberty, justice and democratic principles. 

That the first European leader to have greeted the resisting peoples and called upon the dictators to leave was the Turkish Prime Minister should serve as a caustic reminder of the value of the short-sighted and tendentious analyses of the “Muslim world” that have long infested Western diplomacy and intellectual life.

The movement must not end here. We must hope that the peoples continue their onward march, that they completely free themselves from the yoke of the tyrants and complete their democratic revolution. 

The final word has not yet been spoken, either in Tunisia, Egypt or Libya or elsewhere, but the movement will surely prove stronger than those who are attempting to control it. Therein lies its power. 

It is essential that all the components of the pluralist opposition seize this historic occasion to dialogue, to establish common fronts representing civil society in order that army commanders do not turn the revolution to their advantage, or to the advantage of foreign political or economic powers. We must hope that governments pay heed. 

They must either implement thoroughgoing reform or leave the scene entirely, and make way for systems of government that respect the popular will, and that apply uncompromisingly the five basic and inalienable principles : the rule of law, equality of all citizens, universal suffrage, limited electoral terms (accountability) and the separation of powers. This is the imperative, and the minimum acceptable : without corruption, insider privilege, and in full independence.

We must hope that the movement continues to spread throughout North Africa and the Middle East…up to and including Israel, that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his racist foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman also be overthrown and with them, the interminable policy of colonization and non-respect of the dignity of the Palestinians and the Arab citizens of Israel.

On Freedom Fridays, everything is possible. Full of hope, with clear eyes, we must hail the march of the peoples and remind governments—whoever they may be, those of the tyrants or the shameless friends of those same tyrants—that nothing lasts forever, that despots and traitors can never be eternally shielded from their peoples, or from the judgment of History.

Uma carta dos The Elders escrita por Gro Brundtland - Palestina, Chipre, Sudão alguns dos temas,

Dr Gro Brundtland Dear friends, What a momentous start to the year! Who could have imagined that a wave of people power would topple leaders in Egypt and Tunisia in just a matter of weeks? I have been so impressed to see young people across the Arab world seize the initiative and articulate their vision for a better future. They have sounded a stark warning to their leaders: we have a right to demand change and we have the will to achieve it. I think my friend Desmond Tutu expressed many people's feelings when he tweeted: "Brothers & sisters of #Egypt, you have given the world the most precious gift: the belief that ultimately right will prevail." However we are also dismayed at the loss of life that has occurred, most recently in Libya, and remind governments, security services, political parties and citizens of the rights of people to campaign for change and reform in their own societies. We stand with all those crying for freedom and seeking the chance to participate in the decisions that affect their lives. Middle East – we need a new and fairer peace process As we watch men and women across the Arab world demonstrate for freedom and basic rights, we must point out that these matters are no less urgent in the West Bank and Gaza. For the Palestinians and for Israel, the need for lasting peace, an end to occupation and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state cannot be ignored. We wrote to the US government urging Washington not to block a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for an end to Israeli settlement activity. Elders Mary Robinson, Ela Bhatt and Jimmy Carter in Jerusalem, October 2010 Not only did this resolution reflect global consensus, it was consistent with long-standing US policy on the incompatibility of settlement construction with efforts to advance peace. Regrettably, the US vetoed the resolution, an action that stands in contrast to growing calls for freedom, justice and basic human rights echoing today around the Middle East and Maghreb region. In our view, there is an urgent need for a new and fairer peace process. Only a principled stance by the entire international community is likely to bring about a just and secure peace for all Israelis and Palestinians. Building a shared future in Cyprus From The Elders' documentary, "Cyprus: Digging the Past in Search of the Future" Just a few weeks ago Desmond Tutu and I visited Cyprus and the UK. We were there to launch a new Elders' documentary about the search for the remains of thousands of missing persons killed in conflict and violence in Cyprus during the 1960s and 1970s. We were joined by four wonderful teenagers who appear in the film – two Turkish Cypriots and two Greek Cypriots – who grew up in separate communities, but have come together to try to understand the events of the past and build a better future. It is not always easy for these students, who often face suspicion and even animosity about mixing with the 'other side'. Michael Panayi wrote a very moving blog where he talks frankly about the challenges he faces from people who don't think peace is possible. As you can read in my own blog, we left Cyprus a little less optimistic about the current peace negotiations. However, meeting young people as articulate, thoughtful and committed as Thalia, Michael, Idil and Tayfun gives me genuine hope that people can succeed in bringing down barriers between the communities, even if their leaders are dragging their feet. South Sudan – welcoming a new nation In a historic referendum in January, the people of South Sudan voted to secede from the north of the country. We commend the leaders and people of Sudan for the orderly and peaceful conduct of the poll – no easy feat in the largest country in Africa. South Sudan – which will become Africa's newest country in July – will face many hurdles and we caution that much needs to be done to develop a country where a girl is more likely to die in childbirth than to learn to read or write. As my fellow Elder Graça Machel stated: Elders Graça Machel and Jimmy Carter in Sudan, October 2007 "It is now up to the leaders in the South to manage the immense expectations of the people for better schools, healthcare and infrastructure and greater economic opportunities, especially for women and youth." Your messages Thank you for all your thoughts and ideas. I particularly enjoyed reading a message from Chier from Sudan, who wrote to tell us how he felt as the people of South Sudan cast their vote after many years of war; "It has been a very important moment after a long struggle... Today, the world has given Southerners a chance to determine their fate." Best wishes, Gro Having trouble reading this email? View it in your browser. Want to share it? Forward to a friend. THE ELDERS | ABOUT THE ELDERS | MEDIA | CONNECT  Follow The Elders on Twitter    Join us on Facebook The Elders Foundation, PO BOX 60837, London W6 6GS Company limited by guarantee. Registered in England and Wales, Reg. No. 6317151. Registered charity in England and Wales, Reg. No. 1132397.