Latest Update 5/6/ 2012 at 11.00 AM PST: According to exit polls Hollande has defeated Sarkozy with 51.9 percent of the votes against 48.1 percent for the incumbent. Hollande is the first Socialist to be elected president in almost two decades since Mitterand. Celebrations are underway in France, notably at the Place de la Bastille in Paris.

On Sunday May 6, France will elect its next president. Beside the consequences for French people, this presidential election has geopolitical and economic ramifications for the policies, the cohesion, and even the survival of the European Union. President Sarkozy’s campaign slogan is “A strong France”, while his opponent socialist Francois Hollande is running on “The time for change is now”. If Hollande is elected, can he balance the rise of power of Germany and make sure the voices and interests of the people of Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy are heard?

Sarkozy has been trailing consistently behind Hollande in the polls, and lost the first round of the elections, on April 22 nd, to the socialist candidate. Many French voters have had a falling out with the hyper-active Sarkozy, who can be called arguably the first American style French president. Sarkozy’s constant media exposure has become an invasion of privacy for many French people who like their politicians a bit more subdued than Americans. Mr Hollande is fully aware of this collective psychological element when he says that, if elected, he will be a “normal” president.

Sarkozy: More Petain than De Gaulle

The very first words of  Sarkozy’s  electoral pamphlet sent to French voters living overseas are: ” In a word in crisis, while so many of our European neighbours are going through great difficulties putting in jeopardy their unity and social model, I heard your anxiety, your sufferings and your expectations.” Playing on voters fear and anxiety is, of course, the oldest political trick in the book, and it doesn’t only apply to France. But Sarkozy is using it to portray himself as both, a benevolent father and a therapist: the only man who can “protect” France and French people in this “time of crisis”.

Ever since the French revolution, the motto of France has been “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”. However, this changed for the few years of the shameful pro-German government of Petain during World War II to become “Work, Family, Motherland”. In Sarkozy’s electoral pamphlet, the three words- work, family and motherland- are used several times as key elements and sometime in bold letters such as “making the choice of work” and Sarkozy’s pledge to “protect the family”.

But regardless of projecting a sense of strength, and his eagerness of keeping himself, if not France, in the international limelight, Sarkozy has arguably made France considerably weaker by being the docile vassal of both Washington and Berlin. If his mentor former president Chirac had the courage to vehemently oppose the war in Iraq during the Bush era, Sarkozy is a weak opportunist going where the wind blows. Not only he has failed to oppose the sort of economic Fourth Reich imposed by Germany on the rest of the European Union, but he has also betrayed the traditional Gaullist foreign policy of  maintaining France’s independence and own voice-even if it was in opposition of Washington. For decades, France brought this kind of balance  in foreign policies, especially in the Middle-East, by being the only Western European country voicing criticisms  of Israel’s policies and actively defending Palestinian rights. Despite his claim to the contrary, Sarkozy has made France weaker not stronger on the world stage, but, if elected, can Hollande reverse this situation and oppose, if needed, either president Obama or Chancellor Merkel?

Hollande: Can he rise to the occasion and make a stand for social justice?

Curiously, Hollande’s dullness and lack of charisma are part of his appeal for a lot of French voters. If Sarkozy is a brash political “rock star”, Hollande is a technocrat claiming to have a passion for social justice. Even if  one of his electoral promises is to pay off France’s national debt by 2017, Hollande doesn’t think the policies of austerity favored by Merkel are good. To resolve France’s debt crisis, Hollande plans to cancel tax cuts for the wealthy and tax exemptions put in place by Sarkozy. Income tax would be at 75 percent for incomes topping one million euros. Hollande would also bring back the retirement age to 60- with full benefits- for people who have worked 42 years. 60,000 job cuts, made by Sarkozy, in public education would be recreated. But what are perhaps the most progressive of Hollande’s electoral promises are two of his pledges. The first one is to legalize gay marriage and adoption by gay couples. The second one is to grant the right to vote, in local elections, to residents without EU passports providing that they have been legal residents for at least five years.

Will xenophobia win the French election?

Unfortunately, the decisive voting block is likely to be the one of the far right Front National party of Marine Le Pen. She came third during the first round with a strong performance of around 20 percent of the vote. Even so Marine Le Pen has avoided the blunt xenophobic statements of her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, the message is still the same. She wants immigration to be reduced by 95 percent as well as  “national preferences” for French citizens for access to jobs and social services. On the Front National platform is also a withdrawal  from the euro zone and the European Union as well as reinstating the death penalty. Needless to say, in the past few weeks, Sarkozy has been tailoring his discourse to the Front National’s electorate by pledging to reduce immigration by 50 percent.

Since June 1967, Israel maintained total domination over Occupied Palestine.

Lawlessly, it includes controlling essential resources, air space, Gaza’s coastal waters, borders, who’s allowed to cross them, political, economic, and financial activities, internal movement, public assembly and speech, Palestine’s population registry, private property by seizures or demolition, and, of course, land.

Priority one is stealing it. Palestinians are forcibly dispossessed and displaced to expand settlements and for other development. Israel wants all valued parts as well as Jerusalem as its exclusive capital.

Overall, settlements, closed military zones, Jewish commercial areas, and others earmarked for development account for over 40% of West Bank land.

Since 1967, Israel established 121 settlements. Another 100 unauthorized outposts exist. In addition, Israel calls 12 annexed Jerusalem neighborhoods settlements. Settler enclaves also exist in Palestinian East Jerusalem.

Yet international law is clear. Fourth Geneva’s Article 49 states:

“The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

Moreover, in July 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled:

“Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace and to economic and social development.” In addition, they’ve “been established in breach of international law” on sovereign Palestinian territory.

On March 22, Haaretz headlined, “UN human rights body to probe Israel’s settlement activities in West Bank,” saying:

The 47-member Human Rights Council (HRC) overwhelmingly approved a resolution to investigate what long ago should have been condemned. Russia and China were among 36 states voting yes. Ten nations abstained. America alone voted no.

The measure also called for Israel to disarm settlers and enforce criminal sanctions to protect Palestinians and their property. A three-member team will be named at a later date.

HRC is “charged with evaluating the effects of Israeli settlement construction on Palestinian human rights in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.”

The text of its decision states:

It will “dispatch an independent international fact-finding mission, to be appointed by the President of the Human Rights Council, to investigate the implications of the Israeli settlements on the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.”

The decision also called on Israel “not to obstruct the process of investigation and to cooperate fully with the mission.”

Netanyahu called the HRC a “hypocritical council with an automatic majority against Israel.”

Israel’s Geneva ambassador, Aharon Leshno-Yaar, said “I am still stunned by the hypocrisy of the Human Rights Council. This council itself is adding fuel to the fire and fanning the flames which it should be trying to put out. Today will not be remembered as a great day for this council.”

Israel’s Foreign Ministry said:

“The Palestinians must understand that they can’t have it both ways: they can’t enjoy cooperation with Israel and at the same time initiate political clashes in international forums. Had the Palestinians wanted to solve the settlements issue, they would resume without delay a direct and unconditional negotiation on all core issues within the framework of a comprehensive agreement.”

Palestinian UN ambassador Ibrahim Khraishisaid said “when we see that Israel hasn’t stopped taking over our lands, we must act. If this situation continues, how will we be able to apply a two-state solution? The occupying power is violating international land….one day there will even be limits on the air that we breathe.”

Syria’s ambassador called settlement construction “piracy.”

Washington called the decision “one-sided and biased.”

For 45 years and counting, Israel occupied Palestine lawlessly. It dominates by state terror. Palestinians have no rights. Oppression is official policy. So is stealing all valued land and resources.

So far, it’s gotten away with it. Investigations won’t help, but if thoroughly pursued with follow-through it’s a good start perhaps.

As expected, Israel responded provocatively by severing ties with the HRC. According to Haaretz on March 27, ambassador Leshno-Yaar hadn’t yet gotten instructions on how to proceed.

Diplomats in Jerusalem and Geneva “were embarrassed by their inability to answer questions about the decision from reporters and foreign diplomats.”

Israel’s not an HRC member. It doesn’t matter either way. An unnamed “senior source” said “we will not allow visits from HRC members to Israel, and our ambassador has been instructed not to even answer phone calls from them.”

“The Human Rights Council secretariat and the commissioner, Navi Pillay, led the move to establish the investigative committee on settlements, which is why we will not work with them anymore or appear before the council.”

Austria and Belgium were the only EU nations voting yes. Israel responded by summoning their ambassadors to the Foreign Ministry for reprimands. Israel’s Deputy Director-General for Europe Rafi Shotz said:

“You assisted the politicization of the Human Rights Council and enabled a decision that will make only worsen relations between Israel and the Palestinians.”

Israeli lawlessness is egregious and longstanding. When criticized, it responds provocatively or like Captain Renault expressing shock about gambling at Rick’s from the film Casablanca – as Emile hands him his winnings and he thanks him.

It also retaliates against Palestinians unable to contest its abusive power. On March 25, Haaretz headlined, “Israel mulls ways to penalize PA in wake of UN human rights probe,” saying:

Sanctions are being considered, including freezing tax revenues to deprive the PA of vital funds needed to provide basic services. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz support the move.

Senior Foreign Ministry officials and others close to Netanyahu said HRC panel members are barred from entering Israel. Expect their investigation to proceed anyway.

Al Haq welcomed it, saying:

Israel’s refusal to cooperate “begs the question of what (it’s) afraid the fact-finding mission will reveal.”

No matter. International support is essential. It’s mostly needed to implement recommendations “without delay.” Otherwise expect another futile exercise like so many previous ones.

Words without teeth are worthless. Israel’s further emboldened to dominate ruthlessly, act violently, obstruct justice, prevent Palestinian self-determination, and assure peace process hypocrisy continues.

For decades, Israel remained unaccountable. It “benefit(s) from a climate of impunity, while the international community” yawns and does nothing. It’s high time that changed.

A Final Comment

On March 27, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) said UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navanethem Pillay, reported on human rights in Palestine during the HRC’s 19th session.

Her findings sharply criticized Israel for violating Fourth Geneva obligations. It states nations “responsible for violations of international humanitarian law (must) make full reparation for the loss or injury caused.”

Pillay acknowledged Israel’s lawlessness and unaccountability, especially with regard to Gaza.

No compensation amount can make up for decades of egregious crimes of war and against humanity, as well as millions of Palestinians harmed. Their nightmare continues daily.

__________________________________________________________________________

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at www.sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-…

Dick McManus, Democrat, Everett/Mill Creek, WA, is running for Congress, 2nd CD-WA, this coming fall.  As Chief Warrant Officer/counterintelligence special agent, US Army, retired, he has a great deal of information to share with poignant prescriptions for change concerning American foreign policy with Israel.

Candidate McManus writes:

It is time for America to use our military to force Israel to return the occupied territories

Israel has failed to obey 69 UN resolutions and the UN passed Resolution 242 calling for Israel to withdrawal from the occupied territories. Article 49 Geneva Convention shall not transport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies and that is exactly what Israel has been doing since their 1967 war.

I demand Israel leave all the occupied territories and turn it over all the land on West Bank to the Palestinians. I support ending all foreign aid to Israel until they leave the Occupied territories and turn get rid of its nuclear weapons.

If we care about the long-term security of Israel it is time for America to use our military force to return the occupied territories to the Palestinians.

For the history of terrorist attacks conducted by Israel and their history of espionage against the USA, see HERE and HERE

For more about how Israel has been treating the Palestinians  see HERE.

The hypocrisy of US Foreign Policy is once again drawn into the spotlight as the worlds largest weapons exporter attempts to take the moral high-ground against brutal dictators armed with American weapons.

News Junkie Post’s Editor-in-Chief, Gilbert Mercier, joins US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, as well as Chris Hedges and WarIsBusiness.com Editor Corey Pein to explore the deadly escalation. Profit fueled motivations that exacerbate the geopolitical games being played around Iran take center stage in this dynamic discussion.

As reported by RT:

Amid fresh rebel atrocities, US criticism is ringing of arms sales to Syria are ringing hollow as weapons Washington sells to Authoritarian Gulf regimes fall within reach of the Free Syrian Army.

­The situation around Syria is being painted in comic book black and white for the public eye. There is evil Assad. There are his innocent victims. There are heroic countries eager to ride to the rescue in the shiny armor. And there are Russia and China abusing their veto right at the UN Security Council not to allow it. Out of greed or out of solidarity of dictators, depending on whom you ask.

When it comes to Assad, international law is apparently irrelevant for the US. Only morality is. And helping Assad, for instance, by selling arms to his regime, is immoral by default, believes Susan Rice, US Ambassador to the UN.

“They say there isn’t an international embargo on arms preventing them from doing that. That is a fact. But that doesn’t change the immorality of supplying a dictatorial regime that is killing its people in massive numbers every day. And we are deeply concerned about that and whatever else may have been motivating the Russian and Chinese decision to align themselves repeatedly with Assad and his brutal tactics,” she said in an interview on MSNBC.

The public scolding, however, comes from someone living in a tremendous glass house, critics say.

“The US is hugely hypocritical in this regard. They’ve long been the largest arms dealer and most of those weapons that the US has sold historically – more than $400 billion worth since the 1960?s – have gone to the Middle East. And you can’t argue seriously that it’s made that region any more stable in the past five decades,” Corey Pein, editor at warisbusiness.com, told RT.

In the past few years, nearly 50 per cent of US weapon exports have been flowing to the Middle East. Many countries with the biggest appetite for American weapons can be called anything but pillars of democracy and champions of human rights. Some of them, like Bahrain, have also made headlines for carrying out brutal crackdowns against dissidents and opposition groups.

The double standard approach is hard not to notice, says author and journalist Chris Hedges.

“If you’re our thug, you’re ok and if you’re their thug, you’re not. For all of us that have been overseas, the duplicity and hypocrisy of American foreign policy is painfully evident,” he told RT.

According to congressional figures, America has sold $1.4 billion worth of weapons to Bahrain since 2000. America struck its single biggest arms deal with Saudi Arabia, which ordered $60 billion worth of arms.

The US has long subsidized the Israeli military and recently supplied them with bunker-buster bombs. Those are handy for attacking other countries’ fortified sites, for instance, Iran’s underground nuclear facilities.

Experts say this strategic arming of Middle Eastern countries is aimed at extending US dominance in the region. Iran coincidentally is the biggest regional force opposing America.

“The deal that is going on right now is a massive build-up against Iran. It’s not at all about human rights issues. It’s all about some geopolitical games,” Gilbert Mercier, editor-in-chief at newsjunkiepost.com, told RT.

FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has accused America of playing particularly dirty while leading a campaign for regime change in Syria.

“It’s not some kind of simultaneous uprising situation, when people are rebelling and suddenly they are mysteriously armed and mysteriously arms are being smuggled into Syria from Turkey. Well who is providing these arms? Nobody is asking in the US media. Well these are US arms shipped to Turkey. And from Turkey, it’s being smuggled into Syria,” she claimed.

Flushed with record revenue, the American defense industry continues to lobby its interests on Capitol Hill.

“Arms manufacturers are some of the biggest companies in America. They’re some of the most powerful… They’re even involved in elections, in some ways. In the United States, if you step back and look at it, making weapons is really the last pillar of the manufacturing sector in this country,” Pein explains.

With the Middle East tension evidentially going from bad to worse, the world’s biggest arms seller is unlikely to drop out of business. Neither is it likely to stop advocating peace, especially when the competitors are facing criticism, not the US itself.

________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________
Gilbert Mercier Medical Recovery Fund Raiser

On February 21, 2012, Gilbert Mercier, News Junkie Post Editor in Chief, suffered an Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm.. a myocardial infarction… a massive heart attack. Gilbert was given only a 10% chance of surviving the surgery that required he be put in a comatose state in order to both repair the damage and perform a bypass. Fortunately, due to his physical strength, as well as the indefatigable spirit and tenacious character that he brings to every challenge he faces, Gilbert has survived both that initial surgery and a subsequent surgery in early March.

Gilbert’s recovery and rehabilitation will be a long process. He is surrounded by loving family and friends but his intense medical needs and the astronomical costs for them will continue for quite some time. The all-too-familiar story of how the American health care system can eviscerate a person’s personal financial security, regardless of insurance, is playing itself out with a cherished member of our family.

We will be regularly featuring some of Gilbert’s thought provoking and challenging pieces over the next few months. A donation account for Gilbert has been set up at WePay. Donations can be made HERE. It is our hope that all of you who have been affected, educated, and challenged by Gilbert’s work will assist him in his time of need and help provide the necessary support so that he can return to his former level of activity and resume his mission of informing, agitating and engaging.

Sincere gratitude from the News Junie Post family for your donation.

By now the latest deaths of war correspondents covering the crisis in Syria is old news.  It does not take much to know there will be more deaths in the future. These latest followed the equally unfortunate death of Anthony Shadid as he was leaving Syria during an unauthorized trip to cover the story. Review what takes place in the Philippines, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, and in other repressive and autocratic regimes. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, including the aforementioned three, 14 journalists in the world have already died in 2012. By the time I post this column, that number could well increase. Forty-seven journalists were killed in 2011. Since 1992, 909 journalists died doing their job.

Unfortunately, foreign correspondents, and even those journalists working in their home countries, are targets of anyone who opposes the truth and tried to keep it from surfacing. Reporters are now the enemy. Sadly, they die unnecessarily. They die more frequently than in the past. If they do not die, it is worth repeating that they remain targets of those they hope to expose for doing wrong.

The nature of the burgeoning civil war in Syria give me the chance to reflect on my days as NBC’s bureau chief in Saigon, during the Vietnam War, from early 1966 through late 1968.

It was a different war, a different time. I usually had five TV correspondents and one full-time radio reporter. I had at minimum five full TV crews composed of a cameraman, a soundman, and a correspondent. With the freelance cameramen at my call, I might, on any day, have as many as nine or ten cameras in the field covering the war.  It means that I could have fifteen or twenty people covering the war, not including staff drivers who got the crews to the ever changing front, where the troops were fighting, or to the airport for helicopter and fixed wing flights to cover the action.

We covered combat about 90 percent of the time.  I sent the crews into the field every day. Their lives were almost always in danger, especially when the fire zone they were in was hot with incoming enemy fire. But journalists were not targets.

With as many as 500,000 troops in Vietnam and usually upwards to 100,000 Americans in the field doing battle with the Viet Cong or main force North Vietnamese troops, it was not difficult to find the action that the producers in New York wanted for their news shows.

My staff knew the risks of being in combat. We often discussed what I called “ a considered risk.” In other words, know where you were, act accordingly, and do not do anything foolish that would endanger you or any member of your team. Especially be careful never to endanger the unit you were covering by doing anything irrational, always possible in combat. More importantly, always try your best to get out safely.

Though 63 journalists died in the Vietnam War, they did not die because they were targets of “enemy” troops. When in the field, unless one did something stupid or outrageous, you soon learned what you could or could not do in combat or under fire. That helped keep you alive and did not give the other side an opportunity to shoot your way. Terror was a frequent tactic of the Viet Cong, but that terror was usually directed against the South Vietnamese, and usually confined to the villages. Yes, terror made its way into the cities, but the Vietnamese troops and their allies – mainly American, Korean, and Australian troops – were the enemy of the Viet Cong, not the journalists who covered them.

Except for Iraq, when in full bloom, and in Afghanistan where troops still regularly patrol the country and frequently engage the enemy, most other conflicts around the world are of a different scale and type. Unfortunately, journalists will keep on dying. Unarmed, they are easy to kill. The true stories that journalists tell are necessary for freedom to flourish, and freedom is the one thing that terrorist groups and oppressive governments fear most.

The Syrian uprising has just entered its second year with two big NO’s: NO political solution and NO military solution. The Military/Security option adopted by Assad’s regime a year ago failed to cool down the uprising, and failed to save the lives of civilians. It failed to achieve a complete victory over what Assad had called “terrorist groups” that conspire against Syria. Also, the so-called reform of Assad’s regime failed to establish or even promote any real change toward reform. It did not even launch a political discussion with Syrian citizens.

Assad’s regime plagiarizes the old constitution when creating the new one even while there is unparalleled bloodshed in many places around the country. He is planning to do the same with the upcoming parliamentary election scheduled for May, 2012. Too little reform too late will just aggravate the crisis resulting in more violence in Syria. Even Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov criticized Bashar Assad for the “big delay” in reform in Syria, “the current deadlock can end up engulfing everyone,” Lavrov warned.

On the opposition side, the Syrian National Council, SNC, the main political body of the Syrian opposition, is in crisis similar to the Assad regime. The SNC has not yet launched a political discussion with the Syrians people, neither with ethnic, religious, nor political groups about the future of the regime or a post-Assad regime. However, the opposition started to militarize without any form of democracy on the horizon.

The SNC celebrated the first anniversary of the Syrian uprising with the defection of three of its most important leaders including veteran opposition figures Haitham al-Maleh and Kamal al-Labwani. The SNC failed to reach any political agreement with Syrian opposition groups or prominent personalities such as Michel Kilo, Aref Dalila, Faiez Sara or others living in Syria. The SNC has tried to marginalize them as well.

The international community is asked to officially recognize and support a flabby, politically non homogeneous large group (around 300 people), headed by a secular person, Burhan Ghalioun, and firmly controlled by the Syrian Muslim brotherhood with all their political attached strings. The crisis in the SNC is clearly reflected in the political arena of the opposition. After a bloody year in Syria, Assad’s regime looks more unified than its opposition.

Alain Gresh, the editor of Le Monde Diplomatique, recently wrote that “no one can believe even for a second that the Saudi regime seeks to establish democracy in Damascus.” I agree with that statement and can add that Assad believes that his legitimacy came from Syria’s regional role and not from the Syrians. Consequently, Assad is neither willing nor able to promote real democracy in Syria. Assad and the opposition are at loggerheads!

So the question is where does Syria go from here?

Assad’s regime will continue to oppose the “conspiracy” and the militarized opposition will continue to exhaust Assad’s regime because it can’t topple him without international military intervention which looks improbable. Neither party can reach a complete victory. The crisis is rapidly unraveling into civil war in Syria.Human Rights Watch recently announced that the conflict has now taken the lives of 8300 civilians and 1800 military.

Assad’s regime and SNC have reached a fork in the road. There is still a road not yet travelled. Longstanding opposition groups and dissidents have not entered into the discussion. These groups include the National Coordination Committee (NCC) of Hassan Abdel Azim; a newer group from Cairo called the Syrian Democratic Platform (SDP) of Aref Dalila, Samir Aita and Michel Kilo; the figures of the “Damascus Spring”; the people behind the “Declaration of 99”, which was signed and declared in September 2000 by 99 consistent public figures; the “Atassi Forum”; and the “Committees of Renewal of Syrian Civil Society” among others.

These people have been harshly treated in the prisons of Assad’s regime for long time because they lobbied for real democratic change in their country. They are still committed to democracy and a peaceful solution to the current crisis. It is time for both the regime and the international community to open a serious and sincere discussion with true and peaceful opposition groups and prominent Syrian personalities in civil society to engage them in creating a peaceful solution and to open the door to real reform and democratic change in Syria.

Albert Einstein once said: “The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.” In order to resolve this situation, the path of the Syrian crisis must change; the road not travelled could lead to an exit from violence. The “Arab Spring” has failed in Syria because it has not yet used the people and the tools of the 2005 Damascus Declaration for Democratic National Change.

Editor’s note: Anthony Zeitouni (anthonygaz@gmail.com ) is a Washington-based pundit who was born in Beirut, Lebanon. Follow Zeitouni on Twitter @Anthonygaz. His web site is www.AnthonyZeitouni.com

Such a great relationship exists between the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his fellow citizens. After 11 month of brainstorming and public debates about the new constitution and the entire reform process, the young president set Sunday, February 26, as the day of referendum. Almost 57% of Syrians participated, 89% among them voted YES to the proposed constitution, 11% said NO. What a democracy.

An unexpected, heavy snow storm hit many areas in Syria including Homs, the third largest city in the country, which prevented millions of Syrians from voting. President al-Assad immediately ordered that the people affected by the storm were allowed to vote by e-mail or by any kind of social media they wanted to use, whether it was Facebook, Twitter or YouTube.

The government of Syria would do whatever it could to make sure those citizens could join the rest of the country on that big day. As a result, nearly every Syrian participated, and voter turnout was 99.9%. Furthermore, neither international observers nor international media was needed to achieve these results. What a democracy!

Now, Syria has a new democratic constitution approved by people, signed and proclaimed by President Bashar al-Assad. Tomorrow is a new day in Syria. End of story.

The above scenario is not just my wishful thinking. It is the story that everyone can gather from watching the official Syrian TV run by the secret service of the Assad regime.

In reality, Assad’s regime makes a mockery of the new constitution amid unparalleled bloodshed in many places across the country, especially in Homs, the crossroads that links the Southern cities and counties to the costal, Eastern and Northern areas of Syria. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the referendum “a cynical ploy”. The White House called it “laughable”. Germany described it as a “sham vote” and a “farce”. Diplomats estimate that only 5 percent of the population turned out to vote.

The new constitution is a counterfeit document despite the Assad regime claims that the new document reflects the wishes of the people. “We are satisfied with the results,” said Syrian Interior Minister Ibrahim al-Shaar. But is the Asaad regime satisfied with the nearly 7500 Syrians who have died during 11 months of unrest?

What is new in this constitution? Was the old constitution paralyzing democracy in Syria over the past 50 years? There is not much new in this constitution. It has been only slightly changed from the old one. The autocratic core of the old constitution is still the same: The President remains above any accountability. The separation of authorities is still just an illusion, to the point that the president names the members of the highest judicial court, which coincidentally supervises presidential elections.

The Asaad regime promotes great change through the new constitution because of the elimination of Article VIII and the limitation of the presidential term. What a lie. The infamous Article VIII of the old constitution defines the Baath Party as the “leading party in the society and the state,” and presents the National Progressive Front as the only framework for legal political party participation for citizens. The new Article VIII allows for “Political Pluralism”. But how is this accomplished?

It is nothing more than camouflage. The Assad regime has taken out the meaning from “Political Pluralism” before it even has a chance to start. The current and first Multi-Party Law in Syria, which President al-Assad declared several months ago as part of the political reform, states that the committee which approves the formation of political parties should be headed by the Minister of Interior and appointed by the President. So nothing changes. Furthermore, the current Multi-Party Law does not allow political parties to share power with the Baath party. When President al-Assad signed and issued the legislative decree on Multi-Party Law in Syria, he signed after deleting the paragraph on “sharing of power and participation in governance” from the proposed law. Assad’s philosophy of political reform as stated in the Multi-Party Law is clear. There will be no sharing of power with the ruling Baath party, and participation in governance is not allowed by law. In a nutshell, no democracy is created. The new constitution keeps the superiority of the Baath party even after the removal of Article VIII.

The only leader of Syria is the President, who is surrounded by his family. They lead the secret service, the army and the economy. The government, the parliament and the Baath party are just a front. The Syrian regime was and still is the Assad family regime, which holds absolute power.

There is good news for the Syrians. The new constitution allows President Assad to serve a maximum of two seven-year terms starting in 2014. So he will have to leave office in 2028 if he does not change his mind and replaces this constitution with a new mandate.
The new constitution will not promote any real change toward reform. The bloodshed in Syrian overwhelms it. Too little reform too late will just aggravate the crisis resulting in more violence in Syria.

All Photos by Omar Chatriwala

Editor’s note: Anthony Zeitouni (anthonygaz@gmail.com ) is a Washington-based pundit who was born in Beirut, Lebanon. Follow Zeitouni on Twitter @Anthonygaz. His web site is www.AnthonyZeitouni.com

In the initial stages of Occupy Wall Street, protesters focused on the literal occupation of designated public spaces. This phase of the movement has progressed, and so now comes the opportunity to organize a more focused direction within the movement, one that will impact policy and engineer more just socioeconomic changes. Still, the occupation of public places remains a key element of Occupy; and it ought to continue within the structure of  a clearly defined plan supported by frontline activity.

So far journalists have reported on the Occupied spaces destroyed by police, related violence, and protesters’ efforts to regroup, reoccupy and expand spaces. Some reporters have even pointed out that political efforts to stop protesters have often infused new energy in the movement and galvanized support for the cause.  Yet, they seem to have marginalized the actual cause (the movement to uphold a system in which one percent of a nation’s population does not hold more than 50 percent of its wealth). For some reason, mainstream journalists have failed to use an impartial tone to explain the Occupy movement. This has caused many participants to feel deliberately sabotaged.

Occupy is now at a crossroads. To survive and flourish, it needs inner activism that is strong, focused, organized.  Some have observed that in the aftermath of destruction, Occupy protesters wander and wonder what to do next. At such critical times, they are much more likely to be approached by different groups upholding their own agenda (which may or may not be in sync with the Occupy philosophy of economic justice). Therein lies the danger–that without direction some Occupy activists may inadvertently become entangled with groups that fuel the One Percent. This leads to bigger problems.

Such scattered sub-activism weakens the global perspective of the American Occupy movement. Involvement in local, state and regional issues may detract Occupy from its central goal of creating humane systems that redistribute educational, medical, labor and economic resources to people. We live in a globalized world, where problems in India or China have a profound impact on our way of life. Ethnic and cultural borders no longer stand as excuses to dehumanize or alienate people. We are one, an interconnected people, evolving in the same planet, fighting for the right to live, work and learn well. It is precisely for these reasons that a fragmented, regional Occupy movement cannot effectuate change in the long term. Thus, at this junction, it seems rather imperative that a solid, unified, global message rise within America’s Occupy movement. But to carry executive weight, activists need to substantiate this message with a long-term plan that restores economic and social justice. Herein lies the challenge: To craft a manifesto that is cohesive, structured, egalitarian and guides methodical action. This, I believe, will prevent Occupy from unraveling into branch chapters of bureaucratic institutions.

“Get the money out of politics!”

“The global population is not the chattel property of an elite few who hoard our wealth and resources and have purchased our political establishments in order to control and exploit us!”

“We are all equal shareholders on this planet.  We are not the exploited tenants and servants of an elite minority simply because of the accident of our birth, or theirs!”

The Occupy Wall Street movement in New York, Washington D.C. and Oakland has declarations that outline the largely economic problems of the 99 Percent. The focal message of these documents is simple: End exploitation, promote economic justice. For frontline protesters, many of whom have lived in tents for nearly six months, the message is a motivational call to action.

We can see the value of a strong message, even if media outlets fail to report objectively, and politicians ignore the plight of the poor. Occupy grows, it grows in numbers and symbolism–in the hope it creates for people who had lost faith in the possibility of justice. Occupy is not a juvenile tantrum in the park, as some initially labeled the movement. It is a phenomenon of people standing against wrong and fighting for human rights. In essence, the Occupy movement is really about the fight for human rights. It’s about unity, solidarity, compassionate effort, responsibility and the courage to revise a flawed system to make the world a better place for everyone.

Occupy is now nearing the end of its Winter of Preparation. The period, during which thousands of people braved rain and freezing temperatures to sustain a cause, precedes American Spring. The latter, following the tradition of Tahrir Square, may come in full force and upstage elections. If indeed Occupy protesters organize to maintain power and unity, the movement could shift global attention to the struggle of the 99 Percent. The logic would continue to follow a simple formula: Focus on erecting structures to help the poor and prevent the middle classes from sinking further, and establish a fair tax system.

Interestingly, some have observed the incidence of leftist political groups trying to align interests with Occupy activists. This move, observers note, stems from the belief that Occupy supports the nice guys at Wall Street. I find the idea a fantasy, given that genuine altruism does not harmonize with Wall Street trading.  Still, the Occupy terminology does incorporate math–quite possibly one of its most brilliant strategies to gain attention.

Many rights groups now integrate Occupy terms, most notably the 99 Percent, in their organizational lingo. It is a classic example of how language can unite people to stand for worthy causes; and in this case, the Occupy language has sparked significant action worldwide–action that could be the cornerstone of a new world order based on cooperation.

In the interim, police officers continue to follow orders to dismantle occupied spaces and displace peaceful protesters, often in the dark of night. Yet, somehow, this continuous destruction pales in the face of mass determination. It is becoming obvious that forceful authority cannot silence the collective will of thousands.

I predict that in the future we will see a growing number of Occupy general assemblies take place in various communities. Activists may hold them in schools, Universities and even work settings to reach as many people as possible. This strategic step is essential for the successful next phase of Occupy, which ties in with the ongoing reoccupation of foreclosed homes, for example. It is heartening to see the process; in recent months, families have increasingly reoccupied the homes they had lost to aggressive foreclosing. This activity continues to grow throughout the United States, and it is undoubtedly a core Occupy strategy.

Similarly, activists may target public service buildings sidelined by dwindling budgets and corruption. The fact of the matter is that American working and middle classes have paid taxes for time immemorial. It is difficult to find ethical logic in their growing deprivation, particularly as wealth continues to grow for an affluent minority.

Such conditions stand as the reason why so many people support the Occupy movement. It is a support motivated by empathy and moral obligation–not just carefree choice or desire to freeze in the park. Fundamentally, the Occupy movement seems to be a natural response to unjust circumstances created by corporate excess. Perhaps Occupy is nature’s way to put things right, to balance the books, if you will.

People have limits and can endure only so much poverty before falling ill or fighting hard. Occupy has galvanized the young and old to stand for economic justice–to remind the rich that humanity does not stop where wealth begins. Let us hope that peaceful, ethical and economically sound action continues to interest others to join the cause. Now more than ever, we await the ethical politician, the one whose concern for common welfare is greater than the next election or bigger oil barrel.

The Occupy movement is not about permanently placing people in public spaces.  This was a symbolic beginning to demonstrate commitment and begin dialogue. Occupy is about global emancipation and the effort to stop exploitation. Stay tuned for Phase II.

Editor’s Note: All photographs by Libertinus.

One year ago, the voice of Marc parent suddenly went silent on the internet.  His online presence was extremely influential.  Marc was one of those hyperactive activists whose broadcasting was busy, intense, and focused on real change and reform to try to make the world a better place.  There was no better content aggregator and very few bigger influencers in the social media world.  Illness suddenly struck, and Marc Parent passed away on March 28th, 2011 at the age of 59.

I never met Marc personally.  I don’t even know what he looks like, and could not find a picture of him after an exhaustive search online.  That doesn’t matter.  Connecting with someone online is just as profound and powerful of an experience as knowing them in person.

Twitter

Marc was probably most famous online for his Twitter account at @mparent77772.  Over 82,000 people followed him there and he was important enough to be listed 2653 times.  His presence was huge.  He logged 119,219 tweets, most of which were links to a variety of subjects revolving around freedom, reform, politics, human rights, and world news.

His location was listed as “In front of my screen” reflecting the massive amounts of time he dedicated to online activism.  His profile read, “Blogger – Interwebber on politics, finance, news, media, society, government, the internets – CRIMES AND CORRUPTION OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER“.  Marc’s final online communication came on March 17th with this tweet: “Colin Powell demands answers over false Iraq intel http://bit.ly/fB5YwZ”

YouTube

Marc had a very popular YouTube channel under the name CrimesandCorruption.  Opened on the Winter Solstice of 2008, it had 392 subscribers, over 500 subscriptions, and had almost 200,000 channel views.  Marc never uploaded a video, and only listed to as favorites: “Philip Zimbado: A Study of Evil” about the the horrors of Abu Ghraib anda MoxNews recording of how Dick Cheney is a war criminal.

Digg

Digg was also a focal point for Marc’s efforts.  Although he was a member since the end of April 2007, I didn’t notice a massive uptake of activism there until later in 2008.  667 people followed him there, and he dugg up over 12,000 while submitting (sharing) a massive tome of 6288 articles.

Blip

Marc loved being a DJ on Blip.fm.  He played an eclectic mix of music that was heavy on the atmospheric electronica with sounds from BlueTech and Tosca.

Google Reader

You can get a feel for what inspired Marc’s activism on his reader list.

Blogging

The first reference to a blog by Marc that I could find was on blogspot starting in 2006.  That soon sprouted into a second blogspot blog and then a third one.  Others can also be found on his profile page.  This appears to have moved to LiveJournal in 2008 with another blogging venture at PrePosterous.

Facebook

Marc’s posted on his Facebook wall on February 9th, stating, “back again for who knows how long. i answer all personal facebook (only email) messages. comments msssages i answer only in a public way. i like news tips and such. so please feel free to write. miss you guys, terribly. best, marc“.

Two days later, Marc shared the tragic news that his life was coming to an end: “been sicker than a hound dog for several weeks. not convinced yet as a few tests, doctor interviews remain, but te latest medical guess by a doc who who gave me decent service for a few years is I have 2-3 months left to annoy critics online. looks like I’m headed to a better place sooner than expected. I’m at peace with that. thing is I have a lot of loose ends to tie up, and need to preserve enough wherewithal to accomplish them and still have some fun.”

The responses from his many online friends are heart felt.  His last posting was on February 17th, and then it was silent.

Online Funeral Announcement: PARENT, Marc Joseph Claude March 16, 1952 – March 28, 2011 On March 28, 2011, Marc Parent of Edmonton peacefully passed away at the age of 59 years. He is survived by his children, Ryan, Jason and Megan; mother Colette Parent-Savaria (Leo-Paul); two sisters, Suzanne (Len) Buchniak and Lorraine (James) Hook as well as one brother, Pierre, and nephews and nieces. Marc was predeceased by his father, Albert and his nephew John. A Funeral Mass will be held at 10:30 a.m., April 2, 2011 at St. Joachim, 9928 – 110 Street, Edmonton, AB.

You can view the obituary guestbook here, which contains voices from around the world.

That said, the situation has now festered so much that it has reached a point of no return. While the big regional and international players are interfering in Syria’s affairs by siding with either the Assad regime or the so called revolution, they are not addressing what should be a much bigger regional and global concern: Can the civil war in Syria be contained or will it spread to surrounding countries and ignite a full blown sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites? While the already precarious stability of the entire region is at stake, two countries are in the “direct line of fire” of a Syrian civil war domino effect: Lebanon and Iraq.

The Case of Lebanon

In a recent conversation with our Lebanese contributor, Anthony Zeitouni, this issue was addressed. Zeitouni said that “Lebanon is always five minutes away from a civil war”. Indeed, the balance in Lebanon between the three communities( Shiites, Sunnis and Christians) has been extremely fragile for decades. Hezbollah (Shiites) main backers are the Assad regime and Iran. The likely regime change in Syria will make them much weaker and they might be inclined to show they strength, both internally and towards Israel, while they still can. In return, Sunnis and Christians could wrongly assess that the Syrian crisis is a perfect opportunity to diminish the power of Hezbollah by attacking them. In Syria, the small Christian minority( always tolerated by the Assad regime) has already left, seeking refuge in Lebanon or preferably in Europe, Canada or America. But in Lebanon, the much larger Christian population could be caught in the middle of a civil war between Hezbollah and the Sunnis.

The Case of Iraq

If in Lebanon a civil war is always “five minutes away”, in Iraq the sectarian conflict between the Shiite majority and the Sunni minority is always present and doesn’t even need a spark to reignite. Since the official withdraw of the US military, the sectarian tensions have increased and could, at any given time, reach a boiling point. Even if Prime Minister al-Maliki’s government is officially an ally of the United States, al-Maliki must perform an increasingly tricky balancing act with Iran. Maliki has also to deal with the increasing power of the charismatic cleric al-Sadr who is closely aligned with Tehran. In any case, sectarian issues( al-Maliki is a Shiite) would quickly supersede any other consideration for  al-Maliki – including the alliance with the United States- any other choice would be suicide. Under the pressure of al-Sadr, and of Iraq’s Shiite community, al-Maliki might ultimately dropped his alliance with the United States and side with Iran.

How Syria’s Civil War Could become a War within Islam

Western powers assume that the Middle-East operates according to national borders and interests and always forget that the main divide is between Sunnis and Shiites. The West, and especially the United States, has fueled this tension  for decades by implementing a rudimentary geopolitical strategy of “divide and conquer” through the clumsy instigation of conflicts between Sunnis and Shiites. Syrians- Sunnis and Shiites alike- are now paying the ultimate price. The United States and its allies are now siding with Sunnis and their key Saudis backers. It is,needless to say, a “master plan” against Iran and its allies such as Hezbollah. But the collateral damage will be all the Shiite communities in the region. Engineering a war within Islam might not be the motive behind this disastrous geopolitical strategy, but it is likely- providing that the Syrian civil war spread-to be the outcome. Neither Sunnis nor Shiites and certainly not Islam have anything to gain from this.

Editor’s Note: All photographs by Freedom House.