***On The 77th Anniversary Of The Start Of The Spanish Civil War- All Honor to Those Who Fought On The Republican Side- In Honor Of The Working Class Militants In The Spanish Civil War- An Anniversary, Of Sorts

In Honor Of The Working Class Militants In The Spanish Civil War- An Anniversary, Of Sorts

I have noted in other posts that some of our working class anniversaries like the Paris Commune, the Bolshevik Russian Revolution of 1917, and the establishment of the Communist International are worthy of yearly commemoration. So, let us say, the 94th anniversary of the Russian revolution while awkward as a milestone is nevertheless, because of its world-historic importance (both in its establishment and its demise), an appropriate yearly commemoration. Others, like the Russian Revolution of 1905 are worthy of the more traditional five, ten and multiples observations. I have also noted previously my dismay (although that may be too strong a word) at the rise of odd-ball year anniversaries (30th, for example) and rise in the number of mundane occasions for such celebrations although I am not immune to that fever myself. Here, as the headline notes, I am observing a traditional milestone. However, the event itself, that I am observing has far less historic importance (actually far, far less importance) than as an occasion to make some point about the Spanish Civil War. The 50th anniversary designation is to commemorate the first time that I seriously studied the “lessons” of the Spanish Civil War. And the form that that study took was as the subject my very first high school term paper in 9th grade Civics class. I can hear the air being let out of the tires now. But hear me out on this one.

I make no pretense that I can zero in on when I first became interested in the subject of the Spanish Civil War but I was driven by two things in that direction- the general hatred of fascism as transmitted by family and others, the other, and this one is less precise as to origin, was a devotion to the fighters in the American-led Abraham Lincoln battalion of the 15th Brigade of the International Brigades. I believe it may have been hearing Pete Seeger doing a version of Viva La Quince Brigada but I am just not sure. In any case by the spring of 1961 I was knee-deep in studying the subject, including time after school up at the North Adamsville branch of the town’s Thomas Crane Public Library. My first stop, I remember, was looking through the Encyclopedia Americana for the entry on the Spanish Civil War for sources and then turning to the card catalogue. For those not familiar with those ancient forms of research the Encyclopedia was like the online Wikipedia today (except no collective editing, for good or evil, at a touch) and the card catalogue was just a paper version on, well, 3X5 cards, of the computerized systems in most libraries today. But enough of this history of research back in the Dark Ages because what this entry is about is the lessons of that event.

I have noted before, although here too I cannot remember all the details of the genesis of the notion, that on the subject of the Spanish Civil War I have been “haunted” (and still am) by the fact of the lost by the Republican side when in July and August of 1936 (and for about a year later as well) victory against Franco’s brutal counter-revolutionary forces seemed assured. In a sense Spain, and the various stages of my interpretation of events there, represents kind of a foundation stone for my political perspectives as I gained more understanding of the possibilities. I have, more recently, characterized 1930s Spain as the last serious chance to create a companion to the original Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 in Russia and so we had best look at its lesson closely, very closely.

Of course as a 9th grade political neophyte I was not even close to making that kind of observation just mentioned. I distinctly recall, and it was reflected in my liberal politics at that time, that the center of my argument on that term paper was the perfidy of the Western democracies in not coming to the aid of the Spanish republicans and further in not allowing the republicans to get arms from them or other sources, other than the Soviet Union. Mainly I was incensed that the British and French did not do more except cave in to Hitler when he called a tune. Now that was pretty raw stuff, pretty raw analysis, although probably not bad coming from that perspective. But depending on outside forces to save your bacon (or revolution) is always tricky and so as I moved leftward in my own political perspective I spent more time looking at the internal political dynamics driving the revolution. For an extremely long time I was under the spell (the proto-Stalinist derived spell) as articulated by the majority of the pro-republican organizations.- it was first necessary to win the war against Franco and then the revolution, presumably socialist, would be pursued under which all manner of good things like workers control of production, land to the tiller, some justice on the various national questions (Catalonia, Basque country) could take place, co-operative and collective government established, etc.

As I moved further leftward, leftward not just politically but also organizationally away from left-liberal and social democratic operations, and began to study more closely radical and revolutionary movements for social change I began to chaff under that war-revolution dichotomy and look more closely as the policies of the various organization within the republican camp. That was rather more eye-opening than not. The gist of it was that all the major organizations were working at cross purposes but most importantly they were putting brakes on the continuation of a revolutionary thrust in Spain. An so in the final analysis, although this was hardest to finally see in the cases of the CGT-FAI and POUM organizations and some individual militants, it was the failure to seek revolutionary solutions that would have galvanized the masses (or could have, rather than after 1937 left them indifferent, mainly, to the republican cause).

What was lacking? Obviously since even opponents agree there was a revolutionary situation in that period a party willing to go right to the end to achieve its goals, a Bolshevik-style party. Such things, as we are now painfully aware of, make all the different. And it is that little pearl of wisdom that makes this anniversary entry worth thinking about for the future.

***Out In The 1940s Crime Noir Night-The Stuff Of Dreams

From The Pen Of Frank Jackman

Hey, Inspector Tim Riley here. I guess by now you have heard about Sam, Sam Sutter, my old friend from when he was on the San Francisco police force with me years ago, back in the rough and ready early ‘30s when this town was wide open, and who I kept in touch with over the years even after he went private. Yah, a private snooper, oops, sorry, private detective taking any case that interested him, and sometimes when the rent was due, some client “forgot” to pay the bill for services rendered leaving him short, or some dame was giving him that old come hither look instead of dough , anything that came through his door, no questions asked.

Hell, not that long ago he and I worked a couple of cases where our investigations met and he bailed me out of a couple of tight spots when the mobsters weren’t taking kindly to the idea of a collar and were throwing lead my way so I don’t know what got into him. I don’t know why he flew the coop, why he left his partner Miles Regan, to take the heat after he left. Who am I kidding. I know exactly, extremely exactly why he left, a dame, the whiff of perfume, the feel of satin sheets, you get it, right, get it if you are a guy. I got a few looks at her as we were honing in on the case so I could see why he might run amok but still he had plenty of dames, good-looking dames with dough, and no strings so all I know this time with this dame is the note he left for me at his office desk that Miles passed on to med- “the stuff of dreams, I got to go for it, Tim. Good luck.”

Hell, I better back up and tell you what I know, the facts, and maybe you can make something out of what he wrote to me. Like I say Sam and Miles ran a private detective agency over on Post Street. Miles mainly did the divorce work, key-hole peeper stuff since that was what he was built for, a pretty boy, a skirt-chaser, although he was married, very married from what I heard. Sam, not so much of a good-looking guy as Miles, but built and tough, which some dames definitely go for, did the real work, the missing jewelry, the runaway husband or wife, the quick notice body guard stuff, and when necessary the ransom stuff that took a few brains to figure out.

No job was off-limits except that it had to be legit, legit in Sam’s calculating mind. So he made a living at it after he left the force. He said to me after he left that he got tired of chasing windmills trying to bring law and order to the Wild West for peanuts when he could make some decent dough without the bureaucracy on his own. And maybe he had a point except I am married and have three hungry kids and so couldn’t, wouldn’t think of leaving the force. So Sam was ready, ready as hell, when she came through the door.

She being Mary, but who knows what her name really was, she used Brigitte on me, had a passport with the name Helen Dewar on it so who knows. Lets’ call he Mary because that is what Sam called her, okay. So she came through the door like a whirlwind. One of those dames whose every movement is calculated for effect, calculated to get some guy to do something daffy, pretty please. Good-looking too, a tall rangy one, taller than Sam, a little too thin for me but a looker, with long brunette hair, blues eyes, the works, a figure that cried out come hither. But if I know Sam it was the perfume, the scent, whatever she was wearing combined with her looks that got him, that and the story she had to tell.

And what a story. Apparently she was a chronic lying because she told about six versions of the same story with different twists from what Sam said to Miles before he left. Sam, despite his reputation for chasing windmills, was cynical enough not to believe any of them too much, although that didn’t slow him down once he got a whiff of that scent. I bet it was gardenia, it had to be; because I know for a fact that he almost felt off the deep end when he was on the force when he ran into a woman smelling of gardenia who murdered her husband and he was ready to jump through hoops for her saying it was self-defense. (She shot dear husband while he was drunk and passed out on the floor.).

Mary told him a story, a story about a statue that she had lost, a very valuable statue that she had purchased in the Orient and had been stolen from her by a ring of high-end thieves one foggy night. She had got wind that they were in town and she wanted Sam to go with her to negotiate for the return of the statue. Now I still don’t know if the statue thing, the value of it was hooey, or real. All I know is that a couple of guys are dead, Sam is gone, and I am left trying to pick up the pieces so I assume the thing was valuable. A small old time statue, with jewels on it, in the form of a Buddha.

So Sam and Mary meet this gang, the leader, a guy named Sid Green, a guy known to us from Interpol, a bad character, and a couple of his bodyguards, at the Imperial Hotel over on Bay Street. Sam did the talking but there was no go, no negotiations because now Sid knew that the damn thing was even more valuable than Mary thought. Supposedly there was a ton of stuff inside, rare, very rare, jade that made the jewels seem like costume stuff. So no go. What Sam also finds out, finds out to no effect, was that Mary had been an associate of Sid’s and they had had a falling out so that she was trying to run her own operation. Trying to grab the statue anyway she could, for herself. And for Sam now of course, now that along the way they had shared some satin sheets together. Nothing happened that night but the no go signaled on both sides that some nasty business was coming down.

The first nasty business was when Sid sent one of his gunsels, a punk kid named Elmer to eliminate Sam and Mary, eliminate for good. All this Elmer got for his efforts was a quick Sam R.I.P. That reopened negotiations or so Sam and Mary thought. Sid arranged for another meeting at the Imperial Hotel to reevaluate the situation under the new circumstances. The new circumstances turned out to be a planned ambush down the corridor from Sid’s suite. All that got was another gunsel, Willy Proust, who we had a rap sheet on as long as your arm, another Sam R.I.P. Sid alone now in his suite was easy pickings for Sam and Mary now. They just took the statue from Sid’s table while he watched, watched with a bemused smile. They left with the Buddha in tow.

Here is where things get squirrely though. Once they got back to Mary’s place and checked out the insides they found that the material, the jade, had been replaced with fake jade, glass really. See Sid had pulled a switch, just in case. Needless to say Sid had flown the coop for parts unknown. Sam was ready to call it quits, ready to come in and talk to me about everything. He did over the phone, giving me all the stuff that I am telling you, and I told him to come on in on his own. Then something happened, something happened to Sam, because I never heard from him again, except that note, that “stuff of dreams” note he left at his office. I figure Mary did one of her come hither acts and got him all steamed up and so he threw in his lot with her. Or maybe he just got tired of living on cheap street, on somebody else’s sorrows. Whatever it is I hope, I hope like hell, that it isn’t me that has to bring Sam in.

Bradley Manning Trial -Day 18

Arguments over defense motions to dismiss, rebuttal case on Thursday: trial report, day 18

digg

By Nathan Fuller, Bradley Manning Support Network. July 15, 2013.
1030 Computer Fraud charges

Pfc. Bradley Manning, drawn by Debra Van Poolen.

The defense moved to dismiss the charge that Bradley Manning committed computer fraud by downloading the State Department’s diplomatic cables from the Net-Centric Diplomacy (NCD) database. The government contends that Manning violated 18 U.S.C. 1030 by “exceeding” his “authorized access” with the use of Wget, a program that automates downloading of files.
In oral argument, defense lawyer David Coombs explained that the government was attempting to turn a use restriction into an access restriction, the latter of which constitutes computer fraud and the former of which the judge has previously ruled she would not consider. The defense says that it’s a use question because, as government witness and forensic expert David Shaver testified, Wget doesn’t give a user any more access than he would have otherwise. It merely changes the manner in which the user downloads that information.
Judge Lind asked, “Did he access the cables using Wget, or did he already have access to the cables & used Wget to download them?”
The government conceded that Manning didn’t use Wget to circumvent any type of firewall, but said that because the NCD doesn’t have a process for exporting cables in bulk, the restriction is implied. Prosecutors said that merely using Wget constitutes unauthorized access, because it allowed Manning to retrieve cables faster than he could have without it.
Aiding the enemy charge
The defense moved to dismiss the aiding the enemy charge on the grounds that the government presented no evidence to show that Manning had “actual knowledge” that giving information to WikiLeaks meant giving it indirectly to the enemy. He said that at best, prosecutors might have showed that Manning had been “negligent” or “should have known” that Manning knew al Qaeda could access WikiLeaks-released cables, but nothing to show the required actual knowledge.
Coombs recounted the circumstantial evidence of Manning’s knowledge of WikiLeaks, the two tweets and the 2009 Most Wanted Leak list, that the government hasn’t proven that the soldier ever saw. He addressed the 2008 Army report on WikiLeaks’ potential threat, noting that it listed whether the enemy visited WikiLeaks.org as an “intelligence gap” and was treated as something to “presume,” not something the Army had “actual knowledge of. Whether Manning “should have known” something is a dangerously low burden of proof for a capital offense, Coombs said.
Coombs argued that convicting Manning with such little, circumstantial evidence would set an extremely bad precedent, that the court should avoid the “slippery slope of punishing people for giving information to the press” and not “put the hammer down on any whistleblower” who wants to get information out.
Responding to the defense’s argument, prosecutors said that as an intelligence analyst Manning had specific knowledge that the enemy would view WikiLeaks’ site. But the defense pointed out that this would mean he should have been expected to know more than his superiors and those who trained him, who either hadn’t heard of WikiLeaks before Manning’s arrest or didn’t list it as a site known to be visited by the enemy.
The government reaffirmed that it would have charged Manning the same way had he leaked to the New York Times instead of WikiLeaks.
Addressing the issue of having only circumstantial evidence of Manning’s knowledge, prosecutors said that it would be nice if they had a taped confession, but they had to work with what they have.
But Coombs said, actually, we do have a taped confession: his chats with Adrian Lamo, wherein Manning professes a desire to make the information public, to spark debates and reforms, and says nothing about al Qaeda or letting the enemy access state secrets.
Judge Lind will rule on these two motions for dismissal on Thursday, but we’ve yet to hear oral arguments for the 641 “stealing government property” charges.
Government to make rebuttal case
The parties argued over the government’s potential rebuttal case, and ultimately the judge allowed for several witnesses to be recalled.
The prosecution will recall Specialist Jirhleah Showman to rebut testimony from Lauren McNamara regarding Manning’s “noble motives.” It will recall Specialist Marshal to rebut testimony from Sgt. Sadtler regarding Manning’s motives, and claimed that Marshal would testify that Manning said, “’I'd be shocked if you were not telling your kids about me 10 to 15 years from now.”
They’ll recall Special Agent David Shaver to discuss emails that Manning allegedly sent to media before the disclosures, to rebut portions of Yochai Benkler’s testimony, and to discuss a SigAct (war log report) from March 2010 that they say rebuts testimony from Sgt. Sadtler, regarding the timing of the Iraqi Federal Police incident, in which Baghdad police detained dissidents for distributing literature.
Finally, they’ll recall Mr. Milliman, the contractor who authorized the installation of programs to the work computers in Iraq, to discuss whether it was both physically restricted and unauthorized to run certain programs on work computers from a CD.
The government’s rebuttal case will start Thursday.
Judicial notice of David Finkel’s entire book
Prosecutors want the judge to take judicial notice of David Finkel’s entire book, The Good Soldiers. The judge previously took notice of the portion in which Finkel transcribes the Collateral Murder video incident, which Manning cited in chats with Lamo as evidence that the video was out in the public to some extent (which goes to whether the video was “closely held,” relevant for the Espionage Act charges). Prosecutors want the whole book admitted because it contains, they claim, evidence for Manning’s knowledge about releasing certain classified information.
The defense says there’s no evidence that Manning read the whole book, and will bring the excerpt from Amazon.com it says Manning read.

***Out In The 1930s Gangster Night-Once A Con, Always a Con-George Raft’s Invisible Stripes 

 

From The Pen Of Frank Jackman

DVD Review

Invisible Stripes, George Raft, Humphrey Bogart, Warner Brothers, 1939

Yah, it’s a sad tale but true that like the man says “once a con, always a con.” That’s just the way things worked out, worked out especially for guys in the 1930s gangster movies that were all the rage at the time. And guys like George Raft, Humphrey Bogart who star in this one as well as the likes of James Cagney and Edward G. Robinson won their spurs as actors playing the hard guys, and playing them hard. Who can forget psychopath James Cagney on top of that gas tank in White Heat, or better Humphrey Bogart as the stone-cold killer Duke Mantee in The Petrified Forest. Such performance captured a certain something about guys growing up on the wrong side of the tracks, of guys growing up with their wanting habits on. 

It is hard to figure at this remove the wide-spread attraction for these gangster movies. Maybe in the heat of the Great Depression the gangster was the stand-in for the guy fighting back against a system where the Mayfair swells ruled and the deck was stacked. I am sure some sociologist or cinema major has written a long screed along those lines. Maybe it was the action, the car chases, the bullets flying and the bad guys fighting the odds, the crime doesn’t pay odds. Maybe these films struck a chord in an audience who while personally unable to face a life of crime could relate to the guys who came up the hard way, the no breaks way, the from hunger way just like those sitting in those Saturday matinee seats. Or maybe, all philosophy, sociologist and cinematography aside maybe people simply drew and liked the conclusion that it was like the old time bank robber, Willie Sutton, said when asked why he committed those bank robberies- “that’s where the money is.” 

In any case the life of a con, or as here investigating the fates of two ex-cons, is tough after you have been inside. Humphrey Bogart as a career thug just kind of brushed off “doing time” as part of the overhead of his profession. And acted accordingly, rushing back to the action almost as soon as he got out of stir (Sing-Sing, a tough school anyway you cut it). So you can sense his fate without too much thinking. But George Raft is a different proposition. See he did his time but learned a hard lesson up in stir-life is better, much better on the outside-and so he figured, once he got the dust of prison out of his throat to go straight.      

But here is the dilemma, the social question addressed by this Warner Brothers production from a period when that company was  making social commentary films, what does a guy do when all the cards are stacked again him as he tries to integrate into normal society. See they let old George out on parole, a tough price to pay for getting outside the prison walls as he found out. Now no question in those days, now too, parole is no bed of roses. What George didn’t know was that going straight was harder than going back to the life. He couldn’t drive a car, had to be in the house early, couldn’t hang around the old barroom pool hall haunts, had a hard time keeping a job when word got around that he was a parolee. Additionally he was subject to the whim of every beat copper looking to make an easy pinch. Hell, even his old time girlfriend gave him the airs when he got out because, no way, as she made perfectly clear was she marrying an ex-con. So, yah, you could see where George would start thinking about taking his chances back in the life.  Worse he had to look out for his younger brother who was starting to go off the tracks once he knew the score about kids from the wrong side of the tracks getting nothing but the short end of things.

Like some kind of bad karma George drifts back into the life, starts running around with Humphrey and his crowd who are then specializing in bank robberies to make their kale. Naturally they, or at least Humphrey and his boys, take on one caper too many and amid the car chases and shoot- outs they draw the short end of the stick. But so does George who, although not involved in that last desperate fatal botched robbery, had to protect his brother who was in cop trouble for trying to protect him. But in the end no way is George or Humphrey going back to the can and so it is RIP for those two. And you wonder why I say once a con, always a con. Enough said.     

 

Stop U.S. War& all forms of intervention against Syria!

ANTIWAR PROTEST

Stop U.S. War & all forms of intervention against Syria!

Self-determination free from outside intervention

for the Syrian people!

Saturday, July 20, Park St., 1:00 pm

The White House’s announcement that it would begin openly supplying arms to the opposition in Syria and is considering a “no fly” zone over Syria is a dramatic escalation of ongoing U.S. involvement in war against that country. The U.S. has been training opposition forces and coordinating operations coming from neighboring countries. Israel, the largest recipient of U.S. military aid, bombed Syria, and other close U.S. allies supplying weapons are police-state monarchies Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Just as the false claim of “weapons of mass destruction” was used as justification for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the unproved allegations that chemical weapons were used by the Syrian military mask the real motives of Washington and its allies. Their aim, as in Iraq, is to carry out “regime change,” as part of the drive to dominate this oil-rich and strategic region.

While the U.S. government cuts basic services and has eliminated hundreds of thousands of public sector workers jobs it finds unlimited billions available for wars of aggression and NSA surveillance of every American.

National Days of Action to Oppose U.S. War on Syria

No more wars – U.S. out of the Middle East!

Fund people’s needs, not the military!

United National Antiwar Coalition, United for Justice with Peace, International Action Center, ANSWER

Veterans For Peace-Smedley Butler Brigade, Committee for Peace and Human Rights

UNACpeace.org

Is The Egyptian Revolution Aborted? Interview With Hossam El-Hamalawy

Jul 12 2013 by Bassam Haddad

[Screenshot from the Interview]

[I conducted this interview with Hossam El-Hamalawy despite a bad internet connection! Please find both the video and the edited English transcription below.]

Hossam El-Hamalawy starts by rejecting the "coup vs. revolution" debate, and addresses briefly the short and long history of the military's involvement in politics in relation to the 30 June events. He then moves on to discuss in more detail the developments of the past two years, revealing that we cannot assume that "what we had was an "Ikhwani" [Brotherhood] regime; it was still the Mubarak regime, but they gave a share of the cake to the Islamists." The army assumed they can use the opportunistic leaders to stabilize the streets, according to Hossam.

This strategy began to fail in November 2011 during the Muhammad Mahmoud Street clashes, and other similar events henceforth when the Islamists, according to Hossam, were "chanting for SCAF [Supreme Council of the Armed Forces] against the revolutionaries." In due time, "it became clear in the run up to the thirtieth of june, to the military, that the Ikhwan have lost control" and were no longer able to find a solution to stabilize the situation.

Hossam notes the intersection of interests of the army and anti-Morsi groups at a given moment, but rejects the claims that the mobilization that took place is the work of the feloul (remnants of the Mubarak regime) or the military. Hossam proceeds to discuss this matter as well as a breakdown of the components of the Tamarod movement, developments within the movement, the class element, the Independent Federations of Trade Unions, and other relevant topics to the question of an "aborted revolution." Hossam also provides a critique of the movement for not being able to incorporate the disadvantaged sectors. He concludes with the necessity of moving ahead and opposing both the army and the Muslim Brotherhood as false binary alternatives.

I will stop here and leave the rest up to Hossam to communicate using all his own words in the video below. There might be a part two soon. Hossam El-Hamalawy is an Egyptian journalist and activist who maintains the popular site www.arabawy.org

[Those interested in watching an interview I conducted with Hossam on the role of the military in the Egyptian revolution in March 2011, can click here: A Portrait of a Revolutionary: Hossam El-Hamalawy on the Role of the Egyptian Army (Part 2), March 2011.]

Watch the interview below. [The video was edited by the author]

Is the Egyptian Revolution Aborted? Interview with Hossam El-Hamalawi from Jadaliyya on Vimeo.

Edited Interview TranscriptTranscribed by Samantha Brotman

Bassam Haddad (BH): What was the situation before 30 June in terms of the expectations of the progressive components of the Tamarod movement? In retrospect, were they duped? Did they not plan accordingly? Are they using this as a tactic to get rid of the Muslim Brotherhood first, and then the army? So first of all, what is happening now, and how can we address the judgment issue about some of the progressive groups who are now must contend with the army? Or, am I wrong in even addressing this question?

Hossam Elhamalawi (HE): Well it is important to note in the beginning—Is the sound okay?

BH: Perfect. Perfect.

HE: Tayyib [Okay]. Khalas nabda’ min al-awal [We will start from the beginning]. Well it is important to note that in the beginning [that] I am not really interested in getting into this semantics game about whether it is a coup or not. Because it seems this has become the obsession of most of the spectators and the commentators at the moment, as well as the revolutionaries. There are a few points, or a few facts, that we have to be clear about, which are [the following]:

Number one, already in the run-up to 30 June, Egypt had been witnessing some of the strongest waves of strikes and protests by workers, by local residents in the urban poor areas—by literally every class in our society, including even the middle classes and the upper-middle classes. Because [of] the failure of the Morsi administration, or the Morsi government, over the past year to solve some of the major and urgent economic hazards, to tackle the social question, as well as to deliver on the promises of achieving the political demands of the revolution. This has already triggered so much protest from below. So when you say that this is a military coup (or period), and you just stop there, you give the wrong impression that the military had woken up one day and decided to take over. So that is why I am really cautious when it comes to using these terms, and I actually do not want to indulge a lot into the description.

Secondly, it is also important to note that the military has already been ruling this country since 1952 under different forms and under different regimes. [In addition,] with the uprising that started on 25 January 2011—that ended up with the toppling of Hosni Mubarak—the military stepped in, in a much more overt, clear, and direct way in managing the transition of this country from one regime to the other. […] This basically happened not because the revolutionaries trusted the military, or because the military was anti-Mubarak, or [because] it is patriotic, blah blah blah. This is because the military, which is the core of the Mubarak regime, and the core of the Egyptian state, decided to sacrifice Hosni Mubarak, or else they were about to face a real mass rebellion that would have toppled the entire regime—which they are major beneficiaries of.

The military, in case we forgot, controls roughly twenty percent of the Egyptian economy. The Egyptian generals are basically among the ruling elites in this country. The military is the strong core of the Egyptian state, and has the final say in so many things, even when they used to play a less overt role back in the day—whether it is under Mubarak or under [Anwar] Sadat. Now, over the past two years, were we up against a Muslim Brotherhood (MB) regime? Now, this term might also be a little bit misleading. […]

It is true that the Brotherhood, together with the alliance of some of the Islamic tendencies—including Jihadis, al-Gama‘a al-Islamiyya, al-Wasat Party, [and] factions of the Salafi movement—have been ruling this country. But at the same time, it is wrong to say that we were up against a Brotherhood regime, because it was still Hosni Mubarak’s regime that decided to give the Brotherhood and the Islamists—Now, over the past two years, it is a mistake to think that we were up against a Brotherhood regime. It was still Mubarak’s regime. But they gave a share of the cake to the Islamists. The military thought that the Islamists could be the ones who could stabilize the streets, who could suck up the energy of the revolution of the streets, by striking alliances with their opportunistic leaders in order to suspend strikes, to stop the protests, and even to attack–here, I do not just mean verbally, or in terms of propaganda, but sometimes even physically–revolutionaries on the ground. [This is especially the case] when they took to the streets against the police and the military, most notably during the November 2011 Mohammed Mahmoud street uprising, [and] during the December 2011 Occupy Cabinet uprising. Now, let us remember what the Islamists were doing during these times, and how they were chanting for SCAF [the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces] against the revolutionaries. So it became clear to the military in the run-up to 30 June the Brotherhood have lost control. They could not control the situation in the streets anymore. They could not provide a solution in order to stabilize the situation.

Was it in the interest of the military to see the Muslim Brotherhood go? At this point, I would say, yes. There definitely was an intersection of interests. But it would be wrong to claim that the mobilization that occurred in the Egyptian streets in the run-up to the 30 June is all the work of the fuloul, the remnants of the Mubarak regime, or [even] all the work of the military. There is a strong anti-Muslim Brotherhood sentiment that is all over the streets, and this is basically the result of the complete failure of the Muslim Brotherhood to provide, or [rather] to improve, the economic situation, and to implement the goals of the Egyptian revolution in the eyes of the Egyptian public.

For decades, the Muslim Brotherhood enjoyed legitimacy in the eyes of the public because they were against the Mubarak regime, or the previous regimes too. They provided some channels for opposition, and they were persecuted by the security services. When they were in the opposition, they could utter whatever propaganda they wanted to say. But, now they are in power. And they did not do anything. This has discredited them in the eyes of the public.

BH: I think the issue that a lot of people would like to hear from you, especially, is what your take is on this kind of coincidence of interests. And how can we make sense of it in light of what might appear to be a future– or a near future–in Egypt, where the question of decentralization of power and of liberation does not seem as rosy as one would have thought on the eve of 30 June?

HE: You have to put yourself in the shoes of the Egyptian citizen who, on the one hand, dislikes very much Morsi and the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood—which got completely discredited in their own eyes. On the other hand, there is no viable alternative, like the opposition, the revolutionary groups, revolutionaries like myself—we are a minority and we have to admit that. I am here talking about minority in terms of an organization on the ground that is capable of providing leadership for these millions of workers and Egyptians who are protesting and striking. So, in the absence of a viable alternative, how can you blame the people for rushing to the military? That is the most secure thing in their own eyes, held by the fact that there is a consistent persistent propaganda campaign in the media, in the so-called private as well as state outlets, in support of the military. [This media is] disseminating fears and concerns about terrorism and about the Palestinians, Iraqis, and Syrians who are “infiltrating” the country, blah blah blah blah blah; about the Israelis who will take over Sinai once again; about the American conspiracy to do I do not know what. You cannot blame the people for rushing to the military. You can only blame the revolutionaries for not getting their act together and providing a third alternative. Hence, when you go to Taḥrir [Square], and you find great numbers of people chanting for Sisi—the minister of defense—or chanting for the military, you should not get disappointed, demoralized, and say that this is basically a counterrevolution. That is not true. Let us remember that among the crowds on 11 February, and even before that, people were chanting for the military. And it took them some time to get disillusioned. Now, even when we are in the third year of the Egyptian revolution, and even when the military committed all of those crimes, you will still find people who will be rushing and seeking refuge in the military option because—once again—there is no viable alternative that has been created by the revolutionaries.

So, at this point we are at the crossroads. If you were among the leftists who regard the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamists in general as fascists, then you would rush to support the army crushing the Islamist protesters by machine guns, live ammunition, as well as mass roundups and arrests—because it is basically the army fighting fascism. But you could hold a different view about the Muslim Brotherhood being a reactionary opportunistic movement that is composed of nonhomogeneous elements: at the top of the pyramid you have neoliberal billionaires like Khairat al-Shater; while at the bottom of the pyramid you have poor workers, poor peasants, and impoverished lower-middle classes who had all sorts of illusions about the Muslim Brotherhood leadership and about the Islamist project that joined the Islamists in the first place because the leftists failed. Before you start denouncing the base cadres of the Islamist movement, you should ask–any leftist should ask himself or herself—why could you not recruit them to your movement in the first place?

Now, these people went there to support the Islamists. Right now, they are facing the Muslim Brotherhood members attacking any sit-in or attacking the residents in any neighborhood, like what happened in Alexandria, Mespero, Manial, or in other places. They definitely should be dealt with right away. The revolutionaries have a right to defend themselves from these armed attacks. Make no mistake about that. But at the same time, I am not going to stand on the same sideline with the Mubarak’s state machine, which has not disintegrated, and which has not gone away, and with Mubarak’s army, Mubarak’s mukhabarat, Mubarak’s military police, and the Mubarak state security police opening fire on Islamist protesters in Nasr City or elsewhere, or cracking down on their base cadres who are not involved in violence. Because this is the same Mubarak regime which will start cracking down on me, and the other revolutionaries in the opposition as soon as they are done with the Muslim Brotherhood. We are not going to fall into this trap. This does not mean that I support Morsi. This does not mean that I support the Muslim Brotherhood. This does not mean that I do not see that their leaders should be tried or anything. They should be tried. And once again, I think that Morsi deserves nothing less than execution for all of his crimes over the past year. Yet, we should not be fooled into endorsing the old Mubarak state and helping it to return once again.

BH: Can you tell us a little bit about the actual coalitions? Not coalition, I was actually corrected that it is not a coalition. But can you tell us or break down for us the anti-Morsi contingents or groups? Because there is some confusion as to what it is made of. And, can you tell us if everyone is still on the same page as they were prior to 2 and 3 July ?

HE: There was [something] like a rainbow, or [rather] there was a rainbow coalition. The camp that was anti-Morsi basically contained this mish-mash of groups. Those who lined up against Morsi included the opposition parties from the National Salvation Front [(NSF)], and that would include Hamdeen Sabahi’s al-Tayyar al-Sha‘bi, El Baradei’s al-Dustur Party, as well as remnants of the Mubarak regime represented by Amr Mousa and others. Even among the anti-Morsi camp, there was definitely a presence also by the fuloul represented by the supporters of Ahmad Shafiq (General Ahmad Shafiq), the supporters of the deceased General Omar Suleiman, and by elements from the Egyptian upper class that are definitely against Muslim Brotherhood (but they are for the return of the old regime, or the Mubarak regime as it was). But, I cannot say that they were the ones calling the shots. It would be a great mistake to say that it was the counterrevolutionaries who were at the top of or spearheading the movement.

The Tamarod campaign, which has gained so much publicity and fame both in Egypt and abroad, had been a decentralized campaign from the start. The only thing that gives it a little air of centralization was perhaps when the media focused on the cofounders—the three cofounders—of that initiative. But in so many governorates and provinces it was different political and revolutionary groups that took up the task of collecting the signatures from the people on the streets. It was not just some online operation. Some were done in coordination with the centralized committee of Tamarod, and other initiatives were done totally independent from it. So it would be difficult to put your finger on what exactly Tamarod is thinking. I mean, which Tamarod? Do you mean the Tamarod of the three cofounders and their official Facebook page? Or do you mean the local activists on the ground?

So to say that the activists from the beginning had the intention of handing the country over to the military is also false. You need to look at the statements of the different revolutionary groups, which participated in that mini uprising against Morsi. At the end of the day, even when the military is still out there, the anti-Morsi camp is now being filtered and it is now bein—how should I describe it? Ya‘ni ‘ayiz aqul farz. Ya‘ni, bi-al-moʿaskar bi-yitafarraz bi-al-ʿarabi.

BH: Okay, basically it is being parsed. Meaning, it is being scrutinized and divided into different sections. But in order to do what?

HE: Well, it is based on the position. Or [put differently], it is now being divided according to the lines of: Are you going to support the military’s roadmap? Are you going to support handing concessions to the Salafi al-Nour Party—which is the only Islamist force that had allied itself with the military with this move, yet, now it is more or less out of this alliance? When the army cracks down on the Islamist protesters, are you going to support the butchering of those protesters or are you going to denounce it? And if you denounce it, does that mean that you support Morsi? Or you are actually standing against both, Morsi and the army? Which is the position that I am taking, and the Revolutionary Socialists are also taking in these events. So that is why the anti-Morsi coalition is now crumbling. But, I actually think it is a positive thing. It is not necessarily a bad thing. There were people who were jumping on the wagon that did not deserve to be there in the first place. They actually deserved to be in prison—if you ask me—for their involvement in crimes under the former Mubarak’s regime.

We should not be demoralized that the military still has the upper hand. You can see gradual disillusionment happening among the people— even when they are still carrying Sisi’s pictures in the protests—because of the latest moves to bring back the notorious old figures from the Mubarak regime so as to have cabinet positions, dashing the hopes of even the Tamarod activists—who thought that they could put in some of the populist reformers (i.e., opposition figures) into these positions at the moment. That is why we are going ahead with the protests whenever we can. We have to stand firm against the army’s butchering of the Islamist protesters. This is not some “human rights-y” or some “liberal-ish” position. This is a position of either betraying the revolution—by standing hand in hand with the Mubarak repression machine that we rebelled against—or taking an independent integral stand against both the army and the Muslim Brotherhood.

So for the supporters of the Egyptian revolution abroad: What you can do is to keep circulating information about the abuses of the army that are taking place here. This is not something that we should cheer or salute. We also need the independent labor unions abroad to issue solidarity [statement] with the Egyptian strikers who are striking in the factories over both bread-and-butter issues as well as over the purge from the companies of the old corrupt figures that belong to the Mubarak dictatorship. And maybe here I should also refer to the disgraceful position of the Independent Federation of Trade Unions in Egypt, which had played very positive political and economic roles on so many occasions before. But, the Federation leadership—which is influenced by Nasserism—has decided to compromise with the military, and they decided that they will be suspending strikes as well as pushing the workers in order to “produce more”—which is this kind of nationalistic propaganda that is against the strikes and actions in order to improve the social standards of the Egyptian workers. Thank God that the Federation, actually a bureaucracy, does not have much control over the militant base cadres within the Federation and the Federation still does not control, or still is not in the leadership position of, the Egyptian labor movement. Most of these strikes that were happening, they were neither happening because of nor organized by the Federation or by any political group. There were spontaneous locally organized grassroots activists in those factories, and I expect them to continue.

BH: Khalas [Done.] Okay, thank you ḥabibi, take care of yourself. Wa Ramadan Mubarak. [Laughs] Sorry.

HE: [Laughs] Balash Mubarak di! [Let us do without the Mubarak!]

BH: Tayyib ḥabibi, salam, bye-bye. [Okay habibi, take care, bye-bye]

HE: Bye-bye.

[thanks, Harry!] ‘Hannah Arendt”s ‘thoughtful’ hasbara Amidst the hoopla over German director Margarethe von Trotta's new film, Hannah Arendt, just released in New York City to critical accolades (see: A. O. Scott in the New York Times), I find myself increasingly aware of the insidiousness, and incensed at the danger, of Israeli hasbara. Although its propaganda function is more difficult to detect than that of, say, the comparatively straightforward The Gatekeepers, Hannah Arendt is undeniably a product of hasbara that is non-threatening to the Israeli state. This Israeli co-produced film, made by one of the more conservative directors associated with the historical New German Cinema, does not place into question either the Jewish character of the state of Israel or its settler-colonial foundations. Hannah Arendt herself was at best a cultural Zionist (like Judah Magnes, Ahad Ha'am, and Martin Buber); she did not doubt the existence of a Jewish "ethnicity" or "peoplehood," even if she refused patriotic fealty to it and to the British imperial interests she believed its Zionist incorporation was meant initially to help preserve. full piece at Mondoweiss

Add your name! NY Times ad to declare: We are Bradley Manning Is this email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Dear Pf, On Thursday, July 25, the Bradley Manning Support Network intends to publish a full-page ad in The New York Times, the nation’s “newspaper of record.” The ad will feature a bold “WE ARE BRADLEY MANNING” with a field of names in the background–hopefully, yours included. We have only until July 24 to raise the $52,000 needed. By making a tax-deductible donation of $100 or more today, you will ensure that your name is featured in the ad. Smaller donations are very much appreciated, but donor names may or may not appear in the ad. Any person may donate and remain anonymous as well. Add your name and make a tax-deductible contribute to this ad here. This ad effort was deemed to be a high priority by a recent survey of nearly 1,000 backers of the Bradley Manning Support Network. If you have any problems donating online, please contact us at 510-488-3559. Read the full ad... Add your name to the NYT ad.

follow on Twitter | friend on Facebook | forward to a friend

We spend our lives struggling for a more just and peaceful world. That just and peaceful world begins in our neighborhoods. The decision in the Zimmerman case this weekend gives us all a reason to pause. Racial justice is at the heart of a more peaceful world, For as long as people of color live without the guarantees of racial equity, a just and more peaceful world is unattainable. Peace through justice, justice through peace. I’m not sure I’d call this justice. For me, justice would be Trayvon Martin still being alive, experiencing the normal joys and sorrows of being a teenager (I have two teenaged children myself). But the verdict in Florida was certainly far from just. I’ve signed onto the NAACP’s petition calling on Attorney General Eric Holder to file civil rights charges in the case. I hope you’ll sign it too, and this is very timely as Holder is scheduled to speak tomorrow at the NAACP’s national convention in Orlando. The petition reads: Attorney General Eric Holder, The Department of Justice has closely monitored the State of Florida's prosecution of the case against George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin murder since it began. Today, with the acquittal of George Zimmerman, it is time for the Department of Justice to act. The most fundamental of civil rights — the right to life — was violated the night George Zimmerman stalked and then took the life of Trayvon Martin. We ask that the Department of Justice file civil rights charges against Mr. Zimmerman for this egregious violation. Please address the travesties of the tragic death of Trayvon Martin by acting today. Thank you. Please sign the petition and encourage your friends, family and colleagues to do so as well. For Peace with Justice, Kevin Martin Executive Director Peace Action

(please forward widely) STOP MODERN DAY LYNCHINGS DEMAND JUSTICE FOR TRAYVON MARTIN It should come as no surprise that George Zimmerman goes free for the murder of Trayvon Martin. This killing of an unarmed Black teenager who was shot by a white adult male is not new, nor is the lack of punishment if the perpetrator is white and the victim is not. It is an ongoing tragedy played out many, many times in a country based on and defined by racism since its inception. The Malcolm X Grass Roots Movement reports (http://mxgm.org/trayvon-martin-is-all-of-us) “the use of deadly force against Black people is standard practice in the United States, and woven into the very fabric of the society” and their research shows that extrajudicial killings of black people by the police, security guards and unauthorized vigilantes like Zimmerman take place every 28 hours in the U.S. The “Stand Your Ground” laws proliferating around the country are the 21st century manifestation of American lynch law. The Florida statute conveniently allowed Zimmerman to claim “self-defense” even though it was he who attacked Martin. The police originally accepted his story and declined to pursue charges. Conversely, if Martin had the gun and shot a strolling white young man, there is no question that he would have been immediately arrested. Were it not for the tenacious demands of Trayvon Martin’s parents and ensuing national outrage, Zimmerman would never have been arrested and charged. Everyone knows the difference is race -- that racism was always the central issue -- yet this unspoken elephant in the room was not allowed to be named in the trial or considered pertinent to the prosecution. Instead, the deceased Trayvon Martin and his key witness were put on trial and discredited. In addition to noting who does not go to jail for their crimes, we must not forget those who are jailed because they fight to right injustice like Lynne Stewart, Bradley Manning, Mumia abu Jamal, Leonard Peltier and Oscar Lopez Rivera; or Muslims who are scapegoated in the name of the “War on Terror” like the Holy Land Five, Yassin Aref, and Tarek Mehanna; or the victims of the drug wars and mass incarceration inflicted on the Black and Latino youth population. This case and the millions of other examples of racial injustice must not be forgotten. The Obama administration announced a review of this case which may lead to the filing of federal charges. The NAACP has initiated a petition demanding the Justice Department file civil rights charges against George Zimmerman (www.naacp.org). There must be unrelenting demands upon the president and attorney general to secure justice for Trayvon Martin and to take action in the hundreds of other extrajudicial killings of unknown black people which took place in the past year. Regardless of justice department action in this case, the Obama administration must not be allowed to claim innocence when it routinely kills people, including children, all over the world. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was a teenager like Trayvon Martin. This young American citizen was killed by our government’s extrajudicial drone murder in Yemen as a direct result of Obama administration policy. We should advocate for the elimination of America’s war of terror, all racist and unjust laws, mass incarceration, and the torture of solitary confinement. But most importantly, we must take to the streets and build a mass movement to protest this gross miscarriage of justice and all racist laws and practices endemic to the “American way of life”. click here to donate to UNAC Click here for the Facebook UNAC group. To add yourself to the UNAC listserv, please send an email to: UNAC-subscribe@lists.riseup.net

In his recent address in Berlin, President Obama issued a strong statement against the threat nuclear weapons pose to our planet, saying "so long as nuclear weapons exist, we are not truly safe". As the nation with the greatest number of nuclear weapons, the United States has the responsibility to play the leadership role in international collective efforts to reduce and eliminate these horrible weapons. Click here to ask President Obama to lead in reducing nuclear weapons In the next several months there are several critical international conferences scheduled to undertake significant work to diminish the threats of nuclear weapons. These include a United Nations high level meeting on Nuclear Disarmament, a Geneva meeting on establishing a Nuclear Free Zone in the Middle East, and a conference in Mexico on the humanitarian costs of nuclear weapons. In the past the U.S. has too often been a reluctant participant in such efforts or even played a negative role, refusing to commit to international collective action against nuclear weapons when its own weapons or those of allies are involved. Please sign a petition which specifically asks President Obama to attend and lead at these critical upcoming international conferences to limit and eliminate nuclear weapons. For Peace and Diplomacy, Shelagh Foreman Program Director Massachusetts Peace Action

Join Massachusetts Peace Action - or renew your membership today! Dues are $40/year for an individual, $65 for a family, or $10 for student/unemployed/low income. Members vote for leadership and endorsements, receive newsletters and discounts on event admissions. Donate now and you will be a member in good standing through December 2013. Your financial support makes this work possible! Massachusetts Peace Action, 11 Garden St., Cambridge, MA 02138 617-354-2169 • info@masspeaceaction.org • Follow us on Facebook or Twitter