Report: Turkey navy to escort aid ships to Palestinians in Gaza

Turkish officials tell Hurriyet Daily News that Turkish navy will strengthen presence in eastern Mediterranean Sea to stop Israeli ‘bullying’.

The Turkish navy will significantly strengthen its presence in the eastern Mediterranean Sea as one of the steps the Turkish government has decided to take following the release of the UN Palmer report on the 2010 Gaza flotilla, Turkish officials told the Hurriyet Daily News.

“The eastern Mediterranean will no longer be a place where Israeli naval forces can freely exercise their bullying practices against civilian vessels,” a Turkish official was quoted as saying.

As part of the plan, the Turkish navy will increase its patrols in the eastern Mediterranean and pursue “a more aggressive strategy”.

According to the report, Turkish naval vessels will accompany civilian ships carrying aid to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

Another goal of the plan is to ensure free navigation in the region between Cyprus and Israel. The region includes areas where Israel and Cyprus cooperate in drilling for oil and gas.

Additionally, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan instructed his foreign ministry to organize a trip for him to the Gaza Strip in the near future.

“We are looking for the best timing for the visit,” a Turkish official was quoted as saying. “Our primary purpose is to draw the world’s attention to what is going on in Gaza and to push the international community to end the unfair embargo imposed by Israel.”

( / 03.09.2011)

Palestinian worker injured by Israeli soldiers near Bethlehem

West Bank, (Pal Telegraph)-A Palestinian worker was injured on Saturday after being brutally attacked by a number of Israeli soldiers near Hawasan village in the west of Bethlehem.

The man identified as Samer Diriye, 39, a resident of the village of Akraba in Nablus, was brought to Beit Jala hospital in Bethlehem to receive medication due to bruises and wounds sustained his body .

Medical sources described his health condition as moderate stating that similar incidents happen daily as Israeli soldiers continue to humiliate Palestinian citizens in the occupied territories.

( / 03.09.2011)

The disaster known as Netanyahu

Rather than apologising for Israel’s killing of nine Turkish activists, the prime minister dug in he heels.

Well-handled, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Rather than apologise to the Turkish government for the deaths of nine of its nationals on the Mavi Marmara, you dug in and now your ambassador to Ankara has been expelled. At this rate, the once critical Israeli-Turkish relationship will soon be finished, leaving Israel with no friends in the region except shaky Jordan.

The peace treaty with Egypt is holding, but just barely and Egypt can hardly be considered a friend anymore. Its people despise
Israel and identify it with former President Mubarak, the one Egyptian relationship Israel bothered cultivating. Israel’s de facto friendship with Syria will end when President Bashar al-Assad goes. He is no Zionist, but he has been a force for stability on Syria’s border with Israel, and Lebanon’s, too.

Once he’s gone, the north will almost surely heat up, especially now that Hezbollah plays a dominant role in the Lebanese
government. As for the Palestinians, Netanyahu says that if they dare to take their case to the United Nations later this month, he may declare the Oslo agreement null and void. In other words, the Palestinians will be deemed enemies of Israel. Again.

In short, Binyamin Netanyahu is very close to bringing Israel back to where it was before the Oslo agreement of 1993. There is
even the strong possibility that he will take it back to where it was before the Camp David peace treaty with Egypt — with the added disaster that the relationship with Turkey (established in 1948) will also be gone.

In a normal country, a record of disastrous failures like those would lead to Netanyahu’s departure from office. But not in Israel. Despite all the damage he has done to the country’s security and to its economy (note the massive protests against Netanyahu’s Tea Party economics), he remains in office because the right supports him and Israel is governed by an entirely right-wing coalition.

The worst part is that nearly all of Israel’s problems with its neighbors could be resolved by ending the occupation. Even the
economy would benefit if the Israeli government was not wasting so much money on the settlers and their exorbitant demands.

New realities

Israel’s propaganda machine would have it otherwise. It insists that the Palestinians, and the Arabs and Muslims throughout the world who support them, don’t really care about the occupation. Their goal, we are constantly told, is to destroy Israel itself. As proof, they insist that “the Palestinians have never recognised Israel’s right to statehood.”

This is the kind of thing that used to be called the “big lie.” The Palestinians have repeatedly recognised Israel’s right to statehood and security within the 1967 borders.

For those who have forgotten, that is what President Clinton, Prime Minister Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasir Arafat agreed to on the White House lawn that day in 1993. Israel recognised Palestinian rights and the Palestinians recognised Israel. In the years since, neither side has threatened to revoke that recognition until last month when Netanyahu began saying that Oslo could be revoked if the Palestinians go to the United Nations.

But why?

The Palestinian turn to the United Nations offers the solution to virtually all of Israel’s problems. President Mahmoud Abbas says
that once Palestine is recognised by the international body, he will resume negotiations with Israel over all the issues that divide the two sides. The only difference will be that negotiations will be between two states, not one powerful state and one supplicant hoping a few crumbs fall off the table.

Netanyahu is terrified of a UN vote. He and his emissaries are going around the world demanding that the statehood resolution be
voted down. And the combined forces of Netanyahu and the lobby here have cajoled the Obama administration to join Netanyahu in demanding a “no” vote.

It is clear that Netanyahu wants to preserve the status quo, even if it means that Israel reverts to a position where every one of its neighbors is an actual or potential enemy, even if it means that its strategic relationship with Turkey is over, even if it means that it has no one in the region to help prevent war with Iran.

Wrong priorities

It sounds crazy, but only because it is. Netanyahu’s highest priority is to maintain the occupation. The settlers and the religious fanatics are his people; the Israelis of Tel Aviv and Haifa are not. It’s not that Israel’s security does not matter to Netanyahu. It does. But for him, Ariel and the crazed settlers of Hebron matter every bit as much as the state itself. To him, there is no difference. (On that score, Netanyahu is much like Palestinian extremists who view all of Israel as occupied territory. Netanyahu makes no distinctions either.)

Netanyahu is bringing Israel to the brink and no one is doing anything about it. Both the president and Congress go along with
Netanyahu because the lobby tells them that the only way to support Israel (and, in turn, be supported by its “friends”) is to approve of everything done by the Israeli prime minister. That is why the Palestinians have to go to the UN. They cannot expect anything from the United States or even the Europeans (who are being pressured heavily on Netanyahu’s behalf by the US).

The UN vote is expected to occur on September 20. It is too much to hope that America will do what it knows is the right thing and
vote “yes” or be an honest broker and abstain. The best we can hope for is that the United States and Israel are part of a very small minority voting “no.” That kind of vote will strengthen the Palestinians and perhaps frighten Netanyahu into negotiating in good faith.

But even if not, the UN will have stated that the Palestinians are people, too; people with rights, including the right to full
sovereignty in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. At that point, the writing will be on the wall. The occupation is ending, hopefully before Netanyahu does too much more damage … to Israel.

( / 02.09.2011)

The Forgotten Palestinians – Book Review

By Khalil Nakhleh

(The Forgotten Palestinians: A History of the Palestinians in Israel. Ilan Pappe. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2011)

No doubt, hundreds if not thousands of articles, reports and books have been written about the Palestinians in Israel, “the forgotten Palestinians”, in Arabic, English and Hebrew, during the last sixty some years.  To my knowledge, this is the first time a major, mainstream, US academic university press publishes a comprehensive and sympathetic narrative of the Palestinians in
Israel, with a focus on their evolving Palestinianhood, by a well respected anti-Zionist, Israeli Jewish historian.

Is this a notable change, where after sixty-three years of the destruction and decimation of their society and identity, and official insistence that they should be relegated to a hybrid, artificial, and rootless group of people,  dubbed as “Arabs in Israel”, or “non-Jewish minorities”, there is, seemingly, a Western academic cognizance and affirmation of their Palestinian genealogy and
identity? Basically, yes. In part, I believe, this has to do with the erudite scholarship and credible academic record of Ilan Pappe (the author of this book).  But, in large part, it has to do with the relentless and cumulative academic, intellectual and political challenge mounted, particularly over the last 20-30 years, by Palestinian intellectuals and activists citizens of Israel (1), which rendered dubious Israel’s historical and cultural claims, as they re-affirmed, simultaneously, in no uncertain terms, the Palestinian identity of this minority—their self-identity, and its historical and cultural connectivity to the larger Palestinian body.

This is an important book about the nearly 1.4 million “forgotten Palestinians” who are the remnants of the indigenous Palestinians who lived in the land of Palestine until it was decimated by the Zionist settler-colonial onslaught in 1947/1948, and who continue to live today within the artificially-created Jewish-Zionist state of Israel.

This is not a traditional book review.  It is an interactive reading of Ilan’s book, where I deliberated virtually with him about the overall subject, during my careful reading of the book, which I utilize now as a stepping stone.  However critical certain aspects of this reading may appear, it must be kept in mind that it’s coming from a friendly (not hostile) corner.  I focus here only on few aspects.

The Book and the Author

Ilan writes as an astute and knowledgeable observer, and as a sympathetic occasional participant in some of the developments he narrates. Thus his narrative of the evolving Palestinian identity in Israel over the past sixty some years, emerges considerate, sensitive, honest, and anti-Zionist, written in total solidarity with Palestinian dilemmas, and with deep understanding of these
dilemmas. Furthermore, it is a gentle narrative reflecting, in my view, Ilan’s personality, as I know it.

He focuses not only on official policies, but on the complexity of the daily life of the Palestinians, and how they struggle and manage to live it, in a hegemonic Jewish Zionist state that insists with recurring persistence on not seeing them.  By its nature, Ilan states, “this book aims to present a people’s history as far as possible and therefore the magnifying glass is cast more on
the Palestinians than on those who formulated and executed the policies towards them” (p.13).  At times, however, I felt an inadvertent inclination on Ilan’s part, to grant those “who formulated and executed the policies …”, i.e., the Israeli Jewish Zionist structure, and the ideology that propelled them into control (e.g., Zionism, p.266), an unnecessary charitable and humane

Be this as it may, this is, nevertheless, a painful narrative of the evolution of my people’s persistent dispossession and unrelenting attempts at their exclusion and elimination.  And how they learned to survive under an oppressive system of control that always maneuvered to expel them from their homeland, or, temporarily, forcing them to co-exist as unequal under its hegemony.

At the same time, it is an Israeli Jew narrating painfully about the sins that his state and consecutive governments committed, and persist in committing, against the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants of the land.  In contrast, if I, as a Palestinian Arab member of that community, were to write such a narrative it would have emerged more furious and less tolerant narrative of the Jewish
Zionist majority that has been in direct oppressive control of my people for well over half a century!

The Oslo Accords and Their Impact

Ilan described correctly the impact of the Oslo Accords on the Palestinian minority in Israel in the following words:

“What emerged was not that the community was unique in comparison to other Palestinian groups but rather that it had a unique problem.  Zionism was the exceptional factor, not being a Palestinian in Palestine, or what used to be Palestine.  The strong affirmation of the connection to the country and not to the state was the end product of a long internal Palestinian analysis of the
predicament, crisis and nature of the community, which was followed by a prognosis and a kind of action plan for how to deal with the crisis being a national indigenous minority within the Jewish state. … [T]he community went from a very hopeful and assertive period, 1995 to 2000, into a very precarious and dangerous existential period after 2000 and until today … (pp.195-196;
emphasis added).”

I assert, however, that the concerns of the “forgotten Palestinians” in terms of the “predicament” and the identity of the community, as “a national indigenous minority within the Jewish state”, started being driven home with the events culminating in the eruption of “Land Day” in 1976.  Clearly, those concerns were not formulated with the same clarity then, as it became post the
“2000 earthquake” (P.229 ff).  Nevertheless, although the book presents a fairly detailed discussion of the circumstances leading to “Land Day”, the connection was not made as strongly, or as organically, as it should have been made with what has been termed “hubbet October” in 2000, and all the evolving events following that.  I would have liked to see a deeper analysis about this

If my claim is valid, and since I can say with certainty that Ilan recognizes this connection between the mid-seventies and today, why then was more focus placed on the “2000 earthquake”? Largely, I believe, it’s an issue of the availability of public and academically credible analyses and articulation of these concerns and predicaments post 2000, which were made available in English and Hebrew, primarily.  The emergence of a substantial group of political and educated elites among the Palestinians in Israel over the last thirty some years made this feasible.

Although I agree with the generalization that:

“The political and educated elites of the Palestinians in Israel lost all beliefs in ‘coexistence’, liberal Zionist discourse or a future of change within the present parameters of the Jewish state (p.240).”

I maintain that this was abundantly and inherently felt in the aftermath of the savage Zionist attack on the indigenous lands in Galilee by official “security” apparatuses of the Jewish state, twenty-five years earlier, although not publically articulated in academic language.  It was very clear then that “[t]he police legitimized in its own eyes and in the eyes of the public the
killing of demonstrators [Palestinian citizens] as part of its response” (p. 239).  Furthermore, it was very obvious, then, “the full support the Israeli media gave the police and the lack of any sympathy or solidarity with the victims and their families” (p. 239).

In addition to the issue of the availability of ‘public articulation’, mentioned above, there is the concomitant rise of academic, activists, human rights defenders, etc, NGOs that were allowed legally to register following the Madrid Peace Conference in the early nineties, and which were responsible, largely, for the ‘public articulation’ literature.  These NGOs became legitimate
funding targets by transnational funding agencies, including NGOs, governments, corporate companies, etc.  This phenomenon, in itself, begs deeper analysis, which, I maintain, it did not receive in this book, and when it did (e.g., p. 217 ff), the analysis was very accommodating and uncritical.

The ‘Vision Documents’

I agree with Ilan that the ‘Vision Documents’, which were produced over a period of 3-4 years at the beginning of the twenty-first century, by the Palestinian political and intellectual elite in Israel, were ground breaking documents, and that “the Palestinian community had taken the initiative itself and adopted the language of the indigenous people versus the settler state” (p. 254). I maintain, however, that the Palestinian community in Israel was positing in these documents a more fundamental position, in which they were reaffirming their Palestinianhood and rejecting Zionist hegemony over their land and lives, with some degree of variance from one document to another.(2)   This explains why these documents were declared by the entire spectrum of Israeli public opinion as “a statement of war” (p. 253).

Conclusions of the Book

It is extremely important to refocus our attention, strategically, to the core and important conclusions of the book.  In the concluding chapter—the Epilogue, under the title “the Oppressive State”, Ilan stressed that:

1. [T]he worst aspect of the minority’s existence is that its daily and future fate is in the hands of the Israel secret-service apparatuses (P.265);
2. It seems that in the last few years … the Jewish state has given up on the charade of democracy … and … has escalated its oppression of the minority in an unprecedented manner (P.266);
3. [W]e expect either escalating state violence against the Palestinians, wherever they are, or further oppressive legislation (P. 274; emphasis added);
4. [T]he history of this community, despite the endless Israeli efforts to fragment the Palestinian people and existence, was still an organic part of the history of the Palestinian people (P. 200; emphasis added).

A note that can never be final …

My conclusion from the above is crystal clear: the lesson that we should learn is to actively resist all attempts by the enemies of the Palestinian people, including the current Palestinian ruling elite structure, to fragment the Palestinian people and existence, and to re-institute and revive our struggle for a FREE, JUST, EQUAL, and DEMOCRATIC Homeland.

All Palestinians must read this book.  All Jews—Zionists and anti-Zionists alike, who express concern about justice and human rights for the Palestinians, must read this book.

– Dr. Khalil Nakhleh, a Palestinian anthropologist, independent researcher and writer, who for the last three decades has sought to generate People-Centered Liberationist Development in Palestine. He is working on a book, Development Ltd: The Role of Capital in Impeding People-Centered Liberationist Development, expected to be ready for publication in 2011. He contributed this article to Contact him at:


(1) A cursory look at the “bibliography” section provides ample support to this statement, keeping in mind, however, that numerous sources are omitted here, as well as all the relevant sources in Arabic.
(2) Please refer to my book, The Future of the Palestinian Minority in Israel, Ramallah: MADAR, the Palestinian Center for Israeli Studies , 2008, (Arabic).

( / 02.09.2011)

ICCO negeert Uri rosenthal en zet omstreden beleid voort!

De gesubsidieerde ontwikkelingshulpclub ICCO is niet van plan haar beleid te wijzigen, ondanks een oproep daartoe van minister Uri Rosenthal (Buitenlandse Zaken). De VVD’er had donderdag een ‘pittig gesprek’ met de organisatie.

Rosenthal wil dat ICCO stopt met haar anti-Israëlische acties

* Minister Rosenthal heeft genoeg van ‘Israël-bashing’

* Rosenthal boos over geldsteun ICCO aan anti-Israëlclub

Rosenthal is boos dat de interkerkelijke hulporganisatie financiële steun geeft aan de anti-Israëlische website Electronic Intifada, die oproept tot een boycot van de Joodse staat.

Volgens de minister is dit in strijd met het regeringsbeleid, aangezien het kabinet-Rutte juist wil investeren in de band met Israël.


ICCO stelt dat het internationaal recht de belangrijkste leidraad is voor haar werk en dat ze daarom niet van plan is de steun stop te zetten.

De hulporganisatie ontvangt jaarlijks 75 miljoen euro subsidie, maar stelt dat het geld voor de anti-Israëlische website uit particuliere donaties komt en dus niet door de overheid wordt betaald.

Rosenthal noemt dit een ‘vestzak-broekzak-redenering’. Kritisch zijn mag, maar ‘rechtstreeks tegenwerken niet’, aldus de VVD-minister in een verklaring.


ICCO voelt zich gesteund door het Internationaal Gerechtshof in Den Haag, dat in 2004 oordeelde dat de door Israël gebouwde muur rond Palestijns grondgebied illegaal is, net als de bouw van nederzettingen.

Toen de Verenigde Naties deze uitspraak bevestigden, heeft Nederland daar vóór gestemd, aldus ICCO.

Uri Rosenthal waar ligt jouw prioriteit? In Israel of Nederland? en lever dat Israelische paspoort maar gauw in,volgens mij mag dit niet van je vriendje Wilders!

(Facebook / J. Jansen / 02.09.2011)

Lessons from Norway

What do the tragic events in Utoya and Oslo tell us about the status of far-right, anti-immigrant or Islamophobic politics in Norway, Scandinavia and the rest of Europe? Commentators and “security experts” — many of whom were initially convinced of the Islamic nature of the attacks — have spent the past month speculating.

What were the perpetrator’s motives? Was he radicalised by his time in the anti-immigrant Progress Party or through his links with the English Defence League? Did his extreme views on the nature of Islam and mainstream politics lead directly to scores of people losing their lives? Should Europe brace itself for future attacks inspired by the far right?

It is comforting to look for meaning behind individual acts of murderous violence. It is far more difficult to accept that there is no proven path to radicalisation that inevitably leads to violent extremism. “Security experts” should take note that there is not necessarily a direct link between a person holding “radical” political views and a willingness to commit violent acts.

Variations of the anti-establishment, virulently Islamophobic views attributed to Anders Behring Breivik are held by significant sections of European publics. They frequently emerge from the mouths of elected representatives of anti-immigrant populist parties in national and European parliaments. They are celebrated in the comment pages of distinguished publications across the world. Popular figureheads occasionally inform me of the impending Islamic takeover of Europe, backed up by dubious statistics regarding birthrates and migration patterns.

These “radical” views are not the sole preserve of a disparate violent fringe — they are becoming legitimised as part of the political discourse. The “one long scream of resentment”, in the words of the late historian Tony Judt, “at immigrants, at unemployment, at crime and insecurity, at ‘-’ and in general at ‘-’ who have brought it all about” is being heard by more people than ever before. Yet there is a danger of reading too much into these opinions as the catalyst for an individual atrocity.

Those who feel that these events offer up the opportunity to diminish the power of far right, anti-immigrant or Islamophobic populist parties may also be disappointed: many of their supporters are horrified by these events too. Norway’s anti-immigrant FrP party leader, Siv Jensen, stated, soon after the attacks, that “an extremist” conducted these “repulsive” attacks and that “we stand together in this tragedy”. So events like this can actually play a role in mainstreaming these parties. It allows them to say: “We are not the extremists — they are the extremists. We abhor violence. We are a legitimate part of the democratic mainstream.”

Anti-immigrant populism is gaining momentum across Europe, taking advantage of sizable economic and social fears, a growing anti-elite sentiment and the creeping legitimisation of Islamophobia. These parties should be opposed not because they may have tangentially “inspired” individual acts of symbolic violence, but because their programme is dehumanising, sectarian and threatens the basis of a stable, cohesive society.

( / 02.09.2011)


the anniversary of Concealment of the truth 9/11

soon it´s 10 years since the Terror act of 9/11, what i find very strange is that to our day this is unresolved, Why??? can´t they, or they dont want to resolve , I guess that the majority of us know the answer.

We have a another anniversary also the 10th it is the start of Bombing Afghanistan on the 7th Oktober, soon will be the Iraq War anniversary.

Those 2 Wars were started with the excuse to fight the Terror, I guess to fight the Terror they should start in the White House.

This area was always intressting the powerfull Goverments of this World, dont forget that Afghanistan has its border with Iran and its a Gate to China and Russia, and the resources of Afghanistan

That´s why they had to get a reason to JUSTIFY a war, on the 11/9 Bush said its a Terror act, the next day the statement was changed that it is an armed attack, and so the USA had the right to defend its self.

Defend???? yes so they call it when they want to Attack a country, they want want to get their emire bigger and stronger on the cost of such countries, special Islamic countries.

As they started to make propagande that the people in Europe and the US start to hate the Islam so it will be easy to have a defined enemy.

I have some nummbers and would like to know does this justify the politic, the American people who think that their goverment is helping in any country shloud read this;

9/11 have been killed 3000 person, 10 years bombing Afghanistan as an estimation have been killed at least 60 to 70 tausend most civilian and children.

the Usa claims because of the women rights in Afghanistan (Burka) but the rate of Hunger icreased since the US Occupation from 36%to 39%, the unemployed youth icreased from 22%to 47% .

so tell me what you think.?

Don´t forget its simillar in Egypt Sirya Yemen Tunis Libya, they are only supporting the dictators who protect their interest

no where, not even one place they have got it became better and will never be better not even humanity, so when will the USA and its gang go out and let the people in peace

(Raef El-Ghamri / Facebbok / 02.09.2011)

Israeli official to Clinton: Declare Turkey a terror-supporting state

A hawkish Israeli politician reportedly wrote a letter to US Secretary  of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday, asking the US to declare Turkey a  terror-supporting state, the Jerusalem Post reported early on Friday.
Danny Danon, who is also deputy Knesset speaker, wrote a letter to Clinton after Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu warned Israel to apologize until the UN releases its report in which he called on Washington to impose sanctions on Turkey and call it a terror-supporting state.

“Turkey has gotten closer to Iran and constitutes a direct continuation of the axis of evil. The government in Washington must answer the Turkish problem before it is too late,” Danon wrote, the Jerusalem Post reported.

The Israeli official called for economic and diplomatic sanctions against Turkey until Ankara changes its ways and abandons what he said “the way of terror.”

“The Turks have crossed the line. They supported the flotilla, they support terror and they dare to ask Israel to apologize to them,” Danon said.

( / 02.09.2011)

EU-beraad over erkenning Palestijnse staat

SOPOT (ANP) – De ministers van Buitenlandse Zaken van de Europese Unie zoeken vrijdag in de Poolse badplaats Sopot naar een compromis over de erkenning van een Palestijnse staat.

Onder meer Nederland, Duitsland en Denemarken wijzen een zelfstandig Palestina op dit moment af. Frankrijk, Groot-Brittannië en andere landen daarentegen tonen zich voorstanders. EU-buitenlandchef Catherine Ashton zou als compromis voorstellen om de staat weliswaar te erkennen, maar die bij de Verenigde Naties slechts de status van waarnemer te geven, net zoals het Vaticaan.

Het beraad in Sopot komt 3 weken voordat de Palestijnen de Verenigde Naties willen laten stemmen over de opname van een Palestijnse staat als volwaardig lid. De Verenigde Staten kondigden al aan een erkenning van Palestina te blokkeren.

( / 02.09.2011)

Secret files: Gaddafi had spies in rebel camp

London, (Pal Telegraph) – Double agents worked the highest levels of the rebel movement, according to intelligence documents found by Al Jazeera.

Deposed Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi had spies at the highest levels of the rebel movement at least until the fall of Tripoli, according to a top-secret document that appears to be a briefing for Libyan intelligence mastermind Abdullah Senussi.

The briefings, found by Al Jazeera in a sealed envelope on Senussi’s abandoned desk at the Libyan intelligence service’s headquarters, detail key weapons sites across the Western Mountains, with a focus on the pivotal town of Azzawiya, which proved to be the rebels’ gateway into the capital.

One of the spies appears to have provided Gaddafi’s forces with maps and identified National Transitional Council (NTC) commanders who were to lead the attack on Ghazaya and Azzawiya, together with the forces and vehicles the rebel leaders
had available.

The documents also suggest that the Libyan rebel fighters were using refugee camps on the Libyan border set up by Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait to smuggle in weapons and pick up trucks.

Gaddafi’s spies (whose names Al Jazeera has redacted) suggested that the rebels had the permission of the Tunisian prime minister and his army chief to use the camps as a base.

“There are 4×4 vehicles in the Qatar, Kuwaiti and UAE camps, equipped with automatic weapons and hidden under tents,” reads one document. The agent who wrote the briefing also singled out the names of NTC leaders, suggesting they be targeted for assassination.

“I have drawn up a plan of which rebel commanders and NTC leaders should be killed. This will strike fear within their ranks and cause disunity between them,” reads the document.

Spies around the world

In return for this information, the double agent expected the Libyan government to meet his three demands – by providing a luxurious car, preferably a white BMW; paying out an ‘exceptional’ amount of cash; and supplying him with a Thuraya satellite phone to use for ‘sensitive’ phone calls.

Gaddafi’s spying was not limited to double agents, however. His spy network was also able to intercept highly sensitive
emails, including those from NTC chief Mahmoud Jibrail.

One such email appears to be from the foreign ministry of Cyprus to leaders in Benghazi, outlining a planned visit by their foreign minister to the NTC’s stronghold.

Other documents found in the Intelligence Headquarters suggested that Gaddafi’s secret services were not limited to Libyan

Government officials all over the world – in Libyan embassies – were used to spy on expatriates supporting the opposition from

One document, provided by the embassy in Malta, suggests that a number of Libyans who allegedly met with Goma Gomati (now the ambassador to London) should be kidnapped.

Now thousands of secret documents are in the hands of rebels — and some of them could incriminate the rebel leaders

( / /02.09.2011)