A Crazy Prophet

A Crazy Prophet
By Uri Avnery
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/A-Crazy-Prophet-by-Uri-Avnery-110228-212.html

"WHY DON'T the masses stream to the square here, too, and throw Bibi out?" my taxi driver exclaimed when we were passing Rabin Square. The wide expanse was almost empty, with only a few mothers and their children enjoying the mild winter sun.

The masses will not stream to the square, and Binyamin Netanyahu can be thrown out only through the ballot box.

If this does not happen, Israelis can blame nobody but themselves.

If the Israeli Left is unable to bring together a serious political force, which can put Israel on the road to peace and social justice, it has only itself to blame.

We have no bloodthirsty dictator whom we can hold responsible. No crazy tyrant will order his air force to bomb us if we demand his ouster.

Once there was a story making the rounds: Ariel Sharon -- then still a general in the army -- assembles the officer corps and tells them: "Comrades, tonight we shall carry out a military coup!" All the assembled officers break out in thunderous laughter.

DEMOCRACY IS like air -- one feels it only when it is not there. Only a person who is suffocating knows how essential it is.

The taxi driver who spoke so freely about kicking Netanyahu out did not fear that I might be an agent of the secret police, and that in the small hours of the morning there would be a knock on his door. I am writing whatever comes into my head and don't walk around with bodyguards. And if we did decide to gather in the square, nobody would prevent us from doing so, and the police might even protect us.

(I am speaking, of course, about Israel within its sovereign borders. None of this applies to the occupied Palestinian territories.)

We live in a democracy, breathe democracy, without even being conscious of it. For us It feels natural, we take it for granted. That's why people often give silly answers to public opinion pollsters, and these draw the dramatic conclusion that the majority of Israeli citizens despise democracy and are ready to give it up. Most of those asked have never lived under a regime in which a woman must fear that her husband will not come home from work because he made a joke about the Supreme Leader, or that her son might disappear because he drew some graffiti on the wall.

The Knesset members who were chosen in democratic elections spend their time in a game of who can draw up the most atrocious racist bill. They resemble children pulling off the wings of flies, without understanding what they are doing.

To all these I have one piece of advice: look at what is happening in Libya.

DURING THE whole week I spent every spare moment glued to Aljazeera.

One word about the station: excellent.

It need not fear comparison with any broadcaster in the world, including the BBC and CNN. Not to mention our own stations, which serve a murky brew concocted from propaganda, information and entertainment.

Much has been said about the part played by the social networks, like Facebook and Twitter, in the revolutions that are now turning the Arab world upside down. But for sheer influence, Aljazeera trumps them all. During the last decade, it has changed the Arab world beyond recognition. In the last few weeks, it has wrought miracles.

To see the events in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and the other countries on Israeli, American or German TV is like kissing through a handkerchief. To see them on Aljazeera is to feel the real thing.

All my adult life I have advocated involved journalism. I have tried to teach generations of journalists not to become reporting robots, but human beings with a conscience who see their mission in promoting the basic human values. Aljazeera is doing just that. And how!

These last weeks, tens of millions of Arabs have depended on this station in order to find out what is happening in their own countries, indeed in their home towns -- what is happening on Habib Bourguiba Boulevard in Tunis, in Tahrir Square in Cairo, in the streets of Benghazi and Tripoli.

I know that many Israelis will consider these words heretical, given Aljazeera's staunch support of the Palestinian cause. It is seen here as the arch-enemy, no less than Osama bin Laden or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But one simply must view its broadcasts, to have any hope of understanding what is happening in the Arab world, including the occupied Palestinian territories.

When Aljazeera covers a war or a revolution in the Arab world, it covers it. Not for an hour or two, but for 24 hours around the clock. The pictures are engraved in one's memory, the testimonies stir one's emotions. The impact on Arab viewers is almost hypnotic.

MUAMMAR QADDAFI was shown on Aljazeera as he really is -- an unbalanced megalomaniac who has lost touch with reality. Not in short news clips, but for hours and hours of continuous broadcasts, in which the rambling speech he recently gave was shown again and again, with the addition of dozens of testimonies and opinions from Libyans of all sectors -- from the air force officers who defected to Malta to ordinary citizens in bombed Tripoli.

At the beginning of his speech, Qaddafi (whose name is pronounced Qazzafi, whence the slogan "Ya Qazzafi, Ya Qazzabi" -- Oh Qazzafi, Oh Liar) reminded me of Nicolae Ceausescu and his famous last speech from the balcony, which was interrupted by the masses. But as the speech went on, Qaddafi reminded me more and more of Adolf Hitler in his last days, when he pored over the map with his remaining generals, maneuvering armies which had already ceased to exist and planning grandiose "operations", with the Red Army already within a few hundred yards from his bunker.

If Qaddafi were not planning to slaughter his own people, it could have been grotesque or sad. But as it was, it was only monstrous.

While he was talking, the rebels were taking control of towns whose names are still engraved in the memories of Israelis of my generation. In World War II, these places were the arena of the British, German and Italian armies, which captured and lost them turn by turn. We followed the actions anxiously, because a British defeat would have brought the Wehrmacht to our country, with Adolf Eichmann in its wake. Names like Benghazi, Tobruk and Derna still resound in my ear -- the more so because my brother fought there as a British commando, before being transferred to the Ethiopian campaign, where he lost his life.

BEFORE QADDAFI lost his mind completely, he voiced an idea that sounded crazy, but which should give us food for thought.

Under the influence of the victory of the non-violent masses in Egypt, and before the earthquake had reached him too, Qaddafi proposed putting the masses of Palestinian refugees on ships and sending them to the shores of Israel.

I would advise Binyamin Netanyahu to take this possibility very seriously. What will happen if masses of Palestinians learn from the experience of their brothers and sisters in half a dozen Arab countries and conclude that the "armed struggle" leads nowhere, and that they should adopt the tactics of non-violent mass action?

What will happen if hundreds of thousands of Palestinians march one day to the Separation Wall and pull it down? What if a quarter of a million Palestinian refugees in Lebanon gather on our Northern border? What if masses of people assemble in Manara Square in Ramallah and Town Hall Square in Nablus and confront the Israeli troops? All this before the cameras of Aljazeera, accompanied by Facebook and Twitter, with the entire world looking on with bated breath?

Until now, the answer was simple: if necessary, we shall use live fire, helicopter gunships and tank cannon. No more nonsense.

But now the Palestinian youth, too, has seen that it is possible to face live fire, that Qaddafi's fighter planes did not put an end to the uprising, that Pearl Square in Bahrain did not empty when the king's soldiers opened fire. This lesson will not be forgotten.

Perhaps this will not happen tomorrow or the day after. But it most certainly will happen -- unless we make peace while we still can.

Raymond Davis, an American “Tweetie Bird”

About a year ago Gordon Duff and Jeff Gates, both associated with the Veterans Today website, and both well-connected with the Pentagon and the Pakistani military, visited the border area of Afghanistan and Pakistan in the company of top Pakistani army officers. They heard the complaints and saw the evidence that the US, Israel and India had secretly created and were arming and nurturing the so-called Pakistani Taliban (TTP — Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan) insurgency.

Duff and Gates noticed that a great many of the supposed aid projects that were claimed to be German were actually manned by Western and Israeli Jews. The Pakistanis couldn’t tell the difference, but these Americans obviously could. The private armies run by contractors such as Xe (the new name for Blackwater), it turns out, are under Zionist control. The effort to break up nuclear-armed Muslim Pakistan is most of all a Zionist project.

As Christopher Bollyn has pointed out, the main aim of the American war effort in Afghanistan, brought about by the Zionist-engineered 9/11 event, is for the benefit of ostensibly Israeli-owned (and ultimately Rothschild-et -al-controlled and -owned) gas, mineral and heroin interests in Central Asia.

The late Richard “Holbrooke” (hiding behind an olde Englishe name his father was not born to) turns out to have been a relative of the Rothschilds. And his replacement is one Mr Grossman, who will no doubt prove to link to the same networks. The Raymond Davis incident points to the unhinging of American, really Zionist, empire, in this zone as much as in the Arab world.

Since Obama and Hilary are, like 99% of American politicians, totally the creatures of Zionists, it comes as no surprise that they are going all out to try to keep a lid on this incident. Both have put their prestige on the line in support of the absurd claim that Davis must be given diplomatic immunity under the Vienna conventions. The State Department conveyed through an American TV channel a threat to expel the Pakistani ambassador. Now they are threatening to cut off US aid.

It’s not working.

America does have the support of Pakistani president Zardari — no wonder: they probably helped him murder his wife to make a claim for the presidency, and they helped get all the cases against him dropped so that the Swiss would release his massive accounts. Zardari has sacked — thus making a hero of — the foreign minister for opposing the release of Davis.

But there is not that much more within his power to do. If he did get close to getting Davis freed, the army would once more take over the country. Meanwhile, with or without the help of the latest American / Israeli torture technology, Davis is reported to be singing like Tweetie.


By Dr. Zaidi for Veterans Today

Raymond Davis - Israeli spy "Jonathan Pollard & Indian Sarbjit Singh"

Why US is panicking in the double murder case of RAD aka Raymond Alan Davis whose real identity is still unknown? Pakistan is a friendly country and an ally. Could it be possible that RAD is also working for India or Israel? US should let the courts complete the course and than they can negotiate where he is going to serve his sentence.


Diplomatic immunity cannot be given to people whose identity is not established. It is like issuing diplomatic visa and immunity to ‘Santa Clause’?.


Legislations of a country always overrule conventions. Those who have issued visa to Raymond Davis should be tried for criminal negligence and partner in crime. Why US have not released Jonathan Pollard a former US Navy Analyst – Israeli Spy and now Israeli citizen, serving life sentence in USA? Double murder committed in Pakistan can be tried in another country’s jurisdiction and law.



Israeli Spy Jonathan Pollard


On the one hand US is expecting Pakistan to release a double murderer, a suspected spy and probably a triple agent of India-Israel and US without trail. But on the other it is not ready to release Jonathan Pollard now an Israeli citizen serving life sentence in a US prison.



On the other hand in November 1985, the FBI arrested Jonathan Pollard, a U.S. Navy intelligence analyst, on charges of selling classified material to Israel. Pollard was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment. His wife, Anne, got five years in jail for assisting her husband.


Immediately upon Pollard's arrest, Israel apologized and explained that the operation was unauthorized. "It is Israel's policy to refrain from any intelligence activity related to the United States," an official government statement declared, "in view of the close and special relationship of friendship" between two countries. Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres stated: "Spying on the United States stands in total contradiction to our policy."


In November 1995, Israel granted Jonathan Pollard Israeli citizenship. This publicly signalled to the US, Israel's willingness to accept full responsibility for Pollard. On May 12, 1998, Israel formally acknowledged Jonathan Pollard was an official Israeli agent. This fact wiped out any remaining doubt about Jonathan Pollard's motives. Being an official agent is, by definition, the polar opposite of being a mercenary. In the same May 12, 1998 statement, the Government of Israel publicly acknowledged full responsibility for Jonathan Pollard, and indicated its commitment to his immediate repatriation to Israel.


Four Prime Ministers of Israel and three Presidents of Israel have all personally requested Jonathan Pollard's release from the Presidents of the US. Each one pledged to be personally responsible for their agent who has now served 15 years in prison under harsh conditions, and who has fully expressed his remorse. “Israel has officially acknowledged for the first time that an American Jew, Jonathan Pollard, who was arrested in the United States 13 years ago, was one of its spies”, reported BBC on 12th May, 1998. Pollard, a former intelligence analyst for the United States Navy, is serving a life sentence in North Carolina for passing classified military documents to Israel. Until now, the Israeli authorities had always denied that Pollard was working under their direction.


The admission came in a statement from Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's office, and acknowledged that he was handled by high-ranking officials in a scientific relations bureau. "In light of this fact, the State of Israel acknowledges its obligation to Mr Pollard and is ready to accept full responsibility accordingly,' the statement said.


It said that Pollard had agreed to drop a petition pending in Israel’s Supreme Court asking for a formal recognition that he was indeed an agent in exchange for the announcement.” I am relieved, thankful, and honoured," Pollard's wife Esther told the Associated Press news agency by telephone from her home in Toronto, Canada.


The admission came on the eve of a visit by Mr Netanyahu to the United States to meet Jewish leaders and the Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Israeli media reported that a government committee set up by Mr Netanyahu was working out a plan to recognise Pollard as a spy and work for his release.


Several government ministers have visited Pollard in jail this past year, raising speculation that the government was taking his case more seriously. Pollard has been granted Israeli citizenship and his lawyer believes the public acknowledgment will help chances for a pardon.


In November 1985, while on the run from the US authorities, Pollard sought refuge at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, but was refused entry. Mrs Pollard has said the information her husband gave Israel over a decade ago was about the build-up of arms in neighbouring countries that some American officials did not want Israel to have.



On 24th August 2004 CNN reported, ‘The FBI has evidence that a person who has been working at high levels in the Pentagon may be a spy for Israel, senior U.S. officials have confirmed to CNN reported on 28th August 2004. The alleged "mole" working for Israel could have been in a position to influence Bush administration policy toward Iran and Iraq, one of the officials said.



Indian Spy Sarbjit Singh


Sarabjit Singh had confessed his involvement in the bomb blasts according to the court record. Pakistan has TV broadcast a confession by Singh in September 2005, in which he said, ‘he worked for India’s foreign intelligence agency (RAW) and had set off five blasts in Lahore’.


Sarabjit was arrested by the Pakistani security officials for the killings of 14 innocent people in bombings. Pakistani government had released more than 100 Indian prisoners since the coalition government came to power. Indians have sent bodies of Pakistani prisoners and always been hostile towards Pakistan.


The way Zardari government dying in one-sided love with the Indians as Musharraf; it seems they will sell everything our ancestors fought for. It seems they are in a hurry to finish the job? When was the issue of transit trade to Afghanistan from India discussed, in cabinet or parliament? When India is blocking Pakistan’s water, Mr Zardari is giving them trade transit? If President Zardari thinks that India is not a threat to Pakistan then he must be immediately removed from the Presidency for ‘mental incapacity’, as he himself admitted having suffering from irreversible and untreatable shrinking of brain disease ‘dementia’?


Since 2005 anti Pakistan right wing Indian ‘Star TV’ was running a campaign for the release of an Indian spy and terrorist Surbjiit Singh imprisoned for various bombings and killing and injuring of innocent men, women, and children in Pakistan. Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard a former US Navy analyst serving his life sentence in US prison. US has refused to release Jonathan Pollard who is now Israeli Citizen and spied for Israel for ten years. Pollard only spied for US’s closet friend but Surbjiit Singh was involved in the killings of innocent people in Pakistan. If people who conspired to kill President Musharraf could be hang why an enemy spy and terrorist should go scot free for the crimes against Pakistan?


Pakistan’s Supreme Court upheld a death sentence imposed on an Indian spy and terrorist for a bombing that killed four people in 1990, court officials said on 27th September 2005. The court rejected an appeal by Sarabjit Singh, whose relatives in India along with the government have called on Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to review the case.

It was the last of four petitions filed by Singh relating to different cases including terrorism and espionage. The Supreme Court dismissed the other three. The appeal related to Singh's conviction on terrorism charges by a lower court for a July 1990 bomb blast in Lahore in which a woman and three men were killed.


Ansar Burney as interim Human Rights Minister, campaigned for the release of Kashmir Singh another Indian prisoner arrested and convicted for spying, declared his real identity as a spy in a press conference in India soon after his release.


Irony is we have not heard any protests from Ansar Burney, Asma Jahangir, I.A Rehman, Imtiaz Alam and other human rights activist regarding the illegal detention without trial and handover of ‘Dr Afia Siddiqui’ to the US and killings by the Raymond Davis?


So when an American Senator said, “Pakistanis will sell their mothers for $ dollars”. He was probably talking about people like Zardari, Gillani, Musharaf and all those who handed over Pakistani citizens without legal process. About whom he was talking about and had experience of dealing with? Only elite class, leaders, and politicians of Pakistan have dealings with US senators. Surely honourable senator was not talking about 180 million proud and brave Pakistanis because he might never met them and they don’t have $ accounts in US?

By Dr Shahid Qureshi
(Dr Shahid Qureshi is senior award wining investigative journalist and writer on security, foreign policy, and terrorism based in London)

A 'contagious' revolt

Could Egypt happen to Pakistan?

Since January 25, 2011, the world has been captivated by developments in Egypt. One after the other, like the domino effect, major cities in Egypt erupted in protests, calling for the removal of the Mubarak regime. Reminiscent of the color revolutions that took place in Eastern Europe during the twilight of President Bush's administration, the Egyptian situation has caused consternation for a lot of international actors, and analysts are on the edges of their seats trying to determine what this sociopolitical movement means for democracy in the middle east, and for political rights in the modern Muslim world at large.

There are a lot of causal factors that point to the current turmoil in Egypt. Most believe that it was Hosni Mubarak's elongated rule that will come to 30 years in power if he continues till October 2011. Almost all of this administration has been under emergency rule, which says a lot about the democratic process in Egypt and the freedoms Egyptian citizens enjoy - despite being allied to the United States. Even though Egypt has seen two revolutions - one in 1919 and another in 1952 which brought Gamal Abdel Nasser to power - the current regime is also descended from the 'revolutionary' legitimacy of the Nasser and Sadat eras. On January 21st, Ahmad Aggour wrote that Egyptians should learn a lesson from the Tunisians and send Mubarak packing, just like Zine el Abidine ben Ali.

It seems that the current revolution is designed to install a true democracy of the Egyptian people, thereby upturning the status quo established by the July 23 Revolution of 1952.

Larbi Sadiki has written an interesting opinion piece in Al Jazeera, where he labels the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions as 'bread intifadas'. Claiming that the real terror facing Muslim societies is that of political, social and economic marginalisation, Sadiki argues that these bread riots come and go but regimes stay. Countries like Egypt, Algeria and Tunisia continue to be "the fodder of chaos in the absence of social justice, culturally sensitive sustainable development and democratic mediating networks and civic channels of socio-political bargaining and inclusion". "Oppositions and dissidents have not yet learned how to infiltrate governments and build strong political identities and power bases. This is one reason why the protests that produced 'Velvet revolutions' elsewhere seem to be absent in the Arab world."

Sadiki says that bread uprisings have positive and negative outcomes: "On the positive side, they act as elections, as plebiscites on performance, as an airing of public anger, they issue verdicts on failed policies and send stress messages to rulers".

There are also concerns about the future of Egypt after Mubarak - especially for the US and Israel, who counted Mubarak's Egypt as a firm ally. Mubarak and his newly appointed Vice President Omar Suleiman were instrumental in the peace dealings between the Israelis and different factions of the Palestinians (Hamas and Fatah), and Suleiman was considered Israel's point-man in Egypt while he was chief of military intelligence. This has led to rumours that if Mubarak steps down, he is most likely to go into exile in Tel Aviv.

All of this points to the opposition to Mubarak's pro-West regime from the Muslim Brotherhood - the Ikhwan-ul-Muslimeen - which seemed to be the main force behind the January 25th protests, except for the fact that a more progressive and pluralistic constituency is out on the streets, countering the Ikhwan's "Allahu Akbar" chants with "Muslim, Christian, We're all Egyptian". Resonating patriotism and renewed inter-religious harmony is evident after the recent attacks on Egyptian Copts, and the protesters are keen to show that they are fighting for their country, and not specifically to install an Islamic government - an outcome the US is keen to avoid. The Muslim Brotherhood has also backed the consensus Opposition candidate, Mohamad ElBaradei, to negotiate with the regime - this step has led to some erosion in ElBaradei's standing as a moderate, liberal, progressive alternative to Mubarak who will be more sensitive to popular demands.

Mubarak's reactions to the uprising have not been promising; he dismissed his 'government' and replaced his prime minister, but the most important development was the appointment of a Vice President. Anwar Sadat appointed Mubarak as his Vice President in February 1981, and Sadat was assassinated in October of that year. Conspiracy theorists are also saying that if Mubarak continues, Suleiman may contemplate "bumping Mubarak off" just like Mubarak "bumped off" Sadat. Egyptians only believe this if they convince themselves of an Israeli hand behind these transformations at the top echelons of Egyptian power.

Regional and international reactions are as confused as they could be. The US doesn't want to see Mubarak leave, but at the same time, it is urging Mubarak to give concessions, restore freedom of expression and the internet, and allow democracy and human rights to flourish. However, the CIA is busy establishing Suleiman as the go-to figure in Egypt, as the new Egyptian government has prominent faces from the same regime who are also well-connected to the Armed Forces - Mubarak and his new Prime Minister Ahmed Shafik both belonged to the Air Force. Especially after Najib Mikati, a Hezbollah-backed billionaire, is poised to become Prime Minister of Lebanon, it seems that Israel will not be willing to allow another one of its Muslim neighbours to shift towards the political right.

On Day seven of the protests, the protesters have called for a million-man march in Cairo, while Alexandria, Suez and other major Egyptian cities are waking up to this new revolution. Everyone, including the Egyptians on the streets, acknowledge that the Army holds the keys to any future solution, and the Army itself realizes that an important transformation is taking place and it should not be left out of it. The Egyptian police retreated from the streets in the first few days of the Cairo protests, and the Army was called out to restore order. Egyptian policemen, especially from the feared and loathed secret services, continued to harass protesters, and some policemen in plainclothes were also caught shoplifting and were handed over to the authorities. The Egyptian Army exercised utmost restraint in the use of force, and imposed curfews despite thousands of citizens violating the curfew at Tahrir Square. One placard at the protests urged the Army to "decide between Egypt and Mubarak", summing up the predicament the Egyptian Army itself would be facing at this point in time. The lower echelons are sympathetic to the people on the streets, and the rank-and-file of the Armed Forces are both professional and patriotic, but the top brass and generals' proximity to the current regime continues to draw the ire of the protesters, who may urge the soldiers to mutiny if the generals continue to support Mubarak.

The Pakistan government first stated via the Foreign Office that Pakistani families in Cairo are safe, but on the fifth day of protests, the Foreign Office and Pakistan Air Force extricated 152 Pakistani families from Egypt. While this says a lot - or nothing at all - about the state of affairs and governance in Pakistan, many civil society activists, commentators and pundits are wondering whether a revolution along the lines of Tunisia and Egypt possible in Pakistan, or not. Some say that the Pakistani people should learn from the Egyptians and make a decisive choice. Others say that the conditions and circumstances are not conducive for a revolution the likes of which has strangled Egyptian society.

The Pakistan government has blocked Blackberry Enterprise services for foreign missions, embassies, high commissions, etc. in an apparent attempt to exercise regulatory control over the telecommunication infrastructure in Pakistan, and to keep a lid on undesirable news reaching the outside world. The PTA has allegedly denied receiving such orders, but such a denial hasn't restored the diplomats' BES services. Regulatory checks and balances of such a nature were also utilized by the judiciary when it ordered a ban on Facebook, and authorized PTA to implement the ban - however ineffectively. While Pakistani netizens developed workarounds and continue to interact with social media websites, the ban only reminded people of how difficult it will continue to be for freedoms in Pakistan - especially for free speech and the freedom of expression. One might say that an Egyptian revolution is possible in Pakistan if the government - sensing mass chaos - enforces a ban on the use of Facebook, Twitter, Google Talk, Skype, and other social media websites and connectivity systems. Such an attack on the internet use of Pakistani citizens - most of whom cannot spend a day without using the internet - will definitely bring these people out on the streets; out of sheer boredom if not incensed at the denial to use these harmless mediums of expression.

A greater revolt can be fomented if SMSes and mobile phone communications are also disrupted - while the PTA and existing PTCL infrastructure would most likely blame this on degradation of facilities, and would be partially telling the truth in doing so - it will bring out greater numbers of Pakistanis on the streets (including the religious fanatics, the extremists and the fundamentalists) because Pakistan is a country where even in 2011, 11 people are joining the national cellular network, more than 430,000 SMS are sent and approximately 160,000 calls made in every single minute. Denying Pakistanis these services will definitely leave them with nothing to do - thus giving them either option or impetus to come out on the streets and protest against whatever they want to protest against, be it corruption, misgovernance, terrorism, extremism, Americanism, liberalism, and so forth. In any case, the religious parties will have more mass support and momentum, and as the opportunistic activities of the PML-Q have shown, most liberal and secular parties will join and support the fray, not create their own momentum for other constituents to join in - despite liberal political leaders like Altaf Hussain calling for revolution in every way possible. In this way, the liberals and seculars will be politically marginalised as their politicians will run to the religious right so as to garner greater voting banks with more guarantees and more stability. This will only strengthen the religious right - and their extremist extensions - in case of a Pakistani revolution.

What would the Pakistani Army do in such circumstances? It is well known that the jihad mentality exists in the Armed Forces first and foremost, so many elements sympathetic to the religious right exist within the soldierly rank-and-file as well as in the general staff. The Army - seeing that fundamentalists are leading the revolution - will think twice about taking an overly liberal or Westernized approach, and if the liberal progressives cannot take the lead, the Army will be forced to bargain for a future with a definite role for religious fundamentalists in the corridors of power. Upon such a travesty taking place, the fundamentalists will have to decide whether they align themselves with the Taliban, or take a balanced approach and oppose the Taliban's antics in Pakistan - if they decide for the former, then Pakistan will go the way of Afghanistan, and if they decide the latter, then we can see some composite solution the likes of which Imran Khan has been harping on about for a few years now.

In conclusion, one must refer to President Kennedy's timeless quote to sum up the current boiling situation in Egypt and the Muslim world at large: Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.