Archive for April, 2008

Massacre in Algeria

Tuesday, April 29th, 2008

 

 

   

 

 

   
As
France celebrated victory in Europe on 8 May 1945, its army was
massacring thousands of civilians in Sétif and Guelma - events that
were the real beginning of Algeria’s war of independence.

By
  Mohammed Harbi

      
      

      

THE massacres in the Sétif and Guelma regions on 8 May 1945,
described at the time as events or troubles in north Constantine,
marked the beginning of the Algerian war of independence. This episode
in the Algerian tragedy is one of the great turning points in colonial
history.

The ensuing upheavals dominated the political life of Algeria, which
grew increasingly independent of political developments in France as
the nationalist movement gained momentum. Each time France was at war,
in 1871, 1914 and 1940, militants hoped to exploit the situation to win
reforms or free Algeria from colonial rule. There were uprisings in the
Kabyle region and eastern Algeria in 1871 and in the Aurès mountains in
1916. But May 1945 was different. There were widespread fears of
another uprising but, despite claims, there is no evidence that it was
on the agenda.

The defeat of France in June 1940 changed the terms of the conflict
between the colonial power and Algerian nationalists. The French colons
felt threatened by the Popular Front, even though it had yielded to
pressure and abandoned its plans for Algeria, and welcomed the Pétain
government and the way it dealt with Jews, freemasons and communists.

After the US landings, the climate changed. The nationalists
believed the democratic and anti-colonialist rhetoric of the Atlantic
Charter (12 August 1942) and felt they must set aside their differences
and unite. The pro-assimilation movement broke up. The battle lines
were drawn: on one side, the Algerian Communist party and the Amis de
la démocratie, which advocated unconditional support for the Allied war
effort; on the other, the Algerian People’s party (PPA), under its
charismatic leader Messali Hadj, which was not prepared to sacrifice
the interests of Algeria to the fight against fascism.

The PPA and its supporters were joined by one of the most impressive
political figures of the day, Ferhat Abbas. He had dismissed the idea
of an Algerian nation in 1936 but now, although he still claimed to be
firmly rooted in French and western culture, he was in favour of “an
autonomous Algerian republic in federation with a new, anti-colonial,
anti-imperialist French republic”. When Pétain came to power, Abbas
sent memorandums to the French authorities but received no reply. In
desperation, he turned to the US and, with the support of the PPA and
the ulemas, dispatched the document, signed by 28 deputies and
financial advisers, that was to become the Manifesto of the Algerian
People on 10 February 1943.

History’s pace quickened. The French authorities continued to
overestimate their ability to control events and Charles de Gaulle
failed to understand the strength of the nationalist movements in the
old colonies. Contrary to what is often claimed, his speech at
Brazzaville on 30 January 1944 did not promise emancipation or
autonomy, even within the countries concerned. Pierre Mendès France
wrote to André Nouschi that “this was clear from the order issued on 7
March 1944, which revived the 1936 Blum-Violette project, granting some
65,000 people French citizenship and allowing Algerians to hold
two-fifths of the seats on local councils” (1). Too little, too late.
These tiny reforms, granted as a favour, did not affect French
domination or the preponderance of the colons.

This was a serious political situation calling for genuine
discussions with the Algerian nationalists, but Paris would not
negotiate with them. Their response to the order came a week later.
Following discussions between Messali Hadj, speaking for the
pro-independence PPA, Sheikh Bachir al-Ibrahimi for the ulemas, and
Ferhat Abbas for those in favour of autonomy, the nationalists joined
forces in a new movement, the Friends of the Manifesto and Freedom
(AML). Although the PPA was part of this movement, it retained its
independence. Its militants had more political experience, they knew
how to play the Islamic card and they concentrated on challenging the
legitimacy of colonial rule. The more activist and politically
sophisticated young people in the cities followed suit. There were
increasing signs of civil disobedience across the country. Positions
hardened on both sides. European colonists and Algerian Jews lived in
fear.

At the AML congress in May 1945 the PPA took over. The nationalist
leaders’ original plan to seek autonomous status in federation with
France was scrapped. The majority now opted for a separate state,
united with the other Maghreb countries, and proclaimed Messali Hadj
the undisputed leader of the Algerian people. The administration was
aghast and pressed Ferhat Abbas to dissociate himself from his partners.

The confrontation had been brewing since April. On the nationalist
side, the PPA leaders - to be precise, party activists led by Lamine
Debaghine - were delighted at the prospect of revolt. They hoped the
rise of millenarianism and calls for jihad would speed the success of
their cause, but their unrealistic dreams came to nothing. On the
colonial side, there were fears that the Algerians would drive the
Europeans into the sea, and the plot to remove the AML and PPA leaders,
hatched by the authorities at the instigation of a senior government
official, Pierre René Gazagne, was gradually consolidated.

On 25 April 1945 Messali Hadj was abducted and deported to
Brazzaville following incidents at Reibell, where he was under house
arrest. This lit the fuse. Some people, including the Islamic scholar
Augustin Berque (2), feared that a show of strength by the nationalists
might lead to US intervention. The PPA, furious at the seizure of its
leader, was determined to secure his release. The party decided to
march in a separate contingent with its own slogans in the labour day
procession on 1 May, since the largest trade union, the CGT, and the
French and Algerian communist parties had remained silent on the
nationalist issue.

In Oran and Algiers police and some Europeans were upset by the
nationalists’ slogans and opened fire. There were casualties, dead and
wounded, and many arrests, but the nationalists continued to mobilise.

North Constantine, bounded by the towns of Bougie, Sétif, Bône and
Souk-Ahras, was under army control at the time. On VE day people in the
region were preparing to celebrate the Allied victory in response to a
call from the AML and the PPA. The instructions were clear: there were
to be peaceful demonstrations to remind France and its allies of the
Algerian nationalists’ claims. There was no order to start an
insurrection. So why were the events confined to the Sétif and Guelma
regions? Why the riots, the massacres?

The war had raised hopes of an end to colonial rule and these were
encouraged by international developments. The nationalists,
particularly the PPA, wanted to force the pace and hasten the natural
course of events. All the available political resources were employed
to mobilise the people: calls for an end to poverty and corruption, to
defend Islam. Annie Rey-Goldzeiguer has pointed out rightly: “The only
safe haven, common to all sections of society, was religion, with jihad
as a weapon of civil rather than religious war. The call to jihad
induced a state of religious terror that found an outlet in warfare”
(3). Political maturity did not rank high in rural society, where
people followed their instincts.

On the European side, vague anxiety was succeeded by real fear.
Despite all the changes, the idea of treating Algerians as equals was
intolerable, to be avoided at all costs. Even the lesser threat in the
order of 7 March 1944 terrified them. Their response to the Algerian
claims was to call for militia to be formed and demand repressive
measures. They found a sympathetic ear in Pierre René Gazagne, the
prefect of Constantine, Lestrade Carbonnel, and the sub-prefect of
Guelma, André Achiary, who undertook to lance the boil.

In Sétif the trouble started when police tried to seize the PPA
flag, now the Algerian flag, and banners calling for the release of
Messali Hadj and Algerian independence. It spread to the surrounding
countryside, where tribes rose up.

In Guelma the events were triggered by arrests and the actions of
the militia, which provoked tribes to take revenge on local settlers.
The European civilians and the police responded with mass executions
and reprisals against entire communities. To remove all traces of their
crimes and prevent investigations, they opened mass graves and burned
the bodies in the lime kilns at Heliopolis. The army’s actions caused a
military historian, Jean-Charles Jauffret, to say that its conduct
“resembled a European wartime operation rather than a traditional
colonial war” (4). In the Bougie region about 15,000 women and children
were forced to kneel before a military parade.

The final toll is speculative, as the French government closed the
commission of inquiry directed by General Tubert and the killers were
never tried. We know all about the judicial measures that were taken
and the number of Europeans who died, but the number of Algerian
victims is a mystery and is still debated among Algerian historians
(5). The figures released by the French authorities are not reliable.
Pending impartial investigations (6), we must agree with
Rey-Goldzeiguer that, for 102 European dead, thousands of Algerians
paid with their lives.

There were many repercussions: any hopes of a deal between the
Algerian people and the European colony were off. In France the
political forces of the wartime resistance movement failed their first
test on decolonisation, allowing themselves to be taken over by the
pro-colonial party. The architect of the repressive measures, General
Duval, warned: “I have secured you peace for 10 years. If France does
nothing, it will all happen again, only next time it will be worse and
may well be irreparable.” The French Communist party, which described
the nationalist leaders as “paid Nazi agitators” and called for “the
ringleaders to be shot”, was generally considered to be in favour of
colonial rule, although it subsequently changed tack and called for an
amnesty. In Algeria, after the AML was disbanded on 14 May, the
pro-autonomy faction and the ulemas accused the PPA of playing with
fire, and the nationalist camp broke up. The PPA activists set a date
“for mounting a new kind of challenge” and called on their leaders to
set up a national paramilitary organisation. They emerged on 1 November
1954 as leaders of the National Liberation Front. But the Algerian war
really began at Sétif on 8 May 1945.

 
 
    
   

  • -See also
  • The world at war
  • Germany: the division of the spoils, by Götz  Aly
  • Lest we forget, by Ignacio Ramonet
  • Trial run for mass murder, by Susanne Heim
  • Translated by Barbara Wilson

    (1) André Nouschi, “Notes de lectures sur la guerre d’Algérie”, in Relations internationales, no 114, 2003.

    (2) Father of the great Islamic scholar, Jacques Berque.

    (3) Rey-Goldzeiguer, Aux origines de la guerre d’Algérie 1940-1945, La Découverte, Paris, 2002.

    (4) Jauffret, La guerre d’Algérie par les documents, Services historiques de l’armée de terre , Paris.

    (5) Redouane Ainad Tabet, Le 8 mai 1945 en Algérie, OPU, Algiers, 1987; Boucif Mekhaled, Chronique d’un massacre, 8 mai 1945: Sétif, Guelma, Kherrata, Syros, Paris, 1995.

    (6) There is an early hint of such investigations in the current work of Jean-Pierre Peyrouloux. See Rétablir et maintenir l’ordre colonial, by Mohammed Harbi and Benjamin Stora.

    Hamas Accepts State Within 1967 Borders: Meshaal

    Sunday, April 6th, 2008

    Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal said that his movement supports the
    united Palestinian position that calls for the establishment of a fully
    sovereign state within the 1967 borders, including Jerusalem, and
    refugees’ right to return.

    In an interview published yesterday in
    Palestinian daily Al-Ayyam, Meshaal referred to the 2006 prisoners’
    document as proof of this. “There is a Palestinian document and in it
    all organizations say they agree to a state in the 1967 borders.”

    The
    prisoners’ document, also known as the National Reconciliation
    Document, was drafted by members of different Palestinian factions held
    in an Israeli prison, including Fatah and Hamas. It calls for the
    “establishment of an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as
    its capital on all territories occupied in 1967.”

    The
    Damascus-based leader said the Palestinian position had received a vote
    of consensus during the national accords of 2006 and that this position
    is considered acceptable to the Arab world. He called on ordinary
    Israelis to pressure on their government to stop aggression against the
    Palestinians in light of this document.

    When asked about claims
    by Israel and the United States that Hamas is seeking to destroy
    Israel, Meshaal said his movement has committed itself to a political
    plan, which it follows, and called on America, Europe and other
    international entities to conduct themselves in accordance with this
    political truth, and to judge Hamas based on its political plan, not on
    what people imagine.

    The Hamas leader also said there had been
    several Israeli attempts to contact him, but he had turned them down.
    He explained in the interview that Hamas is interested in a complete
    ceasefire in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, but that Israel is
    willing to agree to such a deal only in the Gaza Strip. He said secret
    contacts are under way with the Europeans and that the Americans are
    applying pressure to keep these contacts from broadening.

    Regarding
    the prisoner exchange deal for captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit,
    Meshaal said that it is not linked to the ceasefire and that
    negotiations are not progressing at this point. He said the Egyptians
    are still mediating and that some Europeans are contributing —
    something that the Egyptians know about.

    Meshaal said Israel
    continues to refuse to release prisoners who have been sentenced to
    life terms, even though it changed its criteria for releasing prisoners
    with “blood on their hands,” an Israeli term used for those who kill
    Israelis.

    Two months ago, Meshaal said an agreement was reached
    with Egypt for the initial release of some 350 prisoners in exchange
    for the transfer of Shalit to the Egyptians and that 100 more prisoners
    would be released when Shalit reaches Israel. During the second stage
    of the deal, another 550 prisoners would be released.

    Meshaal
    said he was surprised that Israel rejected most of the names on the
    Hamas list of prisoners, adding that jailed Fatah leader Marwan
    Al-Barghouthi was on this list.

    Meshaal was also asked about
    Israel’s claims that he is no longer in charge of Hamas and that he
    lost control to Ahmed Al-Jaabari, head of the group’s military wing,
    Izz Al-Din Al-Qassam Brigades. He responded by saying Israel’s views
    are like the stock market: Sometimes Khaled Meshaal is responsible for
    Hamas and sometimes he has lost control. “I laugh, since they do not
    know Hamas or its decision-making processes,” he said.

    In Cairo,
    Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said he would withhold any
    assessment of the peace process with Israel until the two sides start
    putting a draft accord on paper. “I can’t speak of progress as long as
    we have not started to edit a draft. When we start drafting we will
    feel we have started to make progress,” he told reporters yesterday
    after meeting Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak.

    So far, Abbas
    said, the two sides aiming for a peace deal by the end of 2008 as
    targeted by Washington have only had “exchanges of ideas, a dialogue
    … in depth.” The Palestinian leader stressed that the contacts since
    the peace process was revived at a US-hosted conference in November had
    homed in on core issues and final-status points of dispute.

    “We
    are now in a process of negotiations in which we are discussing key
    issues. We are tackling questions linked to the final status,” Abbas
    said.

    “These are serious discussions … between all the parties
    concerned — Palestinians, Israel and also Americans — on the fact we
    must use 2008 to seal an accord with Israel on the final status” of the
    Palestinian territories

    “God Punish Those Who Stole Iraq’s Dignity Video =

    Wednesday, April 2nd, 2008

    http://dictatorshipwatch.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=4620&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

    “God Punish Those Who Stole Iraq’s Dignity Video =

    Wednesday, April 2nd, 2008

    http://dictatorshipwatch.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=4620&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

    A young Saudi Arabian woman was murdered by her father for chatting on Facebook

    Tuesday, April 1st, 2008

    The latest crime “in the name of social customs and religious rules.”

    A young Saudi Arabian woman was murdered by her father for chatting on the social network site Facebook, it has emerged.

    The unnamed woman from Riyadh was beaten and shot after she was discovered in the middle of an online conversation with a man, the al-Arabiya website reported.

    The case was reported on a Saudi Arabian news site as an example of the “strife” the social networking site is causing in the Islamic nation.

    Saudi preacher Ali al-Maliki has emerged as the leading critic of Facebook, claiming the network is corrupting the youth of the nation.

    “Facebook is a door to lust and young women and men are spending more on their mobile phones and the Internet than they are spending on food,” he said.

    The woman was murdered in August but her death was highlighted following Maliki’s comments.

    Social customs and religious rules oblige women in Saudi Arabia to cover their head and figure with a veil so that men are not distracted by the female form.

    Critics also allege that Facebook is an avenue for the promotion of homosexual relations in Saudi Arabia. More than 6,500 people have signed the online petition in a bid to stop the conservative Muslim kingdom following Syria in banning access to the network from local internet servers.

    There are estimated to be more than 30,000 Facebook users in the oil-rich kingdom. Many Saudi women use nicknames and post comic images or drawings on their pages instead of photographs. Some Saudi bloggers have dubbed the network “Faceless”.

    Women users’ contact details and email addresses are often pseudonymous. The popularity of sites for singles has broken taboos on people making contact outside family and class connections.

    One of the most popular Facebook groups among Saudi Arabian youth is Single and Looking in Saudi Arabia, which has 1,823 members and hosts many sexually explicit images. [Source]

    I just hopes this is not “April’s Fool”, but even if it is, I have no doubt that sooner or later this will happen!

    Sphere It

    What next?

    Do you like - Saudi woman killed for chatting on Facebook - Subscribe to Sabbah’s for Free.

    you also can AddThis Social Bookmark Button

     Permanent Link, leave a response, or trackbacks from your own site. Follow post.
    Article Tags>>
    | | |

    Leave a comment:

    NOTE: ZIONIST PROPAGANDA WILL NOT SEE LIGHT HERE!

    Subscribe without commenting

    Contextually Related Posts: