For that reason, it provided jobs for hundreds of thousands of workers from Egypt, Tunisia, China and other countries. It had enormous incomes and reserves in convertible currencies deposited in the banks of the wealthy countries from which they acquired consumer goods and even sophisticated weapons that were supplied exactly by the same countries that today want to invade it in the name of human rights.

The colossal campaign of lies, unleashed by the mass media, resulted in great confusion in world public opinion. Some time will go by before we can reconstruct what has really happened in Libya, and we can separate the true facts from the false ones that have been spread.

Serious and prestigious broadcasting companies such as Telesur, saw themselves with the obligation to send reporters and cameramen to the activities of one group and those on the opposing side, so that they could inform about what was really happening.

Communications were blocked, honest diplomatic officials were risking their lives going through neighbourhoods and observing activities, day and night, in order to inform about what was going on. The empire and its main allies used the most sophisticated media to divulge information about the events, among which one had to deduce the shreds of the truth.

Without any doubt, the faces of the young people who were protesting in Benghazi, men, and women wearing the veil or without the veil, were expressing genuine indignation.

One is able to see the influence that the tribal component still exercises on that Arab country, despite the Muslim faith that 95% of its population sincerely shares.

Imperialism and NATO – seriously concerned by the revolutionary wave unleashed in the Arab world, where a large part of the oil is generated that sustains the consumer economy of the developed and rich countries – could not help but take advantage of the internal conflict arising in Libya so that they could promote military intervention. The statements made by the United States administration right from the first instant were categorical in that sense.

The circumstances could not be more propitious. In the November elections, the Republican right-wing struck a resounding blow on President Obama, an expert in rhetoric.

The fascist “mission accomplished” group, now backed ideologically by the extremists of the Tea Party, reduced the possibilities of the current president to a merely decorative role in which even his health program and the dubious economic recovery were in danger as a result of the budget deficit and the uncontrollable growth of the public debt which were breaking all historical records.

In spite of the flood of lies and the confusion that was created, the US could not drag China and the Russian Federation to the approval by the Security Council for a military intervention in Libya, even though it managed to obtain however, in the Human Rights Council, approval of the objectives it was seeking at that moment. In regards to a military intervention, the Secretary of State stated in words that admit not the slightest doubt: “no option is being ruled out”.

The real fact is that Libya is now wrapped up in a civil war, as we had foreseen, and the United Nations could do nothing to avoid it, other than its own Secretary General sprinkling the fire with a goodly dose of fuel.

The problem that perhaps the actors were not imagining is that the very leaders of the rebellion were bursting into the complicated matter declaring that they were rejecting all foreign military intervention.

Various news agencies informed that Abdelhafiz Ghoga, spokesperson for the Committee of the Revolution stated on Monday the 28th that “‘The rest of Libya shall be liberated by the Libyan people’”.

“We are counting on the army to liberate Tripoli’ assured Ghoga during the announcement of the formation of a ‘National Council’ to represent the cities of the country in the hands of the insurrection.”

“‘What we want is intelligence information, but in no case that our sovereignty is affected in the air, on land or on the seas’, he added during an encounter with journalists in this city located 1000 kilometres to the east of Tripoli.”

“The intransigence of the people responsible for the opposition on national sovereignty was reflecting the opinion being spontaneously manifested by many Libyan citizens to the international press in Benghazi”, informed a dispatch of the AFP agency this past Monday.

That same day, a political sciences professor at the University of Benghazi, Abeir Imneina, stated:

“There is very strong national feeling in Libya.”

“‘Furthermore, the example of Iraq strikes fear in the Arab world as a whole’, she underlined, in reference to the American invasion of 2003 that was supposed to bring democracy to that country and then, by contagion, to the region as a whole, a hypothesis totally belied by the facts.”

The professor goes on:

“‘We know what happened in Iraq, it’s that it is fully unstable and we really don’t want to follow the same path. We don’t want the Americans to come to have to go crying to Gaddafi’, this expert continued.”

“But according to Abeir Imneina, ‘there also exists the feeling that this is our revolution, and that it is we who have to make it’.”

A few hours after this dispatch was printed, two of the main press bodies of the United States, The New York Times and The Washington Post, hastened to offer new versions on the subject; the DPA agency informs on this on the following day, March the first: “The Libyan opposition could request that the West bomb from the air strategic positions of the forces loyal to President Muamar al Gaddafi, the US press informed today.”

“The subject is being discussed inside the Libyan Revolutionary Council, ‘The New York Times’ and ‘The Washington Post’ specified in their online versions.”

“‘The New York Times’ notes that these discussions reveal the growing frustration of the rebel leaders in the face of the possibility that Gaddafi should retake power”.

“In the event that air actions are carried out within the United Nations framework, these would not imply international intervention, explained the council’s spokesperson, quoted by The New York Times”.

“The council is made up of lawyers, academics, judges and prominent members of Libyan society.”

The dispatch states:

“‘The Washington Post’ quoted rebels acknowledging that, without Western backing, combat with the forces loyal to Gaddafi could last a long time and cost many human lives.”

It is noteworthy that in that regard, not one single worker, peasant or builder is mentioned, not anyone related to material production or any young student or combatant among those who take part in the demonstrations. Why the effort to present the rebels as prominent members of society demanding bombing by the US and NATO in order to kill Libyans?

Some day we shall know the truth, through persons such as the political sciences professor from the University of Benghazi who, with such eloquence, tells of the terrible experience that killed, destroyed homes, left millions of persons in Iraq without jobs or forced them to emigrate.

Today on Wednesday, the second of March, the EFE Agency presents the well-known rebel spokesperson making statements that, in my opinion, affirm and at the same time contradict those made on Monday: “Benghazi (Libya), March 2. The rebel Libyan leadership today asked the UN Security Council to launch an air attack ‘against the mercenaries’ of the Muamar el Gaddafi regime.”

“‘Our Army cannot launch attacks against the mercenaries, due to their defensive role’, stated the spokesperson for the rebels, Abdelhafiz Ghoga, at a press conference in Benghazi.”

“‘A strategic air attack is different from a foreign intervention which we reject’, emphasized the spokesperson for the opposition forces which at all times have shown themselves to be against a foreign military intervention in the Libyan conflict”.

Which one of the many imperialist wars would this look like?

The one in Spain in 1936? Mussolini’s against Ethiopia in 1935? George W. Bush’s against Iraq in the year 2003 or any other of the dozens of wars promoted by the United States against the peoples of the Americas, from the invasion of Mexico in 1846 to the invasion of the Falkland Islands in 1982?

Without excluding, of course, the mercenary invasion of the Bay of Pigs, the dirty war and the blockade of our Homeland throughout 50 years, that will have another anniversary next April 16th.

In all those wars, like that of Vietnam which cost millions of lives, the most cynical justifications and measures prevailed.

For anyone harbouring any doubts, about the inevitable military intervention that shall occur in Libya, the AP news agency, which I consider to be well-informed, headlined a cable printed today which stated: “The NATO countries are drawing up a contingency plan taking as its model the flight exclusion zones established over the Balkans in the 1990s, in the event that the international community decides to impose an air embargo over Libya, diplomats said”.

Further on it concludes: “Officials, who were not able to give their names due to the delicate nature of the matter, indicated that the opinions being observed start with the flight exclusion zone that the western military alliance imposed over Bosnia in 1993 that had the mandate of the Security Council, and with the NATO bombing in Kosovo in 1999, THAT DID NOT HAVE IT”.

To be continued tomorrow.

Fidel Castro Ruz
March 2, 2011
8:19 p.m.

The post NATO’s Inevitable War (Part I) appeared first on Reflections of Fidel.

The world knows what is taking place in the Middle East. The news is circulating at incredible speed. Politicians barely have time to read the cables coming in by the hour. Everyone is aware of the importance of what is occurring there.

After 18 days of harsh battling, the Egyptian people attained an important objective: to defeat the United States’ principal ally in the heart of the Arab countries. Mubarak was oppressing and plundering his own people, he was an enemy of the Palestinians and an accomplice of Israel, the sixth nuclear power on the planet, associated with the military NATO group.

The Egyptian Armed Forces, under the command of Gamal Abdel Nasser, had overthrown a submissive king and created the Republic which, with support from the USSR, defended the homeland from the Franco-British and Israeli invasion in 1956 and retained possession of the Suez Canal and the independence of this millennial nation.

Thus Egypt enjoyed a high level of prestige in the Third World. Nasser was known as one of the most outstanding leaders of the Non-Aligned Movement, which he participated in creating, together with other eminent leaders of Asia, Africa and Oceania who were fighting for national liberation and political and economic independence from the former colonies.

Egypt always enjoyed the support and respect of the above-mentioned international organization which brings together more than 100 countries. That sister nation currently presides over the Movement for the three-year period established; and the support of many of its members for the struggle which its people are now waging will not be slow in coming.

What did the Camp David Accords signify, and why are the heroic Palestinian people so passionately defending their most vital rights?

At Camp David – with the mediation of the then U.S. President Jimmy Carter – the Egyptian leader Anwar al-Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin signed the famous accords between Egypt and Israel.

It is said that they held secret talks during 12 days and, on September 17, 1979, signed two important accords: one referring to peace between Egypt and Israel, and another related to the creation of an autonomous territory in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, which Al-Sadat thought – and Israel knew and shared the idea – would be the headquarters of the Palestinian state, whose existence, as well as that of the state of Israel, the United Nations Organization agreed on November 29, 1947, during the British Mandate of Palestine.

After difficult and complex talks, Israel agreed to withdraw its troops from the Egyptian territory of Sinai, although it categorically rejected the participation of Palestinian representatives in the peace negotiations.

As a result of the first agreement, Israel returned to Egypt the Sinai territory occupied in one of the Arab-Israeli wars.

In virtue of the second, both parties committed themselves to negotiate the creation of the autonomous regime in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The former comprised a territory of 5,640 square kilometers and 2.1 million inhabitants; and the latter, 360 square kilometers and 1.5 million inhabitants.

The Arab countries were angry with that agreement in which, in their judgment, Egypt did not energetically and firmly defend a Palestinian state whose right to exist had been at the center of the struggles waged for decades by the Arab states.

Their reaction reached such extreme indignation that many of them broke off relations with Egypt. In that way, the UN Resolution of November 1947 was erased from the map. The autonomous entity was never created and thus the Palestinians were deprived of the right to exist as an independent state, leading to the interminable tragedy endured there and which should have been resolved more than three decades ago.

The Arab population of Palestine is the victim of acts of genocide; their lands are being snatched from them and are deprived of water in those semi-desert areas, and their housing is destroyed with sledge hammers. In the Gaza Strip, one and a half million people are systematically attacked with explosive missiles, live phosphorus and the well-known stun grenades. The territory of the Strip is blockaded by land and sea. Why is there so much talk about the Camp David Accords and no mention of Palestine?

The United States supplies Israel with the most modern and sophisticated armament, worth billions of dollars every year. Egypt, an Arab country, was converted into the second recipient of U.S. weapons. To fight against whom? Against another Arab country? Against the Egyptian people themselves?

When the population was demanding respect for their most elemental rights and the resignation of a president whose policies consisted of exploiting and plundering his people, the repressive forces trained by the United States did not hesitate to fire on them, killing hundreds and wounding thousands.

When the Egyptian people were awaiting explanations from the government of their own country, the replies came from senior officers from U.S. intelligence agencies or the U.S. government, without any respect whatsoever for Egyptian officials.

Do the leaders of the United States and their intelligence services, by any chance, know nothing of the Mubarak government’s colossal theft?

Faced with the people’s mass protests in Tahrir Square, neither government officials nor intelligence agents said one single word about privileges and the bold-faced robbery of billions of dollars.

It would be an error to imagine that the revolutionary popular movement in Egypt simply constitutes a reaction against the violation of their most fundamental rights. Peoples do not risk repression or death, nor do they stand fast the whole night protesting energetically about purely formal issues. They do so when their legal and material rights are pitilessly sacrificed to the insatiable demands of corrupt politicians and to the national and international forces sacking the country.

The rate of poverty already affected the vast majority of a combative, young and patriotic people, whose dignity, culture and beliefs have all been attacked.

How could they reconcile themselves to the continuing increase in the price of food with the tens of billions of dollars attributed to President Mubarak and the privileged sectors of his government and society?

At this point, it is not enough to know how high that figure is; it must be demanded that the funds be returned to the nation.

Obama is affected by the events in Egypt; he acts or appears to act as if he were the owner of the planet. What is happening in Egypt seems to be his own issue. He has not stopped talking over the telephone with leaders of other countries.

The EFE agency, for example, reports, “… He spoke with British Prime Minister

David Cameron; Jordan’s King Abdala II and with the Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a moderate Islamist.

“The U.S. President recognized the ‘historic change’ that Egyptians have made and reaffirmed his admiration for their efforts…”

The principal U.S. news agency AP released some arguments worthy of attention:

“Wanted: Moderate, Western-leaning Mideast leaders willing to be friends with Israel and cooperate in the fight against Islamic extremism while protecting human rights…

“That’s the impossible wish list from the Obama administration after popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia ousted two long-serving and close but deeply flawed U.S. allies in stunning rebellions that many believe will spread.

“This dream resume doesn’t exist and isn’t likely to appear soon. Part of the reason is that American administrations for the past four decades sacrificed the lofty human rights ideals they espoused for the sake of stability, continuity and oil in one of the world’s most volatile regions.

“‘Egypt will never be the same,’ Obama said as he welcomed the departure of Hosni Mubarak on Friday.

“‘Through their peaceful protests,’ Obama said, ‘Egyptians changed their country, and in doing so changed the world.’

“Even though governments around the Arab world are nervous, there is no sign that entrenched elites in Egypt and Tunisia are willing to cede the power and vast economic leverage they have enjoyed…

“The Obama administration has insisted ever since President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali fled Tunisia last month – a day after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned Arab leaders in a speech in Qatar that without reform the foundations of their countries were ‘sinking into the sand…’”

The people in Tahrir Square do not appear to be very docile.

Europe Press relates:

“Thousands of demonstrators have arrived in Tahrir Square, the epicenter of the mobilizations which provoked the resignation of the country’s President, Hosni Mubarak, to reinforce those who have remained in the area despite attempts by the military police to dislodge them, according to reports by the BBC.

“The BBC correspondent posted in the central Cairo plaza has reiterated that the army is looking indecisive faced with the arrival of more demonstrators…

“The hardcore are situated on one of the square’s corners… and have decided to stay in Tahrir to make sure that their demands are met.”

Regardless of what may happen in Egypt, one of the most serious problems faced by imperialism at this time is the shortage of grain, which I analyzed in my January 19 Reflection.

The United States uses an important part of the corn it raises, and a large portion of soybeans, to produce biofuels. Europe, for its part, employs millions of hectares of land for this purpose.

On the other hand, as a consequence of climate change produced fundamentally by the rich, developed countries, a shortage of water and food is emerging which is incompatible with the growth of the world’s population, at a rate which will result in 9 billion inhabitants within 30 years, without the United Nations or the most influential governments on the planet warning or informing the world of the situation in the wake of the fraudulent Copenhagen and Cancun meetings.

We support the valiant Egyptian people and their struggle for political rights and social justice.

We are not opposed to the people of Israel; we are opposed to the genocide of the Palestinian people and in favor of their right to an independent state.

We are not in favor of war, but rather in favor of peace among all peoples.

Fidel Castro Ruz
February 13, 2011
9:14 p.m.

The post The Revolutionary Rebellion in Egypt appeared first on Reflections of Fidel.

By the end of the Second World War, Egypt was under the brilliant governance of Abdel Nasser, who together with Jawaharlal Nehru, heir of Mahatma Gandhi; Kwame Nkrumah; and Ahmed Sékou Touré —African leaders who together with Sukarno, then president of the recently liberated Indonesia— created the Non-Aligned Movement of Countries and advanced the struggle for independence in the former colonies. At the time, the peoples of Southeast Asia, the Middle East and Africa, such as Egypt, Algeria, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Western Sahara, the Congo, Angola, Mozambique and other countries immersed in the struggle against French, English, Belgian and Portuguese colonialism backed by the United States were fighting for independence with the support of the USSR and China.

After the triumph of our revolution, Cuba joined this movement in motion.

In 1956 Great Britain, France and Israel launched a surprise attack against Egypt which had nationalized the Suez Canal. The brave and supportive action by the USSR, which included a threat to use its strategic missiles, stopped the aggressors dead in their tracks.

The death of Abdel Nasser on September 28, 1970 was an irreversible setback for Egypt.

United States never stopped conspiring against the Arab world, which holds the largest oil reserves on the planet.

There is no need to profoundly debate this matter; it is enough to read recent news dispatches on what inevitably is transpiring.

Let’s take a look at the news:

January 28:

“(DPA) – More than 100,000 Egyptians took to the streets today to protest against the government ofPresident Hosni Mubarak, despite a prohibition of demonstrations issued by authorities…”

“Demonstrators set fire to the offices of Mubarak’s National Democratic Party (NDP) and police surveillance points, while in downtown Cairo they threw rocks at police who tried to disperse the crowd with tear gas and rubber bullets.”

“US President Barack Obama met today with a group of experts to become better informed on the situation. Meanwhile, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that the United States would reassess the multi-million dollar aid it provides to Egypt as events transpire.

“UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon also sent a strong message from Davos.”

“(Reuters).- President Mubarak ordered a curfew in Egypt and the deployment of army troops backed by armoured vehicles in Cairo and other cities. Violent clashes between demonstrators and the police have been reported.

“Egyptian forces, supported by armoured vehicles, deployed throughout Cairo and other major Egyptian cities on Friday to put an end to large-scale protests demanding the resignation of President Hosni Mubarak.

“Medical sources reported that so far 410 people have been injured in the protests, while state television announced a curfew for all cities.”

“The situation represents a dilemma for the United States, which has expressed its desire for democracy to spread throughout the region. Mubarak, however, has been a close ally of Washington for several years and the beneficiary of extensive military aid.”

“(DPA)”.- Thousands of Jordanians protested today across the country after Friday prayers, demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Samir Rifai, and political and economic reforms.”

In the midst of the political disaster assailing the Arab world, leaders, who were gathered in Switzerland, discussed the cause of the phenomenon which they described as global suicide.

“(EFE).- Several political leaders at the Davos Economic Forum called for a change of the growth model.”

“The current model of economic growth, based on consumerism and a disregard of environmental consequences, can no longer be sustained because the planet’s survival is at risk, several political leaders warned today in Davos.”

“‘The current model is global suicide. We need a revolution. Revolutionary thinking. Revolutionary action,’ warned Ban Ki-moon. ‘Natural resources are becoming more and more scarce,” he added, during a debate on how to redefine sustainable growth at the World Economic Forum.”

“‘Climate change is also showing us that the old model is more than obsolete,’ said the head of the UN.

“The UN secretary general added that in addition to basic survival resources such as food and water, ‘one resource is the scarcest of all: Time, We are running out of time. Time to tackle climate change.’”

January 29:

“Washington (AP).- President Barack Obama tried the impossible: winning the hearts and minds ofEgyptians furious with their autocratic ruler while assuring a vital ally that the United States has his back.

The four-minute speech Friday evening represented a careful balancing act for Obama. He had a lot to lose by choosing between protesters demanding that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak step down from a government violently clinging to its three-decade grip on the country.

“Obama…didn’t endorse regime change. Nor did he say that Mubarak’s announcement was insufficient.

“Obama’s address was the most forceful of the day, but it stuck largely to the script already set by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and White House spokesman Robert Gibbs.”

“(NTX).- The Washington Post called on the Obama administration to use its political and economic influence to convince President Mubarak to step down in Egypt.”

“‘The United States should use all its influence, including the more than 1 billion dollars in aid it provides each year to the Egyptian army to assure its ultimate outcome (the surrender of power by Mubarak),’ the paper states in its editorial.”

“…in his message delivered on Friday night Obama said that he would continue working with President Mubarak and regretted that he had not mentioned eventual elections.”

“The newspaper described Obama’s position as ‘unrealistic’ along with that of Vice President Joe Biden, who told a radio station that he would not call the Egyptian president a dictator, and that he did not think that he should resign.”

“(AFP).- US-Arab organizations demanded that the government of President Barack Obama stop supporting the Mubarak dictatorship in Egypt.”

“(ANSA).- The United States once again expressed its ‘concern’ over violence in Egypt and warned the government of Mubarak that it could not act as if nothing had happened.

Fox News reported that Obama only had two poor options with respect to Egypt.

“…warned the Cairo government that it could not ‘reshuffle the deck’ and act as if nothing had happened in the country.

“The White House and the State Department are closely following the situation in Egypt, one of Washington’s main allies in the world, and the recipient of some 1.5 billion dollars annually in civilian and military aid.”

“United States news agencies are giving extensive coverage to the disturbances in Egypt and have been indicating that the situation, no mater how it is resolved, could result in a headache for Washington.”

“If Mubarak falls, reports Fox, the United States and its other principal ally in the Middle East, Israel, could have to face a government of the Muslim Brothers in Cairo, and a turn towards anti-western sentiment in the North African country.”

“‘We were betting on the wrong horse for 50 years,’ former CIA agent Michael Scheuer told Fox. ‘To think that the Egyptian people are going to forget that for half a century we supported dictators is a dream,’ he concluded.”

“(AFP).- The international community increased its pressure on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to implement political reforms and to stop the repression of demonstrators who that have been carrying out protests against his government over the last five days.”

“Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel and David Cameron asked the president ‘to initiate a process of change’ in response to the ‘legitimate demands’ of his people and ‘to avoid, at all costs, the use of violence against civilians,’ in a joint declaration published on Saturday.”

“Iran also called on Egyptian authorities to heed the demands being made on the streets.”

“King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia said that the protests represent ‘an attack against the security and stability’ of Egypt and were being carried out by ‘infiltrators’ in the name of ‘freedom of speech.’

“The king called Mubarak by telephone to express his solidarity, reported the official Saudi press agency SPA.”

January 31:

“(EFE) Netanyahu fears that the chaos in Egypt could favor Islam’s access to power.

“Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said today that he fears that the situation in Egypt could favor Islam’s access to power, a concern he said he shares with leaders who have spoken to him over the past few days.”

“…the prime minister refused to discuss news reports by local media outlets that state that Israel has authorized Egypt to deploy troops in the Sinai Peninsula for the first time in three decades, considered a violation of the 1979 peace treaty between the two nations.

“In response to criticism against Western powers such as the United States and Germany that have maintained close ties with totalitarian Arab regimes, the German Foreign minister said, ‘We have not abandoned Egypt.’”

“The peace process between Israelis and Palestinians has been at a standstill since last September, mainly because of Israel’s refusal to stop building Jewish settlements in occupied Palestinian territories.”

“Jerusalem, (EFE).? Israel favors the continuation in power of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. The Israeli head of State, Simon Peres, supported Mubarak today by stating that ‘a fanatic religious oligarchy is not better than a lack of democracy.’”

“The declarations made by the head of State are consistent with reports by local media outlets that state that Israel is pressuring its Western partners to tone down their criticisms of Mubarak’s regime, which the Egyptian people and the opposition are trying to overthrow.

“Anonymous official sources quoted by the Haaretz newspaper said that on Saturday the Israeli Foreign Ministry sent a communiqué to its embassies in the United States, Canada, China, Russia and several European countries to request that ambassadors emphasize to local authorities the importance ofstability in Egypt for Israel.”

“Israeli analysts said that the fall of Mubarak could endanger the Camp David Agreements that Egypt signed with Israel in 1978 and the subsequent signing of the 1979 bilateral peace treaty, especially if it brings about the ascent to power of the Islamic Muslim Brothers, which have widespread popular support.”

“Israel views Mubarak as a guarantor of peace along its southern border, as well as a key supporter in maintaining the blockade against the Gaza Strip and isolating the Palestinian Islamic movement Hamas.”

“One of Israel’s greatest fears is that the Egyptian riots, which follow in the wake of uprisings in Tunisia, will also reach Jordan, weakening the regime of King Abdullah II, whose country along with Egypt is the only Arab country that acknowledges Israel.”

“The recent appointment of General Omar Suleiman as Egypt’s vice president and, therefore, possible presidential successor, has been welcomed in Israel, which has closely cooperated in Defense matters with the general.”

“However, the Egyptian protests show that the continuity of the regime is not necessarily guaranteed nor that Israel will continue to have Cairo as its main ally in the region.”

As you can see, for the first time the world is simultaneously facing three problems:

Climate crises, food crises and political crises.

And we can add other serious dangers to them.

The risk of increasingly destructive war is very real.

Will the political leaders have sufficient serenity and equanimity to successfully face them?

Our species’ fate depends on it.

Fidel Castro Ruz
February 1, 2011
7:15 p.m.

The post Mubarak’s Fate is Sealed appeared first on Reflections of Fidel.