Gaddafi Threatened to Shoot His Comrades at the RCC

Asharq Al-Awsat publishes excerpts from a book by Mojahed Bosify about Libya under the rule of Colonnel Muammar al-Gaddafi.

Gaddafi (center) with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Syrian President Hafez al-Assad during the signing of the agreement to establish the Union of Arab Republics in Benghazi in 1971 (Getty Images).
Gaddafi (center) with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Syrian President Hafez al-Assad during the signing of the agreement to establish the Union of Arab Republics in Benghazi in 1971 (Getty Images).
TT
20

Gaddafi Threatened to Shoot His Comrades at the RCC

Gaddafi (center) with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Syrian President Hafez al-Assad during the signing of the agreement to establish the Union of Arab Republics in Benghazi in 1971 (Getty Images).
Gaddafi (center) with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Syrian President Hafez al-Assad during the signing of the agreement to establish the Union of Arab Republics in Benghazi in 1971 (Getty Images).

In this third and last episode of excerpts from a book by Libyan author Mojahed Bosify about Libya under the rule of late leader Colonel Moammar al-Gaddafi, Asharq Al-Awsat focuses on the period that followed Al-Fateh Revolution and how the colonel was able to lead the scene, overstepping his fellow officers, who participated in overthrowing the rule of King Idris As-Senussi.

This episode also tackles Gaddafi’s campaign to expel the British and American troops stationed in Libya, and then banish the Italian community there.

“Dawlat al-Khayma” (The Tent State) is published by Beirut’s Difaf Publications and will be released at the Cairo Book Fair.

The book recounts that as soon as the Revolutionary Command Council was formed, a fundamental practical problem emerged. The council had no plans beyond the coup, nor a project or a vision to implement.

The revolutionaries launched their coup mainly for an external goal, which was to support the national war effort led by Egyptian Leader Gamal Abdel Nasser, and to contribute to the expected battle that would reclaim the occupied lands.

Apart from general slogans about corruption and oppression, the internal Libyan project was not foreseeable from the beginning, and there were no plans for the next day.

Those months of enthusiasm, which began with the announcement of the revolution on the morning of Sept. 1, 1969, were a romantic period, which saw local and Arab feelings intertwine, as Abdel Nasser’s ideas were a local affair in every country.

As weeks passed, Fathi al-Deeb, Abdel Nasser’s special envoy to Libya, his men, and the existing Libyan cadres, were able to run the revolutionary state and carry out the required services.

There was no real need for a council of revolutionary officers in the absence of practical tasks for them after the return of calm to the country. But they were spending their time, however, in open marathon meetings, fighting for opportunities to speak and to grab ministries, and to ensure that they have equal chances.

There were no disagreements over visions or ideas, as the officers did not have any clear project. Gaddafi was indeed the leader, but they were somehow equal in volume because most of them were from a similar environment.

However, competition and personal quarrels produced a kind of chaos and uncomfortable rivalry. It was a period of hysterical enthusiasm, during which the meetings of the Revolutionary Officers Council, often held at the radio headquarters, witnessed stampedes and objections.

Despite the general atmosphere of solidarity among the members, things sometimes went out of control. In one of those meetings, the agitated crowds forced Gaddafi to threaten his comrades with his machine gun. Thus, the council’s reliance on Fathi al-Deeb was much needed.

Abdel Nasser’s man and his team contributed effectively in almost every aspect of life, from maintaining the flow of supplies to finding new supporters for the revolution and also helping rebuild the army and establish the intelligence apparatus.

In parallel, Gaddafi’s performance was also developing at a rapid pace. While the events of the revolution shook all his fellow young officers, he remained calm, good at listening, and keen to stay away from the media, as much as he could.

He quickly caught Deeb’s attention. Less than two days after his arrival to Benghazi, the Egyptian man wrote to his leader in Cairo, describing Gaddafi as a balanced, solid, and religious man, who has some ambiguity, enjoys the respect of his colleagues, is aware of the world’s developments, and tends to move away from the spotlight.

The colonel managed his exposure with an innate talent. While everyone wanted to know who was behind the coup, he took careful steps, instinctively nourishing the curiosity of the press that was active around him. Thus, he managed to gain sweeping popular support at the lowest possible cost. When a picture or footage of him was leaked to the public, people felt happy and joyful, because God gave them a young leader, who loved Abdel Nasser and ate “Bazin” (a traditional Libyan dish) with his hands while he was lying on the ground.

Soon the process of securing the revolution and its leader began to take shape. After a vague announcement of two or three failed attempts to overthrow the council, the real problem facing the colonel came from his circle, mainly from his comrades’ mismanagement and chaotic behavior.

Shortly after the revolution, the colonel felt that the Revolutionary Command Council could no longer follow up the changes. He realized that his colleagues did not have a mature revolutionary vision and their limited administrative capabilities did not help them to complete the tasks assigned to them.

After Abdel Nasser’s death, Gaddafi’s concerns increased and he was obsessed with finding a solution. He knew that he had to take a set of measures to strengthen the internal front and prepare the country for the next phase. The Libyan colonel made two major moves within only months of the launch of his revolution, which increased his popularity.

The first move was the expulsion of the British and US bases in Libya in June 1970, and the second was the removal of the Italian community from the country three months later.

Although the first step was agreed upon between the king’s government and the two states several years before and its implementation dates were previously scheduled, its timing came in favor of the new regime and its leader. Likewise, the removal of the “Italian settlers” in October 1970 was celebrated every year as an achievement by the revolution.

A local socio-economic problem quickly ended with the expulsion of the “Italian community”, many of whose members had become true Libyans long ago, in a rapid populist process that led to the forced evacuation of a prominent cultural, social and ethnic segment of Libya.

The door was wide open to a cultural and ethnic drift in the country, as another Libyan component would be suppressed when the Libyan Amazighs had to act like Arabs. In a television appearance, the colonel presented proofs about the community’s authentic Arab affiliation, after a lengthy historical narration, in which he emphasized his knowledge and ability to deduce historical laws capable of correcting the error.

Thus, the Amazighs were forbidden to speak or write in their native language, under penalty of law, for about forty years.

Consequently, Libya lost, under completely illusory slogans, an important branch of its tree, which included a whole life, language, culture, and customs that quickly disappeared from the Libyan social dictionary.

Gaddafi went on with his plans, under the pretext of “the abolishment of fascism” - a message which was received with great popular support, although many segments of Libyan society descended from remains of the previous occupation of this land.



As Gaza Faces Starvation, Reluctant Germany Starts to Curb Support for Israel

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz looks on at the start of a cabinet meeting of the federal government in Berlin, Germany, 30 July 2025. (EPA)
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz looks on at the start of a cabinet meeting of the federal government in Berlin, Germany, 30 July 2025. (EPA)
TT
20

As Gaza Faces Starvation, Reluctant Germany Starts to Curb Support for Israel

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz looks on at the start of a cabinet meeting of the federal government in Berlin, Germany, 30 July 2025. (EPA)
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz looks on at the start of a cabinet meeting of the federal government in Berlin, Germany, 30 July 2025. (EPA)

The worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza and Israel's plans to expand military control over the enclave have pushed Germany to curb arms exports to Israel, a historically fraught step for Berlin driven by a growing public outcry.

Conservative Chancellor Friedrich Merz, hitherto a staunchly pro-Israel leader, made the announcement on Friday arguing that Israel's actions would not achieve its stated war goals of eliminating Hamas militants or bringing Israeli hostages home.

It is a bold move for a leader who after winning elections in February said he would invite Benjamin Netanyahu to Germany in defiance of an arrest warrant against the Israeli prime minister issued by the International Criminal Court.

The shift reflects how Germany's come-what-may support for Israel, rooted in its historical guilt over the Nazi Holocaust, is being tested like never before as the high Palestinian civilian death toll in Gaza, massive war destruction and images of starving children are chipping away at decades of policy.

"It is remarkable as it is the first concrete measure of this German government. But I would not see it as a U-turn, rather a 'warning shot'," said Muriel Asseburg, a researcher at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs.

It caps months of the German government sharpening its tone over Israel's escalating military campaign in the small, densely populated Palestinian enclave, though still shying away from tougher steps that other European countries and some voices in Merz's ruling coalition were calling for.

The suspension of arms deliveries to Israel would affect just those that could be used in Gaza.

The move reflects a hardening mood in Germany, where public opinion has grown critical of Israel and more demanding that its government help ease a humanitarian disaster - most of the 2.2 million population is homeless and Gaza is a sea of rubble.

According to an ARD-DeutschlandTREND survey released on Thursday, a day before Merz's announcement, 66% of Germans want their government to put more pressure on Israel to change its behavior.

That is higher than April 2024, when some 57% of Germans believed their government should criticize Israel more strongly than before for its actions in Gaza, a Forsa poll showed.

Despite Germany helping air drop aid to Gaza, 47% of Germans think their government is doing too little for Palestinians there, against 39% who disagree with this, the ARD-DeutschlandTREND this week showed.

Most strikingly perhaps, only 31% of Germans feel they have a bigger responsibility for Israel due to their history - a core tenet of German foreign policy - while 62% do not.

Germany's political establishment has cited its approach, known as the "Staatsraison", as a special responsibility for Israel after the Nazi Holocaust, which was laid out in 2008 by then-Chancellor Angela Merkel to the Israeli parliament.

Reflecting that stance days before his most recent trip to Israel in July, Merz's Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul told Die Zeit newspaper that Berlin could not be a "neutral mediator".

"Because we are partisan. We stand with Israel," he said, echoing similar statements by other conservative figures in Merz's party.

But Merz's junior coalition partner, the Social Democrats (SPD), had already been more explicit in wanting to put sanctions against Israel on the table.

Adis Ahmetovic, an SPD foreign policy spokesperson, said suspending weapons shipments was only the first step.

"More must follow, such as a full or partial suspension of the (European Union) Association Agreement or the medical evacuation of seriously injured children, in particular," Ahmetovic told Stern magazine. "Furthermore, sanctions against Israeli ministers must no longer be taboo."

MEDIA DIVISION

The deepening divide within Germany has also played out in its media landscape.

In two major editorials published in late July, Der Spiegel magazine accused Israel of violating international humanitarian law and condemned what it said was the German government's complicity. The front cover displayed a picture of Gaza women holding out empty bowls with the headline: "A Crime".

Meanwhile Bild, the mass-market daily owned by Axel Springer, Germany's largest media group, decried the lack of outrage toward Islamist Hamas whose cross-border assault on Israeli communities triggered the war, pointing to what it saw as growing anti-Israel sentiment and one-sided protests.

Filipp Piatov, a Bild reporter whose X account is followed by Merz, accused the chancellor on Friday of doing exactly what he had criticized others for, "that Germany is cutting off support to its ally in the middle of a war."

Israel denies having a policy of starvation in Gaza, and says Hamas, which killed some 1,200 people in its October 7, 2023 attack and took 251 hostages back to Gaza, could end the crisis by surrendering.

Israel's ground and air war in Gaza has killed over 60,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's health ministry.

Critics had argued that Germany's approach has been overly hesitant, weakening the West's collective ability to apply meaningful pressure for an end to the fighting and restrictions on humanitarian aid to the Israeli-besieged enclave.

Germany had hitherto even been cautious about a modest sanction such as supporting the partial suspension of Israel's access to the EU's flagship research funding program.

There are other reasons for Germany's reluctance to criticize Israel beyond its Nazi past, analysts say, including its strong trading relationship with Israel and the United States.

Germany is Israel's second biggest weapons supplier after the US, but also buys arms from Israel as part of a massive revamp of its armed forces since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. That includes the Arrow-3 missile interception system.

Last week, Israeli defense company Elbit Systems announced a $260 million deal with Airbus to equip the German Air Force’s A400M planes with directed infrared defense systems.

"German arrogance should be avoided," Volker Beck, a former member of parliament and the head of the German-Israeli Society, told Reuters.

"If Israel were to retaliate by restricting arms deliveries to Germany, the future of German air security would look grim."