In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

The War against Islam

Um Ahmad sitting in the room where five of her children died at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Massacres committed by the Christian Phelange who were supported and given aid by Israel, which was protected by US vetoes of UN resolutions condemning them for their part in the Lebanon conflict

Girl screams as parents are shot dead by US troops at checkpoint in Iraq.

Father grieves for his lost children killed by US bombs in Afghanistan

14/04/06 | I've added an excellent article called "NEOCONSERVATISM: Origins, the Role in US Foreign Policy, and the Middle East". It traces the origins of this movement with it's Zionist overtones and how it has it serves it's own interests, primarily big-business and Israel, rather than the interests of the American people. Neo-conservatism is identified as a threat to the genuine interests of Americans, much like the corrupt and disloyal Zionist lobby in the Western countries only serves the interests of Israel and the Jewish people rather than the interests of ordinary Westerners. Indeed, due to the overwhelming similarites between both ideologies, it may be said that Neo-conservatism may just be a proxy for Zionism with a gentile face, primarily to make the neo-con agenda more palatable to a non-Jewish audience. It has been shown conclusively that Neo-conservatism does have a Jewish core (excuse the hyperbolic tone of the website, it does document credibly, the links between Zionists and neocons) with a distinctive, and perplexing, pro-Israel agenda (that is not to say that all Jews are neocons, fanatics or loyal to Israel). It is against the interests of ordinary US citizens. How can you maintain American credibility and security in the world if the US government continues to excuse atrocities committed by Israel, fund Israeli weapons purchases which are used to maintain the occupation of Palestinian land, act as Israels spokeman in the UN and continues to vetoe (from Reuters) UN resolutions demanding that Israel respect Palestinian human rights? Clearly Neo-conservatism, and Zionism are threats to US national security. Another article about Darfur has been added in the articles section raising some serious points about the nature of this conflict and how it has been exagerated by outside powers. Perhaps these powers have a seperatist agenda to impose on Darfur with a view to obtaining the huge mineral resources present in Darfur?

19/03/06 | Added a new section to the "skip to..." section called "Israel Lobby Watch" which is intended to monitor the activities of the Israel lobby in Western nations.

18/02/06 | Added a few interesting links in the "Articles" section and in the "Palestine/Israel" section. I am also trying to improve the font size of my website. If it is too big or too small, please inform me. I am using a 17 inch monitor at 1024x768 resolution, so I cannot tell if other poeple can see my website correctly. Also, please feel free to send me any links or articles (no attachments please) for publication to this site. Or if you want to re-write some of the articles on this website to include more information I may have missed, please do so and send them to me for publication here.

01/08/2005 | Added a new link in the "links" section and "articles section about Hindutva, Hindu extremism which has been formented in India even before Partition, and which has now achieved such a huge following in India that it formed the NDA government of India from 1998-2004. During this time, Muslims and Christians have suffered persecution, discrimination in housing, jobs, the media, and other sections of society. The policies of this government culminatedthe genocide of over 2000 Muslims in India in the state of Gujarat, which according to most human rights groups in India and abroad, was planned in advance by the leader of the state government of Gujarat, Narendra Modi. To this day, no leaders implicated in this massacre have been tried and found guilty, inspite of the voluminous evidence, and no Western nation has pressured India to bring the murderers to justice. More updates will follow regarding the 7/7 bombings in London.

11/07/2005 | Added a new article called "They want to destroy our freedoms". No matter how appalling the recent London bomb attacks were, does anyone really think they can compare to the slaughter of 100,000 innocent Iraqi's. We have Bush and Blair proclaiming that these groups want to destroy Western freedoms, but it is obvious to all but the most ignorant as to why these attacks happen. We are faced with a question, should we lament Western deaths more than the Iraqi deaths? This world is steadily getting more dangerous because of leaders like Bush and Blair, and their foreign policy.

23/05/2005 | More articles have been added to the "Articles" section, including MP George Galloways appearance with the US Senate, documented rapes of Iraqi women by US soldiers, the torture and killing of Afghan detainees in Afghanistan, articles tracing the influence of pro-Israel lobby groups in the US and UK, and an article refuting the red herring arguments of some Western politicians who dismiss the grievances Muslims have against them by dismissing it as "jealousy", hateing freedom" etc. I added a link in the "Palestine" section as well two links in the "Uzbekistan/Central Asia" section. 19/06/2005 | Fixed two links in the "articles" section, "The Causes and Aims of Al-Qaeda" and "The Muslim Weekly and 'anti-American' incitement". If there are more broken and dead links on my site, please feel free to email me the details. Some new links have been added in the "news links" section.

19th May 2004 | Added an article in the "News Links" section about the ongoing war in Iraq. Website needs some updating as well seeing as many developments have taken place since 22nd March 2003. Currently doing some more reading on the current Iraq war in order to update some information on this site. If you would like to contribute an article(s) to this website or anything related to the theme of this website, please email me here (no attachments please, please send as text on email body).

 22nd March 2003 | I have added an article about the US and UK's invasion of Iraq in the articles and Iraq section. 27th February 2003 | Two articles have been added in the articles section, one about US geo-politics and another article highlighting the humanitarian disaster if a new war against Iraq happens from the point of view of a 12-year old. A few links have been added marked with a "new" sign, they are about about Iraq and the consequences of war as well as the effects of sanctions. | 24th December 2002 I have added an article about Europe's emerging disagreements with the US government over it's policies in foreign nations. Added a new link in the Palestine section.  | 8th December 2002. I added a few links and an article about Kashmir called "Pakistan has the legitimate right to Kashmir" in the Kashmir section.

If there are any broken or outdated links on this site then please inform me here.A good precautionary measure to take to avoid losing track of where the site is if it wentoffline is to join my mailing list.

Enter your Email to join list:

Powered by: MessageBot

• Israel Lobby Watch  New
• News links
• Articles
• Algeria
• Afghanistan
• Kashmir
• Chechnya
• Iraq
• Israel/Palestine
• Uzbekistan/Central Asia

• NEOCONSERVATISM: Origins, the Role in US Foreign Policy, and the Middle East | This article traces the origins of this movement with it's Zionist overtones and how it has it serves it's own interests, primarily big-business and Israel, rather than the interests of the American people. Neo-conservatism is identified as a threat to the genuine interests of Americans, much like the corrupt and disloyal Zionist lobby in the Western countries only serves the interests of Israel and the Jewish people rather than the interests of ordinary Westerners. Indeed, due to the overwhelming similarites between both ideologies, it may be said that Neo-conservatism may just be a proxy for Zionism with a gentile face, primarily to make the neo-con agenda more palatable to a non-Jewish audience. It has been shown conclusively that Neo-conservatism does have a Jewish core (excuse the hyperbolic tone of the website, it does document credibly, the links between Zionists and neocons) with a distinctive, and perplexing, pro-Israel agenda (that is not to say that all Jews are neocons, fanatics or loyal to Israel). It is against the interests of ordinary US citizens. How can you maintain American credibility and security in the world if the US government continues to excuse atrocities committed by Israel, fund Israeli weapons purchases which are used to maintain the occupation of Palestinian land, act as Israels spokeman in the UN and continues to vetoe (from Reuters) UN resolutions demanding that Israel respect Palestinian human rights? Clearly Neo-conservatism, and Zionism are threats to US national security.

• Darfuri Conflict: Race war or Tribal conflict? | "While there is much finger-pointing taking place, politicians and diplomats worldwide are neglecting pertinent facts: Darfur harbors natural resources many could benefit from. The first among these is oil, a commodity with which many wars are aggravated by. Secondly, there are farmlands and fresh Nile water resources. And last of all, it is rumored that Darfur possesses gold. These things are enough to spin Sudan’s economy into another realm of financial possibilities. Perhaps this is what motivates factionalized Sudanese groups to favor lawlessness and bloodshed over diplomacy and reconciliation. After all, someone will see fit to monopolize resources and control the wealth."

• The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (download 1.6 mb PDF version here) | "The centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy is its intimate relationship with Israel. Though often justified as reflecting shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, the U.S. commitment to Israel is due primarily to the activities of the “Israel Lobby.” This paper describes the various activities that pro-Israel groups have undertaken in order to shift U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction."..."For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides. Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical."..."Washington also provides Israel with consistent diplomatic support. Since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members. It blocks the efforts of Arab states to put Israel’s nuclear arsenal on the IAEA’s agenda. The US comes to the rescue in wartime and takes Israel’s side when negotiating peace. The Nixon administration protected it from the threat of Soviet intervention and resupplied it during the October War. Washington was deeply involved in the negotiations that ended that war, as well as in the lengthy ‘step-by-step’ process that followed, just as it played a key role in the negotiations that preceded and followed the 1993 Oslo Accords. In each case there was occasional friction between US and Israeli officials, but the US consistently supported the Israeli position. One American participant at Camp David in 2000 later said: ‘Far too often, we functioned . . . as Israel’s lawyer.’ Finally, the Bush administration’s ambition to transform the Middle East is at least partly aimed at improving Israel’s strategic situation."

  "Jewish Americans also differ on specific Israeli policies. Many of the key organisations in the Lobby, such as the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organisations, are run by hardliners who generally support the Likud Party’s expansionist policies, including its hostility to the Oslo peace process. The bulk of US Jewry, meanwhile, is more inclined to make concessions to the Palestinians, and a few groups – such as Jewish Voice for Peace – strongly advocate such steps. Despite these differences, moderates and hardliners both favour giving steadfast support to Israel. Not surprisingly, American Jewish leaders often consult Israeli officials, to make sure that their actions advance Israeli goals. As one activist from a major Jewish organisation wrote, ‘it is routine for us to say: “This is our policy on a certain issue, but we must check what the Israelis think.” We as a community do it all the time.’ There is a strong prejudice against criticising Israeli policy, and putting pressure on Israel is considered out of order. Edgar Bronfman Sr, the president of the World Jewish Congress, was accused of ‘perfidy’ when he wrote a letter to President Bush in mid-2003 urging him to persuade Israel to curb construction of its controversial ‘security fence’. His critics said that ‘it would be obscene at any time for the president of the World Jewish Congress to lobby the president of the United States to resist policies being promoted by the government of Israel.’ Similarly, when the president of the Israel Policy Forum, Seymour Reich, advised Condoleezza Rice in November 2005 to ask Israel to reopen a critical border crossing in the Gaza Strip, his action was denounced as ‘irresponsible’: ‘There is,’ his critics said, ‘absolutely no room in the Jewish mainstream for actively canvassing against the security-related policies . . . of Israel.’ Recoiling from these attacks, Reich announced that ‘the word “pressure” is not in my vocabulary when it comes to Israel.’ Jewish Americans have set up an impressive array of organisations to influence American foreign policy, of which AIPAC is the most powerful and best known. In 1997, Fortune magazine asked members of Congress and their staffs to list the most powerful lobbies in Washington. AIPAC was ranked second behind the American Association of Retired People, but ahead of the AFL-CIO and the National Rifle Association. A National Journal study in March 2005 reached a similar conclusion, placing AIPAC in second place (tied with AARP) in the Washington ‘muscle rankings’. The Lobby also includes prominent Christian evangelicals like Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson, as well as Dick Armey and Tom DeLay, former majority leaders in the House of Representatives, all of whom believe Israel’s rebirth is the fulfilment of biblical prophecy and support its expansionist agenda; to do otherwise, they believe, would be contrary to God’s will. Neo-conservative gentiles such as John Bolton; Robert Bartley, the former Wall Street Journal editor; William Bennett, the former secretary of education; Jeane Kirkpatrick, the former UN ambassador; and the influential columnist George Will are also steadfast supporters."..."The Lobby pursues two broad strategies. First, it wields its significant influence in Washington, pressuring both Congress and the executive branch. Whatever an individual lawmaker or policymaker’s own views may be, the Lobby tries to make supporting Israel the ‘smart’ choice. Second, it strives to ensure that public discourse portrays Israel in a positive light, by repeating myths about its founding and by promoting its point of view in policy debates. The goal is to prevent critical comments from getting a fair hearing in the political arena. Controlling the debate is essential to guaranteeing US support, because a candid discussion of US-Israeli relations might lead Americans to favour a different policy. A key pillar of the Lobby’s effectiveness is its influence in Congress, where Israel is virtually immune from criticism. This in itself is remarkable, because Congress rarely shies away from contentious issues. Where Israel is concerned, however, potential critics fall silent. One reason is that some key members are Christian Zionists like Dick Armey, who said in September 2002: ‘My No. 1 priority in foreign policy is to protect Israel.’ One might think that the No. 1 priority for any congressman would be to protect America. There are also Jewish senators and congressmen who work to ensure that US foreign policy supports Israel’s interests. Another source of the Lobby’s power is its use of pro-Israel congressional staffers. As Morris Amitay, a former head of AIPAC, once admitted, ‘there are a lot of guys at the working level up here’ – on Capitol Hill – ‘who happen to be Jewish, who are willing . . . to look at certain issues in terms of their Jewishness . . . These are all guys who are in a position to make the decision in these areas for those senators . . . You can get an awful lot done just at the staff level.’ AIPAC itself, however, forms the core of the Lobby’s influence in Congress. Its success is due to its ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those who challenge it. Money is critical to US elections (as the scandal over the lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s shady dealings reminds us), and AIPAC makes sure that its friends get strong financial support from the many pro-Israel political action committees. Anyone who is seen as hostile to Israel can be sure that AIPAC will direct campaign contributions to his or her political opponents. AIPAC also organises letter-writing campaigns and encourages newspaper editors to endorse pro-Israel candidates. There is no doubt about the efficacy of these tactics. Here is one example: in the 1984 elections, AIPAC helped defeat Senator Charles Percy from Illinois, who, according to a prominent Lobby figure, had ‘displayed insensitivity and even hostility to our concerns’. Thomas Dine, the head of AIPAC at the time, explained what happened: ‘All the Jews in America, from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy. And the American politicians – those who hold public positions now, and those who aspire – got the message.’AIPAC’s influence on Capitol Hill goes even further. According to Douglas Bloomfield, a former AIPAC staff member, ‘it is common for members of Congress and their staffs to turn to AIPAC first when they need information, before calling the Library of Congress, the Congressional Research Service, committee staff or administration experts.’ More important, he notes that AIPAC is ‘often called on to draft speeches, work on legislation, advise on tactics, perform research, collect co-sponsors and marshal votes’. The bottom line is that AIPAC, a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on Congress, with the result that US policy towards Israel is not debated there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world. In other words, one of the three main branches of the government is firmly committed to supporting Israel. As one former Democratic senator, Ernest Hollings, noted on leaving office, ‘you can’t have an Israeli policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here.’ Or as Ariel Sharon once told an American audience, ‘when people ask me how they can help Israel, I tell them: “Help AIPAC.”’  New

• Ban on Marriages, Another Yoke on Rohingya Muslims | "BANGKOK, Dec 6 (IPS) - In Burma's remote west, young men and women are subject to a form of discrimination, considered harsh, even for the military regime in this country. They are banned from getting married. The victims are young adults from the ethnic Muslim-Rohingya community that is concentrated in the hilly Arakan state which shares a border with Bangladesh. Those who dared violate this ban are subject to heavy penalties, according to human rights researchers and Rohingya political leaders and journalists IPS spoke with."  New

• Traces of poison: Israel's Dark History revealed | "Israel, not Iraq, holds that distinction of being the first country in the region to use weapons of mass destruction with genocidal intent. Salman Abu-Sitta digs into a dark history"..."At a time when TV screens are filled with images of perceived weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq among people who are on the verge of starvation, the West turns a blind eye to the first biological terrorist in the Middle East, Israel, where the largest depot of WMD between London and Peking is located. When confronted with the anomaly, the United States ambassador to the UN, John Negroponti, responds with typical cynicism, "Israel did not use these weapons against its people or its neighbours." Assuming that the ambassador is well-informed, this statement is a patent lie. Israel used biological weapons even before it was created on Arab soil in 1948 and ever since. The purpose, according to Ben Gurion, is genocide, and if not complete, the purpose is not to allow the dispossessed Palestinians to return to their homes. POISONING ACRE WATER SUPPLY: In the wake of Haifa's occupation on 23 April 1948 by the Zionists, under the nose of the British Mandate forces commended by General Stockwell, a man still historically discredited for this failure, thousands converged on Acre, a nearby city, which was still Arab under the "protection" of the British forces. Acre was to be the next Zionist target. The Zionists besieged the city from the land side, and started showering the population with a hail of mortar bombs day and night. Famous for its historical walls, Acre could stand the siege for a long time. The city water supply comes from a nearby village, Kabri, about 10kms to the north, through an aqueduct. The Zionists injected typhoid in the aqueduct at some intermediate point which passes through Zionist settlements. (see map) The story can now be told, thanks to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) files which have now become available, 50 years after the event. A series of reports, under the reference G59/1/GC, G3/82, sent by ICRC delegate de Meuron from 6 May to about 19 May 1948 describe the conditions of the city population, struck by a sudden typhoid epidemic, and the efforts to combat it. Of particular importance are the minutes of an emergency conference held at the Lebanese Red Cross Hospital in Acre on 6 May, to deal with the typhoid epidemic. The meeting was attended by: Brigadier Beveridge, Chief of British Medical Services and Colonel Bonnet of the British Army, Dr Maclean of the Medical Services, Mr de Meuron, ICRC delegate in addition to other officials of the city. The minutes stated that there are at least 70 known civilian casualties, others may not be reported. It was determined that the infection is "water borne", not due to crowded or unhygienic conditions as claimed by the Israelis. It was decided that a substitute water supply should now come from artesian wells or from the agricultural station, just north of Acre (see map), not from the aqueduct. Water chlorine solution was applied, inoculation of civil population started, movement of civil population was controlled (lest refugees heading north towards Lebanon will carry the typhoid epidemic with them, as intended by the Zionists)."  New

• Israel's shooting of young girl highlights international hypocrisy, say Palestinians | "As the votes were counted in the Palestinian election and the scale of Hamas's landslide became apparent to the world, Aya al-Astal drifted away from her home and wandered towards the fence along the border between the Gaza strip and Israel. The nine-year-old girl's parents realised she was gone as they watched the election results on television. They do not know precisely what happened, but the Israeli army later said Aya was behaving in a suspicious manner reminiscent of a terrorist - she got too close to the border fence - and so a soldier fired several bullets into the child, hitting her in the neck and blowing open her stomach. Aya was the second child killed by the Israeli army last week. Soldiers near Ramallah shot 13-year-old Munadel Abu Aaalia in the back as he walked along a road reserved for Jewish settlers with two friends. The army said the boys planned to throw rocks at Israeli cars, which the military defines as terrorism. The two killings went unnoticed by the outside world amid the political drama, but they made their impact among Palestinians angered by demands from western leaders for Hamas to recognise Israel and renounce its armed struggle. Some Palestinians see the demands as a rejection of a democratic election and as siding with Israel. Others see hypocrisy. They say Israeli soldiers killed twice as many Palestinians last week alone - both of them children - as the number of Israelis killed by Hamas all last year. "Aya was shot in the neck and stomach. Her stomach was hanging out," said the child's mother, Aisha. "We have no idea why she went there but she was a child. She was so small. She was nine years old. She didn't wear a hijab. It was clear she was just a young girl. This is hatred.""  New

• Why an Economic Boycott of Israel is Justified | A must read article. This article written by Norman Finklestein systematically documents Israeli atrocities committed in Palestine/Israel. Israel has murdered thousands of Palestinians in cold blood, including hundreds of children, it systematically tortures innocent people, it has a policy of collective punishment demolition Palestinians houses, it is unilaterally and illegally confiscating Palestinian land to be used for Jewish colonies. It has to this day refused to allow the Palestinians their Right of Return to their own land and homes from which their were ethnically cleansed from in 1948, simply because they are not Jewish. And yet, Israel has been repeatedly protected by US vetoes at the UN while this has been going on. "Although the subject of many reports by human rights organizations, Israel's real human rights record in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is generally not well known abroad. This is primarily due to the formidable public relations industry of Israel's defenders as well as the effectiveness of their tactics of intimidation, such as labeling critics of Israeli policy anti-Semitic. Yet, it is an incontestable fact that Israel has committed a broad range of human rights violations, many rising to the level of war crimes and crimes against humanity..."In addition, Israel has demolished thousands of "illegal" homes that Palestinians built because of Israel's refusal to provide building permits. The motive behind destroying these homes, according to Amnesty, has been to maximize the area available for Jewish settlers: "Palestinians are targeted for no other reason than they are Palestinians." Finally, Israel has destroyed hundred of homes on security pretexts, yet a Human Rights Watch report on Gaza found that "the pattern of destructionstrongly suggests that Israeli forces demolished homes wholesale, regardless of whether they posed a specific threat." Amnesty likewise found that "Israel's extensive destruction of homes and properties throughout the West Bank and Gazais not justified by military necessity," and that "Some of these acts of destruction amount to grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention and are war crimes."..."Although an economic boycott can be justified on moral grounds, the question remains whether diplomacy might be more effectively employed instead. The documentary record in this regard, however, is not encouraging. The basic terms for resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict are embodied in U.N. resolution 242 and subsequent U.N. resolutions, which call for a full Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza and the establishment of a Palestinian state in these areas in exchange for recognition of Israel's right to live in peace and security with its neighbors. Each year the overwhelming majority of member States of the United Nations vote in favor of this two-state settlement, and each year Israel and the United States (and a few South Pacific islands) oppose it. Similarly, in March 2002 all twenty-two member States of the Arab League proposed this two-state settlement as well as "normal relations with Israel." Israel ignored the proposal. Not only has Israel stubbornly rejected this two-state settlement, but the policies it is currently pursuing will abort any possibility of a viable Palestinian state. While world attention has been riveted by Israel's redeployment from Gaza, Sara Roy of Harvard University observes that the "Gaza Disengagement Plan is, at heart, an instrument for Israel's continued annexation of West Bank land and the physical integration of that land into Israel." In particular Israel has been constructing a wall deep inside the West Bank that will annex the most productive land and water resources as well as East Jerusalem, the center of Palestinian life. It will also effectively sever the West Bank in two. Although Israel initially claimed that it was building the wall to fight terrorism, the consensus among human rights organizations is that it is really a land grab to annex illegal Jewish settlements into Israel. Recently Israel's Justice Minister frankly acknowledged that the wall will serve as "the future border of the state of Israel."..."Recalling the U.N. Charter principle that it is inadmissible to acquire territory by war, the International Court of Justice declared in a landmark 2004 opinion that Israel's settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the wall being built to annex them to Israel were illegal under international law. It called on Israel to cease construction of the wall, dismantle those parts already completed and compensate Palestinians for damages. Crucially, it also stressed the legal responsibilities of the international community:

  all States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem. They are also under an obligation not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction. It is also for all States, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to see to it that any impediment, resulting from the construction of the wall, to the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination is brought to an end.

  A subsequent U.N. General Assembly resolution supporting the World Court opinion passed overwhelmingly. However, the Israeli government ignored the Court's opinion, continuing construction at a rapid pace, while Israel's Supreme Court ruled that the wall was legal. Due to the obstructionist tactics of the United States, the United Nations has not been able to effectively confront Israel's illegal practices. Indeed, although it is true that the U.N. keeps Israel to a double standard, it's exactly the reverse of the one Israel's defenders allege: Israel is held not to a higher but lower standard than other member States. A study by Marc Weller of Cambridge University comparing Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory with comparable situations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, East Timor, occupied Kuwait and Iraq, and Rwanda found that Israel has enjoyed "virtual immunity" from enforcement measures such as an arms embargo and economic sanctions typically adopted by the U.N. against member States condemned for identical violations of international law. Due in part to an aggressive campaign accusing Europe of a "new anti-Semitism," the European Union has also failed in its legal obligation to enforce international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Although the claim of a "new anti-Semitism" has no basis in fact (all the evidence points to a lessening of anti-Semitism in Europe), the EU has reacted by appeasing Israel. It has even suppressed publication of one of its own reports, because the authors ­ like the Crisis Group and many others ­ concluded that due to Israeli policies the "prospects for a two-state solution with east Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine are receding."  New

• Israel-Our Dangerous Parasite | "One major difference stands out: the German people funded Hitler's expansionism, whereas it has been the US taxpayers who, to a great extent, have paid for Israel's expansionism. Adolph Hitler never received complimentary press coverage in the US but our President Bush has stated more than once, that Sharon is " a man of peace." The fascist ideology of the Likud Party has kept the Mideast in an uproar for over half a century." In his memoirs of his years in the White House former President Jimmy Carter wrote that there could have been peace between the Arabs and the Israelis had it not been for the bigoted, Nazi-like racial views of Israeli's Prime Minister Menachem Begin. Begin, Carter recalled, believed the Jews were the Master Race, a holy people superior to Egyptians and Arabs. Begin also believed that God wanted the Jews to own the land, so there was absolutely no basis for peace. The Jews lusted after the land and intended to have it." "Holocaust activist, Elie Wiesel, who recently died, claimed the Jews are a superior race. "Everything about us is different ...Jews are ontologically exceptional." (Texe Maars 11-25-2003) (www.rense.com/general45/master.htm )"  New

• Israel continues it's policy of Arab ethnic cleansing and Jewish colonialism | Imagine if any other government had treated other people in such a racist way, their would be an international outcry and an inevitable UN resolution. Yet the self-proclaimed defenders of freedom, democracy and human rights in the West and are completely silent on this matter. How can they expect hate against their countries to disappear if this support of oppressive governments exists? How can they expect Muslims to not hate them? Inevitably this comes down to the insidious influence exerted on the US and other Western governments of pro-Israel parasitical lobbies like AIPAC. They are pressuring the American government to support Israel, against the wishes of real, loyal and decent Americans who then bear the brunt of terrorist attacks because the actions of their government and the influence of the insidious Zionist pro-Israel groups who only have loyalties to Israel (see 1 2 3 4 5 6 7). "Israel has effectively annexed the Jordan Valley - about a third of the occupied West Bank - by barring almost all Palestinians from entering the region, a respected Israeli human rights group said yesterday. The group, B'Tselem, points to a system of permits and checkpoints that has expanded over recent months to keep most Palestinians out of the valley. It says this and other measures that are forcing residents to leave the area appear to be a step towards seizing the land for Israel. "Israel's permit regime in the valley, together with statements of senior officials, give the impression that the motive underlying Israel's policy is not based on military-security needs, but is political: the de facto annexation of the Jordan Valley," said B'Tselem. "This annexation, similar to the de facto annexation of broad tracts of land west of the [West Bank] separation barrier, constitutes a flagrant breach of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination." Last week, Ehud Olmert, the acting prime minister, said Israel intended to keep control of the valley - even after it pulls out of other parts of the West Bank and draws new borders - as a defensive move. "It is impossible to abandon control of the eastern border of Israel," he said. The sparsely populated valley - home to about 53,000 Palestinians and 6,000 Israelis in 21 Jewish settlements - is among the most fertile land in the occupied territories and an important source of produce. It also used to be a main transport route linking various parts of the West Bank. But last year the army, unannounced, started restricting Palestinian access. Only those whose identity documents show they live there are permitted to remain. Several thousand workers in the settlements or in essential areas, such as teaching and healthcare, are given permits to visit during the day. "The closing of the Jordan Valley has caused many Palestinians who live in villages bordering the valley and work in agriculture there to lose their source of livelihood," said B'Tselem. In recent weeks, the army has also restricted the movement of Palestinian produce out of the valley - but not from the settlements - forcing some farmers into debt and threatening their ability to maintain their livelihoods. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the occupied territories sees the result as a valley "increasingly out of bounds for Palestinians living in other parts of the West Bank".  New

• Bethlehem Bloggers: Voices from the Bethlehem Ghetto: The ethnic cleansing continues... | "The first house to be demolished didn’t even have a demolition order on it. The inhabitants, Munther Salim, his wife Siham and their three children, hired a lawyer because so many houses in their village had demolition orders on them. They were assured by their lawyer just two weeks previously that he had received promises from the Israeli authorities that their house would not be touched. Because of their difficult economic situation, they could not afford to build a house on the land which Siham inherited from her father when he died nearly 20 years ago. Despite this, four years ago, with both financial and practical help from the community, a house was built for the family. The family were both full of shock and questions and sat on the remains of their house in tears. ‘We want to live in peace, but there is no peace here, how can we live like this? Where shall I go? To a camp? To spend all of my life in a refugee camp?’ Siham asked me. I admit I was lost for answers. Siham’s young niece asked me, ‘What would happen if I went to Jerusalem and demolished an Israeli house, where Jewish people lived. The whole world would stand behind Israel and call us terrorists, wouldn’t they? Why is it different for us? Who was this house hurting? How does this house harm the security of Israel?’ I’d like everyone reading this to, just for one moment, imagine, genuinely try and imagine what it would feel like if a foreign country’s police force came to your door and told you that they were about to demolish your house, ordered you out of the house, took out all of your things, and half an hour later started the demolition. Then left."  New

• The guilty plea of fabulously wealthy and highly corrupt lobbyist "Jack Abramoff raised the question of whether he would roll over on congressmen involved in illegal fundraising and other crimes with him. Some twenty Republicans on Capitol Hill are said to be in danger. Abramoff's dense network of illicit finances and phony charities might end some political careers in the United States. But the investigation into his activities by the FBI also shed light on the ways in which rightwing American Jews have often been involved in funding what are essentially terrorist activities by armed land thieves in Palestinian territory. Indeed, it was this terror funding of Israeli far right militiamen that tripped Abramoff up, since the FBI discovered that he had misled Indian tribes into giving money to the Jabotinskyites, and then began wondering if he had defrauded the tribes in other ways. (You betcha!) The Indian leaders were furious when they discovered they had been used to oppress another dispossessed indigenous people, the Palestinians, calling it "Outer Limits bizarre" and saying that they would never have willingly given money to such a cause. Newsweek's Mike Issikoff reported last May that Abramoff diverted $140,000 from a charity ostensibly to benefit inner-city youths to militant Israeli colonists who had usurped land in the Palestinian West Bank. Isikoff wrote: "Among the expenditures: purchases of camouflage suits, sniper scopes, night-vision binoculars, a thermal imager and other material described in foundation records as "security" equipment. The FBI, sources tell NEWSWEEK, is now examining these payments as part of a larger investigation to determine if Abramoff defrauded his Indian tribe clients . . . Abramoff, a legendary lobbyist particularly close to DeLay, is also a fierce supporter of Israel—"a super-Zionist," one associate says. That may explain why Abramoff's paramilitary gear ended up in the town of Beitar Illit, a sprawling ultra-Orthodox outpost whose residents have occasionally tangled with their Palestinian neighbors. Yitzhak Pindrus, the settlement's mayor, says that several years ago the town was confronting mounting security problems. "They [the Palestinians] were throwing stones, they were throwing Molotov cocktails," Pindrus says. Abramoff's connection to the town was Schmuel Ben-Zvi, an American emigre who, the lobbyist told associates, was an old friend he knew from Los Angeles. Capital Athletic Foundation public tax records make no mention of Ben-Zvi. But they do show payments to "Kollel Ohel Tiferet" in Israel, a group for which there is no public listing and which the town's mayor said he never heard of...."Isikoff is careful to avoid trouble by depicting the weaponry sent by Abramoff as essentially for self-defense. But the colonists are often aggressive, and anyway would not need to defend themselves if they weren't squatting on other people's land. And, Israel does have an army. Private militias are always an ugly thing, and have been used by Israeli colonists ethnically to cleanse nearby Palestinian villages"...."Illegal outposts, i.e. establishing foreign colonies on stolen land, is a way of terrorizing the indigenous inhabitants, and it requires a local militia to defend the colonists, along with sniper lessons and night-vision binoculars. Now here's the thing. If a Palestinian-American had diverted $140,000 from a Muslim charity to "security equipment" and "sniper lessons" for Palestinians on the West Bank, that individual would be in Gitmo so fast that the sonic boom would rattle your windows. In fact, it seems to me that Sami al-Arian is the mirror image of Abramoff. But here's a prediction. None of the Jewish extremists, some of them violent, who are invading the West Bank and making the lives of the local Palestinians miserable will ever be branded "terrorists" by the US Government, and Abramoff's foray into providing sniper lessons will be quietly buried. Terror isn't terror and aggression is not aggression when it has lobbyists in Congress who can provide luxury vacations and illegal campaign funding.  New
  

• Israeli Apartheid in the Middle East | "After wiping Palestine off the map and expelling over 700,000 Palestinians from their homes, confiscating the land they've lived on for generations, Israel still had a considerable Palestinian minority within its borders. Set to realise the dream of creating a state for Jews only, which had obviously failed, Apartheid laws were imposed in order to make the non-Jewish citizens of the Jewish state to leave...Non-Jews are prevented from buying or renting land on more than 80% of the state of Israel within the Green Line (this also applies to land under Israeli control in the occupied territories). 93.7% of the land in Israel is defined as 'Israel lands' [7] and is either owned by the Israeli state, the Development Authority or the Keren Kayemeth Le-Israel (The Jewish National Fund, JNF). This national land is property that was confiscated by the Zionists - except for a few per cent which was bought by the JNF - and the Palestinians nowadays only own about 3.5% of the land in Israel, which is half of the private-owned land....The 'Judaizing' of Jerusalem is another word for ethnically cleansing it, making it as Jewish as possible.[10] A Palestinian born in East Jerusalem who has moved abroad is forbidden to return, while a Jew who has never sat foot in the city can move back and forth as he likes. Can you picture Jews being forbidden to return to Washington DC just because they are Jews? Probably not, and that's good. The question is how Israel gets away with it. And why does almost no newspaper or magazine in Europe and North America ever write about it?...Professor of Political Science at Haifa University and a true supporter of the Palestinians, Ilan Pappe in an interview well summarised the racist laws against the Palestinians in Israel: "For example, the law of the land, which says that 94% of the land in Israel belongs to the Jewish people alone, not to the state of Israel, and therefore 20% of the population - the Arabs - are barred from this land. Although the Arab population in Israel tripled compared to the Jewish population, there has not been one new Arab settlement or village built, while there are hundreds of new Jewish, towns, villages and settlements. So this is discrimination on the basis of ethnicity on land rights. You cannot exist in an agricultural society like the Arab one, if you are not allowed to expand according to your demographic group. That's one law. Then there is the law of citizenship, which says that Palestinians who may have brothers and sisters and relatives all over the Arab world are not allowed to reunite with their families, but Jews all around the world have all the rights to come and become full citizens from the moment they are born. The third one is the law of social welfare, which says that only people who have served in the army are entitled to the full welfare social system. Now, the Arabs are not allowed to serve in the army [with few exceptions, as with the Druze], and therefore they are not allowed full social services. And these are just the formal laws. There are many de facto manifestations of apartheid in the way towards the Arab population in the way that the budget is distributed; in the basic treatment by the authorities; the police; and so on."[12] One question remains: How the hell does Israel get away with all this? Why is Israel, time after time, being called 'the only democracy in the Middle East', while its non-Jewish Arab citizens are forbidden to live on 80% of its land? How come almost no newspaper ever mentions that Jerusalem is being ethnically cleansed?"  New
  

• Aid to Israel is Out of Hand | "American and Israeli diplomats have recently revived discussions over our potential financial support of Israel's August withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. Last summer, Israel sought $2 billion, but suspended its request following the Katrina disaster. With popular and congressional attention to New Orleans now dissipating, Israel is again asking American taxpayers for help, although it has scaled back to $1.2 billion in light of popular sentiment and signals from Congress. This amount is supplemental to Israel's share of our regular foreign aid that has run $3 billion to $4 billion annually for decades. Our officials have not publicly responded to the Israel request. When they do, their answer should be a polite but firm "No". It is reason enough to deny Israel's request that its settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are illegal. The U.N. Security Council has held so, as has the International Court of Justice. As part of its non-binding but authoritative judgment on Israel's wall, the International Court of Justice concluded last year that Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories violate international law. While the dollars Israel now seeks would fund housing and infrastructure for new communities in Israel for the settlers, paying for these, in effect, compensates Israel for giving back its illegal settlements. Some 94 percent of Americans polled by CNN in July opposed the Israeli request, even before Katrina and heightened public awareness of our own acute domestic needs. Still, there are times when principle must surrender to pragmatism. $1.2 billion would be a bargain were it to yield momentum toward a genuine Israeli-Palestinian peace. Every indication, unfortunately, is to the contrary. Since the decolonization of the Gaza Strip, Israel has only intensified its colonization of the West Bank, including Jerusalem. There, 430,000 Israeli settlers live in settlements built on land seized from Palestinians -- and they are expanding every day. A city holy to three great religions is being transformed into the exclusive capital of one group -- Jews. Meanwhile Palestinian Christian and Muslim families are slowly squeezed out of neighborhoods they have inhabited peacefully for decades if not centuries. A European Union study released last week determined that Israeli policies toward Jerusalem are not motivated by security, but by demographics, violating international law and Israel's obligations under the Roadmap to Peace. Israel touted the Gaza disengagement as a step forward. Yet in October 2004, Dov Weisglass, advisor and close confidant of Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, admitted in an interview in Israel that withdrawal was a way to avoid peace negotiations with Palestinians, consolidate control over the West Bank, and foil the creation of a Palestinian state. No such pronouncements are necessary, however, to the Palestinians. They witness Israel's continuing relentless seizures of Palestinian lands, demolition of Palestinian homes, construction of the separation wall, and expansion of Jewish-only settlements. Palestinian Christians and Muslims are rendered homeless, stripped of their property, and deprived of any semblance at equal rights with their Jewish counterparts."  New

• Might the Arabs Have a Point? | "And is Israel not our fair-haired boy? Though Sharon & Co. have stomped on as many UN resolutions as Saddam Hussein ever did, they have pocketed $100 billion in U.S. aid and are now asking for a $2 billion bonus this year, Katrina notwithstanding. Anyone doubt they will get it? Though per capita income in Israel is probably 20 times that of the Palestinians, Israel gets the lion’s share of economic aid. And though they have flipped off half a dozen presidents to plant half a million settlers in Arab East Jerusalem and the West Bank, have we ever imposed a single sanction on Israel? Has Bush ever raised his voice to Ariel Sharon? And when you listen to the talking heads and read the columns of the neocon press, is it unfair to conclude that, yes, they would like to dump over every regime that defies Bush or Sharon?"  New

• The Truth You Don't Hear About: Situation on the Ground in Palestine | "The Gaza redeployment was spun as the beginning of a peace process; a great retreat by General Ariel Sharon, who was portrayed as a man of peace. Yet the fact remains that Palestine is 27,000 square kilometres, of which the West Bank constitutes only 5,860 square kilometres, and the Gaza Strip, just 360 sq km. This is equal to only 1.3 per cent of the total land of historic Palestine. So even if Sharon really had withdrawn from Gaza, this would amount to just 5.8 per cent of the occupied territories. But the Israelis did not get out of Gaza. A big fuss was created about the great sacrifice Israel was making and how painful it was for settlers to leave. If you steal a piece of land and keep it for 20 years, of course it becomes painful to leave it but it is still something stolen that should be returned to its owners. Prior to the disengagement, a total of 152 settlements existed in the occupied territories: 101 in the West Bank, 30 in East Jerusalem, and 21 in the Gaza Strip. These figures do not include the settlements that Sharon and the Israeli army have created in the West Bank without officially recognising them. With the disengagement, and the evacuation of settlements in Gaza and four small settlements in the Jenin area of the West Bank, 127 settlements have been left in place. The total population of settlers -- illegal under international law, and under the 2004 ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which states that the separation wall and every settlement in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem must be removed -- numbers some 436,000: 190,000 in Jerusalem, and 246,000 in the West Bank. Just 8,475, or two per cent of the total number of illegal settlers in the occupied territories were removed from the Gaza Strip and Jenin area. Yet in the same period, the settlement population in the West Bank has grown by a massive 15,800. So why remove settlers from Gaza if the disengagement was simply an exercise in relocation? Firstly, Israel never really wanted to keep them there. They were a bargaining chip to use when the time came to talk about the future of the occupied territories. But providing security for this relatively small number of settlers through a sustained military presence in the Gaza Strip was proving costly. Secondly, Israel had already exhausted the water resources in Gaza by tapping the flow of underground water east of Gaza -- resulting in the seepage of seawater into Gaza's coastal aquifer -- and through the over-pumping of the existing aquifer by Israeli settlements. As such, Gazans have been left with brackish water resources that cause high rates of kidney failure. The maximum accepted level of chloride in drinking water, as set by World Health Organisation standards, is 250 mg per litre. In most areas of Gaza, the level stands between 1,200 and 2,500 mg per litre."  New

• The 'Trophy Video': Bloodthirsty Contractors Randomly Shoot Iraqi Drivers Dead | This video shows British security personnel randomly shooting Iraqi civilians in cars. This video demonstrates the absolute callous attitude Western authorities have regarding the lives of Muslims and non-Westerners. One would have thought there would have been some sort of checks and measures against such murderous behaviour by Westerners but it seems that the lives of Muslims are not worth bothering about. Surely the Iraqi people will not forget these atrocities and will some day return the favour upon the West?

• Report: Iraqis losing out on oil fortune | "Up to $113 billion in Iraqi oil revenues are going to multinational oil companies under long-term contracts, and not to the Iraqi people, says a social and environmental group. In a report, the group known as Platform said that oil multinationals would be paid between 74 billion pounds ($43 billion) and 194 billion pounds, with rates of return of between 42% and 162% under proposed production-sharing agreements, or PSAs. "The form of contracts being promoted is the most expensive and undemocratic option available," said Platform researcher Greg Muttitt on Tuesday. "Iraq's oil should be for the benefit of the Iraqi people, not foreign oil companies."

• To become an occupier | "No international relationship has been more untouchable in the politics of American foreign policy than the US-Israeli alliance. For decades, the brute power of the pro-Israel “lobby” has had Congress in the palm of its hand, ready to override virtually any presidential initiative not favored by Israel."

• No US-Backed Israeli Government Has Offered Equal Rights to Palestinians | "This is because a prolonged conflict in Palestine will destabilize the Arab world and allow its leaders to continue ignoring urgent issues such as poverty and democracy. The unsolved Palestinian question means that that the age of colonialism is not over and that dealing with poverty or liberty can be described as a luxury. As long as the Palestinian refugees who were expelled by Jewish newcomers in 1948 cannot return home and as long as the military occupation of the territories conquered by Israel in 1967 persists, there will be no lasting solution. No peace proposal to date has offered a fair solution to either the Palestinian refugees or those continuing to live under a brutal military occupation. This perception of Israel as an aggressive relic of a colonialist past is widespread in the Muslim world. And it has ominous implications for the United States. Israel could not have uprooted close to a million Palestinians in 1948 and occupied another two million for the past 38 years without American support. Indeed, American taxpayers foot the bill for a $3 billion annual grant. This financial backing, combined with unremitting diplomatic support, has enabled Israel to sustain the longest occupation of another people in modern times. Here are the horrors inflicted on the Palestinians that are witnessed by people across the Arab and Muslim world: widespread home demolitions, the confiscation of private property for the construction of Jewish-only settlements and Jewish-only roads and the expulsion of Palestinian Christian and Muslim people. And their wrath is not always limited to protesting Israel, the occupier and expeller. They sometimes also challenge --with condemnable terror --the United States, whom they see as the superpower behind the oppressor. The US does not need to be embroiled in a tense relationship with a fifth of the world population."

• Palestinian Newborns Die in Israeli Checkpoint Delays: UN | "GENEVA, September 23, 2005 (IslamOnline.net) - Israeli security measures and consequent delays at checkpoints are responsible for the death of Palestinian newborns and mothers in labor, the UN said in a new report released Thursday, September 22. Since 2000, there have been more than 70 cases of women in labor who were delayed at checkpoints, resulting in "unattended and risky roadside births, causing maternal as well as newborn deaths," read the report, prepared for the UN General Assembly by the Geneva-based UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Reuters reported."

• Palestinians terrorised by Israeli sonic booms | "Israel is deploying a terrifying new tactic against Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip by letting loose deafening "sound bombs" that cause widespread fear, induce miscarriages and traumatise children. The removal of Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip opened the way for the military to use air force jets to create dozens of sonic booms by breaking the sound barrier at low altitude, sending shockwaves across the territory, often at night. Palestinians liken the sound to an earthquake or huge bomb. They describe the effect as being hit by a wall of air that is painful on the ears, sometimes causing nosebleeds and "leaving you shaking inside". The Palestinian health ministry says the sonic booms have led to miscarriages and heart problems. The United Nations has demanded an end to the tactic, saying it causes panic attacks in children. The shockwaves have also damaged buildings by cracking walls and smashing thousands of windows." The Israeli treatment of non-Jews, especially Palestinians Arabs, has been atrocious. It has been going on for over 50 years, yet why do we not see the US take action over this when it claims to fight for freedom and democracy?

• High treason in Washington | "With several thousand well-connected members and a staff of close to 200, AIPAC is one of the US's most powerful lobbying groups and wields great influence on Capitol Hill. It has lobbied and raised billions of dollars in aid for Israel, while marshalling support to defeat legislative initiatives relating to Israel it does not like. Some of the most important officials in US government, including President Bush and House Speaker Tom Delay, have attended AIPAC's annual conference. AIPAC, moreover, has strong ties to the Christian Right, as well as to such prominent neo con figures as Douglas Feith, Richard Perle and Micheal Ledeen, who promote an aggressive U.S. foreign policy and unflinching support for Israel."..."Despite the can of worms opened up in Iraq by a neo con strategy based on lies, distortions and deceptions, the cabal seemed determined to push on with their agenda for the Islamic world. The driving force behind the strategy is the protection of Israel at whatever cost to US interests."...The FBI is reportedly continuing its probe of whether U.S. officials with treason in their heart have passed on sensitive intelligence about Iran and its nuclear programme to Israel. Also significant, was the US Justice Department investigation of AIPAC that threatens to force AIPAC to register as a foreign agent. Getting AIPAC to register would be appropriate and timely. Something needs to be done to ensure the un-American organisation can't continue to undermine US foreign policy with impunity. Uncle Sam does not need to plunge ahead with another foolhardy adventure." Americans have to ask themselves, who benefits from the Iraq war? Why do Zionist-Jewish neo-cons feature so prominently in the cabal of neo-cons who were the architects of the Iraq war? Where do their loyalties lie, the US or Israel? The truth is that these Zionist parasites are using the US, it's wealth and military power in the interests of Israel and the Jewish people. They do not have loyalties to the USA, they are instead trying to create a dichotomy between Muslims and the West in order to benefit Israel. How will ordinary American patriots rid themselves of this problem?

• So what do Zionists say about Arabs? | "MPACUK comment: You will read a lot in the next few days and weeks in the British press about how Iran should be "wiped off the map" by the west for President Ahmadinejad comments. Now two wrongs don't make a right but there is massive hypocrisy in the indignation shown by the world toward Iran. Please read below what leaders of Israel have said in the past about Palestinians and Arabs. There is also an interview below with Ariel Sharon, the current Israeli leader which vividly shows the difference between Judaism and Zionism. Not surprisingly you won't find Bush, Blair, The Times, Telegraph or any British Newspaper printing this stuff! Now why would that be?"

• Racist Israeli law denies Arab terror victims compensation | "Families of Israeli Arabs shot dead on a bus in Galilee are not considered terrorism victims because their killer was Jewish, the defence ministry says. Under Israeli law, only attacks by "enemies of Israel" are considered terrorism, the ministry said. The ruling means families of the four victims will not be entitled to the lifelong monthly payments given to Israeli victims of Palestinian attacks."

• How to be a good victim | "At last Mr Elie Wiesel has spoken of the "dispossessed" in Palestine. It is appropriate that he should do so; that is what the world has long come to expect of him. A holocaust survivor and Peace Laureate, Mr Wiesel has dedicated his life to preventing another holocaust, acting on the conviction that "to remain silent and indifferent is the greatest sin of all." And so Mr Wiesel speaks of the grief of dispossession in words that convey his deep empathy for the victims. In a NYT column of August 21, he writes about the "heart-rending" images of dispossession. "Some of them are unbearable. Angry men, crying women. Children led away on foot." The victims are "obliged to uproot themselves, to take their holy and precious belongings, their memories and their prayers, their dreams and their dead, to go off in search of a bed to sleep in, a table to eat on, a new home, a future among strangers."..."The "dispossessed" people in his column are not Palestinians: they are the illegal Jewish settlers in Gaza. Instead of commiserating with the Palestinians, Mr Wiesel is engaging in a new game of blaming the victims -- and calling attention to a new form of Jewish victimisation. Implicitly, this is his message: "There never was any ethnic cleansing of Palestinians -- in 1948, 1967, or later. All this is a lie, an anti-Semitic slur. But look at what is real. It's happening right before your eyes: the ethnic cleansing of Jews in Palestine. You can see it everywhere, on Fox, CNN, CBS, the Washington Post, and the NYT.""

• On “Not in the Name of Islam” campaign | "While I applaud the national “Not in the Name of Islam” campaign condemning terrorism, it is a sad commentary about America. Neither Christians nor Jews feel compelled to take out newspaper ads declaring their faith’s innocence whenever acts of violence and extremism are carried out by individuals or groups who share their religion. And that’s simply because we are enlightened enough as a nation to know that you can’t condemn Christianity just because a few Christians committed the Oklahoma City bombing terrorism."

• The plight of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar/Burma | The Rohingya people are being persecuted by the Buddhist military regime in Burma. Thousands are still languising in refugee camps in Bangladesh owing to Burma's refusal to repatriate them. Hundreds of Rohingya villages and mosques have been destroyed while thousands have been killed and raped by Buddhist extremists. But where are the so-called defenders of humanity who invade Iraq on humanitarian grounds yet they let people suffer in Burma and Palestine, or Chechnya and Kashmir? Where is the demand for Buddhists to come out and dissassociate themselves from these atrocities being committed in their name? Why do Muslims only have to apologise?

• Myanmar/BurmaForced Relocations, displacement and abuse of Muslims in Rakhine (Arakan) State and other areas (May 2004) | "In 2001 certain townships in the Arakan State had become "Muslim-free zones", where Muslims were not permitted to live, mosques were destroyed, and lands confiscated"..."Governmental policy to move and concentrate the Rohingya population in the northern part of the districts of Maungdaw and Buthidaung"..."Construction of model villages for Buddhist settlers and new military camps forces Muslim Rohingya to move to less fertile lands"..."During 2003, violence between Muslim communities and Buddhist Rakhine increased, resulting in the displacement of thousands of Rohingya"

EXPOSED: Witch Hunt As Journalists Harass Inayat's Family! | This is in reference to a media witch-hunt against mainstream Muslims being orchestrated currently in the UK by sections of the media who espouse Islamaphobic, as well as pro-Israel views. The lastest attack comes in the form of an atrocious smearing of the mainstream Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) attempting it to portray it as "extremist" organisation (read response in pdf format here). Following on from this, harrasment from well known xenophobic right-wing British newspapers such as the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph appear to center on an individual in that organisation, Inayat Bunglawala, who is being invited by the British government to help in a government initiative to help combat terrorism. These racist elements appear to want to deny mainstream Muslims the chance to integrate into UK society, by trying to discredit mainstream Muslims as "extremist", in an attempt to creat a dichotomy between Muslims and non-Muslims. We see such attempts in America where neo-cons and Jewish extremists such as Daniel Pipes are collaborating in an anti-Muslim agenda. "It just gets dirtier, and more sinister. A racist clique is targeting anyone be it a lone individual leader or personality who stands up for the Muslims. If people doubted the pro Israeli lobby hated us before 7/7 they must be deaf dumb and blind not to notice the constant attacks by their friends on Muslims since the attack. When a massive smear campaign by the Pro Israeli Panorama Team failed to destroy the credibility of the MCB, they focused their attack on an individual worker within it. A week long campaign demanded Inayat not be given the top job in the Government initiative to stop terrorism. Sections of the press decided they too would do Israel’s bidding and launch an all out attack against him. Newspaper after newspaper (note all of the papers attacking him have been pro Israeli) demanded he not be given the top job, the Government to their credit stood firm and have refused to buckle under this pressure. For once we applaud the Home Office. Late last night we learnt how dirty it was getting as the witch hunt against Muslim leaders took a new twist. Reporters claiming to be from the Mail on Sunday started knocking on doors up and down the country, asking friends and relatives of Inayat Bunglawala to dig up dirt on him. This type of harassment is shocking and a clear sign at the levels of intimidation Muslim leaders who stand up for Muslims are now facing. The family friends and relatives of Inayat, scared and shocked at reporters at the door so late at night refused to have any part in it. But why were they even there? Inside sources have alluded to us that The Jewish Board of Deputies were directly involved in asking the Government to refuse Inayat the postion. If this is true it would be a direct link between Jewish groups who are acting on behalf of a foreign power and harming Muslims interests in the UK."

• Disengaging America From The Israel Lobby | "They are using American tax money to pay the IDF to force the non-Jewish Palestinian rightful owners to vacate the property, after which they bulldoze the olive trees and build suburban-style condos for American and European Jews with lumber supplied by Home Depot. This is done using full-scale military equipment supplied and paid for by the United States."..."It is vital for America to disentangle itself from Zionist arguments and loopholes. The argument that Jews should get to keep what they stole because they've been sitting on the stolen property for so many years is not a legal argument. America stands for equal rights, and that means property rights, residency rights and other legal norms. If we care about our rights, we must always and without compromise stress the property rights of all Palestinians. Not just the property stolen in '67 but also '48 has to be returned to its rightful owners, as Germany returned homes stolen from the Jews to their descendents."

• The settlers' retreat was the theatre of the cynical | "Within sight of the Gush Katif settlements that have been handled with such kid gloves this week, families in Rafah were usually given a maximum of five minutes' warning before their houses, and life savings, were crushed. Many people did not even have time to go upstairs to collect belongings when the barking of loudspeakers ordered them out, sometimes before dawn. Fleeing with their children in the night, they risked being shot if they turned round or delayed. As many as 13,350 Palestinians were made homeless in the Gaza Strip in the first 10 months of last year by Israel's giant armour-plated Caterpillar bulldozers - a total that easily exceeds the 8,500 leaving Israeli settlements this week. In Rafah alone, according to figures from the UN relief agency Unrwa, the rate of house demolitions rose from 15 per month in 2002 to 77 per month between January and October 2004. Parts of Rafah now resemble areas of Kabul or Grozny. Facing Israeli army watchtowers and the concrete wall that runs close to the Gaza Strip's boundary, rows of rubble and ruined homes stretch for hundreds of yards."..."The break-up of the settlements will give those in Gaza freedom to move within their narrow enclave, but this benefit may be outweighed by the West Bank's losses. One of the worst places in Gaza used to be the Abu Houli crossing, a tunnel for Palestinian vehicles that went under the road to the Israeli settlements of Gush Katif. At any moment Israeli Land Rovers or tanks would emerge to block the tunnel, leaving Palestinians stranded on what was the only road linking the north and south of Gaza. Pregnant mothers could not get to hospital. Relatives missed weddings. Students failed to reach their colleges to take exams. Israel intends to build at least 16 gated crossings in the West Bank. It is one thing to have segregated roads - a step that America's Deep South and apartheid South Africa never reached. But to insist on the right to block even those roads that are allocated to Palestinians is grotesque. The West Bank will be sliced into a series of ghettoes that Israeli forces can isolate at will. Whatever the security justification, the effect is to impose collective punishment on every Palestinian. No one should be surprised if, in the face of such injustice, Palestinian anger and resistance grow."

• Is their bombing worse than ours? | "I am angered and sickened by the bombings here in London on July 7, but I am equally angered by the unthinking reactions in the United States and Britain to those disgusting attacks The usual self-congratulatory contrast between ''our'' civilization and ''their'' barbarism has set the stage for a cycle of moralistic inquiries into the motivations of suicide bombers and the supposed duty of ''good'' Muslims to restrain ''bad'' ones. Suicide bombing is merely a tactic used by those who lack other means of delivering explosives. What happened in London occurs every time a U.S. or British warplane unloads its bombs on an Iraqi village."..."American and British media have devoted hours to wondering what would drive a seemingly normal young Muslim to destroy himself and others. No one asked what would cause a seemingly normal young Christian or Jew to strap himself into a warplane and drop bombs on a village, knowing full well his bombs will kill civilians (and, of course, soldiers). Because ''our'' way of killing is dressed up in smart uniforms and shiny weapons and cloaked in the language of grand causes, we place it on a different moral plane than ''theirs.''" "Our governments dismiss any connection between the London bombings and the war in Iraq. Such attacks, they say, predate 2003. But Iraq was first invaded in 1991, not 2003. Then a decade of sanctions against that country killed 1 million Iraqis. Over the same period, unwavering support for Israel has resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent Palestinians. Tens of thousands have been slaughtered by U.S. and British forces in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001. Peaceful protest, persuasion, demonstration, negotiation or remonstration haven't made a dent in the single-minded U.S. and British policy. If all legitimate forms of dissent go unheeded, illegitimate forms will be turned to instead. Some people will resort to violence, which does not produce the desired result but may give vent to the inhumanity with which they have been treated for so long. Paine was right: People who are treated brutally will finally turn into brutes."

• Blaming the Mosques for the Sins of Governments | "Cultural and religious intolerance is certainly not unique to the Middle East, nor is terrorism itself. If madrassas supposedly elucidate the motives behind the militancy of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, what will one make of terrorism in India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Spain (Basque separatism prior to the train bombing), and Northern Ireland? It is not as if the list ends there. To the contrary, it barely begins. The truth is that Middle East terrorism became a globalized phenomenon after many regions around the world - that are neither Arab nor Muslim - experienced their share of deadly terror."..."Thus, violence in most instances trails behind often greater acts of violence; the Iraqi insurgent (a terrorist according to the prevailing Western media interpretation and a resistance fighter as considered by many Arabs) was, in some ironic way, an American discovery: without a violent invasion and occupation, Iraqis would have had no reason to fight back. By the same token, without an Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and the subsequent violence wrought upon the Palestinians, Palestinians would have had no particular interest in blowing themselves up."..."Needless to say, a Jewish settler need not blow himself up, nor does a neo-con enthusiast, for they simply don't have to, as their religious and cultural ideals of intolerance are carried out on a much greater scale through the official policies and practices of their respective governments. Hence, the war in Iraq, which has killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians, is arguably by far the greatest act of terrorism experienced in many years. As for the case of Egypt, veteran Egyptian journalist, Ayman El-Amir, writing for Al-Ahram Weekly articulated it best: Terrorism (as a consequence of political ostracism, not religious fanaticism) is fomented "not in the mosque or the madrassas but in solitary confinement cells, torture chambers, and the environment of fear wielded by dictatorial regimes as instruments of legitimate governments.""

• It's the 'attacks' on Islam, stupid! | "Over the last ten days we have witnessed impassioned debates and frantic searching for the underlying factors that may have caused four seemingly 'normal' young men to blow up commuters - and themselves - in London. The explanations offered by politicians, journalists and pseudo-scholars range from the simplistic ('they-hate-freedom', 'mere-criminality' and 'literalism') to the opportunistic ('Islam-is-the-problem', 'death-cult-ideology' and 'frustrated politics'). Unconvinced by these, and rightly so, the British public continue to seek answers to this global phenomenon that has now become a local problem for British citizens. Some argue justifiably that there are many people in this country with profound concerns and frustrations over the injustices in Palestine, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Chechnya and Iraq but they do not explode bombs in cities to make their point. So what is it that causes people to make the leap from frustration to terrorism?"

• Terrorism: The acts of revenge or destruction of Ideals? | "Poverty and a hate for democracy must then be the root causes of terrorism. What then, of Osama bin Laden, the multimillionaire? There are also the 9/11 terrorists, who were without exception scions of privilege from affluent Arab families. Going further than the Islamic world, the South American Tupamaros and Montoneros, German Baader-Meinhof Gang, Italian Red Brigades, French Action Directe, Nicaraguan Sandinista, and Fidel Castro’s Cuban revolutionaries all hailing from upper or middle classes of society. The major terrorist organisations around the world did not find poverty an issue at all, so that cannot possibly be included in the search for finding root causes. The whole of the terrorism concept must then rest upon hatred for the Western culture of democracy, capitalism and individualism. Osama bin Laden once again happens to disagree. His simple question is… "Why do we not attack Sweden?" Fortunately for all those waiting on an answer, it is bin Laden who also provides the reply, "If you bomb our cities…we will bomb yours." It does not take a PhD in international relations to make the link. New York, Madrid and London do not form as part of an international terrorist conspiracy to take down western style democracies. Rather, they form as part of a retaliatory reaction to intervention by these States in the affairs of other countries around the world. These people want to determine themselves politically, socially and economically, without the interference of third party States. This view is completely in line with the principles of international law as set out in Article 2(7) of the UN Charter which forbids any interference in the domestic matters of another State. The only problem being the method used for attaining that independence. The ‘War on Terror’ and terrorist reprisals are not however a recent occurrence. According to a US Defense Science Board study in 1997, ever since the US changed its foreign policy from being one of isolationism to that of superpower interventionism, there has always been a strong correlation between involvement in the affairs of other States, and terrorist attacks against the US."

• It is once again time to ask the ‘why?’ question | "Even more surprising is the adverse reaction the country made to George Galloway’s statement that "the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the threat of terrorist attack in Britain. Tragically, Londoners have now paid the price of the government ignoring such warnings."..."Now – and for one time only – lets pretend we do know who did this, and I think somewhere in all of our minds we see a 9/11-like bomber. The motives behind the bomber’s act are not in line with what the Queen and Tony Blair said. It’s not in line with any claim that there is a threat to Western civilisation. Nowhere in bin Laden’s speeches, or Al Qaeda’s messages have there been demands of ending Western civilisation. They have not asked to close McDonalds, or shut down nightclubs. They’ve not asked women in the West to cover up as Muslim women do. They’ve not forbidden the West from eating pork or consuming alcohol. They have not even hinted the slight change to Western civilisation EXCEPT the West’s attempt to conquer the rest of the world. The demands we get from bin Laden or his associates are always to withdraw military occupiers, whether in the case of Israel and Palestine, or US army bases across the Middle East, or as in the most recent case of Western armies that have infected Iraq. The targets are exclusively a message to politicians, and those who look beyond the first lines of a newspaper will understand that civilians are not targets. They are tools. The targets are the minds of the people who can change the way the world is."

• Three ways to make us all safer | "Acceptance that the invasion of Iraq increased the likelihood of a terrorist attack on London now extends far beyond the usual suspects - from Guardian writers to MI5, Douglas Hurd, the Daily Mail, the Spectator, and a majority of the British public."

• Back to you, Mr Blair | "The position of Muslim organisations and mosques has been consistent for years. Killing civilians is murder, and a crime in Islam. We have consistently said that Muslims must help the police to track down those responsible. This is why I've found it strange that many Muslim leaders have offered to look deep within our community now. It's a tacit admission of negligence that I simply do not accept. The prime minister has of course welcomed this attitude. Indeed he has led from the front, ratcheting up the rhetoric against Muslims, laying the responsibility solely on us. "In the end, this can only be taken on and defeated by the community itself," he said last week. Mr Blair has attacked the idea of the caliphate - the equivalent of criticising the Pope. He has also remained silent in the face of a rightwing smear campaign against such eminent scholars as Sheikh al-Qaradawi - a man who has worked hard to reconcile Islam with modern democracy. Such actions and omissions fuel the suspicion that we are witnessing a war on Islam itself. If there is any thought that Muslims are fine but their religion can take a hike then Mr Blair should know that we will never be in the corner, in the spotlight, losing our religion. By putting the onus on Muslims to defeat terror, the prime minister absolves himself of responsibility. Muslims are not in denial of our duties, but who are we meant to be combating? The security services had no idea about all that has gone on in London, so how are we as ordinary citizens to do better? It is not Muslims but Mr Blair who is in denial. He was advised that the war in Iraq would put us in more danger, not less"...."The British Muslim response is to engage politically, as we did in our opposition to the Iraq war, when we tried to keep our country, as well as innocent Iraqis, safe. We'll continue to try to win the arguments. Unfortunately, a handful of individuals have eschewed this to carry out the attacks in London. You can regard these acts as part of Islam, or as an irrational reaction to injustice taking place in the world. If it's the former you have to explain why this started only 12 years ago and not 1,400. To us it is evident that it is the latter, so we're batting the ball back in your court, Mr Blair."

• Not hate, vengeance | "Tony Blair talks about "them" hating "our values and our way of life". But I have seen atrocities like last week's London bombings taking place in Iraq over the past two years. Attacks there, as those in London, are not about hating anybody's way of life, but straightforward revenge: revenge for Falluja and al-Qaim - and for Palestine and Afghanistan, which have been subsumed in them. The pictures of Iraq, Afghanistan or Palestine, with their dust and grime, might be different to the pictures of the London bombs, but they represent a continuity. The war of revenge and collective punishment has arrived in London. And it has its own rationality. Don't give me the nonsense about why do they hate us. They don't.The response to the neo-colonial adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq should surprise no one. Islamist extremism and terrorism, unknown in Iraq before occupation, now fights side by side with the more measured Iraqi resistance. It responds with callous bombs there, and now in the west. The spirit of revenge becomes more planned, merging with nationalist or faith ideology such as al-Qaida's, and the targets become more diffuse. Perhaps even in the west, identification with innocent people hit by bombs and napalm - their voices unheard and names unknown - in remote lands of the prophets makes for a holy madness among susceptible youngsters. As other suicide bombers have said, they may regret the loss of innocent lives in their political, murderous acts - but they atone with their own lives and hope God forgives them. The logic is clear: your security is only assured if ours is. If our women and children are killed, then your women and children are killed."

• Underlying causes must be pulled up by their roots | "For the real answer, one does not have to travel very far -- as far as Srebrenica where the UN and the world community failed to save 8000 Muslim men and boys from the genocide committed by the Bosnian forces. Just see what has been happening in Iraq. In the name of flushing out insurgents, the innocent Iraqis are being killed by the American army and there British involvement made the innocent lives of Britons so insecure --many Londoners had to pay the price. Though nothing can justify London carnage, the truth of the matter, however, is that insurgents' actions also cannot justify America's army actions against the innocent Iraqis. At the dead of night American army kick-open Iraqi family homes and look for insurgents among traumatised and trembling Iraqi women in night-gowns and children in shorts. Is it the way to spread Bush's liberty and democracy among Iraqis? Saddam killed or gassed 5000 Kurds as they were seen by Saddam as insurgents. For Bush, many Iraqis are insurgents and his army is killing them. The number is at least 25 times higher than what Saddam killed. So for the civilized world, what is the difference when it comes to killing insurgents? Then why should Saddam alone be tried in the Hague court? It's not that only Iraqis are being killed; the American men and women are also being sacrificed in Iraq for spreading Bush's freedom and democracy there. Who asked him to do this? Iraq has been the most developed among the Arab countries. Before UN sanctions, Iraqis had enough in all respects food, water electricity, medicine etc. Women had the full liberty to go round and work without any discrimination; 12 years of UN sanction made them impoverished, half a million kids lost their lives because of malnutrition. But Saddam made his fortunes all right. He had his palaces which are presently being conveniently used by the Americans while Saddam is in jail. So what was the purpose? Saddam was not punished; Iraqis were punished by the UN -- a body of civilized nations. When justice does not exist in the Security Council of the world body, how can we expect just behaviour from those who have been suffering for years under the UN sanction? The situation came to a head with Bush's unilateral attack on Iraq which even the UN could not stop. Then the question arises as to why the world should have the UN at all, let alone it be expanded, when one country can completely defy the UN and dismember a sovereign country."

• Religious terrorism against Muslims going unreported | Much is made of Muslim miltants posing a threat to the world, but the worlds media pays hardly any attention to the rise of Hindu fundamentalism in India and it's treatment of minorities in India, Muslims and Christians included. Indeed, George W. Bush and Tony Blair are on record to have praised India as an ally, all the while the Indian government(s) have been formenting the kind of religious fanaticism the Western governments so vociferously condemn today. Why don't they condemn this sort of fanticism as well? It has been documented that the Gujurat state government of India has been formenting anti-Muslim and anti-Christian extremism in Indian schools, and that the local government of Gujurat participated in the massacre of 2000 innocent Muslims in Gujurat state in 2002 while ordering the police to stand by and watch as Hindu fanatics murdered and raped Muslims. Yet where is the condemnations and action by Western governments, when they condemn and take action against governments to whom they are not allied with? The answer is that they engage in realpolitik, their foreign policy is based on practical interests, not ethical and legal considerations. Hence while they cry crocodile tears about supposed repression in Iran, Iraq, Sudan etc, they are silent on repression in Israel and India, primarily because these nations are allies of the US and UK. How is the world (especially Muslims) meant to believe in the sincerity of the Western nations when they have such double-standards?

• It is an insult to the dead to deny the link with Iraq | "The first piece of disinformation long peddled by champions of the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan is that al-Qaida and its supporters have no demands that could possibly be met or negotiated over; that they are really motivated by a hatred of western freedoms and way of life; and that their Islamist ideology aims at global domination. The reality was neatly summed up this week in a radio exchange between the BBC's political editor, Andrew Marr, and its security correspondent, Frank Gardner, who was left disabled by an al-Qaida attack in Saudi Arabia last year. Was it the "very diversity, that melting pot aspect of London" that Islamist extremists found so offensive that they wanted to kill innocent civilians in Britain's capital, Marr wondered. "No, it's not that," replied Gardner briskly, who is better acquainted with al-Qaida thinking than most. "What they find offensive are the policies of western governments and specifically the presence of western troops in Muslim lands, notably Iraq and Afghanistan." The central goal of the al-Qaida-inspired campaign, as its statements have regularly spelled out, is the withdrawal of US and other western forces from the Arab and Muslim world, an end to support for Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and a halt to support for oil-lubricated despots throughout the region. Those are also goals that unite an overwhelming majority of Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere and give al-Qaida and its allies the chance to recruit and operate - in a way that their extreme religious conservatism or dreams of restoring the medieval caliphate never would. As even Osama bin Laden asked in his US election-timed video: if it was western freedom al-Qaida hated, "Why do we not strike Sweden?" The second disinformation line peddled by government supporters since last week's bombings is that the London attacks had nothing to do with Iraq. The Labour MP Tony Wright insisted that such an idea was "not only nonsense, but dangerous nonsense". Blair has argued that, since the 9/11 attacks predated the Iraq war, outrage at the aggression could not have been the trigger. It's perfectly true that Muslim anger over Palestine, western-backed dictatorships and the aftermath of the 1991 war against Iraq - US troops in Arabia and a murderous sanctions regime against Iraq - was already intense before 2001 and fuelled al-Qaida's campaign in the 1990s. But that was aimed at the US, not Britain, which only became a target when Blair backed Bush's war on terror. Afghanistan made a terror attack on Britain a likelihood; Iraq made it a certainty. We can't of course be sure of the exact balance of motivations that drove four young suicide bombers to strike last Thursday, but we can be certain that the bloodbath unleashed by Bush and Blair in Iraq - where a 7/7 takes place every day - was at the very least one of them. What they did was not "home grown", but driven by a worldwide anger at US-led domination and occupation of Muslim countries."

• They want to destroy our freedoms by Abu Khalid | Examining whether the claims that Al-Qaeda want to destroy the West's freedom are true.

• LEST WE FORGET: THESE WERE 'BLAIR'S BOMBS' | "In all the coverage of last week's bombing of London, a basic truth struggled to be heard. It has been said quietly, politely, guardedly, as if it might somehow dishonour the dead, instead of speaking truth to the cause. While not doubting the atrocious inhumanity of those who planted the bombs (as if anyone could), no one should doubt that these were "Blair's bombs"; and he ought not be allowed to evade culpability with yet another unctuous Bush-inspired speech about "our way of life". The bombers struck because he and Bush attacked Iraq, having been warned by the Joint Intelligence Committee that the "by far the greatest terrorist threat" to this country would be "heightened by military action against Iraq"."..."Blair's and Bush's invasion changed all that. In invading a stricken and defenceless country at the heart of the Islamic and Arab world, their adventure became self-fulfilling. Denial of that by those who supported the invasion insults the memory of all those who have died as a result. Blair's epic irresponsibility has brought the daily horrors of Iraq home to Britain and he is not (to paraphrase one of the few challenging questions put to him before the invasion (by John Humphries) fit to be prime minister."..."The most shocking was given by Dahr Jamail, one of the best un-embedded reporters working in Iraq. He described how the hospitals of besieged Fallujah had been subjected to an American tactic of collective punishment, with US marines assaulting staff and stopping the wounded entering, and American snipers firing at the doors and windows, and medicines and emergency blood prevented from reaching them. Children, the elderly, were shot dead in front of their families, in cold blood. Imagine for a moment the same appalling state of affairs imposed on the London hospitals that received the victims of Thursday's bombing. Unimaginable? Well, it happens, in our name, regardless of BBC's suppression of the Fallujah and other atrocities. When will someone draw this parallel at one of the staged "press conferences" at which Blair is allowed to emote for the cameras stuff about "our values outlast (ing) theirs"? Silence is not journalism. In Fallujah, they know "our values" only too well."
  

• The Causes and Aims of Al-Qaida | "Last week I got an email from a Christian journalist querying a comment by Home Secretary Charles Clarke on Newsnight, where Clarke stated that the threat posed by Al-Qaida is ‘qualitatively different’ from that posed by the terrorists of earlier decades because it did not have specific political objectives but was simply opposed to democracy, freedom of speech and freedom of worship. No one challenged this comment. Premier Blair said something similar at the Labour Conference.However, even a cursory examination of Al-Qaida communiqués, all available online, shows this charge to be inaccurate."..."Rather, Al-Qaida repeatedly presents its war as a defensive jihad of liberation against infidel imperialists. In 2001, bin Laden explicitly declared he was engaged in a defensive jihad against America because he claims it engages in oppressive and murderous conduct..." This article refutes the charge that Al-Qaida (and in general other armed Islamic groups) only fight and see the US as the enemy due to an intrinsic hate of freedom, democracy, female liberation etc. It sets the record straight as to why these groups are fighting. In this era of media silence, it is essential to know why these groups exist, the causes leading to their creation and what they stand for. With governments such as the US and UK governments deliberately lying about these groups to shirk away their own responsibility for creating the conditions and grievances for these groups to exist, it is imperative that the people at large know what the genesis of these groups are and the answer to solving these issues.

• They do not hate us for our freedoms: It is US and western policies that enrage Muslims | "In the three years since 9/11 the Bush administration has successfully sold the idea that the Islamist perpetrators "hate us for our freedoms" and loathe us for our values: for what we are and think, rather than what we do. In what is ultimately a war of ideas within the Muslim and Arab world, there is no idea more damaging - or more wrong." "The polls the DSB looks at are chilling: single digit support for the US and its policies (for example, a 98 and 94 per cent "unfavourable" rating in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, Washington's main Arab allies). The DSB finds nonetheless that majorities or pluralities do support values such as freedom and democracy, embrace western science and education, and like US products and movies. "In other words, they do not hate us for our values, but because of our policies," the DSB says".

• The Muslim Weekly and ‘anti-American incitement | "There are two obvious rejoinders to this accusation of anti-Americanism. Firstly, the American response to 9/11. ‘We will never forget’ has become America’s watchword, and constant references to this event are made by US politicians and commentators. Quite rightly so; but why should Arab and Muslim media be any different in regard to the massacre of their brothers and sisters? In fact, American complaints on this issue smack of Anti-Arab racism and Islamophobia – that a dead Palestinian or Iraqi is of less value than a dead American, and that their right to mourn their brothers and sisters is less valid than Americans doing the same for their compatriots. Secondly, a more obvious response is that if American troops did not humiliate and abuse Iraqis, or their Israeli allies massacre Palestinians, Muslim media would not report these events in the first place. Therefore, rather than complain to Muslim media such as The Muslim Weekly about its coverage of these events, the US Embassy and other officials would do better to advise the Pentagon and Sharon not to cause them. It follows that what ‘incites’ anti-Americanism is not the outpourings of ulema and Muslim media, but the actions and policies of successive US governments. After all, when Israeli troops destroy Palestinian houses, massacre Palestinians or Lebanese, steal ever more land, and the US promptly employs an ‘unreasonable veto’ (to borrow from Premier Blair) to protect its ally, or when US occupation troops burst into Iraqi homes in the middle of the night, outraging undressed Muslim women, or when US guards sexually humiliate prisoners at Abu Ghraib, what would anyone seriously expect to be the Muslim reaction? Applause and affection?"

• Tom Hurndall and ‘The Culture of Impunity’ | "Tom’s Calvary Passion occurred on 11th April 2003 when he was shot in the head by an Israeli sniper in a watchtower who was firing on Palestinian children at play. His brother Billy stated that Tom was ‘Shot for the simple reason that he was trying to escort them to safety.’ Arrindall’s obituary explains the story: ‘The practice of ISM members in Rafah was, while waving their passports, to accompany Palestinians as they attempted to restore water supplies, and telecommunications shot up by the IDF, and to prevent the demolition of houses. On April 11 2003 Tom, dressed in a fluorescent orange ISM vest, was at the end of a Rafah street observing an earthen mound where a score of children were playing. As IDF rifle fire hit the mound, the children fled. But three, aged between four and seven, were paralysed by fear. Tom, having taken a boy to safety, returned for the girls. He was hit in the head by a single bullet, fired by an IDF soldier.’ There have been many cases of Palestinians dying at checkpoints awaiting medical attention, and Tom endured a two-hour delay on the border, then taken to a specialist hospital in Beersheba, thereafter back to London in a vegetative state, until his death. In a sickening, outrageous attempt to shift blame, the Israelis at one point blamed the British doctors for his death!"... "Evidence for such a culture is also long. Take the Israeli officers responsible for the 1956 Kufr Kassem massacre of 43 innocent Israeli Arabs. They were released and restored to full rank after serving only three years imprisonment. In 1982 the Israeli military and their Phalangist allies massacred 2000 Palestinians in Beirut. Settlers who have killed Palestinians usually only suffer a few months imprisonment, such as the Hebron settler leader Rabbi Moshe Levinger who murdered a Palestinian civilian in 1988 and was sentenced to five months, serving only three. In 1976, Israeli police shot dead seven Israeli Arab protestors. The US State Department Human Rights Report noted that during an Israeli Arab demonstration in 2000: ‘…police used excessive force to disperse demonstrations in the north of the country, killing 13 Arab citizens and injuring 300. There were reports that the police used a combination of live ammunition and rubber-coated steel bullets against the demonstrators and fired tear gas at the Arab citizens. On October 8, 2000, a group of approximately 1,000 Israeli Jews attacked Arab homes in Nazareth… Police reportedly arrived at the scene late, did not take action beyond inserting themselves between the two groups, and fired live ammunition, rubber bullets, and tear gas at the Arab citizens. Two Israeli Arabs were killed in the incident and approximately 50 others were injured.’ However, not only the Israeli government is to blame for this culture of impunity; the cowardly, hypocritical stance of the UK and US governments which allows this culture to thrive by looking the other way are also blameworthy. Their inaction – including on Tom’s murder - shows they don’t care. Tom’s sister Sophie exclaimed at a London rally about the victims of Occupation: ‘They need to know that we know about their suffering! They need to know that we care! They need to know that they are not alone!’"
  

• Snipers with children in their sights | "It was the shooting of Asma Mughayar that swept away any lingering doubts I had about how it is the Israeli army kills so many Palestinian children and civilians. Asma, 16, and her younger brother, Ahmad, were collecting laundry from the roof of their home in the south of the Gaza Strip in May last year when they were felled by an Israeli army sniper. Neither child was armed or threatening the soldier, who fired unseen through a hole punched in the wall of a neighbouring block of flats. The army said the two were blown up by a Palestinian bomb planted to kill soldiers. The corpses offered a different account. In Rafah's morgue, Asma lay with a single bullet hole through her temple; her 13-year-old brother had a lone shot to his forehead. There were no other injuries, certainly none consistent with a blast. Confronted with this, the army changed its account and claimed the pair were killed by a Palestinian, though there was persuasive evidence pointing to the Israeli sniper's nest. What the military did not do was ask its soldiers why they gave a false account of the deaths or speak to the children's parents or any other witnesses. When reporters pressed the issue, the army promised a full investigation, but a few weeks later it was quietly dropped. This has become the norm in a military that appears to value protecting itself from accountability more than living up to its claim to be the "most moral army in the world". As Tom Hurndall's parents noted yesterday after the conviction of an Israeli sergeant for the manslaughter of their son, the soldier was put on trial only because the British family had the resources to bring pressure to bear. But there has been no justice for the parents of hundreds of Palestinian children killed by Israeli soldiers. According to the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, the army has killed 1,722 Palestinian civilians - more than one-third of them minors - as well as 1,519 combatants, since the intifada began nearly five years ago; the comparable Israeli figures are 658 civilians killed - 17% minors - along with 309 military. The army has investigated just 90 Palestinian deaths, usually under outside pressure. Seven soldiers have been convicted: three for manslaughter, none for murder. Last month, a military court sentenced a soldier to 20 months in prison for shooting dead a Palestinian man as he adjusted his TV aerial, the longest sentence yet for killing a civilian, and less than Israeli conscientious objectors have got for refusing to serve in the army. B'Tselem argues that a lack of accountability and rules of engagement that "encourage a trigger-happy attitude among soldiers" have created a "culture of impunity" - a view backed by the New York-based Human Rights Watch, which last week described many army investigations of civilian killings as a "sham ... that encourages soldiers to think they can literally get away with murder". In southern Gaza, the killings take place in a climate that amounts to a form of terror against the population. Random fire into Rafah and Khan Yunis has claimed hundreds of lives, including five children shot as they sat at their school desks. Many others have died when the snipers must have known who was in their sights - children playing football, sitting outside home, walking back from school. Almost always "investigations" amount to asking the soldier who pulled the trigger what happened - often they claim there was a gun battle when there was none - and presenting it as fact." All paid for with American Taxpayers money to the tune of $3 Billion per annum going to Israel in Aid. Do the people who oppose such American policies really hate freedom and democracy? Are they really Islamic Fanatics? Are they really terror sympathisers? People would do well to examine why America is hated so much.
  

• Censorship of the carnage in Iraq | "The reporter who was interviewing me today told me that the former American consulate here, Eric Edelman, asked the Prime Minister of Turkey to pressure his paper to not run so many of my stories. "Why did he do this," I asked him. "Edelman said it was the wrong news," he told me with a smile. Turns out Edelman also asked that articles by Robert Fisk and Naomi Klein not be run so often in Yeni Safak either. He smiled at me while he watched the wheels turning in my head before I smiled back and said, "That makes me very happy, it means I'm doing my job as a journalist." We laughed heartily together at this, as did everyone else at the table. Reminds me of the obtuse hate mails I sometimes receive -confirmation that I am doing my job- they always make me smile. So the American government is pressuring foreign countries to censor their news. Aside from the fact that this act is the height of arrogance by the United States, it makes it exceedingly clear why so many Americans who rely on the corporate media for their news continue to be so misinformed/un-informed about the goings on in Iraq. If the American government is attempting to censor the news in foreign countries, you can imagine what they are doing at home. Because people like Edelman don't want citizens of the United States to know that events like the massacre of Fallujah or the atrocities in Abu Ghraib are not isolated incidents. People like Edelman don't want people to know what one of my sources in Baquba just told me today. His email reads: "Near the city of Buhrez, 5 kilometers south of Baquba, two Humvess of American soldiers were destroyed recently. American and Iraqi soldiers came to the city afterwards and cut all the phones, cut the water, cut medicine from arriving in the city and told them that until the people of the city bring the "terrorists" to them, the embargo will continue." The embargo has been in place now for one week now, and he continued: "The Americans still won't anyone or any medicines and supplies into Buhrez, nor will they allow any people in or out. Even the Al-Sadr followers who organized some help for the people in the city (water, food, medicine) are not being allowed into the city. Even journalists cannot enter to publish the news, and the situation there is so bad. The Americans keep asking for the people in the city to bring them the persons who were in charge of destroying the two Humvees on the other side of the city, but of course the people in the city don't know who carried out the attack." People like Edelman don't want people to know about the recent US attacks in Al-Qa'im and Haditha either. Attacks that Iraqis are describing as just as bad as the massacre of Fallujah."

• Palestinian right of return is feasible | "May marked the 57th anniversary of al-Nakba (The Catastrophe), when Jews declared their state in Palestine and thousands of Palestinians were expelled from their homeland. Today, the Palestinian refugees number more than six million, comprising nearly one-third of the global refugee population. Aljazeera.net interviewed Salman Abu-Sitta, general coordinator of the Right of Return Congress and founder of the Palestine Land Society, on the issues surrounding al-Nakba and the fate of the refugees"..."By what scale or measure is it that the refugees in Gaza live only five kilometres away from their homes, to which they cannot return, and Israel is seeking out obscure tribes in India and Guatemala, and bringing them over in a hurry to populate the land which belongs to the refugees?"..."Let me remind you that refugees elsewhere have returned to their homes in Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, Afghanistan, Rwanda, Iraq and very soon Cyprus. So the only exception is Palestine. Why? The reason is obvious: the United States supports Israel blindly and gives it political support, money and arms. It is no wonder therefore that US foreign-policy practice is abhorred by all Muslims and Arabs - because of its double standards.It's no wonder that their calls for democracy in the Middle East are not taken seriously - because if democracy is to prevail, then immediately the rights of those who have been oppressed must be upheld by the very same power which calls for democracy. In fact, the reverse is true. The rights of the Palestinians have been hindered and ignored by the US and Israel. In the case of South Africa, international pressure over the years had forced the Apartheid regime to collapse."..."Since 1948, Israeli policy has been: Never to allow the Palestinians back to their homes because they want their homes to accommodate Jewish immigrants [settlers]."..."In 1949, immediately after the hostilities, and the Nakba, [Israeli prime minister David] Ben Gurion formed a committee to erase all Palestinian, Arab, and historical names of Palestine and replace them with Hebrew names. I say wiping out Palestinian, Arab and other historical names to mean that all the names that had been used by Palestinians for 5000 years is being erased. This was part of the effort to silence Palestinian history after they took Palestinian land and emptied the land of its people."
  

• The 57th Anniversary of the State of the Zionists | "The government of Israel looks the other way when fanatical Jewish settlers especially in the Hebron area, harass and abuse the Palestinian farmers and villagers. These settlers, many of whom regularly celebrate the anniversaries of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin and the massacre by Beruch Goldstein of 29 praying Moslem worshipers at the Hebron Mosque in 1994, regularly set fire to the villager’s crops and fields, and spread rat poison on their fields poisoning their sheep and goats. They put dead animals in the wells and water conduits used by the Palestinians to deprive them of clean of water. Carrying automatic weapons, they regularly assault and intimidate farmers to try to keep them from working their fields, They throw rocks through their windows of homes of villagers and terrorize the families. This is all consistent with the program of Sharon and his Lukud government. They are fulfilling the formulation enunciated earlier by Moshe Dyan – “We have no solution for the Palestinians. They can live like dogs or they can leave."

• The racist and colonial policies echo apartheid, and call for a similar response | "Last October, 13-year-old Iman al-Hams was shot and wounded by an Israeli army unit in the southern Gaza Strip town of Rafah, despite being identified as a little girl, and wearing a school uniform. Iman was machine-gunned by the unit's commander. She had 17 bullets in her body, and three in her head, a Palestinian doctor told the Guardian. Iman is one of 654 Palestinian children to have been killed in the occupied territories since September 2000. Several were killed as they sat at their desks in class. Three and a half thousand children have been wounded. Over 300 are in Israeli prisons.".."In the occupied territories, Israel maintains a strict racial and colonial segregation between Israeli Jewish settlers and the native Palestinians (Muslims and Christians). The former group enjoys economic benefits, special roads, heavily subsidised and more heavily protected housing, and full political rights. Even under apartheid there were never whites-only roads. There was never a comparable prolonged siege, or curfews, that cut off black people from each other. Palestinians, on the other hand, are under a military occupation that kills and destroys, but also continuously dispossesses them of their lands for the benefit of Jewish settlers. The desire for an ethnic-religious majority of Israeli Jews has seeped across from the occupied territories to permeate the Israeli "national" agenda, which increasingly views Palestinian citizens of Israel as a "demographic threat", as former prime minster Binyamin Netanyahu phrased it. The Palestinian minority in Israel has for decades been denied basic equality in health, education, housing and land possession, solely because it is not Jewish. The fact that this minority is allowed to vote hardly redresses the rampant injustice in all other basic human rights. They are excluded from the very definition of the "Jewish state", and have virtually no influence on the laws, or political, social and economic policies. Hence their similarity to the black South Africans. In addition, and related to the demographic question, Israel continues to deny Palestinian refugees, who were ethnically cleansed during the 1948 war, their right to return to their lands and properties. Israel bases its position, which is contrary to fundamental human rights provisions and international law, on its right to preserve its Jewish ethnic-religious supremacy. No other country in the world today dares to claim any similar right.
  

• Our Presidents New Best Friend Boils People Alive | "Let me introduce you to our presidents new best friend, President Karimov of Uzbekistan. President Karimov government was awarded $500m in aid from the Bush administration in 2002. The SNB (Uzbekistan's security service) received $79m of this sum.".."Human Rights Watch has learned that the body of Muzafar Avazov, a 35-year old father of four, showed signs of burns on the legs, buttocks, lower back and arms. Sixty to seventy percent of the body was burnt, according to official sources. Doctors who saw the body reported that such burns could only have been caused by immersing Avazov in boiling water. Those who saw the body also reported that there was a large, bloody wound on the back of the head, heavy bruising on the forehead and side of the neck, and that his hands had no fingernails." The US claim that they are striving for freedom and democracy around the world is nothing but a shambles, with their support for dictators who murder people by boiling them alive and their support for the racist state of Israel while it denies 5 million Palestinian refugees the right to return to their land and home from which they were ethnically cleansed from, can the US claim that American foreign policy is really misunderstood really be taken seriously? They try to blame demagogues inciting Muslim crowds to anti-americanism, or Muslim media as the cause of the ill-will many Muslims have towards the US. But what should one make of US foreign policy? Is it the altruistic policy they would like us to believe juding from the above? How can the US seriously believe it is misunderstood when it invades a country on the pretext (retrospectively, as the initial reason was WMD) of liberating it's population from oppression when it supports other cruel dictators around the world? I would like many of the neo-con extremists who keep sending me hate mail to answer that question. America is not resented because of it's democracy, it's freedom, it's ethics or it's wealth as many politicians would like us to believe. It is resented for it's two-faced foreign policy, it's massacres of millions of innocent people with impunity because of it's pursuance of it's realpolitik foreign policy, it's hypocrisy in condemning others for supposed crimes which it itself commits and supports. To those extremists, what is your answer?
  

• Sexualised violence against Iraqi women by US occupying forces | "Iraqi female detainees have been illegally detained, raped and sexually violated by United States military personnel. Women who stay at home in traditional roles are more likely to be imprisoned as bargaining chips by US troops seeking to pressurize male relatives, according to the New Statesmen (UK)[1]. In December 2003, a woman prisoner, “Noor”, smuggled out a note stating that US guards at Abu Ghraib had been raping women detainees and forcing them to strip naked."

• In U.S. Report, Brutal Details of 2 Afghan Inmates' Deaths or here | "In sworn statements to Army investigators, soldiers describe one female interrogator with a taste for humiliation stepping on the neck of one prostrate detainee and kicking another in the genitals. They tell of a shackled prisoner being forced to roll back and forth on the floor of a cell, kissing the boots of his two interrogators as he went. Yet another prisoner is made to pick plastic bottle caps out of a drum mixed with excrement and water as part of a strategy to soften him up for questioning.".."Yet the Bagram file includes ample testimony that harsh treatment by some interrogators was routine and that guards could strike shackled detainees with virtual impunity. Prisoners considered important or troublesome were also handcuffed and chained to the ceilings and doors of their cells, sometimes for long periods, an action Army prosecutors recently classified as criminal assault.".."Some of the same M.P.'s took a particular interest in an emotionally disturbed Afghan detainee who was known to eat his feces and mutilate himself with concertina wire. The soldiers kneed the man repeatedly in the legs and, at one point, chained him with his arms straight up in the air, Specialist Callaway told investigators. They also nicknamed him "Timmy," after a disabled child in the animated television series "South Park." One of the guards who beat the prisoner also taught him to screech like the cartoon character, Specialist Callaway said."

  Four days before, on the eve of the Muslim holiday of Id al-Fitr, Mr. Dilawar set out from his tiny village of Yakubi in a prized new possession, a used Toyota sedan that his family bought for him a few weeks earlier to drive as a taxi. Mr. Dilawar was not an adventurous man. He rarely went far from the stone farmhouse he shared with his wife, young daughter and extended family. He never attended school, relatives said, and had only one friend, Bacha Khel, with whom he would sit in the wheat fields surrounding the village and talk. "He was a shy man, a very simple man," his eldest brother, Shahpoor, said in an interview. On the day he disappeared, Mr. Dilawar's mother had asked him to gather his three sisters from their nearby villages and bring them home for the holiday. But he needed gas money and decided instead to drive to the provincial capital, Khost, about 45 minutes away, to look for fares. At a taxi stand there, he found three men headed back toward Yakubi. On the way, they passed a base used by American troops, Camp Salerno, which had been the target of a rocket attack that morning. Militiamen loyal to the guerrilla commander guarding the base, Jan Baz Khan, stopped the Toyota at a checkpoint. They confiscated a broken walkie-talkie from one of Mr. Dilawar's passengers. In the trunk, they found an electric stabilizer used to regulate current from a generator. (Mr. Dilawar's family said the stabilizer was not theirs; at the time, they said, they had no electricity at all.) The four men were detained and turned over to American soldiers at the base as suspects in the attack. Mr. Dilawar and his passengers spent their first night there handcuffed to a fence, so they would be unable to sleep. When a doctor examined them the next morning, he said later, he found Mr. Dilawar tired and suffering from headaches but otherwise fine. Mr. Dilawar's three passengers were eventually flown to Guant?namo and held for more than a year before being sent home without charge. In interviews after their release, the men described their treatment at Bagram as far worse than at Guant?namo. While all of them said they had been beaten, they complained most bitterly of being stripped naked in front of female soldiers for showers and medical examinations, which they said included the first of several painful and humiliating rectal exams. "They did lots and lots of bad things to me," said Abdur Rahim, a 26-year-old baker from Khost. "I was shouting and crying, and no one was listening. When I was shouting, the soldiers were slamming my head against the desk." For Mr. Dilawar, his fellow prisoners said, the most difficult thing seemed to be the black cloth hood that was pulled over his head. "He could not breathe," said a man called Parkhudin, who had been one of Mr. Dilawar's passengers. Mr. Dilawar was a frail man, standing only 5 feet 9 inches and weighing 122 pounds. But at Bagram, he was quickly labeled one of the "noncompliant" ones. When one of the First Platoon M.P.'s, Specialist Corey E. Jones, was sent to Mr. Dilawar's cell to give him some water, he said the prisoner spit in his face and started kicking him. Specialist Jones responded, he said, with a couple of knee strikes to the leg of the shackled man. "He screamed out, 'Allah! Allah! Allah!' and my first reaction was that he was crying out to his god," Specialist Jones said to investigators. "Everybody heard him cry out and thought it was funny." Other Third Platoon M.P.'s later came by the detention center and stopped at the isolation cells to see for themselves, Specialist Jones said. It became a kind of running joke, and people kept showing up to give this detainee a common peroneal strike just to hear him scream out 'Allah,' " he said. "It went on over a 24-hour period, and I would think that it was over 100 strikes.""

• The Politics of Smears and Self-Absorption. Anti-Semitism or Ultra-Semitism? | "For decades, Israel has tried to seal shut the coffin it long ago prepared for the Palestinians by hammering away at the nails of political, economic, and military violence. This method has never sufficed. Too crude, too callous, and too obvious, it fails utterly in snuffing out the flame of Palestinian defiance and succeeds only in setting off the spark of international indignation. Therefore, Israel's apologists have seized upon a new asset of intellectual violence: the "new anti-Semitism" canard. This is the cheap and shoddy hearse the Palestinian native is to be tossed into and rushed to his grave while we Americans remain silent. Who among us, after all, wishes to be branded with the dreaded label of "anti-Semite"? Even when equipped with the understanding that this accusation is simply an ugly smear, few activists and thinkers are prepared to counter it very effectively, often resorting to protestations that they are not, in fact, anti-Semites."

• Galloway vs. The US Senate: Transcript of Statement | Transcript of George Galloway's statement to the US Senate where he was falsely accused of taking bribes from Saddam Hussein during the OIl for Food program. Most of these false allegations originate from a nexus of neo-cons and pro-Israel politicians, journalists and intellectuals. A question which must be asked is, do these aforementioned groups have any loyalties to the American people and their welfare or do they have loyalties only to Israel? There is a nexus between neo-cons and pro-Israel idealogues to create conflicts and a dichotomy between Muslims and the West. The American and British people need to examine the loyalties of the politicians and organisations which tow the neo-con and pro-Israel line.

• Galloway hounded by AIPAC cell within U.S. Congress; Bolton tied to same cell | "May 13, 2005—At a time when the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is being investigated for its role in an espionage case involving Larry Franklin, a Pentagon and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) official indicted for passing top secret classified information to two AIPAC officials and possibly the government of Israel, a senator who is bought and paid for by AIPAC—Republican Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota—has decided to change the subject and point to newly elected Respect Party Member of Parliament George Galloway as receiving oil funds from Saddam Hussein."
  

• Labour Friends of Israel in the House | "The Labour Friends of Israel has become a powerful lobbyist for Zionist and Israeli interests in the UK. This article is an introduction to the new Spinwatch Profile, telling a hidden story of power and influence." Article detailing the influence of pro-Israel Jewish lobbies in the UK. These lobbies display a remarkable level of support for Israel even when Israel is in violation of international law. The question naturally arises then, where do the loyalties of these lobbyists really lie? Their host country or Israel? What should concerned patriots do to counter this insidious influence? Why are US and UK resources used to fund a state in the Middle-East which is violating the rights of it's indigenous Palestinian people? Is terrorism directed at the West because of the insidious influence of these pro-Israel lobby groups which skew Western policy to be so one-sided in favour of Israel? Who is the real threat to the West? The article and the three below detail the influence of these insidious groups and their role in seeking to create a Muslim-Western dichotomoy.
  

• What's 'American' About the American Israel Public Affairs Committee? | "According to the New York Times (May 5, 2005), supporters of the "influential circle in the Pentagon," whose members were leading advocates for war in Iraq and have long-standing ties to AIPAC, blame the FBI's investigation on "the continuing struggle inside the administration over intelligence," arguing that individuals who supported the Iraq war have been unjustly targeted. Although the two AIPAC employees had not been charged (as of early May 2005) and the lobbying group was informed that it was not under investigation, the Franklin case has brought some unwanted attention to AIPAC, as well as to the larger issue of U.S.-Israeli relations. Many observers have long suspected that key supporters for the Iraq war inside the administration – including Wolfowitz and Feith – were at least in part motivated by their views on Israeli security. These views were also in line with the stance of AIPAC and several other pro-Israel outfits. Of all the U.S. lobbies, few wield more influence than the pro-Israel interest groups. According to some estimates, there are about 500 national and local organizations that collectively make up the pro-Israel lobby. And of those, AIPAC arguably carries the most weight – "the most effective general interest group over the entire planet," Newt Gingrich once said of AIPAC. Extremely active in securing weapons deals for Israel, in lobbying for sanctions against the country's Middle East rivals, and in promoting the political agenda of whatever government happens to be in power in Israel, AIPAC has long played a highly public role in American policymaking in the Middle East. AIPAC has also been active in pushing U.S. intervention in the region. In fact, its efforts to persuade U.S. lawmakers to go after Iraq date back to the first Gulf War. In an interview shortly after the 1991 Gulf War began, Thomas Dine, then the president of AIPAC, told the Wall Street Journal that his organization had been busy behind the scenes building support for the war. "Yes, we were active," said Dine. "These are the great issues of our time. If you sit on the sidelines, you have no voice." According to press reports, in 1990 alone pro-Israel groups gave nearly $8 million in campaign contributions. Among those on the Democratic side of the aisle who received PAC cash and later supported the decision to go to war was Sen. Harry Reid, an influential Democrat who had received $150,000 from pro-Israel PACs during his Senate election bid (a dozen years later, in 2002, Reid would again support the use of force against Iraq). Other Democrats who voted for the 1991 Iraq war resolution and received lobby cash included Sen. Richard Bryan and Sen. Howell Heflin. According to the Wall Street Journal, the entire Alabama delegation in both the House and Senate voted for the resolution. Although at first glance "this can be ascribed to the conservative, pro-military character of the state," opined the Journal, it is clear that "pro-Israel PACs have also cultivated Democrats [in the state] in recent years.""
  

• Dual Loyalties of AIPAC | "Through more than 2,000 meetings with members of Congress, AIPAC activists help pass more than 100 pro-Israel legislative initiatives a year. On its Web site, AIPAC lists priorities including legislation to curb Iran's nuclear program; procuring nearly $3 billion in aid for Israel; and funding U.S.-Israeli efforts to build a defense against unconventional weapons. AIPAC does not have a political action committee and does not endorse candidates. But it is widely viewed by friends and foes as wielding significant political power. In 2002, two Democrats in Congress with records of voting against Israel's interests -- Reps. Earl Hilliard of Alabama and Cynthia McKinney of Georgia -- faced primary opponents who received substantial support from Jewish donors. A majority of AIPAC board members gave to either McKinney's challenger or Hilliard's or both. Hilliard and McKinney lost. Bill Banks, McKinney's campaign manger, charged that AIPAC had made her the "No. 1 candidate to try to remove from office." AIPAC denied the accusation. Even some Israeli officials have said they are uncomfortable with AIPAC's influence in U.S. politics. "They have the threat of voting out [congressional] representatives," said Yossi Beilin, a Cabinet minister under former Labor Party prime minister Ehud Barak."" It appears that insidious groups like AIPAC are the main driving force behind US pro-Israel policy. Americans must become more aware of this enemy in their midst because the loyalties of such a group does not lie with America and the American people, it lies with Israel. See articles below for more infomation.

• The Israel Lobby | "Aside from that brief reference, however, the Times made no mention of the role that money, or lobbying in general, may have played in the lopsided vote. More specifically, the Times made no mention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. It's a remarkable oversight. AIPAC is widely regarded as the most powerful foreign-policy lobby in Washington. Its 60,000 members shower millions of dollars on hundreds of members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. It also maintains a network of wealthy and influential citizens around the country, whom it can regularly mobilize to support its main goal, which is making sure there is "no daylight" between the policies of Israel and of the United States. So, when Congress votes so decisively in support of Israel, it's no accident. Yet, surveying US newspaper coverage of the Middle East in recent months, I found next to nothing about AIPAC and its influence. The one account of any substance appeared in the Washington Post, in late April. Reporting on AIPAC's annual conference, correspondent Mike Allen noted that the attendees included half the Senate, ninety members of the House and thirteen senior Administration officials, including White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, who drew a standing ovation when he declared in Hebrew, "The people of Israel live." Showing its "clout," Allen wrote, AIPAC held "a lively roll call of the hundreds of dignitaries, with individual cheers for each." Even this article, however, failed to probe beneath the surface and examine the lobbying and fundraising techniques AIPAC uses to lock up support in Congress."

• Pro-Israel PAC Contributions to 2004 Congressional Candidates | The extent of AIPAC's insidious influence can be gauged from the financial contributions to congressional candidates list linked here. It shows the extent to which pro-Israeli money is used to bribe politicians into supporting pro-Israel US policies. The unfortunate thing about this is, this insidious influence which produces such a lop-sided pro-Israeli bias in US foreign policy reflects badly on the American people and leads to terrorism committed on America and Americans.

• The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions | "Gerald Ford, angered that Israel had been reluctant to leave the Sinai following the 1973 war and backed by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, not only suspended aid for six months in 1975, but in March of that year made a speech calling for a "reassessment"of the US-Israel relationship. Within weeks, AIPAC (American-Israel Public Affairs Committee), Israel's Washington lobby, secured a letter signed by 76 senators "confirming their support for Israel, and suggesting that the White House see fit to do the same. The language was tough, the tone almost bullying."Ford backed down."".."In 1991, the same year as Chomsky's talk, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir asked the first Bush administartion for $10 billion in loan guarantees in order, he said, to provide for the resettlement of Russian Jews. Bush Sr. had earlier balked at a request from Congress to appropriate an additional $650 million dollars to compensate Israel for sitting out the Gulf War, but gave in when he realized that his veto would be overridden. But now he told Shamir that Israel could only have the guarantees if it freezes settlement building and promised that no Russian Jews would be resettled in the West Bank. An angry Shamir refused and called on AIPAC to mobilize Congress and the organized American Jewish community in support of the loans guarantees. A letter, drafted by AIPAC was signed by more than 240 members of the House demanding that Bush approve them, and 77 senators signed on to supporting legislation. On September 12, 1991, Jewish lobbyists descended on Washington in such numbers that Bush felt obliged to call a televised press conference in which he complained that "1000 Jewish lobbyists are on Capitol Hill against little old me."It would prove to be his epitaph. Chomsky pointed to Bush's statement, at the time, as proof that the vaunted Israel lobby was nothing more than "a paper tiger. It took scarcely more than a raised eyebrow for the lobby to collapse,"he told readers of Z Magazine. He could not have been further from the truth. The next day, Tom Dine, AIPAC's Executive Director, declared that "September 12, 1991 is a day that will live in infamy."Similar comments were uttered by Jewish leaders, who accused Bush of provoking anti-Semitism. What was more important, his friends in the mainstream media, like William Safire, George Will, and Charles Krauthammer, not only criticized him; they began to find fault with the economy and how he was running the country. It was all downhill from there. Bush's Jewish vote, which has been estimated at 38% in 1988, dropped down to no more than 12%, with some estimates as low as 8%. Bush's opposition to the loan guarantees was the last straw for the Israel lobby. When he made disparaging comments about Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem in March, 1990, AIPAC had begun the attack (briefly halted during the the Gulf War). Dine wrote a critical op-ed in the New York Times and followed that with a vigorous speech to the United Jewish Appeal's Young Leaders Conference. "Brothers and sisters,"he told them as they prepared to go out and lobby Congress on the issue, "remember that Israel's friends in this city reside on Capitol Hill." Months later, the loan guarantees were approved, but by then Bush was dead meat."
  

• Israel's Fifth Column in Washington

• The Axis of Treason

• White mans burden | The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible. But another journalist, Thomas Friedman (not part of the group), is skeptical.

• Blaming the Victim | "The problem lies in the Israeli occupation of Arab lands, Palestinian and others. It has invited a legacy of violence and counter violence that has claimed the lives of thousands of Palestinians and Israelis. It has systematically and intentionally destroyed any chance for peace. It insisted to punish the victim for the sins of aggressor. Palestinians are victims, and their rights, security and welfare should be the priority of the international community. Israel has no right to demand security from its victims; it lost that right the moment it breached international law when its tanks rolled onto Palestinian land. Unfortunately, however, it is as if the opposite were true. This dreadful habit of blaming the victim has also defined US foreign policy and media discourse for years: Only if Palestinians would unify their security forces, clamp down on terrorism, reform their political institutions, cease incitement and put down their weapons and become more democratic. Only then could they become worthy peace partners. But even then, Israel is under no obligation to do much, since democratic or otherwise, the mere existence of Palestinians is problematic."
  

• Washington's secret nuclear war | "Illegal weapons of mass destruction have not only been found in Iraq but have been used against Iraqis and have even killed US troops. But Washington and its allies have tried to cover up this outrage because the chief culprit is the US itself, argue American and other experts trying to expose what they say is a war crime. The WMD in question is depleted uranium (DU). A radioactive by-product of uranium enrichment, DU is used to coat ammunition such as tank shells and "bunker busting" missiles because its density makes it ideal for piercing armour."
  

• Terror and Children | "On this photograph are not the children who have died in Beslan. On this photograph are bodies of the Chechen children who died by the hand of the Russian army in autumn 1999. Their deaths did not warrant the call-up of the UN Security Council, and Dr. Roshal did not rush to the scene of the tragedy with water and medicines to try and persuade terrorists to spare children’s lives. They were Chechen children, and Russia did not shudder at the horror of the crime it committed. It simply did not notice." "Who has noticed the deaths of 40,000 Chechen children during the years of Russia’s war against Chechnya? Where were then all those who today have brought down their righteous anger on the ‘untermenschen’ who are holding schoolchildren hostage in Beslan? Is it not hypocrisy to be upset about the possible deaths of some children and remain indifferent to the deaths of other?"

• Our dead and injured children | "The bloody denouement to the Beslan tragedy was barbaric: no other word will suffice. There could never be any justification for terrorists who we are told shot fleeing hostages in the back - nor for those who died at the hands of the ill-judged Spetsnaz operation." "Ten years ago Chechnya had a population of 2 million. Today it is 800,000, and Vladimir Putin has an army of what we estimate to be up to 300,000 Russian soldiers in Chechnya inflicting a regime of terror. Many Chechens are refugees and many others have simply disappeared, often in the night. At least 200,000 Chechen civilians have been killed by Russian soldiers, including 35,000 children. Another 40,000 children have been seriously injured, 32,000 have lost at least one parent and 6,500 have been orphaned. These are figures supported by reports of human rights organisations such as Amnesty International, and we believe they are conservative. This is how Putin's soldiers treat Chechen civilians."

• How can 42 thousand children be killed legally? | "What kind of species of mammals or predators are those who killed 42 thousand Chechen children of school age, and who have been holding the survivors hostage for the past 10 years and threatening to kill them each minute? If «the very threat to kill a child is renunciation of belonging to the human race, it’s like killing your own mother», then what is the real murder of 42 thousand children, but not just a threat? Or Chechen schoolkids are not children? Or Chechen children do not belong to the human race? Or killing Chechen children is not a crime, but only an 'inadequate use of force'? Or Chechen children can be legally tortured in Russian concentration camps? Why the threat to the lives of 132 Russian schoolchildren raises an emergency to convene an urgent session of the UN Security Council, while murders of 42 thousand (!!!) Chechen children of school age have not been making anybody in the world outraged throughout 10 years?" A point is made in this article as to how world leaders and the media can condemn the terrorist hostage hijacking of a school in North Ossetia, Russia, yet remain silent on on the genocide of Chechen people by the Russian army which led to this terrorist incident. While hostage taking and the murder of children is wrong and should be condemn by all, shouldn't world leaders and the media also look into the genocide being perpetrated by the Russians in Chechnya which led to this? Should the world be kept in the dark as to why these people did what they did, however repulsive is was? It is this double standard in not reporting and speaking about the full facts which has the potential to cause misunderstandings of the positions of all protagonists in these issues which would inevitably lead to polarisation. After all, if the world is lead to believe Chechens are simply barbaric savages "out to kill infidels", what interest would the world have in hearing the Chechen side of this conflict and how they are driven to desperation in the face of a genocide? I feel also that I must point out that the above comment should not be taken in any way to be a defence of the actions of the hostage takers. The intention is to seek answers to the underlying causes of this conflict and find answers as to why these things take place. Please see this link about the Islamic view on violence and war.
  

• And They Ask, "Why do they hate us?" | Another article along the lines of the one listed directly below this one. The issue raised is an interesting one; when you have the already despised US government continuing to commit atrocities on Iraqi's in an illegal war (with no genuine and credible accountability whatsoever) and extending full support to the Israeli government while it rejects the Palestinian Right of Return, the legitimate demand for the removal of settlements, would the question "why do they hate us?" really be an appropriate question to ask in light of the listed US policies mentioned above? Won't the question be answered by examining US policy itself?

• Another reason to hate America by Abu Khalid | This article explains how the current illegal and immoral attack against Iraq will only further compound anti-US feeling in the Muslim world and how it may lead to a backlash against the USA and it's allies.

• Our Presidents New Best Friend Boils People Alive
• Our Uzbek Problem, and Theirs
• In Uzbekistan: Repression Gets a Green Light