Senior Hezbollah Militant Killed

Posted on 2008-02-14

Senior Hezbollah Militant Killed

By SAM F. GHATTAS - 1 day ago

BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) - Imad Mughniyeh, the suspected mastermind of dramatic attacks on the U.S. Embassy and U.S. Marine barracks that killed hundreds of Americans in Lebanon in the 1980s, has died in a car bombing in Syria.

The Islamic militant group Hezbollah and its Iranian backers on Wednesday blamed Israel for the killing of Mughniyeh, Hezbollah's security chief in the 1980s who was one of the world's most wanted and elusive terrorists. Israel denied involvement.

Hezbollah did not say how or where Mughniyeh was killed. But Iranian state television and the National Organization for Human Rights in Syria said he died in a car bombing in the Syrian capital Damascus on Tuesday night.

Hezbollah's announcement of the death came a few hours after a late night explosion in Damascus destroyed a vehicle. Witnesses in the Syrian capital said at the time that a passerby was killed as security forces sealed off the area and removed the body. But authorities there would not give details.

"With all pride, we declare a great jihadist leader of the Islamic resistance in Lebanon joining the martyrs," said a statement carried on Hezbollah television. "The brother commander hajj Imad Mughinyeh became a martyr at the hands of the Zionist Israelis."

Mughniyeh, 45, had been in hiding for years. He was one of the fugitives indicted in the United States for planning and participating in the 1985 hijacking of a TWA airliner in which a U.S. Navy diver was killed. He is on an FBI most wanted list with a $5 million bounty on his head for that indictment.

Mughniyeh was believed to have directed a group that held Westerners hostage in Lebanon. Among them was journalist Terry Anderson, a former Associated Press chief Middle East correspondent who was held captive for six years.

"I can't say I'm either surprised or sad," Andersen told the AP by phone from the Caribbean island of St. Lucia, where he was sailing. "He was not a good man - certainly the primary actor in my kidnapping and many others," he added. "To hear that his career has finally ended is a good thing and it's appropriate that he goes up in a car bomb."

In Washington, the State Department also welcomed news of his reported death but stressed it did not have independent information on the reports.

"The world is a better place without this man in it," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, who added that "one way or the other he was brought to justice."

Israel accused him of involvement in the 1992 bombing of Israel's embassy in Argentina in which 29 people were killed and the blast at a Buenos Aires Jewish center two years later that killed 85.

Iranian media reported that an Iranian school and a Syrian intelligence office were in the same area of Kafar Soussa where the explosion in Damascus occurred.

One report said Mughniyeh was leaving his house and about to get into his car when it exploded. Another said he was attending a ceremony at the Iranian school in Damascus and was killed as he left the function.

"This action is yet another brazen example of organized state terrorism by the Zionist regime," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said, according to the state news agency IRNA.

Hezbollah, whose top leader Hassan Nasrallah has been largely in hiding since the 2006 war fearing Israeli assassination, did not immediately threaten revenge.

Israel denied involvement and said it was looking into the death.

"Israel rejects the attempt by terror groups to attribute to it any involvement in this incident. We have nothing further to add," read the statement from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office.

Israeli lawmaker Danny Yatom, a former head of the Mossad spy agency, praised the killing.

"In the fight against terror today by the free and democratic world, I think that the free and democratic world today achieved a very, very important goal," Yatom said.

Syria has not commented on the death. If confirmed that Syria was hosting Mughniyeh, it would be an embarrassment for the government of President Bashar Assad. Syria is accused of hosting a number of Palestinian extremist groups and has been accused by the U.S. of sponsoring terrorism.

The death could also could further stir up turmoil in deeply divided Lebanon, where a Hezbollah-led opposition is locked in a bitter power struggle with the Western-backed government. Hezbollah called for a massive gathering of its supporters for Mughniyeh's funeral in southern Beirut on Thursday.

Mughniyeh was Hezbollah security chief during a turbulent period in Lebanon's civil war. He has been accused of masterminding the April 1983 car bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut that killed 63 people, including 17 Americans, and the simultaneous truck bombings of the U.S. Marine barracks and French military base in Beirut, killing 58 French soldiers and 241 Marines.

He was indicted in the United States for the 1985 TWA hijacking in which Shiite militants seized the 747 and flew it back and forth between Beirut and Algiers demanding the release of Lebanese Shiites captured by Israel. During the hijacking, the body of Navy diver Robert Stethem, a passenger on the plane, was dumped on the tarmac of Beirut airport.

During Lebanon's civil war, Mughniyeh was also believed to have directed a string of kidnappings of Americans and other foreigners, including Anderson - who was held for six years until his release in 1991 - and CIA station chief William Buckley, who was killed in 1985.

Anderson was the last American hostage freed in a complicated deal that involved Israel's release of Lebanese prisoners, Iran's sway with the kidnappers, Syria's influence and - according to an Iranian radio broadcast - promises by the United States and Germany not to retaliate against the kidnappers.

Giandomenico Picco, an Italian diplomat working at the time as a special assistant to U.N. Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar, said he was certain but never able to absolutely confirm that the hooded man he met in the slums of Beirut to finalize the deal was Imad Mughniyeh.

Mughinyeh's killing was the first major attack against a leader of Hezbollah since the 1992 helicopter strike that killed the Hezbollah secretary-general Sheik Abbas Mussawi in southern Lebanon.

Little has been known about him since the end of the Lebanese civil war and Hezbollah has regularly refused to talk about him. Wednesday's announcement of his death was the first mention of him in years.

Al-Manar on Wednesday aired a rare picture of Mughniyeh - showing a burly, bespectacled man with a black beard wearing a military camouflage and a military cap. It did not say when the picture was taken. Mughniyeh has been reported by the media and intelligence agencies to have undergone plastic surgery to avoid detection as he moved around in the 1990s.

American intelligence officials have described Mughniyeh as Hezbollah's operations chief, who was believed to have moved between Lebanon, Syria and Iran in disguise.

Mughniyeh's last public appearance was believed to be at the funeral of his brother Fuad, who was killed on Dec. 12, 1994, when a booby-trapped car blew up in the southern suburb of Beirut.

In 2006, Mughniyeh was reported to have met with hardline Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Syria. Tehran and the country's paramilitary Revolutionary Guards have never publicly disclosed the extent of their links with their protege Hezbollah.

Hezbollah did not threaten immediate revenge. Its al-Manar television, which broke into Quranic verses after the announcement, broadcast another statement from the Shiite Muslim militant group, saying a funeral will be held on Thursday.

The lights have been turned off

Posted on 2008-02-14

The lights have been turned off
By Gideon Levy
Tags: Israel

One after another, the final lights are being turned off, and a moral gloom is falling upon us as we stand at the edge of an abyss. Just last week, three more lights were turned off. The Winograd Report did not come out clearly against the fact that Israel embarked on a pointless war; the Supreme Court authorized collective punishment and the attorney general concluded that the killing of 12 Israeli citizens and someone from the territories by the police does not warrant a trial. The final keepers of order, the lighthouses of justice and law, are reconciling themselves with the most serious injustices of the institutions of authority and no one so much as utters a word about it. The upsetting and depressing crop of a single week has drawn the moral portrait of the country.

As expected, the Winograd Committee became irrelevant. It avoided dealing with the first question that should have been on its agenda: Was there any justification for embarking on the war? A committee that says nothing about a country that declares war on its neighbor, kills a thousand of its citizens, causes mass destruction, makes use of horrific munitions and continues to kill dozens of innocents to this day - is a derelict committee.

If the committee didn't delve into these key issues, then who will? A single, circuitous remark exposed the game: "We do not conclude, and have not concluded, that the decision to embark on war following the abduction [of the two reservists] was not justified." Well, what did it conclude? Despite what it said, this is what you really hear: It is legitimate in the eyes of the committee to go to war over two abducted soldiers. It is legitimate to utilize the tool of war, to kill indiscriminately, to disproportionately bomb and destroy - all as the preferred first response. No negotiations, no limited military operation - just war - and on such dubious grounds, and of course with such pathetic results. Not a word on the killing and the destruction that we caused in vain. The dignified-looking committee conducted itself like a public information office and supported what many around the world have described as war crimes. A golden opportunity to say something ethical about the language of force that we are always eager to use, was missed. The Winograd Committee is therefore a panel lacking a moral backbone, which avoided coming to terms with substantive questions.
Advertisement
 
On the same day that the committee released its final report, the Supreme Court, that same institution to which all eyes are turned, and over whose influence there is a bitter, ongoing battle, authorized another bug in the works. A panel of justices headed by Court President Dorit Beinisch ruled that Israel is authorized to limit the supply of electricity, gasoline and diesel to the Gaza Strip, "since even these diminished quantities sufficiently meet humanitarian needs."

It is difficult to tell what "humanitarian needs" are according to Beinisch, but in the Gaza Strip a million and a half people are crying out for fuel, water and electricity. It is fair to ask the court president: Has she ever been exposed to the scenes of wretchedness in the Gaza Strip? Did she ever see the miserable people there carrying fuel jerry cans from Egypt? Has she considered the cold, which cannot be countered without electricity or fuel? Has she given any serious thought to what happens to children, the infirm and the elderly without these necessities? They are all innocents.

But the severity of the Supreme Court's decision is not only on the human level: The Supreme Court is authorizing collective punishment, which is specifically forbidden under international law (Article 33 of the Geneva Convention). Henceforth, Israel will no longer be able to complain about attacks against innocents in Israel: If all the residents of the Gaza Strip deserve to be punished because of the Qassam rockets, then maybe all Israelis deserve to be punished because of the occupation?

"This is the difference between Israel, a democracy fighting for its life within the framework of the law, and the terrorist organizations fighting against it," the Supreme Court stated sanctimoniously, like a lowly spokesman from the Foreign Ministry.

"According to the law?" Which law? Not international law. "Israel is fighting for its life?" And maybe the Palestinians are fighting a war that is no less justified, against occupation and imprisonment? All this was not on the Supreme Court's agenda.

And last, but not least: Attorney General Menachem Mazuz. Twelve citizens and a resident of the territories were killed by the police, and Mazuz ruled there was no point of initiating a criminal investigation at such a late stage. (The state prosecution decided at the time to delay the investigation until the Or Commission of Inquiry completed it work.) Why shouldn't the court decide? All the excuses, including passing the blame onto the victim's families, who did not permit autopsies, do not in the least diminish the well-founded suspicion: Had the dead been Jewish citizens, this would not have happened; the police would not have killed and the attorney general would not have closed the case.

After all this, people here complain about those who wish to live in a more just country, who are forced to turn to institutions of international law. Who else can they turn to? The Supreme Court? Winograd? The attorney general? Their lights have all been turned off.

Hamas renews call for ceasefire with Israel

Posted on 2008-02-14

First Published 2008-02-12


Will Israel accept the Hamas ceasefire offer this time?


Hamas renews call for ceasefire with Israel


Hamas calls for long-term ceasefire between Palestinians resistance, Israeli occupation.


JERUSALEM - A Hamas official on Tuesday renewed calls for a ceasefire amid mounting Israeli demands for a broad military offensive in the Gaza Strip.

Writing in the Israeli daily Haaretz, Ahmed Yussef, a Hamas foreign policy advisor, called for a long-term ceasefire between Palestinian militants and Israeli forces.

"If the people of (the southern Israeli town of) Sderot want to know why rockets continue to land around them, they should ask their own government why it has continually rejected our calls for a ceasefire and continued its policy of daily incursions and reckless targeting that put the whole population at risk," he wrote.

Yussef pointed out that his democratically movement observed a unilateral ceasefire for the nine months before it won parliamentary elections in January 2006 and for six months thereafter.

He told AFP that Hamas was not aiming for a wider confrontation, but had a "political vision aimed at achieving a long truce."

"If there were a sincere Israeli movement towards a truce, in terms of easing the siege and opening the crossings and allowing freedom of movement between the West Bank and Gaza, that would be the basis," Yussef said.

But "if Israel continues with its heavy-handed policies, the confrontation will remain open and the conflict will continue," he said, adding that Hamas was not seeking direct talks with Israel.

But Israel continues to claim that its attacks on Gaza are in response to the rocket and mortar attacks.

It also said that while Hamas itself may have refrained in the past from firing rockets, it did not stop other militant groups from doing so.

However, the reluctance to crack down on other groups is rooted in Hamas's core belief that armed resistance is the only way to end the Israeli occupation.

Since the democratically elected resistance movement Hamas seized power in the coastal strip in June, Israel has imposed more restrictions on the already besieged Palestinian territory.

At the same time Palestinian militants have lobbed rockets and mortar rounds at Israeli towns near the Gaza border, but rarely wounding anyone.

Most of the firing has come from smaller groups like Islamic Jihad and the Popular Resistance Committees, but Hamas does not want to be seen as halting attacks against what Palestinians see as a long, brutal, and illegal Israeli occupation.

Hamas rockets could be aimed at forcing truce

Hamas's decision to renew rocket and mortar attacks on Israel could be aimed at securing a truce rather than a wider confrontation, analysts said on Tuesday.

"With the escalation of rocket fire Hamas is aiming to push Israel towards a truce, not a confrontation," saud Naji Shirab, professor of political science at Al-Azhar University in Gaza.

He added that Hamas was the only power in Gaza capable of controlling the restive territory.

The democratically elected Palestinian movement insists that the attacks on southern Israeli towns and military positions constitute "legitimate resistance" against Israeli assaults on the Palestinian territory as well as Israel's continuous occupation.

"We want there to be a balance of terror in order to rein in (Israeli) aggression," Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhum said.

Hamas resumed rocket attacks on January 15, after an Israeli incursion killed 19 Gazans. Hamas had previously halted fire for several months.

"The pressure from Sderot (a town frequently targeted) on the Israeli government comes from the strikes and the resistance," Barhum added.

Some analysts believe Hamas may be looking for a third party to act as midwife to some kind of agreement, perhaps involving the release of Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier seized in June 2006 in a deadly cross-border raid.

"Hamas knows Israel has plans prepared to eliminate it and this pushes it to look for another party like Egypt to arrive at a real calm," said Jihad Hamad, another Gaza-based professor.

"There will be great pressure on Hamas in the coming weeks," Hamad said. "Hamas will try to achieve a period of calm and maybe even give positions back to the Palestinian Authority."

Hamas has at various times observed a unilateral ceasefire in which it halted all attacks on Israel.

israeli lobby declare war on gandhi

Posted on 2008-02-14

NEWS YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN

  Send Page To a Friend

Israeli Lobby  Declares War  On  Gandhi   By  Punyapriya Dasgupta    12/02/08 "ICH" -- -- The problem the Israelis and their supporters have with Gandhi refuses to go away..  In what they call their pre-State era, they tried to  get  Mahatma Gandhi to endorse their campaign to dispossess the Arabs and transform Palestine into a Jewish homeland.  He not only branded their enterprise unjust but even made comments which lend support to the Palestinian resistance that has been calumniated  more recently by Israel and its American backers as terrorism.  Today, the Israel lobby in America is baying for the blood of Arun Gandhi for his temerity in advising the Jews in Israel that it is time they got over their holocaust fixation and  for their own secure future moved on to build peace and friendship with their neighbours.              Arun Gandhi, a grandson of  the Mahatma, together with his wife Sunanda, founded the M.K.Gandhi Institute of Non-Violence in Memphis to spread the Gandhian philosophy in America and later made it a part of the University of Rochester.    Early last month Arun Gandhi wrote in a Washington Post blog:  "The Jewish identity in the past has been locked into the holocaust experience - a German burden that the Jews have not been able to shed.  It is a very good example of a community that can overplay a historic experience to the point that it begins to repulse friends.  The holocaust was the result of the warped mind of an individual who was able to influence his followers into something dreadful.   But it seems to me that the Jews today not only want the Germans to feel guilty but the whole world must regret what happened to the Jews.  The world did feel sorry for the episode but when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on, the regret turns into anger.  The Jewish identity in the future appears bleak.  Any nation that remains anchored to the past is unable to move ahead and especially a nation that believes its survival can only be ensured by weapons and bombs.  In Tel Aviv in 2004, I had the opportunity to speak to some MPs and peace activists all of whom argued that the wall and the military build up was necessary to protect the nation and the people.  In other words, I asked, you believe that you can create a snake pit with many deadly snakes in it - and expect to live in the pit secure and alive?  What do you mean? they countered.  Well, with your superior weapons and your attitude towards your neighbours would it not be right to say you are creating a snake pit?  Would it not be better to befriend those who hate you?  Can you not reach out to share your technical advantage with your neighbours and build a relationship?"   This is vintage Gandhian logic about the means to an end.  Arun Gandhi is a true inheritor of Gandhism except in such obsolete externals  as the asceticism the Mahatma espoused in dress to identify himself with the poorest Indian nearly a century ago.  When the Israel lobbyists turned on him for what they regard as sacrilege of the holocaust, Arun responded with more of Gandhism.  He resigned from the presidentship of the institution of non-violence  he had himself founded and issued an apology:  "My statement on the recent Washington Post blog was couched in language that  was hurtful and contrary to the principle of non-violence. My intention was to generate a healthy discussion on the proliferation of violence.  Clearly I did not achieve my goal.  Instead, unintentionally, my words have resulted in pain, anger, confusion and embarrassment.  I deeply regret these consequences. I would like to be a part of as healing process.  The principles of non-violence are founded on love, respect, understanding and compassion.  It is my sincere hope that this situation will give me and others the opportunity to work together and transform anger and negative emotions, create deeper mutual respect and understanding and build more harmonious communities."

The Zionist response was typical too.  Not only was Arun Gandhi abused as soon as the blog appeared, even his apology was rejected as not enough or inconsequential.  The Anti-Defamation League adjudged him guilty of a classic attempt at blaming the victim. Arun Gandhi was branded anti-semite by the Israel lobbyists The director of the Simon Wiesenthal Institute seized it as a not-to-be lost opportunity to extend his sneer retrospectively to the Mahatma, a revered figure in world history.  Efraim Zuroff was quoted by the Jerusalem Post as saying:  "Even the great Mohandas Gandhi did not have a monopoly on wisdom, evidence his suggested passive resistance against the Nazis."  Someone may take this cue and say that Arun Gandhi betrayed poor wisdom for he advised the Palestinians to defeat the Israelis with a massive non-violent march. John Mearsheimer who along with Stephen Walt wrote about the Israel lobby and faced its full fury, offered a consolation to Arun Gandhi with a comment that he would have gotten into serious trouble with the lobby even if he had chosen his words carefully "simply because he had criticized Israel and its American supporters, which one does at his or her own peril." 

Sixty years after his death Mahatma Gandhi still remains a thorn on  Zionism's side.  His view, written in 1938, remains in indelible print and sharply relevant even now. "Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French.  It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs.  What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any code of conduct.  The Mandates have no sanction but that of the last War.  Surely it would be a crime against humanity  to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home.  I am not defending the Arab excesses.  I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in  resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarranted encroachment upon their country.  But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds." 

Following Orders

Posted on 2008-02-14

NEWS YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN

  Send Page To a Friend

Following Orders

By Mark A. Goldman

12/02/08 "ICH " -- - If I have my facts straight, Hitler killed only one person in his lifetime: himself. All the other atrocities that are attributed to him were carried out by people who were only following orders.

If it is true that the war in Iraq is illegal, as I and others believe it is-including the Secretary General of the United Nations-then all the deaths and atrocities that have occurred to date, inflicted by our coalition forces, are the acts of individuals who, knowingly or unknowingly, with good intentions or not, have been willing to break the law in order to follow the orders of superiors.

Each member of the US military took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Each also took a pledge to follow the legal orders of the Commander in Chief. Under the Constitution, no soldier is required to follow an illegal order. But that's what many Americans have been doing now for quite some time. And this is not confined to our military personnel, but also to members of the FBI, the CIA, the NSA (the folks who have been carrying out those illegal wire taps), outsourced contractors, the media, and perhaps most egregious of all- elected members of Congress, who for all intents and purposes, put their conscience and oversight responsibilities on hold as they get their marching orders from the Oval Office or from party leaders.

I believe the reason that many of those who do follow illegal orders, or otherwise fall into line under pressure, is that if they refused, they would be subject to severe ridicule and/or punishment. They know that if they subjected themselves to this ridicule or punishment, that we would not do anything to protect them from that injustice.

And so, in pursuit of this war, we have suspended the Constitution. Many members of Congress have supported the administration in carrying out illegal acts, rationalizing that such behavior is in the name of national security. That was Hitler's rationale too. Innocent people have been killed, wounded, tortured, rendered, humiliated, had their privacy invaded, and their lives dismantled all in the name of national security. Anyone who objects can now be put under suspicion and may be targeted for future intimidation or worse. According to members of Congress, nothing this administration does is egregious enough to qualify them for impeachment.

The stories of individuals who have been damaged by the illegal acts of our government and their agents are beginning to filter through. But the damage that's been done is far greater than the stories yet told. Damage done to our Constitution and to our self respect will likely take a heavy toll for generations to come.

And yet for most Americans their sensibilities are not disturbed by what's been happening... many do not want to hear about it. Those who do hear about it, make up their own rationalization of why it's ok. Many simply don't know what to think or do.

This all leads me to believe that with every victory this administration experiences, the light of liberty and freedom will dim a little more. If we were to achieve the victory that Bush talks about in Iraq, it would not help the cause of freedom, it would help to kill it. It would only encourage his hubris, his arrogance. He doesn't want democracy, he only wants stability. He wants the oil. He doesn't believe in the Constitution or the rule of law. He has the sensibilities of a despot.

Since the atrocities and illegalities for which his administration is responsible have not been repudiated by Congress or the American people, he and his conspirators will continue to conclude that there is no limit to their power... all they have to do is take however much they want... but do it just a little bit at a time. And there is no reason to suspect that they will not do just that and use that power for their own purposes, whatever that might be.

I say to you: the ends do not justify the means. If we do not identify, explore, and repudiate the illegal acts of this government, soon the fist of injustice will come knocking at every door... if history teaches us anything at all, it surely teaches us that.

There is good reason for secrecy in the Bush administration. The reason they don't want to conduct or discuss their activities in the light of day is because eventually the American people would figure it out: they would come to the conclusion that the reason the so called terrorists are out to kill Americans is because secretly the American government has been responsible for murder and the disenfranchisement of decent people all over the world. The United States has been active in destroying democratic institutions for a long time. We have done this to satisfy American greed for resources that don't belong to us, oil being supreme among them. We have caused people in middle eastern countries to suffer tyrants like Saddam Hussein and the Saudi family.

American leaders favor tyrants. We help install them. We work very hard to keep them in place. We like tyrants because we can buy them off in a protection racket. We use our money and our military power to support their illegitimate regimes in exchange for cheap oil, or whatever the resource happens to be. In all countries it works pretty much the same. And in these countries it is ordinary people who suffer because of our policies.

When some of these people finally decide to strike out, fight back, to get us to stop, our leaders call it terrorism and then they ask us to send our children to die in battle fighting these 'bad' guys. They tell us that we are being attacked for no other reason than that they hate our freedom and our democracy. And we believe them; and we send our children to die and to kill because we don't have the knowledge or courage not to believe them. We are so afraid, we are even willing to send our beautiful children to die and to kill. What a price to pay for ignorance and blind faith.

No one in Congress has been willing to stand up and say what I just said. It is only the truth that will save us. Nothing less will do. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Stand up. Speak out. Remove the traitors from their perches or they will take our children and turn them into criminals like themselves.

Lack of fuel causes 30% power shortfall in Gaza

Posted on 2008-02-14

GAZA, Feb. 10 (Xinhua) -- Israel's restriction policy over the fuel shipments to the Gaza Strip caused a power shortage of 30 percent in the poor enclave, a Palestinian official said Sunday.

    Kan'an Obaid, deputy director of Palestinian Energy Authority, also slammed Israel for its reduction of power supply, saying it "would double the suffering of the (Gazan) residents who are already in hardship."

    In October, Israel reduced the European Union-funded industrial diesel to Gaza's only power station from 2.2 million liter per week to 1.75 million liters per week, halving the power plant's full capacity of 80 megawatts to around 40 megawatts.

    As of Feb. 7, Israel further deducted 5 percent of power supply from a total of 120 megawatts of electricity that Israel sells directly to Gaza in a fresh effort to increase pressure on Gaza residents over the rocket fire from the enclave against Israel.

    The sole power station in Gaza provides electricity to the 600,000 people of Gaza City, according to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics

no room for two states

Posted on 2008-02-14

NEWS YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN

  Send Page To a Friend

No room for two states

The case for a single state solution for Palestine is irrefutable

By Hassan Nafaa

10/02/08 "Al-Ahram" -- - -Is there truly hope for the establishment of a viable, sovereign Palestinian state living side-by-side with Israel in peace? Sadly, I doubt it very much, at least in the foreseeable future, in view of current local, regional and international conditions.

The creation of a Palestinian state should not be regarded as an end in itself, but rather as a means for resolving a long and complex historical conflict. Accordingly, our judgement on a formula for a proposed state should rest not so much on whether it complies with necessary formal and legal conditions as whether it meets that overriding criterion: will it serve to draw to a close, once and for all, that protracted conflict?

After all, the concrete existence of a Palestinian state with certain specifications could, in itself, become an instrument in the conflict as opposed to a step towards its solution. The conflict between the Palestinians and the Zionist movement is not over disputed borders or material interests and, therefore, resolvable by merely coming to an agreement over permanent borders and a give-and-take over material interests. Rather, it is a conflict between two identities, each of which claims sole propriety right over a given territory. Such a conflict cannot be solved by the same means that are brought to bear on conventional international conflicts.

Identity conflicts can only be solved by two means, either by the overwhelming defeat of one side by the other, or through compromise, after both sides finally reach the conviction that continuing the zero-sum game, whereby a gain for one side must result in an equal loss for the other, will not result in victory over and elimination of the other side. I believe that in identity conflicts compromise is only possible when there is mutual recognition of the other party's equal rights.

If we were to apply this concept to the Palestinian- Zionist conflict, a compromise solution would require that both sides commit themselves fully to two indispensable, mutually complementary conditions. The first is for them to accept the fair and equal partition of the territory under dispute. The second is for them to agree to complete equality in rights and duties in the process of building peaceful, friendly, mutually beneficial relations. Unfortunately, there are no signs that these conditions can be met today or even in the foreseeable future.

The total land area designated for a Palestinian state, as a proposed solution to the conflict, amounts to no more than 10 per cent of the actual territory under dispute, which is historic Palestine. Moreover, that designated area is not geographically contiguous, but rather consists of disconnected and isolated patches of territory. If and when that state is founded, it will not have an army or any autonomous means to defend itself and its borders will be subject to constant surveillance by land, sea and air. But if it is to be founded at all, that phantom state will first have to recognise Israel's right to 90 per cent of the disputed territory, the purely Jewish character of that state and, hence, its right to remain eternally open to Jews from around the world, along with the right of that state to an immensely powerful army equipped with every available type of weapon, including nuclear missiles.

Obviously, there can be nothing remotely resembling equality in a relationship between such disparate states. A Palestinian state so encumbered by restrictions and conditions can only be an Israeli dependency subjected to total Israeli control. This is not a situation conducive to lasting peaceful coexistence, because the very conditions of dependency and subordination to Israeli must inevitably continue to fire the Palestinian urge for true national independence and expression. At the same time, it is difficult to perceive how such a state, so crippled at birth that it is little more than an Israeli protectorate, could eventually evolve into a fully-fledged viable state capable of safeguarding Palestinian rights and fulfilling their aspirations.

There are several reasons for this. First, Israel has given no indication of a willingness to set aside its policy of imposing de facto realities by force of arms in favour of the search for a historic compromise, which means that Israel will perpetually seek to sustain its qualitative superiority -- military superiority in particular -- not only over the Palestinians but over all Arab and Islamic nations combined.

Second, the US can no longer maintain even a façade of impartiality now that its positions on the Middle East conflict have become virtually identical to those of Israel. In fact, some powerful and influential forces in the US are more pro-Zionist than Israeli Zionists and have pitted their weight behind the most extreme forces in Israel, which reject out of hand a settlement founded upon a historic compromise with the Palestinians. It is, therefore, impossible to envision an American government willing and able to pressure Israel into accepting the conditions for a just and lasting settlement.

Third, joint US-Israeli efforts have succeeded in excluding the UN from any involvement in the peace process, with the result that this process has been effectively stripped of any framework of international legitimacy. It is patently obvious that all relevant international resolutions and instruments have been discarded as bases for negotiations, with the sole exception of Resolution 242, which favours Israel's negotiating position and paves the way for a settlement that reflects the actual balance of powers on the ground as opposed to the principles of justice and fairness enshrined in all other UN resolutions and instruments.

Fourth, the Palestinian cause no longer occupies the priority it once had on the agenda of the official Arab order. What was once a central and unifying Arab- Islamic cause has been effectively reduced to a local problem that primarily concerns the Palestinians alone. Arab governments hide behind the current Palestinian rift, which they played no small part in precipitating, to conceal their shift in stance, and they have thus effectively become accomplices in Israel's criminal blockade of the Palestinian people, which is intended to force the Palestinians to their knees and to accept Israeli conditions for a settlement. Again, there are no signs that this situation is about to change in the near future.

Clearly, then, the so-called Palestinian state that is supposed to arise from the current "peace process" is never going to lead to a just and lasting solution to the conflict. Indeed, that conception of a state has been specifically designed to help Israel ward off what it regards as the foremost threat, which it unabashedly terms the "Palestinian demographic bomb". With considerable perseverance and dexterity, Israel managed to steer negotiations currently taking place with the Palestinian Authority into a long, dark tunnel, the only glimmer of light at the end of which is a congenitally disfigured state that will ultimately prove a means for inflaming tensions rather than ending them.

It seems to me, therefore, that the Palestinians and Arabs have no other choice but to abandon the two- state solution and rehabilitate that solution the Palestine Liberation Organisation espoused until the mid- 1980s, which is the creation of a single, unified democratic state, in which all its citizens -- Muslims, Christians or Jews -- are equal.

Some might counter that this proposal is so divorced from reality that its only effect will be to drive the Palestinians and Arabs into chasing a new mirage. Naturally, such sceptics will easily find support for their argument, especially given that Israel would never agree to such a solution or even take it seriously as a negotiating basis. These sceptics may have a point, but I would counter that this proposal is no less idealistic than the Arab Peace Initiative. At the same time, it is superior in many ways.

The two-state solution, as understood in the Arab initiative adopted at the Beirut Arab summit, is radically different to the two-state solution as understood by the Israeli interpretation of the Bush "vision". Although Israel and the US have never openly rejected the Arab initiative and only recently announced that they welcomed some of its "positive points", they have no intention of adopting it, as it stands, as a basis for negotiations with the Arabs. Under current balances of power, since the Arabs neither have the power to impose their initiative nor the ability to withdraw from the current "process", even if they wanted to, their initiative will be chipped away at until all that is left is the Bush "vision" as interpreted by Israel. That eventuality will, in turn, take the peace process back to square one, and the endless cycle of Israeli coercion to impose its own conditions for a settlement will begin again. Since the Arabs are not prepared for direct military confrontation with Israel, reformulating the Arab position on the basis of the one-state solution would offer a much more rational -- and much less costly -- way out of their predicament.

The single, bi-national democratic state solution has the advantage of conforming to modern liberal democratic principles officially espoused in the West and in Israel itself. It could therefore stand a good chance of eliciting a positive response abroad that would acquire impetus, especially if the Palestinians and Arabs unified themselves behind this alternative in a serious and constructive way. In addition, this solution would favour innovative ways of overcoming the most obdurate obstacles to a settlement -- notably the questions of Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees. The chances of ensuring the administration of Christian, Jewish and Muslim holy places by independent religious authorities in a climate of freedom and tolerance are definitely higher and easier to safeguard in a democratic state. The Palestinian refugee problem also becomes solvable in a unified secular state if it is linked to the right to return as a right extended to both Jews and Palestinians.

I fully appreciate the difficulties standing in the way of the establishment of a unified secular democratic state in Palestine in the near future. However, in the long run, this is the only solution capable of keeping the Middle East and the rest of the world away from the dangerous brink towards which all are heading. On the one hand, it can forestall the victory of Zionist racism which would open the gates to the forces of bigotry and intolerance on this side that have been pushing in from the sidelines and clamouring to meet fire with fire. On the other hand, if that solution succeeded in Palestine, it would set into motion a tide of democratisation that would sweep the entire region, just as occurred in Eastern Europe in the 1990s. In addition, it would prevent the fragmentation of the region and stimulate a dynamic process of social and economic development.

Hassan Nafaa is a professor of political science at Cairo University.

we done it

Posted on 2008-02-10

Entry for 11 February 2008 magnify Defending champions Egypt won a record sixth Africa Cup of Nations with a fully-deserved victory over Cameroon.

The only goal of the game came in the 77th minute when Mohamed Aboutrika pushed home a Mohamed Zidan pass after a mistake by Cameroon's Rigobert Song.

The Pharaohs also went close when Hosni Abd Rabou hit the post on 61 minutes and they become the first side to win back-to-back titles twice.

Cameroon were seeking a fifth title, but rarely troubled the Pharaohs.


Egypt coach overjoyed with win

It was a triumph for Egypt coach Hassan Shehata who becomes only the second coach to win successive trophies.

His team had much the better of the first half, creating most of the scoring chances with their speed and mobility.

Once again Cameroon based their game on physical power, taking a defensive approach that supplied few openings to lone striker Samuel Eto'o.

606: DEBATE
Ahmed Hassan was the engine of the Egyptian midfield and key in setting the pace of the Pharaohs' game

BBC Sport's Ben Wyatt
Do you agree with our player ratings?

Aboutrika came close on 13 minutes, with a 35-yard shot that was pushed around the post by Cameroon goalkeeper Carlos Kameni.

Two minutes later the Indomitable Lions were forced to make a substitution, with Gilles Binya replacing Alexandre Song, who was carrying an injury from the previous game.

Cameroon defender Geremi forced a save from Essam Al-Hadari from a free-kick, but the Pharaohs almost took the lead seconds later.

Hadari's clearance found Emad Moteab, whose 15-yard shot was parried brilliantly by Kameni, but into the path of Aboutrika, whose shot was too high.

Nine minutes before half-time a ball over the Cameroon defence found Moteab inside the area, Kameni made a fine save from the shot, and it remained goalless.

Cameroon came back from the break with purpose, causing the tempo of the match to increase considerably, but Egypt quickly took control of the game again.

Kameni had to make two more fine saves, from a close-range Amr Zaki shot, then from Abd-Rabou's 25-yard cracker that he punched away.


Gilles Binya (left) and Mohamed Said in action in Sunday's final

The Pharaohs continued to pile on pressure, and Abd-Rabou hit the post with a header on 61 minutes.

With 13 minutes remaining, Egypt finally got the goal they deserved.

Cameroon captain Rigobert Song was punished for untidy defending, losing a tussle with substitute Zidan.

Zidan pushed the ball along the edge of the box into the path of Aboutrika, who had a simple finish from 15 yards.

As Egypt celebrated, Song covered his face with his shirt, knowing that he should have cleared the ball away.

Song headed over the bar in stoppage-time, but there was to be no redemption for the defender, in his seventh Nations Cup.

Egypt won the first two editions of the tournament, in 1957 and 1959, but with the competition far more intense now, these victories have far greater significance.

Shehata's feat of two Cups in a row matched that of Ghana's CK Gyamfi, who won the tournament in 1963 and 1965.

Aboutrika's goal was the 99th of the tournament, which produced more goals than any other Nations Cup.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cameroon: Kameni, Tchato, Song, Atouba, Emana (Idrissou 56), Song Billong (Binya 16), Mbia, Epalle (M'Bami 65), Geremi, Nkong, Eto'o.
Subs Not Used: Hamidou, Mbarga, Angbwa, Essola, Makoun, N'Guemo, Tomou, Job.

Booked: Atouba, Idrissou.

Egypt: El Hadari, Mohamed, Hany Said, Gomaa, Moawad, Fathi, Hassan, Abd Rabou, Aboutriaka (Ibrahim Said 89), Moteab (Zidan 60), Zaki (Shawky 84).
Subs Not Used: Abdel Monssef, Sobhy, El Saeed, Fathallah, Gamal, Mostafa, Shaaban, El Mohamady, Fadl.

Booked: Hassan.

Goals: Aboutriaka 77.

Ref: Coffi Codja (Benin)

Att: 35,500

Zionist Massacre in Gaza

Posted on 2008-02-09

Zionist Massacre in Gaza
January 2008

Neturei Karta is always committed to voice the traditional Religious Jewish opposition to the philosophy of Zionism and the existence of the state of "Israel".

According to the Torah teachings, Jews are in exile by divine decree. They are forbidden to leave exile and create their own state by physical means. Secondly, Jewish law forbids Jews to rebel against any other nations. Jews are required to be loyal citizens in the countries in which they reside. Hence, the state of "Israel" is forbidden.

The creation of the state of "Israel" transgresses these and other basic principles of Torah law. It was established on the land of others, totally against the will of its indigenous population, the Palestinian people, with endless and continuous oppression of its people, including murder, brutal beating, confiscation of their properties and baseless imprisonment etc.

Therefore religious Jewish leaders have always and continually oppose Zionism and the state of Israel. They predicted that only tragedy and bloodshed will be its result, G-d should protect us.

The state of "Israel" has no right to rule over any part of the Holy Land. The entire land should be restored to the indigenous Palestinian people, with the Almighty's help, peacefully.

In reference to the current tragic situation in Gaza, Neturei Karta in Jerusalem issued several documents to clarify the religious Torah position against the crimes committed by the state of "Israel" and to express that the state of "Israel" should not exist and does not represent the traditional Jewish community.

(Read statements from Neturei Karta in Jerusalem)

Following is a letter that was sent from Neturei Karta USA and Canada to Dr. Mahmoud Al-Zahar Co-Founder of Hamas:

January 25, 2008

To the Honorable Doctor Mamoud Al-Zahar
To the people of Gaza and the entire Palestine

Assalam Alaikum

May the Almighty's blessing be on you, your family, all of Gaza and the entire Palestine.

With a heavy heart and great sorrow, we address these words to you, at this present time.

We speak to you as the voice and the messengers of true Jewry - the Jewish people, true to the Almighty's Torah, from around the world.

Although we are limited in the means of expressing our deepest and true feelings, by the barriers of words, nevertheless, the Jewish people humbly offer to you and all of Gaza and the entire Palestine, a few words, to attempt to convey our deepest sorrow and heartfelt sympathy that we all feel for you, in this present tragic and traumatic time.

Great pain and sorrow has engulfed us by the tragic news of what has befallen you and your family, by the senseless murder of your dear son, Hussam and prior to this calamity, your other precious possession, your other son, Khaled.

We have not the words to console you, but our prayers are to the great Almighty, to console and comfort you and yours, upon this great tragedy. Amen.

It would be only proper and fitting, that we personally write to and address each and everyone who has fallen a victim of the Zionist state of "Israel". Unfortunately and how tragic, the list of victims is daunting.

May our few and humble words be a message of consolation, friendship, and loyalty, to you and all of Gaza and the entire Palestine.

True Jews around the world, of course including in the entire Palestine, never have and with the help of the Almighty, never will accept the ideology of Zionism and never will recognize the realization of its heretical plan, the state of "Israel".

We always have and always will, with the help of the Almighty, remain unaffiliated and estranged from this aberration and the will of Satan, "Zionism and the state of "Israel".

May we remind you, that the Almighty has clearly and explicitly commanded us, the Jewish people, since the destruction of the temple, around two thousand years ago, to be humble and loyal citizens in every country in which we reside. Furthermore, we are not to rebel against nations, we are not to attempt to end our exile, we are forbidden to create our own state or own entity.

We are to pray for, yearn for, and wait patiently for, the day when the Almighty will reveal his glory throughout the world.

At that time, all humanity together, will go up to the Holy Land, in harmony and brotherhood, to serve the Almighty in joy and peace.

Around one hundred years ago, the Zionists began arriving in Palestine in order to bring to fruition the realization of their dream, the transformation of Judaism from a religion into a nationalism. And so began the sorrowful and bitter history of the rebellion, the mutiny against the Almighty, which eventually evolved into the illegitimate, state of "Israel". The state of "Israel", continuing in the Zionist tradition, is in a constant mission to eradicate every vestige of the "antiquated" religion and to uproot from the hearts of the Jews, their connection with the Almighty, to be replaced by the "new" Judaism, - Zionism which is void of G-d in its essence.

Since the creation of this state of "Israel", the Palestinian people, continuously suffered indescribably. They have been oppressed, beaten, murdered, humiliated, displaced and expelled.

Although we presently want to address solely the Arab people's suffering, nevertheless, let it be known, that the G-d fearing Jewish people, share your plight. They are and have always been the victims of these same perpetrators of evil.

Beginning a little over 100 years ago, since these sinners and atheists, Theodore Herzl and his cohorts, raised their repugnant voices in promulgating their ideology of the devil, the heresy of Zionism, Jewish people to, have suffered and continue to suffer, indescribably both physically and spiritually at their hands. Our G-d fearing brethren, throughout the entire Palestine, have been and are continually, beaten, murdered, imprisoned and oppressed, since the beginning of Zionism up until today.

Although, this letter and the present moment, is not the proper place and time to delve into the issue of our personal suffering at the Zionist regime's hands, still we feel it is necessary to bring these facts to the Arab people's attention. Our sages state that to know that many people share ones suffering, alleviates the suffering somewhat. Also, it is to demonstrate to all, the sincerity in our opposition to this tumorous growth on the Jewish nation - the so-called state of "Israel".

Let it be known that our true leaders, the Rabbis and Sages in Palestine, the Middle-East, Europe, and throughout the world, have vociferously and most fervently expressed and demonstrated their total opposition to Zionism and the state of "Israel", since its inception. They have untiringly decried and condemned all the evils that it has wrought, the oppression of the Palestinian people, and of the religious Jews and the state of "Israel's"constant attempts, at eradicating and destroying anything that is, G-dly and religious.

They have tirelessly and fearlessly demonstrated, at great self sacrifice, publicly, their opposition to this rebellion against the Almighty.

Countless edicts have been issued from our saintly leaders requiring the Jewish people, true to the Almighty and to His Torah, to distance and estrange themselves from this sinful and illegitimate state of "Israel" and all the evils that emanate from it.

Thank the Almighty, their message has been heard around the world by many God-fearing Jews and they have obeyed. What is more, untold thousands have stood by their Rabbis and many thousands continuously demonstrated fearlessly, till today, through-out occupied Palestine and throughout the world, against the state of "Israel".

All of the above is well documented, but stifled by the powers of the Zionist media control and by the intimidation of all who dare to confront or reveal the truth.

To date, it seems to our human and limited comprehension, that this evil entity will, G-d forbid, never cease to exist and it will continue to exude its evils, on the innocent and G-d fearing people under its control.

Remember and comfort yourselves, our brethren in Palestine, there is a great and exalted, benevolent, Master of the Universe, who truly controls the world. He can and will end this suffering!!

In the Torah it states, that transgressing against the Almighty, will not be successful. This state of "Israel", according to the Almighty's Torah, must and will eventually end.

Let us all pray and beseech Him, to bring about the total, peaceful and speedy dismantlement of this illegitimate state soon in our days.

With the Almighty's benevolence, may He make this happen, without any further pain or suffering. Amen.

Please convey this message to each and every one of your brethren suffering under this oppression of "Zionism - Israel". Especially important, please convey this message to the bereaved relatives of the fallen victims, the wounded and maimed, and most certainly to the ones languishing in Israeli prisons and to the ones lying in pain in hospitals.

Convey to them our solidarity and words of comfort and support. We are humiliated by the actions of those who use our name and our hearts are rent by what is happening to them.

We constantly pray, worry and hope for you all.

May we merit to see soon in our days, the total, speedy and peaceful dismantlement of the state of "Israel".

May the Almighty bring upon us the words of His prophecies when all men will serve Him in harmony, peace and joy. Amen.

Assalam Alaikum
Very truly yours,

Rabbi Moshe Beck
Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss
U.S.A. and Canada

Rabbi Ahron Cohen
United Kingdom

http://www.nkusa.org/activities/Zionist_Violence/index.cfm

 

Will John McCain Have The Decency

Posted on 2008-02-09

NEWS YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN

  Send Page To a Friend

Will John McCain Have The Decency

 

 To Apologize? By Mike Ghouse

 

08/02/08 "ICH" -- -- I turned the TV off on McCain this afternoon.

 

Every TV appearance I have watched in the last two months, even if it was for two minutes, Senator McCain unfailingly delivered his vitriol, "The greatest danger facing the world is Islamic Terrorism" and Governor Romney, who is off the radar now, used "Islamic Jihaad" to appease the right wing of the  Republican party.

 

Senator McCain in his lust for power looses the basic American decency and courtesy to show respect for his fellow Americans who number 6 Million and I am one. It is an ironic number to remember.

 

When I turned the TV off, the words of Edmund Burke's quote came alive as a sad image, which was pointed out by a speaker at the Holocaust Museum recently. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

 

Well my friends, I am doing my part. Indeed the world needs to be informed again and again about the Holocaust and how it began. Martin Niemöller's poem (first they came for the Jews...) resonates with me every day, when I see the eerie silence on the part of Media when a linguistic atrocity is committed right in front of their eyes.

 

When our President claimed they hate us for our freedom, not one media person asked for the proof or the polls, they consumed it gullibly. They, whoever they might be, do not hate America or Americans. Just as we do not hate any people but their governments, others do the same.

 

Manufacturing hate and fear to earn the support is shameful, but unfortunately that is the reality concocted by the Bush administration and the rightwing Republicans have imbibed it.

 

I am a Muslim and I am for America like 6 million other Muslims. We are Republicans and Democrats, we are religious as well as not religious, we are conservatives and liberals but mostly moderate just like most of the Americans.

 

Each one of us is contributing towards the peace and prosperity of our nation. We are taking the initiatives and putting in our efforts for one nation under God with liberty and justice for all.

 

On 9/11, I manned a Radio station for eight hours getting the Dallas community on the air, grieving with fellow Americans, organizing blood drives, wrote articles to prove to the enemies like Osama Bin Laden that all Americans are on the same side, irrespective of personal faith.

 

Since then every year, with the support of the Muslim community, I have dedicated my time on 9/11 to unite people, to bring people of all faiths, races and ethnicities to come together and pray for the safety and security of America, and rededicate our pledge to one nation under God with liberty and justice for all.  To call Islam or Muslims as terrorists is offensive to me; I am not one, neither the six million of us are. If there is one, we are going to turn them over to the FBI, safety and security of our nation is as important to the 6 millions of as it is to the 294 Million others.

 

The fear mongers manufacture enemies to polarize the electorate for crass political advantage; Native Indians, African Americans, Jews, Wicca, Atheists and now Muslims are being targeted by them. Such short term gains are deleterious to peace and long term prosperity. As Americans, we need to stand up for each other for the good of every American.

 

Our leaders should demonstrate their leadership in building goodwill among all Americans and make America a model nation for coexistence and harmony. We need to make peace and prosperity as our goal and our leaders should take that pledge to mitigate conflicts and nurture goodwill.  Every one will win at the end.

 

I expect Senator McCain to drop the hate rhetoric and apologize to Muslims in America, or at least have the decency not to use the words "Islamic Terrorism" or "Muslims Terrorism". Call Terrorism for what it is, do not suffix or prefix or hang my religion to the evil acts; fear mongering is also evil. I am a Muslim and all the Muslims that I know in America are working hard to keep us safe and secure. If you do not have moral courage to apologize, the least you can do is restore decency in your language.

 

Two decades ago, when I chose to become an American, I found myself in tune with the Republican party; liberty, less government, fiscal responsibility, capitalism, security and peace through strength. Today, the party is not the same and it does not reflect those values any more. When the Presidential candidate and a few (or more) Republicans resort to this divisive rhetoric, it puts many Republicans like me to re-evaluate being Republicans.

 

References:

 

http://www.mikeghouse.net/Articles/Republican-or-Democrat-which-way.asp

http://www.mikeghouse.net/Articles/John-Mcain-the-Bush-lite-Neocon.asp

http://www.foundationforpluralism.com/UnitydayUSA_2007.asp

http://www.mikeghouse.net/Articles/Did-Senator-McCain-Betray-America.asp

 

Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker, Writer and a Moderator.  He is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television network discussing Pluralism, politics, Islam, Religion, Terrorism, India and civic issues. His comments, news analysis, opinions and columns can be found on the Websites and Blogs listed at his personal website http://www.mikeghouse.net/. He can be reached at mailto:MikeGhouse@gmail.com

Testimony: Police assault youths Jerusalem, January 2008

Posted on 2008-02-07

Testimony: Police assault youths Jerusalem, January 2008

Walid 'Awwad, Student

Walid 'Awwad

Last Thursday [17 January], around 10:30 A.M., I left my house with friends from school, Muhammad Salah, 16, and Zayed Naji, 15. There wasn't school and we wanted to go to the Ramot settlement, which is near our homes, to look for work and earn some money to help out our poor families. Only a wadi separates our village from Ramot. The three of us crossed the wadi.
 
Within twenty minutes, we reached the Ramot road, which runs parallel to our village. We knocked on a few doors asking if the people needed any help in gardening or cleaning. After doing that for about half an hour, we saw a few police patrol vehicles, three I think, and a large police vehicle. They were traveling fast and stopped in the middle of the road. Police in blue uniforms [regular police], got out and ran toward us. I fled toward the wadi. I don't know how many police officers chased me. After running about ten meters, one of them caught me. He sprayed gas in my face, which made my eyes hurt a lot. I fell to the ground. He put his foot in my head and pressed. That hurt a lot. He kicked me in the waist and head, and beat me for about three minutes. Then he handcuffed me and pulled me toward the patrol vehicle.

My eyes, nose, and ears really hurt. My eyes burned a lot and I couldn't see too well. The policeman sat me down on the ground next to the car. I asked him to let me wash my face. I managed to see that he had a light complexion, was average height, and was thin. Another officer, who was tall, heavyset, and had white hair and wore sunglasses, kicked me in the head a few times. That hurt a lot.

Another policeman arrived and took me to the yard of one of the houses. He washed my head with water. My hands were still cuffed. He asked me, in Arabic, what we were doing in Ramot and accused us of attempted robbery. I told him we were looking for work. He took me back to the patrol vehicle. I heard one of the other policemen calling him Hassan.

They put me and Muhammad in the vehicle and took us to the police station in the Russian Compound, where we met Zayed. We waited there hours. While sitting there, police officers passed by and many of them swore at us. One policeman banged my head against the wall three times because I spoke to Zayed. Another policeman pulled out a pocket-knife and said that he would cut my finger. I panicked and called the policeman Hassan. He spoke with the other officer in Hebrew, and the other guy left me alone.

Around 5:00 P.M., they told me to sign a paper stating they had not beaten me. I signed it because I was frightened. Later, they took me to an interrogation room. The interrogator was an Arab named Waseem. He accused me of attempted robbery. I told him I didn't steal anything or intend to steal anything, and that I was only looking for work. I was then taken from the room to be interrogated by somebody else, who asked me the same questions.
After that, they returned me to the detention room. We remained there until the next day, when they took us to court, where I signed a document. I have no idea what it said. Then they released us.

Walid Iyad Ahmad 'Awwad, 16, is a student and a resident of Beit Iksa, al-Quds District. His testimony was given to Kareem Jubran, at the witness' house, on 21 January 2008.

24 Jan 2007: Israeli Human Rights Organizations: End the Siege on Gaza

Posted on 2008-02-07

24 Jan 2007: Israeli Human Rights Organizations: End the Siege on Gaza

 

 

We, Israeli human rights organizations, publicly support the joint Palestinian-Israeli international campaign to end the siege on the Gaza Strip immediately.

Although the toppling of the fence at the Egyptian border temporarily eased the stranglehold, the million and a half residents of Gaza still depend almost entirely on importation of goods, fuel, and electricity through crossings controlled by Israel. There is also concern that in response to the border breakthrough, Israel will step up punitive measures against the population.

As Israeli human rights organizations, we cannot remain silent while the siege continues, bringing in its wake a humanitarian crisis.

The firing of Qassam rockets at Israeli civilian targets is criminal and abhorrent. It is Israel's duty to defend its citizens, but collectively punishing an entire civilian population, of which most are not involved in the hostilities and over half are under 14, is illegal, improper, and immoral.

Participating organizations: The Association for Civil Rights in Israel, B'Tselem - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, Amnesty-Israel, Bimkom - Planners for Planning Rights, Gisha - Legal Center for Freedom of Movement, Hamoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual, The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, Yesh Din - Volunteers for Human Rights

McCain: Straight Talk and Militarist Madness

Posted on 2008-02-07

NEWS YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN

  Send Page To a Friend

McCain: Straight Talk and Militarist Madness

By Justin Logan

07/02/08 "CATO" -- - In the New Hampshire primary, exit polls revealed that 38 percent of those voting in the Republican primary who "strongly disapprove" of the war in Iraq cast their ballot for John McCain. In Michigan, 35 percent of those strongly disapproving of the war cast their ballots for him. Somehow, McCain's repeated indications that he would be more favorably inclined toward war than the current president haven't broken through the fog of media adulation that surrounds the Arizona senator.

One of the first, most striking indications was McCain's serenading an audience in South Carolina last April with a rendition of the Beach Boys' song "Barbara Ann" with the lyrics changed to "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." His campaign spokesman later spun the outburst as "adding levity to the discussion," but his campaign kept up the theme, playing the real "Barbara Ann" at subsequent appearances. The mainstream media, of course, gave a pass to McCain-who is truly a press darling-but the video was posted on YouTube and other websites, and downloaded by millions of viewers across the world-many of whom probably didn't find it funny.

Before the New Hampshire primary, McCain was at it again. Speaking to an audience in New Hampshire on January 3, one questioner remarked with concern that the current president has spoken about staying in Iraq for 50 years. How, the questioner wondered, did Senator McCain feel about this? Before the man had a chance to finish his question, McCain interrupted him, blurting out "make it 100 [years]! ... That would be fine with me!"

It was a stunning, candid admission. If elected, McCain acknowledges that his policies would help ensure that when our grandchildren sign up for military service, some of them will deploy to Iraq. More broadly than Iraq, Senator McCain has a clear track record of supporting war and militarism, and if elected, there's every reason-from his twitchy statements on the campaign trail to his actions in Congress-to believe that Senator McCain is the all-war-all-the-time candidate.

In the past decade, Senator McCain has supported unsheathing the saber against a variety of enemies from Serbia to Iraq, Iran, and Sudan. And in the present, as Matt Welch writes in his new book The Myth of a Maverick, the senator from Arizona "envisions a more militaristic foreign policy than any U.S. president in a century."

In fact, Senator McCain has indicated that not only would he like to unleash the U.S. military on substantial portions of the rest of the world, as president, he would work to militarize American society. In a 2001 article in the Washington Monthly, after lamenting that it was "not currently politically practical to revive the draft," McCain went on to praise and argue for the expansion of the National Civilian Community Corps, a federally-administered program where volunteers "wear uniforms, work in teams, learn public speaking skills, and gather together for daily calisthenics, often in highly public places such as in front of city hall."

McCain glowed at the fact that the participants "not only wear uniforms and work in teams...but actually live together in barracks on former military bases." There is already a place where young people wear federal uniforms, live in military barracks, and gather for calisthenics in front of government buildings: It's called North Korea.

Getting back to Iraq, perhaps the best one can say is that Senator McCain has made his views plain: staying is victory, and leaving is defeat. While this may be a soothing idea for those like Senator McCain who urged us to start a war with Iraq in the first place, as a governing principle for our presence in the Middle East, it is extremely dangerous.

But give Senator McCain credit: he isn't falsely marketing a "humble" foreign policy on the campaign trail. To the contrary, when voters go to the polls, there will be plenty of information available to indicate that a vote for McCain is a vote for perpetual war and occupation. Voters may even obtain that information-if the media could stop fawning over the deliciously "mavericky" Senator McCain and just reveal his platform for what it really is.

Israel launches deadly Gaza raids

Posted on 2008-02-07

Israel launches deadly Gaza raids
Funeral of Hamas militant Hamouda Sharafa Tufha, killed in an Israeli raid Israel has stepped up military action against Gaza's Hamas rulers
Israeli forces have killed at least five armed members of the Palestinian movement Hamas, as well as another gunman and a teacher, in raids in Gaza.

Witnesses said Israeli troops backed by tanks and aircraft launched an incursion near Jabaliya sparking clashes with gunmen.

The teacher, 38, was killed when a surface-to-surface missile hit a school in Beit Hanoun in a separate raid.

There are no reports of Israeli casualties in the engagements.

Israel has stepped up military action against Hamas since it claimed responsibility for Monday's suicide bombing in Dimona - its first in Israel since 2004.

Hamas said an armed member of Islamic Jihad was killed along with its five members in fighting with the Israeli troops.

map
Three pupils, all aged 16, were also wounded when the Israeli missile hit the school, hospital and education ministry officials said.

"What was the fault of a teacher, an emissary on a sacred mission?" the ministry said in a statement.

An Israeli military spokeswoman said troops had not targeted the school but had fired on a Palestinian rocket crew.

The army is checking whether the building was hit by a stray missile, she said.

Hamas says it has fired 40 rockets and 60 mortars at southern Israel since the new upsurge in fighting began with a deadly Israeli airstrike on Tuesday afternoon which killed seven Hamas security force members.

Correspondents say the violence threatens to overwhelm renewed peacemaking efforts spearheaded by the leader of Hamas's factional rival Fatah, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Hamas, does not recognise Israel and opposes the peace process. It ousted Mr Abbas's forces from Gaza in June, but he remains in control of Palestinian-administered parts of the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

Egypt took delight in their 4-1 Africa Cup of Nations semi-final win over Ivory Coast in Ghana.

Posted on 2008-02-07


Egypt players celebrate their win over Ivory Coast It was a stunning win for Egypt against favourites Ivory Coast
Egypt took delight in their 4-1 Africa Cup of Nations semi-final win over Ivory Coast in Ghana.

The defending champions will now meet Cameroon in Sunday's final in a repeat of a group game that Egypt won 4-2.

And goalkeeper Essam Al-Hadari, who made a series of stunning saves, said: "I'm the happiest man in the world."

Assistant coach Shawki Gharib said of their win over the tournament favourites: "We're delighted with the performance and the result."

 

Amr Zaki scored twice as Egypt stunned the Elephants, while Ahmed Fathi and Mohamed Aboutrika also got on the scoresheet.

Ivory Coast lost goalkeeper Boubacar Barry to injury in the first-half with the Elephants losing 1-0.

Barry, who had played in all four previous games at the tournament for Ivory Coast, was replaced by Stephan Loboue.

The 26-year-old Loboue plays for German second division side Greuther Furth and has not made a first-team appearance for his club this season.

Loboue's reactions to Egypt's second and third goals looked ponderous, but coach Gerard Gili insisted Barry's injury did not cost his team the game.

"The exit of my goalkeeper was not the reason we lost," said Gili.

"His absence only meant I lost a chance to make another substitution. We simply had an off day.

"We didn't expect to lose by such a wide margin but the Egyptians played well and pulled it off."

Egypt will meet Cameroon in the final after stunning tournament favourites Ivory Coast in an engrossing contest.

Posted on 2008-02-07

By Steve Vickers

Amr Zaki (r) Amr Zaki has scored four goals in tournament
Egypt will meet Cameroon in the final after stunning tournament favourites Ivory Coast in an engrossing contest.

Ahmed Fathi put the defending champions ahead on 12 minutes with a strike from the edge of the penalty area.

Amr Zaki made it 2-0 with a header after the break, but Kader Keita pulled a goal back a minute later with a stunning 25-yard strike.

Zaki scored another from the edge of the area, and Mohamed Aboutrika added the fourth in stoppage time.

Earlier Cameroon, who lost 4-2 to Egypt in their opening group game, beat Ghana 1-0.

Egypt goalkeeper Essam Al-Hadari had a superb game and he made at least two world-class saves at key moments of the game to keep his side ahead.

In contrast the Ivory Coast goalkeeper Boubacar Barry had to be substituted in the first half due to injury and his replacement, the inexperienced goalkeeper Stephan Loboue, looked at fault for Egypt's second and third goals.

Kolo Toure returned to the Ivory Coast defence, but was not at his sharpest, and he too was badly at fault for Egypt's third goal.

 

Egypt took a more physical approach to the game than usual, deciding to take on the Elephants' power.

Didier Drogba worked his way into the penalty area in the 11th minute, but goalkeeper Al-Hadari had the shot covered.

The Pharoahs went ahead a minute later when a corner was not cleared decisively and after the ball came to Fathi he fired it in at the near post.

Al-Hadari used his body to save a Drogba shot from six yards out, then at the other end, a 20-yard left-footer from Mohamed Aboutrika went narrowly wide.

Egypt continued to maintain their presence in the game with confident, incisive play, and there was a blow for Ivory Coast in the 37th minute.

Barry had to be replaced with Loboue, playing his first competitive international, having not featured for his German second division club all season.

But the Elephants were unlucky not to equalise in first-half stoppage time.

Drogba headed a corner goalwards with astonishing power, but the ball went straight into Al-Hadari's body, and, with Aruna Dindane ready to pounce, it was cleared away by Hosni Abd Rabou.

Al-Hadari stopped another Drogba header with a brilliant fingertip save three minutes into the second half.

The Ivory Coast pressure intensified and on the hour Al-Hadari had to punch Arthur Boka's inswinging free-kick over bar.

Zaki made it 2-0 in the 62nd minute after Ahmed Hassan swung in a corner that Didier Zokora tried to clear at the near post.

The ball went to Zaki, who headed in off the crossbar with Loboue not moving an inch.

Ivory Coast responded seconds later, when Keita was given room to dribble across to a central position and he unleashed a thunderbolt from 25 yards.

Zaki restored the two-goal advantage after Toure fatally turned his back on the ball allowing the striker to scored from 20 yards.

Ivory Coast applied continual pressure but Egypt held firm, and with the Elephants committed to attack, Aboutrika scored in stoppage time from an Egypt break.

Few would have predicted the scoreline, and the Pharaohs' defence of the trophy remains on course.

Ivory Coast: Barry (Loboue 37), Boka, Toure, Eboue, Meite, Toure Yaya, Zokora, Kalou (Bakari Kone 60), Drogba, Dindane (Arouna Kone 79), Keita.
Subs Not Used: Tiassa Kone, Djakpa, Fae, Gervinho, Gohouri, Romaric, Sanogo, Tiene, Zoro.

Goals: Keita 63.

Egypt: El Hadari, Mohamed, Hany Said, Fathi, Hassan, Moawad (Fathallah 77), Gomaa, Abd Rabou, Aboutriaka, Moteab (Zidan 69), Zaki (Ibrahim Said 86).
Subs Not Used: Sobhy, Abdel Monssef, El Mohamady, El Saeed, Fadl, Gamal, Mostafa, Shaaban, Shawky.

Goals: Fathi 12, Zaki 62, 67, Aboutriaka 90.

Att: 30,000

Ref: Eddy Maillet (Seychelles).

Another world is necessary

Posted on 2008-02-06

NEWS YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN

  Send Page To a Friend

Another world is necessary

By Serene Assir

03/02/08 "The Electronic Intifada" -- - -Under siege since 9 June 2007, the Palestinian people of Gaza moved the world by breaking out and materially reclaiming their stolen freedom of movement, rights to travel to and from their country, and right to resist the illegal status imposed on them through occupation since 1967 and economic and near-total physical blockade since the democratic election of Hamas in the legislative election of January 2006.

The present siege, which began shortly after Hamas' takeover of Gaza, led to a total collapse of the Gazan economy, as well as an escalating humanitarian crisis affecting every aspect of life for Palestinian residents of the world's most densely populated area, including business, health care and sanitation, state of mind, infrastructure and indeed survival itself. Israel's total blockade that began one week before the popular disruption of the siege led to total power blackouts, to the extent that the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, whose role in providing assistance to 1948 refugees living in Gaza is central for the provision and distribution of goods including baby milk and basic foodstuffs, was rendered almost incapable of continuing its work. Where Gaza would have stood today without the act of disruption that awed the world last week cannot be gauged -- without pushing the limits of our imagination beyond the parameters of the worst plausible.

Under the 25 November 2005 agreement reached by Israel, the European Union and the Palestinian Authority (PA) -- then in charge of the Gaza Strip -- and under the surveillance of the United States, it was established that the PA would take over from Israel to control entry into and exit from Gaza of persons via the Rafah border terminal, with the EU deploying monitors at the terminal. Owing to Israeli interventionism, such as that exercised on and ever since 9 June 2007, the terminal was closed more often than it was open, in contravention to the spirit of the 2005 agreement. As of the election of Hamas in January 2006, the terminal was closed 86 percent of the time, according to information gathered by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

Egypt was not a signatory to the agreement governing the Rafah border terminal. Instead it was granted observer status, which appeared to some high-ranking security officials bizarre enough given that the agreement concerned an Egyptian border. According to security sources, Egypt had expressed some interest in having its status upgraded to that of signatory when the agreement was renewed. This renewal was set to take place in 2006; however, it never did, owing to Israeli postponement.

Thus the precise details of Egypt's role in maintaining the blockade of Gaza have through much of the duration of the siege remained murky. For the most comfortable of analyses, all that was publicly known was that Israel instigated the closure of the terminals leading in and out of the Gaza Strip, and that the closure was supported by PA President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), who criminally enough believed that Hamas would lose popularity to his advantage if the people of Gaza were progressively starved. Meanwhile Egypt's grassroots, Cairo-based human rights organizations remained conspicuously silent for months, for the most part speaking out only when Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip became total, by which time fear of reprimand from the notorious state security services was overwhelmed by the absolute rejection of the continuous suffering of fellow Arabs in Gaza. Only the Muslim Brotherhood-run Doctors' Syndicate remained active throughout the seven months of illegal collective punishment faced by the Palestinians of Gaza, and even then on a principally humanitarian level. Only in the time nearing the Palestinians' act of disruption last week did Cairo see mass action, the most notable example of which was a protest before the headquarters of the Arab League in the heart of the Arab world's most populous capital, organized by the Muslim Brotherhood and other opposition parties. Hundreds of people were arrested during and prior to the protest.

On the state level, even though it had been Israel and the PA which had created the humanitarian and political crisis in Gaza, Egypt could conceivably have unilaterally ended it. Under international law, given the illegality of the siege, Egypt had an obligation to act, an obligation to which it failed to fulfill. Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which Egypt is a High Contracting Party, parties are obliged "to respect and ensure respect" for all the provisions contained, including the criminalization of collective punishment (Article 33). No doubt, the besiegement of Gaza as a pressure mechanism to turn the Palestinian civilian population against Hamas constitutes, at the very least, collective punishment.

However, if there remained any shred of doubt that Egypt could have done more to interrupt the siege, then recent days' events have helped establish an even more glaring understanding of the role of Cairo. "To Egypt the disruption of the siege came as a surprise, and under growing pressure from the population and particularly the Muslim Brotherhood, it was impossible for the regime in Cairo to put an immediate end to the flow of Palestinians to and from Gaza," said director of the Addameer human rights group in Gaza Khalil Abu Shammala. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak "tried to capitalize on the events, by issuing statements that would paint Egypt in a more humanitarian light and thus to persuade opposition that the regime was doing its part in support of the Palestinians of Gaza. It was foolish, however, on the part of the regime to think that simply allowing Palestinians exit into Egypt for a few days would rid Egypt of its responsibility towards the Palestinians under the present conditions. Much, much more needs to be done. Egypt has to actively end its participation in the siege," Abu Shammala added.

But within five days of the disruption of the siege of Gaza, the deployment of Central Security Forces to north Sinai, particularly from al-Arish to Rafah, had been massively intensified. While initial attempts to close down the border were thwarted following clashes with armed Hamas members, later attempts were rendered impossible by the sheer fury of Palestinian civilians, who threw stones in the spirit of self-defense from renewed imprisonment by the simplest means at their disposal. Meanwhile, it was reported less than a week on from the popular outbreak that up to 3,000 Palestinians were detained by the Egyptian authorities as the campaign to prohibit the entry of Gazans without visas escalated. In addition, there were daily reports of the authorities prohibiting the entry into Sinai of Egyptian human rights and political campaigners from across the political spectrum as they brought with them medicines and supplies in demonstration of solidarity with the people of Gaza.

At the time of writing, such had been the forcefulness of the Egyptian regime's effort to expel the remaining Palestinians and to prevent any new entry that very few managed to remain in Sinai one week on from the initial outbreak. Barring approximately 1,000 Palestinians who set up camp by the Security Headquarters in al-Arish in an attempt to secure visas and thus acquire legal means to remain in Egypt, or to travel to third countries where they work or study, most Gaza residents had returned home, ready to face a renewed closure up until the time that new arrangements for the border are reached.

Perhaps a total defeat of the natural and legal act of struggle against siege, poverty, occupation and death that the Palestinians of Gaza demonstrated over the past week is precisely what the Israelis and their allies in Washington and peace partners in Cairo would desire most. However, gauging from the mood in Gaza, that they would secure such a result in the long run is unlikely. First off, according to Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum, "It would be absurd to suggest that Hamas would open the border only to then close it again. The destruction of the border is not intended solely to give Palestinians temporary relief, but essentially to work towards negotiations for a solution that would end the siege once and for all."

Meanwhile, on the streets the effects of the disruption of the siege extend far beyond a mere re-injection of economic life into Gaza, to the lifting of Palestinian confidence in struggle. "What has been made clear by this single action is that no matter how dark the abandonment by the entire world has been of the Palestinian people, the people can still take the initiative to secure their freedom," said Emad Abu Mohamed, one refugee resident of Gaza City. "There can be no going back from here." Insofar as the action raised the spirits of the people of Gaza, it also re-directed the focus of a people who have seen fierce factional rivalry and bloodshed to the occupation, which is the origin of the problem, said Mohammed Dahman, a Gaza-based journalist. "The whole of Gaza celebrated the outbreak in unity, and in so doing proved that the rivalries are superficial," Dahman added.

The immensity of the overwhelmingly peaceful movement of Palestinians in and out of north Sinai indicated that another reality is possible and indeed necessary in the Arab world. Occupation in Palestine cannot be successfully challenged if the Arab world does not wake up to the fact that anything but more actions of a similarly massive, popular nature are not encouraged. Acceptance of a continued oppression of Arab popular movements is tantamount to acceptance of Israel's siege of Gaza. Under international law, nothing short of full Egyptian cooperation at the state level with the people of Gaza will do. And it was precisely this sort of cooperation that Hamas called for, using last week's outbreak as a state-of-the-art pressure card to ensure it, alongside the promise of greater economic influence in the Gaza Strip. "We are looking to end Gaza's economic ties to Israel, and for Egypt to step in to take over," Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said.

Now given that Cairo has already turned down Hamas overtures to take control of the border, and that Hamas has rejected proposals for an international presence at Rafah, and granted that Cairo's relations with Washington have long been unequal to the effect that it is safe to say that the present regime survives because it is supported by the world's only superpower, it remains to be seen just where the unfolding crisis will lead. There is no doubt that the short-term economic advantage of maintaining ties with Washington over developing a longer-term strategy involving the Palestinian people, who are determined to emerge victorious over occupation, appears more beneficial to Cairo. However, what is clear is that, as is the case every minute of every day within Egyptian jurisdiction ever since the signing of the Camp David Peace Treaty in 1978, there is a fundamental discord between what the vast majority of the people of Egypt really want, and what power has imposed on them. Given the reality of power distribution in the Arab world, it is not yet the time to imagine that the crisis will lead to an immediate settlement that will aptly meet the requirements of the people of Gaza. But what the surprise disruption of the siege, involving the instantaneous, physical realization of what has been the dream of millions of human beings the world over for hundreds of years -- namely the downfall of borders and the victory of the people over brutality and oppression -- indicates, is that it is necessary to think beyond the limits of the mundane. This was a lesson learned not only by the Gazans, but also no doubt by hundreds of thousands of Arabs who watched in awe at the spontaneous creativity of their brothers and sisters, the Palestinians.

Egypt rejected an American-Israeli proposal to re-settle 800,000 Palestinians in Sinai

Posted on 2008-02-06

Egypt rejected an American-Israeli proposal to re-settle 800,000 Palestinians in Sinai

According to almesryoon news, Egypt rejected an Israeli-American proposal to resettle 800,000 Palestinian in Sinai.

Sources told the newspaper that Egypt informed Israel its rejection to any re-settlement projects of the Palestinians in the Egypt saying that the refugees' right to return to their homeland is decided by the United Nations.

This came at a time when Israel threatens Egypt with reducing the American aid if Egypt keeps the negative position with the resettlement of Palestinians on its territory.

Egypt threatened to freeze the Egypt-Israel crossings agreement, and cancel the exchange of security information treaty with as response to the Israeli re-settlement proposal.

Lebanese say Israeli gunfire on border kills 1

Posted on 2008-02-06

World  

Feb. 3, 2008, 6:24PM
Lebanese say Israeli gunfire on border kills 1

By SAM F. GHATTAS

BEIRUT, Lebanon - Israeli forces opened fire across the Lebanese border late Sunday, killing one person and wounding another, Lebanese security officials said.

The Israeli military said it was responding to fire apparently from drug smugglers on the Lebanese side. Such shootings have been rare since the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war.

The Israeli military said its soldiers came under fire in the border town of Ghajar, which is split between the two countries by a U.N.-demarcated line. The soldiers returned fire and identified a hit. There were no Israeli casualties.

Lebanese security officials said the two people shot were in Lebanese territory along the Wazzani River in the southeastern corner of Lebanon across from Israeli positions in Ghajar, the officials said. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media.

They were taken to a hospital in Marjayoun, a major town in the area, where officials confirmed they had received one body and another person who was wounded.

Officials of the U.N. peacekeeping force, which is deployed in southern Lebanon along the border with Israel, had no immediate comment on the incident.

In November, Israeli troops in Ghajar opened fire, slightly injuring one of two men trying to infiltrate Israel. The injured man was carrying a bag of illicit drugs, the Israeli military said at the time.

There have been others incidents along the border since 2006 but most of the incidents have been resolved quietly with the intervention of the peacekeepers.

The most serious incident involved a shootout between Lebanese army troops and the Israeli army in February 2007 at Maroun el-Rass, an area of the border that was not clearly demarcated.

Israeli Soldiers Speak Out

Posted on 2008-02-06

NEWS YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN

  Send Page To a Friend

Israeli Soldiers Speak Out

Video - Posted 03/02/08

A searing interview with Avichai Sharon and Noam Chayut, both veterans of the Israeli Defense Forces and members of Breaking the Silence. Sharon and Chayut served during the second intifada, an on-going bloodbath that has claimed the lives of over three thousand Palestinians and nine-hundred-fifty Israelis. After thorough introspection, these young men have chosen to speak out about their experiences as self-described "brutal occupiers of a disputed land." Producer: Sat Gwin

Alternate Focus is available on the Dish Network, Free Speech TV, Channel 9415, Saturdays at 8:00pm EST and on cable stations near you. Check www.alternatefocus.org for details.

 

Click on "comments" below to read or post comments

Defending Israel to the "End Times"

Posted on 2008-02-06

NEWS YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN

  Send Page To a Friend

Defending Israel to the "End Times"

By Bill Berkowitz

03/02/08 "Dissident Voice" -- -- These are busy days for Christian Zionists. While President Bush recently returned from his trip to the Middle East "optimistic" that a peace agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians could be reached by the end of the year, Pastor John Hagee's Christian United for Israel (CUFI) is setting forth plans to put the kibosh - if not on the entire peace process - on any agreement that would sanction the division of Jerusalem. And Dr. Mike Evans has launched a "Save Jerusalem Campaign" while Joel C. Rosenberg's Joshua Fund is planning a major celebration in Jerusalem in honor of Israel's 60th anniversary.

CUFI, the pro-Israel lobbying group launched in February 2006 to provide support for Israel, believes that "‘Jerusalem must remain undivided as the eternal capital of the Jewish people' (meaning no portion of it should be turned over to the Palestinians)," Sarah Posner, writes i