Your Ad Here

Digging the Iraq Hole Deeper
30 April, 2007

Rami G Khouri

via Post Global

The land mine analogy is catchy, but, alas, not very pertinent. The hole-digging analogy is slightly better: when you're sinking into a deepening hole and you need to stabilize the situation, stop digging.

The fact is, nobody really knows how Iraq can be defused while the United States insists on keeping its military forces there, and even sending more. The presence of 150,000+ American troops and the advent of a stable, peaceful Iraq are probably mutually exclusive. We should start by acknowledging this, and from there seek a practical route to a stable, unified Iraq by asking the U.S. to declare the start of a gradual but steady withdrawal from Iraq, restoring the country to a sovereign state.

That might trigger a more vigorous effort by Iraqis to achieve a constitutional accord, because they would have a legitimate indigenous government to aspire to join and influence. The Iraqi government today, backed by U.S. armed forces, enjoys only tenuous legitimacy. Many in the country shy away from association with it or seek to replace it. Legitimacy will spur stability, rather than the confused American sense that more troops and security operations will create a stable situation.

Technorati Tags: Iraq
Posted by munaeem 21:24 | Iraq | Comment(0) | Permalink
Shiitization in Syria
30 April, 2007
Author:  Issandr El Amrani

My friend Andrew Tabler, the editor of Syria Today and a very knowledgeable guy on all things shami, has a thought-provoking piece in the NY Times Magazine about the “Shiitization”of Syria:

Over the last five years, however, Iranian donors have financed the restoration of half a dozen Shiite tombs and shrines in Syria and built at least one Shiite religious school near Damascus; the school is named after Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei. Meanwhile, Iran and the Shiite militias it supports in Iraq now sponsor a number of Arabic-language Internet portals as well as satellite TV stations broadcasting Shiite religious programming into Syria.

Direct inquiries into Shiite numbers in Syria raise more questions than answers, as the sensitive topic gives observers complex incentives to round up or down. When I asked Sayyid Abdullah Nizam, leader of Syria’s Shiite community, to estimate the size of his flock, he put it at less than 1 percent of the population of 19 million. Asked the same question, the leader of Syria’s Sunnis, Grand Mufti Sheik Ahmad Badr Eddin Hassoun, replied carefully; he said that 6 to 8 percent of Syrians now adhere to the “Jaafari school,” the school of Islamic jurisprudence followed by mainstream Shiites in Iran and Lebanon.

It was only when I met an actual convert that the mufti’s words began to make sense. Louay, a 28-year-old teacher in Damascus wearing jeans, a wool sweater and a close-cropped beard, seemed the epitome of the capital’s Sunni middle class. Yet within the last year, as Hezbollah rose to national prominence in the Lebanese government, he — along with his mother — began practicing Shiite Islam. He changed the wording of his prayers and his posture while praying, holding his arms at his sides instead of before him, and during Ramadan he followed Shiite customs on breaking the fast. In many Middle Eastern countries, his conversion wouldn’t be possible — it would be considered apostasy. The Syrian regime restricts its people’s political liberties, but unlike most other ruling dynasties in the Arab world, it allows freedom of religion. “In Saudi Arabia, they ban books on other faiths,” Louay said. “In Syria, I can buy whatever book on religion I want, and no one can say a word.”

Politics, it seems, is only one of the attractions of Shiism. In addition to Louay, I spoke with four other Syrian converts, who asked not to be identified for fear of harassment by Sunni fundamentalists. Louay and the others all spoke of religious transformation as much as of Hezbollah. “Half the reason why I converted was because of Ijtihad,” Louay said, using the Arabic word for the independent interpretation of the Koran and the words and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad. Suddenly the mufti’s enigmatic answer became clearer. Ijtihad is practiced more widely by Shiites of the Jaafari school than by Sunnis. These Shiites believe that, on all but the largest moral issues, Muslims should interpret their faith by reading holy texts and reasoning back and forth between them and current issues. Many Sunnis say they quietly practice Ijtihad in everyday life as well, but conservative Sunnis do not encourage individual interpretation of the Koran.

. . .

Even if Shiitization is at this point as much a rumor as a confirmed fact, the subject is highly charged. It is part of a much larger discussion among Washington’s Sunni allies about the rise of a “Shiite Crescent” — an Iranian-backed alliance stretching westward from Iran to Syria to Lebanon that could challenge the traditional power of Sunni elites. With its Sunni masses and minority Tehran-backed regime, Syria is the weak link in the chain. Many Syrians say they are worried Iraq’s sectarian strife might spread to Syria; the execution of Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, at the hands of Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government, infuriated many. The conversion of Syrians to Shiism could create still more conflict.

Meanwhile, the regional politics are becoming ever more delicate. Damascus is reportedly unhappy about Iran’s recent dialogue with Saudi Arabia over the future of Lebanon; Tehran, in turn, is rumored to be questioning Assad’s recent peace overtures toward Israel. Both sides denied a rift when Assad visited Tehran in February. But only days later, a group of Syrian intellectuals and parliamentarians loyal to Assad lambasted an Iranian deputy foreign minister in scripted fashion in a closed-door (but widely reported) session. The point of contention? Their unhappiness with what they saw as Iranian support for the Shiitization of Syria.

Sorry for quoting so much it, but I think the article raises a lot of important questions. Is Iran actively trying to convert Sunnis in Syria and other countries? Does it do so alongside its alliance with Syria, and what kind of tension exist between the two policies? What role, if any, does the regime’s mixed Sunni-Alawi nature have in shaping that attitude — in the Alawi community in particular? Is it an issue for other groups in Syria, notably the Muslim Brotherhood? Can we read too much into Iranian efforts to proselytize their faith — after all the US, under domestic pressure from evangelicals, monitors the religious freedom of Christian minority groups across the world and there is a long history of close collaboration between missionaries and the State Department (or indeed missionaries and the European colonial powers).

I am tempted to see any claim that there is a pro-active, widespread Iranian Shiitization program in the region as highly dubious. However, I can certainly understand the appeal of certain forms of Shiism to Sunnis who are living in an increasingly charged religious atmosphere, with Salafist ideas of interpreting the Sunna gaining ever more dominance and extreme concepts such as hezbaijtihad as a Shia is fascinating, and I can understand that might be so in a country where Shias are in a minority — but is it really the case in Iran, where there might be a lot of social pressure to follow this or that mujtahid or marjaa? becoming commonplace in countries like Egypt. The only Sunni convert to Shiism I know “switched” because he was appalled by the growing influence of Wahhabism on mainstream Sunni thought and believed that strand of Islam was heading to the dustbin of history. Andrew’s mention of “easier access” to

View Original Article

Posted by munaeem 11:57 | General | Comment(0) | Permalink
The Administrations Misleading Public Statement on Iraq
30 April, 2007
Author:  nytexan

I ran across this very interesting web site Bush on Iraq, The Bush Administrations Misleading and Inaccurate Public Statement on Iraq. The site draws all its information from a report prepared at the request of Rep. Henry A. Waxman in 2004 “Iraq On The Record” . The report deals with the misleading statements made by Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld and Rice.

The web site breaks down each statement by person and gives the reason for why it’s misleading. Or you could have the pleasure of reading all 36 pages yourself of Waxman’s report.

From Their Website:

Number of Misleading Statements. The Iraq on the Record database contains 237 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq that were made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice. These statements were made in 125 separate appearances, consisting of 40 speeches, 26 press conferences and briefings, 53 interviews, 4 written statements, and 2 congressional testimonies. Most of the statements in the database were misleading because they expressed certainty where none existed or failed to acknowledge the doubts of intelligence officials. Ten of the statements were simply false.

Waxman has been very busy gathering information the last few years. The report looks very strong for impeachment and treason.

View Original Article




Technorati Tags: US, Iraq
Posted by munaeem 08:32 | General , Iraq | Comment(0) | Permalink
Mission Accomplished
30 April, 2007

thumb-accomplished.jpg

Bush has accomplished many things since the invasion on Iraq:

The death of habeas corpus;

The destruction of the bill of rights;

The patriot act 1 and 2;

Wire tapping and ease dropping;

Abandon the treaties of the Geneva Convention

Dropping the U.S. statues in the world community; 

Authorizing torture; 

Integrating church and state;

Al Qaeda in Iraq;

Made more terrorist;

Instability in the Middle East;

Increased the number of enemies worldwide.

These are but a few things Bush has accomplishments in the last four year.

View Original Article



Technorati Tags: US, Bush
Posted by munaeem 08:28 | General | Comment(0) | Permalink
How a British jihadi saw the light
30 April, 2007

Ed Hussain, once a proponent of radical Islam in London, tells how his time as a teacher in Saudi Arabia led him to turn against extremism


During our first two months in Jeddah, Faye and I relished our new and luxurious lifestyle: a shiny jeep, two swimming pools, domestic help, and a tax-free salary. The luxury of living in a modern city with a developed infrastructure cocooned me from the frightful reality of life in Saudi Arabia.

My goatee beard and good Arabic ensured that I could pass for an Arab.

But looking like a young Saudi was not enough: I had to act Saudi, be Saudi. And here I failed.

My first clash with Saudi culture came when, being driven around in a bulletproof jeep, I saw African women in black abayas tending to the rubbish bins outside restaurants, residences and other busy places.

“Why are there so many black cleaners on the streets?” I asked the driver. The driver laughed. “They’re not cleaners. They are scavengers; women who collect cardboard from all across Jeddah and then sell it. They also collect bottles, drink cans, bags.”

“You don’t find it objectionable that poor immigrant women work in such undignified and unhygienic conditions on the streets?”

“Believe me, there are worse jobs women can do.”

Though it grieves me to admit it, the driver was right. In Saudi Arabia women indeed did do worse jobs. Many of the African women lived in an area of Jeddah known as Karantina, a slum full of poverty, prostitution and disease.

A visit to Karantina, a perversion of the term “quarantine”, was one of the worst of my life. Thousands of people who had been living in Saudi Arabia for decades, but without passports, had been deemed “illegal” by the government and, quite literally, abandoned under a flyover.

A non-Saudi black student I had met at the British Council accompanied me. “Last week a woman gave birth here,” he said, pointing to a ramshackle cardboard shanty. Disturbed, I now realised that the materials I had seen those women carrying were not always for sale but for shelter.

I had never expected to see such naked poverty in Saudi Arabia.

At that moment it dawned on me that Britain, my home, had given refuge to thousands of black Africans from Somalia and Sudan: I had seen them in their droves in Whitechapel. They prayed, had their own mosques, were free and were given government housing.

Many Muslims enjoyed a better lifestyle in non-Muslim Britain than they did in Muslim Saudi Arabia. At that moment I longed to be home again.

All my talk of ummah seemed so juvenile now. It was only in the comfort of Britain that Islamists could come out with such radical utopian slogans as one government, one ever expanding country, for one Muslim nation. The racist reality of the Arab psyche would never accept black and white people as equal.

Standing in Karantina that day, I reminisced and marvelled over what I previously considered as wrong: mixed-race, mixed-religion marriages. The students to whom I described life in modern multi-ethnic Britain could not comprehend that such a world of freedom, away from “normal” Saudi racism, could exist.

Racism was an integral part of Saudi society. My students often used the word “nigger” to describe black people. Even dark-skinned Arabs were considered inferior to their lighter-skinned cousins. I was living in the world’s most avowedly Muslim country, yet I found it anything but. I was appalled by the imposition of Wahhabism in the public realm, something I had implicitly sought as an Islamist.

Part of this local culture consisted of public institutions being segregated and women banned from driving on the grounds that it would give rise to “licentiousness”. I was repeatedly astounded at the stares Faye got from Saudi men and I from Saudi women.

Faye was not immodest in her dress. Out of respect for local custom, she wore the long black abaya and covered her hair in a black scarf. In all the years I had known my wife, never had I seen her appear so dull. Yet on two occasions she was accosted by passing Saudi youths from their cars. On another occasion a man pulled up beside our car and offered her his phone number.

In supermarkets I only had to be away from Faye for five minutes and Saudi men would hiss or whisper obscenities as they walked past. When Faye discussed her experiences with local women at the British Council they said: “Welcome to Saudi Arabia.”

After a month in Jeddah I heard from an Asian taxi driver about a Filipino worker who had brought his new bride to live with him in Jeddah. After visiting the Balad shopping district the couple caught a taxi home. Some way through their journey the Saudi driver complained that the car was not working properly and perhaps the man could help push it. The passenger obliged. Within seconds the Saudi driver had sped off with the man’s wife in his car and, months later, there was still no clue as to her whereabouts.

We had heard stories of the abduction of women from taxis by sex-deprived Saudi youths. At a Saudi friend’s wedding at a luxurious hotel in Jeddah, women dared not step out of their hotel rooms and walk to the banqueting hall for fear of abduction by the bodyguards of a Saudi prince who also happened to be staying there.

Why had the veil and segregation not prevented such behaviour? My Saudi acquaintances, many of them university graduates, argued strongly that, on the contrary, it was the veil and other social norms that were responsible for such widespread sexual frustration among Saudi youth.

At work the British Council introduced free internet access for educational purposes. Within days the students had downloaded the most obscene pornography from sites banned in Saudi Arabia, but easily accessed via the British Council’s satellite connection. Segregation of the sexes, made worse by the veil, had spawned a culture of pent-up sexual frustration that expressed itself in the unhealthiest ways.

Using Bluetooth technology on mobile phones, strangers sent pornographic clips to one another. Many of the clips were recordings of homosexual acts between Saudis and many featured young Saudis in orgies in Lebanon and Egypt. The obsession with sex in Saudi Arabia had reached worrying levels: rape and abuse of both sexes occurred frequently, some cases even reaching the usually censored national press.

My students told me about the day in March 2002 when the Muttawa [the religious police] had forbidden firefighters in Mecca from entering a blazing school building because the girls inside were not wearing veils. Consequently 15 young women burnt to death, but Wahhabism held its head high, claiming that God’s law had been maintained.

As a young Islamist, I organised events at college and in the local community that were strictly segregated and I believed in it. Living in Saudi Arabia, I could see the logical outcome of such segregation.

In my Islamist days we relished stating that Aids and other sexually transmitted diseases were the result of the moral degeneracy of the West. Large numbers of Islamists in Britain hounded prostitutes in Brick Lane and flippantly quoted divorce and abortion rates in Britain. The implication was that Muslim morality was superior. Now, more than ever, I was convinced that this too was Islamist propaganda, designed to undermine the West and inject false confidence in Muslim minds.

I worried whether my observations were idiosyncratic, the musings of a wandering mind. I discussed my troubles with other British Muslims working at the British Council. Jamal, who was of a Wahhabi bent, fully agreed with what I observed and went further. “Ed, my wife wore the veil back home in Britain and even there she did not get as many stares as she gets when we go out here.” Another British Muslim had gone as far as tinting his car windows black in order to prevent young Saudis gaping at his wife.

The problems of Saudi Arabia were not limited to racism and sexual frustration.

In contemporary Wahhabism there are two broad factions. One is publicly supportive of the House of Saud, and will endorse any policy decision reached by the Saudi government and provide scriptural justification for it. The second believes that the House of Saud should be forcibly removed and the Wahhabi clerics take charge. Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda are from the second school.

In Mecca, Medina and Jeddah I met young men with angry faces from Europe, students at various Wahhabi seminaries. They reminded me of my extremist days.

They were candid in discussing their frustrations with Saudi Arabia. The country was not sufficiently Islamic; it had strayed from the teachings of Wahhabism. They were firmly on the side of the monarchy and the clerics who supported it. Soon they were to return to the West, well versed in Arabic, fully indoctrinated by Wahhabism, to become imams in British mosques.

By the summer of 2005 Faye and I had only eight weeks left in Saudi Arabia before we would return home to London. Thursday, July 7, was the beginning of the Saudi weekend. Faye and I were due to lunch with Sultan, a Saudi banker who was financial adviser to four government ministers. I wanted to gauge what he and his wife, Faye’s student, thought about life inside the land of their birth.

On television that morning we watched the developing story of a power cut on the London Underground. As the cameras focused on King’s Cross, Edgware Road, Aldgate and Russell Square, I looked on with a mixture of interest and homesickness. Soon the power-cut story turned into shell-shocked reportage of a series of terrorist bombings.

My initial suspicion was that the perpetrators were Saudis. My experience of them, their virulence towards my non-Muslim friends, their hate-filled textbooks, made me think that Bin Laden’s Saudi soldiers had now targeted my home town. It never crossed my mind that the rhetoric of jihad introduced to Britain by Hizb ut-Tahrir could have anything to do with such horror.

My sister avoided the suicide attack on Aldgate station by four minutes. On the previous day London had won the Olympic bid. At the British Council we had celebrated along with the nation that was now in mourning.

The G8 summit in Scotland had also been derailed by events further south. The summit, thanks largely to the combined efforts of Tony Blair and Bob Geldof, had been set to tackle poverty in Africa. Now it was forced to address Islamist terrorism; Arab grievances had hijacked the agenda again.

The fact that hundreds of children die in Africa every day would be of no relevance to a committed Islamist. In the extremist mind the plight of the tiny Palestinian nation is more important than the deaths of millions of black Africans. Let them die, they’re not Muslims, would be the unspoken line of argument. As an Islamist it was only the suffering of Muslims that had moved me. Now human suffering mattered to me, regardless of religion.

Faye and I were glued to the television for hours. Watching fellow Londoners come out of Tube stations injured and mortified, but facing the world with a defiant sense of dignity, made me feel proud to be British.

We met Sultan and his wife at an Indian restaurant near the British Council. Sultan was in his early thirties and his wife in her late twenties. They had travelled widely and seemed much more liberal than most Saudis I had met. Behind a makeshift partition, the restaurant surroundings were considered private and his wife, to my amazement, removed her veil.

We discussed our travels.

Sultan spoke fondly of his time in London, particularly his placement at Coutts as a trainee banker. We then moved on to the subject uppermost in my mind, the terrorist attacks on London. My host did not really seem to care. He expressed no real sympathy or shock, despite speaking so warmly of his time in London.

“I suppose they will say Bin Laden was behind the attacks. They blamed us for 9/11,” he said.

Keen to take him up on his comment, I asked him: “Based on your education in Saudi Arabian schools, do you think there is a connection between the form of Islam children are taught here and the action of 15 Saudi men on September 11?”

Without thinking, his immediate response was, ‘No. No, because Saudis were not behind 9/11. The plane hijackers were not Saudi men. One thousand two hundred and forty-six Jews were absent from work on that day and there is the proof that they, the Jews, were behind the killings. Not Saudis.”

It was the first time I heard so precise a number of Jewish absentees. I sat there pondering on the pan-Arab denial of the truth, a refusal to accept that the Wahhabi jihadi terrorism festering in their midst had inflicted calamities on the entire world.

In my class the following Sunday, the beginning of the Saudi working week, were nearly 60 Saudis. Only one mentioned the London bombings.

“Was your family harmed?” he asked.

“My sister missed an explosion by four minutes but otherwise they’re all fine, thank you.”

The student, before a full class, sighed and said: “There are no benefits in terrorism. Why do people kill innocents?”

Two others quickly gave him his answer in Arabic: “There are benefits. They will feel how we feel.”

I was livid. “Excuse me?” I said. “Who will know how it feels?”

“We don’t mean you, teacher,” said one. “We are talking about people in England. You are here. They need to know how Iraqis and Palestinians feel.”

“The British people have been bombed by the IRA for years,” I retorted. “Londoners were bombed by Hitler during the blitz. The largest demonstrations against the war in Iraq were in London. People in Britain don’t need to be taught what it feels like to be bombed.”

Several students nodded in agreement. The argumentative ones became quiet. Were they convinced by what I had said? It was difficult to tell.

Two weeks after the terrorist attacks in London another Saudi student raised his hand and asked: “Teacher, how can I go to London?”

“Much depends on your reason for going to Britain. Do you want to study or just be a tourist?”

“Teacher, I want to go London next month. I want bomb, big bomb in London, again. I want make jihad!”

“What?” I exclaimed. Another student raised both hands and shouted: “Me too! Me too!”

Other students applauded those who had just articulated what many of them were thinking. I was incandescent. In protest I walked out of the classroom to a chorus of jeering and catcalls.

My time in Saudi Arabia bolstered my conviction that an austere form of Islam (Wahhabism) married to a politicised Islam (Islamism) is wreaking havoc in the world. This anger-ridden ideology, an ideology I once advocated, is not only a threat to Islam and Muslims, but to the entire civilised world.

I vowed, in my own limited way, to fight those who had hijacked my faith, defamed my prophet and killed thousands of my own people: the human race. I was encouraged when Tony Blair announced on August 5, 2005, plans to proscribe an array of Islamist organisations that operated in Britain, foremost among them Hizb ut-Tahrir.

At the time I was impressed by Blair’s resolve. The Hizb should have been outlawed a decade ago and so spared many of us so much misery. Sadly the legislation was shelved last year amid fears that a ban would only add to the group’s attraction, so it remains both legal and active today. But it is not too late.

© Ed Husain 2007

Extracted from The Islamist, to be published by Penguin on May 3, £8.99. Copies can be ordered for £8.54 including postage from The Sunday Times BooksFirst on 0870 165 8585

Leaving Islamic Fascism
30 April, 2007
Author:  Wolf Pangloss

Ed Hussain, former militant agitator for islamist causes in Londonistan, moved to Saudi Arabia with his wife and went through a process that ended up with Hussein being disgusted by Saudi Arabia, Arabs, Jihadism, and eventually rejecting Islamism. Now he believes not in Islamism, and moreover believes that Hizb ut-Tahrir and other Islamist groups should be banned in England and elsewhere.

  • He started with indoctrination into Islamism when he lived in England. He believed in segregation of the sexes, segregation of the races, veiled women, strict separation between Muslims and non-Muslims, sharia, jihad, dhimmi and jizya, overthrow of non-Islamic governments, reconquest of all formerly Islamic lands, a Caliphate, and conquest of the world for Islam.
  • Then he and his wife moved to Saudi Arabia to teach.
  • The propaganda that there is no racism in Islam came up against the fact that there is no more racist place than Saudi Arabia, and that Muslims are not equal if their skin is dark.
  • The propaganda that there is no sexism in Islam because women are covered came up against the fact that there is no land on earth that is more difficult for women to live in than Saudi Arabia. They cannot drive, they cannot leave their homes because they are likely to be kidnapped by sex-crazed Saudis, they cannot work or even leave the country. Hatred and objectification of women is endemic in Wahhabist Islam.
  • The propaganda that Islam is a religion of peace came up against the fact that the state sect of Wahhabism really does mandate the jihad of the sword against non-Muslims, or actually of non-Wahhabists, and prohibits those who believe in it from feeling any shared humanity with anyone who is not a Wahabbist Arab Muslim.
  • The propaganda that Islam respects facts came up against the widespread refusal of Wahabbists to believe anything bad about Muslims and to blame everything bad that happens on Jews, who are accused of engaging in the wildest conspiracies imaginable.
  • The propaganda that Jihad isn’t really criminal mass-murder and a wicked perversion of the religious impulse came up against the fact of 7/7/2005 in London, and the near death of the author’s sister who was nearly caught in one of the blasts. Combine this with the total callousness of Saudis after 7/7 for a shock to anyone who keeps an innate sense of morality or decency or goodness and acts on it.

The trick is not to recognize the wickedness and weakness of the Wahabbist Assassin ideology, an ideology that promotes death and hatred instead of life and love, but to find out how to spread this knowledge to Muslims to save the Muslims who already believe in the Assassins’ ideology, and to inoculate those who believe in a kind and humanist non-political Islam against the propaganda of the Islamists so they don’t fall for it when they encounter it.


h/t: Pajamas Media

View Original Article

Posted by munaeem 06:30 | General | Comment(0) | Permalink
Muslim Woman Runs for Danish Parliament
30 April, 2007

COPENHAGEN, Denmark — A Muslim woman denounced and ridiculed by nationalists for wearing an Islamic head scarf announced Friday she was running for Parliament — a move bound to rekindle heated debate about Islam in Denmark.

The next election is not expected until 2009, but the mere thought of Asama Abdol-Hamid entering the legislature has revived fears of clashing cultures that emerged last year when Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad sparked riots in Muslim countries.

Even mainstream politicians and party colleagues in the left-wing Red-Green Alliance have questioned whether Abdol-Hamid, who moved to Denmark at age 6 with her Palestinian family, shares the fundamental values of Danish society.

Besides covering her hair, the 25-year-old refuses to shake hands with men. Instead, she greets them by laying her right hand on her heart in Muslim tradition.

“I want another Denmark where we talk about the difference between groups,” she said at a news conference announcing her candidacy. “When we talk about values, (we need) to be open to whatever people are, Muslim or non-Muslim.”

Abdol-Hamid has repeatedly been questioned about her views on the death penalty, gender equality and gay rights — issues on which many Danes believe Islam conflicts with their values.

Abdol-Hamid said she does not support the death penalty, which is outlawed in Denmark, and is “unconcerned with whatever sexual or ethnic background people have.”

“We have a constitution in Denmark and it will be upheld,” she added, smiling broadly under a shimmering, turquoise head scarf.

A social worker from the central city of Odense, Abdol-Hamid made headlines in 2006 when she became the first woman to host a Danish TV show wearing a head scarf. The program sought to promote dialogue between Muslims and non-Muslims in Denmark in the wake of the prophet cartoon crisis.

Danes were shocked last year when massive protests erupted in Muslim countries against the 12 drawings first published in a Danish newspaper and reprinted in several Western media.

While Danish embassies were set on fire in some countries, Muslims in Denmark demonstrated peacefully, denouncing violence and calling for more respect for their religion.

Still, many Danes feel Muslim immigrants, who number some 200,000, have brought with them conservative views on women and sexuality that clash with traditionally liberal values in this country of 5.4 million.

After her plans to run for Parliament became known last week, members of the anti-immigration Danish People’s Party, a partner of the center-right government, took turns explaining why she was not fit for the assembly.

One said the Islamic head scarf was a totalitarian symbol and compared it to a swastika. Another suggested Abdol-Hamid had been brainwashed and needed psychiatric help.

Most other parties dismissed such comments, while Muslim leaders said they underscored a lack of respect for Islam in Denmark.

“I thought we had learned something from the cartoon crisis but we haven’t,” said Zubair Butt Hussain, spokesman for Muslims in Dialogue. “We are still engaging in monologues, blaming each other and making generalizations about Islam.”

But even among those who rejected the People’s Party’s comments, there were some who felt Abdol-Hamid’s religious views could be problematic.

“If you don’t shake hands with men, you can’t be a part of the Danish Parliament,” said Hamid El Mousti, a member of Copenhagen’s city council. “I’m from Morocco and we shake hands with women. If you do not salute people, communication between you and others will be very bad.”

Associated Press writer Katie Rice contributed to this report.

Posted by munaeem 03:42 | General | Comment(0) | Permalink
An Issue Of Justice: Origins Of The Israel/Palestine
30 April, 2007
Author:  Tartan

The best lecture I’ve heard on the creation of Israel and how we’ve arrived at the present day situation. Mostly about the Israel/Palestine conflict but also covers the invasion of Lebanon. Interestingly the title of this blog was inspired by this lecture where Finkelstein advises calling solidarity groups “justice for Palestine” groups. [...]

View Original Article
Posted by munaeem 03:23 | Syria | Comment(0) | Permalink
Former Head of CIA’s Bin Laden Unit: Don’t Buy Tenet’s
30 April, 2007

On Sunday’s “60 Minutes,” ex-CIA Director George Tenet told CBS’ Scott Pelley the Bush administration misrepresented his now famous “slam dunk” reference to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (video available here).

However, one of Tenet’s former employees, Michael Scheuer, published an op-edCaptain Ed) in the Washington Post Sunday cautioning that “the former director of central intelligence is out to absolve himself of the failings of 9/11 and Iraq.” (h/t

As a result, in Scheuer's view, “we shouldn't buy his attempts to let himself off the hook.”

The former head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit, who I interviewed last September, wasn’t shy with his criticisms of his former boss, who apparently has quite a history of blaming others for his own failures (emphasis added throughout):

View Original Article

Posted by munaeem 03:21 | Syria | Comment(0) | Permalink
Syrian Regime Mentality
30 April, 2007
via  Free Michel Kilo Now - Enough Already:

My friend Hashem responded to Alex (a very visible Regime Apologist) on Mosaics in a formidable way as usual, please read.

Alex:

We’ve had this conversation before and we are just going round in circles. All I’d like to say is, Bunni doesn’t deserve 5 years in jail whatever he said. I don’t believe anyone is an advocator of civil war in Syria, but this is what the regime wants us all to believe to stay in power. And please excuse me for not believing anything this regime says, I have my reasons you see. In any case, things *have* got worse since our last conversation. Let’s not forget the atrocities of the Syrian regime either, which were more than just words. I’ll stop right here…

When you say that one should meet the regime half way, isn’t that what Michel Kilo did for many years – Some even accused him of being too soft on the regime. He did meet them half way, look were he ended up. His arrest was a warning to all Syrians, it has a profound warning behind it, since Bashar supported it even though he always used to show off on TV that he had opposition (meaning Michel), but then he turned against him when it suited him. The same happened to the Damascus spring lot. They were very civil and met the regime half way. Look what happened to them. This regime doesn’t understand the word civil. They react to a bullet by bombs and to words by beatings and jailing.

Thanks to George (Bush) and Bashar who have made sure that there is no real or credible opposition in our region let alone Syria. That’s where I really disagree with you or anyone who attacks the notion of opposition. Of course there is no credible opposition, they are all in jail if not dead and others wouldn’t dare utter a word even if it’s for the good of the country anymore.

While we don’t have a choice for having Bashar for another 7 years, but I do have a choice that I will always voice my opinion in opposition to their atrocities. At least, I refuse to accept the rhetoric of the Syrian regime and more importantly their blatant belligerence against our good people.

When you say there are no alternative solutions, when the Syrian regime stops the atrocities against its own citizens (unlikely) then there’ll be many solutions, otherwise it will not happen. The regime reacts with contempt against our people when they feel threatened or strong and there’s no end to this behaviour in sight.Why should they loose power?don’t blame me for thinking that the only way this regime understands is force. Look how they were kicked out of Lebanon like dogs. They humiliated Syria, they couldn’t have used an ounce of brain power (I know it’s difficult for them) and realised that it’s time to go, and keep relations good between the two neighbours who have a lot in common. We had colonial powers who kept excellent relationships to this day with the countries they colonised, but for the Syrian regime, this is incomprehensible. It’s better to commit atrocities, overstay their welcome then expect everyone to be on their side. This alone explains what kind of people make up this defunct regime.
When the regime stops the atrocities, (killing, stealing, jailing …) then things will change. However, they won’t allow this to happen. And

Meanwhile, am I supposed to listen to you and wait indefinitely while the best Syrians are rotting in medieval prisons in horrible conditions?

Having said that, the Syrian regime is showing its true colours to a whole new generation and the way their plans are going will ensure they will not be able to continue in this manner. They might be feeling strong now because of a couple of foreign visits (scraping the barrel or what) but this is transitory. Their economic direction alone will cause them problems. The very system they used to rob the country will work against them.

I don’t trust the regime and their backward cronies who are too scared to voice an opinion and are just there as yes half men – I knew I could one day find a more appropriate use for this instead of calling all Arab leaders half men on public television. What travesty…

Posted by munaeem 03:08 | Syria | Comment(0) | Permalink
Winograd Findings Lead to Calls for Olmert to Resign
30 April, 2007

The interim Winograd report on the Second Lebanon War has not yet been published, but leaked previews have already prompted calls for the government's resignation.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Amir Peretz, and ex-IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz all came in for varying degrees of sharp criticism regarding their functioning in last summer's war with Hizbullah. Some details of the preliminary findings were publicized by Channel Ten news over the weekend.

Though the members of the Winograd Commission were practically hand-picked by Olmert, they found him to have "failed" in the way he oversaw the war. The word "failure" repeats itself several times in the Commission's summary of his performance, though neither he, nor anyone else, is specifically called upon to resign.

Findings in Brief

Olmert "acted with hastiness and arrogance," the Commission found. He did not consult with bodies other than the IDF, such as the National Security Council, and did not even convene the mini-security Cabinet before ordering the army to act. He was led by the army, instead of leading. The Prime Minister did not demand that the army provide him with alternatives, and did not properly deal with the "local operation" becoming a full-fledged war.

Peretz was castigated for assuming the position of Defense Minister altogether without having been properly prepared for such. He also did not properly study the problems at hand, and did not consult sufficiently with the experts in his office. Peretz was cleared of responsibility for the army's lack of preparation, which largely occurred in the years before he became Defense Minister.

Gen. Halutz, who resigned following the army's internal investigation of the war three months ago, was found to have belittled Hizbullah's Katyusha rocket capacities, and did not provide alternatives to the government.

Full Version on Monday

The full version of the report is to be publicized at 5 PM on Monday, and Olmert will receive a copy one hour earlier.

Though the Commission was appointed in order to review the errors of the Second Lebanon War so that the proper lessons might be learned and the deficiencies be corrected, the immediate result of the leaked findings appears to be only political. The question at hand is: Will public opinion force the Prime Minister to resign? Olmert and allies are bracing to remain in power, the Opposition has already begun steps to oust the government, and some members of Kadima and other coalition parties are remaining on the fence, waiting to see what develops.

Opposition leader MK Binyamin Netanyahu of the Likud met on Friday with far-left Meretz party leader MK Yossi Beilin, to discuss the report's political ramifications. Beilin said, unsurprisingly, that he would not support a replacement government headed by Netanyahu. Despite this, following the Channel Ten revelations, Beilin said that Olmert must resign immediately.

Within the coalition, Labor's Danny Yatom - an underdog in the Labor race for party leader next month - said the entire government must resign. MKs Zevulun Orlev and Aryeh Eldad (National Union/National Religious Party) also called, once again, for Olmert's resignation.

National Union faction chairman MK Uri Ariel has already submitted a legislative proposal for the dissolution of the Knesset and new elections.  "The Winograd conclusions and the resulting public sentiment require that we prepare for new elections," Ariel explained, "and we might as well come up with an agreed-upon date among the various parties."

 

Anti-Government Rally on Thursday

A large anti-government protest rally has already been announced for this Thursday in Tel Aviv. The protest has been called by the Civil Coalition, headed by retired IDF General Uzi Dayan.

A critical question is whether Olmert's Kadima party will stick with him. On the one hand, Kadima generally supported the war effort whole-heartedly, but some pockets of resistance were heard within a few days of the beginning of the war. Most worrisome for Olmert is the fact that his main competitor, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, will be able to say that she asked for limitations on the offensive and the opening of diplomatic channels just days after the war started, but Olmert did not agree.

Source:  Arutz Sheva

Posted by munaeem 02:37 | Israel | Comment(0) | Permalink
Qaeda infiltrates UK strategic sites
30 April, 2007
Suspects linked to Al Qaeda have obtained sensitive jobs in vital industries that could be the target of terrorist attacks, The Telegraph reports.

The individuals were uncovered by police and the security services in operations designed to protect key British sites such as transport hubs, power stations and the water supply.

Security chiefs believe that they may have become radicalised while already in employment, thus evading the strict vetting procedure for applicants for security-sensitive posts. Following the discovery, the British government is to draft new guidelines for companies to strengthen systems for monitoring staff. Employees will be encouraged to report any concerns they may have about suspicious behaviour by colleagues. The government has also drawn up plans to defend telecommunications, food supply, finance, key health facilities and the emergency services.

A senior Whitehall source told The Telegraph: “Police and the intelligence services are coming across more names - I’m not saying a huge number, but more cases - where they are identifying people they are concerned about that are working in jobs of some sensitivity.”

British intelligence agency MI5 is understood to have unmasked Al Qaeda sympathisers who joined its ranks during a recruitment drive aimed at young British Muslims, following the London bombings. At least three Metropolitan Police officers have also been investigated over visits they made to Pakistan, according to the Association of Muslim Police.

This month, a former employee at America’s biggest nuclear power plant was charged with taking access codes and layout plans to Iran. Mohammed Alavi, 49, a US citizen, is accused of downloading sensitive information about Palos Verde Nuclear Generation Station while on a visit to Teheran. He denies wrongdoing but could face up to two years in prison if convicted.

Global leaders of Al Qaeda have called on the organisation’s followers in Western countries to adopt tactics that include the infiltration of key industries, known in security circles as the critical national infrastructure. A tactical manual published in 2004, The Management of Savagery by Abu Bakr Naji, urges Al Qaeda supporters to “infiltrate the police forces, the armies, the different political parties, the newspapers, the Islamic groups, the petroleum companies, private security companies, sensitive civil institutions”.
Posted by munaeem 01:59 | Israel | Comment(0) | Permalink
Miss Egypt 2007
29 April, 2007

Ehsan Hatem is proclaimed Miss Egypt 2007
(photo: AFP)

Dena Rashed recounts a humiliating night -- the crowning of Miss Egypt 2007.

After attending three Miss Egypt competitions, I have to admit this year's was the worst. Not to say that the past competitions have been good in any way, since whatever beauty there might have been was not complemented by brains. However this year's result was simply shocking, disappointing and irritating.

I am not even criticising the wits or the looks, but the fact that Miss Egypt 2007 did not speak Arabic. Probably half Egyptian or too long abroad, the winner, Ehsan Hatem, answered the questions posed to her in English.

Supposedly representing 76 million Egyptians, the new Miss Egypt cannot address her people in their own language. How did the organisers of the event fail to notice when she applied, when they interviewed her -- presumably in Arabic -- that she cannot speak the language of Egypt? How did the judges manage to give her the highest score when, again, she only spoke one Arabic word and switched to English because she couldn't answer fluently in her native language?

Year after year, one expects the competition to make some attempt to be more Egyptian in character, but the fact is that every year something happens that makes it more of a farce. This year's hosts, actor Tamer Hagras and TV presenter Mariam Amin, managed to kill any hope of change for the better. Hagras, in his first time as host, managed to embarrass his co- hostess, annoy the contestants and made sure I would never consider watching any of his movies again, because I will always remember his first and hopefully last night as a TV presenter. As for the question posed to the final five contestants, it was the favourite question delivered at many previous competitions: "If you were to choose a prominent woman in history to bring back to life, who would she be?" and as usual Hoda Shaarawi [the pioneer Egyptian feminist, who in 1923 founded the Egyptian Feminist Union] was the answer of two contestants. Not surprising, as Shaarawi is one of Egypt's great 20th century women and her name is known by all, but how many people know what she actually did?

While attending rehearsals at one of the previous competitions, I heard contestants saying that Shaarawi was the perfect answer when they discussed expected questions. Since this year's winner's Arabic is almost non-existent, it appeared that she also has no recollection of prominent Egyptian or Arabic female figures. She chose Princess Diana. With all due respect to Lady Di, her charisma and her charity work, and also to the contestant's personal opinion, Egypt's 7,000 years of history includes many glorious women to choose from. Amazingly other contestants managed to know other female figures -- Mother Teresa and Queen Cleopatra, and had actual reasons for choosing them. To speak their mind on various themes, the contestants drew a topic out of a bowl, and had 30 seconds each to comment on love, success, family, the death sentence and racism. If they exceeded their 30-second limit, Hagras would threaten to either electrocute or stab them with a dagger. That was probably not the real reason for the shaky answers, since although in previous competitions no threats of capital punishment were wielded as a retribution for hesitation, the answers came out just as pathetic.

Since this competition is organised by a private company, and is sponsored and aired by a music satellite channel, as long as it's profitable, we will have to put up with it. Every year, friends and colleagues say: "There are many beautiful and smart girls in Egypt, so why don't they compete for the title?" The answer is clear, and it is not just about girls not wanting to parade on television in skimpy swimsuits. After watching the competition, any girl with an IQ over 50 would think twice about participating. Meanwhile, I hope the organisers will secure a good translator to accompany Miss Egypt 2007 in her publicity work, or better yet -- enroll her in an Arabic class.

Posted by munaeem 19:37 | Israel | Comment(2) | Permalink
A Hamas spokesman in an interview granted to an Iranian TV channel
29 April, 2007
Abu Mazen does not have full authority to engage in negotiations with Israel and Hamas will oppose any agreement reached in such negotiations

Ayman Muhammad Saleh Taha , a Hamas spokesman in the Gaza Strip, noted in an interview granted to an Iranian TV station that Abu Mazen does not have full authority to engage in negotiations with Israel and that Hamas rejects any agreement reached in such negotiations.


Ayman Muhammad Saleh Taha
(Al-Alam TV, April 11, 2007 )

On April 17, Al-Alam, an Iranian TV channel in Arabic, broadcasted a talk show called Al-Mihwar (“the axis”). The show featured an interview with Ayman Muhammad Saleh Taha, a former Hamas operative who was held prisoner in Israel and is now one of the Hamas spokesmen and a member of the inter-organizational committee for preventing conflicts between Hamas and Fatah. In the interview, Ayman Taha was asked about Hamas's position on the contacts held by Abu Mazen with Israel . The highlights of his reply follow:

a. The stance of the Hamas movement has not changed and will not change regarding the “Zionist entity” and the meetings held by Abu Mazen with Israeli PM Ehud Olmert: “The movement is being very clear when it says that these meetings are pointless and do nothing to further the Palestinian cause.”

b. “The government platform is not the platform of Hamas, the Islamic resistance movement. The fundamental principles of the unity government are the lowest common denominator agreed upon by the Palestinian factions. We are saying loud and clear that the Hamas movement still considers itself the spearhead in the conflict with the oppressive enemy [ Israel ]. It will not relinquish its platform of resistance [i.e., violence and terrorism]…”

c. “In the strongest of terms, we oppose such negotiations and everything that will come out of it. We, the Hamas movement, will not agree to it, and I think these are clear, explicit statements already made by Dr. Mahmoud al-Zahar and by the head of the Hamas faction in the [Legislative] Council, Dr. Khalil al-Hayya. While they expressed their confidence in the government, they stressed that they had reservations about giving the president full authority in the negotiations…”

d. When asked what Hamas would do when Abu Mazen would reach an agreement with Israel and whether the Hamas movement would oppose the government that it heads, Taha replied: “Definitely. That is, we are saying that we will not accept any negotiations with the occupier on the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people and their legitimate rights. We will not bargain about those rights and will refuse to do so, whether in the government or in the Legislative Council…”

Posted by munaeem 18:59 | Palestine , Israel | Comment(0) | Permalink
Turks protest Islamic-rooted government
29 April, 2007

via Yahoo News : Turks protest Islamic-rooted government

"Turkey - Some 700,000 Turks  demanded the resignation of the government, saying the Islamic roots of Turkey's leaders threatened to destroy the country's modern foundations.

Like the protesters, Turkey's powerful secular military has accused Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of tolerating radical Islamic circles.

Crowd chanted that the presidential palace was "closed to imams."

"We don't want a covered woman in Ataturk's presidential palace," said Ayse Bari, a 67-year-old housewife. "We want civilized, modern people there."

I agree with her.

"Neither Sharia, nor coup but fully democratic Turkey," read a banner carried by a demonstrator on Sunday.

SABRINA TAVERNISE comments on this protest in her article titled 'Turks Rally in Support of Secularism'. She says :

"The presidency is the most important post in the secular establishment, and the prospect that it could be occupied by a man whose background is in political Islam is seen as deeply threatening."
Posted by munaeem 18:18 | General | Comment(0) | Permalink
Serious outbreak of intellectual honesty in Italy on 'Holocaust Denial'
29 April, 2007

Controversial seminar criticised for negationist content

ROME (EJP)--- A controversial three-day academic seminar discussing the legitimacy of denying the Holocaust has been strongly criticized by the Union of Italian Jewish Communities (UCEI).

Held on April 17-19 at the University of Teramo in central Italy, the event gathered historians, journalists, lawyers and writers to analyze Holocaust denial.

A UCEI press release slammed the conference, entitled "The gag history" and part of a master’s degree on Middle East issues, expressing their "bitterness and concern for how the media ignored the event." 

Lecturers included renowned historians and representatives of the extreme right wing organisations, along with fiercely anti-Zonisti personalities from the far left.

Professor Claudio Moffa, a speaker at the seminar, responded by condemning the "media’s slander, the economical damage, the judicial persecution and the professional ostracism imposed on those historians who are considered to be negationist".

Entry denied

Speakers included Robert Faurisson, a leading personality among those who deny the Holocaust, who gave his contributions to the seminar via a video conference as he has been denied entry in Italy because of his negationist views..

On his personal blog website Faurisson published a series of documents on the "Jewish exploitation of the Holocaust" alongside some solidarity email messages he received which slam UCEI’s communiqué as "a sign of the strong Jewish lobby in Italy".

According to UCEI’s president, Renzo Gattegna, "what has really surprised us is the fact that accredited historians who may have historical views and analyses we do not share, but whom we know have nothing to do with negationist lies decided to take part in this initiative, thus legitimating racist political and anti-democratic positions.”

“We believe that academic authorities and the institutions in our country cannot ignore such an event, which, once again, invites us to keep an eye on the issues of anti-Semitism and racism,” he added.

Source: European Jewish Press 

Posted by munaeem 16:34 | Israel | Comment(0) | Permalink
Muslim Brothers: so hot right now
29 April, 2007
Author:  Issandr El Amrani

As they face one of the biggest crackdowns in decades and the military trial of some of their top funders begins, the Egyptian Muslim Brothers are attracting ever more attention. There is a long piece in the NY Times Magazine — a pretty decent and sympathetic portrait of the group and some of its personalities, even it is generally inconclusive — that looks at their recent pro-reform parliamentary record and what various members of the group say about issues such as alcohol, Copts, and so on. James Traub, the other of the piece, is working on a book on democracy promotion and it shows: there are references to the Bush administration’s stance towards the MB, which Traub posits as being at odds with the Forward Agenda for Freedom (Bushspeak for democracy promotion.)

To me it seems the democracy promotion angle (a US policy issue) is a bit awkwardly tackled to the more general look at the Brothers’ democratic credentials, but of course it’s an interesting issue.

View Original Article
Posted by munaeem 15:51 | Israel | Comment(0) | Permalink
It’s Only Terrorism When They Are Muslim, Right?
29 April, 2007
Author:  Nicole Belle

Remember the story of the three Muslim men who were arrested because they bought cell phones? How many days of coverage did that non-story rate?  Now how much airtime has this story gotten?:

Birmingham (AL) News:

Simultaneous raids carried out in four Alabama counties Thursday turned up truckloads of explosives and weapons, including 130 grenades, an improvised rocket launcher and 2,500 rounds of ammunition belonging to the small, but mightily armed, Alabama Free Militia.

Six alleged members of the Free Militia also were arrested by federal authorities and are being held without bond.

Investigators said the DeKalb County-based group had not made any specific threats or devised any plots, but was targeted for swift dismantling because of its heavy firepower. The militia, which called itself the Naval Militia at one point, had enough armament to outfit a small army.

"We classify these groups as violent and anti-government," said Jim Cavanaugh, who supervises the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives operations in portions of the South. "They stockpile things and live off a fear, a paranoia they're going to need weapons and explosives because some event is going to happen when they will need them."

Um, how about we classify them as Domestic Terrorists?  I don't know about you but violent, paranoid and heavily armed people near me would be terrifying.  As Barbara at Mahablog says, it's a real relief to find out these guys aren't Muslims, huh? Otherwise they might be dangerous or something.

Just to muddy the waters even further as to who is and who isn't a terrorist, the US released suspected Cuban airline bomber Luis Posada Carriles and refused to extradite him as requested to Cuba or Venezuela where he is to stand trial for the deaths of the 73 people on board because….wait for it…the 79 year old will certainly be executed for his role in terrorist acts.

View Original Article
Posted by munaeem 05:10 | Israel | Comment(0) | Permalink
Babes and Bikinis: Israel Plans to Revamp Its Image
28 April, 2007
By MIMI DAHER JERUSALEM, April 28, 2007 — - All countries carry a certain stereotype: Some associate pasta and emotion with Italy, the queen and bad weather with Britain, flashing lights and high-speed trains with Japan, and conflict and religion with Israel. Israeli officials at the consulate in New York have decided to try to rebrand the negative image associated with their country and have approached Maxim, dubbed America's most-popular men's magazine, to launch a public relations campaign to help them. The aim of the project is to change Israel's image from a country associated with constant conflict to a different, sexy, fun and vibrant place. The project began six months ago when Israeli officials in the United States discovered (through market research) that men between the ages of 18 and 35 were uninterested in Israel, and considered the country "irrelevant." Maxim is going to run a special Israel edition this July that will promote the country to its 2.5 million readership, and the magazine hopes it will revamp Israel's image in the eyes of young American men. A team from the magazine arrived in the beach town of Tel Aviv, Israel's tourism capital, this March for a five-day photo shoot. Top Israeli female models were hired to market Tel Aviv as a modern, vivid and "sexy city" -- a fun tourist destination. The young girls were photographed frolicking and posing in their bikinis on Tel Aviv beach. "The aim of the campaign is to show the different faces of Israel," David Saranga, from the media and public affairs department at the Israeli consulate in New York, told ABC News. "The international media tends to concentrate on one dimension alone -- the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict. We hope we can broaden people's view." Saranga said Maxim is an excellent platform for delivering this message and will target the audience it is hoping to convert -- young men. Tel-Aviv was the natural choice, Saranga said, because, "It is sophisticated, fast paced and bustling with culture, creativity and excitement." Israelis are all too aware of the negative image their country has due to the long-term conflict with its Arab neighbors. An American-Israeli owner of a coffee shop in Jerusalem (who wished to remain anonymous) told ABC News that because of its constant conflict with the Palestinians, "Israel has attracted only negative press," adding that she believes the conflict with the Palestinians is exaggerated and that "life in Israel is as normal as any other Western country." When told about the Maxim magazine project, she said, "This is great: Anything that portrays Israel in a positive light is welcome. We have to try to reach every type of person out there." Other Israelis were not sure whether Israeli models posing provocatively in their bikinis for a men's magazine is the best way to sell their country, but they were willing to give it a chance. Lindsay Citerman, an Israeli who studies Judaism in Jerusalem, said, "Tel Aviv is a sexy city, but I am not sure if this is the best way to sell Israel to Americans." But she conceded, ''In our world, maybe that is the way that you have to do it." Citerman believes that it is the political reality that should be changed first -- not the image. "Israel is in a constant state of war," she said. "It is hard to change this image if you don't change the state of war." Avital Sterngold, Citerman's friend, said that she lives in the United Kingdom, and that the image of Israel there is very negative, "'because people there oppose Israel's policies." She doubts Maxim's PR campaign will change people's political views, but it might increase their interest in coming to Israel on holiday. While it "can be very hard to measure success in a PR campaign" as Saranga put it, Israeli officials seem to be determined to create new ways of promoting their country's image abroad. And everyone knows girls in bikinis sell. Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures
Posted by munaeem 15:11 | Israel | Comment(0) | Permalink
Bush Blames the Troops (Robert Scheer)
28 April, 2007
Robert Scheer - Blame it on the military, but make it look like you're supporting the troops. That's been the convenient gambit of failed emperors throughout history as they witnessed their empires decline. Not surprisingly, then, it's become the standard rhetorical trick employed by President Bush in shirking responsibility for the Iraq debacle of his making.

View Original Article
Posted by munaeem 14:47 | Israel | Comment(0) | Permalink
Tenet's Mouth is Moving, But We Can't Understand the Words
28 April, 2007

Prepare yourself for the deluge. As was the case with the high-profile books by former Bush administration officials Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill that slammed the president for being almost criminally inept, the political press is about to get some fresh red meat tossed into its Beltway cage: former CIA chief George Tenet's imminent tell-all.

The book, "At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA," which has already plugged into the hype machine fed by the big papers and a 60 Minutes piece that will air on Sunday night, is critical of the way the Bush administration treated Tenet, making him a "scapegoat," he claims, for the war in Iraq.

The funny thing is, while every one is talking about the book, no one has actually read it yet, since it's embargoed until Monday. Or everyone, that is, except the embargo-busting New York Times. As the paper did back in September 2006 when it scooped The Washington Post by buying a copy of Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack," before publication, an unnamed Times reporter has again managed to buy a copy of the book "at retail price in advance of publication."

Nevertheless, the Times doesn't tell us much. A little nastiness about Cheney, a little complaint about the infamous "slam dunk" line Tenet uttered in a 2002 Oval Office meeting, and a few more choice tidbits. But this is only the first probing mission in what we expect to be a full, combined arms assault by the national media on Tenet's book in the next couple of weeks.

But considering what the Times story does give us, some important context is missing. We're told that Tenet gives a "detailed account" of the "slam dunk" meeting, which has been help up by Bush administration officials as proof that American intelligence agencies were convinced that Saddam had WMD.

The Times reports that the meeting featured a presentation by deputy C.I.A. director, John McLaughlin, who outlined "a proposed public presentation" about how to sell the war to the public "that left the group unimpressed. Mr. Tenet recalls that Mr. Bush suggested that they could 'add punch' by bringing in lawyers trained to argue cases before a jury."

Then, quoting from Tenet's book: "I told the president that strengthening the public presentation was a 'slam dunk,' a phrase that was later taken completely out of context."

The Times leaves it at that, but there's much more to the story, specifically Tenet's changing story about the meeting itself.

The "slam dunk" line was initially reported in April 2004 in a Washington Post excerpt of Bob Woodward's book, "Plan of Attack," and at the time Tenet questioned the accuracy of the quote. Then, in an April 2005 speech at Kutztown University, Tenet changed his tune and admitted using the phrase, lamenting that "those were the two dumbest words I ever said."

Just a year later, in 2006, Ron Suskind reported in his book, "The One Percent Doctrine," that "Tenet and McLaughlin don't remember the [2002 White House] meeting very well. Tenet, though outnumbered by what the president and other advisers claim they heard, doesn't actually remember ever saying 'slam dunk.' Doesn't dispute it. Just doesn't remember it. McLaughlin said he never remembered Tenet saying 'slam dunk' either."

Later in the book, Suskind (giving voice to Tenet, one assumes), makes the case again, saying that on April 19, 2004, the day the words "slam dunk" appeared in the Post, Tenet "wondered how the president could recall so clearly something Tenet himself didn't remember saying."

While we understand that the Times was merely trying to scoop everybody by running snippets from Tenet's book, it sure left a hell of a lot of history on the cutting room floor.

Will empires fall over the question of what Tenet said? No. That ship has long since sailed, and whether or not he uttered the phrase "slam dunk," the impression that he did, or the overall sentiment that the phrase conveyed, is really all that matters.

Still, the former head of the CIA seems to be dancing as fast as he can on this question, and has been for years. It's time someone called him on it.

View Original Article

Posted by munaeem 14:44 | Israel | Comment(0) | Permalink
Palestinians, Israelis should avow Holocaust, Nakba
27 April, 2007
While we are presently preoccupied with fighting extremism and terrorism, we should remember that history is a powerful resource for our images, beliefs, and actions. The more focused we are on learning its lessons, the more prepared we may be to meet its challenges.

Past and current tensions have lasting negative effects that breed enmity and hatred. Reconciliation is a process that can salve history's poisonous aftereffects by translating the painful memory of the past to the service of understanding, individual and social justice, and true peace.

The Yad VaShem Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem and the ruins of Deir Yassin may be in geographical proximity, but a world apart in the psyche of Jews and Palestinians. While the first commemorates the systematic mass extermination of European Jews under Nazi occupation prior to and during World War II, the second marks the village where Palestinians were massacred at the hands of Jewish extremists in April 1948, and symbolizes Palestinian dispossession and their struggle for self-determination.

While there are fundamental differences between these human tragedies - and we have no intention of comparing them - Jews and Palestinians have been steadfast in their distinct interpretations of history, refusing to participate in each other's painful memories and denying each other's most sacred reconstructions of the past.

Unfortunately, the Oslo agreement was equally premised on putting the past aside. We, however, are suggesting history should be addressed, rather than repressed.

As difficult as it is, this must be done if the Abrahamic people and faiths are to embrace each other and bring about a just peace for both Israeli Jews and Palestinians, who, supported by other Jews and Arabs, are in conflict not merely over territory, but also over narratives, rituals, public opinion, and time frames. Indeed, it is common when Israelis and Palestinians meet for the former to emphasize building a different future, while the latter focuses on the unreconciled past.

Israeli Jews have generally refused to take even partial responsibility for the Nakba (the Catastrophe) that befell the Palestinian Arabs in 1948. Such an acknowledgement, in their mind, creates a moral obligation for the Right of Return or its equivalent, thereby undermining their majority in the State of Israel. Meanwhile, Palestinians have difficulty conjuring a positive vision of the future at a time when they are still subjected to critical conditions in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip - something the Oslo process did not change.

Only in the past decade have a few Israeli Jewish and Palestinian intellectuals found the courage to try and acknowledge these two devastating chapters of Israeli and Palestinian history, still preoccupying the minds of their people.

Al Hayat columnist Hazem Saghiyeh and Tunisian journalist Saleh Bashir have both argued that Arab denial of the Holocaust achieves nothing. The Palestinian reporter Nazir Megally has expressed shame that Palestinian education ignores the Holocaust, even though recognition of Jewish suffering and feeling empathy for Jews could be viewed by many Palestinians as psychologically dangerous at this point in the conflict. Meanwhile, a group called Zochrot made up of Israeli citizens works to raise Israeli awareness of the Nakba and of the Arab villages that were destroyed in 1948. In addition, B'tselem and Ta'ayush are Israeli organizations focusing on the practical aspects of the occupation and its negative impact on the Palestinians, creating an Israeli Jewish awareness of the Palestinian plight.

The Peace Research Institute in the Middle East, the Israel-Palestine Center for Research and Information, the Middle East Children's Association, and Neve Shalom all promote understanding between Israelis and Palestinians. We, hereby, wish to join the courageous few by emphasizing our shared history and our moral obligation toward both the past and the future.

If mutual dialogue is to occur between Israeli Jews and Palestinians, each national community must acknowledge and respect the other's painful memory, whether or not it was party to its creation. An empathetic embrace of the construction of the other's history will help both sides to work through their tragedies rather than exclusively ignoring each other's pain. Such an inclusive act of communication and faith will prepare the way for reconciling the past and for building a better future, one to which our children and grandchildren are entitled.

It may be not a coincidence that the new exhibit of Yad VaShem in the form of a deep mountain tunnel opens up unwittingly toward the hill where Deir Yassin was once located. That, for sure, was not the intention of the architect. It takes a new kind of courage to recognize the symbolic importance and implications of both Yad VaShem and Deir Yassin in order to go beyond them and envision a better future for both Israelis and Palestinians.

by Dan Bar-On & Saliba Sarsar

Dan Bar-On was born in Haifa and is Professor of Psychology at the Ben Gurion University of the Negev. He is also Co-Director of the Peace Research Institute in the Middle East (PRIME) and presently a Fulbright Scholar-In-Residence at Monmouth University. Saliba Sarsar was born in Jerusalem and is the Associate Vice-President for Academic Program Initiatives as well as Professor of Political Science at Monmouth University. Bar-On and Sarsar submitted this commentary to the Middle East Times.
Posted by munaeem 14:08 | Palestine , Israel | Comment(0) | Permalink
Arrest the President Now!
27 April, 2007

Enough 9/11 Evidence Exists to Hang Bush, Imprison Thousands

On September 11, 2001, the most infamous day in American history, the tallest buildings in New York were not knocked down by airplanes hijacked by Arabs — they were destroyed by demolition charges.

This is no longer wild conspiracy theory — it is a series of provable facts, deftly presented on a website that every American should not only read but possibly memorize, so they can repeat it verbatim to every law enforcement officer in the country. The web site is located here: http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/

The site outlines a terrifying proposition:  If the collapse of the Twin Towers were caused by demolition the entire official story about that sad day collapses like the house of evil cards so many Americans and people around the world already suspect it is.

The site, http://wtc7.net, backs up its conclusions with a devastating play-by-play of what actually happened on 9/11, and what could not possibly have happened according to universally accepted engineering principles.

The official story collapses under scrutiny, the site insists. It lists five stunning assertions:

  1. Fires have never destroyed steel buildings.
  2. The collapses were not investigated.
  3. The physical evidence was destroyed.
  4. The official explanations are ludicrous.
  5. The evidence indicates demolition.
  6. Demolition is provable.

No steel high-rise building has ever collapsed due to fire, the site insists. And on 9/11, three of them collapsed in a matter of hours at the World Trade Center complex.

The total collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7 were (based on the official story) the three largest engineering failures in the history of the world, yet no federal investigation was ever funded.

The evidence of the collapses was quickly destroyed. A series of explanations was promoted to explain the collapses, but each is ridiculed and debunked on the site, including killer fires, column failure, and truss failure. The site's conclusion: official explanations cannot explain any kind of total collapse.

Other curious phenomena examined were that the fires burned for 100 days, that the concrete was curiously pulverized in mid-air, and that the buildings fell so quickly despite following the path of most resistance, among other suspicious aspects.

After presenting its evidence, the site concludes the towers were deliberately demolished. Which means the disaster could not possibly have been the work of Osama bin Laden.

The implications of the story on this site are enormous. They mean that the official story told by George W. Bush's American government is a total fabrication. There is no evidence against Osama bin Laden if the buildings were demolished. It has all been a lie.

What this means is that George W. Bush is guilty of complicity in the most heinous crime in American history, the willful murder of more than 3,000 people and the destruction of a significant part of America's biggest city. And of course treason. There is no space to delineate here all the other charges of mass murder and obstruction of justice against this vain little demagogue who stole the U.S. presidency and now is raping the world.

Also guilty are Vice President Cheney and the entire Cabinet, the chiefs of staff of the armed forces, and many other members of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the government, plus many other federal and military employees, plus many state and federal regulatory officials and private citizens who were either friends of the Bush conspiracy or conspired in its coverup.

And perhaps the biggest problem is that also guilty of complicity in this tangled mess is the federal Justice Department, whose leader John Ashcroft was appointed by the principal defendant in this case.

America and the world have never faced such a colossal crisis, and that is no overstatement.

The entire American government is now a criminal defendant in the mass murder of its own citizens at the very moment the entire world is cringing in fear at America's new policy of preemptive war that threatens every sovereign nation on the planet.

It's true, my friends, although it's something you already knew — outlaws rule the world, and they own the cops, the army and the courts, not to mention all the legislatures.

How can America and the world possibly deal with this?

Well, for starters, the state of New York must assume the lead role, because all federal agencies, including the FBI, CIA and FEMA, are now all possible defendants in what will be the most amazing trial in history. Of course, state officials are as likely to be corrupted as federal officials, but this still seems to be the logical solution, at least to begin with.

What is at stake here, among so many other items, is the relationship of the states to the federal government. To say this is a profound Constitutional crisis is a severe understatement.

And the larger question becomes, can the people ever trust its government again. The quick answer, at least, is ... not this government — ever again.

But first, everyone must get the word out. Every American, or as many possible who aren't immediately felled by terminal apoplexy as they confront this material, should read the sequence of events as presented on this site.

Then, responsible people in many professions should confer as to the best way to deal with prosecutions on these charges, including how to suspend the functional legal legitimacy of the Bush adminstration, especially since this group seems intent on blowing up the world. Then it will have to be one step at a time with some sort of calmly constructed provisional government, with the current Congress most likely having absolutely no role in its creation.

This is a great and necessary opportunity for the individual states to regain some of the power that has been usurped by Washington when they create a new federal government without any help from the old one.

OK. I know this is all mind-boggling. Unfortunately for all of us, it happens to be reality. Shake off your stunned silence and incredulity. We have to deal with it, and we have to deal with it now.

Proper articulation of the offenses, machinery to effect remedies and prosecutions — and doing both of things in the proper venues — are of critical importance at this moment. Not being a lawyer, I don't know what they are. Somebody knows. That person or persons needs to speak, and soon.

Because if Bush knows his crimes are exposed and he is allowed to remain in power, God knows what will happen.

I know you've taken in a crushing amount of information just now, but I would beg you to try and digest a little bit more, this time from the mind of Kent State professor Walter Davis, who has articulated in a very coherent way the argument against George W. Bush continuing as the commander of the most deadly arsenal ever seen on this planet.

Read the whole piece at some point at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4582.htm

It's entitled "September 11th And The Bush Administration: Compelling Evidence for Complicity". Davis points out that the government has tried to cop a plea of ineptitude in failing to prevent the 9/11 disaster, but the professor concludes this excuse is "not consistent with the known facts."

With flawless logic and perfect professorial prose, Davis outlines and elaborates 22 reasons why he thinks Bush not only knew but helped plan and execute the tragic 9/11 deception. Davis's items range from the fact that the entire U.S. intelligence community knew the attack was going to happen and the American air defenses were "stood down" ... to historical precedents of leaders who lied about attacks in history. In between is the definitive version of the charges that should be laid upon Bush and all the criminal functionaries who participated in this profound crime against the American people.

I seldom say things are a "must read," but this is one of them, simply for its articulation of the basic crimes of 9/11 and the completeness of the magnitude of the atrocity and its implications. Read the damn thing. Try not to cry.

OK, OK, enough data. It's almost 4 a.m. and I've been up since 7 a.m. after being up til 3 a.m. the night before dealing with my e-mail, from all of you, my lovelies, who are getting this one.

I'm running out of time, as some of you know, and may not be able to do too many more of these missives. But this one is important, so I'm going to stay up til dawn punching in the addresses. Because you're running out of time, too. We're all running out of time, and we better do something fast.

The information contained in here is a critical step in the right direction. Take it and run with it.

Fasten your seatbelts, ladies and gentlemen. As you probably already know, with the Saudis reportedly aiming weapons at Israel, and China and Russia viewing the pathetic U.S. military performance in Iraq and Afghanistan with an eye toward maybe taking a cheap but well-deserved shot at the U.S. for its insane and murderous policies of late, all of us are going to be in for a very rough ride. In fact, you can be assured that many of us are not going to make it through these next few months and years, but we have no choice but to try and fix this problem as best we can if anybody is to have any hope of surviving.


John Kaminski ( skylax@comcast.netskylax@comcast.netThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ) is the author of America's Autopsy Report, a collection of his Internet essays. For more information on how to purchase this book go to http://www.johnkaminski.com/.


Is arresting the President of the USA possible? Yes. It's even legal. In fact, it's the duty of any serving member of the United States military. Why? Click here for the answer.

Posted by munaeem 09:21 | Israel | Comment(0) | Permalink
Proposed Bishara law targets Israeli Arabs
27 April, 2007
The Israeli campaign gainst Arab Knesset member Azmi Bishara indicated Israel was becoming ore like Arab countries and that its democracy was no longer an oasis
in the midst of the Middle East political desert.

If an Israeli ruling roup succeeded in issuing a new law under the "Bishara bill," it would ecome possible for one lawmaker to dismiss another.

According to Israeli ews reports, the proposed bill would allow a Knesset member to level ccusations against a colleague while the latter was abroad to avoid
resignation, subsequently freezing all the accused lawmaker's assets if
he or she failed to present his or herself in court.

Arabs view such roposals as "providing new tools" against Israeli Arab politicians,
arguing that they were "fascist and anti-democratic; racist and nti-Arab."
Posted by munaeem 02:02 | Israel | Comment(0) | Permalink
Law center that tracks hate groups wants to know if anti-Semitism is being taught.
26 April, 2007

Law center that tracks hate groups wants to know if anti-Semitism is being taught.

The Southern Poverty Law Center on Tuesday called for an investigation into the campus activities of Kevin MacDonald, a Cal State Long Beach psychology professor whose writings about Jews have been used to support the views of white supremacists.

Of particular concern, according to a center report to be published this week, are MacDonald's theories suggesting that "Jews, who have typically been in the minority in countries around the world, are compelled by an evolutionary strategy that makes them push for liberal policies, like immigration and diversity, with the intent of weakening the power of the majority that rules them."

The law center, which has collected statistics for years on what it considers hate groups, wants Cal State to look into what MacDonald is teaching students and wants to shine a light on his voluminous writings on Jews.

"What we would like to know is why the university seems intent on protecting Kevin MacDonald rather than looking at his possible violations of policy in the classroom," said Heidi Beirich, the center's deputy director and author of the report. "Our primary intent is not to get rid of Kevin MacDonald, but to show the world who he is, what he is doing."

In an interview in his office Tuesday, the tall, lanky MacDonald — a fully tenured professor with a doctorate in behavioral sciences from the University of Connecticut — insisted that although he has written books on what he calls the evolutionary psychology of Jews, "I have never talked about Jews in my courses."

But he acknowledged that his scholarly research has convinced him that not every instance of anti-Semitism is "irrational."

"Jews, as a group, have interests that sometimes conflict with the interests of the people they live among," said MacDonald, who teaches students seeking a degree in child development. "In general, Judaism is considered a complex and successful survival mechanism, and at times they've been victimized for it. I do think there is a biological element at work here that's existed throughout the centuries."

As for the law center report's allegation that his work has been used to lend a kind of legitimacy to neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups, he said, "I do not agree with all the views people have, but there is little I can do about that."

Beirich sees it differently: "Not since Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' have anti-Semites had such a comprehensive reference guide to what's 'wrong with Jews.' His work is widely advertised and touted on white supremacist websites and sold by neo-Nazi outfits like National Vanguard Books, which considers them 'the most important books of the last 100 years.' "

One of MacDonald's essays on Jews is highlighted on the official website of former Ku Klux Klan member David Duke, who said it contains "a deeper intellectual understanding of the nature of Jewish supremacism and its implications for European Americans."

MacDonald, 63, is no stranger to controversy. In 2000, he testified on behalf of David Irving, a controversial World War II historian who suffered a stinging defeat in a London courtroom in a libel suit he filed against another writer who described him as a Holocaust denier. Irving also served 13 months in prison in Austria after pleading guilty to denying the Holocaust, a crime in that country.

MacDonald's actions caused an uproar on the Cal State campus and the creation of rules regarding the use and abuse of academic material. They included a warning that it is unethical for faculty to allow their work to be used to support groups that disseminate racial or ethnic superiority or racial or ethnic hatred.

Yet, in a recent posting on his website, MacDonald said that "I would like to suppose that my work on Judaism at least meets the criteria of good social science, even if I have come to the point of seeing my subjects in a less than flattering light. In the end, does it really matter if my motivation at this point is less than pristine? Isn't the only question whether I am right?"

That kind of talk makes some of his colleagues in the psychology department at Cal State Long Beach uncomfortable.

Professor Martin Fiebert said he welcomed the law center's report about his colleague of 20 years. "I think exposing bigotry and cultural insensitivity is a good thing to do," he said. "It may help him sell more books, but it will also reveal his views to a larger audience."

Fiebert added: "The most troubling development lately has been that [MacDonald] is widely cited in neo-Nazi and white supremacist web pages. Some of their issues were framed around his willingness to say that being anti-Semitic is a sort of badge of courage.

"But even talking about these things is tricky," he said. "The last time things heated up, Kevin went to his lawyer, then came back and said if his job was threatened, he'd sue. So people stopped talking about Kevin MacDonald."

Cal State Long Beach psychology professor William Kelemen said MacDonald's notions about Jews "make me uncomfortable."

"It's a radioactive topic," he said, "and it's drawing a lot of attention, most of it negative.

"What is bizarre about it all," he added, "is that these controversies seem to surface every few years, yet no one seems to know what to do about it."

In a prepared statement Tuesday, university officials would say only that "academic freedom does not constrain or restrict the spectrum of knowledge, whether that knowledge is popular or unpopular."

Beirich, however, said, "As it stands, a student cannot get a degree in child development at Cal State Long Beach without taking a course taught by MacDonald. We have no idea what those students are hearing or being taught, because no one is overseeing what goes on in there."

Source: LA Times

Posted by munaeem 03:58 | General | Comment(0) | Permalink
A service provided by Al Bawaba