The 9/11 survivor no one can remember

· Tale of flight from burning tower does not add up
· Woman goes to ground after story is questioned

Taken from the Guardian, UK, Friday September 28, 2007
David Dunlap and Serge Kovaleski

Tania Head's story, as shared over the years with reporters, students, friends and hundreds of visitors to ground zero, was a remarkable account of both life and death.

She had, she said, survived the terror attack on the World Trade Centre despite having been badly burned when the plane crashed into the upper floors of the south tower.

Crawling through the chaos and carnage on the 78th floor that morning, she said, she encountered a dying man who handed her his inscribed wedding ring, which she later returned to his widow.

Her own life was saved, she said, by a selfless volunteer who extinguished the flames on her burning clothes before she was helped down the stairs. It was a journey she said she had the strength to make because she kept thinking of a beautiful white dress she was to wear at her coming wedding to a man named Dave.

But later she would discover, she said, that Dave, her fiance, and in some versions her husband, had perished in the north tower.

Ms Head's account made her one of only 19 survivors who had been at or above the point of impact when the planes hit. But no part of her story, it turns out, has been verified.

The family and friends of the man to whom she claimed to be engaged say they have never heard of Tania Head and view the relationship she describes with the man, who did die in the north tower, as an impossibility.

A spokeswoman for Merrill Lynch, where she told people she worked at the time of the terror attack, said the company had no record of employing a Tania Head.

And few people, it seems, who embraced the immediacy and pain of her account ever asked the name of the man whose ring she had returned, or that of the hospital where she was treated, or the identities of the people she met in the south tower on the morning of 9/11.

"She never shared those details, and it was nothing we wanted to probe," said Alison Crowther, the mother of Welles Remy Crowther, a man who died on 9/11 and who is credited with rescuing a number of people from the south tower, including Ms Head by her own account.

In recent weeks the New York Times sought to interview Ms Head about her experiences on 9/11 but she cancelled three scheduled interviews, citing her privacy and emotional turmoil, and declined to provide details to corroborate her story. "I have done nothing illegal," she said.

She has retained a lawyer, Stephanie Furgang Adwar, to represent her.

No one has suggested that Ms Head did anything to profit financially from her position as an officer with the Survivors' Network, the non-profit group for which she helped to raise money.

But the organisations to which she has been affiliated have also questioned her account.

For several weeks colleagues who said they respected the good work she had done among survivors have pressed her to come forward and clarify details. But they said they had been unable to persuade her or, in other cases, that she contradicted previous versions she had given.
The board of the Survivors' Network voted this week to remove her as president and as a director of the group, which supports those who escaped the terror that day.

Jefferson Crowther, Welles Crowther's father, said in an interview that he and his wife met Ms Head early last year.

"She explained that her clothes were on fire and that our son took a jacket and put out the flames.

"She told us that she said, 'Don't leave me,' and he replied, 'I won't. Don't worry. I'll get you down.'

"She seemed so heartfelt and genuine about what she said to us."

The missionary danger

Current-day missionaries use friendly tactics, but are just as dangerous as before

Taken from Ynet News, Israel, 27.09.07
Ya'acov Margi

History is repeating itself. Then, as now, missionaries were operating under the guise of mercy and a "religion of love," in an effort to boost the number of converts in Israel based on Christian doctrine. In this way, some elements are attempting to realize their final objective: Exterminating the Jewish people through money and manipulations.

Then, history was filled with pogroms, crusades, the Inquisition, blood libels, mass killing, and genocide, which were all undertaken in the name of this same "love." If it wasn't done gently and mercifully, then it was done through the use of force, torture, destruction, fire, murder, and cruelty.

Toady, missionaries have been forced to change their modus operandi. For example: Acquiring souls through money, covering debts, making tempting proposals, immigration, and guaranteed employment. All of the above are the means of persuasion employed by profession missionaries.
Making others convert to Christianity is considered among missionary circles to be a profession where all means justify the end. They claim that their objective is "saving the soul" of the intended victim.

Most promises are not realized, yet the hurt, weak, and embarrassed victim is despaired and doesn't realize this. There are cases where he believes professional seducers and their smooth messages, and then it is too late. The humiliation, destruction, and poison introduced by the missionary into the victim's soul have already seeped into the depths of his lost soul.

Tempted by offers of help
Judaism has no interest in converting members of other religions. Freedom of religion is one thing, and there is no reason to prevent a member of any other religion from acting based on his faith. However, converting someone – even if this is done by a Jew enticing a Christian – while using money and other despicable means, is a wholly different matter.

At times of crisis, people could easily be tempted by offers of help that are proposed on behalf of missionary elements. Missionaries are very active in the grey area of helping the needy. Many cases of handing out food to the needy or extensive campaigns like handing out school bags to children are undertaken by missionaries as part of a strategic effort to gain the trust of the needy.

Based on accumulated data, we can clearly point to heightened missionary activity among communities of new immigrants, as well as submission to this activity. Many of the new immigrants arrive with a Jewish background that is not deep, do not understand Hebrew, miss home, and seek humane treatment. This, in addition to the difficult economic state faced by many of them, prepares the ground for missionary activity.

The Israeli government must boost enforcement and promote the bill I initiated, which would ban conversion efforts and set a jail term of one year for those who violate the law.

The writer, a Knesset member, is the Shas faction chairman
----------------------------------------------------

Evangelical Christians are the single biggest reason why the state of Israel remains an Apartheid state and an aggressive state in the Middle East. It is why Israel is supported by the US financially and Militarily at the expense of it's taxpayers. Why would Evangelicals encourage and finance aliyah so that Jews who do not have any links to the state of Israel take over occupied land and homes that belong to Palestinians for the sake of Zionism. What kind of religion is this? What kind of agenda is this?

As Desmond Tuto said famously "When missionaries came to South Africa, we had the land, they had the Bible. Then they told us, 'Let's close our eyes and pray.' When we opened our eyes we saw that we have the Bible, they have the land."

Ex-Serb colonel gets 20 years for Vukovar war crimes

Taken from the Guardian, September 27, 2007
By David Batty and agencies

The UN war crimes tribunal today jailed a former Yugoslav army colonel for 20 years for his involvement in the massacre of hundreds of people in the Croatian town of Vukovar in 1991.



Mile Mrksic, a former colonel in the Serb army, was found guilty of aiding and abetting the torture and murder of 194 people sheltering in a hospital in Vukovar, a town which became synonymous with one of the most notorious cases of mass murder in the 1991-95 wars across the former Yugoslavia.

A second officer, Veselin Sljivancanin was jailed for five years for torture but cleared of the most serious charges against him. A third officer, Miroslav Radic, was cleared of all charges.

The verdicts generated indignation in Croatia, which had hoped for far more severe sentences. State-run radio called the outcome "shocking", while the prime minister, Ivo Sanader, said the verdicts were "shameful".

"The whole world witnessed the suffering of civilians in Vukovar. The victims did not deserve such verdicts," Mr Sanader said.

Prosecutors at the Hague tribunal had sought to prove the trio were responsible for the killing of at least 264 people who had fled to Vukovar's hospital expecting to be evacuated by international observers when the town fell to Yugoslav forces after a siege.

Several hundred were taken from the hospital by Serb-dominated army units and militias and taken to a farm where they were beaten and shot dead.

Prosecutors had sought to prove that those killed were largely civilians, but the court ruled they had been initially selected as suspected Croatian fighters. Accordingly, all charges of crimes against humanity against the three men - known as the "Vukovar Three" - were dismissed, including the charge of extermination.

But Mrksic, 60, then the commander of Serb forces in the region, was convicted for turning over the captives, who were considered POWs, to a group of Serb paramilitaries that he knew harboured intense animosity towards them.

Sljivancanin, 54, the area's chief security officer, was jailed for failing to protect the Croatians from beatings and torture by the local Serb paramilitary forces and militias.

Mr Radic, 45 was cleared of having anything to do with the cruelty meted out to the hospital evacuees and ultimately their murder.

UN prosecutors also expressed dismay at the outcome. "The prosecutor finds it incomprehensible that someone who is convicted for the torture of 200 people can receive only a sentence of five years," said a spokeswoman for chief prosecutor Carla del Ponte.

One nurse who was in the hospital at the time told Reuters that she was shocked at the court's leniency. Footage of Sljivancanin promising to hand over patients to the Red Cross has been repeatedly aired on Croatian television over the years.

"He is responsible for the fact that the wounded were taken from the hospital," the nurse, Binazija Kolesar, said. "We all saw him in the hospital and we know that he was the one who was making decisions."

Sljivancanin, who was first detained in June 2003, will be credited for his time in detention and freed within a year.

Israeli in Lebanon under investigation in muder case and on espionage charges

Taken from Haaretz, Israel, 22/09/2007
By Yoav Stern,

An dual citizen of Israel and Germany has been arrested in Lebanon on charges of espionage, a Lebanese judicial source said on Saturday. Security officials said the man, Daniel Sharon, has been handed over to military intelligence for questioning. According to Lebanese publication Al-Akhbar Wa-Sapir, Sharon was arrested on Thursday during an investigation into the murder of a Lebanese citizen.

During questioning, it emerged that Sharon had visited Lebanon 11 times on his German passport over the last two years. He denied allegations he was on an espionage mission and said he was in Lebanon for leisure purposes, according to the source.

Media reports said that police in the Merje area, a hotbed of the Lebanese Shiite Hezbollah movement in Beirut's southern suburbs, were investigating the killing of Moussa al-Shalaani when the probe led them to Sharon.

Al-Shalaani had been shot with a gun belonging to a security officer who had been his roommate. The roommate was summoned for questioning, and maintained that he had lost his gun.

The roommate also said that during the time of the murder, he had been with his German friend who was residing at the Four Points Sheraton hotel in Beirut's luxurious Verdun neighbourhood.

A hotel employee told the police that Sharon had paid him to not write his full name on any documents.

"His conflicting testimonies led the authorities to arrest him, and further investigations are underway in a murder case and espionage," the judicial source said.

"He is denying charges of espionage and insists that he is gay and he likes to have sexual relations with Lebanese men and that is why his visits to Lebanon were frequent," the source said.

"But further investigations into the case showed that Sharon had a friend in the Lebanese security offices who used to facilitate his entries to Lebanon and with the help of a hotel clerk he managed to hide his real name," the source added.

A Lebanese security agent was also held for questioning about his relations with the Israeli man after the two maintained contacts through the Internet, said officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media. Lebanon forbids any contacts or dealings with Israel.

Lebanon's General Prosecutor Saeed Mirza said investigations were underway into how the story was leaked to the press.

During questioning, it emerged that Sharon is well-versed regarding Lebanon, speaks Arabic well and knows how to use he language's many idioms. According to reports, Sharon learned Arabic in the United Arab Emirates from a teacher of Bahraini citizenship. The Lebanese media reported that Sharon kept his cool during questioning and denied accusations that he was a spy.

The media also reported that Sharon had visited Lebanon 11 times since 2005, once immediately prior to the Second Lebanon War with Israel last summer. His last visit was four days prior to his arrest, and he was scheduled to leave on the day of his arrest.

It later emerged that Sharon had sent his security officer friend on trips abroad on several occasions, and in exchange the man helped Sharon within Lebanon.

-----------------------------------------------------
It does beg to question who is stiring up trouble in Lebanon and who was behind the recent assassinations (or the finiancing of it).

Recalled: The Sabra Shatila Massacre

Well, I waited a few days for the world media to recall the massacre that took place at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps 25 years ago, and you guessed it - little or no coverage at all. So I had to rely on the Arab media...

Sabra Shatila recalled

Taken from Al-Jazeera news Agency, SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2007
By Iman Azzi in Beirut, Lebanon

Twenty-five years after surviving the massacre at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Beirut, Jamila Khalife still mourns family members who were killed at the hands of Phalangist Lebanese forces.




Lebanon is marking the 25th anniversary of the Sabra and Shatila massacre [AFP]

Her life since then, she says, has been a daily reminder of the horrors she witnessed as a 16-year-old Palestinian refugee from Jaffa living in the camps at the height of the 1975-90 Lebanese civil war.

"This was my father," said Khalife, pointing to a black and white photo of a man lying face down in a narrow street.

"They shot him in the head."

Three of her relatives were also killed.

"After it was over, on the way to find my mother at the nearby hospital, I saw a woman on the street, her intestines were spilling out. She died holding her baby," Khalife recounted as her own daughter, Ghram (Arabic for Love), sat on her lap.


Dusk massacre
In September 1982, Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) fighters, evacuated from their Beirut barracks and the Israeli army, surrounded the refugee camps.


About 2,000 civilians were killed over the course of three days [AFP]

On the afternoon of September 16, Israeli forces allowed members of the Lebanese Forces (LF) - an offshoot of the Phalange party - into the camps allegedly to search for suspects in the slaying of Bashir Gemayel, then Lebanese president.



Gemayel, who also headed the LF, had been killed by a car bomb outside his office a day earlier, angering many of his supporters and plunging war-torn Lebanon into further chaos. Palestinian forces quickly distanced themselves from Gemayel's death, but it did not save the camps from reprisals.

Khalife says she remembers seeing both Israelis and Phalange party members inside the camps that day.

"The Israelis were wearing military uniforms. The Phalange wore jeans, normal clothes and military arm bands. They swore at us in Lebanese Arabic," she said.

Most aid organisations working in the camps in 1982 say around 2,000 civilians were killed over the course of three days.

Feigning death
Nabil Mohammad, a Palestinian refugee who lost all but one of his six siblings, said: "The Israeli military were bombing the camps and the worst case scenario was that the Israelis would come in and collect the young men so my uncle sent me away, thinking it would be safer."

Mohammad, his cousin and his cousin's wife dodged snipers as they made their way to a retirement home where his aunt worked. When the fighting had subsided and they returned to their home, they discovered that five of his siblings and his mother had been killed.

His younger brother Munir survived by feigning his death a few feet away from his mother's body.

Mohammad was only 19 when the killings took place, but every year since then he tries to keep the memories of his loved ones alive by returning to the camps, now home to 45,000 Lebanese, Palestinians and Syrians.

He remains bitter that fellow Arabs would commit what he called atrocities.

Avenging Gemayel?
But a former LF fighter, who spoke to Al Jazeera on the condition of anonymity, insisted that the Israeli military, and not the Lebanese, should shoulder full responsibility for the killings.

He said: "After Bashir Gemayel was killed, Lebanon was at a boiling state. We were angry, we were lost. We knew that something was going to happen but didn't know what."

He admitted that the LF was angered by the assassination of Gemayel but had no idea what was planned at Sabra and Shatila. The soldier, who began fighting with the LF when he was 13 in 1979, said his unit had been confined to barracks at the Beirut airport and not allowed to leave after Gemayel's murder until they were deployed around Sabra and Shatila.

"It was not the LF [who were responsible for the killings]. It was the Israeli soldiers who went inside those camps," he said.

Where is Sabra and Shatila?

But 25 years later, some Lebanese are unfamiliar with the events of Sabra and Shatila.

Elias, 20, said he had never heard of Sabra and Shatila.

"Where are Sabra and Shatila?" he asked turning to his friend. "Iraq? They never mentioned it in school."

George Hanna, 43, a resident of East Beirut, said: "It was between Christians and Palestinians during the war. I've never been there. What would I do there if I went?

"I never gave Sabra and Shatila any thought."




A quarter of a century later, some Lebanese are still unfamiliar with the massacre [AFP]

Nevertheless, Palestinians in Lebanon are determined to keep the history of the camps alive, at least for their community.

Kassem Aina, a co-ordinator for the 'Never forget Sabra and Shatila' campaign, told Al Jazeera: "We tell the children not only about the massacre of Sabra and Shatila. We tell them about all massacres from Deir Yassin to Tel Zaatar to Sabra and Shatila. I feel sad we have so many massacres in our history."

Never forget Sabra and Shatila was founded by Stefano Chiarini, an Italian journalist and activist, who passed away last February.

To mark the 25th anniversary this year, delegations from Italy, France, Spain and other nations will join Palestinian and Lebanese memorials planned for the week.

Seeking justice
The memorials mark the events at the camps, but also push for bringing perpetrators to justice.
To this day, there has been no direct accountability for the killings.

Ariel Sharon, the former Israeli prime minister, was forced to resign as defence minister after he was found both "indirectly" and "personally" responsible by the 1982 Kahane Commission of inquiry which investigated Israeli culpability in Sabra and Shatila.

LF commander Elie Hobeika, who led the incursion into the camps, received amnesty like all militia leaders following the Lebanese civil war, and went on to become a member of parliament.
He claimed he had evidence that would prove his innocence and directly implicate the Israelis, but was killed one month before he was to testify against Sharon in a case brought by camp survivors in Belgium in 2001.

This weekend, the streets of Sabra and Shatila remain densely packed with people struggling to live normally at the scene of one of Lebanon's worst modern tragedies.

Legal resolution may arrive later but on this year's anniversary the families of the victims are working to balance memories of their loved ones with the ability to move beyond the tragedy.
"You can forgive but you can never forget," said Aina.

Greenspan admits Iraq was about oil, as deaths put at 1.2m

Taken from The Observer, Sunday September 16, 2007
By Peter Beaumont and Joanna Walters in New York

The man once regarded as the world's most powerful banker has bluntly declared that the Iraq war was 'largely' about oil.

Appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1987 and retired last year after serving four presidents, Alan Greenspan has been the leading Republican economist for a generation and his utterings instantly moved world markets.

In his long-awaited memoir - out tomorrow in the US - Greenspan, 81, who served as chairman of the US Federal Reserve for almost two decades, writes: 'I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.'

In The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, he is also crystal clear on his opinion of his last two bosses, harshly criticising George W Bush for 'abandoning fiscal constraint' and praising Bill Clinton's anti-deficit policies during the Nineties as 'an act of political courage'. He also speaks of Clinton's sharp and 'curious' mind, and 'old-fashioned' caution about the dangers of debt.

Greenspan's damning comments about the war come as a survey of Iraqis, which was released last week, claims that up to 1.2 million people may have died because of the conflict in Iraq - lending weight to a 2006 survey in the Lancet that reported similarly high levels.

More than one million deaths were already being suggested by anti-war campaigners, but such high counts have consistently been rejected by US and UK officials. The estimates, extrapolated from a sample of 1,461 adults around the country, were collected by a British polling agency, ORB, which asked a random selection of Iraqis how many people living in their household had died as a result of the violence rather than from natural causes.

Previous estimates gave a range between 390,000 and 940,000, the most prominent of which - collected by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and reported in the Lancet in October 2006 - suggested 654,965 deaths.

Although the household survey was carried out by a polling organisation, rather than researchers, it has again raised the spectre that the 2003 invasion has caused a far more substantial death toll than officially acknowledged.

The ORB survey follows an earlier report by the organisation which suggested that one in four Iraqi adults had lost a family member to violence. The latest survey suggests that in Baghdad that number is as high as one in two. If true, these latest figures would suggest the death toll in Iraq now exceeds that of the Rwandan genocide in which about 800,000 died.

The Lancet survey was criticised by some experts and by George Bush and British officials. In private, however, the Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser Sir Roy Anderson described it as 'close to best practice'.

Articles of faith

When two eminent US scholars wrote about the 'Israel lobby' they were vilified by colleagues and the Washington Post. This week Barack Obama joined the attack. Ed Pilkington hears their story

Taken from The Guardian
Saturday September 15, 2007

Given the reception John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt received for their London Review of Books essay last year on what they called the Israel Lobby, it would have been understandable had they crawled away to a dark corner of their respective academic institutions to lick their wounds. Their argument that US foreign policy has been distorted by the stultifying power of pro-Israeli groups and individuals was met with a firestorm of protest that has smouldered ever since.

The authors were assailed with headlines such as the Washington Post's: "Yes, it's anti-semitic." The neocon pundit William Kristol accused them in the Wall Street Journal of "anti-Judaism" while the New York Sun linked them with the white supremacist David Duke.

The row became a focal point of a much wider debate about the limits of permitted criticism of the state of Israel and its American-based supporters that has ensnared several academics and writers, including a former president. Jimmy Carter was castigated earlier this year when he published a plea for a renewed engagement in the Middle-East peace process under the admittedly provocative title, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. He was labelled an anti-semitic "Jew hater" and even a Nazi sympathiser. Meanwhile, a British-born historian at New York University, Tony Judt, has been warned off or disinvited from four academic events in the past year. On one occasion, he was asked to promise not to mention Israel in a speech on the Holocaust. He refused.

For Walt, the explosion of criticism after the LRB publication in March 2006 struck particularly close to home as two members of his own Harvard faculty turned on him. Ruth Wisse, professor of Yiddish literature, compared Walt and his University of Chicago co-author's work to that of a notorious 19th-century German anti-semite. Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard criminal law professor who represented OJ Simpson, charged them with culling some of their references from neo-Nazi websites.

Given the battering he has taken, Walt is remarkably upbeat. "We were surprised by how nasty it got," says the Harvard professor. "The David Duke reference, the neo-Nazi websites - these were intended to smear us and swing attention on to us rather than to what we were saying. It wasn't pleasant, but it never made me doubt what we had written or doubt myself." Standing tall in the face of attack is one thing; to raise your head above the parapet for a second round is quite another. But that is what the Mearsheimer/Walt double act are doing: they have gone on the offensive with the publication of a book-length version of their original treatise.

As night follows day, the dispute has started anew. The New York Sun has dedicated a section of its website to the controversy; Dershowitz has revved up again, calling the book "a bigoted attack on the American Jewish community"; and Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, has gone to the trouble of writing his own book in riposte - and it's in the bookshops a week before The Israel Lobby appears.

There is one obvious question to put to Walt: why do it to yourself? Wasn't one stoning enough? "We did ask ourselves, did we want to go through this again?" he admits, but only to add: "It didn't take us all that long to figure out we had more to say and it was our job to say it."

By writing a 496-page book, as opposed to the original article's mere 13,000 words, the authors hope to present a more nuanced version of their case. They have taken in new examples to support their thesis, notably the second Lebanon war, which broke out in the interim, and have sought to address some of the points raised by critics.

The book follows the structure of the original article fairly faithfully, and its argument can be summarised thus: in recent years the US government has given Israel unconditional support, showering it with $3bn a year irrespective of the human rights violations it inflicts on the Palestinians. It was not always this way - think of the Suez crisis of 1956 when America stepped in to frustrate Israel's (and Britain's) ambitions. But from the 1960s onwards the relationship deepened to the extent that today American and Israeli interests are deemed by many Americans to be essentially identical.

The authors ask why this is the case, and argue that strategically there is no reason for it. The end of the cold war removed a central justification for the special relationship, as Israel no longer provided the US with a barrier to communism in the region. Post 9/11, the US and Israel are presented as partners against terrorism, but America's vulnerability to attack partly stems from its support for Israel, which has provoked hostility in the Muslim world. Nor is there a moral argument for indiscriminately backing Israel - as a towering military presence in the Middle East, Israel is no longer under existential threat.

So what explains this ongoing largesse? The authors conclude that the answer lies with the Israel lobby, a loose coalition of individuals and organisations that wants US leaders to treat Israel as though it were the 51st state. The lobby stifles debate, inhibits criticism of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands and maintains the special relationship despite the fact that it has become a liability both for the US and for Israel itself.

In its transition from literary journal essay to stand-alone book, the authors have made a few telling alterations of presentation and emphasis. The most vivid is that in the body of the text they have demoted lobby to lower case: the Israel Lobby has become the Israel lobby. Walt sees that as the most minor of changes, remarking that: "John and I don't even remember how the capital L got used in the first place."

More substantially, perhaps, they have used the extra space to make several robust disclaimers, insisting that they have never questioned the right of Israel to exist or the legitimacy of the Israel lobby itself. They have also filed down some of the more jagged edges of their argument, such as their position on the role the lobby played in the build-up to the Iraq war. They still maintain that the war would "almost certainly not have occurred" were it not for the Israel lobby, but they soften the claim by adding that America's belligerent mood in the aftermath of the attacks on New York and Washington also had much to do with it.

Such nuances make for a more sophisticated read, but they fall far short of the revisions - the authors would say capitulations - that would be needed to satisfy their detractors.

Foxman is one of the most vocal critics. His new book, timed specifically to counteract the arrival on bookshelves of The Israel Lobby, pulls no punches. Its title is representative of the tone of the book: The Deadliest Lies. "This is a big lie that the Jewish people have lived with throughout history," he tells me from his New York office. "Up to now these anti-semitic canards have been heard on the fringes, but to have two respected academics repeat them legitimises the debate and penetrates the mainstream."

More measured - though still forceful - criticism of the Mearsheimer and Walt book has come from those titans of US journalism, the New York Times and the New Yorker. The Times' book critic William Grimes takes a swipe at the authors' claim that it is time for the US to treat Israel as a normal country: "But it's not. And America won't. That's realism." David Remnick, editor of the New Yorker, suggests none too flatteringly that the book is symptomatic of a polarised era in which Americans are searching for an explanation to the evils of the times.

In the swirl of debate, the squabbling parties keep coming back to the core concept of an Israel lobby, case notwithstanding. The authors have been meticulously careful in the book to stress that they see the lobby as a loose coalition. It is not a single, unified movement and it is certainly not a cabal or conspiracy. Yet no matter how profuse their disclaimers, they have not assuaged those antagonists for whom any lumping together of Jews or Jewish interest groups sets alarm bells ringing. "Visit any anti-semitic website and you'll hear the same old themes: the Jews have too much power; they exercise political influence not as individual citizens but as a cabal," writes Foxman. "Walt and Mearsheimer sound all the same notes, with a subtlety and pseudo-scholarly style that makes their poison all the more dangerous."

In our conversation, Walt accepts the phrase "the lobby" is "an awkward term as many of the groups and people in it don't operate on Capitol Hill. It's shorthand - you could call it the pro-Israel movement". One wonders why he and his co-author have stuck with it, then, when it has allowed their detractors to smear other more credible parts of their argument.

Take the slanging match over the causes of the Iraq war. Walt and Mearsheimer rightly lay a large part of the blame for this disastrous escapade on the neoconservatives within the Bush administration, but they then go on to define those neocons as an integral part of the Israel lobby. Books have been written about the various motivations of the neocons. Sympathy for Israel is one, but there are many others - the desire to spread democracy, a belief in the positive uses of military intervention, denigration of international institutions. To suggest that the neocons and the Israel lobby are one and the same is a conflation too far.

But the authors have brought into the open aspects of American intellectual life that needed airing. They cast light on the overweening activities of specific pro-Israeli groups, most importantly the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Aipac is a self-avowed lobby (it calls itself America's pro-Israel lobby) and has been ranked the second most powerful such body in the US. With a staff of more than 150 and a budget of $60m, it wields extensive influence among Congressmen, working to ensure criticism of Israel is rarely aired on Capitol Hill. The Guardian invited it to comment, but it declined.

Though Foxman insists the furore is proof that debate is alive and kicking, Walt and Mearsheimer have also put their finger on the limits of acceptable discourse in the US. It is notable that none of the candidates standing for president in 2008 have a word of criticism for Israeli state behaviour; this week Barack Obama pulled an advert for his campaign from the Amazon page selling The Israel Lobby, denouncing the book as "just wrong".

So what happened to America's commitment to free speech, the First Amendment? "We knew from De Tocqueville this country is driven by conformity," Judt says. "The law can't make people speak out - it can only prevent people from stopping free speech. What's happened is not censorship, but self-censorship." Judt believes that a few well-organised groups including Aipac have succeeded in proscribing debate. He recalls a prominent Democratic senator confiding to him that he would never criticise Israel in public. "He told me that if he did so, for the rest of his career he would never be able to get a majority for what he cared about. He would be cut off at the knees."

In the final chapter of the book, Walt and Mearsheimer make a shopping list of reforms. They call for: a two-state solution to the Middle East crisis; greater separation of US foreign policy from Israel for both nations' sake; and campaign finance reform to reduce the power of pro-Israeli groups.

Nothing outlandish, or even controversial, there. Coming at the end of such a bumpy ride of claim and counter-claim, the conclusion feels almost disappointingly gentle. That in itself bears eloquent witness to the state of affairs in America today, where thoughts considered unremarkable elsewhere are deemed beyond the pale.

· The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt is published by Allen Lane at £25. To order a copy for £23 with free UK p&p go to guardian.co.uk/bookshop or call 0870 836 0875

Mystery deepens over Israeli strike on Syria

The media continuously speculates the destruction of Israel by Iran, Syria and other so called Arab state, but the real aggressor occupies and attacks its neighbours little is mentioned nor questions asked by the West. I suppose some of our brothers are more equal than others...

Taken from The Independent, UK, 15 September 2007
By Donald Macintyre

Israel is still maintaining official silence a week after Syria complained that Israeli aircraft invaded its airspace in a mysterious incident which raised tensions and triggered a welter of US media speculation about possible targets for the operation.

Explanations – for what anonymous US officials have said was a strike inside Syria – range from suggesting it was aimed at the shipment of weapons to Hizbollah from Iran, to saying Syria may be building a nuclear facility with North Korean help.

Syria, which has asked for a formal complaint to be "circulated" to the UN Security Council, said last week that Israeli aircraft unloaded ammunition after being spotted and fired on by its air defences but inflicted no damage.

Reuters, The New York Times and CNN have all quoted officials – mainly in the US – as saying that Israel carried out a strike in Syria. Reuters quoted an unnamed US official on Wednesday as saying: "The strike I can confirm. The target I can't." The agency quoted another US official as saying that reports on the targets were "confused".

Meanwhile, The Washington Post reported this week a US official as saying that recent satellite imagery, mainly provided by Israel, suggested that Syria may building some form of nuclear facility with the help of material unloaded by North Korea.

The US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, did little to discourage such speculation when she told Fox News this week in response to a question about possible nuclear developments in Syria that her government is working to prevent "the world's most dangerous people from having the world's most dangerous weapons".

The only hint – if such it was – dropped by an unusually taciturn Israel was the release of a video by the Israeli military shortly after the incident showing a broadly smiling Chief of Staff, Gabi Ashkenazy, shaking the hands of his deputy while sharing a Jewish New Year toast. This has helped to fuel speculation that Israel had conducted a successful mission in Syria.

Syria has not fought an outright war with Israel since 1973 when it briefly overran and was then repulsed from the Golan Heights, sovereign Syrian territory captured by Israel in the Six Day War six years earlier. Syria has long agitated for return of the Golan while Israel blames Damascus for its succour to Hizbollah and militant Palestinian factions like Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

There have been persistent reports over the last year that the US has discouraged Israel from responding to oblique overtures from the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for a negotiated recovery of the Golan. The New York Times quoted equally anonymous US sources on Wednesday as saying that the likely targets were weapons shipments Israel believed Iran was sending to Hizbollah through Syria. That claim was dismissed later in the day by Bashar Ja'afari, the Syrian ambassador to the United Nations.

"This is blah blah," Mr Ja'afari said. "This is nonsense, this is an unfounded statement. It is not up to the Israelis or anyone else to assess what we have in Syria. There was no target, they dropped their munitions. They were running away after they were confronted by our air defence."

European diplomats who met with the Syrian Vice-President, Walid Moallem, reportedly formed the impression that Syria was not planning a military retaliation. But the Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister, Faysal Mekdad, warned after a meeting with his Russian counterpart yesterday that growing tension could yet spark violence in the region and that Syria has the "means to respond in ways that will preserve its position of power".

Palestine: democracy not Zionism

Taken from Yahoo news, Fri Sep 14, 2007
By John V. Whitbeck of The Christian Science Monitor

With some sort of "meeting" or "conference" to kick start the peace process now being touted by the Bush administration, there is at least the appearance of an understanding in Washington of the importance for the region and the world of solving the "Palestinian problem."

However, if this problem is ever to be solved, it must be redefined. Those who truly seek justice and peace in the Middle East must dare to speak openly and honestly of the "Zionism problem" – and then to draw the moral, ethical, and practical conclusions that follow.

When South Africa was under a racial-supremacist, settler-colonial regime, the world recognized that the problem was the ideology and political system of the state. Anyone outside the country who referred to the "black problem" or the "native problem" (or, for that matter, to the "white problem") would instantly have been branded a racist.

The world also recognized that the solution to that problem could not be found either in "separation" (apartheid in Afrikaans) and scattered native reservations (called "independent states" by the South African regime and Bantustans by the rest of the world) or in driving the settler-colonial group in power into the sea. Rather, the solution had to be found – and to almost universal satisfaction was found – in democracy, in white South Africans growing out of their racial-supremacist ideology and political system and accepting that their interests and their children's futures would be best served in a democratic, non-racist state with equal rights for all who live there.

The solution for the land which, until it was literally wiped off the map in 1948, was called Palestine is the same. It can only be democracy.

The ever-receding "political horizon" for a decent two-state solution, which, on the ground, becomes less practical with each passing year of expanding settlements, bypass roads, and walls, is weighed down by a multitude of excruciatingly difficult "final status" issues. Israeli governments have consistently refused to discuss these final-status issues seriously, preferring to postpone them to the end of a road which is never reached – and which, almost certainly, is intended never to be reached.

Just as marriage is vastly less complicated than divorce, democracy is vastly less complicated than partition. A democratic post-Zionist solution would not require any borders to be agreed, any division of Jerusalem, anyone to move from his current home, or any assets to be evaluated and apportioned. Full rights of citizenship would simply be extended to all the surviving natives still living in the country, as happened in the United States in the early 20th century and in South Africa in the late 20th century.

The obstacle to such a simple – and morally unimpeachable – solution is, of course, intellectual and psychological. Traumatized by the Holocaust and perceived insecurity as a Jewish island in an Arab sea, Israelis have immense psychological problems in coming to grips with the practical impossibility of sustaining forever what most of mankind views as a racial-supremacist, settler-colonial regime founded upon the ethnic cleansing of an indigenous population.

Indeed, Israelis have placed themselves in a virtually impossible situation. To taste its bitter essence, Americans might try to imagine what life in their country would be like if the European settlers had not virtually exterminated the indigenous population and if almost half of today's American population were Indians, without basic human rights, impoverished, smoldering with resentment, and visible every day as the inescapable living evidence of the injustice inflicted on their ancestors.

This would not be a pleasant society in which to live. Both colonizers and colonized would be progressively degraded and dehumanized. The colonizers could, rationally, conclude that they could never be forgiven by those they had dispossessed and that no "solution" was imaginable. So it has been, and continues to be, in the lands under Israeli rule.

Perhaps the coming "meeting" or "conference" will be the last gasp of the fruitless pursuit of a separation-based solution. Perhaps those who care about justice and peace and believe in democracy can then find ways to stimulate Israelis to move beyond Zionist ideology toward a more humane, hopeful, and democratic view of present realities and future possibilities.

No one would suggest that the moral, ethical, and intellectual transformation necessary to achieve a decent one-state solution will be easy. However, more and more people now recognize that a decent two-state solution has become impossible.

It is surely time for concerned people everywhere – and particularly for Americans – to imagine a better way, to encourage Israelis to imagine a better way, and to help both Israelis and Palestinians to achieve it. It is surely time to seriously consider democracy and to give it a chance.

• John V. Whitbeck, an international lawyer who has advised the Palestinian negotiating team in negotiations with Israel, is author of "The World According to Whitbeck."

IDF blocks Aksa mosque to Palestinians

Taken from The Jerusalem Post, Sep 14, 2007
Article by the Associated Press,


Hundreds of Palestinians thronged two major West Bank checkpoints, trying to reach the Al Aksa mosque in Jerusalem on the first Friday of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, despite Israeli restrictions.


Palestinians pray at the separation barrier at the Kalandiya checkpoint near the West Bank town of Ramallah, Friday

IDF troops turned back many of the West Bank faithful. Only men above the age of 45 and women above the age of 35, who had also obtained special permits, were allowed to enter the mosque, the third holiest shrine of Islam, said police spokesman Shmuel Ben-Ruby.

Later Friday, several tens of thousands of Palestinians, many of them Jerusalem residents not affected by the restrictions, participated in the Al Aksa service, and the crowd dispersed peacefully.

Hundreds of Israeli police were deployed in streets and alleys in and around Jerusalem's walled Old City where the Al Aksa Mosque compound is located.

Troops also took up positions at two major West Bank checkpoints, one to the south of Jerusalem and one to the north. The checkpoints are built into Israel's West Bank separation barrier, which rings most of Jerusalem to control Palestinian movement into Israel.

At the southern checkpoint, near the biblical town of Bethlehem, hundreds of Palestinians, many of them elderly, pushed up against police lines set up near the separation barrier, in this area a towering wall.

At one point, the crowd pushed through the police line. One woman crawled on her hands and knees, another fell to the ground as people behind her surged forward. IDF troops shouted at people to get back.

At the northern Kalandiya crossing, near the city of Ramallah, hundreds of people waited to pass.

Hamdi Abu Fadi, 44, was turned back because he didn't meet the age requirement. Abu Fadi said he'd try to sneak into Jerusalem in another area, in hopes of reaching Al Aksa. Prayers performed at the shrine are considered more powerful than worship in another mosque.

Palestinians have long complained that Israel is violating their right to freedom of worship by restricting access to a major shrine. "It's a crime against us all year long, whether during Ramadan or any other month," said Abu Fadi.

Israel says it imposes the restrictions to prevent possible attacks by terrorists. Ramadan is a time of heightened religious fervor which security officials fear could increase the motivation for carrying out attacks.

--------------------------------------------------
What kind of democracy occupies a foreign land and prevents its citizens from praying within its own land? Well you don't need me to spell it out! What next, Israel occupies the whole of Arabia for security reasons? Get real and leave all occupied land and work for peace & love with neighbouring countries (and fellow citizens) not tyranny!

Arabs out of Israeli high-tech

Center for Jewish-Arab Economic Development reports only 2% of high-tech employees are Arab despite comprising 10% of engineering graduates; says gap due to discrimination, holds events to solve problem

Taken from Ynet news, 09.08.07,
By Tani Goldstein

According to the Center for Jewish-Arab Economic Development, only 2% of high-tech employees in Israel are Arab, despite the fact that Arabs make up about one fifth of the country's population and 10% of engineering graduates.

The center suspects this gap is the result of discrimination, since many Arab graduates spend months sending out job applications in a field where the average time it takes to find employment is between two weeks to a month.

Arab Minority In an attempt to bridge the gap, the center held a special event in association with Personal Match, a high-tech placement company: An employment fair aimed solely at engineers from the Arab sector.

The event took plaice at the Dan Carmel Hotel in Haifa this last week, with 20 high-tech companies in search of employees.

One-hundred-and-fifty engineers and students arrived at the fair, leaving an impression on the interviewers as one said, "These guys are no less qualified than those I've met at other fairs, I have no idea why they can't find a job."

Company prefers Jewish friend
Hisham Odeh, a 32-year-old software engineer who currently works at Bezeq's technical support, arrived at the fair in search for a better job, and described the difficulties and discrimination he has faced over the years.

"My situation today is relatively good. I have a job and have come here to better my status, but over the years I have certainly felt discrimination. In the past, when I was looking for a job, many times I would see my Jewish friends who studied with me, with the exact same qualifications as me - in the best case, some of them were worse than me - find jobs while I was being rejected.

"Once I sent a CV to some company and got no reply. Later, I sent it again, in the name of a Jewish friend, and was called for an interview. To make sure it wasn't just a mistake, I immediately called the number from which I was called for the interview, identified myself with my real name, and asked what was up. They told me the job was off the market."

Ronen Koehler, head of human resources at Check Point Software Technologies Ltd., feels there is no intentional discrimination against Arab workers, and attributes the gap in numbers to their poor recruitment, saying Arabs showed up to job interview less prepared and with less confidence.

Koehler also said the problem may be geographical sometimes, since most Arabs live in the north while most of the high-tech companies are located in central Israel. "It's a fact that there are more Arabs in high-tech in Haifa then in Tel Aviv," he said.

'We can change things'
The employment fair is just one of the many initiatives the Center for Jewish-Arab Economic Development is carrying out in cooperation with commercial companies to increase Arab presence in the high-tech field.

Hilmi Kitani, a director at the center, said the companies taking part in the fair said they had not employed many Arabs due to lack of awareness rather than racism.

"There are companies that are interested in changing their attitude, and we can help them. They say, yes, we made a mistake, and then we can change things. If a company has rejected candidates due to lack of awareness, we will try to increase awareness that will give them an equal chance.

"There are also problems that come from the candidates themselves. The companies report to us that Arab candidates have poorly written CVs, since they are not trained at it.

"Arab candidates show lack of confidence and lack of skill at job interviews. Therefore, we are currently holding courses and workshops for hundreds of Arab engineers teaching them how to deal with CVs and job interviews," Kitani said.

Adi Bildner, the deputy director of human resources at HP Israel is also playing an active role in the center's activities.

"This fair is fantastic and excellent, but it is only one of the things we are starting to do," Bildner said. "We are raising awareness. We are setting goals for ourselves: Each of the company's departments is setting how many Arab workers it will employ by a certain date.

"We are trying to create an Arab network in which a friend brings a friend. We go to high schools in the Arab sector, in order to abate the students' fears in advance and sow seeds for the future," he said.

---------------------------------------------------------
So much for equal opportunities and democracy in Israel!

Israeli 'neo-Nazi gang' arrested

Taken from the BBC, Sunday, 9 September 2007

Israeli police say they have broken up a gang of neo-Nazis who are accused of carrying out attacks on foreigners, gay people and religious Jews.

The eight suspects, aged 16-21, are all Israeli citizens from the former Soviet Union. They were arrested a month ago, but the news only emerged on Saturday.

Police say searches of their homes yielded Nazi uniforms, portraits of Adolf Hitler, knives, guns and TNT.

Israel was founded in the wake of the Nazi Holocaust in which millions died.

The arrests follow a year-long inquiry which began after a synagogue in Petah Tikva, a city east of Tel Aviv, was desecrated with graffiti of Nazi swastikas and the name of Nazi leader Adolf Hitler.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert expressed his horror at what he called "violence for the sake of violence."

"I am sure that there is not a person in Israel who can remain indifferent to these scenes, which indicate that we too as a society have failed in the education of these youths," he said.
Tattoos

The eight accused, who include the group's alleged leader, are all from Petah Tikva.

The gang members sported tattoos popular with white supremacists - including the number 88, code for Heil Hitler because "H" is the eighth letter of the alphabet.

"We believe that this is the main gang working in the area... the main gang that exists [in Israel] that attempts to use Hitler's ideology," police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld told AFP news agency.

Police say the gang members would target homosexuals, Jews who wore a skull cap and drug addicts, often video taping their attacks.

"It is difficult to believe that Nazi ideology sympathisers can exist in Israel, but it is a fact," Revital Almog, the police official who led the investigation, told Israeli public radio.

Video tapes
The suspects have admitted assaulting a number of people in Tel Aviv, most of them foreign workers.

Ms Almog said the gang would pick on someone who appeared unable to defend themselves and then attack.

They often filmed or photographed the violence.

Footage of the attacks show people lying on the ground whilst being kicked by more than one assailant.

In one clip a man is hit around the back of the head with a bottle.

According to the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz one video shows gang members surrounding a Russian drug addict as he admits to being a Jew. The youths then order him onto his knees to beg for forgiveness for being Jewish and a drug addict before viciously beating not only him, but also another man who tries to intervene.

The suspects all migrated to Israel under the Law of Return which allows anyone with at least one Jewish grandparent to become a citizen.

Ms Almog said of the accused, "their connection to Judaism is distant, through grandparents or distant family connections".

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

It is sad of see what is happening inside Israel but The Zionist "Law of return" rule that allows Jews from all over the world (regardless of whether they have any connection to the State of Israel) the right to live in Israel and take up homes and settlements in Palestinian lands is a farce and this example proves it. Palestinans who have lived on the land for centuries have been kicked out of Israel and into refugee camps and have been forbidden to come back to their homes. Where is the justice in that? Kick out Palestinians (your neighbours) and let in the Nazi's (your enemies).

Partitioning India Over Lunch (And Another Fine Mess!)

Today is the 60th Anniversary of India and Pakistan's Independence from the British Rule. Whilst people all over the world celebrate with joy, this news piece shows what happened during the last period of the British Rule and why so many innocent people died and why there are still problems in that region...

Taken from the BBC, Friday, 10 August 2007

Memoirs of a British civil servant never seen in public until now show how much the partition of India was decided by just two men, the BBC's Alastair Lawson reports.

In a quiet village in the northern English county of Yorkshire, Robert Beaumont rifles through his father's archives.

The various and somewhat tatty pieces of paper he unearths are no ordinary collection of paternal memoirs.

They are the thoughts and reflections of his father, Christopher Beaumont, who played a central role in the partition of India in 1947, which resulted in arguably the largest mass migration of peoples the world has ever seen.


Christopher Beaumont was not an admirer of Mountbatten

After the death in 1989 of Mountbatten's Private Secretary, Sir George Abell, Beaumont was probably not exaggerating when he claimed to be the only person left who "knew the truth about partition".

'Bending the border'

It is estimated that around 14.5 million people moved to Pakistan from India or travelled in the opposite direction from Pakistan to India.

In 1947, Beaumont was private secretary to the senior British judge, Sir Cyril Radcliffe, who was chairman of the Indo-Pakistan Boundary Commission.

Radcliffe was responsible for dividing the vast territories of British India into India and Pakistan, separating 400 million people along religious lines.


It was a time of mass migration, uncertainty and bloodshed

The family documents show that Beaumont had a stark assessment of the role played by Britain in the last days of the Raj.

"The viceroy, Mountbatten, must take the blame - though not the sole blame - for the massacres in the Punjab in which between 500,000 to a million men, women and children perished," he writes.

"The handover of power was done too quickly."

The central theme ever present in Beaumont's historic paperwork is that Mountbatten not only bent the rules when it came to partition - he also bent the border in India's favour.

The documents repeatedly allege that Mountbatten put pressure on Radcliffe to alter the boundary in India's favour.

On one occasion, he complains that he was "deftly excluded" from a lunch between the pair in which a substantial tract of Muslim-majority territory - which should have gone to Pakistan - was instead ceded to India.

Beaumont's papers say that the incident brought "grave discredit on both men".

Punjab 'disaster'

But Beaumont - who later in life was a circuit judge in the UK - is most scathing about how partition affected the Punjab, which was split between India and Pakistan.

"The Punjab partition was a disaster," he writes.

"Geography, canals, railways and roads all argued against dismemberment.

"The trouble was that Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs were an integrated population so that it was impossible to make a frontier without widespread dislocation.

"Thousands of people died or were uprooted from their homes in what was in effect a civil war.
"By the end of 1947 there were virtually no Hindus or Sikhs living in west Punjab - now part of Pakistan - and no Muslims in the Indian east.

"The British government and Mountbatten must bear a large part of the blame for this tragedy."

Personality clash

Beaumont goes on to argue that it was "irresponsible" of Lord Mountbatten to insist that Beaumont complete the boundary within a six-week deadline - despite his protests.

On Kashmir, Beaumont argues that it would have been "far more sensible" to have made the flash-point territory a separate country.

According to Beaumont, the "formidably intelligent" Radcliffe "did not get on well" with Mountbatten.

"They could not have been more different," he writes.

British Viceroy Louis Mountbatten read a message from King George VI on the eve of India's independence on the 14th August 1947.

Mountbatten's address (Real Player)

"Mountbatten was very good-looking and had a well-deserved history of personal bravery but, to put it mildly, he had few literary tastes.

"Radcliffe... was very quietly civilised. It was a relationship so like chalk and cheese that Lady Mountbatten had to use all her adroitness to keep conversation between them on an even keel."
Beaumont died in 2002 - his son Robert remembers him with great affection.

"He was also a man of supreme honesty, who spoke out on numerous occasions against the official British version of events surrounding partition without in any way being disloyal to his country," Robert Beaumont recalls.

U.K. May Seek Extradition Over British Cameraman's Gaza Death

Taken from Haaretz, Israel, 06/08/2007
By Akiva Eldar

Britain may seek the extradition of Israel Defense Forces troops in the shooting death of a British television cameraman in May 2003 in the southern Gaza Strip unless Attorney General Menachem Mazuz reverses his position and carries out a criminal investigation against those suspected of involvement.

In a letter to the family of James Miller, a 34-year-old photojournalist shot and killed in Rafah, Lord Peter Goldsmith, Britain's attorney general, says he wrote Mazuz on June 26 and gave him six weeks to respond. The deadline is on Tuesday.

According to Goldsmith, after an inquest by a coroner, Dr. Andrew Scott Reid, Miller had been unlawfully killed by troops of the Israel Defense Forces.

"Dr. Scott Reid wrote to me and invited me to consider instituting criminal proceedings in the United Kingdom against... members of the Israeli Defence Forces... for an offence of willful killing contrary to section I of the Geneva Conventions Act 1957."

While Goldsmith's letter does not explicitly discuss a possible request for an extradition, British law requires that any suspects be in British custody for charges to be brought up against them.

Israel and Britain have an extradition treaty, and a refusal to extradite military personnel may result in a crisis between the two countries.

Justice Ministry sources confirmed that Goldsmith's letter had been received, but could not say how they would respond in the matter.

According to attorneys for the Miller family, Avigdor Feldman and Michael Sfard, as of last night there had still not been an official Israeli response to the letter from the British attorney general.

Miller was killed while filming a documentary in the southern Gaza town of Rafah, on the border with Egypt. According to Alrahman Abdallah, a freelance journalist who accompanied Miller as his translator, the photographer was shot as he tried to exit a Rafah house while holding a white flag.

A British inquiry, in part based on evidence from the video recording of the incident, showed that Miller was shot in the neck by an IDF patrol.

At the time the IDF expressed its sorrow for Miller's death and said that "the entry of photographers into war zones during exchanges of fire endangers both sides."

However, according to eyewitnesses, there had been calm in the area at the time of the shooting.

Initially, the IDF suggested that Miller had been killed by Palestinians. Ballistic tests carried out on behalf of Miller's family showed that IDF troops killed Miller, and the Military Advocate General ordered an investigation into the killing.

Following a lengthy investigation, it was decided in March 2005 not to press criminal charges against those involved because of insufficient evidence. The commander of the Israeli force that shot and killed Miller faced disciplinary proceedings for illegal use of firearms, but was exonerated.

Miller's family filed a suit against the State of Israel for murder, and in 2006 a British jury ruled the killing a murder.

In his letter to the Miller family, Lord Goldsmith points to the conclusions of an expert analysis of the video of the shooting, which he says was sent to Mazuz. According to the British attorney general, the conclusions of the expert "disproved the [Israeli] suggestion that the shots came from two areas... [and] identified the direction of the shot that killed James as coming from the armoured vehicle."

In Goldsmith's letter, received by Haaretz, the British attorney general writes that the ballistic tests carried out in Israel "could only show that the bullet that killed James did not come from the rifle barrels of the weapons that were examined." In essence, the senior British official is charging Israeli authorities with tampering with evidence, there having "been a significant opportunity for the rifle barrels to have been changed."

Requests to try those responsible and compensate the family - Miller is survived by his wife Sophy and two children - were raised at high-level talks between the two countries, including meetings between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his then counterpart, Tony Blair.

According to Feldman, the Israeli government did not treat these requests with the required seriousness and has not considered it necessary to compensate the families.

Israel Relents On Little Girl Struck Down By War

Taken from The Sunday Times, UK, August 5, 2007
By Uzi Mahnaimi

A Palestinian girl paralysed from the neck down when an Israeli missile struck her family’s car has won a court victory over the Israeli army.

Marya Aman, 5, whose plight moved Sunday Times readers to donate £17,000 ($34,000) earlier this year, has been granted the temporary right to remain in Israel to receive life-saving treatment for her injuries.

An interim injunction issued by the Israeli High Court last week blocked plans by Ehud Barak, the Israeli defence minister, to move Marya to the West Bank, depriving her of specialised medical care available only in Israel.

In a letter to Hamdi, Marya’s father, the Israeli defence ministry refused to grant them residency status and demanded that Marya be moved for treatment to Ramallah in the West Bank, far from her family in Gaza.

The next stage of Marya’s battle to stay in Israel will be fought before three High Court judges next month. “I am delighted by the court’s decision,” said Hamdi, 29. “I hope that in the next court session the judges will treat Marya like their own daughter and will take care of her for the rest of her life.”

As Hamdi spoke, Marya giggled from her hospital bed, talking with her friends and oblivious to her victory over the Israeli defence establishment.

She knows nothing of the ministry’s bid to move her out of Israeli care to the West Bank, where medical standards are far lower. She also believes that she will recover – a dream that doctors say will never be fulfilled.

She was paralysed from the neck down by an Israeli missile in Gaza more than a year ago. She had been singing a song and dancing in the white Mitsubishi saloon carrying eight members of her family when it was caught in a missile blast which struck a nearby vehicle driven by militants. She lost her mother, older brother and grandmother while her little brother, uncle and father were all wounded.

Marya’s spine was fractured and both her lungs were punctured. As a result she is now confined to a motorised wheelchair that she operates with a mouth stick.

Her story, first published in The Sunday Times in February, prompted a wave of donations that were sent to her in Jerusalem and will be used for a specially adapted car to allow her to escape her hospital bed. “She will need it for the rest of her life.

I want to thank all the generous readers who have donated money, from the bottom of my heart,” said Hamdi.

Marya also thanked the “good people who are helping me”. Talking over the phone, she said: “I will also buy some presents for my little brother Muaman.”

Marya is in the respiratory ward of Alyn hospital in Jerusalem, the only such facility in the Middle East and essential to her survival. “My life is over,” said Hamdi, who helps to nurse her.

“I’m here for my daughter. To move her to the West Bank, as the defence minister wants, would be a death sentence for her. I checked in Ramallah. There isn’t and there never will be suitable equipment there to keep her alive.”

The hospital has become a de facto prison for Marya, her father and three-year-old Muaman.
Hamdi is confined to the hospital as he takes daily care of Marya, feeding and bathing her and changing her bags and drips. As a Gaza citizen without an Israeli residence permit, he cannot rent a flat near the hospital and is reluctant to leave the premises for fear of deportation.

Muaman was badly traumatised by the missile attack and needs psychiatric treatment. His father cannot afford this and meanwhile he is being comforted by his paralysed sister.

Having received a laptop, Marya spends much of her time operating it with her chin. “I like the computer very much,” she said cheerfully. Marya is studying so she can keep up with her classmates, who she thinks she will soon rejoin at school. She has already mastered Hebrew.

A school was found for her in Jerusalem but she cannot attend it as she and her family have no right to stay. “I only ask the Israelis to treat Marya as they would treat an injured Israeli child. I’m not asking for compensation for what happened,” said Hamdi.

Marya will need £10,000 ($20,000) a month for the rest of her life to provide for round-the-clock nursing, accommodation, a special wheelchair and a customised car. The Israeli government refuses to provide it, agreeing to pay - “as a gesture of goodwill” - only £300 ($600) a month rent for one year.

“She thinks she will recover,” Hamdi said sadly. “We haven’t told her the truth, that she will be confined to her life-support machine for ever.”

Readers wishing to help should send a cheque made out to Marya Aman to: Foreign Desk, The Sunday Times, 1 Pennington Street, London E98 1ST. We will ensure the money reaches her bank account safely

Army Charges IDF Officer Over Wrongful Shooting Of Palestinian

Taken from Haaretz, Israel, 09/08/2007
By Yuval Azoulay and Amos Harel and News Agencies

The Israel Defense Force's military prosecutor has indicted an officer involved in the shooting of a Palestinian civilian in the West Bank last month, the army confirmed Thursday.

The officer, a lieutenant, and five of his men commandeered a local taxi, drove through the town of Dahariya and shot an unarmed Palestinian who aroused their suspicion, according to an initial army investigation.

The officer acted on his own initiative in violation of military orders, and left the wounded man on the ground without treating him, the investigation found.

The Palestinian man was later treated at a local clinic and transferred to an Israeli hospital.

The officer faced six serious charges, including aggravated assault, wrongful imprisonment, and overstepping authority in a manner that endangered lives.

According to the indictment, the officer had been ordered to patrol the outskirts of Dahariya by foot, but instead decided on his own accord to commandeer a Palestinian taxi and conduct an undercover operation in civilian clothing. The indictment also reveals that the officer had instructed his subordinates to keep quiet about the operation, which was never authorized by any of his superiors.

The indictment specifies that the officer and his troops randomly chose a taxi and stopped the driver while threatening him with their guns. The officer ordered his troops to remove the passengers from the vehicle and tie up the driver. The driver was then placed back in the cab, blindfolded, and was held there for the duration of the operation. The driver sustained bruises.

The troops then took note of an 18-year-old civilian approaching the vehicle. According to the indictment, the officer ordered one of the soldiers to "distance" the man from the car with his weapon, knowing that his gun was loaded and cocked, and that the soldier was not trained in operations such as the one they had improvised.

The indictment adds that the soldier then pointed his weapon out the window of the taxi and shot the Palestinian bystander. The bullet hit the left shoulder and exited his body through the chest. He was moderately to seriously wounded by the shot.

The indictment continues that the soldiers then abandoned the vehicle, leaving the driver bound in the back seat.

The soldier who fired the shot has not yet been indicted. Three senior commanders have been reprimanded over the incident, and all of the soldiers involved have been suspended from operational duty.

The affair, sparked by Palestinian reports of the incident, prompted GOC Central Command Gadi Shamni to conduct a rapid probe after which the entire company was barred from taking part in operations.

Shamni has also ordered an investigation into the norms and values in the battalion.

The suspects initially claimed that one of the soldiers had sprained his ankle during a morning patrol in the town and was no longer able to walk. They said the officer had then decided to stop and commandeer a Palestinian taxi.

The soldiers, belonging to the Lavi Battalion of the Kfir Infantry Brigade, went on to claim that after they had tied up the driver and taken control of the vehicle, another Palestinian approached the taxi.

The soldiers decided he was acting suspiciously and one of them fired shots in his direction, wounding him in the neck.

IDF sources said the initial investigation revealed that the soldiers had lied, and that none of them had sprained an ankle.

According to the army investigation, the platoon had decided on its own to carry out an undercover operation, without coordinating the operation with their superiors.

They allegedly removed their uniforms, donned civilian clothing and then commandeered the taxi.

The affair has caused major concerns in the Central Command. Military sources said that harsh steps are expected against the soldiers and officers involved, including perhaps the dismissal of one of them.

Palestinian Shepherds Have Water Tank, Tractor Confiscated

Taken from Haaretz, Israel, 05/08/2007
By Amira Hass

The Civil Administration confiscated a tractor and a water tank belonging to Palestinian shepherds living in the northern Jordan Valley.

This was the only readily available water source for the approximately 60 members of the Basharat and Bani-Oudeh families and their 1,500 heads of sheep and goats.

The Civil Administration is reportedly prepared to return the equipment if its owners agree to leave the area and pay transport costs.

It said the tractor was confiscated during a regular patrol because it was being used "in the commission of the offense of presence in an area declared a closed military zone."
The tractor driver, Ahmed Bani-Oudeh, said he was stopped near the Beka'ot roadblock when he was on his way to fill the tank with water.

After the equipment was confiscated last Sunday, the families have had to buy water at three times the price from nearby water tank owners.

The shepherds have been living for decades in the area of Hadidiya, east of Beka'ot, on lands owned by their home villages of Tamun and Tubas. After the 1967 War, Israel declared large areas in the northern Jordan Valley closed military zones.

Palestinians have been evacuated from these areas four times, including from privately owned lands.

At the end of 2006, the High Court of Justice rejected a request from the residents to rezone their land as residential, even though the settlement of Ro'i is located a kilometer away.

The High Court ordered the Palestinians to move to an area recommended by the Civil Administration in Area B, under Palestinian administrative control, which the residents rejected as unsuitable for farming and grazing.

In April, the Civil Administration destroyed their corrals, and they moved to an area south of Hadidiya.

In May, the residents were warned that their presence in the area would be considered illegal.

Israel To Grant West Bank Entry To Iraqi Palestinians

Taken fron Haaretz, Israel July 30, 2007
By Akiva Eldar

Israel has recently agreed to allow a group of 41 Iraqi refugees of Palestinian origin to enter the West Bank and reunite with relatives there, as a goodwill gesture to the government of Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayad.

A request by another group of 10 refugees seeking to join their relatives in the Gaza Strip was, however, denied.

The Prime Minister's Bureau confirmed Sunday night that Israeli officials were in the process of completing the necessary measures, in coordination with the Foreign Ministry and the relevant defense authorities.

The Foreign Ministry clarified to the relevant parties involved, primarily the United Nations, that Israel does not consider granting entry to Iraqi refugees a precedent heralding the return of Palestinians to the territories - and certainly not to Israel.

After discussion with the UN, it was agreed that the Palestinian Iraqis, who will enter the West Bank, will not receive refugee status and will be registered as regular citizens of the Palestinian Authority.

Prior to being allowed into the West Bank, they will undergo a detailed security check to ensure that they are not involved in terrorist activities.

Most of the refugees had been living in a camp on the border of Syria and Iraq, but a few escaped to Jordan, along with 750,000 other Iraqis, following the United States' 2003 invasion. Another 1.5 million Iraqi refugees fled to Syria.

Thousands of other refugees were stranded on the border with Syria after it was closed, with Damascus claiming that it could not longer support the massive influx of civilians fleeing Iraq.

The refugees are being supported solely by the Red Cross in refugee camps along the borders of Syria and Jordan. Arab states have rejected repeated requests by the UN and the United States to absorb refugees.

Two and a half years ago, the representative of the UN High Commission on Refugees in Israel, Michael Bavli, asked the Foreign Ministry to allow refugees to enter the territories. The request was turned down on political and security-related grounds.

Eight months ago, Bavli reiterated the request, emphasizing that the UN recognizes that there is no connection between the entry of the refugees into the territories and politics.

Dr. Riad Malchi, who is now justice minister in the Palestinian Authority, and Jamal Zakut, a confidant of Salam Fayad, raised the problem of the refugees at a meeting held between Israelis and Palestinians in Italy last April, under the auspices of an Italian peace institute.

The two Palestinian representatives to the talks suggested that Israel should allow refugees to reunite with their families in the territories, a practice that came to a halt since the start of the second intifada in September 2000.

MK Amira Dotan (Kadima), who participated in the meeting in Italy, passed on the request to the Prime Minister's Bureau and to Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. The decision to agree to the request came following the collapse of the Palestinian unity government under Ismail Haniyeh, and because of Israel's efforts to bolster the standing of PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

The 30,000-strong Palestinian community in Iraq suffered a great deal in the years that followed the fall of Saddam Hussein, at the hands of Shi'ite militants who consider them to be strong supporters of the former Iraqi dictator.

The vast majority of the Palestinians living in Iraq are originally from villages in the foothills of the Carmel Mountains of Haifa. In 1948, Iraqi officers stationed in the northern West Bank forcibly conscripted men from those villages, and then allowed them and their families to enter Iraq - but never offered them citizenship.

----------------------------------------------------------
What right does the state of Israel have to dictate who can live in a state that does not belong to them? This is such a big joke - unfortunately it is sad and true. There are many Palestinians living in neighbouring Arab countries and around the world that are refused entry into Palestine or even to their homes in what is now Israel, As someone wrote in a talkback on the Jerusalem Post " Why should European, Ashkenazy Jews have the right to return to a country that they have no ancestry to, but the Palestinians who have lived on the land for thousands of years are barred by opportunist incomers from Europe and America?". Shouldn't these Iraqi Palestinians be given shelter in Haifa? With regards to Iraqi refugees in general, it should be the responsibility of those who instigated the illegal war with Iraq to take these refugees to their countries - I'm talking about the UK and USA. Yes, the USA has only recently been accepting refugees from Iraq and placing them in Detroit, but it is not as much as say little Sweden who have accepted more than 7,200.

The Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees recently said that about 2 million Iraqis have been displaced inside the country so far, and that an estimated 2.2 million others have fled to Syria, Jordan and other neighbors. Each month, an additional 60,000 Iraqis flee their homes. The White House in February said it would accept up to 7,000 Iraqis to move to the United States by September - the truth is only 1,500 of them have been interviewed, and about 1,000 "conditionally approved" pending security checks and travel arrangements. Here are some facts: Since 2003, the year of the U.S. invasion, the United States has admitted 825 Iraqi refugees, many of them backlogged applicants from the time when Saddam Hussein was in power. By comparison, the United States has accepted 3,498 Iranians in the past nine months.

Evangelicals' Letter Backs PA State

Taken from The Jerusalem Post, Jul. 29, 200
By JPOST.COM STAFF AND ETGAR LEFKOVITS

Many evangelical Christians throughout the United States support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and seek "justice" for both sides, reads an open letter to US President George W. Bush published in Sunday's New York Times.

The letter, signed by several dozen evangelical clergy and activists, urged the Bush administration not to "grow weary" in its attempt to negotiate a "lasting peace" in the region.

The letter's authors sought to correct what they called a "serious misperception" that all American evangelicals objected to the establishment of a Palestinian state, and said they hoped that the awareness of a large body of evangelical support for a permanent status agreement between Israel and the PA would "embolden" Bush.

Those who love [Israel] are not forced to withhold criticism, the letter argued, adding that "genuine love and blessing" meant promoting one's neighbors well-being.

According to the letter's authors, both Israel and the Palestinians had rights to the land of Israel that stretched back "millennia." Both sides, the letter said, had committed acts of violence.

Only a lasting peace agreement, the letter exhorted, would end bloodshed and ensure that each side had a "viable" state. To this end, the letter's authors expressed their support for the road map peace plan, and endorsed former British prime minister Tony Blair's efforts in his new role as the Quartet's Middle East envoy.

"We renew our prayers and support for your leadership... and justice and peace for all the people in the Holy Land," the letter concluded.

But other senior evangelical Christian leaders in the US blasted the letter as misrepresenting mainstream evangelical beliefs.

"The authors of this letter do not represent the views of the vast majority of Bible-believing mainstream evangelicals in America," said San Antonio-based Pastor John C. Hagee, a prominent Israel supporter.

"The problem in the Middle East is that Israel has no partner for peace, and Israel's neighbors refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist," Hagee said.

He added that the assertion by letter's writers that the Palestinians have a historic connection to the Holy Land is "absolutely incorrect."

Hagee's organization "Christians United for Israel" which has been dubbed the Christian AIPAC and which held its second-annual Washington summit last week with 4,500 delegates from across the US, is planning on sending US President George W. Bush its own letter voicing their opposition to American pressure on Israel for any further land withdrawals.

A list of the letter's signatories:

Ronald J. Sider, President
Evangelicals for Social Action

Don Argue, President
Northwest University

Raymond J. Bakke, Chancellor
Bakke Graduate University

Gary M. Benedict, President
The Christian & Missionary Alliance

George K. Brushaber, President
Bethel University

Gary M. Burge, Professor
Wheaton College & Graduate School

Tony Campolo, President/Founder
Evangelical Association for the Promotion of Education

Christopher J. Doyle, CEO
American Leprosy Mission

Leighton Ford, President
Leighton Ford Ministries

Daniel Grothe, Pastoral Staff
New Life Church (Colorado Springs)

Vernon Grounds, Chancellor
Denver Seminary

Stephen Hayner, former President
InterVarsity Christian Fellowship

Joel Hunter, Senior Pastor
Northland Church
Member, Executive Committee of the NAE

Jo Anne Lyon, Founder/CEO
World Hope International

Gordon MacDonald, Chair of the Board
World Relief

Albert G. Miller, Professor
Oberlin College

Richard Mouw, President
Fuller Theological Seminary

David Neff, Editor
Christianity Today

Glenn R. Palmberg, President
Evangelical Covenant Church

Earl Palmer, Senior Pastor
University Presbyterian Church Seattle

Victor D. Pentz, Pastor
Peachtree Presbyterian Church, Atlanta

John Perkins, President
John M. Perkins Foundation for Reconciliation & Development

Bob Roberts, Jr., Senior Pastor
Northwood Church, Dallas

Leonard Rogers, Executive Director
Evangelicals for Middle East Understanding

Andrew Ryskamp, Executive Director
Christian Reformed World Relief Committee

Chris Seiple, President
Institute for Global Engagement

Robert A. Seiple, Former Ambassador-at-Large,
International Religious Freedom
U.S. State Department

Luci N. Shaw, Author, Lecturer
Regent College, Vancouver

Jim Skillen, Executive Director
Center for Public Justice

Glen Harold Stassen, Professor
Fuller Theological Seminary

Richard Stearns, President
World Vision

Clyde D. Taylor, Former Chair of the Board
World Relief

Harold Vogelaar, Director
Center of Christian-Muslim Engagement for Peace and Justice

Berten Waggoner, National Director
Vineyard USA

-----------------------------------------------------------
It's people like paster Hagee that really make me sick, It's people like him that prevent a resolution to the peace process by making threatening sound bites and dividing the people of the Middle East.