When Denial Goes Pathological

Is President Bush Sane?

December 2 / 3, 2006

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Tens of millions of Americans want President George W. Bush to be impeached for the lies and deceit he used to launch an illegal war and for violating his oath of office to uphold the US Constitution.

Millions of other Americans want Bush turned over to the war crimes tribunal at the Hague. The true fate that awaits Bush is psychiatric incarceration.

The president of the United States is so deep into denial that he is no longer among the sane.

Delusion still rules Bush three weeks after the American people repudiated him and his catastrophic war in elections that delivered both House and Senate to the Democrats in the hope that control over Congress would give the opposition party the strength to oppose the mad occupant of the White House.

On November 28 Bush insisted that US troops would not be withdrawn from Iraq until he had completed his mission of building a stable Iraqi democracy capable of spreading democratic change in the Middle East.

Bush made this astonishing statement the day after NBC News, a major television network, declared Iraq to be in the midst of a civil war, a judgment with which former Secretary of State Colin Powell concurs.

The same day that Bush reaffirmed his commitment to building a stable Iraqi democracy, a secret US Marine Corps intelligence report was leaked. According to the Washington Post, the report concludes: "the social and political situation has deteriorated to a point that US and Iraqi troops are no longer capable of militarily defeating the insurgency in al-Anbar province."

The Marine Corps intelligence report says that Al Qaeda is the "dominant organization of influence" in Anbar province, and is more important than local authorities, the Iraqi government and US troops "in its ability to control the day-to-day life of the average Sunni."

Bush's astonishing determination to deny Iraq reality was made the same day that the US-installed Iraqi prime minister al-Maliki and US puppet King Abdullah II of Jordan abruptly cancelled a meeting with Bush after Bush was already in route to Jordon on Air Force One.

Bush could not meet with Maliki in Iraq, because violence in Baghdad is out of control. For security reasons, the US Secret Service would not allow President Bush to go to Iraq, where he is "building a stable democracy."

Bush made his astonishing statement in the face of news leaks of the Iraq Study Group's call for a withdrawal of all US combat forces from Iraq. The Iraq Study Group is led by Bush family operative James A. Baker, a former White House chief of staff, former Secretary of the Treasury, and former Secretary of State. Baker was tasked by father Bush to save the son. Apparently, son Bush hasn't enough sanity to allow himself to be saved.

Bush's denial of Iraqi reality was made even as one of the most influential Iraqi Shiite leaders, Moqtada al-Sadr, is building an anti-US parliamentary alliance to demand the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

Maliki himself appears on the verge of desertion by his American sponsors. The White House has reportedly "lost confidence" in Maliki's "ability to control violence." Fox "News" disinformation agency immediately began blaming Maliki for the defeat the US has suffered in Iraq. NY governor Pataki told Fox "News" that "Maliki is not doing his job." Pataki claimed that US troops were doing "a great job."

A number of other politicians and talking heads joined in the scapegoating of Maliki. No one explained how Maliki can be expected to save Iraq when US troops cannot provide enough security for the Iraqi government to go outside the heavily fortified "green zone" that occupies a small area of Baghdad. If the US Marines cannot control Anbar province, what chance is there for Maliki? What can Maliki do if the security provided by US troops is so bad that the President of the US cannot even visit the country?

The only people in Iraq who are safe belong to Al Qaeda and the Sunni insurgents or are Shiite militia leaders such as al-Sadr.

An American group, the Center for Constitutional Rights, has filed war crimes charges in Germany against former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. A number of former US attorneys believe President Bush and Vice President Cheney deserve the same.

Bush has destroyed the entire social, political, and economic fabric of Iraq. Saddam Hussein sat on the lid of Pandora's Box of sectarian antagonisms, but Bush has opened the lid. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed as "collateral damage" in Bush's war to bring "stable democracy" to Iraq. Tens of thousands of Iraqi children have been orphaned and maimed.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have fled their country. The Middle East is aflame with hatred of America, and the ground is shaking under the feet of American puppet governments in the Middle East. US casualties (killed and wounded) number 25,000.

And Bush has not had enough!

What better proof of Bush's insanity could there be?

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review.

Ahmadinejad doubts Israel's ability to continue to exist

December 2, 2006

Bethlehem - Ma'an - The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has doubted the continuity of the existence of Israel.

The Iranian news agency, MUHR, reported that Ahmadinejad has, during a meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at Doha in Qatar, called for the necessity of the whole Islamic world to support the Palestinian people, against the tyranny of the Israeli occupation.

He allegedly stated "everybody knows that Israel had been established in the region to strengthen the colonial powers in the heart of the Islamic world," inferring that the existence of Israel represents an assault in itself.

Israel, according to the Iranian president, "was founded to cause tension in the region, and to impose the policies of the United States and Britain, which directly contradicts the supposition that Israel can provide peace and security in the region".

In addition, Ahmadinejad said that Israel is "heading towards the bottomless ditch, in light of the success of the Palestinian struggle for liberty".

The Palestinian Prime Minister, Isma'il Haniyeh expressed his high appreciation of the Iranian support to the Palestinian cause and people, "which reflects their deep understanding of the meanings of the principles of Islam."

Israeli violations of ceasefire agreement within the last seven days

December 2, 2006

Gaza – Ma'an - A newly-released report has revealed that Israeli violations of the ceasefire agreement, since its inception at 6am on Sunday 26th November, are ongoing and vary between killing, arrests and the demolishing of Palestinian houses in the Gaza Strip.

The report, which was prepared by Palestine today news, said that the West Bank cities and towns witnessed most of the Israeli violations. On the second day of the ceasefire, the Israelis killed a man and an old woman in Jenin, while two boys were killed on the fifth and the sixth days. A total of 130 Palestinians have been arrested, and many houses have been demolished, in addition to many incursions and forced entry campaigns.

Day one of the truce - Sunday 26th November

• Israelis arrest a man in Hebron city;
• Arrest one in Beituniya, near Ramallah;
• Four boys arrested in Abu Dis;
• One boy injured in 'Azzun, near Qalqilia

The second day – Monday 27th November

• The killing of the leader of the An Nasser Salah Addin Brigades in Qabatia, south of Jenin;
• The killing of an elderly lady, also in Qabatia;
• The arrest of six Fatah members in Nablus;
• The arrest of three Hamas members in Qalqilia;
• The arrest of two Hamas members in Ramallah;
• The arrest of three Hamas members in Hebron;
• The arrest of a Palestinian at the israeli barrier near Qalqilia,
• The arrest of three more in Nablus
• A military incursion into Bethlehem, and the arrest of another Palestinian.

The third day - Tuesday 28th November

• Israeli military incursion into Tulkarem, arrest three.
• The arrest of eleven Palestinians in Silat Harithiya near Jenin (mostly from one family),
• The demolition of two houses in 'Arabbuna, near Jenin;
• Assassination attempt against Palestinian activist in Qabatia, near Jenin;
• Incursion into As Samu, south of Hebron, launching a search campaign in the town
• Abduction of an activist from the Al Aqsa Brigades, and two other citizens in Qabatia

The fourth day - Wednesday 29th November

• Israeli artillery shelled the northern area of the Gaza Strip
• Israeli military incursion into the villages of Tulkarem, and a search campaign throughout the villages.
• Israeli special forces abducted Jihad Abu Khadir in Qalqilia.

The fifth day – Thursday 30th November

• The killing of a boy in Beita, south of Nablus;
• Invasion of Azza refugee camp in Bethlehem, and the arrest of 11 Palestinians;
• Incursion in Tuqu', south of Bethlehem, and the arrest of two citizens;
• The arrest of four people from Ash Shawawra, east of Bethlehem;
• The arrest of one person in the Karkafa area of the city of Bethlehem;
• Four arrested n Nablus;• Eight arrested in Ramallah;
• Four students arrested in Qarawat Bani Zaid, in the Ramallah area;
• Three arrested in the city of Hebron;
• Two boys arrested in 'Yabad, near Jenin;
• Five arrested in Nablus and Balata refugee camp;
• Israeli forces raided farms south of Tubas, forcing the farmers off the land;
• Israeli military forces closed the entrance of Tammun, harassing the citizens;
• Israeli military forces occupied the home of a citizen in 'Alar, turning it into a military post;
• Houses demolished in Kfar Etzion and Salfit;
• One boy arrested at Atarot barrier, north of Jerusalem;
• Military raid on Salfit, shooting at the houses of the citizens;
• Arrest of three Palestinians on the border with Egypt;
• Israeli military bulldozers demolish several houses and farmers houses north and east of Qalqilia;
• Bulldozers demolish the home of a Palestinian citizen in Wadi ar Rasha, near Qalqilia.

Sixth day – Friday 1st December

• The killing of a Palestinian in Hebron;
• A full-scale military operation in Asira, north of Nablus, and the arrest of 25 Palestinians in the town of Asira, and the city of Nablus;
• The arrest of a Palestinian citizen in Nablus;
• The arrest of a Palestinian citizen in ash-Shawawra in Bethlehem, and the theft of his money and gold jewelry;
• The arrest of a man in Bani Na'im, east of Hebron;
• The arrest of a man at the "Container" barrier, between Abu Dis and Bethlehem;
• The injury of a Palestinian boy in 'Azzun, near Qalqilia;
• The injury of a Palestinian boy in Sa'ir, north of Hebron;
• The arrest of two young men in Qalqilia;

The seventh day – Saturday 2nd of December (so far)

• Military campaign in many towns of the West Bank, and the arrest of many Palestinians.

Robert Fisk: Like Hitler and Brezhnev, Bush is in denial

Published: 01 December 2006

More than half a million deaths, an army trapped in the largest military debacle since Vietnam, a Middle East policy already buried in the sands of Mesopotamia - and still George W Bush is in denial. How does he do it? How does he persuade himself - as he apparently did in Amman yesterday - that the United States will stay in Iraq "until the job is complete"? The "job" - Washington's project to reshape the Middle East in its own and Israel's image - is long dead, its very neoconservative originators disavowing their hopeless political aims and blaming Bush, along with the Iraqis of course, for their disaster.

History's "deniers" are many - and all subject to the same folly: faced with overwhelming evidence of catastrophe, they take refuge in fantasy, dismissing evidence of collapse as a symptom of some short-term setback, clinging to the idea that as long as their generals promise victory - or because they have themselves so often promised victory - that fate will be kind. George W Bush - or Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara for that matter - need not feel alone. The Middle East has produced these fantasists by the bucketful over past decades.

In 1967, Egyptian president Gamel Abdul Nasser insisted his country was winning the Six Day War hours after the Israelis had destroyed the entire Egyptian air force on the ground. President Carter was extolling the Shah's Iran as "an island of stability in the region" only days before Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamic revolution brought down his regime. President Leonid Brezhnev declared a Soviet victory in Afghanistan when Russian troops were being driven from their fire bases in Nangahar and Kandahar provinces by Osama bin Laden and his fighters.

And was it not Saddam Hussein who promised the "mother of all battles" for Kuwait before the great Iraqi retreat in 1991? And was it not Saddam again who predicted a US defeat in the sands of Iraq in 2003? Saddam's loyal acolyte, Mohamed el-Sahaf, would fantasise about the number of American soldiers who would die in the desert; George W Bush let it be known that he sometimes slipped out of White House staff meetings to watch Sahaf's preposterous performance and laugh at the fantasies of Iraq's minister of information.

So who is laughing at Bush now? Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, almost as loyal a retainer to Bush as Sahaf was to Saddam, receives the same false praise from the American president that Nasser and Brezhnev once lavished upon their generals. "I appreciate the courage you show during these difficult times as you lead your country," Bush tells Maliki. "He's the right guy for Iraq," he tells us. And the Iraqi Prime Minister who hides in the US-fortified "Green Zone" - was ever a crusader fortress so aptly named? - announces that "there is no problem". Power must be more quickly transferred to Maliki, we were informed yesterday. Why? Because that will save Iraq? Or because this will allow America to claim, as it did when it decided to allow the South Vietnamese army to fight on its own against Hanoi, that Washington is not to blame for the debacle that follows? "One of his frustrations with me is that he believes that we've been slow about giving him the tools necessary to protect the Iraqi people." Or so Bush says. "He doesn't have the capacity to respond. So we want to accelerate that capacity." But how can Maliki have any "capacity" at all when he rules only a few square miles of central Baghdad and a clutch of rotting ex-Baathist palaces?

About the only truthful statement uttered in Amman yesterday was Bush's remark that "there's a lot of speculation that these reports in Washington mean there's going to be some kind of graceful exit out of Iraq [but] this business about a graceful exit just simply has no realism to it at all." Indeed, it has not. There can be no graceful exit from Iraq, only a terrifying, bloody collapse of military power. The withdrawal of Shia ministers from Maliki's cabinet mirror the withdrawal of Shia ministers from another American-supported administration in Beirut - where the Lebanese fear an equally appalling conflict over which Washington has, in reality, no military or political control.

Bush even appeared oblivious of the current sectarian map of Iraq. "The Prime Minister made clear that splitting his country into parts, as some have suggested, is not what the Iraqi people want, and that any partition of Iraq would only lead to an increase in sectarian violence," he said. "I agree." But Iraq is already "split into parts". The fracture of Iraq is virtually complete, its chasms sucking in corpses at the rate of up to a thousand a day.

Even Hitler must chuckle at this bloodbath, he who claimed in April 1945 that Germany would still win the Second World War, boasting that his enemy, Roosevelt, had died - much as Bush boasted of Zarqawi's killing - while demanding to know when General Wenck's mythical army would rescue the people of Berlin. How many "Wencks" are going to be summoned from the 82nd Airborne or the Marine Corps to save Bush from Iraq in the coming weeks? No, Bush is not Hitler. Like Blair, he once thought he was Winston Churchill, a man who never - ever - lied to his people about Britain's defeats in war. But fantasy knows no bounds.

More than half a million deaths, an army trapped in the largest military debacle since Vietnam, a Middle East policy already buried in the sands of Mesopotamia - and still George W Bush is in denial. How does he do it? How does he persuade himself - as he apparently did in Amman yesterday - that the United States will stay in Iraq "until the job is complete"? The "job" - Washington's project to reshape the Middle East in its own and Israel's image - is long dead, its very neoconservative originators disavowing their hopeless political aims and blaming Bush, along with the Iraqis of course, for their disaster.

History's "deniers" are many - and all subject to the same folly: faced with overwhelming evidence of catastrophe, they take refuge in fantasy, dismissing evidence of collapse as a symptom of some short-term setback, clinging to the idea that as long as their generals promise victory - or because they have themselves so often promised victory - that fate will be kind. George W Bush - or Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara for that matter - need not feel alone. The Middle East has produced these fantasists by the bucketful over past decades.

In 1967, Egyptian president Gamel Abdul Nasser insisted his country was winning the Six Day War hours after the Israelis had destroyed the entire Egyptian air force on the ground. President Carter was extolling the Shah's Iran as "an island of stability in the region" only days before Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamic revolution brought down his regime. President Leonid Brezhnev declared a Soviet victory in Afghanistan when Russian troops were being driven from their fire bases in Nangahar and Kandahar provinces by Osama bin Laden and his fighters.

And was it not Saddam Hussein who promised the "mother of all battles" for Kuwait before the great Iraqi retreat in 1991? And was it not Saddam again who predicted a US defeat in the sands of Iraq in 2003? Saddam's loyal acolyte, Mohamed el-Sahaf, would fantasise about the number of American soldiers who would die in the desert; George W Bush let it be known that he sometimes slipped out of White House staff meetings to watch Sahaf's preposterous performance and laugh at the fantasies of Iraq's minister of information.

So who is laughing at Bush now? Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, almost as loyal a retainer to Bush as Sahaf was to Saddam, receives the same false praise from the American president that Nasser and Brezhnev once lavished upon their generals. "I appreciate the courage you show during these difficult times as you lead your country," Bush tells Maliki. "He's the right guy for Iraq," he tells us. And the Iraqi Prime Minister who hides in the US-fortified "Green Zone" - was ever a crusader fortress so aptly named? - announces that "there is no problem". Power must be more quickly transferred to Maliki, we were informed yesterday. Why? Because that will save Iraq? Or because this will allow America to claim, as it did when it decided to allow the South Vietnamese army to fight on its own against Hanoi, that Washington is not to blame for the debacle that follows? "One of his frustrations with me is that he believes that we've been slow about giving him the tools necessary to protect the Iraqi people." Or so Bush says. "He doesn't have the capacity to respond. So we want to accelerate that capacity." But how can Maliki have any "capacity" at all when he rules only a few square miles of central Baghdad and a clutch of rotting ex-Baathist palaces?

Israeli students and Palestinians demonstrate side-by-side in solidarity

A protest in Tel Aviv in November (MaanImages Archive)

December 1, 2006

Jerusalem - Ma'an - The 'students' front' at the University of Tel Aviv in Israel yesterday commemorated International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People by holding a demonstration. Students at the demonstration distributed banners with slogans in both Hebrew and Arabic.

The slogans denounced the occupation and called for progress in the peace process and an end to conflict. They called for peace on the basis of the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital and the creation of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee issue.

A statement from the demonstrators also stressed the importance of maintaining the current ceasefire and declared that this is integral to the progress of the peace process.

Palestinian Return Center rejects Olmert's 'peace' proposal

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert speaks at
a conference in Herzelia near Tel Aviv
November 28 (MaanImages)

December 1, 2006

Ma'an - The Palestinian Return Centre, an independent academic and media consultancy founded in the UK, has issued a press release declaring that it objects to any attempt to discount the right of Palestinian refugees to return, in accordance with international law and human rights conventions. The PRC issued the press release in response to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's comments on Monday, in which he proposed a withdrawal from parts of the Palestinian occupied West Bank, in exchange for a Palestinian agreement to relinquish the right of return of refugees.

The PRC declared, "even if one is naïve enough to trust Olmert’s most recent ‘peace’ offering, writing off the right of return of five million Palestinian refugees is a red line that no Palestinian can cross. This right has been reaffirmed year after year by the United Nations’ General Assembly and is considered a corner stone for the Palestinian struggle."

They continued, "It would be most unwise to trust the Israeli government now, as it makes such ‘peace’ offers at the same time [as] its army’s bulldozers are busily dividing Palestinian towns in the West Bank, destroying ancient olive trees and forcing thousands of farmers away from their land. To give up the right of return now, doesn’t only violate international law, validate Israel’s ethnic cleansing policies of the past, but it rather vindicates the Israeli government's ongoing practices in the Occupied Territories which themselves continue to render many Palestinians homeless, on a daily basis.

"It must also be said that even if Olmert is indeed genuine in his new quest for peace, neither he nor anyone else has the right to exchange a Palestinian right for another. Both an end to the Israeli occupation and the right of return are two fundamental rights safeguarded by international law; like in the case of all fundamental human rights they must neither be subject for [sic] swaps nor barters."

The Palestinian Research Centre concluded by stating that it "calls on the international community to withhold international law, and on Palestinians and those who support their just cause everywhere not to allow such Israeli strategy of fragmenting and renegotiating fundamental Palestinian rights to sway them from their courageous struggle for freedom, rights and sovereignty."

"As the Arabs see the Jews"

His Majesty King Abdullah,

The American Magazine

November, 1947

Abdullah I, King of Jordan

SUMMARY

This fascinating essay, written by King Hussein’s grandfather King Abdullah, appeared in the United States six months before the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. In the article, King Abdullah disputes the mistaken view that Arab opposition to Zionism (and later the state of Israel) is because of longstanding religious or ethnic hatred. He notes that Jews and Muslims enjoyed a long history of peaceful coexistence in the Middle East, and that Jews have historically suffered far more at the hands of Christian Europe. Pointing to the tragedy of the holocaust that Jews suffered during World War II, the monarch asks why America and Europe are refusing to accept more than a token handful of Jewish immigrants and refugees. It is unfair, he argues, to make Palestine, which is innocent of anti-Semitism, pay for the crimes of Europe. King Abdullah also asks how Jews can claim a historic right to Palestine, when Arabs have been the overwhelming majority there for nearly 1300 uninterrupted years? The essay ends on an ominous note, warning of dire consequences if a peaceful solution cannot be found to protect the rights of the indigenous Arabs of Palestine.

"As the Arabs see the Jews"

His Majesty King Abdullah,

The American Magazine

November, 1947

I am especially delighted to address an American audience, for the tragic problem of Palestine will never be solved without American understanding, American sympathy, American support.

So many billions of words have been written about Palestine—perhaps more than on any other subject in history—that I hesitate to add to them. Yet I am compelled to do so, for I am reluctantly convinced that the world in general, and America in particular, knows almost nothing of the true case for the Arabs.

We Arabs follow, perhaps far more than you think, the press of America. We are frankly disturbed to find that for every word printed on the Arab side, a thousand are printed on the Zionist side.

There are many reasons for this. You have many millions of Jewish citizens interested in this question. They are highly vocal and wise in the ways of publicity. There are few Arab citizens in America, and we are as yet unskilled in the technique of modern propaganda.

The results have been alarming for us. In your press we see a horrible caricature and are told it is our true portrait. In all justice, we cannot let this pass by default.

Our case is quite simple: For nearly 2,000 years Palestine has been almost 100 per cent Arab. It is still preponderantly Arab today, in spite of enormous Jewish immigration. But if this immigration continues we shall soon be outnumbered—a minority in our home.

Palestine is a small and very poor country, about the size of your state of Vermont. Its Arab population is only about 1,200,000. Already we have had forced on us, against our will, some 600,000 Zionist Jews. We are threatened with many hundreds of thousands more.

Our position is so simple and natural that we are amazed it should even be questioned. It is exactly the same position you in America take in regard to the unhappy European Jews. You are sorry for them, but you do not want them in your country.

We do not want them in ours, either. Not because they are Jews, but because they are foreigners. We would not want hundreds of thousands of foreigners in our country, be they Englishmen or Norwegians or Brazilians or whatever.

Think for a moment: In the last 25 years we have had one third of our entire population forced upon us. In America that would be the equivalent of 45,000,000 complete strangers admitted to your country, over your violent protest, since 1921. How would you have reacted to that?

Because of our perfectly natural dislike of being overwhelmed in our own homeland, we are called blind nationalists and heartless anti-Semites. This charge would be ludicrous were it not so dangerous.

No people on earth have been less "anti-Semitic" than the Arabs. The persecution of the Jews has been confined almost entirely to the Christian nations of the West. Jews, themselves, will admit that never since the Great Dispersion did Jews develop so freely and reach such importance as in Spain when it was an Arab possession. With very minor exceptions, Jews have lived for many centuries in the Middle East, in complete peace and friendliness with their Arab neighbours.

Damascus, Baghdad, Beirut and other Arab centres have always contained large and prosperous Jewish colonies. Until the Zionist invasion of Palestine began, these Jews received the most generous treatment—far, far better than in Christian Europe. Now, unhappily, for the first time in history, these Jews are beginning to feel the effects of Arab resistance to the Zionist assault. Most of them are as anxious as Arabs to stop it. Most of these Jews who have found happy homes among us resent, as we do, the coming of these strangers.

I was puzzled for a long time about the odd belief which apparently persists in America that Palestine has somehow "always been a Jewish land." Recently an American I talked to cleared up this mystery. He pointed out that the only things most Americans know about Palestine are what they read in the Bible. It was a Jewish land in those days, they reason, and they assume it has always remained so.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is absurd to reach so far back into the mists of history to argue about who should have Palestine today, and I apologize for it. Yet the Jews do this, and I must reply to their "historic claim." I wonder if the world has ever seen a stranger sight than a group of people seriously pretending to claim a land because their ancestors lived there some 2,000 years ago!

If you suggest that I am biased, I invite you to read any sound history of the period and verify the facts.

Such fragmentary records as we have indicate that the Jews were wandering nomads from Iraq who moved to southern Turkey, came south to Palestine, stayed there a short time, and then passed to Egypt, where they remained about 400 years. About 1300 BC (according to your calendar) they left Egypt and gradually conquered most—but not all—of the inhabitants of Palestine.

It is significant that the Philistines—not the Jews—gave their name to the country: "Palestine" is merely the Greek form of "Philistia."

Only once, during the empire of David and Solomon, did the Jews ever control nearly—but not all—the land which is today Palestine. This empire lasted only 70 years, ending in 926 BC. Only 250 years later the Kingdom of Judah had shrunk to a small province around Jerusalem, barely a quarter of modern Palestine.

In 63 BC the Jews were conquered by Roman Pompey, and never again had even the vestige of independence. The Roman Emperor Hadrian finally wiped them out about 135 AD. He utterly destroyed Jerusalem, rebuilt under another name, and for hundreds of years no Jew was permitted to enter it. A handful of Jews remained in Palestine but the vast majority were killed or scattered to other countries, in the Diaspora, or the Great Dispersion. From that time Palestine ceased to be a Jewish country, in any conceivable sense.

This was 1,815 years ago, and yet the Jews solemnly pretend they still own Palestine! If such fantasy were allowed, how the map of the world would dance about!

Italians might claim England, which the Romans held so long. England might claim France, "homeland" of the conquering Normans. And the French Normans might claim Norway, where their ancestors originated. And incidentally, we Arabs might claim Spain, which we held for 700 years.

Many Mexicans might claim Spain, "homeland" of their forefathers. They might even claim Texas, which was Mexican until 100 years ago. And suppose the American Indians claimed the "homeland" of which they were the sole, native, and ancient occupants until only some 450 years ago!

I am not being facetious. All these claims are just as valid—or just as fantastic—as the Jewish "historic connection" with Palestine. Most are more valid.

In any event, the great Moslem expansion about 650 AD finally settled things. It dominated Palestine completely. From that day on, Palestine was solidly Arabic in population, language, and religion. When British armies entered the country during the last war, they found 500,000 Arabs and only 65,000 Jews.

If solid, uninterrupted Arab occupation for nearly 1,300 years does not make a country "Arab", what does?

The Jews say, and rightly, that Palestine is the home of their religion. It is likewise the birthplace of Christianity, but would any Christian nation claim it on that account? In passing, let me say that the Christian Arabs—and there are many hundreds of thousands of them in the Arab World—are in absolute agreement with all other Arabs in opposing the Zionist invasion of Palestine.

May I also point out that Jerusalem is, after Mecca and Medina, the holiest place in Islam. In fact, in the early days of our religion, Moslems prayed toward Jerusalem instead of Mecca.

The Jewish "religious claim" to Palestine is as absurd as the "historic claim." The Holy Places, sacred to three great religions, must be open to all, the monopoly of none. Let us not confuse religion and politics.

We are told that we are inhumane and heartless because do not accept with open arms the perhaps 200,000 Jews in Europe who suffered so frightfully under Nazi cruelty, and who even now—almost three years after war’s end—still languish in cold, depressing camps.

Let me underline several facts. The unimaginable persecution of the Jews was not done by the Arabs: it was done by a Christian nation in the West. The war which ruined Europe and made it almost impossible for these Jews to rehabilitate themselves was fought by the Christian nations of the West. The rich and empty portions of the earth belong, not to the Arabs, but to the Christian nations of the West.

And yet, to ease their consciences, these Christian nations of the West are asking Palestine—a poor and tiny Moslem country of the East—to accept the entire burden. "We have hurt these people terribly," cries the West to the East. "Won’t you please take care of them for us?"

We find neither logic nor justice in this. Are we therefore "cruel and heartless nationalists"?

We are a generous people: we are proud that "Arab hospitality" is a phrase famous throughout the world. We are a humane people: no one was shocked more than we by the Hitlerite terror. No one pities the present plight of the desperate European Jews more than we.

But we say that Palestine has already sheltered 600,000 refugees. We believe that is enough to expect of us—even too much. We believe it is now the turn of the rest of the world to accept some of them.

I will be entirely frank with you. There is one thing the Arab world simply cannot understand. Of all the nations of the earth, America is most insistent that something be done for these suffering Jews of Europe. This feeling does credit to the humanity for which America is famous, and to that glorious inscription on your Statue of Liberty.

And yet this same America—the richest, greatest, most powerful nation the world has ever known—refuses to accept more than a token handful of these same Jews herself!

I hope you will not think I am being bitter about this. I have tried hard to understand that mysterious paradox, and I confess I cannot. Nor can any other Arab.

Perhaps you have been informed that "the Jews in Europe want to go to no other place except Palestine."

This myth is one of the greatest propaganda triumphs of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, the organisation which promotes with fanatic zeal the emigration to Palestine. It is a subtle half-truth, thus doubly dangerous.

The astounding truth is that nobody on earth really knows where these unfortunate Jews really want to go!

You would think that in so grave a problem, the American, British, and other authorities responsible for the European Jews would have made a very careful survey, probably by vote, to find out where each Jew actually wants to go. Amazingly enough this has never been done! The Jewish Agency has prevented it.

Some time ago the American Military Governor in Germany was asked at a press conference how he was so certain that all Jews there wanted to go to Palestine. His answer was simple: "My Jewish advisors tell me so." He admitted no poll had ever been made. Preparations were indeed begun for one, but the Jewish Agency stepped in to stop it.

The truth is that the Jews in German camps are now subjected to a Zionist pressure campaign which learned much from the Nazi terror. It is dangerous for a Jew to say that he would rather go to some other country, not Palestine. Such dissenters have been severely beaten, and worse.

Not long ago, in Palestine, nearly 1,000 Austrian Jews informed the international refugee organisation that they would like to go back to Austria, and plans were made to repatriate them.

The Jewish Agency heard of this, and exerted enough political pressure to stop it. It would be bad propaganda for Zionism if Jews began leaving Palestine. The nearly 1,000 Austrian are still there, against their will.

The fact is that most of the European Jews are Western in culture and outlook, entirely urban in experience and habits. They cannot really have their hearts set on becoming pioneers in the barren, arid, cramped land which is Palestine.

One thing, however, is undoubtedly true. As matters stand now, most refugee Jews in Europe would, indeed, vote for Palestine, simply because they know no other country will have them.

If you or I were given a choice between a near-prison camp for the rest of our lives—or Palestine—we would both choose Palestine, too.

But open up any other alternative to them—give them any other choice, and see what happens!

No poll, however, will be worth anything unless the nations of the earth are willing to open their doors—just a little—to the Jews. In other words, if in such a poll a Jew says he wants to go to Sweden, Sweden must be willing to accept him. If he votes for America, you must let him come in.

Any other kind of poll would be a farce. For the desperate Jew, this is no idle testing of opinion: this is a grave matter of life or death. Unless he is absolutely sure that his vote means something, he will always vote for Palestine, so as not to risk his bird in the hand for one in the bush.

In any event, Palestine can accept no more. The 65,000 Jews in Palestine in 1918 have jumped to 600,000 today. We Arabs have increased, too, but not by immigration. The Jews were then a mere 11 per cent of our population. Today they are one third of it.

The rate of increase has been terrifying. In a few more years—unless stopped now—it will overwhelm us, and we shall be an important minority in our own home.

Surely the rest of the wide world is rich enough and generous enough to find a place for 200,000 Jews—about one third the number that tiny, poor Palestine has already sheltered. For the rest of the world, it is hardly a drop in the bucket. For us it means national suicide.

We are sometimes told that since the Jews came to Palestine, the Arab standard of living has improved. This is a most complicated question. But let us even assume, for the argument, that it is true. We would rather be a bit poorer, and masters of our own home. Is this unnatural?

The sorry story of the so-called "Balfour Declaration," which started Zionist immigration into Palestine, is too complicated to repeat here in detail. It is grounded in broken promises to the Arabs—promises made in cold print which admit no denying.

We utterly deny its validity. We utterly deny the right of Great Britain to give away Arab land for a "national home" for an entirely foreign people.

Even the League of Nations sanction does not alter this. At the time, not a single Arab state was a member of the League. We were not allowed to say a word in our own defense.

I must point out, again in friendly frankness, that America was nearly as responsible as Britain for this Balfour Declaration. President Wilson approved it before it was issued, and the American Congress adopted it word for word in a joint resolution on 30th June, 1922.

In the 1920s, Arabs were annoyed and insulted by Zionist immigration, but not alarmed by it. It was steady, but fairly small, as even the Zionist founders thought it would remain. Indeed for some years, more Jews left Palestine than entered it—in 1927 almost twice as many.

But two new factors, entirely unforeseen by Britain or the League or America or the most fervent Zionist, arose in the early thirties to raise the immigration to undreamed heights. One was the World Depression; the second the rise of Hitler.

In 1932, the year before Hitler came to power, only 9,500 Jews came to Palestine. We did not welcome them, but we were not afraid that, at that rate, our solid Arab majority would ever be in danger.

But the next year—the year of Hitler—it jumped to 30,000! In 1934 it was 42,000! In 1935 it reached 61,000!

It was no longer the orderly arrival of idealist Zionists. Rather, all Europe was pouring its frightened Jews upon us. Then, at last, we, too, became frightened. We knew that unless this enormous influx stopped, we were, as Arabs, doomed in our Palestine homeland. And we have not changed our minds.

I have the impression that many Americans believe the trouble in Palestine is very remote from them, that America had little to do with it, and that your only interest now is that of a humane bystander.

I believe that you do not realise how directly you are, as a nation, responsible in general for the whole Zionist move and specifically for the present terrorism. I call this to your attention because I am certain that if you realise your responsibility you will act fairly to admit it and assume it.

Quite aside from official American support for the "National Home" of the Balfour Declaration, the Zionist settlements in Palestine would have been almost impossible, on anything like the current scale, without American money. This was contributed by American Jewry in an idealistic effort to help their fellows.

The motive was worthy: the result were disastrous. The contributions were by private individuals, but they were almost entirely Americans, and, as a nation, only America can answer for it.

The present catastrophe may be laid almost entirely at your door. Your government, almost alone in the world, is insisting on the immediate admission of 100,000 more Jews into Palestine—to be followed by countless additional ones. This will have the most frightful consequences in bloody chaos beyond anything ever hinted at in Palestine before.

It is your press and political leadership, almost alone in the world, who press this demand. It is almost entirely American money which hires or buys the "refugee ships" that steam illegally toward Palestine: American money which pays their crews. The illegal immigration from Europe is arranged by the Jewish Agency, supported almost entirely by American funds. It is American dollars which support the terrorists, which buy the bullets and pistols that kill British soldiers—your allies—and Arab citizens—your friends.

We in the Arab world were stunned to hear that you permit open advertisements in newspapers asking for money to finance these terrorists, to arm them openly and deliberately for murder. We could not believe this could really happen in the modern world. Now we must believe it: we have seen the advertisements with our own eyes.

I point out these things because nothing less than complete frankness will be of use. The crisis is too stark for mere polite vagueness which means nothing.

I have the most complete confidence in the fair-mindedness and generosity of the American public. We Arabs ask no favours. We ask only that you know the full truth, not half of it. We ask only that when you judge the Palestine question, you put yourselves in our place.

What would your answer be if some outside agency told you that you must accept in America many millions of utter strangers in your midst—enough to dominate your country—merely because they insisted on going to America, and because their forefathers had once lived there some 2,000 years ago?

Our answer is the same.

And what would be your action if, in spite of your refusal, this outside agency began forcing them on you?

Ours will be the same.

Source

Thank you, Lancethruster.

Bush in Jordan

Al Maliki and Bush arrive for a joint news conference in Amman on Thursday. Bush praised Al Maliki as a "strong leader".

Al Maliki 'likely to be shunned by allies'

Dubai: The next few weeks are "very crucial" for Iraq's seven-month-old government led by belligerent Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki, who could soon be shunned by his own Shiite allies, diplomatic and political sources said on Thursday.

Bush and says troops will stay in Iraq

Amman: US President George W. Bush strongly backed Iraq's prime minister on Thursday, saying Iraqi forces would be prepared more quickly to take over security and that Washington was not looking for a "graceful exit".


As the Talks on Iraq Conclude, Arabs Wonder, Is That All?

By HASSAN M. FATTAH

Published: December 1, 2006

AMMAN, Jordan, Nov. 30 — For days, Arab governments lobbied against any American opening to Iran, Jordanians planned protests against President Bush and politicians braced for a possible announcement of a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

But as the summit meeting between President Bush and Prime Minister Kamal Nuri al-Maliki of Iraq concluded Thursday morning, the Arab world was left dumbfounded that nothing had come of it.

“I am baffled by what I saw,” said Abdel Moneim Said, director of the Ahram Center for Strategic Studies in Cairo. “This was an expression of the Americans in deep trouble, but Bush’s approach to dealing with the Iraqi problem also bore the signs of someone out of touch with what is going on.”

Mr. Bush said American troops would remain in Iraq unless Mr. Maliki’s government asked them to leave, and he pledged to accelerate the transfer of authority to Iraqi security forces, but without offering any details. He dismissed calls for a timed withdrawal and emphasized that he and Mr. Maliki would oppose any plan to partition the country. And he seemed to dismiss the possibility of opening relations with Iran while insisting he is realistic about the difficulties in Iraq.

“I did not see a coherent strategy that really deals with the situation,” Mr. Said said. “I did not see Bush realizing how bad it is.” Mr. Bush and Mr. Maliki appeared in a joint news conference after an hourlong breakfast meeting with aides at the Four Seasons Hotel here that was followed by a one-on-one session that lasted 45 minutes.

The night before, Mr. Maliki took the unusual step of backing out of a planned meeting with the president, an embarrassment to the White House that came on the heels of the publication of a classified memo from Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, that raised doubts about Mr. Maliki’s leadership.

But on Thursday morning, an animated Mr. Bush stood at one lectern, while a decidedly reserved Mr. Maliki stood at another, at times looking tense, at others bemused.

“I saw someone trying to buy time for the next six months,” said Turki F. al-Rasheed, director of the Saudi Voters Center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, speaking of Mr. Bush.

Mr. Bush sought to counter rumors of tensions with Mr. Maliki, calling him “the right guy for Iraq” while emphasizing his role as the leader of a sovereign nation. “He has shown courage in the last six months,” Mr. Bush said.

Yet many Arab analysts saw Mr. Bush as managing Mr. Maliki. At one point he encouraged Mr. Maliki to call on members of the Iraqi news media and told him “good job!” as the news conference drew to a close.

“There’s an inherent contradiction in the discourse,” said Fares Braizat, an analyst at Jordan University’s Center for Strategic Studies and Fulbright fellow in Washington.

While Mr. Bush sought to emphasize that Washington was helping Mr. Maliki achieve Iraqi goals, Mr. Braizat said, he appeared to be guiding Mr. Maliki and at times twisting his arm. “Ultimately, he was dictating to him what to do,” he said.

The sessions ultimately proved disappointing for Arab nations, Mr. Braizat said. “The meeting showed that Bush cared about the game, but he did not know how to make the right moves,” he said. “There were no tangible results.” And results, he said, were what Arab leaders were looking for.

Jordan’s security services were perhaps the biggest winner. They had set out to prove to the international news media that they could keep a tight grip on security while allowing a degree of freedom for Jordanians to express their anger at Mr. Bush and the United States.

“We kept the situation under control, and still the people were able to protest,” a senior security official said Thursday evening, speaking anonymously because he was not authorized to speak with the news media. “They burnt some flags, but for us, burning flags is not a security issue, it’s an environmental issue.”

What Do We Do Now?

Bush on His Foreign Visit's?

Yes, It's a Baby

November 30, 2006

by Housewife4Palestine

I went to the doctor yesterday and I am going to have a baby. I am not having an easy pregnancy and have to be in bed a lot these days. Therefore, I do apologize that everything may be a little slow.

I do also have a very bad liver infection and as I am writing this, the doctor does not know what type yet or what the remedy is at this time.

I am to have an ultrasound next Thursday to see what is necessary to help the baby and me.

The baby is fine, just me as a new Mother is having a little bit of a rough patch for the time being.

My husband on being a new father again is so happy he is making everything for me as easy as possible. As for talking about the baby, he is so ecstatic he sounds more like a chattering chipmunk then a man who is going to be a father of seven.

As for names, we do already have a boy and girl name picked out and inshaallah everything is going to be fine for us.

I wish the best for everyone!

Israel to Let Abbas Deploy Own Force

Israeli soldiers scuffle with Palestinian protesters after the Israeli Army demolished two houses close to the route of Israel’s wall in the West Bank village of Arabani, near Jenin, on Tuesday. (AP)

Hisham Abu Taha, Arab News

GAZA CITY, 29 November 2006 — Israel has agreed in principle to let Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas send a security force loyal to him into Gaza, where a fragile truce is in effect, an Israeli diplomatic source said yesterday.

As part of efforts to bolster the moderate Palestinian leader, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will meet Abbas in the West Bank town of Jericho tomorrow, Palestinian officials said.

The request to redeploy the 1,000-strong Jordan-based Badr Brigade, the source said, came from Abbas, whose declaration with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Sunday of a cease-fire in the tinderbox territory has stirred hopes of peace talks.

“Basically, we have agreed, though it has not yet been officially released,” the source said. “The request came through before the cease-fire, but certainly this could boost the truce.” A senior Abbas aide said full agreement was not yet secured.

“We have asked, but we await the official and full details of the Israeli response,” negotiator Saeb Erekat told Reuters.

The United States, trying to salvage a tattered road map to peace, has signaled support for letting the brigade into Gaza or the occupied West Bank to reinforce Abbas’ men.

The brigade’s members hail from Abbas’ Fatah faction, trounced by Hamas in elections in January. The rival groups have since clashed on whether and how to engage Israel.

The Israeli diplomatic source gave no date for the Badr Brigade’s deployment in Gaza, which Israel quit in 2005.

“It is likely to take some time,” a source close to the deliberations said.

Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton, the US security coordinator in the region, told an Israeli newspaper last week the idea of redeploying the Badr Brigade “makes sense both from the military as well as from the political point of view.”

Olmert and Abbas are under growing US pressure to show progress on ending decades of conflict. President George W. Bush and Rice are to arrive in Jordan today and may address the Israeli-Palestinian crisis.

A spokeswoman for Olmert said he had no talks planned with Rice, who will be attending a conference in Jordan.

“The prime minister met with the secretary of state and the (US) president two weeks ago (in Washington) ... and there are no plans for an additional meeting,” the spokeswoman said. In a major policy speech on Monday, Olmert offered to ease travel restrictions on Palestinians and free up frozen funds if violence against Israel ended. He repeated his readiness to give up some occupied land for an eventual peace agreement.

Abbas’ office said he “welcomed (Olmert’s) comments over returning to the negotiating table” based on the road map charting reciprocal steps leading to the creation of a viable Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel.

Olmert said in the speech, however, that peace talks must await formation of a Palestinian unity government, to replace the one now headed by Hamas.

Hamas’s rise to power prompted the West to impose an aid embargo on the Palestinians, with the demand that their new government renounce violence and recognise Israel.

Hamas, which advocates Israel’s destruction, has refused.

Hamas has created its own Gaza militia — dubbed the “Executive Force” and comprising 6,000 men — saying it is only for improving security in Gaza. Yet the buildup has stirred concern that a full-blown Hamas-Fatah showdown is imminent.

Following the weekend truce declaration, the Palestinian government posted thousands of police along the Gaza frontier with orders to prevent fighters firing rockets into Israel.

Meanwhile, in Tampere, Finland, Arab and European ministers yesterday welcomed the cease-fire in Gaza and urged renewed efforts to promote Middle East peace and direct talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders.

Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa said the cease-fire and a statement from the Hamas movement that it would accept the 1967 borders of a Palestinian state offered “potential hope.”

Syria, a bitter foe of Israel, voiced support too for recent developments.

“We support the cease-fire,” Foreign Minister Walid Al-Muallem told reporters. “We hope that the cease-fire can be implemented on the West Bank also, so that this will pave the way also for the peace process.” Some analysts interpret acceptance of 1967 borders as an implicit recognition by Hamas of Israel’s right to exist — a key demand of the West for dealing with the Palestinian administration.

However, others say they do not believe Hamas is going further than a long-term truce. In a joint statement after the Tampere meeting, the Arab and European ministers called for “the reinvigoration of efforts to promote progress in the Middle East Peace Process.”

“They also encourage the parties to continue on the path of direct dialogue and negotiation,” it said.

Links:

US seeks to extend Gaza truce

Abbas: Talks with Hamas hit a 'dead end'



A Pact with the Devil: The US secretary of state thanked the Palestinian president for his efforts

Why should the U.S. stop its military aid to Israel?

October 2, 2005

The U.S. congress has been approving an annual foreign aid bill totaling an average of $3 billion, 1.2 billion in economical aid, and $1.8 billion in military aid, to Israel since 1987.

But after the 1991 gulf war, Washington started giving Israel additional $2 billion annually in federal loan guarantees, which brings the total U.S. foreign aid to Israel to about $5 billion; that constitutes over 30% of the total amount of U.S. foreign aid budget.

The UN Resolution 242 demands Israel to withdraw from all the territories occupied in 1967, including East Jerusalem.

Many are questioning why despite the UN General Assembly's repetitive condemnation to the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian lands, Washington maintains its military, financial, and diplomatic support for the Jewish state, ignoring the hideous violations of international law and human rights. Israel's continued aggression against the Palestinian people, supported by the U.S. government, is one of the most serious obstructions to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

The Israeli forces have repeatedly violated articles of the 4th Geneva Convention on Human Rights, an agreement that governs wartime rules of engagement and to which Israel is a signatory. Hundreds of Palestinian homes and agriculture fields have been demolished to make way for illegal Israeli settlements. Also Palestinians get arrested and jailed by the Israeli forces without charges. Amnesty International says that the Israeli security forces regularly use torture and prolonged incommunicado detention against the Palestinians. Here we enlist several reasons why the International community should intervene and stop the U.S. aid to Israel, which helps it continue its brutal and vicious actions against the Palestinians; Israel has been pursuing an elaborate system of racial discrimination, embedded in its legal system, including the Law of Entry, the Law of Return, the Citizenship Law, and the Military Service Law. Palestinians have been denied access to many jobs and various welfare benefits. And while, the Israelis are granted easy access to electricity, sewerage, and roads, Palestinian communities in Israel, and especially in the Occupied Territories, existed for decades without adequate services.

Also the laws governing land ownership are even more unjust than it was in South Africa, where at the height of apartheid, black people nominally `controlled' 13 percent of the land. In Israel, the Palestinians control only 2 percent of the land.

Law of Acquisition of Absentee Property and the Law for Acquisition of Land blatantly discriminate against Palestinians.

Moreover, no significant industry has been permitted to develop in the West Bank or Gaza, and thus the Palestinians are concentrated in the lowest paying jobs.

The occupied Palestinian territories import 93% of goods, while export a mere 7% of what they produce. Also the Palestinians are barred from exporting their products to Western Europe so as not to compete with Israeli exports. And so, 90% of Palestinian workers must travel to Jewish towns for employment.

According to the U.S. Arms Export Control Act (AECA) the government shouldn’t give military assistance to any country that violates international laws or human rights. The State Department's 2001 human rights report states: "Israeli security units often used excessive force against Palestinian demonstrators including live fire ... impeded the provision of medical assistance to Palestinian civilians by their strict enforcement of internal closures, which reportedly contributed to at least 32 deaths. The Israeli security forces harassed and abused Palestinian pedestrians and drivers who were attempting to pass through the more than 130 Israeli- controlled checkpoints ..." Under the AECA, "the President is required to report to Congress promptly upon the receipt of information that a substantial violation of AECA may have occurred."

U.S. is indirectly involved in Israel's human rights abuses by providing political, diplomatic and material means for the Israeli occupation to continue.
The tight relationship U.S. Israeli relationship has been one of the most salient features in U.S. foreign policy for nearly three and a half decades. The generous U.S. aid poured annually on Israel was never questioned in Congress, even by liberals challenging U.S. aid to governments involved in widespread violations of human rights.

Source: GlobalExchange.org

So You Work For the Press?

For Willie

Introduction

by Housewife4Palestine

One of the saddest parts of not being able to live in your own country is the seperations, especially of a parent from their children.

One person it brings to mind is a cousin who's wife just had there first baby and it was a beautiful healthy boy.

He works in America and is trying to get them with him, but it will take many years for this family to be united and he is saddened for he may never see his son grown up.

I cannot help thinking of the many people that say we do not love our child when they are the most precious people in our lives and seeing the sorrow with the loneliness on Willies face, it would make the greatest hearts of stone melt like spring ice.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Our Precious Children

There are little eyes upon you
and they're watching night and day.
There are little ears that quickly
take in every word you say.

There are little hands all eager
to do anything you do;
And little children dreaming
of the day they'll be like you.

You're the little children's idol,
you're the wisest of the wise.
In their little minds about you
no suspicions ever rise.

They believe in you devoutly,
hold all you say and do;
they will say and do, in your way
when they're grown up just like you.

There's a wide-eyed little student
who believes you're always right;
and their eyes are always opened,
and they watch you day and night.

You are setting an example
every day in all you do;
For the little child who's waiting
to grow up to be like you.


~ Author Unknown ~

Iraq Longer War Then World War 2

The war in Iraq has now lasted longer than the U.S. involvement in the war that President Bush's father fought in, World War II.

Who is the Real Turkey?

President Bush arrives at the Wahite House Rose Garden to pardon the national Thanksgiving turkey on Wednesday, Nov. 22, 2006, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Alleged Bomb Toys Found in Nablus

November 28, 2006

A Deadly Toy (Nov. 26): An IDF sapper examines a stuffede monkey rigged with explosives, which was found at a Nablus bomb factory on Friday. Photo: IDF Spokesman

Comment:

I rather get a chuckle sometimes when it comes to the IDF, where they say they found bombs loaded in toys and from the picture, I see; I cannot find evidence.

If these bombs are being made, the one who thought this up took some real thinking.

Bush Heading For Jordan

November 28, 2006

Amman to host Bush, Abbas, Maliki to avert Mideast crisis.

President George W. Bush waves as he boards Air Force One yesterday at Andrews Air Force Base on his way to the region. Photo: AP

Which Bucket?

November 28, 2006

by Housewife4Palestine

There is an old saying in America especially when it comes to Politics and it is like having a bucket of BM in one hand and a bucket of urine in the other or that politics is just a dirty bad game.

When it comes to Ehud Olmert and his Israeli policies especially what he is saying and it is hard to believe with the information or innuendo’s coming out that Israel keeps breaking the truce, especially with their history. I find it hard with the latest information, which Ehud Olmert would put out any kind of Olive branch unless a knife was in the other hand.

By chance their ever were a chance for real peace and freedom for the Palestinians I would be the first one that would be so happy because not only for the Palestinians but I would hope the global bloodshed would stop and we all could shake hands and be friends again.

But I have came to a realization with someone attacking my computer two days ago with a virus I am sure with what was appearing was out of pure hate and character assassination because what I saw I am above any of these kinds of since or kinds of activities that was showing up on my screen. By the way, of a warning, the virus is called Gold Codec.

These kinds of thing while it was meant to harm in just another way at a person who ever did this doesn’t even know me but surmises, just goes to say that even in the political arena underhanded tactics is the norm it seems like today.

Instead of beating each other up and insulting each other, we just group for a solution.

Most of all may Allah help us before it is to late, because how many people have to die and how many tears has to be shed before there is no turning back?

As for Olmert telling the truth for once and showing everyone he means peace instead of holding out his hand and doing the usual dirty work with the other hand.

This reminds me of something I read once, back in the later part of the 1800’s in England during the time when the Police was known as, “The Peelers,” after Robert Peel.

At this time, you had a group of prostitutes that where also thieves. Actually, I think theft was their real intention. Needless to say, they would come up to a man with the precepts of organizing a tryst with one hand and as they was hugging or kissing the man as the reeled them in; had a knife in their other hand behind the back where they stabbed the man so he would die. As the man died, the prostitute would shake him down and remove his valuables.



How the public saw the Peelers: They hated the Peelers. Many were poor quality - drunks and bullies. Of the first 2,800 new policemen, only 600 kept their jobs. The first policeman, given the number 1, was sacked after only FOUR HOURS! (He was legless)

Later, the Peelers became known as the Modern Bobbies.

So it goes to show a smoke screen that people are suppose to look at is not necessary the truth.

And The Children Die...

Now I understand Now I know
Older and wiser
I understand with pain in my stomach
The suffering of a child
I have lived to learn how unforgivable it is
to Standby while they die

A life like box in my living room tells me stories
Of babies who have no more tears to cry
Their blank stares begging for nothing
Their frail bodies exposed to us as evidence
As humanity sits by helpless, I Cry
What do I do while they die?

Am I an unwitting participant in this Me game?
Or worse, is it knowingly?
Am I forgiven because I cry?
Or do I close the light at night and know that
absolution will never be gifted to the human race
until we take each others hands as one people
united in our common goal,
making decisions advocating compassion,
above Everything

How do we find our way
While they die
Am I getting wiser or just older?
My heart aches for the children
So I try to help one
But it’s not enough for me
We need leaders who will choose to save the children
We need countries caring about their suffering people
But it is easier to build weapons
Hold my hand while we cry
And the children die

Written by Barbara Tremblay Cipak

NO BUY WHILE CHILDREN DIE...

Multinational corporate world sponsored wars against children.

American Red Cross fined for violations

November 27, 2006

By ANDREW BRIDGES, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The federal government has fined the American Red Cross $5.7 million for violating blood-safety laws and the terms of a 2003 consent decree.

The fine covers quality assurance, inventory management, control of non-conforming blood products, donor screening and blood component manufacturing issues turned up during a 2005 inspection of a Red Cross facility in West Henrietta, N.Y., the Food and Drug Administration said in a Nov. 21 letter.

The letter, to Red Cross interim president and CEO Jack McGuire, was posted Monday on the FDA Web site.

The fine appears to be the largest single penalty ever assessed under terms of a 2003 court settlement that allows the large fines when the Red Cross violates FDA rules. Previously, the FDA had fined the Red Cross a total of nearly $10 million.

"We will review the letter, which we are doing now, and if we have any questions or issues that we want to resolve, we will get back with the FDA," American Red Cross spokesman Ryland Dodge said.

Messages left with two FDA representatives were not immediately returned.

The fine stems from the FDA's inspection of the Red Cross New York-Penn Region's blood services facility. FDA inspectors, over 29 days, turned up 207 deviations from a 2004 plan devised to detect, investigate, monitor and correct problems. The inspection was the first comprehensive evaluation of how the Red Cross implemented the plan, the FDA said.

The Red Cross board of governors has asked for an independent and comprehensive assessment of how it complies with FDA regulatory requirements.

The ultimate size of the fine could grow if the FDA deems a required compliance plan inadequate, the agency said.

The Red Cross said does not use donated money to pay fines, but instead relies on operating funds, it said. Those include revenue from the sales of blood products.

The 2003 consent decree settled charges that the Red Cross had committed "persistent and serious violations" of federal blood safety rules dating back 17 years.

The Red Cross provides more than 40 percent of the nation's blood supply, selling blood products to health facilities.
___
On the Net:

American Red Cross

Food and Drug Administration

STATEMENT: FDA Issues Adverse Determination Letter

Al-Qassam Brigades: "There Won't Be Any Free Truce"

Abu Obayda : We gave a period of stopping Qassam Rockets but not An open Truce to supervise the Israeli position and after that we will end the Truce or Continue it

Abu Obayda, the spokesman of Al-Qassam Brigades, confirms that Al-Qassam Brigades did not determine or declare any period or time to begin a free open Truce with the occupation forces. Abu Obayda confirmed that the ceasefire should be conditioned with stopping all types of Zionist aggression against the Palestinian people.

" We did not declare any open ceasefire with the occupation and there won't be any free truce. We supervise the Zionist position from the declared ceasefire yesterday with the Palestinian Factions. The ball is turned in the Isreali ground despite our knowledge that the occupation will not keep any ceasefire but the Palestinian Factions declared the initiative to ceasefire and the World will see that the Zionist forces is the one who will not keep the ceasefire. Moreover, we will be able to have a united agreement in stopping fire or beginning it" Abu Obayda said to Palestine Now Press.

In addition, Abu Obayda confirmed that the new fire after at 07:30 in the morning of Sunday should not be a violation to the ceasefire saying " we sit with the Palestinian Prime minister to stop firing Qassam Rockets in occurrence with the end of the Zionist aggression against our Palestinian people." Adding that we will give a period of stopping Qassams and not giving a ceasefire to supervise the Zionist position.

Abu Obayda confirmed that if the Zionist forces did not keep the ceasefire, Al-Qassam Brigades will not keep this period. He referred that Stopping Qassam Rockets did not mean leaving Resistance against the Occupation Forces and standing against their continuous aggression.
Abu Obayda expected that the ceasefire will not continue because the Zionist forces have a continuous plans of aggression against our people.

Al-Aqsa Brigades launch two homemade projectiles, in retaliation for Israeli violation of ceasefire

November 27, 2006

Gaza - Ma'an – The Al-Aqsa Brigades, the main armed group affiliated with the Fatah movement have, on Monday afternoon, launched two homemade projectiles towards Israeli targets, in retaliation for the Israeli authorities arresting 15 Palestinians in the West Bank.

In a statement received by Ma'an, the brigades stated that they could not bound by a commitment not to launch projectiles, "as long as the Israelis continue to kill, besiege towns and build the separation wall".

They called on President Abbas to give orders to the Palestinian forces, which have been deployed along the borders, to blockade the forces of the Israeli occupation, instead of blockading the Palestinian fighters.