Five year old girl terrified to death after Israeli forces arrest her father

Late last night a five year old girl died in the southern West Bank after a struggle in the hospital. The Palestinian Prisoner Society's Hebron branch issued the details on Saturday that cite the cause of her death as terror.

As is a common occurrence during arrest campaigns, Israeli forces raided the family home as they slept. The soldiers were loud and violent, tearing through personal belongings, throwing furniture, shoving family members, holding them all at gunpoint.

PPS reports that during arrests Israeli forces generally use jeeps or tanks, break down doors, fire tear gas and bullets, bring in dogs and beat people.

The Director of PPS in Hebron, Amjad Najjar, is following the case. “The conduct of occupation soldiers is that of pirates. They engage in persecution and violate international law, human rights and religious values. These hostile operations crush people, particularly children.”

The invasions frighten the toughest of adults who know they may not live through them. And it is well documented how psychologically damaging the midnight raids are for children.

At the beginning of the month Israeli forces broke into the Al Tardh family home. Five and a half year old Ebtisam was terrified as soldiers screamed at her and her siblings, forcing them all outside into the cold. In front of the children, Israeli forces arrested their father. The young girl went into an apparent shock and was taken to the hospital. She never recovered.

And although his daughter is dead, Ibrahim Al Tardh remains in Israeli prison, suffering himself from heart disease and in urgent need of health care.

Should Journalists Be Politically Impartial?

24, February, 2007

Iman Kurdi, Arab News

Should a political journalist be like a psychoanalyst: Someone whose role is to guide, not impose, whose own views and emotions remain hidden behind a screen of impartiality and who infuriatingly always answers a question with a question? I can think of some journalists who fall into that category. If they write in the press, they produce pieces that are almost seamlessly put together, a sequence of facts and figures, quotes and citations, that let the subject do the talking. If they appear on television, they tend to be poker-faced or almost invisible, a head nodding along and a voice asking questions, seemingly neutral and unbiased. It can make fascinating viewing, particularly when they interview people with extreme views: Give them enough rope and they hang themselves.

But it often lacks spice. Not only can it end up being bland and uninteresting; it can also be misleading. The majority of politicians are players, they are the masters of propaganda to use an old-fashioned term. Give them airtime and they will spin a tantalizing web. We look to journalists to challenge what is being said. Of course this does not negate them from being independent and impartial, but it requires a hard skill: The ability to be combative yet neutral. Some do it better than others. In Europe, the British are rather good at producing journalists who can keep politicians on their toes, the French less so. French journalists are more polite, more compliant than their British counterparts: Politicians are treated as statesmen and given a certain degree of respect and deference. As for the Middle East, deference was the norm, until Al-Jazeerah came along.

Essentially, journalists are required to take part in a debate without taking sides. During election campaigns, journalists aim to be balanced, independent, neutral and impartial. But is that possible? Given that journalists are — on the whole — intelligent and informed, surely they have strong opinions, views that — presumably — they suppress in order to appear impartial. In other words, it is a lie. The journalist is not impartial; he or she only appears to be.

Would it not be more honest to wear your views? I ask the question in the context of the current French election campaign. Last week Alain Duhamel, a leading French political commentator, was suspended from the television station France 2 and from the radio station RTL because it was revealed that he supported Francois Bayrou, one of the presidential candidates. The manner and context of this revelation is noteworthy. Duhamel made the comment off the record last November, unaware that he was being recorded. He said that he supported Francois Bayrou’s stand on Europe and would likely vote for him. In other words, he spoke not in the context of presidential elections, but of European elections. More than three months later, the footage was put on the Internet and Duhamel was swiftly taken off the air. Just as two newsreaders, Marie Drucker and Beatrice Schoenberg, have been put on a leave of absence for the duration of the election campaign because their partners happen to be politicians. The assumption is that they are no longer impartial and consequently unfit to do their job.

I find the idea that any journalist is personally impartial absurd. I also find it somewhat ridiculous to believe that the public is blissfully unaware of a journalist’s place on the political spectrum. The more influential the journalist — and in France TV anchors are stars in their own right — the more will be known about the company they keep and the views they hold. But even without the gossip columns, just which paper a journalist writes for is often enough to label someone as to the left or to the right.

I also find it hypocritical to penalize individual journalists for appearing impartial when whole news networks are far from independent. In Britain, the outcome of the next general elections will be largely influenced by the views of one man: Rupert Murdoch. Should Murdoch choose to switch his support back to the Conservatives, his newspapers and TV stations will be anything but impartial. In Italy, Silvio Berlusconi would not have attained political power had he not had his media empire at his beck and call. France may be lucky enough not to have a Rupert Murdoch or a Silvio Berlusconi dominating its media output but that does not make French media independent of political influence. For one thing the links between major media players and certain politicians are well known.

If anything part of the reason Alain Duhamel’s support for Francois Bayrou caused such a stir is that he is not supporting a candidate from the left or from the right but the so-called third man. Had he said he would vote for Nicholas Sarkozy (indeed Alain Duhamel was thought by some to be a Sarkoziste) chances are he would still be on air — at least this is Francois Bayrou’s contention. Media coverage of Bayrou’s campaign has been a contentious issue. A key component of his campaign has been a fight for the attention of the media. In fact he has regularly accused the media of setting up the election as a duel between Nicholas Sarkozy and Segolene Royal, a duel that Sarkozy is expected to win according to the pollsters. Bayrou is positioning himself firmly in the center, though his political background is closer to the center-right. He is campaigning for a unity government and a move away from the bipolarization of politics. If Sarkozy should find himself in a run-off with Bayrou, the polls suggest Sarkozy would lose. For this to happen, Bayrou needs to come second in the first round of voting. The more the media portrays him as a viable contender the better his chances of making it to the second round.

What all this points to is the level of distrust that exists regarding the media. This is by no means a French phenomenon but a global one. This is largely due to media ownership rather than journalism per se. It is not impartiality that is the issue but independence. The general public increasingly distrusts the media because it believes that the agenda is set by the usual suspects of politics and big business. Newspapers and television stations are seeing some of their influence eroded as readers and viewers turn to sources they feel they can trust more than the mainstream media, sources like blogs and other Internet-based media. One of the aspects I find most interesting about this is that people are turning toward information sources that are partisan. What they trust is a commentator who is open about his or her allegiance, you could call it media transparency, something akin to politicians declaring their financial interests. Broadcasting regulators enforce strict rules to ensure that political parties are given due weight and that the playing field remains fair. Journalists have a duty to present a fair and balanced account of a political campaign. Being married to a politician or making voting intentions known does not disqualify a journalist from doing his job anymore than being a citizen who votes in a general election does. If anything, the more open journalists are about their political connections, the more likely they are to be trusted by the public. It is not a journalist who should be impartial but their reporting.

Arab Democracies

Abbas for Two State Plan

In Berlin, Abbas expresses support for Roadmap and end of violence

February 23, 2007

Bethlehem - Ma'an - Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has told German Chancellor Angela Merkel that he supports the two-state solution laid out in the Roadmap and the renouncing of violence.

In a press conference in Berlin on Friday, Abbas also confirmed that the Mecca deal is vitally important for preserving Palestinian blood and enhancing Palestinian national unity. He also said that he supports her call for the need to stop the projectiles being launched from the Gaza Strip into Israel and for the release of the captured Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit.

Abbas added, however: "Also, there are 10,000 Palestinian prisoners in the Israeli jails. It can't be possible to call for the release of Shalit and ignore them."

He also mentioned that there will be a meeting between the Quartet, which comprises of the EU, UN, US and Russia, and the Arab countries in order to "find solutions to the peace process issues".

As for negotiations with Israel, he said: "our position is clear; it is [based on] the international law. We don’t want more than the Roadmap, which is to have two states and ending the Israeli occupation of the lands of 1967 and the issue of the refugees ". He said that these issues will be on the negotiation table.

Abbas added that he is very interested to continue negotiations with Israel. He also said that he wants to "give hope to the people of the region, especially the Palestinian people who have been suffering from sanctions for nine months. This hope should be for a final solution built on the two-state solution and the denouncing of violence and terror."

The German chancellor said that it is necessary to have two states living together in peace and stability. She urged the Palestinian government to be committed to the Quartet's conditions in order to achieve its goals.

Israel and the Quartet have stipulated that any new Palestinian government, including the proposed coalition government agreed as part of President Abbas and Prime Minister Haniyeh's Mecca deal, must abide by their three conditions – recognize the state of Israel's right to exist, renounce violence and adopt the previously signed peace agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority – before any change in relations can be considered.

She considered it important to release the captured Israeli soldier, Cpl Shalit, and end the threats of projectiles. Merkel also praised the efforts of Abbas for reaching peace and announced her full support for him.

With regard to the Israeli settlements, she said: "the Quartet has expressed its wish to have two states and all obstacles should be removed. There will be rules to end these obstacles."

As for whether Israel will be forced to recognize the Roadmap, she said, "the obstacles are coming from Hamas as the Roadmap's principles are not being recognized by Hamas." She added that Hamas should make the first step "in order to end this problem."

White House opposes limits on war authority

Bush administration says it will fight Democrats’ attempt to curb power

February 23, 2007

Video

Bush administration says it will fight Democrats’ attempt to curb powerThe White House said Friday it would oppose any attempt by Senate Democrats to revoke the 2002 congressional resolution authorizing the war in Iraq and leave U.S. troops with a limited mission as they prepare to withdraw.

The Bush administration argued that changes in the resolution were unnecessary even though it was drafted in the days when Saddam Hussein was in power and there was an assumption _ later proved false _ that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Still, the White House said that Democrats were in a state of confusion about Iraq.

“There’s a lot of ... shifting sands in the Democrats’ position right now,” White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said. “It’s hard to say exactly what their position is.”

The precise wording of the Democrats’ measure remains unsettled. One version would restrict American troops in Iraq to fighting the al-Qaida terrorist network, training Iraqi army and police forces, maintaining Iraq’s territorial integrity and otherwise proceeding with the withdrawal of combat forces.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., intends to present the proposal to fellow Democrats next week, and he is expected to try to add the measure to anti-terrorism legislation scheduled to be debated later this month. Officials who described the strategy spoke only on condition of anonymity, noting that rank-and-file senators had not yet been briefed on the details.

“These kinds of efforts have consequences,” Fratto said Friday. He said that pulling troops out of Baghdad would result in chaos.

‘No final decisions have been made’

Republicans recently thwarted two Democratic attempts to pass a nonbinding measure through the Senate that was critical of Bush’s decision to deploy an additional 21,500 combat troops.

After failing on his second attempt last Saturday, Reid said he would turn his attention to passing binding legislation.

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid, declined to discuss the deliberations, saying only, “No final decisions have been made on how to proceed.”

Any attempt to limit Bush’s powers as commander in chief would likely face strong opposition from Republican allies of the administration in the Senate. Additionally, unlike earlier, nonbinding measures, the legislation now under consideration could also face a veto threat.

Still, it marks a quickening of the challenge Democrats are mounting to Bush’s war policies following midterm elections in which war-weary voters swept Republicans from power in both the House and Senate.

The emerging Senate plan differs markedly from an approach favored by critics of the war in the House, where a nonbinding measure passed last week.

Criticism from some Democrats

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she expects the next challenge to Bush’s war policies to come in the form of legislation requiring the Pentagon to adhere to strict training and readiness standards in the case of troops ticketed for the war zone.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., the leading advocate of that approach, has said it would effectively deny Bush the ability to proceed with the troop buildup that has been partially implemented since he announced it in January.

Some Senate Democrats have been privately critical of that approach, saying it would have virtually no chance of passing and could easily backfire politically in the face of Republican arguments that it would deny reinforcements to troops already in the war zone.

Several Senate Democrats have called in recent days for revoking the original authorization that Bush sought and won from Congress in the months before the U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.

‘The continuing threat posed by Iraq

’That measure authorized the president to use the armed forces “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate ... to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq” and to enforce relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions.

At the time the world body had passed resolutions regarding Iraq’s presumed effort to develop weapons of mass destruction.

A Single Drop

A lot of times when there is an upset, instead of making it like a tide the sweeps you under, make it like a ripple that disperses and then disappears.

You will find life much happier and your troubles will become small.

UN: Palestinians facing food crisis

The UN has found that even farmers and fishermen are less unable to feed their families [Reuters]

February 22, 2007

A United Nations study has found that growing numbers of people in Gaza and the West Bank are "food insecure" and becoming dependent on food aid.

Poverty has risen since the international community cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority after Hamas won parliamentary elections last year, the new report from the World Food Programme (WFP) said.

The weakening of the Palestinian economy has also made previously secure workers - such as fishermen, farmers, and small traders - increasingly desperate, a UN press release publicising the report said on Thursday.

Kirstie Campbell, spokeswoman for the WFP, said that 46 per cent of Palestinians are now food insecure or vulnerable.

In 2004, 35 per cent of Palestinians were food insecure, she said.

"Many people, who cannot afford to buy food, have been forced to sell off valuable assets such as land or tools," the report said.

To tackle the growing need, the WFP increased its food assistance by 25 per cent in the past year, feeding about 260,000 non-refugees in Gaza and 400,000 in the West Bank.

Another UN agency, UNRWA, handles food distribution for refugees.

Arnold Vercken, the WFP country director, said: "The poorest families are now living a meagre existence totally reliant on assistance, with no electricity or heating and eating food prepared with water from bad sources.

"This is putting their long-term health at risk."

Campbell called the increased humanitarian assistance a "Band-Aid" solution that did not offer a permanent solution to the economic problems of Palestinians.

Source

The Criminalization of US Foreign Policy

From the Truman Doctrine to the Neo-Conservatives

by Michel Chossudovsky
February 5, 2007

PERDANA GLOBAL PEACE ORGANISATION

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE EXPOSE WAR CRIMES - CRIMINALISE WAR

5-7 February 2007, Dewan Merdeka, Putra World Trade Centre, Kuala Lumpur


1. The contemporary context

The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has embarked on a military adventure, "a long war", which threatens the future of humanity.

At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable, a nuclear holocaust which could potentially spread, in terms of radioactive fallout, over a large part of the Middle East.

There is mounting evidence that the Bush Administration, in liaison with Israel and NATO, is planning the launching of a nuclear war against Iran, ironically, in retaliation for Tehran's nonexistent nuclear weapons program. The US-Israeli military operation is said to be in "an advanced state of readiness".

If such a plan were to be launched, the war would escalate and eventually engulf the entire Middle-East Central Asian region.

The war could extend beyond the region, as some analysts have suggested, ultimately leading us into a World War III scenario.

The US-led naval deployment (involving a massive deployment of military hardware) is taking place in two distinct theaters: the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean.

The militarization of the Eastern Mediterranean is broadly under the jurisdiction of NATO in liaison with Israel. Directed against Syria, it is conducted under the façade of a UN "peace-keeping" mission. In this context, the Israeli led war on Lebanon last Summer, which was conducive to countless atrocities and the destruction of an entire country, must be viewed as a stage of the broader US sponsored military road-map.

LEBANON: Civil defence rescuers carry the body of a woman away from a civilian car that was struck by an Israeli warplane missile- rmayleih juy 17 - AP

2. Naval Buildup in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean

The naval armada in the Persian Gulf is largely under US command, with the participation of Canada.

USS Enterprise Strike Group

USS Eisenhower

The naval buildup is coordinated with the air attacks. The planning of aerial bombings of Iran started in mid-2004, pursuant to the formulation of CONPLAN 8022 in early 2004. In May 2004, National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 35 entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization was issued.

While its contents remain classified, the presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the stockpiling and deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater in compliance with CONPLAN 8022.

In recent developments, there are reports that Washington is planning to launch air attacks from military bases in Romania and Bulgaria. "American forces could be using their two USAF bases in Bulgaria and one at Romania's Black Sea coast to launch an attack on Iran in April [2007]," according to the Bulgarian news agency Novinite.

3. The Ultimate War Crime: Using Nuclear Weapons in a Conventional War theater

Despite Pentagon statements, which describe tactical nuclear weapons as "safe for the surrounding civilian population", the use of nukes in a conventional war theater directed against Iran would trigger the ultimate war crime: a nuclear holocaust. The resulting radioactive contamination, which threatens future generations, would by no means be limited to the Middle East.

B61-11 NEP Thermonuclear Bomb

4. The "War on Terrorism": Pretext to Wage War

In 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States". Mass casualty producing events, involving the death of civilians are being used to galvanize public opinion in support of a military agenda. The deaths of civilian are used to justify preemptive actions to defend the American homeland against an alleged outside enemy, who are identified as "Islamic terrorists".

Mass Casualty Producing Events

"A terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event." General Tommy Franks,

"We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." (David Rockefeller)

"As America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (Zbigniew Brzezinski in the Grand Chessboard)

The presumption was that if such a 9/11 type event involving the deaths of civilians (mass casualty producing event) were to take place, Iran would, according to Cheney, be behind it, thereby providing a pretext for punitive bombings, much in the same way as the US sponsored attacks on Afghanistan in October 2001, allegedly in retribution for the alleged support of the Taliban government to the 9/11 terrorists

More recently, several analysts have focussed on the creation of a "Gulf of Tonkin incident", which would be used by the Bush administration as a pretext to wage war on Iran

5. The Real Objective Of This War Is Oil

The oil lies in Muslim lands. The objective is to take possession of the oil, transform countries into territories and redraw the map of the Middle East

War builds a fake "humanitarian agenda". Throughout history, vilification of the enemy has been applied time and again with a view to ultimately justifying war and war crimes.

Demonization of the enemy serves geopolitical and economic objectives. Likewise, the campaign against "Islamic terrorism" (which is supported covertly by US intelligence) supports the conquest of oil wealth. The term "Islamo-fascism," serves to degrade the policies, institutions, values and social fabric of Muslim countries, while also upholding the tenets of "Western democracy" and the "free market" as the only alternative for these countries.

The US led war in the broader Middle East Central Asian region consists in gaining control over more than sixty percent of the world's reserves of oil and natural gas. The Anglo-American oil giants also seek to gain control over oil and gas pipeline routes out of the region.

Muslim countries including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Yemen, Libya, Nigeria, Algeria, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, possess between 66.2 and 75.9 percent of total oil reserves, depending on the source and methodology of the estimate. In contrast, the United States of America has barely 2 percent of total oil reserves. Western countries including its major oil producers ( Canada, the US, Norway, the UK, Denmark and Australia) control approximately 4 percent of total oil reserves. (In the alternative estimate of the Oil and Gas Journal which includes Canada's oil sands, this percentage would be of the the order of 16.5%.

The largest share of the World's oil reserves lies in a region extending (North) from the tip of Yemen to the Caspian sea basin and (East) from the Eastern Mediterranean coastline to the Persian Gulf. This broader Middle East- Central Asian region, which is the theater of the US-led "war on terrorism" encompasses according to the estimates of World Oil, more than sixty percent of the World's oil reserves. (See table below).

Iraq has five times more oil than the United States.

Muslim countries possess at least 16 times more oil than the Western countries.

The major non-Muslim oil reserve countries are Venezuela, Russia, Mexico, China and Brazil.

(See table)

The victims of war crimes are vilified Demonization is applied to an enemy, which possesses three quarters of the world's oil reserves. "Axis of evil", "rogue States", "failed nations", "Islamic terrorists": demonization and vilification are the ideological pillars of America's "war on terror".

They serve as a casus belli for waging the battle for oil.

The Battle for Oil requires the demonization of those who possess the oil. The enemy is characterized as evil, with a view to justifying military action including the mass killing of civilians. The Middle East Central Asian region is heavily militarized. (See map). The oil fields are encircled: NATO war ships stationed in the Eastern Mediterranean (as part of a UN "peace keeping" operation), US Carrier Strike Groups and Destroyer Squadrons in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian deployed as part of the "war on terrorism".

REDRAWING THE MAP OF THE NEW MIDDLE EAST

Read more

Palestinian government accuses US of political blackmail following Quartet's statements, yet remains optimistic

February 27, 2007

Gaza - Ma'an - The Palestinian government has expressed its concern at the outcome of the Quartet's meeting on Wednesday in Berlin in which the Quartet – comprising of the EU, UN, US, and Russia – issued a statement expressing support for a Palestinian government as long as it was "committed to non-violence and the recognition of Israel".

However, government spokesman Ghazi Hamad, also expressed his hope that the Quartet was demonstrating signs of a slight change in position and that it is possible that doors may be opened towards positive cooperation.

The Palestinian minister of information, Dr. Yousef Rizqa, criticized the US' position in the Quartet meeting, describing it as "negative" and "extortion".

However, Hamad said in a statement for Ma'an: "The support of the Quartet for the establishment of a national unity government and the exclusion of the language of boycott and…siege leaves the door open for the possibility of future steps after the government is established … We hope that it will reach a stage of full cooperation."


On behalf of the government, Hamad praised some parts of the Quartet that clearly supported dealing with the unity government.

But the information minister, Dr. Rizqa, said in a statement for Ma'an that the American position is directing at obstructing the Russian and European efforts to end the siege on the Palestinian people. He accused the US administration of evading the political reality by failing to face up to the Mecca agreement and dealing with it in a positive manner at an international level.

Government spokesman Hamad urged that the Mecca agreement constituted a fundamental step in the Palestinian arena in which the Palestinians united around a single, national, political program. This united program represents the foundations, Hamad said, for further steps which will put an end to the Palestinians' suffering and which will lead to a state of stability in the region, in addition to establishing a Palestinian national unity government. Hamad said this program, and a united coalition government, improves the chances of the Palestinians of acquiring their legitimate rights, above all their rights to end the occupation and to establish an independent Palestinian state.

He also stressed the need for the international community to end the siege and the Palestinians' suffering and to support the national unity government.

Condoleezza Rice

On Wednesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, High Representative for European Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, and European Commissioner for External Relations Benita Ferrero-Waldner met in Berlin to discuss the situation in the Middle East.

Secretary Rice updated her Quartet colleagues on her recent meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Olmert and Palestinian President Abbas. The Quartet expressed in a press statement following their meeting their hope that these meetings would represent a "renewed political process, with the aim of defining more clearly the political horizon and launching meaningful negotiations." The Quartet also said that it "urged the parties to refrain from measures that prejudge issues to be resolved in negotiations." According to the press statement, the Quartet discussed in their meeting ways to promote "a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the Middle East." The Quartet also reportedly "welcomed preliminary ideas put forward by the European Commission to meet the need to better coordinate and mobilize international assistance in support of the political process and to meet the needs of the Palestinian people" without clarifying the nature of these ideas.

The Quartet also agreed to schedule a further meeting between the relevant parties in the region soon.

No Place Like Home

February 21, 2007

by Housewife4Palestine

Life is fascinating especially when it involves travel whether it is for yourself or the impeding arrival of a good friend that you have awaited with bated breathing of anticipation.

People is what life is about, I have always said this because friends and family are one of a kind and no matter what, when they are gone for what ever reason that they cannot be replaced.

When I was growing up, I always understood that living as a refugee was like being a person without a country and everyone should have a place to call home and their own country.

It seems stranger to me now, when I would travel as a child and see a nice family home and wish someday, I could have the same.

You would see the warm glow of a light, or what seemed to me back then what had to be the warmth in my heart of a family all together in their own place and how to me it most be nice to have something like this. I always said one day me and others like me would have the same.

As many Palestinian people became like a people scattered to the four winds, my family included, it will always seem like a harsh reality. No matter what country you are a refugee in you can not assimilate into that society for the simple fact we are so vastly different from the host country.

My mother use to mention, when someone would say, I was different as a child and I would come running home to her is why or is their something wrong with me. My mother would always say we were different and not much more could be said. I always understood that to live outside of Palestine was not just being a refugee but you were in in a virtual limbo of exile.

One thing you learn living like this, is the firm understanding that all people should live in the comfort and warmth of their own home or in this case their own country.

I have seen pictures and it always seemed that through no fault of our own we must be like railroad hobo’s looking for some place that you hope is not so distant in our future.

Time and time again the Zionist yell homeland, which in all reality how could this be at the cost of a people that this has been their homeland for about 7,000 years to be interrupted for a second time by a people calling themselves Zionist and this time landing on our soil with guns.

I have always understood to come in peace, you do not bring guns, but an olive branch with a kind heart.

Save the Dibbin Forest

The best remaining area of mature, natural Pinus halepensis forest in the country, on limestone slopes of the highest hill range in northern Jordan, between 550 and 1,000 m. Understorey of Arbutus and evergreen Quercus. Parts of the forest remain remote from habitation, although there are some pockets of agriculture. The surrounding area has oaks and olive groves as well. There is a much-used recreational area in the centre of the site, with parking spaces, barbecue sites, restaurant and playgrounds.

Two State Plan Pictured

Zionist side

Palestinian side


Get the Picture?

The Hidden Iraq

Their never should be such a thing as war, for it not just harms those under attack, but causes a back flush to all humanity that will affect lives for countless generations.

Iraq: The Hidden Story

Originally Published: May 12, 2006

Video

The story of what does not get reported in Iraq, by the mainstream media.

Attacked by American Censorship

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
— The first article of the Bill of Rights

February 19, 2007

Commentary

by Housewife4Palestine

Recently I firmly believe and other’s have expressed the same conclusion, that I was being put under attack towards the growing problem of American censorship.

While I do not fall under the guidelines of such censorship, I found it appalling that anyone would attempt to advice me what I can or can not write towards this blog page.

I have never believed in any form of censorship nor yellow journalism but to the contrary, I have always been a stanch advocate of freedom of speech .

The article that was attacked was called, Their Greatest Fear," which is in regards to the NewWorld order alliance between the Zionist and the American’s for global domination.

While this article was hailed as one of the finest editorials to come about towards the true issue facing the world, the woman from Anne’s letter’s and Right to Return Ring of blogs spoke differently. She not only insulted me but appeared to be dictating what I may write about. Like I must have the American media approval to what I write, if she is correct in her association with the American media.

“Anne ,” claims to be Pro-Palestine and have some understanding of Islam, which from the manner she wrote me I not only question her loyalty to the Palestinian cause, but her lack of etiquette within Islam. She came across as more of a Patriotic American sheep then anything else.

I did set out to publish her comments under the article she attacked but better judgment and advice I came to the observation that this kind of derogatory attack did not need to appear unless it was not to discredit me, but show the foolish nature the censorship has taken.

When I asked questions to what this woman had slandered towards me numerous others, beside’s those who are true Pro-Palestinian blogger’s agreed with my assumption.

I came across the following information on the pressured censorship in America since the falsified “War on Terror” is occurring.

Following is some very interesting entries towards the new American censorship:

Introduction

Censorship exists to some extent in all modern countries, including the U.S.A., the U.K., Germany, France, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand. However, it is worse in some countries than in others. A government which censors the information available to its people, other than in a state of national emergency (e.g., a sudden attack by a hostile military force) is a government which seeks to keep the people in a state of ignorance, and should not complain if the people have no loyalty to it.

Censorship and the "War on Terrorism"

In response to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon President George W. Bush announced a "war on terrorism" and told the American people that they have to sacrifice their civil liberties in support of his "war", which most people seem willing, sheep-like, to do. A tidal wave of jingoism has engulfed the U.S., and any criticism of the President or the U.S. is deemed "unpatriotic" and is often punished by loss of employment.

But a war requires an identifiable enemy. A war is a war between two or more opposing sides. A "war" in which one side is invisible, such as this "war on terrorism", is a fantasy — a pretext to restrict civil liberties, to impose censorship and to engage in other activities not acceptable in a democratic society in peacetime.

David Cole: A Matter of Rights

James Bacque: History and Forgetting

John Pilger: War for Truth

Dwight F. Reynolds: Which War Are You Watching? — The View from Spain

America no longer has a "free press" in the true meaning of the term, for in America one is not free to express criticism of the war or of the Bush regime.

Mary Louise: Operation Mockingbird: CIA Media Manipulation

Personally, I have come to the conclusion that the media is not only influenced by the CIA ..... the media is the CIA. Many Americans think of their supposedly free press as a watchdog on government, mainly because the press itself shamelessly promotes that myth. One of the first tenets for the control of a population is to control all sources of information the population receives and mostly because of the pervasive CIA and Operation Mockingbird, the mainstream American Press is a controlled multi-national corporate/government megaphone. They are up to their eyeballs in dirty deeds and there will never be an end to the corruption that prevails unless the CIA is abolished.

Palestine as an Exporter

Palestine was a main exporter to the neighbouring lands and Europe for many years. Crops like citrus and grain found ready markets outside Palestine. Palestine was also famous for the production of olives and olive oil. It was one of the principal exporters of the olive tree. Palestine was also famous for its agricultural industry. Palestinian craftsmen had developed their skills through the ages, which was reflected in their products and became famous around the world. Products like Nablus soap and Hebron glass was reputed around the country and throughout the region. It was highly demand in the neighboring lands.

New Orleans - 18 Months After Katrina

Welcome to New Orleans after Katrina

ISRAEL DENIES HOLOCAUST (SURVIVORS)

February 17, 2007

by DesertPeace

You heard me right..... Israel is denying holocaust survivors the means to survive. The meagre pensions they receive both from Israel and from German reparations is not nearly enough to pay their expenses, needless to say for food itself. Many of these people are literally on the verge of starvation. The very people that went through hell and returned are now once again in a private hell of sorts.The very state that owes its existance to the holocaust, the very state that constantly reminds the world of this and condemns anyone that dares deny it happened is treating those that suffered personally as if they are guilty of a crime.SHAME ON YOU ISRAEL!!!

Perhaps a budget cut from the military can help the people involved.

THIS article from the Magazine Section of the Jerusalem Post talks about the situation.

Ending the Clash of Civilizations

18, February, 2007

Dr. Khaled Batarfi

During the Cold War, there was a debate in the Western world between those who sought to win the Cold War and those who aspired to end it.

The first group had limited options — only with power play and sheer force you could prevail over the Communist camp. This meant aggressive containment of Red advances and adventures in the Third World by cultural, educational, political and ultimately military means. A whole industry of war merchants — arms and construction businesses — joined the crusade of ideological fanatics, intelligence masters, and conservative politicians. The sudden demise of the Soviet Union caught this unholy alliance off-guard. To keep it up, a new enemy had to be found, a new open-ended war to be declared, and a new crusade to be initiated. Enter Islamic Terror and the Clash of Civilizations. The formula here is “win-lose” — you only gain what your enemy loses.

Hunted by the costs of two great wars in the 20th century, the second group was trying to end all foreign conflicts and establish a New World Order. In 50 years, after World War II, they managed to build a number of international institutions and established many conventions and agreements that spread the rule of law in a chaotic world.

The United Nations was the crown jewel of their achievements, followed by the World Trade Organization. Other milestones include the International Court of Justice, the Geneva Conventions, the Kyoto Agreement, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Red Cross/Crescent. With regional institutions like the European Union, NAFTA and the Muslim World League, they helped in stabilizing the world, cementing global cooperation and allowing peaceful resolutions. The second group achieves its objectives through trading rather than conquering, business instead of force. The formula is “win-win” by increasing the pie, maximizing the benefits, and compromising.

Most people are peaceful by nature. They want to go about their lives undisturbed. They hate to go running for cover, looking for reassurance every day, and don’t want to worry about tomorrow. They hate hating and blaming others whom they never knew, for fights over crimes they hadn’t committed and wrongs they didn’t do. They are tired of wars and killing and destruction in their name. Most people of every color, race and faith want just to live in peace, pursue happiness, and die, when their time is up, in peace.

The preachers of hate, the bats of fear and the merchants of death won’t let’s have it so easy. Here, there and everywhere they create conflicts, enemies and lasting wars. The more we don’t know about each other, the darker the space between us, the better their chances of playing one against the other. They start by demonizing the different other, allowing our good self to accept the fight, the killing and the destruction. Under patriotic and religious banners, using fear, hate, vanity and jealousy, they make the best do the worst and be proud.

How do we deny them our souls and destiny? Knowledge comes first. If we go around and about, if we use today transportation and communication to learn about the world around us first hand, not through the media they use to poison us, we shall ultimately reach the truth. The truth, will, then, set us free from their misinformation, scares, and spills.

The discovery of “bridge-building” brought divided worlds closer, and allowed strangers and enemies to become partners, traders and families. Today, we need to reinvent the bridge. We need to rediscover the language, the speech, the magic of an easy smile and a warm handshake. When I met with Americans in the business of cultural bridge building, during a visit to the States last month, I was asked: What can we do to help?

I told the good people in the National Democratic Institution, the National Endowment for Democracy and the International Research and Exchanges Board: Let’s teach each other. Come to us as educators and trainers, not as soldiers and occupiers, and learn more about our culture and ways of life. Explain your perspective and understand ours. Learn to speak our language and teach us to speak yours. In no time, I promise you, we won’t have many differences to solve and gaps to bridge. But we will have many solid bridges to maintain and cross every day. Then, and only then, will we all cross over to the camp of those who believe in ending the clash of civilizations, and isolate those who insist on winning it.

7M in U.S. Jails, on Probation or Parole

November 30, 2006

By KASIE HUNT Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A record 7 million people _ or one in every 32 American adults _ were behind bars, on probation or on parole by the end of last year, according to the Justice Department. Of those, 2.2 million were in prison or jail, an increase of 2.7 percent over the previous year, according to a report released Wednesday.

More than 4.1 million people were on probation and 784,208 were on parole at the end of 2005. Prison releases are increasing, but admissions are increasing more.

Men still far outnumber women in prisons and jails, but the female population is growing faster. Over the past year, the female population in state or federal prison increased 2.6 percent while the number of male inmates rose 1.9 percent. By year's end, 7 percent of all inmates were women. The gender figures do not include inmates in local jails.


"Today's figures fail to capture incarceration's impact on the thousands of children left behind by mothers in prison," Marc Mauer, the executive director of the Sentencing Project, a Washington-based group supporting criminal justice reform, said in a statement. "Misguided policies that create harsher sentences for nonviolent drug offenses are disproportionately responsible for the increasing rates of women in prisons and jails."

From 1995 to 2003, inmates in federal prison for drug offenses have accounted for 49 percent of total prison population growth.

The numbers are from the annual report from the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics. The report breaks down inmate populations for state and federal prisons and local jails.

Racial disparities among prisoners persist. In the 25-29 age group, 8.1 percent of black men _ about one in 13 _ are incarcerated, compared with 2.6 percent of Hispanic men and 1.1 percent of white men. And it's not much different among women. By the end of 2005, black women were more than twice as likely as Hispanics and over three times as likely as white women to be in prison.

Certain states saw more significant changes in prison population. In South Dakota, the number of inmates increased 11 percent over the past year, more than any other state. Montana and Kentucky were next in line with increases of 10.4 percent and 7.9 percent, respectively. Georgia had the biggest decrease, losing 4.6 percent, followed by Maryland with a 2.4 percent decrease and Louisiana with a 2.3 percent drop.

Israeli 'Outposts' thriving in the West Bank

An Israeli soldiers aims his weapon against Palestinian stone throwers, not seen, during clashes in the West Bank village of Kalandia between Jerusalem and Ramallah Friday, Feb. 16, 2007. Palestinians protested against Israel 's renovation works near the disputed Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem's Old City. (AP Photo/Nasser Ishtayeh)

February 17, 2007

By RAVI NESSMAN, Associated Press Writer

With its playgrounds, identical houses and manicured flower beds, Bruchin looks like any placid Israeli suburb. Except that Bruchin is not supposed to exist.

Bruchin is among more than 100 West Bank outposts never officially authorized by the Israeli government. And Israel's repeated commitments to freeze settlement construction haven't hampered Bruchin's transformation from a cluster of trailers less than eight years ago into a thriving community of 380 people, girded by government supplied roads, electricity and water.

"Normally, when you think of an outpost you think of a water tower. This is a real town," said Amishai Shav-Tal, one of Bruchin's founders.

Unlike the full-blown settlements that have been built in the face of international criticism, the outposts have never gone through the public process of gaining official government approval. Many of them began as little more than a cell phone tower or trailer erected by settlers on a West Bank hilltop to establish a presence there, a seed they used to quickly establish a new community.

The outposts infuriate the Palestinians, who see them as part of a plan to strengthen the Jewish grip on land they want for an independent state.

With the international community focusing its disapproval mainly on the traditional settlements, Israel has managed to quietly plant a slew of the outposts across the West Bank, say Palestinians, Israeli critics and even the settlers themselves.

"This is the game that the government always played with the settlers: 'You will do it, we will turn a blind eye and then one day when we are politically able to, we will legalize it,'" said Dror Etkes, who monitors settlements for the Israel's Peace Now movement.

Israel has not built an official settlement in more than a decade. When it approved a new one in late December, it quickly backed down under international condemnation.

But Bruchin is a different story. Settler leaders and a former Cabinet minister say the government cooperated through every phase of its creation in the northern West Bank. In recent talks with the Defense Ministry, which must approve new settlement construction, the settlers demanded Bruchin be the first in a string of developed outposts to be recognized as full settlements, which would ease fears that they could be forcibly removed.

"They have no choice, they have to recognize most of the outposts," said Bentzi Lieberman, a settler leader.

Over the 40 years since Israel captured the West Bank in the 1967 Mideast War, the settlers have cultivated political allies and manipulated divided coalition governments in their favor. They capitalized on Palestinian hostility toward Israel to push the claim that the entire West Bank is the Jews' biblical birthright and a vital security buffer with the Arab world.

But some outpost residents fear the government may be turning against them.

As prime minister, Ehud Olmert started out with what looked like a campaign to tear down the unauthorized settlements, and was elected on a platform calling for the country to abandon much of the West Bank and all but the largest settlement blocs.

Political troubles following last summer's war in Lebanon have forced Olmert to put his plan on hold, but the settlers of Bruchin say they felt the change.

The army office in charge of the West Bank has issued orders to stop construction at the outpost and to demolish what has already been built, spokesman Capt. Zidki Maman said without providing details. It has also prevented Bruchin from upgrading its electricity hookup, which the settlers complain is too small for its growing population.

"Bruchin is an illegal outpost," Maman said.

The settlers blame U.S. pressure, and say they feel betrayed by the government.

Meanwhile, Bruchin continues to thrive — with the government's help.

On a sunny winter morning, soldiers sent by the government stand guard at Bruchin's gates, while the squeals of children at play ring out from the outposts' nine preschools, many of them funded by the Education Ministry.

Down a tidy road lined with tall street lights and brick sidewalks, past the marble-walled synagogue and the community center, stand 40 two-story yellow stucco houses in two rows. A large sign says they were built with Housing Ministry help.

Nearby, a cluster of nearby trailers houses another 40 families, who arrived in recent years.
Residents describe Bruchin as a quiet, close-knit, religious suburb. They have neighborhood barbecues, cooking classes for the wives, and after-school judo, ceramics, basketball and Torah for the kids.

"It's a good place," said Avi Galimidi, a 30-year-old student who moved here 2 1/2 years ago with his wife and four children. "It has wonderful and good people. And I want to settle the land."

Israel has repeatedly promised to freeze all settlement activity in the West Bank, where nearly 270,000 settlers — a 6 percent increase from a year ago, according to government figures — live among 2.4 million Palestinians.

Several thousand Israelis are believed to be living in outposts.

Under the 2003 "road map" peace plan, Israel agreed to remove dozens of outposts built since March 2001, but that deal that does not include Bruchin, since it was started two years earlier. Israel also agreed to freeze settlement growth, which should have ended all expansion at Bruchin. Israel did not follow through on either of those commitments.

The Palestinians have also failed to live up to their road map commitment to disband militant groups, who effectively rule the streets of the West Bank and fire missiles at Israeli towns from Gaza.

The U.S. sees the settlements and their continued construction as obstacles to peace, at a time when U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has scheduled a Feb. 19 summit between Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to foster a rapprochement.

"The Israel government should live up to its commitments, and that includes on the settlements, that includes on outposts. These are commitments, by the way, to the United States, they're not commitments to the Palestinians," U.S. Ambassador Richard Jones said.

The Israelis "should not create facts on the ground," he said.

But more than 100 outposts have been built since 1995, and most now have at least some form of basic infrastructure, Etkes said.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat calls the outposts "baby settlements."

"Our worst fear there is being realized, which is that they will boom and become major settlements," he said.

Like many outposts, Bruchin was a response to violence — the fatal shooting of an Israeli woman, Yael Mevar, as she drove near an Arab town on Dec. 31, 1997.

Angry settler leaders dusted off old plans for a settlement about 12 miles east of Tel Aviv, between Israel and the large settlement of Ariel, deep in the West Bank. In the spring of 1999, Jewish seminary students moved into trailers on a hilltop.

"You can't come and just shoot Jews and we'll do nothing," said Shav-Tal, 31. "We'll show them that we live in this country, and we are the people that own this country."

In October, Shav-Tal and five other families answered the students' call to settle in Bruchin.

They moved into trailers powered by electricity generators, with water tanks filled every three days, Shav-Tal said.

"The challenge that you have of building something where there is nothing — that's real Zionism," he said.

That core group posted fliers in nearby settlements, advertised on the Internet, and were flooded with applications, Shav-Tal said.

"Our problem from the first day was more people want to come than the places we have," Shav-Tal said.

More trailers rolled in. The government-owned electricity company hooked Bruchin up to the grid. The water company installed a pump and pipes. The local council paved 1.5 miles of roads. Public bus service began.

The settlers received approval from the Housing Ministry to build 40 permanent houses, and their occupants moved in 2 1/2 years ago, well after the road map was unveiled. Their newly empty trailers became available for new arrivals, and by December, these too were filled, bringing Bruchin's population to 380.

The army may call Bruchin illegal, but in her government-commissioned report on the outposts two years ago, attorney Talia Sasson said the Housing Ministry spent $785,000 on Bruchin's infrastructure and public buildings.

The government was deeply complicit in the creation of many of the outposts, Sasson wrote.

"Most of the outposts were financed by some ministry in Israel," she told The Associated Press.

"We helped build it," said Yitzhak Levy, who was housing minister in 1999. "It is supposed to be a city. It has a large area. It is clear that this is a place that was going to grow, and therefore there was investment. It was done openly."

Yehudit Passal moved here 1 1/2 years ago with her husband and two children because it allowed her family to be near the Tel Aviv job market while strengthening Israel's hold over the West Bank, she said.

Her decision was strengthened, she said, by Israel's 2005 withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, which included the dismantling of 21 settlements and another four in the northern West Bank.
She said she wanted the remaining settlements to be large, "so it would be that much harder to take them down."

A few hundred yards down the hill lies a town of 4,000 Palestinians. Its name is Brukhin, the Arabic form of Bruchin. Mayor Akrima Samara says the outpost's existence blocks Palestinians from their olive groves and grazing land, and has dimmed their hopes for a state of their own.
"With every passing day we see the outpost grow," he said. "This land is lost."

The settlers of Bruchin have big plans. A detailed blueprint envisages expanding their community tenfold, to 750 families, said Itzik Turk, the outpost's general secretary.

But the sympathy the settlers once enjoyed in Israel has weakened as Israelis have wearied of war with the Palestinians and the burden of being an occupying power.

Galimidi, the student, says he is not worried about Bruchin's future.

"I believe that all the problems will be solved little by little," he said. In another 20 years, "Bruchin will be a city, and we will have malls."