Tuesday, December 1, 2009

How US Congressman sold Their Soul to AIPAC.. Tom Perriello

an article worth read for , so you would understand more...

The US Congressman who sold his soul to the Israel lobby
Posted: 23 Nov 2009 02:57 AM PST
How Tom Perriello became a slave of Israel

Adam Shapiro tells the story of a hitherto principled friend and campaigner for justice and human rights, Tom Perriello, who ran for Congress and, once elected, betrayed all of his principles and became a mere tool of the pro-apartheid American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC.

Congressman Tom PerrielloBy Adam Shapiro* Sabbah Report http://sabbah.biz/
"…the consistent lack of US credibility in the world spans Democrats and Republicans and is a consequence of our relationship with Israel and the exceptionalism applied to an occupier nation foisting apartheid on the Palestinians."
One year ago, I watched election results coming in for Virginia's Fifth Congressional District, where my friend and colleague Tom Perriello was challenging incumbent Virgil Goode, Jr. CNN kept flipping the winner because the vote was close. Finally, Tom emerged with a 727-vote victory. I was elated, because I knew Tom and knew his deeply rooted principles. And daring to accept that there might be something to this overall atmosphere of change and hope espoused by the president-elect, I felt encouraged by the seemingly new direction and new leaders the country was embracing.
Two years earlier, I met Tom in Afghanistan when he arrived as a consultant with the United Nations to explore transitional justice possibilities for the country. I was already working for a human rights organization, promoting rule of law, women's rights and transitional justice. Tom had done similar work in Liberia helping launch a truth and reconciliation commission.
We quickly saw eye to eye on the work and became friends over discussions about the role of law in achieving justice in extremely difficult conflict and post-conflict circumstances. I took Tom hiking in the hills overlooking Kabul and we strategized on how to strengthen the justice sector in Afghanistan. Of course, my work on Palestine came up and Tom usually brought the discussion to the role of international law and the need for accountability on all sides – considerations that clearly help protect civilians, particularly Palestinians living under occupation.
A year later, back in the US, Tom invited me to join a group of dynamic young social entrepreneurs for a strategy/brainstorming meeting that led to the creation of Avaaz – a kind of MoveOn.org for the international community to organize for human rights, the environment and other progressive causes. One of the first campaigns launched by Avaaz was to call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza in January 2009 and for a robust international response to assure the lasting cessation of violence.
Shortly after that founding meeting of Avaaz, I received an email from Tom explaining that he was going to run for Congress in a long-shot attempt to unseat a conservative Republican. It was a surprise, but Tom was insistent he was going to retain his principles and values if he won. He was excited about the prospect of making real change if Obama became president. I shed my typical cynicism and encouraged friends to contribute to his campaign.
Fast forward one year, to the present, and I have been shocked and disappointed to learn that my friend Tom – a staunch supporter of international law, human rights and equality for all – has voted as a Congressman in favour of apartheid. On the face of it, House Resolution 867 "Calling on the president and the secretary of state to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the 'Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict' in multilateral fora" was a typical AIPAC -inspired (or even written) resolution to push the US Congress to support Israel when it got into hot water internationally. Already the White House and State Department have rejected the Goldstone Report, named after preeminent South African judge Richard Goldstone, a well-known Zionist and staunch supporter of Israel. Human rights organizations around the world support the report, and the credentials of the commission were outstanding. Judge Goldstone himself has repeatedly pointed out that the report also calls to task Hamas for violations of international law.
So why did Tom vote in favour of H.Res. 867 and how is this apartheid?
I believe Congressman Perriello's vote resulted from the almost-obligatory fealty to AIPAC displayed by members of Congress – and perhaps his desire to get re-elected.
Incumbents have learned over the years not to cross AIPAC if re-election is important to them. This is not a tangential correlation – ask former Representative Cynthia McKinney, former Senator Charles Percy and former President George H.W. Bush what happened to them when they took stands helpful to securing Palestinian rights. So the logic behind his vote is pretty simple.
But is winning everything? Even when it means voting for apartheid? Where do accountability to self and the bedrock principles we discussed in the Kabul hills enter the equation?
If the Goldstone Report concerned any other country than Israel as the main perpetrator and any other people as victims than the Palestinians, there is no doubt that the report would be fully endorsed in Congress and perhaps there would be House Resolutions praising the work of the commission, supporting the role of the UN in investigating war crimes and affirming the need for the US government to take action to support implementing the findings. That this resolution was introduced against the report because the primary victims were Palestinian is an extension of Israel's policies of discrimination that set Palestinians apart as a people with inferior rights. Voting in favour was akin to a stamp of approval that Palestinian lives are not equal: yes, they were killed, but so what, their deaths are not worth investigating. Such blatant disregard for a specific people's humanity and human rights in favour of another people's superior rights and privileged standing can only be understood as apartheid. Congressman Perriello and his colleagues have turned their backs on international law and human rights. They failed to offer a word of support for Palestinian freedom and the lives of the more than 300 Palestinian children killed by Israel in the winter war.
President Obama, unlike a well-trained and increasingly sycophantic Congress, has set out to change America's image in the world. This image is not undermined because of our relationship with Ireland, Thailand or Chile – or even by North Korea, Iran, Pakistan or Afghanistan, despite the seeming inadequacy of US policy to meet these challenges. No, the consistent lack of US credibility in the world spans Democrats and Republicans and is a consequence of our relationship with Israel and the exceptionalism applied to an occupier nation foisting apartheid on the Palestinians. Most of the world grasps immediately the hypocrisy of the Congress when it votes against the carefully-documented work of Judge Goldstone, who has devoted his life to fighting racism and apartheid.
When my friend Tom told me he was trying to become a Congressman, he assured me that he would maintain who he was. The man I knew was someone who fought for justice, who worked tirelessly to promote international law and human rights, and who was aware of the reality of Congress but determined to be different. Congressman Perriello, I am afraid, has become like so many of his colleagues, a mere tool of a hard-right AIPAC agenda that has no business dictating American policy. He has become part of an American dog wagged by an Israeli and AIPAC tail.
Voters are again disengaging because they continue to see too much business as usual. Tom is just the latest manifestation of a politician abandoning core beliefs.
What is most disappointing, perhaps, is not that my friend Tom is missing in this incarnation of Congressman Perriello – who seems willing to trade fundamental human rights for political expedience – but that in the end I was right to be cynical.
* Adam Shapiro is an award-winning documentary filmmaker and human rights activist, co-founder of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM). Currently working with the Free Gaza Movement.
The US Congressman who sold his soul to the Israel lobby is a post from: Sabbah Report. Get Daily Newsletter, follow on Twitter and become a fan on Facebook.

Sunday, September 20, 2009

HOW TO SEARCH FOR A GOOD BLOG?

Looking for a good blog? visit http://www.blogsearchengine.com - A good website as tool to search for blogs. Have comprehensive listing of blogs that you surely find what you looking for

Blog Search Engine

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Free Xinjiang

another muslim community suffered oppression and injustice. last week killing of protester has reveal the resentment of the original inhabitant.. muslim of xinjiang has long subject to injustice treatment from Chinese government since the start of colonisation in 1950. The colonisation started on 1950 after China's people liberation army entered xinjiang and government has consistenly state sponsored population transfer from other parts of China... discrimination on the muslim planned and intentionally formulated in policies which only favoring the pork eating chinese.. oil and gas exploitation are huge but the uighur was never part of that...

Save the ancient city of Kashgar, Xinjiang

Chinese Government has announced plan to raze the ancient city of kashgar, one of the comunist government plan to systematically annihilate culture and identity of ethnic muslim uighur. Kashgar the centuries old cultural centre of the uighur the old will have almost entirely disapeared, forcing out 50,000 families to newly constructed, soulless modern building...

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Beyond dissidence - Noam Chomsky

Beyond dissidence
Noam Chomsky speaks with Nermeen Al-Mufti about Gaza, capitalism and the responsibilities of the intellectual


What do you think about Israel's assault on the Gaza Strip? What might be done in order to achieve a peaceful solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine?
The US-Israeli attack on Gaza was a savage and brutal war crime. The term US- Israeli is accurate. Israel relied on US weapons, in violation of US, as well as international, law, and the US provided crucial diplomatic and ideological support. The diplomatic support included blocking UN efforts to bring the conflict to an end. The ideological support included overwhelming votes in Congress supporting the aggression, and almost universal agreement that it was justified, even if, perhaps, disproportionate.

In fact, the attack was completely without justification. The way this issue is framed -- by President Obama and virtually everyone else -- is that Israel had a right to defend itself against Hamas rockets. But that is not the issue at all.
The issue is whether Israel had a right to defend itself by force against rockets. It is universally agreed that force can be used only when peaceful means are exhausted. No one believes that the Nazis had the right to use force in defence against the terror of the partisans.
In this case peaceful means had not even been tried. A narrow choice would have been for Israel to accept a ceasefire, which in fact it has never done. To take only the most recent case, a ceasefire was declared in June 2008. Israel did not adhere to it: it maintained the harsh siege, which is an act of war, even preventing the UN humanitarian mission UNRWA from replenishing its stores, "so when the ceasefire broke down, we ran out of food for the 750,000 who depend on us," UNRWA Director John Ging reported. Nevertheless, Hamas scrupulously observed the ceasefire. Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev conceded that Hamas had not fired a single rocket until after Israel invaded the Gaza Strip on 4 November, under the cover of the US elections, and killed six Palestinians. Israel rejected additional ceasefire proposals from Hamas virtually until the day of the attack.

More broadly, Israel could have ceased its criminal activities in the other part of Palestine, the West Bank. Until they do that they cannot object to resistance. Within the West Bank resistance is impossible. In fact, the US-run Palestinian military forces were able to suppress even expression of support for Palestinians being slaughtered in Gaza, and they are greatly praised for that achievement by leading Democratic liberals close to the Obama administration, like Senator John Kerry, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Virtually everything Israel does in the occupied territories is criminal, and the Israeli government knows it. Immediately after the 1967 war Israel was informed by its highest legal authorities that the Geneva Conventions apply to the occupied territories, so that any transfer of population there is illegal. Defence Minister Moshe Dayan conceded that settlement violated international law, but added that "there is nothing new in that, so we will continue." The Security Council has repeatedly condemned these actions, including those now taking place in Jerusalem. In 2004 the World Court reaffirmed that the Geneva Conventions apply. The US Justice Department agreed, in a separate declaration. The criminality extends to most of what Israel does in the occupied territories, always with firm US military, diplomatic, economic and ideological support.

In brief, Israel had ample opportunity to employ peaceful means, so that there was no justification whatsoever for the US- Israeli attack.

As for what should be done, that is very clear. For 35 years there has been a very broad international consensus on a political settlement: a two-state settlement on the internationally recognised borders, perhaps with "minor and mutual modifications", in the words of official US policy pre-1971, before the US broke with world opinion on this matter. Since that time the US has blocked the consensus, and still does, including Barack Obama. There has been one break in this rejectionist stand. After the Camp David negotiations broke down in 2000, President Clinton recognised that no Palestinians could accept the US-Israeli terms, and proposed his "parameters": somewhat vague, but more forthcoming. He then stated that both sides had accepted the parameters, and both had expressed reservations. The two sides met in Taba, Egypt in January 2001, and came very close to an agreement. In their final press conference, they said that with a little more time they might have resolved all of the issues. The negotiations were called off prematurely by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and never officially resumed. Much has changed since 2001 but the essentials remain: if a US president were willing to accept a diplomatic settlement, it could be achieved. The international consensus is by no means perfect, but it would be a great improvement over the current situation, and could be a stage towards something better for both Jews and Palestinians

Text of Obama's speech in Cairo - Closing the Divide

By The Associated Press The Associated Press

Text of President Barack Obama's speech at Cairo University, as provided by CQ Transcriptions.

Good afternoon. I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has had stood as a beacon of Islamic learning. And for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress.
I'm grateful for your hospitality and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. And I'm also proud to carry with me the good will of the American people and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalamu-alaikum.
(APPLAUSE)
We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world, tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation but also conflict and religious wars.
More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims and a Cold War in which Muslim majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.
Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11, 2001, and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and western countries but also to human rights.
All this has bred more fear and more mistrust. So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.
I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap and share common principles, principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. I know there's been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust nor can I answer in the time that I have this afternoon all the complex questions that brought us to this point.
But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other, to learn from each other, to respect one another, and to seek common ground.
As the Holy Quran tells us, Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.
(APPLAUSE)
That is what I will try to do today, to speak the truth as best I can. Humbled by the task before us and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.
Now, part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I'm a Christian. But my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk.
As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith. As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam at places like Al-Azhar that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's renaissance and enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities...
(APPLAUSE)
It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra, our magnetic compass and tools of navigation, our mastery of pens and printing, our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires, timeless poetry and cherished music, elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.
(APPLAUSE)
I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second president, John Adams, wrote,
The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims. And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States.
They have fought in our wars. They have served in our government. They have stood for civil rights. They have started businesses. They have taught at our universities. They've excelled in our sports arenas. They've won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building and lit the Olympic torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same holy Quran that one of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, kept in his personal library.
(APPLAUSE)
So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.
(APPLAUSE)
But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as...
(APPLAUSE)
Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire.
We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal. And we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words, within our borders and around the world.
We are shaped by every culture. Drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept, E pluribus unum: Out of many, one.
Now much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected president.
(APPLAUSE)
But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores. And that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average.
Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That's why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.
So let there be no doubt...
(APPLAUSE)
... let there be no doubt, Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations: to live in peace and security, to get an education and to work with dignity, to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.
Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead. And if we understand that the challenges we face are shared and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.
For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations.
When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience.
(APPLAUSE)
That is what it means to share this world in the 21st Century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings. This is a difficult responsibility to embrace, for human history has often been a record of nations and tribes, and, yes, religions subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests.
Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership, our progress must be shared.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, that does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite. We must face these tensions squarely. And so, in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.
The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all its forms. In Ankara, I made clear that America is not and never will be at war with Islam.
(APPLAUSE)
We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject, the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as president to protect the American people.
The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued Al Qaida and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice. We went because of necessity. I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the offense of 9/11. But let us be clear. Al Qaida killed nearly 3,000 people on that day.
The victims were innocent men, women, and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaida chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach.
These are not opinions to be debated. These are facts to be dealt with. Make no mistake, we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military -- we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict.
We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.
And that's why we're partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths but, more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam.
The Holy Quran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as -- it is as it if has killed all mankind.
(APPLAUSE)
And the Holy Quran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.
(APPLAUSE)
The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism; it is an important part of promoting peace.
Now, we also know that military power alone is not going solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who've been displaced.
That's why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend on.
Now, let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible.
(APPLAUSE)
Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said, I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power and teach us that the less we use our power, the greater it will be. Today America has a dual responsibility to help Iraq forge a better future and to leave Iraq to Iraqis.
I have made it clear to the Iraqi people...
(APPLAUSE)
I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no basis and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. And that's why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically-elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July and to remove all of our troops from Iraq by 2012.
(APPLAUSE)
We will help Iraq train its security forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner and never as a patron.
And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable. But in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals.
We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States. And I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.
(APPLAUSE)
So America will defend itself, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities, which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.
Now, the second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world. America's strong bonds with Israel are well-known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.
Around the world the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries. And anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented holocaust. Tomorrow I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich.
Six million Jews were killed, more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless. It is ignorant, and it is hateful.
It's about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.
Now, I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nations should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that's why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.
(APPLAUSE)
And any nation, including Iran, should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the treaty. And it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.
The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.
(APPLAUSE)
I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years. And much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear. No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other. That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people.
Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election.
But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed, confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice, government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people, the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas. They are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, there is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear. Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments, provided they govern with respect for all their people.
This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they're out of power. Once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others.
(APPLAUSE)
So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power. You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion. You must respect the rights of minorities and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise. You must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party.
Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.
(AUDIENCE MEMBER SHOUTS)
Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom. Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia where devote Christians worshipped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country.
That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind and the heart and the soul.
This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive. But it's being challenged in many different ways. Among some Muslims, there's a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of somebody else's faith.
The richness of religious diversity must be upheld, whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt.
(APPLAUSE)
And if we are being honest, fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.
Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which people protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation.
That's why I'm committed to work with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat. Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit, for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear.
We can't disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretense of liberalism. In fact, faith should bring us together. And that's why we're forging service projects in America to bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews.
That's why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations.
Around the world, we can turn dialogue into interfaith service so bridges between peoples lead to action, whether it is combating malaria in Africa or providing relief after a natural disaster.
The sixth issue -- the sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights.
(APPLAUSE)
I know...
(APPLAUSE)
I know, and you can tell from this audience, that there is a healthy debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal. But I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality.
(APPLAUSE)
And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well- educated are far more likely to be prosperous.
Now let me be clear, issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, we've seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead.
Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life and in countries around the world. I am convinced that our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons.
(APPLAUSE)
Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity, men and women, to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal. And I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice.
That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim- majority country to support expanded literacy for girls and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.
(APPLAUSE)
Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity. I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence into the home.
Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities but also huge disruptions and change in communities. In all nations, including America, this change can bring fear; fear that, because of modernity, we lose control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly, our identities, those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.
But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradictions between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies enormously while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai.
In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education. And this is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work.
Many Gulf States have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century. And in too...
(APPLAUSE)
And in too many Muslim communities, there remains underinvestment in these areas. I am emphasizing such investment within my own country. And while America, in the past, has focused on oil and gas when it comes to this part of the world, we new seek a broader engagement.
On education, we will expand change programs and increase scholarships like the one that brought my father to America.
(APPLAUSE)
At the same time, we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students are internships in America, invest in online learning for teachers and children around the world and create a new, online network so a young person in Kansas can communicate instantly with a young person in Cairo.
On economic development, we will create a new core of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim majority countries. And I will host a summit on entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations, and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.
On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim majority country and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create more jobs. We will open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia and appoint new science envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, grow new crops.
Today, I'm announcing a new global effort with the organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.
All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments, community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.
The issues that I have described will not be easy to address, but we have a responsibility to join together to behalf of the world that we seek, a world where extremists no longer threaten our people and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes, a world where governments serve their citizens and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek.But we can only achieve it together. I know there are many, Muslim and non-Muslim, who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort, that we are fated to disagree and civilizations are doomed to clash.
Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There is so much fear, so much mistrust that has built up over the years. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith in every country. You more than anyone have the ability to reimagine the world, the remake this world.
All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart or whether we commit ourselves to an effort, a sustained effort to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children and to respect the dignity of all human beings.
It's easier to start wars than to end them. It's easier to blame others than to look inward. It's easier to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is one rule that lies at the heart of every religion, that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
(APPLAUSE)
This truth transcends nations and peoples, a belief that isn't new, that isn't black or
white or brown, that isn't Christian or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization and that still beats in the hearts of billions around the world. It's a faith in other people. And it's what brought me here today.
We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written. The Holy Quran tells us, Mankind, we have created you male and a female. And we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.
The Talmud tells us, The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.
The Holy Bible tells us, Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
(APPLAUSE)
The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now that must be our work here on Earth.
Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
END

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Thanks to George Galloway!!!


Thanks to George Galloway for succesfully brought Viva Palestina Caravan aid convoy to Gaza. Congratulation!! For ability to see as human being. For ability to see beyond boundaries of races, religion, manipulation and injustice. For unconditional support, not influenced by monetary promised of lobbyist, for unconditional sacrifice. While most of western politician and leaders would see based on what they will get back for themselves and their country, Mr George Galloway see based what justice must be. While UK leaders still not able to amend and correct their injustice of giving Palestinian Land to Israel, which has been traded for Jews support, worst they still supporting the ethnic leansing, killing, new settlement and greater occupation of Israel. Mr Galloway did what a fair man should do.. Thanks Mr Galloway, for being TRUE


see clip video Mr Galloway speech from inside Gaza here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yUHDrMLKGA



George Galloway (born 16 August 1954 in Dundee) is a British politician, author and talk show host. He has been a Member of Parliament (MP) since 1987 and currently represents Respect for the Bethnal Green and Bow constituency. He was previously a Labour Party MP for Glasgow Hillhead and for Glasgow Kelvin.


http://www.spiderednews.com/
http://www.islamonl%20ine.net/servlet/%20Satellite?
http://www.georgegalloway.com/

Saturday, March 7, 2009

Israel Annexing Jerusalem March 2009

Israel never stop in grabbing more and more Palestinian land. The reason is for security reason yet they put more and more settler at place of formerly Palestinian and nearer to palestinian the security poser. Yet again the victim grab land of the security poser. Which side is the threat for peace actually? Eventhough Israel action clearly violated geneva Convention but non significant official reaction from US Government. Hillary Clinton remark on this issue just "unhelpful for peace process" that's all. How do you expect palestinian to react ? do they have right to protect their home and land? in what way that they should? what capabilities to they have to resist? peaceful demonstration? So the cycle of victim act continue - "Full of hatred Palestinian attack peace loving Israel Soldier in Bulldozer which is in the middle of carrying out their novel duty of destroying legitimate Palestinian home for illegal Israel settlers. The Young Palestinian Militant attack viciously with stone and human shield, the incident end with several Palestinian shot dead for terrorist action and one reporter accidentally crushed by Bulldozer driven by innocent Israel soldier…."





Israel annexing East Jerusalem, says EU
• Confidential report attacks 'illegal' house demolitions • Government accused of damaging peace prospects
Rory McCarthy in Jerusalem
The Guardian, Saturday 7 March 2009
Article history
40-year-old Palestinian Mahmoud al-Abbasi stands amid the rubble of his home after it was demolished by the Jerusalem municipality in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan. Photograph: Gali Tibbon

A confidential EU report accuses the Israeli government of using settlement expansion, house demolitions, discriminatory housing policies and the West Bank barrier as a way of "actively pursuing the illegal annexation" of East Jerusalem.

The document says Israel has accelerated its plans for East Jerusalem, and is undermining the Palestinian Authority's credibility and weakening support for peace talks. "Israel's actions in and around Jerusalem constitute one of the most acute challenges to Israeli-Palestinian peace-making," says the document, EU Heads of Mission Report on East Jerusalem.
The report, obtained by the Guardian, is dated 15 December 2008. It acknowledges Israel's legitimate security concerns in Jerusalem, but adds: "Many of its current illegal actions in and around the city have limited security justifications."

"Israeli 'facts on the ground' - including new settlements, construction of the barrier, discriminatory housing policies, house demolitions, restrictive permit regime and continued closure of Palestinian institutions - increase Jewish Israeli presence in East Jerusalem, weaken the Palestinian community in the city, impede Palestinian urban development and separate East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank," the report says.

The document has emerged at a time of mounting concern over Israeli policies in East Jerusalem. Two houses were demolished on Monday just before the arrival of the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, and a further 88 are scheduled for demolition, all for lack of permits. Clinton described the demolitions as "unhelpful", noting that they violated Israel's obligations under the US "road map" for peace.
The EU report goes further, saying that the demolitions are "illegal under international law, serve no obvious purpose, have severe humanitarian effects, and fuel bitterness and extremism." The EU raised its concern in a formal diplomatic representation on December 1, it says.

It notes that although Palestinians in the east represent 34% of the city's residents, only 5%-10% of the municipal budget is spent in their areas, leaving them with poor services and infrastructure.

Israel issues fewer than 200 permits a year for Palestinian homes and leaves only 12% of East Jerusalem available for Palestinian residential use. As a result many homes are built without Israeli permits. About 400 houses have been demolished since 2004 and a further 1,000 demolition orders have yet to be carried out, it said.

City officials dismissed criticisms of its housing policy as "a disinformation campaign". "Mayor Nir Barkat continues to promote investments in infrastructure, construction and education in East Jerusalem, while at the same time upholding the law throughout West and East Jerusalem equally without bias," the mayor's office said after Clinton's visit.

However, the EU says the fourth Geneva convention prevents an occupying power extending its jurisdiction to occupied territory. Israel occupied the east of the city in the 1967 six day war and later annexed it. The Palestinians claim East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state.
The EU says settlement are being built in the east of the city at a "rapid pace". Since the Annapolis peace talks began in late 2007, nearly 5,500 new settlement housing units have been submitted for public review, with 3,000 so far approved, the report says. There are now about 470,000 settlers in the occupied territories, including 190,000 in East Jerusalem.
The EU is particularly concerned about settlements inside the Old City, where there were plans to build a Jewish settlement of 35 housing units in the Muslim quarter, as well as expansion plans for Silwan, just outside the Old City walls.

The goal, it says, is to "create territorial contiguity" between East Jerusalem settlements and the Old City and to "sever" East Jerusalem and its settlement blocks from the West Bank.
There are plans for 3,500 housing units, an industrial park, two police stations and other infrastructure in a controversial area known as E1, between East Jerusalem and the West Bank settlement of Ma'ale Adumim, home to 31,000 settlers. Israeli measures in E1 were "one of the most significant challenges to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process", the report says.
Mark Regev, spokesman for the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, said conditions for Palestinians living in East Jerusalem were better than in the West Bank. "East Jerusalem residents are under Israeli law and they were offered full Israeli citizenship after that law was passed in 1967," he said. "We are committed to the continued development of the city for the benefit of all its population."

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

An Israel Supporter

This post is about my correspondence with an American. Started from comment on youtube it turn into various topics.. His view on Israel and Palestinian conflict got my interest.. even this may be a personal view it also explain of US stand and policy on Israel Palestine conflict.. you have to read this post from lowest part and move up for latest correspondence


Me 4/3/2009

hi, i get new interest in this issue.. your claim is funny,
It’s ironic that at one time claim as human right champion of the world, at other time claim that it is right to attack others. At one time claim as servant of god of true religion and at other time claims that it is right to rob others - . Condemned dictatorship but claimed it is OK to conquer other country. May be accepted to you for your neighbors to rob and take your land by force.. because he has declared war on you..

By the way .. I would like to hear more of your reason to justify Israel occupation on Palestine beside:

It’s right to conquer other country
Creation of Palestine state same as giving France to Nazis
Deny Israel right to exist like denying formation of USA to American Indian
Without man land to man without land

Even it’s funny… it’s no better to hear from American the Slave of Israel

I don’t know that guy John Locke or whoever phariah he is.. why don’t you quote Bush philosophy of attacking Iraq

I will publish our post on my blog
http://newsfreeman.blogspot.com
Hope you can find something useful … for the better of your ignorant and arrogant

Sitdown 27/11/2007

See, the other thing you're forgetting about me comparing it to Hitler is that they're almost identical. You know what Hitler's claim to taking the Rhineland was? He claimed that the Germans had had heritage there for years, so by that right, they should take possesion of it, similar to what the Palesteins want. In reality, they want to be like the Nazis and force Israel out by force, not in a peaceful fashion. In fact, the only situtation in which I can remember them wanting to talk on peaceful terms was when Israel went in and kicked their asses.


Sitdown 27/11/2007

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: continue 4
Actually, you're overlooking the main concept here. YES, IF YOU TAKE OVER LAND IT IS YOURS! I'm sorry to say it, but that's the way it is, if the USA wanted to keep west Europe after WWII they had the right to, if they wanted to keept Afghanistan and Iraq they could too, but we don't because we do not have the intention of conquering, however, at that point, the British did have the idea of conquering. They conquered the land, and thus it became theirs. I'm not sure if you're familiar with John Locke, but his philosophy is the foundation for every true government around the world. When I say true, I mean something other than dictator, etc. He stated that when a country took over another they had all rights over that country, sorry that's just how it works. Isreal has been established as a nation. Britian had every right to do whatever they desired with that land, they could have made it into the worldwide dump for all I care, if that's what they wanted to do, they could have legitimately. I compare it to Hitler with the Rhineland because it is a fair comparision. The palesteins want to take a country they no longer have a claim over by force and act as if it's not, just as Hitler did, so yes, in a sense, they are nazis.


Me 27/11/2007

I agree with you that only Monkey capable of thinking that way.. Would you like to validate that any forces who occupied other people country have their every right on that land and handover to other people who have zero right whatsoever ... would you look beyond 50years before formation of Israel.. Whose land was there? It's historical fact that Palestine has been Palestinian land for 2000 years.. it was not No Man Land.. It wasn't Jews land ..it was Palestinian Land for Palestinian people.. How come Palestinian is the aggressor? Is it defending own right would be regarded as aggressor and the occupier be regarded as victim? or just aggressor playing victim to legitimize their aggression? What a stupid metaphor you want apply by liking giving the land to Palestinian like giving Rhineland to Hitler. It's Palestinian who dwelling on that land for centuries does it look like Hitler with Rhineland?. What I see is vice versa. Everyone who knows about the people who have been native to Palestine for thousand of years recognize their right; everybody except the Jews and people who choose not use their senses or plainly evil. Palestinian were not nomad people, they build fort, palace.. in short great civilization there. Palestine handover as result of war bargain, it is handed over as if France handover to Mexico. Zionism and Jewish movement have been known operating in various countries not excluded British Government. The Zionist indeed has play smart during World War 1 taking opportunity on gullibility on both side. German gladly pledged the land of Palestine to the Jews, but the Allies won in the contest of making promises and submission to Jewry. On Nov 2, 1917 when General Allenby was pushing through Palestine with his British Army, Arthur James Balfour the British Foreign Secretary, issued famous declaration approving Palestine as national home for the Jewish people. It show that plan to give Palestinian land to Jewish not created on 1948 or 1917, but far beyond before that. What happen after that were vicious plan to kick out Palestinian hidden or obvious through economic, education, massacre, ethnic cleansing, illegal settlement etc2 in whatever way that appropriate to satisfy Jewish greed and prepare for formation of Israel. The cycle continue until today, it look like by the message that you want to forward that Palestinian won't have their own independent state regardless of whatever or countless peace organized, it won't if it is just organized to misled the World and to buy more time to grab more land. With US as centre of Zionist movement nowadays and kind of propaganda playing by Zionist controlled there, it won't be surprised that your view just sound like extension of the Zionist mind, but kind of it accepted without go deeper into thoughts is very much regretted.


Sitdown 2/10/2007

To begin, the nation was not Palestein before it was formed into Israel, it was part of the British empire, so they have no claim to that land. Britain decided to allow it to be made into Israel, it was their land and that's what they decided to do with it. Palestein is the agressor, they have advacated taking ISrael by force and destroying it, sound similar to Hitler, I think so. Giving them the land that belongs to ISrael would be like giving Hitler the Rhineland, it is almost identical. Germany didn't have a claim to this land and neither does Palestein. Think simple, because a monkey can understand that Palestein should not be allowed to take over Israel (
more) (less)


Me 1/10/07
What a miscalculated argument this has be.. what characteristics that Palestine poses similar to Hitler? Is Palestine the aggressor or they the victim? Does Palestine occupied other nation's land or they driven out from their motherhood land? Did Palestine massacre others or they being massacred by their occupier? Were the Palestinian people come all the way from Europe countries to conquer the land? -- the Jews were.. Hitler occupied other nation's country.. Israel occupied other nation's country.. what country that Palestinian occupied now? Israel=Hitler or Palestine=Hitler? It is pity people from developed country can't pick the obvious one.. Don't matter whether it's a nation or not.. what now if UN decide to take part of California or your state for creation of a new country for people from southern India who has suffered some kind of Holocaust.. existing owners are driven out of their house, your house are demolished.. land are taken.. you force to live at refugee camp surrounded by barbed wire and wall.. yeah a new nation are created.. after 50s year, the legitimacy argument of this nation are stronger.. what would you do? Hailed a new nation? Or you resist and being branded as terrorist? Think deeper bro....
Sitdown 30/9/07

First, to be upfront, if it had been my choice, the US wouldn't have joined the UN and wouldn't have been invovled in this whole mess, but Israel has been established as a nation, how long as the US been around, 200 yrs? So according to you it's not a nation, the indians should still be in charge? Pthey were driven out of this land because they tried to take it by force and when Israel cleaned house with them, they cried and whined, they wanted to us force, but when they get beat they dont' want to use force. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, and they are supported by Lebonan so Lebanon is a terrorist nation, the same as Iran
and Syria. Palestein, can be easily regarded as Hitler, if you recall the Rhineland, one of Hitler's first areas taken, his argument was that it was "historically german" so it should be reunited with the rest of the nation, is that any different then palestein? No, they want to take the land by force is necessary, and the US giving into these demands (since the UN has no Power) would be like giving land to Hitler (
more)

Me 30/9/07
It's sad to acknowledge that bad habit of bush has spread contagiously to American citizen. Lie are regarded as truth.. truth are mask so bad that to find it like searching a black ant in the darkest night. Logics are given so bland to humble human mind. Mind so corrupted, people see sham as true.. I believe yr view is just what is advertised and play in your News and Media.. please don't downgrade yourself.. take a little time for a deep thought and hear what yr inner voice what to say.. if time playback to 50s yrs ago.. Would you give the same argument? does Israel have right to be at Palestine land then? No matter how many years they have been there, if it is not right then.. they have no right to be there now.. do you count how many years Palestinian have been living in that Palestine's Land? Thousand? Million years? How can the rightful owner been regarded as terrorist? The metaphor of like giving France to Hitler is hard to digest.. just blatant exaggerated lie given to the mass again and again until it's accepted as legitimate.. how the critics on Israel was quick labeled as anti Semitism... how action against Israel are regarded as repression, play victim is one favorite act of aggressor.. we see that in Iraq.. justification for Israel war of expansion etc etc.. Israel always portray as victim in US media and US citizen just stupid enough to accept that blatantly... how can the Palestinian be regarded as Hitler.. for what? For being massacred? For being missiled? For being shot at everyday. For being driven out from their land? What you want them to do? Sit back and enjoy the ethnic cleansing....
Sitdown 28/9/07
Play the hitler card? Why? Because that's exactly what's happening in the Israel-Palestein debate. Israel is a country and has been established for over 50 years, the reason why the US doesn't bend to Palestein is because in order to do it, Israel would have to be destroyed, it's only common sense, Hezzbollah and Palestein are terrorists trying to destroy Israel for their own selfish gain and pushing it off as Israel won't give it to them, why would they, it's their property


Me 28/9/07
i disagree with yr way of comparing between creation of palestinian independent state like giving france to Hitler.. who play hitler role now? palestine or israel? or it could be rephrased "like giving palestine to hitler for creation of israel" where u got this kind of view? US always regard themselves as human right champion.. but where is palestinian right? if u believe that israel have every right to be there.. if US UN really sincere .. at least they will create two country side by side.. .. actually i'm tired thinking about this kind of thing huh .. anyway thanks for the emel address

sitdown 27/9/07
To begin, wow, you really hate the jews don't you? THe middle east would still be insecure, that's like saying if we gave hitler poland everything would have been fine. Things would have still happened, just
differently, and ISrael wouldn't be the forefront of their terrorism. I will not state my opinion on Hezebollah since you already know what I'm going to say ;) Why should Iran not have nukes and Israel should, obviously because it is too late to stop Israel, nobody is building nuclear weapons "legally" except for the axis of evil, primarily north korea and iran. The nuke was a great invention no matter how you think of it, it ended world wars and just replaced them with small conflicts because with the threat of world destruction powerful countries don't start wars with each other. Why no palestine state? Because in order to create it, we'd have to destroy Israel, that would be like hitler asking for France and us just saying okay, take it, we just don't want to fight about it. I can't believe you are that much of a coward to be afraid of Muslims that are getting destroyed by us right now. Remember, we've lost about 4000 in 5.5 years, when they've lost hundreds of thousands. Also, look at this small statistic
KOREA - 3 YEARS - 50000IRAQ - 5.5 YEARS - 4000

Me 27/9/07

dear sitdown..
by just simply say alqaeda in iraq before.. would just imply that alqaeda in all /link with all other countries.. inclusively US.. all the instability and terrorism in middle east now are caused by israel. dont u think if the jews choose to pick land in south america as their country there will be no instability in middle east?..there would be no reason for palestinian suicide bomb.. no reason for creation of Hezbollah.. Iran wont be listed as Axis of Evil for supporting Hezbollah.. the Arab wont have any grudge towards US.. no al qaeda.. still possibility of 9/11 but the terrorist wont be Arab but could be the native from amazon keh keh..it's not hard to see why jews come to the picture.. but american people just too naive to realize that their mind and thinking are easily shaped by jews propaganda and media.. who control the US media? how they strongly believe that iraq has WMD... israelis were killed everyday by palestinian, or vice versa? putting end to terror? those jews lobyist and funder are the real one who rule US.. bush and his man are just master of puppet of the puppet citizen... indeed US and Israel are the source of terror.. yr State only created more terrorist! Iran as the next theatre? what theatre? u think this is video game aa? why dont u bring the theatre to yr own backyard! why is iran is so evil? just becoz they help resistance movement of Hezbollah? sorry just love to regard hezbollah as ressistance movement.. sure u would regard them as terrorist.. dont give yr opinion.. coz i already know it.. if not becoz of hezbollah.. Lubnan would simply be part of Israel now... and US would say Israel have the right over it.. if US really sincere about middle east stability.. why there still no independent palestinian state.. for how many years? or they are just buying time before fully erasing palestine word from World Map. what make u people think that u all are so holy that everyone else are so evil? if iran dont have right of
nuclear technology.. what give the israel right to keep nuclear bomb?all know how powerful US military is now.. they could nuke all other continents if they want and would self proclaim america as World. it's dread to see what would happen if power is given to corrupted man.. give me yr emel address.. would love to share "other's view" just to broaden our perspective.. if u dont mind


sitdown 15/9/07
Yes, Al Qaeda was in Iraq before then, but again, if you read my full statement you would see what I implied, if we have a strong ally in the Middle East to help us in stopping terror in that region, then this will assist us greatly in putting an end to terror, and honestly, i see iran as the next theatre. I would love there just to be huge economic sanctions, but the UN are too big of cowards to get anything done, and there'll probably be another case of bribing like with Iraq and France. Not sure what you're referencing in your second statement, you just starting randomly ranting about jews (
more) (less

Me – 15/9/07

"I truly agree that the US really only wanted to go into Iraq so that we could get another theater in order to fight the terroists"?????? was there Al Qaeda in Iraq before? now u want to link Osama with Saddam? US has been Saddam alliesbefore (remember how saddam come to power and iran-iraq conflict and who supplied the sarin gas?-US..)so u create the hell in iraq to fight terrorist? theater? the jews occupied other people land - their argument is those jews from russia got ancestral right on the land keh keh what a lame excuse.. the most obnoxius is they harrased/massacred the existing owner of the land and denied their right to co-exist. and these greedy people would never satisfied.. they would ever hungry for more.. the jews=the nazis .. what is the different? Don't worry US will always be the allies



Sitdown 22/7/07

First,I'm curious as to why you post someone else's views instead of stating your own views. However, of course we would support Israel, they are our allies. It makes no sense that we would not help them. I do agree, Israel is only around because of the United States, but remember the US was not the only nation who originally wanted to create Israel, we are just the country who has came through on our promises. The USA didn't want to get involved in the Middle East, but after 9/11 we had no choice, we had to go into Afgahnistatn to defeat Al Queda. I dont' like it, but our nation has the right to defend itself. Obviously, Iraq is an extension on the War on Terror. I don't think anybody in their right mind would argue that Saddum Husein was a good leader to his citizens because he was not. I truly agree that the US really only wanted to go into Iraq so that we could get another theater in order to fight the terroists and we have done that. Now, we are in the midst of a full on battle with the terroists in Iraq. It makes no sense why we would run like cowards when our enemy is sitting right in front of us (Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.)


Me - 21/7/07

what about palestine? the state of prisons

Thu Jul 5, 2007 9:07 pm (PST)

A Declaration of Independence from Israel
by Chris Hedges
Israel, without the United States, would probably not exist. The country came perilously close to extinction during the October 1973 war when Egypt, trained and backed by the Soviet Union, crossed the Suez and the Syrians poured in over the Golan Heights. Huge American military transport planes came to the rescue. They began landing every half-hour to refit the battered Israeli army, which had lost most of its heavy armor. By the time the war was over, the United States had given Israel $2.2 billion in emergency military aid.The intervention, which enraged the Arab world, triggered the OPEC oil embargo that for a time wreaked havoc on Western economies. This was perhaps the most dramatic example of the sustained life-support system the United States has provided to the Jewish state.
Israel was born at midnight May 14, 1948. The U.S.recognized the new state 11 minutes later. The two
countries have been locked in a deadly embrace ever since. Washington, at the beginning of the relationship, was able to be a moderating influence. An incensed President Eisenhower demanded and got Israel's withdrawal after the Israelis occupied Gaza in 1956.During the Six-Day War in 1967, Israeli warplanes bombed the USS Liberty. The ship, flying the U.S. flag and stationed 15 miles off the Israeli coast, was intercepting tactical and strategic communications from both sides. The Israeli strikes killed 34 U.S. sailors and wounded 171. The deliberate attack froze,for a while, Washington's enthusiasm for Israel. But ruptures like this one aproved to be only bumps, soon smoothed out by an increasingly sophisticated and well-financed Israel lobby that set out to merge Israel and American foreign policy in the Middle East.Israel has reaped tremendous rewards from this alliance. It has been given more than $140 billion in U.S. direct economic and military assistance. It receives about $3 billion in direct assistance annually, roughly one-fifth of the U.S. foreign aid budget. Although most American foreign aid packages stipulate that related military purchases have to be made in the United States, Israel is allowed to use about 25 percent of the money to subsidize its own growing and profitable defense industry. It is exempt, unlike other nations, from accounting for how it spends the aid money. And funds are routinely siphoned off to build new Jewish settlements, bolster the Israeli occupation in the Palestinian territories and construct the security barrier, which costs an estimated $1 million a mile. The barrier weaves its way through the West Bank, creating isolated pockets of impoverished Palestinians in ringed ghettos. By the time the barrier is finished it will probably in effect seize up to 40 percent of Palestinian land. This is the largest land grab by Israel since the 1967 war. And although the United States officially opposes settlement expansion and the barrier, it also funds them. The U.S. has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems and given Israel access to some of the most sophisticated items in its own military arsenal, including Blackhawk attack helicopters and F-16 fighter jets. The United States also gives Israel access to intelligence it denies to its NATO allies. And when Israel refused to sign the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, the United States stood by without a word of protest as the Israelis built the region's first nuclear weapons program.U.S. foreign policy, especially under the current Bush administration, has become little more than an extension of Israeli foreign policy. The United States since 1982 has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast byall the other Security Council members. It refuses to enforce the Security Council resolutions it claims to support. These resolutions call on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. (
more)

There is now volcanic anger and revulsion by Arabs at this blatant favoritism.Few in the Middle East see any distinction between Israeli and American policies, nor should they. And when the Islamic radicals speak of U.S. support of Israel as a prime reason for their hatred of the United States, we should listen. The consequences of this one-sided relationship are being played out in the disastrous war in Iraq, growing tension with Iran, and the humanitarian and political crisis in Gaza. It is being played out in Lebanon, where Hezbollah is gearing up for another war with Israel, one most Middle East analysts say is inevitable. The U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is unraveling. And it is doing so because of this special relationship. The eruption of a regional conflict would usher in a nightmare of catastrophic proportions.There were many in the American foreign policy establishment and State Department who saw this situation coming. The decision to throw our lot in with Israel in the Middle East was not initially a popular one with an array of foreign policy experts, including President Harry Truman's secretary of state, Gen. George Marshall. They warned there would be a backlash. They knew the cost the United States would pay in the oil-rich region for this decision, which they feared would be one of the greatest strategic blunders of the postwar era. And they were right. The decision has jeopardized American and Israeli security and created the kindling for a regional conflagration. The alliance, which makes no sense in geopolitical terms, does makes sense when seen through the lens of domestic politics. The Israel lobby has become a potent force in the American political system. No major candidate, Democrat or Republican, dares to challenge it. The lobby successfully purged the State Department of Arab experts who challenged the notion that Israeli and American interests were identical. Backers of Israel have doled out hundreds of millions of dollars to support U.S. political candidates deemed favorable to Israel. They have brutally punished those who strayed, including the first President Bush, who they said was not vigorous enough in his defense of Israeli interests. This was a lesson the next Bush White House did not forget. George W. Bush did notwant to be a one-term president like his father..
Israel advocated removing Saddam Hussein from power and currently advocates striking Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. Direct Israeli involvement in American military perations in the Middle East is impossible. It would reignite a war between Arab states and Israel. The United States, which during the Cold War avoided direct military involvement in the region, now does the direct bidding of Israel while Israel watches from the sidelines. During the 1991 Gulf War, Israel was a spectator, just as it is in the war with Iraq. President Bush, facing dwindling support for the war in Iraq, publicly holds Israel up as a model for what he would like Iraq to become. Imagine how this idea plays out on the Arab street, which views Israel as the Algerians viewed the French colonizers during the war of liberation. "In Israel," Bush said recently, "terrorists have taken innocent human life for years in suicide attacks. The difference is that Israel is a functioning democracy and it's not prevented from carrying out its responsibilities. And that's a good indicator of success that we're looking for in Iraq." Americans are increasingly isolated and reviled in the world. They remain blissfully ignorant of their own culpability for this isolation. U.S. "spin" paints the rest of the world as unreasonable, but Israel, Americans are assured, will always be on our side. (
more) Israel is reaping economic as well as political rewards from its lock-down apartheid state. In the "gated community" market it has begun to sell systems and techniques that allow the nation to cope with terrorism. Israel, in 2006, exported $3.4 billion in defense products-well over a billion dollars more than it received in American military aid. Israel has grown into the fourth largest arms dealer in the world. Most of this growth has come in the so-called homeland security sector.

"The key products and services," as Naomi Klein wrote in The Nation, "are hi-tech fences, unmanned drones, biometric IDs, video and audio surveillance gear, air passenger profiling and prisoner interrogation systems-precisely the tools and technologies Israel has used to lock in the occupied territories. And that is why the chaos in Gaza and the rest of the region doesn't threaten the bottom line in Tel Aviv, and may actually boost it. Israel has learned to turn endless war into a brand asset, pitching its uprooting, occupation and containment of the Palestinian people as a half-century head start in the 'global war on terror.' "

The United States, at least officially, does not support the occupation and calls for a viable Palestinian state. It is a global player, with interests that stretch well beyond the boundaries of the Middle East, and the equation that Israel's enemies are our enemies is not that simple.

"Terrorism is not a single adversary," John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt wrote in The London Review of Books, "but a tactic employed by a wide array of political groups. The terrorist organizations that threaten Israel do not threaten the United States, except when it intervenes against them (as in Lebanon in 1982). Moreover, Palestinian terrorism is not random violence directed against Israel or 'the West'; it is largely a response to Israel's prolonged campaign to colonize the West Bank and Gaza Strip. More important, saying that Israel and the US are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: the US has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around."

Middle Eastern policy is shaped in the United States by those with very close ties to the Israel lobby. Those who attempt to counter the virulent Israeli position, such as former Secretary of State Colin Powell, are ruthlessly slapped down. This alliance was true also during the Clinton administration, with its array of Israeli-first Middle East experts, including special Middle East coordinator Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk, the former deputy director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC, one of the most powerful Israel lobbying groups in Washington. But at least people like Indyk and Ross are sane, willing to consider a Palestinian state, however unviable, as long as it is palatable to Israel. The Bush administration turned to the far-right wing of the Israel lobby, those who have not a shred ofcompassion for thePalestinians or a word of criticism for Israel. These new Middle East expertsinclude Elliott Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith,the disgraced I. Lewis"Scooter" Libby, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and David Wurmser. Washington was once willing to stay Israel's hand. Itintervened to thwart someof its most extreme violations of human rights. This administration, however, has signed on for every disastrous Israeli blunder, from building the security barrier in the West Bank, to sealing off Gaza and triggering a humanitarian crisis, to the ruinous invasion and saturation bombing of Lebanon.

The few tepid attempts by the Bush White House to criticize Israeli actions have all ended in hasty and humiliating retreats in the face of Israeli pressure. When the Israel Defense Forces in April 2002 reoccupied the West Bank, President Bush called on then-Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon to "halt the incursions and begin withdrawal." It never happened. After a week of heavy
pressure from the Israel lobby and Israel's allies in Congress, meaning just about everyone in Congress, the president gave up, calling Sharon "a man of peace." It was a humiliating moment for the United Sates, a clear sign of who pulled the strings. There were several reasons for the war in Iraq. The desire for American control of oil, the belief that Washington could build puppet states in the region, and a real, if misplaced, fear of Saddam Hussein played a part in the current disaster. But it was also strongly shaped by the notion that what is good for Israel is good for the United States. Israel wanted Iraq neutralized. Israeli intelligence, in the lead-up to the war, gave faulty information to the U.S. about Iraq's alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And when Baghdad was taken in April 2003, the Israeli government immediately began to push for an attack on Syria. The lust for this attack has waned, in no small part because the Americans don't have enough troops to hang on in Iraq, much less launch a new occupation. Israel is currently lobbying the United States to launch aerial strikes on Iran, despite the debacle in Lebanon. Israel's iron determination to forcibly prevent a nuclear Iran makes it probable that before the end of the Bush administration an attack on Iran will take place. The efforts to halt nuclear development through diplomatic means have failed. It does not matter that Iran poses no threat to the United States. It does not matter that it does not even pose a threat to Israel, which has several hundred nuclear weapons in its arsenal. It matters only that Israel demands total military domination of the Middle East.The alliance between Israel and the United States has culminated after 50 years in direct U.S. military involvement in the Middle East. This involvement, which is not furthering American interests, is unleashing a geopolitical nightmare. American soldiers and Marines are dying in droves in a useless war. The impotence of the United States in the face of Israelipressure is complete. The White House and the Congress have become, for perhaps the first time, a direct extension of Israeli interests. There is no longer any debate within the United States. This is evidenced by the obsequious nods to Israel by all the current presidential candidates with the exception of Dennis Kucinich. The political cost for those who challenge Israel is too high. This means there will be no peaceful resolution of thePalestinian- Israeli conflict. It means the incidents of Islamic terrorism against the U.S. and Israel will grow. It means that American power and prestige are on a steep, irreversible decline. And I fear it also means the ultimate end of the Jewish experiment in the Middle East. The weakening of the United States, economically andmilitarily, is giving rise to new centers of power. The U.S. economy, mismanaged and drained by the Iraq war, is increasingly dependent on Chinese trade imports and on Chinese holdingsof U.S. Treasury securities. China holds dollar reserves worth $825 billion. If Beijing decides to abandon the U.S. bond market, even in part, it would cause a free fall by the dollar. It would lead to the collapse of the $7-trillion U.S. real estate market. There would be a wave of U.S. bankfailures and huge unemployment. The growing dependence on China has been accompanied by aggressive work by the Chinese to build alliances with many of the world's major exporters of oil, such as Iran, Nigeria, Sudan and Venezuela. The Chinese are preparing for the looming worldwide clash over dwindling resources.The future is ominous. Not only do Israel's foreign policy objectives not coincide with American interests, they actively hurt them. The growing belligerence in the Middle East, the calls for anattack against Iran, the collapse of the imperial project in Iraq have all given an opening, where there was none before, to America's rivals. It is not in Israel's interests to ignite a regional conflict. It is not in ours. But those who have their hands on the wheel seem determined, in the name of freedom and democracy, to keep the American ship of state headed at breakneck speed into the cliffs before us.
Chris Hedges, who graduated from Harvard Divinity School and was for nearly two decades a foreign correspondent for The New York Times, is the author of " American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America ."
©2007 TruthDig.com Article printed from www.CommonDreams. org (
more) (less)



Sitdown 23/6/07

What injustices? THe US treats everyone fairly, so I don't see why radicals would want to attack us

Me 23/6/07
coz all the injustices that lead to radicalism

sitdown 20/6/07
Yeah, you guys really need to stop your radicals. They're a pain to everybody and it's kind of like how evolution and global warming is. One scientist with a lot of money belives it and if any scientist disagrees with it, they lsoe their funding, just like how muslims over there are trouble trying to disagree with the radicals. (more)


Me 17/6/07
good to hear from you... it's good if u really believe in yr religion.. coz every religion promote peace

sitdown 17/6/07

First, I think you have the wrong perception, Christians also believe man was born without sin, but using his own acts fell into it. Since this happened, everyone now does fall short of God. See, Mary is not in the trinity because she isn't God, God just chose her because he felt she was bbasically right for the job, I don't know, I'm not God. This is why I am against praying to Mary as many Catholics do, because she was also a sinful human being, so why should I pray to her? The Bible states that through the Holy Spirt (the 3rd part of God) Mary conceived a child who was Jesus, so he was not man, he was born from the Holy Spirit. The Bible talks about how God came to earth in human form so that he could fulfill his promise of a Messiah to ressurect our sins, otherswise we would all be damned. I totally agree, that nobody should repent to a priest. See, what I believe has happened over time is that the original teachings of Jesus were constued for the Catholic church. Jesus said people should take their problems to the church and the public for help if they could not solve them, but never go seeking repentence from them.


Me 17/6/07

yeah.. that was truly honest based on what u believe. coz that is what u know & what u been told/taught since u're born.. what else to believe.. our belief is different but it is not right for me to force upon my belief on you and vice versa.. i'm not a theology expert.. but if u sincerely want to know about other religion specifically islam. i would very much please to give advice based on what i know. i encourage you to study Quran but dont take the meaning literally coz in Quran for every sentence and surah/chapter there are story behind it,i dont know the correct term, generally it mean reason for the sentence revealation.just want to share with u:Islam only believe in ONE God.. we call it Allah (The Oneness of God).. God of before Moses, Noah, Jesus, Muhammad and present. He doesn't have children nor family,He is not a man nor woman, He doesn't have characther and trait of human being, He is the Almighty and nothing is like unto him. the oneness of God was also teaching brought by Jesus but Christian today believe like what u said : 3 part of God, Where is Holy Mary/Mariam position? if this is just like a family would u think they would quarrel sometime? Jesus is man turned God? dont take offence plz.
Man role in this world as God khalifah[The human being is considered the Khalifah (representative) of Allah on earth according to Allah] and servant. Man was born pure. It's he is own choice whether to commit sinful act or good and get pahala/reward. But Allah is The Most Merciful. Christian believe that man are born sinful (contract violation). Christains trust that every one of us falls short of the perfect glory of God because of our sins (imperfections), but the sacrifice of Jesus for our sins was the perfect and ultimate sacrifice; therefore, one can obtain salvation only through seeking faith in Jesus Christ who was crucified and resurrected for all of mankind. We share the same story of Adam and Eve but in Islam mankind are not held responsible for the mistake of Adam. Repentence are direct between man & God not through medium of priest by confession.Correct me if i'm wrong. it's good to know more about Christianity.. But All religions promote peace Those who conceal Allah's revelations in the Book (The Bible), and purchase for them a miserable profit - they swallow into themselves naught but Fire...2:174 (
more) (less)
(
Delete)


Sitdown 12/6/07
Re: honest reply
Jesus wasn't a prophet, he was God and that's why he ascended into heaven, while every other religion has none. God is split into 3 parts, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Please, d Jesus wasn't a prophet, he was God and that's why he ascended into heaven, while every other religion has none. God is split into 3 parts, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Please, don't ask me how this works, because I simply don't know, I won't know until I get into heaven as the Bible says. There is no way to be sure the Bible has been completely preserved. The only way I know the Bible has been preserved was through God's will, the Holy Spirit. I am curious, how far up does the Quran match the Bible? I'm still not 100% sure, but I know they all match up for a while. I can't see how he would fulfill the promises from God in the old testament since Jesus already fulfilled these. (more) (less



Me 12/6/07
YO dude.. for your clarification.. Muhammad isn't GOD!.. he is just a GOD's Prophet.. Just like other Prophets -Jesus (Isa), Moses (musa), who appointed by GOD to save/guide human being.. (Muslim believe that Jesus body is not crossed.. God has switch his body with a tyrant, Jesus was taken to sky.. & Jesus will back to earth when the time come to fight Dajjal) each prophet send after the true teaching of previous prophet forgotten/misleaded.. study yr bible.. each prophet send after another.. Cristianity, Judaism & Muslim are divine Religion.. we share the same prophet.. Cristianity came after Judaism.. to replace the teaching before.. but ego of the jews wont admit it.. Islam came after Cristian.. but ego of the Christian wont admit it even the sign already mentioned in their Holy Book.. but the Holy book can be changed.. can u confirm that Bible now is AUTHENTIC as what given to Jesus? how many time bible was changed? old tastament? new tastament? But AlQuran is authentic .. u can relate/trace it back from time of prophet until now.. even the first Quran written is still preserved.. i'm not saying which religion is right or wrong.. if you believe in Religion & God.. please learn and research about it (
more) (less

sitdown248 May 29, 2007
If Islam is true why is Muhammad buried and dead, yet they couldn't find Jesus' body? No religion debates that Jesus' body was in the grave, they just debate where it was taken. Seems odd that Christianity is the only religion who's God's body isn't here on Earth
...

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...