The Holy Basin - the ignored facts.

The Holy Basin contains well marked Christian and Muslim institutions and holy places that have had historical placement for millenniums. Although people of the Jewish faith had major presence in Jerusalem during the centuries of Biblical Jerusalem, which included rule by King Hezekiah and control by the Hasmonean dynasties, their control and presence were interrupted for two millennia. Extensive commentary has enabled the two thousand years of lack of control and presence to seem as if it never happened and that today is only a short interval from the ancient years of Hezekiah. Almost one thousand years of Christian and Crusader rule and more than one thousand years of Muslim rule are politely ignored, while their tremendous constructions and creation are not credited. Almost everything becomes nothing and a minor something becomes everything. Myth replaces reality. Spiritual quality replaces actual presence.

Some remains of Jewish dwellings and ritual baths can be found, but few if any major Jewish monuments, buildings or institutions from the Biblical era exist in the “Old City” of today’s Jerusalem. The often cited Western Wall is the supporting wall for Herod’s platform and is not directly related to the Second Temple. No remains of the Jewish Temple have been located in Jerusalem.

According to Karen Armstrong, in her book Jerusalem, Jews did not pray at the Western Wall until the Mamluks in the 15th century allowed them to move their congregations from a dangerous Mount of Olives and pray daily at the Wall. At that time she estimates that there may have been no more than 70 Jewish families in Jerusalem. After the Ottomans replaced the Mamluks, Suleiman the Magnificent issued a formal edict in the 16th century that permitted Jews to have a place of prayer at the Western Wall.

The only remaining major symbol of Jewish presence in Jerusalem’s Holy City is the Jewish quarter, which Israel cleared of Arabs and rebuilt after 1967. During its clearing operations, Israel demolished the Maghribi Quarter adjacent to the Western Wall, destroyed the al-Buraq Mosque and the Tomb of the Sheikh al-Afdhaliyyah, and displaced about 175 Arab families. Although the Jewish population in previous centuries comprised a large segment of the Old City (estimates have 7000 Jews during the mid-19th century), the Jews gradually left the Old City and migrated to new neighborhoods in West Jerusalem, leaving only about 2000 Jews in the Old City. Jordanian control after the 1948 war reduced the number to nil. By 2009, the population of the Jewish quarter in the Old City had grown to 3000, or nine percent of the Old City population. The Christian, Armenian and Muslim populations are the principal constituents and their quarters contain almost the entire Old City commerce.

In an attempt to attach ancient Israel to present day Jerusalem, Israeli authorities continue the attachment of spurious labels to Holy Basin landmarks, while claiming the falsification is due to the Byzantines, who got it all wrong.

King David’s Tower’s earliest remains were constructed several hundred years after the Bible dates David’s reign. It is a now an obvious Islamic minaret.

King David’s Citadel earliest remains are from the Hasmonean period (200 B.C.). The Citadel was entirely rebuilt by the Ottomans between 1537 and 1541 AD.

King David’s tomb, located in the Dormition Abbey, is a cloth-covered cenotaph (no remains) that honors King David. It has not been verified that the casket relates to David.

The Pools of Solomon, located in a village near Bethlehem, are considered to be part of a Roman construction during the reign of Herod the Great. The pools supplied water to an aqueduct that carried water to Bethlehem and to Jerusalem.

The Stables of Solomon, under the Temple Mount, are more likely a construction of vaults that King Herod built in order to extend the Temple Mount platform.

Absalom’s Tomb is an obvious Greek sculptured edifice and therefore cannot be the tomb of David’s son.

The City of David contains artifacts that date before and during king David’s time. Some archaeologists maintain there is an insufficient number of artifacts to conclude any Israelite presence before David. In any case any Israelite presence must have been in a small and unfortified settlement

The Jerusalem Archaeological Park within the Old City, together with the Davidson Exhibition and Virtual Reconstruction Center also tell the story. Promising to reveal much of a Hebrew civilization, the museums shed little light on its subject. The Davidson Center highlights a coin exhibition, Jerusalem bowls and stone vessels. The Archeological Park in the Old City contains among many artifacts, Herodian structures, ritual baths, a floor of an Umayyad palace, a Roman road, Ottoman gates, and the façade of what is termed Robinson’s arch, an assumed Herodian entryway to the Temple Mount. The exhibitions don’t reveal many, if any, ancient Hebrew structures or institutions of special significance.

Well known archaeologists, after examining excavations that contain pottery shards and buildings, concluded that finds don’t substantiate the biblical history of Jerusalem and its importance during the eras of a united Jewish kingdom under David and Solomon.
Margaret Steiner in an article titled “It’s Not There: Archaeology Proves a Negative” in the Biblical Archaeology Review, July/August, 1998, states:

…from the tenth century B.C.E. there is no archaeological evidence that many people actually lived in Jerusalem, only that it was some kind of public administrative center…We are left with nothing that indicates a city was here during their supposed reigns (of David and Solomon)…It seems unlikely, however, that this Jerusalem was the capital of a large state, the United monarchy, as described in Biblical texts.

Read more Why Jerusalem.

The 21st Arab League Summit - A Summit of Egos.

The 21st Arab League summit held this week in Doha, Qatar ended up being little more than a summit of egos.

Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir – just indicted for war crimes in Darfur by the International Criminal Court (ICC) – arrived to a red-carpet and hero’s welcome; Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak boycotted the entire gathering; Libyan President Muammar Qaddafi walked out during the opening session; King Abdullah II of Jordan left early, apparently for not having been greeted by the Emir of Qatar but by another member of the royal family; and Hamas was not even invited. Having accomplished little, the summit adjourned one day early.

Overshadowing the gathering of Arab leaders and the League’s stated agenda of ‘reconciliation’ between the decidedly pro-American, anti-Iranian camp of nations (represented by Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia) and those more willing to recognize Iran as an important regional power (namely Syria and Qatar), was the presence of al-Bashir.

In embracing al-Bashir and “rejecting” his indictment, the Arab League thumbed their noses at the West and the ICC, who called for his arrest but ignored the war crimes committed by Israel in Gaza. It may have been an understandable move by the League (which no doubt involved a bit of collective self-preservation), but certainly was not good public relations.

Next, attention was focused on the volatile and unpredictable Libyan leader. In the morning session, he railed against Saudi King Abdullah who he said was “made by Britain and protected by the United States.” The truth in those words were quickly lost however, when he went on to declare, “I am an international leader, the dean of the Arab rulers, the king of kings of Africa and the imam of Muslims, and my international status does not allow me to descend to a lower level.” He then stormed out of the hall.

Hosni Mubarak of Egypt chose not to attend the summit altogether, the second year in a row he has snubbed it. His reasons were juvenile and partially borne out of jealousy for Qatar upstaging Egypt’s traditional role as powerbroker in the Arab world and mediator of its internal disputes. It was after all the emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad Ibn Khalifa al-Thani, who brokered the agreement last year between Lebanon’s March 8 Coalition (Hezbollah, Amal, and the Free Patriotic Movement) and the ruling March 14 Alliance, resulting in an equitable allocation of cabinet seats, eventual election of President Michel Suleiman and an end to the long standoff.

The Emir also convened an emergency Arab summit in Doha during Israel’s assault on Gaza earlier this year, and helped with reconciliation efforts between Hamas and Fatah (and between King Abdullah and Qaddafi during the summit). His backing of Hamas in the Gaza war was another reason Mubarak kept well clear of Doha.

It was Sheikh Ibn Khalifa al-Thani who appeared to have made the most cogent and germane remarks, warning of the potential catastrophic effects the global economic crisis may have on the Middle East, stating, “… the Arab world is in the direction of the wind and the eye of the storm.”

With looming economic concerns, the brouhaha over al-Bashir’s presence, and some notable absences (the kings of Morocco and Bahrain also did not attend); little if any time was spent on the fallout from Israel’s barbaric attack on Gaza. Other than to reiterate the League’s endorsement of the 2002 Saudi Peace Plan calling for full recognition of Israel in exchange for a complete Israeli withdrawal to pre-1967 borders, the League’s position appeared stagnant at a dynamic time.

After an inhumane embargo which had deprived Gaza of basic humanitarian supplies and necessities, the use of white phosphorus against civilians by the Israel Defense Forces, and countless reports of the deliberate targeting of innocent men, women and children (first by Palestinian eyewitnesses, then verified by humanitarian agencies and now confirmed by Israeli soldiers), the Arab League was mute.

To prevent other leaders from boycotting the summit, the remarkable decision of not extending an invitation to Hamas – the democratically-elected Palestinian government –was made. In the meantime, Israeli annexation of Palestinian territory and demolition of homes continues unabated under the new leadership of a right-wing prime minister, a fascist foreign minister and a coalition of extremist religious parties.

Not only did the Arab heads of state fail to heal their deep rifts, they did not tackle the thorny issue of relations with Iran or even begin to address the ramifications an increasingly likely Israeli attack will have on the region. Instead, egos, petty disputes, red-carpet welcomes and diplomatic snubs held sway.

Once again, ordinary citizens of the Middle East this week were reminded why the Arab League has become an utterly irrelevant, feckless institution.

Article taken from here.

Gaza : The Hypocrites Arab Collaborators

The muslim stands united in their direction to Kaabah during prayers, but the collaborators disintegrate them.

The often asked question, when it comes to the Palestinians, is about the role of Arab countries in the Palestinian struggle for freedom. The people not familiar with the political landscape of the area often see the Middle East as two camps, Arab countries on one side and Israel on the other. The reality is totally different. Israel has seldom been alone. Beside its usual American, French, British and other staunch allies, she has had the hidden backing of several Arab countries.

For close to 30 years now, many Arab countries have been collaborating with Israel; some like Egypt (gained independence: 1922) and Jordan (gained independence: 1946) openly, while others like Saudi Arabia (founded: 1932), UAE (founded: 1972) and Kuwait (founded: 1961) from behind the scenes. The reasons for this collaboration vary from country to country but they all have one thing in common: the rulers of these countries are all dictators and need foreign protection from their own people. Some such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait and UAE were put in power by the British. The founder of Saudi Arabia, Abdul-Aziz bin Saud (the kingdom is name after him) was put in power by the British. The same goes for the others, except Egypt which experienced a coup by the army officers in 1952, resulting in the ousting of the monarchy and the accompanying British influence. But the Western influence returned with Anwar Sadat. All these countries are dictatorships and all are under pressure from their people. What they cannot accept is any democratically elected form of government in their mist. They fear that if an Arab government becomes democratic they may have to become one themselves, hence losing power. One of the things that they love about Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, is that he won the election not by popular vote but by popular method of rigging the election; something that these Arab leaders understand and respect.

In contrast, Hamas really represented the aspiration of the people. As soon as Mahmood Abbas’ term as president is over and he had to stand for re-election, he would surely lose. In contrast, Hamas really won the municipal elections in 2005 and the Parliamentary election in 2006. The elections were supervised by international observers, many from Europe, and US.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice confers with Arab foreign ministers and Amre Moussa, the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, at the UN prior to a Security Council meeting on the situation in Gaza.

Palestinians were fed-up with the corrupt regime of Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah. They wanted to clean house. But as soon as Hamas took over, the US and the Europeans put an embargo on Hamas, calling it a terrorist organisation and not a peace partner. Israel closed the borders and refused to let anything into Gaza. Egypt also did the same.

What is not mentioned much in the media is that this was done with the complete approval of the Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. After all, Egypt could have opened its border for transfer of food and fuel. The reasons behind this hostility were and are that Hamas is a truly elected government and worst of all, Hamas is a branch or an off-shoot of Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt.

Muslim Brotherhood has a branch or related organisation in Jordan as well. Egypt and Jordan are worried that should Hamas survive and show its resistance, their people may get the idea that they can also resist the tyrannical rule of these despots. One must not forget that Muslim Brotherhood represents the only serious challenge to the Mubarak’s rule in Egypt.

Egypt

The 81 year old Hosni Mubarak of Egypt has been “president” since 1981 (28 years). He has won every election with a comfortable majority. He is much loved by his secret services. Prior to every election he arrests and imprisons all the opposition, ensuring a “clean” election. Torture is so widely used and accepted in Egypt that US outsources torturing of some its prisoners to Egypt. This alone should tell you volumes about the nature of Mubarak’s rule. He is now trying hard to crown his playboy son as his successor. But the Americans are not so sure if the son is capable of keeping the 80 million Egyptians in line and are therefore looking for alternative candidates. The head of the feared main secret service is one of the prime candidates along with some of the top generals. Challenging him is the Muslim Brotherhood organisation, enjoying grass root support from all sections of the Egyptian society including Lawyers, doctors, judges and student associations. Not surprisingly, US and Israel call Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organisation.

By all accounts, the Muslim Brotherhood be it in Jordan, Egypt or the occupied territories such as Gaza runs a clean operation, running many charity organisations and providing services to the poor and the needy. As such wherever they are, they pose a threat to the corrupt regimes, since they provide an alternative to the people of that area.

Jordan

King Abdullah II of Jordan, born of a British mother, educated in the West, including the Jesuit Center of Georgetown University, was brought to power by the CIA. His Uncle was a long time crown price, yet after his father died in a US hospital, Madeline Albright, Clinton’s Secretary of Estate flew to Jordan to inform the Jordanians that the King on his death bed had changed his will and named his son Abdullah as his successor. The new king Abdullah II is married to the Queen Rania, a Palestinian.

The majority of this Kingdom of 5 million people are Palestinians who are not very friendly to this King. In 1967 there was a Palestinian uprising (led by the PLO) against King Hussein (ruled: 1952-1999, the father of the current king), which resulted in heavy casualties among Palestinians. In addition, the Kingdom is currently full of Iraqi refugees who resent the King’s help to the Americans in invasion of their country. On top of all this, we have the Muslim Brotherhood which tries hard to abolish the monarchy. King Abdullah relies heavily on the US support and backing for staying in power. King Abdullah also sees a natural ally in Israel, a country that can come to its aid in case of another uprising.

Saudi Arabia (House of Saud)

I don’t have to tell you much about Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom is run by the 84 year old, ailing Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud. His personal wealth is estimated at $21 billion USD. He rules a clan of 8000 princes who in turn rule the country. Saudi Arabia is the centre of corruption in the Arab world. The Saudi rulers corrupt everything with their money. Lacking the necessary mental power or physical courage, they try to stay in power by subterfuge, lies, and deception. They fund the real extremists on the one hand while portraying themselves as the protectors of the Western interest on the other. They preach intolerance and xenophobia to their people decrying the Western decadence, while spending a lot of time enjoying the life in the West. They pay the West for protection against their own people and they pay the extremists to do their fighting elsewhere. Saudi rulers are indeed the worst of them all.

House of Saud is also the financier of the so called Arab Moderates and the extremism that they cause. House of Saud financed the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. They later financed the Taliban. They also paid Saddam Hussein to fight Iran. Then they paid the Americans and Egyptians to fight Saddam Hussein. They are the financiers of death and misery. They finance anything, anywhere, as long as this reduces the threat to their illegitimate rule. They are currently financing the civil war in Somalia, bandits in Baluchistan (Pakistan and Iran) and god knows what else. They are detested by their own people and neighbours yet loved by Bush, Cheney and the oil companies. As long as they provide the money and oil the US is willing to tolerate them. And guess what? The Muslim Brotherhood hates the House of Saud too. This makes them a threat and hence they have to be dealt with.

The Hypocrites

By this time, the three Arab countries along with Kuwait and UAE began singing the old song: international community is not doing anything about the catastrophe that is taking place in Gaza. It seems that these Arab tyrants have no shame at all. This reminds me of a quote from Marquis De Sade (1740-1814): “One is never so dangerous when one has no shame, than when one has grown too old to blush.”

These Arab leaders (many are indeed too old to blush) are complicit in the murder of so many civilians, especially young children. According to Agence France-Presse, quoting the medics on the ground, fully one third of all people killed have been children.7 How can these Arab leaders justify this to their people?

The answer is that they cannot. Israel knows this and for the second time can show the Arab street that their leaders are nothing but a bunch of old hypocrites. These Arab leaders are now exposed and can do nothing but to cooperate fully with Israel and US. What stand between them and their people’s rage is their army and secret services; which in turn are supported by US.

Israel has cleverly exposed these leaders for what they are: collaborators of the worst kind. These Arab leaders have brought an unimaginable shame to their people. To quote Lucien Bouchard: I have never known a more vulgar expression of betrayal and deceit. Our hope is now with the people of these countries to clean this stain from their honour.

Text taken from the article The Sources of Arabs’ Shame: Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia by Dr. Abbas Bakhtiar

The feebleness of Muslim World to save Gaza

...the pro-western muslim leaders are part of the problem, not part of the solution

When people feel there is no justice in the world and no legitimate outlet for their justified frustration, things tend to boil over. And that's what happened at a huge anti-Israel, pro-Hamas demonstration in many parts of the world.

Ordinary people are tired of the Muslim world's disunity and feebleness in the face of American and Israeli dominance. The disconnect between a humiliated and suffering muslim and their elite, pro-Western rulers was easy for all to see. They know that the Muslim world has become a laughing stock to many in the West -- a byword for poverty, backwardness and weakness. A region whose plentiful resources the West can exploit precisely because of that disunity and lack of strong leadership.

As the war in Gaza burned, Arab governments have felt their legitimacy challenged with an uncommon virulence. With each passing day, and each Palestinian death, the popularity of Hamas and other islamic movements has ratcheted higher on the Arab street, while the standing of Arab leaders has suffered.

Ordinary people have had enough of the humiliation, enough of the impunity that the West and Israel seem to enjoy. They want all that to stop, they want their pride and self-respect back. And they know that their pro-western leaders are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

The slogans and chants should turn toward the Arab leaders who should be blamed, almost as much as Israel, for the plight of the people of Gaza. Top of the list is Egypt, which many feel gave Israel the green light to attack Hamas. More anger should be reserved for Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the secular Palestinian Fatah faction, who has made it clear that he would like to wrest control of Gaza from the elected Hamas government. Those Arab governments like Jordan and Mauritania, who are on friendly diplomatic terms with Israel, should be in for yet more criticism. And last but not least, anger should be directed toward the wealthy Arab governments, like Saudi Arabia and Persian Gulf littoral countries, which could potentially do so much to resolve the Palestinian issue, but do little or nothing.

Where is Obama...

Barack Obama's chances of making a fresh start in US relations with the Muslim world, and the Middle East in particular, appear to diminish with each new wave of Israeli attacks on Palestinian targets in Gaza. That seems hardly fair, given the president-elect does not take office until January 20. But foreign wars don't wait for Washington inaugurations.

Obama has remained wholly silent during the Gaza crisis. His aides say he is following established protocol that the US has only one president at a time. Hillary Clinton, his designated secretary of state, and Joe Biden, the vice-president-elect and foreign policy expert, have also been uncharacteristically taciturn on the subject.

But evidence is mounting that Obama is already losing ground among key Arab and Muslim audiences that cannot understand why, given his promise of change, he has not spoken out. Arab commentators and editorialists say there is growing disappointment at Obama's detachment - and that his failure to distance himself from George Bush's strongly pro-Israeli stance is encouraging the belief that he either shares Bush's bias or simply does not care.

The Al-Jazeera satellite television station recently broadcast footage of Obama on holiday in Hawaii, wearing shorts and playing golf, juxtaposed with scenes of bloodshed and mayhem in Gaza. Its report criticising "the deafening silence from the Obama team" suggested Obama is losing a battle of perceptions among Muslims that he may not realise has even begun.

"People recall his campaign slogan of change and hoped that it would apply to the Palestinian situation," Jordanian analyst Labib Kamhawi told Liz Sly of the Chicago Tribune. "So they look at his silence as a negative sign. They think he is condoning what happened in Gaza because he's not expressing any opinion."

Regional critics claim Obama is happy to break his pre-inauguration "no comment" rule on international issues when it suits him. They note his swift condemnation of November's terrorist attacks in Mumbai. Obama has also made frequent policy statements on mitigating the impact of the global credit crunch.

Obama's absence from the fray is also allowing hostile voices to exploit the vacuum. "It would appear that the president-elect has no intention of getting involved in the Gaza crisis," Iran's Resalat newspaper commented sourly. "His stances and viewpoints suggest he will follow the path taken by previous American presidents... Obama, too, will pursue policies that support the Zionist aggressions."

Whether Obama, when he does eventually engage, can successfully elucidate an Israel-Palestine policy that is substantively different from that of Bush-Cheney is wholly uncertain at present.

The Betrayal and Submissive to US by the Arabs Nation

The populations of those Arab countries are outraged at Israel’s actions and at their own governments for not condemning Israel’s assault and acting to end the violence. Simply stated, the Arab governments do not represent their respective Arab populations. The populations of the Arab nations have staged mass protests in opposition to not only Israel’s actions but also the inaction of their own governments and what they view as either complacency or complicity in Israel’s crimes.

Moreover, the refusal of Arab nations to take action to come to the aid of the Palestinians is not because they agree with Israel’s actions, but because they are submissive to the will of the US, which fully supports Israel. Egypt, for instance, which refused to open the border to allow Palestinians wounded in the attacks to get medical treatment in Egyptian hospitals, is heavily dependent upon US aid, and is being widely criticized within the population of the Arab countries for what is viewed as an absolute betrayal of the Gaza Palestinians.

Even Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has been regarded as a traitor to his own people for blaming Hamas for the suffering of the people of Gaza. Palestinians are also well aware of Abbas’ past perceived betrayals in conniving with Israel and the US to sideline the democratically elected Hamas government, culminating in a counter-coup by Hamas in which it expelled Fatah (the military wing of Abbas’ Palestine Authority) from the Gaza Strip. While his apparent goal was to weaken Hamas and strengthen his own position, the Palestinians and other Arabs in the Middle East are so outraged at Abbas that it is unlikely he will be able to govern effectively.

"Don't support the British Empire!"

Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz (R) welcomes British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

November 3, 2008 (LPAC)--Under this title the leading Saudi international daily Asharq Al-Awsat posted a comment by Hussein Askary on November 3 under the report of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's visit to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE to force them to back the "Britain Woods" dictatorship of the IMF.

In the 170-word-limited space for commentaries on the report, which was the main story in Asharq Al-Awsat, Askary wrote: "Don't support the British Empire! Anyone who harbors the illusion that America is the sole controller of the world and that it is the power which dictates to the Arab states their policies, should carefully study what Brown is doing. He is trying to save the international financial system which is controlled by the hedge funds based in the British islands, such as the Cayman Islands, through the creation of a world government under the umbrella of the IMF and run by Britain. This would supposedly be financed by the money from the Arabs which is not enough, and will never be enough to save the global financial system which was declared dead by Lyndon LaRouche a year ago. The British Empire is not a nation. It is not England. It is a group of financial and economic interests that need nations and armies to impose their control over all nations."

The publishing of this comment, although carefully reviewed, because it took hours to be posted, does not imply that the Saudis are saying "No" to the demands by Brown to pump money into the IMF. The Saudis have not said anything, but Brown, who was in Qatar on Sunday Nov. 2, after meeting the Saudi officials on Saturday, said that he was confident the Saudis will help the IMF.

To make sure that the Arabs get the point, Brown took with him the CEOs of BAE, Rolls Royce, and British Petroleum of the Al-Yamamah affair fame, among others . The BAE-Prince Bandar Al-Yamamah operations to support and manipulate international terrorism is also capable of reaching inside the palaces and bedrooms of the kings and Sheikhs of the region. So far, one Saudi king has been murdered in his own palace. A few weeks ago, the successors of the former King Faisal bin Abdul-Aziz inaugurated a museum celebrating his life on the occasion of his assassination at the hands of a young member of the royal family in 1975 following the oil crisis of 1973. The assassin was studying in the U.S., and reportedly part of the MK-Ultra project.

One interesting irony is that Brown arrived to the region on November 2, the 91st anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, part of the Sykes-Picot plan, which promised the Jews of Europe a homeland in Palestine (see letter above, inked by James Balfour to Lord Rothchild, a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation, a private Zionist organization ). Since then, Southwest Asia has been a bloody cockpit of British geopolitics and destabilization, and the Jews of Israel have not enjoyed peace in the new homeland, exactly due to British policies.

Text taken from here.

Arabs, do you still have the delusion?

According to Abdel-Halim Kandil, political analyst and editor-in-chief of independent weekly Sout al-Umma, neo-conservative ideology “is not exclusive to the Republicans, but permeates both political parties” in the U.S.

“When it comes to Israel, there’s virtually no difference in Republican and Democratic party policies,” Kandil told IPS. “The Democratic administration of (former U.S. president Bill) Clinton, for example, consisted of even more Jewish Zionists — including the defence secretary (William Cohen), the secretary of state (Madeleine Albright) and the national security advisor (Samuel Berger) — than the current Republican Bush administration.

“These people occupy most of the top political and military positions throughout the American political system,” added Kandil. “Anyone who thinks Washington can serve as a fair mediator in the Israel-Palestine conflict — under Republicans or Democrats — is delusional.”

Kandil said the chief neo-conservative objectives are “securing Israel’s presence in the Middle East, the return of the Jews to Israel, and the eventual construction of the Jewish temple on the site where the al-Aqsa mosque now stands.”

According to Thabet, the neo-conservatives in Washington have exploited U.S. military might to neutralise regional opposition — mainly of the Islamic variety — to Israel.

“They have used U.S. military force to spread their version of ‘democracy’, which excludes all forms of political Islam — be it Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Hamas in Palestine or the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood,” said Thabet.

Some local observers suggest that the neo-conservatives in the current Bush administration, many of whom hold dual U.S.-Israel citizenship, are more beholden to Israel than to the U.S.

“These people have a greater attachment to Israel and world Zionism than they do to the U.S.,” Magdi Hussein, secretary-general of Egypt’s Labour Party, frozen by the government since 2000, told IPS. “But they have tried hard to convince the American public that U.S. and Israeli interests are one and the same.”

Text taken from Arabs Despair of U.S. Even More.

"Your Turn Is Next" - Gaddafi Told the Arabs.

Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan president, poured contempt on fellow Arab leaders at the annual Arab summit, which opened on Saturday that was overshadowed by the absence of several key figures. He criticised Arab countries for doing nothing while the United States invaded Iraq in 2003 and overthrew Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi president.

Gaddafi asked: "How can we accept that a foreign power comes to topple an Arab leader while we stand watching?"

He said Saddam had once been an ally of Washington, "but they sold him out".

"Your turn is next," Gaddafi told the Arab officials gathered for the conference, some of whom looked stunned while others broke into laughter at his frankness.

US influence

The Saudi, Egyptian and Jordanian leaders stayed away after Washington urged its allies to think twice before attending.

But Syria trumpeted the absence of US allies as a triumph over Washington's influence.

Amr Moussa, the Arab league chief, spoke of how the summit had solidified the rift between Syria and US allies in the Middle East.

He also echoed words from in his speech from last year's summit, in which he declared that the Israeli-Palestinian peace process was dead.

Urging Arab foreign ministers to meet in mid-2008, Moussa asked for leaders attending the conference to reconsider their options on Israel and the current negotiations if no progress is seen in the next few weeks.

Assad also questioned how long Arab nations can keep offering Israel peace negotiations.

Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian president, repeated his request for international peacekeepers to be sent to the Gaza Strip, but Saturday marked the first time he had urged Arab countries to send troops.

Somewhere is Going to Explode

In another report, a boycott by Lebanon and major Arab powers of the Arab has dashed hopes for a last-ditch settlement of the Lebanese presidential crisis, raising fears of a descent into violence after it passes.

Ahmad Moussalli, a political science professor at the American University of Beirut, said the fractured summit marked the death of an Arab League initiative aimed at electing a president, redistributing cabinet seats and paving the way for parliamentary elections next year.

"The Arab Summit was supposed to revive the initiative and give it some energy, but now what we will be seeing is the stagnation of the Lebanese situation and this could deteriorate into further negative interaction between the two groups in Lebanon," he said.

"I think this could be the beginning of the death of the Arab League. Now we will see more the crystallization of alliances with the two major players in the region, the United States and Iran," said Moussalli.

Moussalli said the regional rift so graphically illustrated by the split over the Arab summit could blow up in Iraq, the Palestinian territories or Lebanon.

"Somewhere it's going to explode -- Lebanon seems a very likely place -- and push the players either to go to war or reach a settlement. As things seem now, there is likely to be no settlement."