Presbyterians have double standard on State of Israel

A divestment policy that punishes one side in Mideast conflict won't bring peace
A. JAMES RUDIN

Religion News Service

The Presbyterian Church (USA) is facing a self-inflicted firestorm of criticism, much of it coming from the denomination's own clergy and lay leaders. This past summer the PCUSA's national policy-making body, the General Assembly, adopted a sweeping resolution calling for 'phased selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel in accordance' with church 'policy on social investing.'

But the PCUSA's top executive, Clifton Kirkpatrick, placed his own interpretation on the loosely worded General Assembly statement. He maintained that phased divestment is aimed only at 'those companies ... found to be directly or indirectly causing harm or suffering to innocent people.' He did not explain how his church would make such determinations. A report on divestment is due in early March 2005.

The possibility that the nation's ninth largest Christian body would embark on a project that could result in the withdrawal of hard-earned church funds from various companies doing business in Israel has drawn sharp negative reactions from a large number of irate Presbyterians.

The PCUSA Board of Pensions, which provides health and retirement benefits for ministers and church employees, has a $6.2 billion investment portfolio, while the Presbyterian Foundation, with a $1.1 billion portfolio, funds much of the mission program. The Pension Fund must provide benefits that plan members have earned. As a result, there are serious legal impediments to any divestment proposal that may harm fund participants. But there are other equally significant grounds to criticize the proposal.

Among the critics is Presbyterians Concerned for Jewish-Christian Relations, a group committed to building mutual respect and understanding between the two faith communities. The organization's key leaders are Donald Shriver, president emeritus of Union Theological Seminary in Manhattan, and William Harter, pastor of the Falling Spring Presbyterian Church in Chambersburg, Pa. Harter is a past member of the National Council of Churches Committee on Christian-Jewish Relations and the World Council of Churches Consultation on the Church and the Jewish People.

Their group has publicly assailed the divestment resolution: 'We are deeply distressed by any suggestion that divestment policies of the church relating to Israel should uniquely target that country in ways that do not apply to every other country. ... We must be careful not to attack the economic life of the Israeli people, or to undermine Jewish survival in any way.'

But the criticism of the General Assembly's action went even further: 'We categorically denounce any equation between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and (the former South African policy of) apartheid.'

Mark Brewer, pastor of the Los Angeles Bel Air Presbyterian Church where President Reagan was a member, was particularly bitter in his criticism: The General Assembly 'fell out of the stupid tree and hit every branch going down. The idea that withholding funds is going to make peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians is ridiculous.'

The PCUSA's Confessing Churches, a group of theologically conservative Presbyterians, is also highly critical of any divestment plans.

The PCUSA has once again used a double standard when it comes to Israel. The Presbyterians Concerned group correctly noted the divestment resolution is 'uniquely' aimed at Israel. Singling out Israel for special punishment is an unfair policy, one that runs counter to the PCUSA's oft-proclaimed attempt to be a genuine voice of Christian conscience and reconciliation.

But controversy within the PCUSA is nothing new. There has been continuing criticism on a host of issues coming from 'grass-roots' members, all aimed at the church's national staff in Louisville, Ky. But the divestment issue has created one of the most heated backlashes to date.

Unfair divestment aimed at Israel should be rescinded and replaced by a balanced PCUSA peace-making effort that does not punish Israel as if the Jewish state were the Middle East conflict's guilty party.

Divestment aimed at Israel alone will discredit the Presbyterian Church and will not hasten peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Those two peoples need something much better than a one-sided divestment strategy from a church that is so painfully and publicly divided.
Rabbi James Rudin, the American Jewish Committee's senior interreligious adviser, is Distinguished Visiting Professor at Saint Leo University.

Read More

Terrorist bomber drama "a model for young and ambitious people in the Arab world."

Ramadan drama documents life of Yehya Ayyash
By KHALED ABU TOAMEH

A joint Palestinian-Syrian drama series telling the life of Hamas bomb-maker Yehya Ayyash is poised to become the most popular show for tens of millions of Arab viewers during the holy month of Ramadan, which begins Friday.

Ayyash, a resident of Rafat village in the northern West Bank, was responsible for a spate of suicide bombings that killed more than 100 Israelis between 1994 and 1996. (during the Oslo "peace process - EoZ) He was assassinated by Israel in 1996 when his booby-trapped mobile phone exploded in his face.

Ayyash, who was nicknamed "The Engineer" because of his expertise in preparing and handling different kinds of explosives, has since become a legend for Hamas and other Palestinian groups. Some have gone as far as comparing the Bir Zeit university graduate to Salah Eddin, the heroic Muslim warrior who drove the Crusaders out of Jerusalem.

Many Arab TV stations broadcast month-long dramas during Ramadan as a form of entertainment. Last year Hizbulah's Al Manar TV station broadcast a controversial series – also produced by a Syrian film company – based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
...

Palestinian writer and literary critic Salah Al-Bardawil dismissed the fears of Hiyam and expressed hope that the drama would present an "honorable" portrait of Yehya Ayyash. "There's no need to worry," he said.

Bardawil noted that the main theme of the drama would be "rejection of the occupation and Zionist and American hegemony, the importance of resistance and the need to avenge the blood of the (Palestinian) victims."

He said the timing of the drama was significant "because it supports the forces fighting against Israeli and American oppression and aggression in Palestine, Iraq and the Arab and Muslim region." The Gaza-based writer said the drama would also serve as a model for young and ambitious people in the Arab world.

Diana Jabour, who wrote the script for the new drama, said she avoided using her imagination and relied only on facts. Asked why she had chosen the Hamas bomb-maker as her hero, Jabour explained: "I was deeply impressed by his personality. Whenever I heard about a suicide attack, the name of The Engineer would be linked to it. I soon discovered that his real name was Yehya Ayyash and started collecting material about him."

Read More

EU ready to reward terror

I wonder what Palestinians could possibly do to not deserve a state according to the EU? Certainly the atrocities and attempted genocide of Jews in the Middle East seems to be considered praiseworthy and deserving reward. - EoZ

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - The European Union is set to produce a plan to ensure the viability of a Palestinian state, based on 1967 borders, it has emerged.

In a bid to step up the EU's engagement in the region, the plan is set to focus on reconstruction as well as ensuring security is brought to the territories.

It will also set out the need for holding free and fair elections.

Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos, who is a former EU envoy to the Middle East, said that it is hoped the plan would be adopted in November at a meeting of EU leaders in Brussels, according to reports.

The move follows deep unease in Europe over the lack of progress in implementing the EU, US, UN and Russian backed ‘Road Map’ for peace and a response to Israel's plans to withdraw from Gaza.

"We want to show the will to start moving and commit ourselves to the situation in the Middle East", Mr Moratinos told a press conference.

Diplomats insist that the Road Map is still on the table, but little progress has been made ahead of the US presidential elections.

EU diplomats also insist that the move does not represent the EU stepping away from the Quartet and is compatible with the Road Map.

However, with a vote on prime minister Ariel Sharon's plans to withdraw from Gaza in 2005 set to come before the Knesset in two weeks time, the EU is keen to make sure no power vacuum ensues

Read More

One more Palestinian mistake

By Barry Rubin, The Jerusalem Post

The PLO returns to its explicit demand of 'Two peoples, one state'

An event of such earthshaking dimensions occurred on October 4 that it should go down in the Middle East history books: an op-ed piece in The New York Times by Michael Tarazi, the PLO's legal adviser, comprising a policy statement of prime importance.

Such an article would never appear without approval by that group's leadership and broad support from its cadre.

Its title, "Two peoples, one state," tells the story.

The PLO's position is now publicly and officially back to where it was in the 1960s and 1970s. Its open goal: Israel's elimination. To say this is nothing new because such has been the implicit aim all along would be a grave mistake. The fact that the PLO has come out into the open with such a position signals a very important change indeed.

This decision is one more sign that any chance for progress in the peace process is an illusion. While road maps, declarations, delegations, and other efforts may contribute to peace in the long-term, in the immediate context they are useless exercises in wishful thinking.

The key to understanding the history of the last half-century's Arab-Israeli conflict is that the PLO was never a true nationalist movement. Had it been, the problem would have been solved long ago.

For the PLO destroying Israel is more important than building an independent Palestinian state or relieving the Palestinian people's suffering. That is why Yasser Arafat turned down Israel's offer at Camp David as well as the Clinton plan, both of which offered a viable independent state with its capital in Jerusalem.

Never fully appreciated about this approach was its irrationality from the standpoint of a genuine Palestinian nationalism. A nationalist wants his people to live in a country of their own in order to build their identity and well being.

Demanding a "right of return" to Israel sabotages any real Palestinian nationalism.

If the goal was to build a strong, stable Palestinian state living in peace alongside Israel, everything would be done to discourage refugees from going to Israel. For why should a Palestinian state make a gift of these people, their money and talents to someone else?

But if you know that Israel will reject such a "return," then demanding it ensures postponing the end of the occupation, more violence, casualties, and billions of dollars in compensation.

The demand for return - PLO documents explicitly make this clear - is intended to subvert Israel and place it under Palestinian rule. That being the case, the returnees would not be lost to Palestine but would soon be making a real return - to the State of Palestine, bringing all of Israel with them.

BUT EVEN this slightly subtle two-stage plan proved too much for the PLO; so it has gone back to the explicit demand for a unitary state at the beginning of the process rather than as the outcome of years of subversion.

One need not be a genius to understand the consequences of such a "solution." The daily power struggle, bloodshed and civil war would make what is happening now look like a picnic.

To take the scheme Tarazi proposes seriously would be to assume that the Palestinian leadership is so humanitarian, so liberal and democratic-minded that it will sacrifice its own ambitions and totally change its historic behavior.

The movement's promotion of terrorism and vicious anti-Israel incitement belies any such intention.

Finally, and regrettably, this new campaign shows that even if Israel withdraws from the Gaza Strip - or accepts a Palestinian state in all the West Bank too - it will only initiate a new phase in which the Palestinian leadership demands Israel's elimination as the next step.

Tarazi tries to make this Palestinian demand seem something forced on it by Israeli policies. In reality, Palestinian leaders have repeated it in private conversation for years, even at the height of the peace process.

The explicit demand to dismantle Israel rather than seek a Palestinian state alongside it is growing also as a result of the current Palestinian assessment. It is a "right of return" to the 1960s and 1970s arising from the combination of a lost intifada, victory in the international propaganda war, and refusal of a real compromise peace.

It is also one more in a long series of Palestinian mistakes. For every person in the West ready to go along with the Palestinian demand to destroy Israel there are five or 10 willing to accept the movement's supposed nationalist narrative.

They will buy the argument that Palestinians just want their own homeland, but not the idea that it should include Israel as well.

This is even truer of Western states and politicians. The PLO's new line is likely to be a public-relations disaster, undoing many of the movement's apparent gains in the battle for public opinion.

Even Tarazi reveals the hypocrisy of pretending that the new Palestinian policy is a reluctant choice still being debated. He concludes: "The only question is how long it will take, and how much all sides will have to suffer" before Israeli Jews accept this outcome.

As real Palestinian moderates realize, defining the conflict in these terms ensures that no matter who leads Israel, the struggle will go on for a very long time with far more suffering - and a certainty that Palestinians will not get a state for many years.

The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center; editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal; and editor of Turkish Studies.

Read More

Israel's Commitment to Domestic and International Law in Times of War

Judge Amnon Straschnov
Former IDF Military Advocate General

• All activities performed by Israel during the first intifada as well as nowadays are based on law. Israel follows the emergency defense regulations enacted by the British in Mandatory Palestine in 1945. They are similar to those enacted by the British against the IRA in Northern Ireland.

• Israel has established four main principles for implementing the laws of war in the fight against terrorism: 1) Military necessity - the obligation to use force only in a situation which yields a direct military advantage. 2) Distinction between combatants - those who take part directly in hostilities - and noncombatants. 3) Humanity - the obligation to refrain from operations which cause unnecessary suffering. 4) Proportionality - the obligation to ensure that the action does not target in a manner disproportionate to the military advantage expected from the attack.

• Israel classifies terrorists the same way the Americans classify terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq - as unlawful combatants. They do not have the privilege to be under the umbrella of international law because they do not adhere to the laws of war. Rather, they have violated every possible provision of the laws of war. They don't wear uniforms or abide by the conditions that entitle them to be POWS.

• Once we define terrorists as unlawful combatants, they become legitimate military targets. It is allowed both legally and morally to fight and kill them. They want to come and kill us, and there is no question regarding the evidence. They've manifestly and openly declared their intentions.

• We are entitled from a legal point of view, as a total act of self-defense, to target them. If we can catch them and bring them to trial, that's better. But if this is not possible, we should be allowed to shoot them down.

• The Geneva Convention was enacted in 1949 and The Hague Regulations in 1907. There was no such terrorism at the time, and there exists no special convention or protocol against terrorism. There is certainly a need for one.

Legal Differences Between the Last Two Palestinian Uprisings

There is a big difference in the legal problems arising from the first intifada (1987-1993) and from the second uprising that began in 2000. The first intifada was characterized by civil unrest, by civilians including women and children throwing stones and making roadblocks. But it was not terrorism. The most extreme terrorist activity at that time was Molotov cocktails thrown at soldiers or civilian vehicles. The problem with applying laws in these situations is that there are no set laws dealing with these kinds of occurrences - the laws of war don't apply and the laws of peace don't apply.

At that time we introduced administrative detention, trials, and deportations, all based on the law and within the framework of the law. All activities performed by Israel during the first intifada as well as nowadays are based on law. Israel follows the emergency defense regulations enacted by the British in 1945. The British enacted similar defense regulations against the IRA in Northern Ireland.

The law cannot remain stagnant. It must evolve according to the situation. For example, before the first uprising, the law regarding administrative detention (detention without trial) was different. Administrative detention occurs when information is received based on wiretapping or from an informer whose identity cannot be revealed in court due to his need for protection. A person can be put into administrative detention for six months with a military judge's approval and this can be extended after six months only with the approval of a judge. There is a judicial review by the Supreme Court of Israel over the administrative detention.

Before the start of the first uprising in 1987, Israel had about 200 administrative detainees. According to the law at that time, the state was obligated to bring each detainee before a judge within 48 hours for supervision, to check the matter. When the uprising started, sometimes we had thousands of administrative detainees and it was impossible to bring them before a judge, and we changed the law. The new law said it is not obligatory for the state, or the military government, to bring each detainee before a judge, but that he has the right to petition to appear before a judge, at any time.

In October 2000 the second intifada broke out, referred to by some as an “armed conflict short of war.” During the first three years of this armed conflict, 942 Israeli civilians were killed in terrorist activities. Coffee shops became scenes of bloodshed. Buses were blown up. When terrorism is imposed on you, you have to fight it - diligently, determinately, and unceasingly - not only in Israel but everywhere in the world. The measures that are taken against terrorists or the people who send them cannot be compared with the moderate measures taken during the first uprising, which was a civilian one.

In the first intifada Israel had control on the ground and it didn't use tanks, helicopters, or even armored personnel carriers - only jeeps. Israel lost control on the ground as part of what people used to call the peace process and began to gain it back again only two and a half years ago after the Passover massacre in Netanya and Operation Defensive Shield. The tension has now been eased by a combination of control on the ground, the fence, better intelligence, and better ability to react to this intelligence. All these elements together build a situation in which the level of terrorism is lower than in the past. In some areas in which the tension is lower because of the fence, the rules of engagement are different from other areas in which there is no fence and the ability of the terrorists to cross into Israel is easier. Before the first uprising, when times were quiet, Palestinians worked in Israel, and there was almost no problem of security, people were not put into administrative detention and there was no policy of targeted interceptions. Only after terrorism arose and Israel suffered many casualties did we have to take measures against it. Israel should not be ashamed or scolded for the measures it had to take. Compare this to the United States which holds 600 detainees in Guantanamo, Cuba, because the U.S. Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over them there. Or compare Israel's record to that of France. During the Algerian uprising there were many atrocities performed by the French army against Algerians, yet there was not even one court-martial of French troops.

The powers of the military advocate-general in the State of Israel are different from his counterpart in the United States or England. He is completely independent and decides whether to court-martial, not the military commanders. I would prosecute people who deviated strongly from the rules of engagement, or from common law or from human rights. To shoot somebody for no good reason would result in a court-martial.

Principles for Fighting Terrorism

It's easier to be a democracy in that part of the world where the United States is located than here in the Middle East, where Israel is surrounded by countries that have nothing to do with democracy or human rights. Israel as a democracy has to weigh two main considerations: first, to fight to eliminate terrorism, and second, it is our duty under international law, humanitarian law, and the Geneva Conventions to protect the human rights of the local Palestinian population, most of whom are innocent.

Israel has established four main principles for fighting against terrorism. First, there must be a military necessity - The obligation to use force is only in a situation which yields a direct military advantage. Second, there needs to be distinction between combatants - those who take part directly in hostilities - and noncombatants. Third is the need for humanity - the obligation to refrain from operations which cause unnecessary suffering. The fourth is proportionality - the obligation to ensure that the action aimed at legitimate targets does not affect protected persons, namely civilians, and that it does not target in a manner disproportionate to the military advantage expected from the attack. These four principles should be the basis of Israel's implementation of the laws of war.

Unlawful Combatants Are Not Entitled to Treatment as Prisoners of War

What is the legal status of terrorists? Some argue that if they are combatants, they should have the same rights as combatants, namely prisoner-of-war (POW) status and access to The Hague Regulations and the Geneva Conventions governing treatment of POWs. Some say they are civilians and as civilians cannot be attacked. There isn't a proper classification for these terrorists under international law. The Geneva Convention was enacted in 1949 and The Hague Regulations in 1907. There was no such terrorism at the time or during the Second World War, and there exists no special convention or protocol against terrorism. There is certainly a need for one.

Israel classifies terrorists the same way the Americans classify terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq - as unlawful combatants. They are combatants but they do not have the privilege to be under the umbrella of international law because they do not adhere to the laws of war. They are not entitled to its protection since they have violated every possible provision of the laws of war and humanitarian law. They don't wear uniforms or abide by the conditions that entitle them to be POWS.

What measures are we taking against these unlawful combatants? If we have evidence and manage to bring them into custody, we bring them to trial before a court of law, a military court.

Targeted Interceptions and the Law

One new measure employed by Israel in the war against terror involves targeted interceptions, a subject of extensive debate. Once we define the terrorist as an unlawful combatant, he is a legitimate military target. It is allowed both legally and morally to fight and kill any terrorists for their notorious and ruthless terrorist activities, and we should not deal with them as protected persons. They are unlawful combatants, they want to come and kill us, and there is no question regarding the evidence. They've manifestly and openly declared their intentions.

Why should we wait until a terrorist carrying an explosive belt walks into a coffee shop in Jerusalem, opens his coat, and only when we see the belt are we allowed to shoot him? We are entitled from a legal point of view, as a total act of self-defense, to target him and get him beforehand. If we can catch him and bring him to trial, that's better. But if he is surrounded by bodyguards, we should be allowed to shoot him down.

There are very strict preconditions that apply to the use of targeted interceptions. These preconditions are known at all levels of the IDF and the Ministry of Defense, which consult with the military advocate-general. First, the terrorist or his superior must pose an imminent threat; it is not permitted to exercise this policy as a punitive measure but only as a preventive measure. Second, there must be no viable option to arrest the terrorist. Third, the four principles of military necessity, distinction, humanity, and proportionality noted earlier must be adhered to firmly. Only under these circumstances may we carry out this kind of interception. There was no mistake when targeting Sheikh Yassin or other known terrorists with blood on their hands. The only problem with targeted interceptions is when innocent people in the surrounding area are killed or injured. We keep telling our soldiers and pilots to keep the idea of proportionality in mind. The killing of civilians in time of war can happen inadvertently, of course, but the pilots know how to differentiate, and they have the right and the discretion not to shoot when there is extensive danger to the local population.

The Supreme Court of Israel

The Supreme Court of Israel is the pinnacle of human rights in the State of Israel, as well as in the administered areas. While there is no precedent in international law, every local inhabitant including Arabs residing in the administered areas can apply directly to the Supreme Court of Israel and ask for remedy based on justice. People can petition the Supreme Court and it has jurisdiction over every Israeli official.

There are many examples of Supreme Court intervention. During the Gulf War in 1991, Israel distributed gas masks to every Israeli citizen but not to the local Arab population of the West Bank and Gaza. After a petition to the Supreme Court, the court ordered the army to distribute gas masks to the local population, as well.

We obey, without question, our Supreme Court rulings. In the case of Israel's security fence, the Supreme Court of Israel ruled, first of all, that it is legal to build the fence, and second, that the route of the fence should be amended. I think that's the right decision. The idea of building the fence arose because we wanted to protect ourselves, not because we wanted to cause misery to the Palestinians.

* * *

Judge Amnon Straschnov, currently president of the Israeli Institute of Commercial Arbitration, served as the Military Advocate General (Chief Legal Officer) of the Israel Defense Forces (1986-1991) and as President of the Military Courts in the West Bank (1982-1984). He also administered Israel's military justice system both within the "green line" and in the administered areas. His many publications include Justice Under Fire (1994, Hebrew), dealing with the legal aspects of the first uprising in the administered areas.

Read More

Warning system against Kassams set up in Sderot

An early warning system against Kassam rockets fired from the Gaza Strip has been set up in the southern town of Sderot Tuesday.

With each rocket fired, loudspeakers connected to the system will echo the announcement 'Red Dawn' across the town, giving residents an advance warning of 20 to 30-seconds, during which they can either rush indoors or crouch.

Home Front Command soldiers were dispatched to Sderot to check that the warning is heard throughout the town.

The system has been also set up in Kibbutz Nir Am and at Sapir College, where Kassam rockets fell in the past.

Read More

Hamas' military commander in Hebron surrenders to troops

IDF troops on Wednesday arrested Imad Kawasmeh, commander of Hamas' military wing in Hebron, and the man responsible for sending two suicide bombers to Beersheba two months ago. The bombers blew up on two buses almost simultaneously and killed 17 Israelis.

Security forces are placing a high value on Kawasmeh's capture.

Acting on intelligence information, Egoz and Nahal units surrounded a Hebron building Kawasmeh was hiding in on Tuesday night, and were told by locals that there was nobody inside. Troops were not convinced and IDF bulldozers began demolishing the building, at which stage Kawasmeh walked out waving a white flag.

The fact that he was taken alive could help Israel against the Hebron infrastructure, security officials said. Israel had difficulty penetrating the Hebron infrastructure, which was considered extremely secretive and lethal.

Kawasmeh has been on the wanted list for several years.

After Kawasmeh's surrender, troops searched the building and found a weapons cache inside.

Read More

Arabs divided on blowing up Israeli Jews

By Jerusalem Newswire Editorial Staff

JERUSALEM - A new “Palestinian” public opinion poll shows Arabs living in Judea and Samaria – including residents of Jerusalem – are divided on the issue of blowing up Israeli Jews in “suicide” bomb attacks.

More than 42 percent of those polled by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion between September 29 and October 3 said they support the continued mass murder of Jewish men, women and children by Islamic homicide bombers.

Forty-three percent said they feel such attacks are no longer helpful to the “Palestinian” cause.

Similar polls that include the Arabs of the Gaza Strip typically register up to 80 percent support for “suicide” bomb attacks against Israelis.

The “Palestinian” surveys never offer an option to reject terrorism on the grounds that it is morally wrong to murder unarmed innocent civilians.

Only half of the respondents said they support efforts to achieve peaceful coexistence with Israel’s Jews.

Read More

Israeli army admits was "wrong" over UN ambulance rocket scandal

Check out AFP's editorializing. -EoZ

JERUSALEM (AFP) - The Israeli army admitted it had been wrong to accuse the United Nations of letting its ambulances be used by Palestinian militants to transport Qassam rockets in the Gaza Strip.

In a tortuously-worded statement released late Tuesday, the army admitted it was not certain that the object placed in the back of a UN-marked ambulance in the northern Gaza Strip was a rocket, as it had previously insisted, and said its accusations were 'made in haste'.

'After a thorough review of the material, the nature of the object loaded on the vehicle cannot be determined with certainty. Thus, the determination that the object loaded was a Qassam rocket was too unequivocal and made in haste,' the statement said.

Commenting on its rapid widespread distribution of the grainy footage shot from an Israeli drone, the army said 'lessons learned will be implemented to prevent a recurrence of such an incident in the future'.

Read More

U.S. Congress Passes Lantos’s Antisemitism Bill

Both houses of the U.S. Congress have unanimously passed legislation requiring the U.S. to monitor anti-Semitism around the world, despite the State Department’s opposition.

The bill, known as the Global Anti-Semitism Awareness Act (H.R. 4230), was introduced by Congressman Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), in response to the rising tide of anti-Semitism in Europe and the Middle East. Lantos is the only Holocaust survivor serving in the Congress. The bill requires the State Department to compile an annual report on anti-Semitism around the world, and establishes an office within the department to focus on the issue.

The State Department at first stalled the bill, by arguing that Lantos’s proposal would extend exclusive status to one religious or ethnic group. But the legislation moved forward in recent weeks after the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies and former Congressman Stephen Solarz organized more than 100 prominent Americans to sign a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell, protesting the State Department’s position.

As the San Francisco Chronicle reported: “One key to advancing Lantos’ bill may have been the surprise intervention of the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies. The Pennsylvania-based organization, named for a historian who has written about the West's response to the Holocaust, organized an open letter to Powell signed by 104 prominent Americans. They included former Republican vice presidential nominee Jack Kemp, former United Nations ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick, ex-CIA director James Woolsey and Pulitzer Prize-winning author Garry Wills. ‘I was delighted and totally surprised by this bipartisan, multi-faith group,’ said Lantos.”

Read More

"Iraq has become a major distraction from the global war on terrorism" - Jaffee Center

TEL AVIV - The war in Iraq did not damage international terror groups but actually 'created momentum' for them to grow, a top Israeli think tank said yesterday.

'During the past year Iraq has become a major distraction from the global war on terrorism,' according to a report by the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, whose researchers include retired Israeli generals and senior intelligence officers.

The Iraq war, the report said, 'has created momentum for many terrorist elements, but chiefly Al Qaeda and its affiliates.' Al Qaeda was dealt a serious blow by the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, the report said, but it recovered as U.S. attention and intelligence resources were redirected to Iraq.

President Bush has strongly expressed a different view, calling the war in Iraq an integral part of the war on terrorism. He has said deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein hoped to develop unconventional weapons and could have given them to Islamic militants across the world.

In a recent Associated Press poll, 52% of Americans surveyed said the Iraq war has increased the threat of terrorism, while 30% think it has decreased it.

Two out of three people polled in Australia, Britain and Italy - countries allied with the U.S. in the Iraq war - said they believe the Iraq war has increased the threat of terrorism, the poll showed.

If the goal in the war against terrorism is 'not just to kill the mosquitoes but to dry the swamp,' said Shlomo Brom, a retired Israeli Army general and Jaffee Center researcher, 'now it's quite clear' that Iraq 'is not the swamp.'

The Associated Press"

Read More

U.N. nuclear watchdog expresses concern at disappearance of high-precision equipment from Iraq's nuclear facilities

UNITED NATIONS (AP) The U.N. nuclear watchdog expressed concern Monday at the disappearance from Iraq's nuclear facilities of high-precision equipment that could be used to make nuclear weapons.

In a letter to the U.N. Security Council, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency said some industrial material that Iraq sent overseas has been located in other countries but not high-precision items including milling machines and electron beam welders that have both commercial and military uses.

''As the disappearance of such equipment and materials may be of proliferation significance, any state that has information about the location of such items should provide IAEA with that information,'' said the agency's director-general, Mohamed ElBaradei.

IAEA inspectors left Iraq just before the March 2003 U.S.-led war. The Bush administration then barred U.N. weapons inspectors from returning, deploying U.S. teams instead in what turned out to be an unsuccessful search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Nonetheless, IAEA teams were allowed into Iraq in June 2003 to investigate reports of widespread looting of storage rooms at the main nuclear complex at Tuwaitha, and in August to take an inventory of ''several tons'' of natural uranium in storage near Tuwaitha.

ElBaradei told the council that Iraq is still obligated, under IAEA agreements, ''to declare semi-annually changes that have occurred or are foreseen at sites deemed relevant by the agency.'' But since March 2003 ''the agency has received no such notifications or declarations from any state,'' he said.

As a result of the IAEA's ongoing review of satellite photos and follow-up investigations, ElBaradei said, ''the IAEA continues to be concerned about the widespread and apparently systematic dismantlement that has taken place at sites previously relevant to Iraq's nuclear program and sites previously subject to ongoing monitoring and verification by the agency.''

''The imagery shows in many instances the dismantlement of entire buildings that housed high precision equipment ... formerly monitored and tagged with IAEA seals, as well as the removal of equipment and materials (such as high-strength aluminum) from open storage areas,'' he said.

Because of the holiday, U.S. officials were not immediately available to comment on ElBaradei's letter.

In a report to the Security Council in early September, the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, which is charged with overseeing the elimination of any banned Iraqi missile, chemical and biological weapons programs, also expressed concern about the disappearance of tagged equipment.

Demetri Perricos, head of the commission, known as UNMOVIC, said Iraqi authorities for over a year have been shipping thousands of tons of scrap metal out of the country, including at least 42 engines from banned missiles and other equipment that could be used to produce banned weapons.

The UNMOVIC report said the export was handled by the Iraqi Ministry of Trade, which was under the direct supervision of U.S. occupation authorities until June 28, when the Americans handed power to Iraq's interim government.

Read More

Consequences for Syria (WaPo editorial)

IN THE PAST month, heat from the outside world has been slowly rising on the world's remaining Arab Baathist dictatorship -- Syria -- and the result has been a noticeable if somewhat inconclusive bubbling of developments in normally somnolent Damascus. Syria's government has been a longtime sponsor of terrorism, a stockpiler of missiles and chemical weapons, and an unapologetic ally of Islamic extremists; it has allowed hundreds, if not thousands, of insurgents to stream across its borders to fight U.S. forces in Iraq. Until recently it had suffered few consequences, other than economic sanctions that were mandated by Congress. That has begun to change.

In August, Syria's callow and ineffectual president, Bashar Assad, managed to provoke not just the United States but France by forcing neighboring Lebanon to extend the term of its pro-Syrian president. The result was a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon. Nine days later, a U.S. delegation arrived in Damascus to insist that Syria cooperate with U.S. and Iraqi efforts to control movement across its border. Two weeks later a car bomb, almost certainly planted by Israel, exploded in Damascus and killed one of the Hamas leaders who had been given harbor there. Though it is rare for Israel to carry out such an audacious operation in the Syrian capital, Mr. Assad won scant international sympathy. Instead, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan reported to the Security Council that Syria had not met the terms of Resolution 1559, despite its claims to have redeployed 3,000 of its 20,000 troops in Lebanon.

Mr. Assad seems to be getting nervous. Last week he reorganized his government, installing the former top Syrian intelligence general in Lebanon as interior minister. Then he delivered a whining speech warning that chaos would overtake Lebanon if Syrian troops withdrew. Behind the rhetoric, Syrian security forces are trying to appease Washington, promising better controls on the border and acting against some of the organizers of Iraqi resistance operating in Lebanon.

This, of course, is not enough: It merely demonstrates that concerted outside pressure can bring about changes in Syrian behavior. That pressure should be stepped up. The Security Council should renew its demand that Syria withdraw from Lebanon, and accompany it with the threat of sanctions. Arab states, which for decades have insisted on the sanctity of U.N. resolutions about Israel, should be pressed to take a public position on this one. The Bush administration and Iraqi leaders should make it clear that continued infiltration of insurgents and terrorists into Iraq will be considered a hostile act by Syria and subject to the responses usually given an enemy, from the breaking off of relations to -- in the last resort -- military retaliation. There are no reasons for continued toleration of Syria's rogue behavior; instead, there is an opportunity for insisting on change in the Arab state where it is most needed.

Read More

Egyptians accuse Israel of Taba bombing on TV

An Israeli spokesman appeared live in an Arabic broadcast on Egyptian television the day before yesterday, for the first time since the signing of the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel.
Lior Ben-Dor, an official in the Foreign Ministry's Arab media section, was interviewed on Nile TV in a program hosted by Omeima Al-Baz, the wife of Osama Al-Baz, adviser to President Hosni Mubarak.

Ben-Dor took part in a 12-minute broadcast, during which he was interrupted incessantly by the other guests, Fuad Alan and Daya Rashuan, two terror experts.

They insisted that Israel was behind the series of blasts in Sinai, and rejected Ben-Dor's claim that that their approach legitimized additional bombings, because it diverted the focus from the real culprits.

Read More

Sabotage an Option Against Iran's Atomic Plans

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Somewhere between sanctions and air strikes lurks a third option for those who seek to stop Iran's atomic program in its tracks: sabotage.

Politically deniable -- unlike failed diplomacy -- and much subtler than region-rattling military offensives, covert action of the kind used elsewhere by Israel and the United States could already be under way against the Islamic republic, experts say.

'Iran has been trying to go nuclear since the 1970s and has not yet managed,' said Gad Shimron, a veteran of Israel's Mossad spy service who now writes on defense issues.

'Who's to say there has not been sabotage already, now proving its worth?'

Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper in August quoted Bush administration officials as saying sabotage tactics were being considered for Tehran. The Jewish state has said 'all options' are valid for preventing its arch-foe getting the bomb.

The United States and Israel accuse Iran of concealing a plan to build a bomb, but Tehran says its nuclear program is dedicated solely to meeting electricity demand.

Independent experts question, however, whether any disruption of Iran's supply lines through sabotage or menacing of its nuclear scientists would have a lasting effect on a network that has resisted scrutiny from the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

'Historically, sabotage has served to delay programs but has not been successful in terminating them,' said Gary Samore, a former White House adviser on non-proliferation now with the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London.

He cited a Norwegian heavy water plant struck by saboteurs between 1942 and 1944 to stop the Nazis getting the bomb -- a quest finally laid to rest by Germany's defeat in World War II.

'Delay is good if, in the meantime, something conclusive happens -- either a change of regime or a successful war.'

Some Middle East security experts say even delays have key strategic value in a region notorious for its instability.

Read More

Palestinian children flirt with death

JABALIYA REFUGEE CAMP, Gaza Strip -- He defied the orders of his father and the pleas of his friends and walked a few blocks from his home to watch Palestinian militants fight Israeli soldiers.

Hours later, Mohammed al-Najar, 12, was dead, one side of his face sheared off by a tank shell fired at combatants during one of the fiercest battles of the weeklong Israeli incursion here.

The boy died last week doing what many children do when the shooting starts -- he rushed to the masked gunmen, excited by the action, the noise, the danger.

Israeli army commanders complain that militants use the boys as human shields, but the children often run to the gunmen on their own, against the orders of their parents -- a result of what many here say is a breakdown in the traditional authority of the Palestinian family.

'Some people would say he is a hero, a martyr,' says Mohammed's friend Hamza Khalid, 14. 'Some people would say that his father did not take care of him.'

At least 88 Palestinians have been killed since last week in this Israeli offensive in northern Gaza. Human rights groups say at least half of those killed were civilians and at least 18 were 16 years old or younger.

While those youngsters were apparently innocent bystanders, some battle the Israelis and others venture near to see the fighting. Experts say the adolescents are attracted to risky adventures and enthralled by a culture that embraces martyrdom.

Read More

Destroyed bus is displayed at Duke to protest pro-Palestinian meetings

A Jerusalem city bus left gutted and burned by a suicide bombing is being displayed this week at Duke University in protest of a pro-Palestinian group's annual conference on the Durham campus.

The National Student Conference of the Palestine Solidarity Movement is planned Friday through Sunday. The group is an umbrella for organizations that want an end to Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their original land.

The conference has drawn heated opposition from many in the Jewish community, who plan a simultaneous series of pro-Israel events at Duke's Jewish center.

Duke officials have said they do not endorse the Palestinian group's mission but are allowing the conference in the interest of educational dialogue and free speech.

Organizers of the bus-display protest say they want to achieve the same things.

The bus was carrying morning commuters through Jerusalem on Jan. 29 when a passenger, a Palestinian police officer, detonated explosives strapped to his body.

The explosion, about 50 feet from the home of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, killed 11 people and wounded 50. It blew out the back and roof of the green city bus, sending body parts flying into nearby buildings.

The wrecked bus is to be displayed today and Wednesday near Duke Chapel, sponsored by the lo-cal chapter of Chabad, an Orthodox Jewish educational group affiliated with Chabad-Lubavitch, an international Jewish organization.

Read More

Hamas considers major attack outside Israel

NICOSIA [MENL] -- Hamas has been discussing with Iran the launch of a major attack against an Israeli or Jewish installation outside of the Middle East.

Western intelligence sources said Hamas has sought Iran's help in financing and planning a major strike on an Israeli embassy or Jewish facility that would deter Israel from attacking the leadership of the Islamic insurgency group. The sources said Hamas has urged Teheran to provide the same support granted for the mass casualty strikes against Israeli and Jewish targets in Buenos Aires in the early 1990s in which 114 people were killed.

'Hamas does not have the depth for any major attack on an Israeli installation outside of the Middle East,' an intelligence source said. 'For this, it needs an ally such as Iran, with experience in and capabilities for such attacks.'

In September, Israel's intelligence community was on alert for a mass casualty attack on Israeli tourists in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula. Egypt has suspected Hamas or Palestinian involvement in the Oct. 7 bombings of tourist sites frequented by Israelis in the Sinai, in which 34 people were killed, 12 of them Israelis.

Read More

A Closer Look at Egypt

by Rachel Neuwirth

Administration officials, and some in the media, may refer to certain Arab countries as "our friends" or "our allies." That designation is applied to those Arab countries that receive American support, both military and economic. Such recipients include the Arab Gulf states, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt. With so much attention understandably focused on Iraq, we should not lose sight of the conduct of Egypt, the most populous and most powerful of all the Arab countries. Egypt receives $2.2 billion in American aid each year, and is supposed to be our friend and ally.

For much of the Cold War period, Egypt, along with Syria, was a Soviet client. In 1967, and again in 1973, Egypt attacked Israel with Soviet-supplied weapons. After the start of the 1973 Yom Kippur attack, on Judaism's holiest day, a badly wounded Israel finally turned the tide and was on the verge of victory. But President Nixon intervened to rescue Egypt from an ignominious defeat, by demanding that Israel halt its advance and allow the surrounded Egyptian army to be secured and re-supplied. If Israel refused, Nixon was prepared to confront Israel with stronger measures.

In 1978, Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel and with the US as a participating third party. Egypt then recovered all of the Sinai, which it had used to launch three prior wars against Israel, including its 1948 war in violation of the United Nations Partition Plan, which had been accepted by Israel. Following the peace treaty, they got back every inch of the Sinai, plus a momentous gift of air fields, roads and oil wells, all developed by Israel during the previous ten years, plus billions in American economic and military aid.

American business was also encouraged to support various development projects in Egypt that would create jobs for their growing population. Egypt launched a war of aggression, lost the war, was rescued by America, signed a peace agreement that it is free to violate, and then received back all of the Sinai plus billions in US taxpayer aid. Who says 'crime doesn't pay'?

In return for these huge rewards, Egypt committed to implement its peace treaty with Israel and to normalize relations. Egypt never fulfilled its commitments. It blocked Egyptians from visiting Israel, limited trade, blocked cultural exchanges and maintained extreme anti-Israel and anti-Jewish propaganda in the government-controlled media. A few years ago, Egypt withdrew its ambassador to Israel in yet another violation of its peace treaty. Egypt's Hosni Mubarak has refused to visit Israel (except for the funeral of Yitzchak Rabin in 1995).

Following the 1991 Gulf War, Egypt was forgiven $7 billion of its debt to America in return for their alleged help. We know that NATO allies sent many troops and other countries gave substantial support, but it is hard to discern exactly how much 'help' we actually received from Egypt. After receiving that $7 billion gift, there was still no improvement in Egypt's honoring of its peace treaty with Israel. As American military and economic aid continued to flow, Egypt continued its long-term military buildup, including the import of missiles from North Korea. Over the years, Egypt has received over 50 billion dollars in US aid.

In return for massive American aid, is Egypt helping us to promote peace and stability in the region? Is it ready to help us fight terrorists and to stand with us in Iraq? Or is it pursuing its own destructive agenda of waging low-level warfare against our Israeli ally? Yes, we do hear State Department pronouncements lauding Egyptian 'cooperation' in the region and we even see confused leftist Israeli politicians making an occasional pilgrimage to confer with Hosni Mubarak. But there is a big difference between diplomatic atmospherics and true substance.

Let's take a closer look at some substance. As we look around for urgently needed support troops from our friends, it is good to realize that Egypt knows very well how to fight - especially when going to war against Israel. They also knew how to gas the people in Yemen in the 1960s under Gamal Nasser, years before Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds. They are full of fighting spirit when openly training for their next war against Israel, and while indoctrinating their populace to hate Israel and even their American benefactors.

As a recent example, Dr. Rif'at Sayyed Ahmad, director of the Jaffa Research Center in Cairo and columnist for Al-Liwaa Al-Islami, one of Egypt's state-controlled newspapers, published a two-part article, "The Lie About the Burning of the Jews", which claims the Holocaust is a Jewish invention.

In addition, no item is too trivial or too petty for Egypt when it comes to hatred of Israel. After pop star Madonna (now calling herself Esther, as a devotee of Kabbalah) completed her spiritual, non-political, visit to Israel, the Cairo regime ordered its embassies around the world to deny Madonna any request for a visa to visit Egypt.

This pathological hatred extends to Egyptian opposition to the normalizing of contacts, even 25 years after the peace treaty. Egyptians who want to visit Israel risk punishment by their government. A recent popular song had the endearing title of "I Hate Israel". And in recent years, Hitler's Mein Kampf was an Egyptian best-seller in Arabic translation.

Israeli Army Chief of Staff, Lt.-Gen.Moshe Ya'alon, said (Jerusalem Post, Aug. 25, 2004) that Egypt is "facilitating arms smuggling into the Gaza Strip... allowing the Palestinians to continue smuggling arms from Sinai into Gaza despite Israeli protests." He said, "Egypt knew exactly which arms were being smuggled, and could halt the smuggling of rocket-propelled grenades into Gaza." Israeli cabinet minister Natan Sharansky said on the Anne Coulter Radio Show of May 19, 2004, that "90% of the weapons in Gaza came through the tunnels from Egypt."

Recently, nine US Senators (Brownback, Wyden, Talent, Johnson, Santorum, Dorgan, Inhofe, Inouye and Ensign) have already started a Congressional effort urging President George Bush to "convey to Egypt in the strongest possible terms that it has an obligation to put a stop to weapons smuggling that originates from within its borders by shutting down the Egyptian side of the tunnel network." When Israel is forced to respond to the smuggling and to the attacks on its civilians from those smuggled weapons, the Administration can readily find it voice to admonish Israel to restrain itself. But where is the Administration's voice to admonish Egypt for its criminal actions?

McLaughlin and Associates conducted a poll about Egypt July 14-15, 2004 on a scientifically selected sample of 1,000 Americans. The question was: "Do you think Egypt is a reliable and trustworthy ally of America in the war against terrorism?" 50.1% said "no" and only 22.5% said "yes". The rest had no opinion. Even though the public may not know the full extent of Egyptian misconduct, most Americans still understand that Egypt is not our friend and ally, despite the continuing flow of taxpayer billions.

Egypt today is a nation of some 70 million people, with a huge standing army of about 440,000, plus reserves. After the 1978 peace agreement with Israel, Egypt embarked on a decades-long program of military buildup - this time with the top-of-the-line American weapons. They are building their army and equipment to match and even to surpass Israeli capabilities, thanks to US aid. Their training exercises are all aimed at fighting a future war against Israel. Their populace and military remain indoctrinated with extreme hatred against Israel and against Jews.

Suppose Israel came under coordinated attack from Iran, Syria, Hizbullah, Hamas and Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority - comprising a major threat. Then what would prevent Egypt from seizing the opportunity to join in that war? In 1967, Jordan attacked Israel with US-supplied tanks in violation of US assurances that they were only for defense. Jordan was not punished, but rather received replacements from America for those tanks lost to Israel. In like manner, there is no US guarantee that Egypt would refrain from an unprovoked attack, and Egypt's own experience suggests that there would be no tangible US opposition and that Israel would be on her own. Our ongoing arming of Egypt, to the point where it can seriously threaten Israel, while it remains hostile and in gross violation of its peace treaty, needs some explanation.

In our war in Iraq, we look to our friends and allies to help share our heavy military burden. Except for Great Britain, and modest help from Italy and Poland, NATO has not responded as it should, while the UN offers mostly advice. What excuse is there for Arab Egypt to remain on the sidelines, after having received tens of billions of dollars in American aid? To ask the question is also to answer it. The Bush Administration has not demanded that Egypt meet its responsibility to help us out with a sizeable contingent, or else let them forgo our $2.2 billion in annual aid.

It is reasonable to ask why they should volunteer to do anything, if they can do nothing and still receive full US aid. America is a direct participant in the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, including obligations to ensure compliance of the parties. There are supposed to be hundreds of American personnel in the Sinai to monitor the separation of forces and adherence to the terms of the peace treaty. Why aren't they monitoring the smuggling of weapons through those tunnels? The US is aggressively monitoring, via satellite and ground inspectors, whenever Israel builds any homes for Jews to live peacefully in certain parts of the historic land of Israel that are claimed by Arabs.

Egypt is being armed by America far in excess of its legitimate defense needs and toward a growing offensive capability. Israel must now divert more of its limited resources to defending yet another border against a huge and powerful enemy. Israel is a country of only 5.5 million Jews, and they must defend against other implacable enemies in the region, totaling many times their size, and with some (Jordan and Saudi Arabia, and not counting the Arab Gulf states) being armed with US-supplied weapons.

Another reason Egypt prefers not to help America is that Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian dictator, might feel threatened by the emergence of a free and democratic Iraq in the region. It might give ideas to his own oppressed and exploited masses. He is busy grooming his son to become the next dictator over Egypt. And he won his last 'election' by some 99% of the vote. Of course, he was the only candidate running. So, thanks to American indulgence, he is free to threaten Israel, arm the Palestinian terrorists and in general, undermine US attempts to democratize the Middle East.

If the Bush Administration were serious in fighting terror, then it would advise Egypt to promptly send troops to Iraq to face the terrorists and relieve our own troops, or else forgo our billions in aid. Egypt has a very good army because we armed it and helped to train it. Our failure to demand Egyptian help is a signal to other countries that American foreign policy can be easily manipulated to foreign advantage. And it shows that it is easy to betray America and still receive American aid.

The bottom line is that American policy is contradictory, self-defeating and dangerous to our Israeli ally, and it makes us look bumbling and inept to the world. President Bush's announced goal to fight terrorism and to democratize the Middle East is contradicted by his inconsistent Egyptian policy. He exposes our own troops to high casualties and ongoing attrition, while a huge Egyptian army, armed and trained by us, sits nearby in safety and contributes nothing. Our opponents among the Arabs, Europeans, Chinese and others must be smirking with amusement and pleasure as they watch the world's only superpower thrashing around in such abysmal confusion.

Read More

Mubarak Calls for U.N. Conference on Terror

ROME (Reuters) - Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, in his first public comments since bombs killed at least 32 people at Red Sea resorts, said on Monday the world needed a U.N.-sponsored conference to deal with international terrorism.
...

Mubarak envisioned a conference that would study the causes of terrorism and help make a distinction between 'the efforts of people seeking their legitimate rights and attempts by a few deviant elements to impose their violent views on the world.'

Israel has said it suspects Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network, but Egyptian presidential spokesman Maged Abdel Fattah warned on Saturday against rushing to conclusions. Egyptian officials have tended to link the attacks to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

(Italian president) Ciampi, speaking to reporters with Mubarak, said the Mediterranean would not see lasting peace until the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was resolved. He said he and Mubarak agreed there was a 'perverse connection between terrorism and the Israel-Palestinian conflict.'

Mubarak said the defeat of international terrorism also hinged on self-governance for Iraq (news - web sites).

OK, let's see....Mubarak is saying that if Al Qaeda attacked the hotel it is terror, but if Palestinians attacked the hotel then it is legitimate. Yup. Makes perfect sense. -EoZ

Read More