Thursday, April 30, 2009

سكنك !!!


يعيش في ولاية تكساس الأمريكية حيوان عجيب يشبه الارنب ويوازيه في حجمه يعرف بأسم " سكنك " Skunk سلحه الله عز وجل بوسيلة دفاع عن النفس عجيبة ونادرة وفعالة .
* اذا وجد هذا الحيوان الصغير نفسه أمام عدو ”ضرط ”عليه .
*الضرطة الواحدة من هذا الحيوان العجيب كفيلة بتلويث الجو برائحة مقرفة ومنفرة تنتشر في مساحة تزيد عن ميلين مربعين لا يمكن للانسان أو الحيوان احتمالها ولا يوجد خيار أمام الضحية الا الهرب من المنطقة .
* أما اذا كانت القذيفة مباشرة ... وضرط ال " سكنك " في وجهك ... فأن كل صابون المدينة لن ينفعك ولن يغسلك من الرائحة التي تعلق بك وتحولك الى جيفة بكل ما في هذه الكلمة من معنى . * فلاح من تكساس على معرفة بهذا الحيوان وحكاياته أخبرني ان سكان الولاية كانوا يعالجون المصاب بقذيفة مباشرة من هذا الحيوان عن طريق عصير البندورة " الطماطم " حيث يتم نقع المصاب في برميل مليء بعصير الطماطم لعدة ساعات ويتم عزله عن الاخرين وكأنه مصاب بالطاعون الى ان تزول عنه اثار العدوان .
* اذا واجهت هذا الحيوان الصغير وحاولت الامساك به او ضربه يدير لك على الفور مؤخرته .... الى هنا وتصرف هذا الحيوان يشبه تصرف الحكام العرب الذين يديرون مؤخراتهم لكل من يرغب في جلدهم ... ولكن الفرق هو في الخطوة التالية .... فالحاكم العربي يستسلم للجلد والرفس واشياء اخرى ... اما هذا الحيوان فيتخذ وضعا قتاليا بأن يرفع ذيله الى اعلى .... ثم يصوب نحو الهدف .... ويطلق ” ضرطة ” واحدة فقط قبل ان يهرب بسرعة لتحضير قذيفة جديدة يقال انها تحتاج منه الى يومين كاملين حتى تكون جاهزة للاطلاق .
* لا ادري ان كان لضرطته صوت مثل ” ضرطات ” الحكام العرب ... ولكن الذي اعرفه جيدا ان لضرطته رائحة قوية نفاذة تنتشر في مساحة واسعة قد تمتد الى ميلين مربعين وتظل الرائحة في الجو لاكثر من ساعتين كاملتين .
* نحن أيضا—اقصد العرب—نتمتع بمثل هذه الوسيلة الدفاعية وان كان الصوت عندنا يعلو على الرائحة ... أدخل الى أي مطعم عربي يقدم أطباق الفول مخلوطة بالبصل والثوم والفجل لتسمع ما يشجيك من عزف منفرد وجماعي تعقبه روائح مختلفة تتباين بتباين نوع الفجل والبصل والثوم وفتحات التهوية في المطعم سيء الذكر .... ولن يعتذر احد لاحد لاننا كلنا في الهم شرق ... ولاننا الشعب الوحيد في الكرة الارضية الذي وضع للضرطة عشرين اسما .... وميز بين ضرطة الانسان وضرطة الحمار ... ففي كتاب ” فقه اللغة وسر العربية ” الذي وضعه الامام اللغوي عبد الملك بن محمد الثعالبي الذي مات قبل 1026 سنة بالتمام والكمال تجد شرحا وتفصيلا للضرطة ومسمياتها تبعا لنوعها .... فما يخرج عن الانسان يسمى ضراطا ... وضرطة البعير يسميها العرب ” ردام ” ... وضرطة الحصان ” حصام ” واذا ضرط العنز يقال ” حبق ” بها ... والضرطة عند الانسان على انواع .... فأذا كانت ليست بشديدة قيل : أنبق بها ... فأذا زادت قيل : عفق بها وحبج بها وخبج ... فاذا اشتدت قيل : زقع بها .... ونظرا لان العرب لم يعرفوا حيوان ” سكنك ” الذي يعيش في ولاية تكساس لم يسموا ” ضرطته ” وان كنت اظنها من قبيل ” الزقع ” على سبيل القياس .
* في تقرير نشرته مجلة انجليزية عن التسلح في العالم ذكرت المجلة ان لدى العرب دبابات حديثة تزيد في عددها عن ضعفي ما لامريكا وبريطانيا وفرنسا مجتمعة ... وينفق العرب مليارات الدولارات سنويا على شراء الاسلحة ... وتضيف المجلة ان دولة مثل الامارات ستصبح خلال خمس سنوات صاحبة أقوى خامس سلاح جو في العالم .... ومع هذا يدافع أطفال القدس عن الاقصى بالحجارة ... وبقنابل هاون " هووم ميد ".
* اذا كانت كل هذه الاسلحة للفرجة ... وللاستعراضات العسكرية في مشيخات الخليج وليست للدفاع عن النفس والمقدسات ... فلماذا لا نلجأ الى الدفاع عن أنفسنا باستخدام سلاح " الضرطة " وهو سلاح فعال وغير مكلف ولا يحتاج الى تدريب ولا الى جنرالات عرب ولا الى خطط حربية من أي نوع . ... ولا يحتاج التدرب على هذا السلاح الفعال الى كليات حربية او عسكرية .
* يكفي أن يصطف مائة مليون عربي على الحدود مع اسرائيل - بعد وجبة فول وفجل وبصل فاخرة - ومع أول اشارة من القذافي - باعتباره عميد الزعماء العرب وأقدمهم - يدير العرب مؤخراتهم الى اسرائيل ويقصفوها بمائة مليون ضرطة مباشرة ... فقد يتم بذلك تحرير الارض وطرد المغتصب وتحرير الاقصى !!
* هل تذكرون حكاية القذافي مع ”الرز“ و .... ”طز ” ؟
* كان القذافي قد القى خطبة عصماء شتم فيها امريكا ... وهتف بصوت عال :“ طز في امريكا ” فردد الليبيون في ملعب طرابلس الهتاف بعده وظلوا يطززون لامريكا حتى الصباح .... فمنعت الولايات المتحدة تصدير الرز الى ليبيا حتى اختفت هذه المادة تماما من الاسواق رغم انها تشكل مادة اساسية في طعام الليبيين .
* يومها دخل مواطن ليبي الى دكان وسأل البائع العجوز : هل يوجد عندك رز ؟ فرد عليه البائع ساخرا : حيرتونا ... عليكم ان تختاروا اما ” طز ” واما ” رز ” !!
* اذا كانت هذه الاسلحة الجرارة التي نشتريها بمليارات الدولارات لا تستخدم للدفاع عن النفس فلماذا لا يتم توفير اثمناها وانفاقها على الفقراء والمعوزين ... وبناء المدن العربية التي تحولت الى ” خرابات ” وتحسين الوضع الصحي والمعيشي لملايين العرب ممن يعيشون تحت حزام الفقر ؟
* لماذا تنفق سوريا مئات الملايين على التسلح ومع ذلك تعجز قواتها عن رصد طائرات اسرائيلية تحلق فوق القصر الجمهوري وتقصف ضواحي دمشق ... ويخرج الينا الرئيس بشار الاسد في لقاء نشرته واشنطون بوست مؤخرا يتباهى فيه بأن مخابرات بلاده تتعاون مع المخابرات المركزية الامريكية وهو ما لم تصرح به اسرائيل نفسها .
* من يفسر لنا مسرحية العراق ؟
* لقد انفق صدام مليارات الدولارات على الاسلحة ... ومع ذلك سقطت بغداد بدبابتين .... ولما اشتد ساعد رجال المقاومة العراقية لم يجدوا سيارة نصف عمر لحمل صواريخ الكاتيوشا لقصف فندق فلسطين فاستعانوا بالحمير !!
* صحيح ان الحمير من الفولكلور العربي .... ولكن مفعولها القتالي لم يعد يناسب القرن الحادي والعشرين .... لذا اقترح على العرب تربية حيوان ” سكنك ” الامريكي ... فضراط هذا الحيوان الصغير مضافا الى ضراط الجيوش العربية الجرارة يكفي لاحتلال العالم خلال ساعات بخاصة اذا سلمت القيادة لشيخ ام القيوين ..... والمعاذ بالله !!

أسامة فوزي

المقال ماخود بصرف من الكاب الساخر اسامة فوزي

وله جزيل الشكر وكل القدير و الاحترام

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

WONDERS OF RED SEA



































































Welcome to the Red Sea! The Red Sea is one of the world's most beautiful places. The landscapes here are amazing, but what has made this region famous worldwide is the richness of its underwater life. In 1989 international experts and scientists picked this area as one of the Seven Wonders of the Underwater World

Jews against Zionism: The Hidden Protest


On Sunday, June 1, 2003 at 5th Ave. and 59th St. in Manhattan, NYC a group of anti-Zionist Jews demonstrated against Zionism and the Zionist State celebrated by marchers in the so-called Israel Day Parade." (Anti-Zionist orthodox Jews protest against Israel ) As improbable as it may seem to the uninformed, a significant number of Jews in the United States, Great Britain, Israel and elsewhere oppose Zionism, Zionist oppression of the Palestinians and, in some instances, even the very existence of the State of Israel itself! We say hidden protest because this tangible opposition has been totally ignored by the news departments of the major television and radio networks, magazines and newspapers (in the last source, some papers, such as The New York Times, may make very brief mention of the protests, but even then they bury articles far from the front page). Jews: Zionism is cause of instability in the world "The Anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews will proclaim their loyalty to pure Judaism and their opposition to Zionist heresy, which violates every principle of the Jewish religion. These people believe that the idolatrous Zionist ideology has nothing to do with Orthodox Jews, and that Jews are obligated by Judaism to live in peace and harmony with all other nations throughout the world, including Palestinian natives of course."
According to one website, the reasoning behind the opposition is Zionism's disobedience to God's plan: "The Creator gave us the Holy Land thousands of years ago. Yet, when we sinned, He took it away and sent us into exile. Since that time our task is to wait for Him to send the Messiah." In the minds of these Orthodox Jews, the Zionists sin by attempting a return to the Hold Land before the Messiah comes, instead of waiting patiently in exile. Obviously, should not be imagined that all or even most Orthodox Jews oppose Zionism nor that the ones that do are therefore ill-deposed towards Jewish nationalism. For an article concerning these issues, read Paul Gottfried's informative historical study, "Wishful thinking about the Middle East," where he observes:
The fact that some of the Orthodox in Eastern Europe had viewed Zionists as a threat to rabbinical authority or that some of the ultra-Orthodox believe Jewish nationalists have jumped the gun by establishing a pre-messianic commonwealth does not mean that these dissenting Orthodox were or are not Jewish nationalists. What separates them from the Zionists is the purely strategic question of when it is permissible to create a Jewish national state, where Jews can live apart from the nations of the earth. The Orthodox and the Zionists have never disagreed over whether such a project is desirable.
It is only in this context that one can begin to properly understand just what makes the anti-Zionist Orthodox Jew tick. Nevertheless, their opposition to Zionism is real and it is profound. And Gottfried is not entirely accurate: Yes, there is a difference concerning the timetable for reclaiming the Holy Land, but he misses the fact that although the Zionists have been able to marshal support from many Orthodox, they are also largely secular in outlook, even to the point of denigrating Jewish traditions, using religion only as a cynical means to win over the more conservative Jews and making race, not religion, the test for those seeking to immigrate to Israel.. Quotes from a few of these rabbis will suffice to show this. Reb Avraham Yeshayahu Karelitz, known as the Chazon Ish (right), on founders of Israel and their successors: "The only actual difference with the formation of the Zionists' state is that before this they were hoodlums without arms and now the hoodlums have arms." His belief that the Zionists in what was then Palestine were promoting a false version of Judaism is well-illustrated in the following anecdote:
In 1946 a disciple of the Chazon Ish, very distressed, mentioned that a day does not go by without a Jew being killed by an Arab; the Chazon Ish, admonished him and said, "Why aren't you at all worried that tens of thousands of Jewish children receive an education on non-belief, which is as burning the soul and the body. Is not this mass murder worse than the killings of the Arabs? our sages have clearly expressed that he who makes someone sin is worse than he who kills him."
Concurring on this was Lubavitcher Rabbi Sholem Schneersohn: "It is surely clear that the Zionists not only are not approaching Judaism, but that they entirely destroy Jewish souls intentionally." The same theme is taken up again and again; Rav Chaim Soloveichik of Brisk (left) declared: "The Zionists do not make Jews into heretics in order to have a state, they want a state in order to make Jews into heretics." (For an extensive list of quotations from these and many other rabbis, see "Words of the Rabbis opposing Zionism" section of the Jews Against Zionism website. News blackout, persecution of anti-Zionist Jews
Jewish anti-Israel/anti-Zionist demonstrations have taken place from New York to London to Jerusalem (photos above right, below right, and below left and bottom, respectively…other photo slideshow), but this opposition has been effectively covered up by the controlled news media. (For an example, see the Rally for Israel link below.) Why is this? The very premise of an anti-Israel/anti-Zionist Jew is highly newsworthy by virtue of its uniqueness. The answer is twofold. First, by ignoring this phenomenon, they are better able to perpetuate the myths that all Jews support Israel and (less consciously) all Israelis support Zionism, so that Americans are conditioned to respond in knee-jerk fashion: Jew=pro-Israel, without considering the possibility of exceptions to this unreal universal. Secondly, by establishing this false premise, the Israel Firsters within the journalistic community are able to stifle any and all criticism of the Israeli government. They are able to do this by cultivating in the public mind the falsehood that to oppose Israel is tantamount to opposing all Jews, which, by extension, makes one an anti-Semitic, "Holocaust"-denying bigot. The Zionists fear that if the general public were to become aware of Jewish opposition to Israel, many people would see through the myth and cease giving that nation the unconditional support (and huge annual foreign aid package) it currently enjoys.
And the pro-Zionist media and their handlers have also manipulated (and, on occasion, coerced) Jewish opinion. In an article, "Judaism is not Zionism," the Jews United against Zionism website states:
The Zionists have deceived many well meaning Jewish people via terror, trickery and false propaganda. They have at their disposal the use of a nearly universally subservient media. Whoever attempts to criticize them puts his livelihood and, at times, his very life in danger.
A case in point: Zionist oppression of Jews in Iraq Naeim Giladi, an Iraqi Jew, on the Zionist influence in that country:
I am writing this article for the same reason I wrote the book: to tell the American people, especially American Jews, that Jews from Islamic lands did not emigrate willingly to Israel; that to force them to leave, Jews killed Jews; and that, to buy time to confiscate even more Arab lands, Jews on numerous occasions rejected genuine peace initiatives from their Arab neighbors.…I write about what the first prime minister of Israel called 'cruel Zionism.'…I write about it because I was part of it.
Zionist intimidation of anti-Zionist and non-Zionist Jews has various guises. On March 18, 2003, London witnessed strong-arm attempts to suppress the free speech of those protesting Israel (see photo, right). Last fall, at the Rally for Israel in Washington, DC, Jewish Zionists posing as Christian Zionists shouted down rabbis who demonstrated against the rally.
Further, some Orthodox Jews also have even shown that before and during World War II the Zionists cut deals with Nazis and even left some of their coreligionists to perish in the camps, when they could have aided in their rescue. (This peculiar collaboration is also covered at length by the socialist Jew, Lenni Brenner, in the books, Zionism in the Age of the Dictators and 51 Documents: Zionist collaboration with the Nazis.) Incredibly, in a document to the Jewish Rescue Committee, which sought to secure the release of Jewish concentration camp prisoners, the Zionist Agency in Switzerland responded by callously declaring that "we must turn a deaf ear to the pleas and cries emanating from Eastern Europe." (To read a translation of the complete letter at the Jews not Zionists website, under "menu" click "Zionism and the Holocaust," then on "Min Hametzar.")
Israel Shahak: "the world's most conspicuous Jewish anti-Semite"
It should be noted, when the Zionists attempt to pigeonhole such sentiments to an ultra-Orthodox fringe, that several liberal (politically and/or religiously) Jews have also sounded their disapproval, even in Israel. Their opposition is less concerned with the religious aspects of the equation, focusing, rather, on the gross human rights violations that have been a part of the Zionists' war against the Palestinians since Israel's inception (and before). An Arabic website notes that
There are a number of Jewish intellectuals who never stopped criticizing Zionism and always opposed its ideology and objectives. They began opposing Zionism at the inception of The Israeli League for Human Rights at the beginning of the 1970's. Intellectual Jews opposing Zionism include Elmer Berger, Norton Mezvinsky, Mosh Menuhin, Mick Ashley, Israel Shahak and Maxime Rodinson. Israel Shahak was the head of the league in 1970 and he was the first Jew to record detailed information about the number of children, elderly and woman killed, including Arab villages demolished by Hagana and Stern terrorist movements.Israel Shahak's records showed a total of 385 of 475 villages were demolished at the founding of Israel in 1948. (see Israel Shahak vs. Zionism)
Shahak, a chemistry professor at Jerusalem's Hebrew University and a Nazi concentration camp survivor wrote scathingly about the religious and cultural underpinnings of Zionism in many works, including the books Jewish Fundamentalism (co-authored by American history professor Norton Mezvinsky—review) Jewish History, Jewish Religion (review) and Open Secrets: Israeli nuclear and foreign policies (excerpts— review and another review by Norton Mezvinsky). He was also president of the Israeli League for Civil and Human Rights, a group which worked to defend the rights of Palestinians (a Google search for this organization did not find a website, so it may no longer be in existence). Such efforts have not gone without notice.
One of Shahak's critics—Werner Cohn, also a Jewish academic—has described him as "the world's most conspicuous Jewish anti-Semite" Some of Cohn's attacks on points raised in Shahak's book may be valid, but in general, there is far too much documentation there to refute the entire work. While Cohn questions the sources (or lack thereof) for certain of Shahak's contentions, it is Shahak's own credibility and honesty that are questioned in the following passage:
One of Shahak's charges has been taken very seriously. Some thirty years ago Shahak reported to the press that he had personally witnessed the following incident: an Orthodox Jew saw an injured non-Jew on the Sabbath. To save the man's life, it was necessary to call an ambulance. The Jew had the phone handy but would not allow a violation of the sabbath, i.e. use of the phone, because the injured was a non-Jew. In Shahak's version, with which he begins this book [Jewish history, Jewish religion—Real News 24/7], the Jew here followed the ruling the of Orthodox rabbinate. The story was taken up by Ha-Arets in Israel, then by the Jewish Chronicle in London and other publications, all joining in a clamor against the barbaric Orthodox. (Dr. Shahak does not seem to notice that this clamor, which he duly notes, is in itself a refutation of his charge that current Jewish life is dominated by Orthodox inhumanity). Dr. Shahak, whose nose is longer than Pinocchio's in any case, does not tell us the whole story of the incident. In the Summer 1966 issue of Tradition, an Orthodox Jewish journal, we have the much more credible account by Rabbi Immanuel Jakobovits (left—later the Chief Rabbi of the British Commonwealth). First of all, according to Rabbi Jakobovits, and contrary to Shahak's allegation, the rabbinate had ruled clearly that not only can the Sabbath be violated under such circumstances, but such violation would be a religious duty, to save a non-Jewish life no less than a Jewish life. Moreover, we also learn that Dr. Shahak, when challenged to produce his "Orthodox Jew," was forced to admit that this Jew did not exist.
For the text of Lord Jakobovits's paper, please click on http://realnews247.com/jakobovits_vs_shahak.htm
This is a significant charge, because Shahak has identified this instance as a defining moment in his life, one that caused him to rethink (and, ultimately, reject) his Orthodox upbringing. Much of his subsequent career as political activist/iconoclast can be traced to this event. If it didn't happen, if it was really a non-event, then it would certainly be grounds to question Shahak's veracity elsewhere, as well. The only source introduced by Cohn to show that "Dr. Shahak…was forced to admit that this Jew did not exist" is the Tradition article, "A Modern Blood Libel," written not long after Shahak's initial allegation. (A Google search was fruitless in finding more background material on this point.)
Unfortunately, neither Dr. Shahak nor Lord Jakobivits are alive, so they cannot be questioned concerning the matter. Since the rabbi didn't live in Israel and the event allegedly occurred in Jerusalem, it must be wondered where the rabbi got his information and how reliable it was. If Shahak was forced to admit a lie, why would he have dared to use the falsehood in a book written years later? It could be argued that he didn't think anyone would remember, but the possibility of detection seems a large risk to his reputation. And for that matter, how, in the first place, was he able to retain a good reputation for more than thirty years if all his enemies could simply raise the issue of his fabricated story. Yet apparently that never occurred, since only Cohn, of Shahak's many critics, brings this up at all.
But all of this distracts from the issue of what Shahak was describing—was it credible? Is the notion of an "ultra-religious" (Shahak doesn't use the word "Orthodox") man refusing assistance on the Sabbath far-fetched? In his article, Rabbi Jakobivits quotes from the Talmud passages suggesting that a Jew would be morally obliged to help a non-Jew, but it is not uncommon to for rabbis to be able to glean theologically conflicting positions that vast work. The Brooklyn-born mass murderer Baruch Goldstein (right; see below concerning the Hebron massacre he committed) was an "ultra-religious" army physician, who not only would not have allowed his phone to be used in such a situation, but he would not treat a non-Jew—Sabbath or no Sabbath. Shahak, citing Israeli journals in an article linked below in the next section, writes:
But let me return to Goldstein's refusals to treat the Gentiles. It turns out that he did it in principle, starting years before the massacre, but already in the capacity of an army physician and an officer. Aryeh Kizel in Yediot Ahronot, and "a correspondent" in Davar reported on March 1 that Goldstein, while still a conscript soon after his immigration to Israel, had been assigned as an artillery battalion doctor in Lebanon and flatly refused to treat the Gentiles. According to Kizel, he then declared straight out: "I am not willing to treat any non-Jew. I recognize as legitimate only two [religious] authorities: Maimonides and Kahane." This declaration was made after a "refusal to treat a wounded Arab" who had to be referred to another military doctor as a result. "The background and consequences of the massacre in Hebron" (linked below in the next section)
The Kahane mentioned here was an other American, Rabbi Meir Kahane, whose teachings of vengeance were instrumental in Goldstein's homicidal rampage. Concerning the teachings of Rabbi Moses Maimonides (also referred to as Rambam, short for his given name, R' Moise ben Maimon), the12th century codifier of the Talmud, as they applied to "ultra religious" Jews, Allan Brownfeld (also mentioned below) in the January/February 2001 issue Washington Report for Middle East Affairs, quotes Rabbi Avarham Hecht, president of the 540-member Rabbinical Alliance of America, on the subject of halakah (Jewish law), as it pertains to those who would yield any land of Israel:
Asked by New York Magazine to clarify what sounded like a religious death threat, Hecht explained: “All I said was that according to Jewish law, any one person—you can apply it to whoever you want—any one person who willfully, consciously, intentionally hands over human bodies or human property or the human wealth of the Jewish people to an alien people is guilty of the sin for which the penalty is death. And according to Maimonides—you can quote me—it says very clearly, if a man kills him, he has done a good deed.” ("Extremism in Israel Is Fueled by a Growing Ultra-Orthodox Movement in the U.S.")
So, the incident cited by Shahak is consistent with the mindset of certain Orthodox in Israel and many other examples could be noted. In the light of such widespread "ultra-religious" activity, it hardly seems necessary for him to have had to invent an episode.
"Refuseniks" and other anti-Zionist Israelis
Yonatan Ben-Artzi appeared in a Jerusalem courtroom last April dressed in tee shirt and blue jeans. in Israel—it was a show of defiance, as he was ordered to wear the uniform of an army reservist. The 20-year-old was making an appeal to the Supreme Court that his trial for refusing to join the Israeli Defense Forces should be moved to a civilian court. If court-marshaled, he could get three years in prison.
The name Yonatan Ben-Artzi won't mean anything to most Americans, but the name of his uncle will—Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's finance minister and former hard-line prime minister. Ben-Artzi is just the most high-profile of the "refuseniks"—the nickname refers to a growing number of Israelis soldiers and enlistees who object to the treatment of the Palestinians and refuse to take part in what they see as state terrorism occurring in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. As a result, around 200 have been jailed, but this has not diminished their determination to seek justice for the oppressed. The man credited with giving the movement its impetus was the late Yeshayahu Leibovitz, a friend and Hebrew U colleague of Israel Shahak. Unlike Shahak, Leibovitz was an Orthodox Jew. Groups like Gush Shalom, founded by Israeli journalist Uri Avnery (below right), have championed the refuseniks' cause (shown left, protesting the Iraq War) and an end to the continuing ill treatment of Arabs living in the Occupied Territories. Israel Shamir, a Siberian-born Israeli journalist, has also written much on the subject.
One such group, Courage to Refuse, consists of over 400 reservists. Members of the group have the gone before the Israeli Supreme Court with a petition, declaring:
The Israeli Defence Forces' activities, notwithstanding the important goal of fighting terror, have a devastating impact on hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. For this reason, the occupation is illegal."
According to a BBC report: "The soldiers argue that Israel has an obligation under international law to provide public services to Palestinians in any territory it re-occupies, and that it is not doing this."
Yeshayahu Leibovitz also coined the term "Judeo-Nazism" to describe the mentality that was behind the 1994 massacre of 29 Islamic worshippers at a Hebron mosque by Baruch Goldstein, a anti-Arab extremist. (See Shahak's articles "The Ideology behind Hebron massacre" and the lengthier "The background and consequences of of the massacre in Hebron," which also goes into the Israeli Army's cover-up of certain details of the event.) Since then, comparisons of policies of the government Israeli President Ariel Sharon with those of the Nazis have become commonplace, though the first usage by Leibovitz was more restricted.
Israeli journalist Gershom Gorenberg, senior editor of The Jerusalem Report, in 2000 came out with a book, The End of Days: Fundamentalism and the Struggle for Temple Mount, on the religious extremist elements—Islamic, Jewish and American evangelical Protestant "Christian Zionists"—at work in the Holy Land In an interview with PBS about the book, he makes a surprising point concerning the origins of the Palestinian suicide attacks now so prevalent in the Middle East:
In a bizarre case of inter-religious influence, they adopted the method of suicide attacks on civilians that Goldstein had pioneered. The first big suicide bombing by Hamas came at the end of the forty-day mourning period after Goldstein's massacre.
In The End of Days, Gorenberg roundly condemns the efforts to make Baruch Goldstein into a martyr and, concerning apocalyptic and potentially violent cults, says that the authorities must tread a fine line: "not treat beliefs as criminal [but] understand where those beliefs could lead."
The contradiction inherent in the position of these Israelis is that while they oppose the outward manifestations of Zionism, they nonetheless are citizens of a country in which the Zionist ideology is intricately woven into the nation's very institutions; quite literally, without Zionism there would be no Israel. So their task is monumental, as it requires a fundamental redefinition of Israel that includes full citizenship for all who live there. (This underscores the falsity of America's bringing "democracy"—even by force, as in the case of Iraq—to some countries, but ignoring the fact that Israel is a democracy in name only, as it permits non-Jews to have only a second-class status.)
Noam Chomsky, Israel and the "Holocaust"
Noam Chomsky (right), MIT professor of modern languages and linguistics and political radical who, in books like Media control: the spectacular achievements of propaganda and Manufacturing consent: the political economy of the mass media has been a significant media critic ("Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media"), has also written and lectured much against the horrendous political realities in the Middle East—and Zionism's role in creating them. In his book Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel and the Palestinians, Chomsky decries the double standard of the controlled news media in reporting the conflict, with the Israelis always portrayed as morally upright victims, but the Palestinians as fanatical killers:
The contrast is clear enough in journalism and scholarship, and it is also familiar in standard media fare, where the Arab terrorist is routinely contrasted with the heroic Israeli. It would, for example, be inconceivable for a TV drama to portray an Israeli or Jewish character in the manner of the standard Arab villain, despite the ample record of Israeli terrorism over many years, effectively concealed in the United States.
However, the calumny he has received over such opinions pales in comparison to the enduring enmity he's reaped as a result of his defense of French academic Robert Faurisson's right to challenge certain alleged facts concerning the "Holocaust" without fear of losing tenure. In an essay "Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of Expression," Chomsky went so far as to write:
Let me add a final remark about Faurisson's alleged "anti-Semitism." Note first that even if Faurisson were to be a rabid anti-Semite and fanatic pro-Nazi—such charges have been presented to me in private correspondence that it would be improper to cite in detail here—this would have no bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy of the defense of his civil rights. On the contrary, it would make it all the more imperative to defend them since, once again, it has been a truism for years, indeed centuries, that it is precisely in the case of horrendous ideas that the right of free expression must be most vigorously defended; it is easy enough to defend free expression for those who require no such defense. (Also see his "All denials of free speech undercut a free society," which also denounces the deceit and intolerance of the Zionists.)
While he said he had not read Faurisson's conclusions and had no particular interest in doing so, Chomsky stated (with remarkable open-mindedness for a Jew) that
I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers or even denial of the Holocaust. Nor would there be anti-Semitic implications, per se, in the claim that the Holocaust (whether one believes it took place or not) is being exploited, viciously so, by apologists for Israeli repression and violence. I see no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson's work. (Chomsky letter to W. D. Rubinstein, 1981).
For this and for his approval of Jewish History, Jewish Religion, Chomsky was attacked by Canadian sociology professor Werner Cohn in Partners in hate : Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust deniers, which in typical Zionist fashion seeks to equate—without the slightest need for any supporting evidence—the simple denial or questioning of certain dogmas of the "Shoah" canon with the hatred of the Jewish people. Others Jewish critics of Chomsky for his anti-Zionist, pro-free speech positions include Marxist-turned-"neoconservative" author David Horowitz and pro-torture ACLU lawyer Alan Dershowitz.
Other voices of "self-hating Jews"
There are other notable voices outside of Israel who are critical of Zionism's aspirations. In 1978, Rabbi Elmer Berger (left), executive director of American Council for Judaism (1943-1967), and after 1968 as founder and president of the American Jewish Alternatives to Zionism, wrote a short study, Zionist Ideology: Obstacle to Peace, that is just as relevant twenty-five years later. Berger once declared:
The unarguable, political fact is that between Begin, the so-called 'extremist,' and [Chaim] Weizmann, the suave, deliberately ambiguous 'moderate,' the difference was one of only method or tactic; as indeed today (1984) the difference between a Kahane [the late Meir] and a Shamir or even a Peres, is one of only radicalism or gradualism.
Today, nearly two decades after this observation, the truism can be applied to Israel that the more things changes, the more they remain the same.
Around the same time as Rabbi Berger was writing Zionist Ideology: Obstacle to Peace, Alfred Lilienthal published The Zionist Connection (later appearing in a much expanded edition as The Zionist Connection II—click on cover for book review) a searing critique of the dominant Israeli ideology and its influence on America. Lilienthal, who served in the U.S. military and State Department, aroused controversy as early as 1949 with his article, "Israel's Flag Is Not Mine," published in Reader's Digest. Early in his book he makes a disturbing parallel between Zionism and the Third Reich, then explains the need for writing as he does:
In doling out incarceration and death while sweeping through conquered Europe, did not the Fuhrer undo the laws of emancipation for which many Jews had so long struggled, as he decreed: "You are not a German, you are a Jew - you are not a Frenchman, you are a Jew - you are not a Belgian, you are a Jew"? Yet these are the identical words that Zionist leaders have been intoning as they meticulously promoted the in-gathering to Israel (Palestine) of Jews from around the globe, even plotting their exodus from lands in which they have lived happily for centuries.If at times this book seems unduly critical of Israel, and neglects to place in balance the oft-repeated arguments in its favor, it is simply because the gigantic propaganda apparatus of Israel-World Zionism has spun such extensive and deeply-ingrained mythology that there is hardly enough space to refute widely-accepted theses and expose the picture as it really is. (p. 5)
Norman Finkelstein (below, right), author of The Holocaust Industry (a look at the cynical financial exploitation of the "Holocaust" by certain Jews), received his doctorate from Princeton University's Department of Politics for his thesis on the theory of Zionism. Jewish critics have accused him of being an "anti-Semite" and "Holocaust denier," despite the fact that both of his parents were in Nazi concentration camp (The Washington Post's Marc Fisher was forced to print a retraction of the latter allegation—found on Finkelstein's website). He also has written both a book, Image and Reality in the Israel-Palestine Conflict, and articles critical of the way the Palestinians are mistreated by the Zionist government of Israel.
In that book, Dr. Finkelstein notes that the forced transfer of Palestinians was advocated by the British as early as the late 1930s and that
The right-wing Zionist leader, Vladimir Jabotinsky, taking heart from Nazi demographic experiments in conquered countries (about 1.5 million Poles and Jews were expelled in and hundreds of thousands of Germans resettled in their place), exclaimed: "The world has become accustomed to the idea of mass migrations and has almost become fond of them. Hitler—as odious as he is to us—has given this idea a good name in the world."
Michael Neumann, a philosophy professor at Trent University in Ontario, Canada, also has contributed works concerning the Mideast crisis. In "What is anti-Semitism?" he shows how Zionists exploit the term anti-Semitism by accusing their critics of such an offense and how they mangle the meaning of words to suit their purpose:
"Anti-Semitism", properly and narrowly speaking, doesn't mean hatred of Semites; that is to confuse etymology with definition. It means hatred of Jews. But here, immediately, we come up against the venerable shell-game of Jewish identity: "Look! We're a religion! No! a race! No! a cultural entity! Sorry—a religion!" When we tire of this game, we get suckered into another: "anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism! " quickly alternates with: "Don't confuse Zionism with Judaism! How dare you, you anti-Semite!"Well, let's be good sports. Let's try defining anti-Semitism as broadly as any supporter of Israel would ever want: anti-Semitism can be hatred of the Jewish race, or culture, or religion, or hatred of Zionism. Hatred, or dislike, or opposition, or slight unfriendliness.
The serious side of this in the practical order is that the use of the "anti-Semitism" slur is made by the media lapdogs of the Zionist Israeli government to help deflect criticism of its criminal policies. (It makes committing atrocities against the Palestinians so much easier when one doesn't need to answer for them!)
Syndicated columnist and author Allan Brownfeld (left) has written and lectured much on media bias as a member of Accuracy in Media. In addition, he has penned incisive articles about Zionism and related issues, such as the one cited above regarding the "ultra-Orthodox" and their incitements to violence. It's important to note that while many of those mentioned above are on the Left , Brownfeld is a conservative, proving that anti-Zionist Jews can be found all across the political and theological spectrums).
On another theme, already mentioned above, Brownfeld notes the odd connection between Zionism and Nazism:
The point has been made by many commentators that Zionism has a close relationship with Nazism. Both ideologies think of Jews in an ethnic and nationalistic manner. In fact, the Nazi theoretician Alfred Rosenberg frequently quoted from Zionist writers to prove his thesis that Jews could not be Germans. (Emphasis added; from "Zionism and Anti-Semitism: A strange alliance through history," Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, July/August 1998 )
Finally, in this partial overview, attorney Stanley Cohen is standing up for the rights of Arab-Americans and their Palestinian relatives who have suffered at the hands of the Israelis. (He outlines the case here in a radio interview—the webpage has him misidentified as "Stephen" Cohen. Note the other links there, including Noam Chomsky audios.)
These are but a few of the more significant figures among the Jews opposing Zionism. Through the willful media suppression of such opinions, most Americans are ignorant of their existence. Yet the Zionists are painfully aware of them and have created a special term of reproach for these and other such critics of Israel/Zionism—self-hating Jews.* But such scorn only underscores the effectiveness of their criticism. However small in size, the importance of this Jewish resistance to the aims of the Zionists should not be underestimated. The news blackout of their activities is continuing proof of this.
Their outspokenness must also be viewed as a much needed corrective for those who—buying into the Zionist propaganda without realizing it—are quick to brand all Jews as unquestioning supporters of Israeli aggression and oppression. The sooner anti-Zionists from different religions work together to end its domination in the Middle East, the sooner lasting peace can be brought to the region.

eating disorders

Eating disorders affect seven girls in every 1,000, and one boy in every 1,000. It usually begins to be a problem in teenage years, but can happen at any time.
It’s not known for certain what causes then, but many factors could play a part:
Social pressure, particularly caused by the media idealising being thin.
Losing weight can make us feel good and in control.
Puberty - anorexia reverses some of the physical changes of becoming an adult.
Family problems - saying “no” to food may be the only way you can express your feelings.
Depression and low self-esteem - binges may start off as a way of coping with unhappiness.
Genes - it can run in families.
Symptoms

Anorexia nervosa:
Becoming extremely stressed about losing weight
Being unable to stop losing weight, regardless of your size
Smoking and chewing gum to keep your weight down
Losing interest in sex
In women, periods become irregular or stop, in men and boys, erections and wet dreams stop and testicles shrink
Bulimia nervosa:
Becoming extremely stressed about losing weight
Binge eating
Making yourself vomit
Using laxatives
In women, periods become irregular
Feeling extremely guilty about your eating pattern, but staying a normal weight
Binge Eating Disorder has recently been recognised as a condition. It involves dieting and binge eating, but not vomiting. Although distressing, it’s less harmful than bulimia. People with the condition are more likely to become overweight.
Treatment

Self help
Try to stick to regular mealtimes – breakfast, lunch and dinner. If your weight is very low, have extra snacks. Keep a diary of what you eat and your thoughts and feelings, you can use this to see if there are links between how you feel, think and eat. Contact b-eat or join a self-help group.
Professional help

Your GP can refer you to a specialist counsellor, psychiatrist or psychologist. Your eating disorder may have caused physical problems or you may have an unrecognised medical condition.
A specialist will want to find out when the problem started and how it developed. You will be weighed and, depending on how much weight you've lost, may need a physical examination and blood tests. A dietician may talk to you about healthy eating. You may need vitamin supplements.
With your permission, the specialist might want to talk with your family or a friend to see what light they can shed on the problem.
Psychotherapy or counselling involves talking to a therapist about your thoughts and feelings. It helps you understand how the problem started and how you can change some of the ways you think and feel about things. Although it can be upsetting, a good therapist will help you talk about things in a way that helps you cope with your situation, and builds your self-esteem
Hospital admission is only an option if you are dangerously underweight or just not getting better. It involves controlling your eating, completing physical checks and talking about problems. Compulsory treatment (sometimes called sectioning) only happens if someone is so unwell that their life or health is in danger, or they cannot make proper decisions for themselves and need to be protected.
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) helps you to look at the links between your thoughts, feelings and actions. It can be done with a therapist, with a self-help book, in group sessions, or a computer program.
Interpersonal therapy is usually done with an individual therapist, focusing on your relationships with other people.
Dietary advice helps you get back to regular eating, without starving or vomiting.
Antidepressants can reduce the urge to binge eat. Unfortunately, without the other forms of help, the benefits wear off after a while.
About half of patients make a recovery, although it can take place slowly over a few months or years.

some about depression....

The feeling of depression is deeper, longer and more unpleasant than the short periods of unhappiness that we all have from time to time.
This presents a very bleak picture. However, it's important to remember that depression isn't an absolute - it's not simply a case of either you're depressed or you're not. There's a progression from feeling blue to the full clinical illness described above. Even then, you won't suffer from every symptom.
Causes

Sometimes there may be an obvious reason for becoming depressed, sometimes not. There is usually more than one cause and different people have different reasons.
It may seem obvious why – a relationship breakdown, bereavement or even the birth of a child – but sometimes it’s not clear. Either way, it can become so bad that you need help.
Often people don’t realise how depressed they are, because the depression has come on gradually
Often people don’t realise how depressed they are, because the depression has come on gradually. They may try to struggle on and cope by keeping busy. This can make them even more stressed and exhausted. This can cause physical pains, such as constant headaches, or sleeplessness.
Symptoms

Symptoms of depression include:
Losing interest in life
Finding it harder to make decisions
Not coping with things that used to be manageable
Exhaustion
Feeling restless and agitated
Loss of appetite and weight
Difficulties getting to sleep
Treatment

There are two types of treatment available: talking treatments and medication. Both can be accessed through your doctor.
Talking treatments
Counselling helps you to talk about your feelings in private with a sympathetic professional. Your GP may have a counsellor at the surgery.
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy can help to overcome the powerful negative thoughts that are part of depression.
Interpersonal and dynamic therapies can help if you have difficulties getting on with other people. A relationship counsellor might be helpful if you're having difficulties with your partner.
If you have a disability or are caring for a relative, a self-help group may give you support.
Medication
Antidepressants can be effective if depression is severe or goes on for a long time. They may help feelings of anxiety and help you to deal with problems effectively again.
The effects of antidepressants won’t usually be felt straight away - people often don't notice any improvement in their mood for two or three weeks. As well as tablets, an alternative remedy called St John's Wort is available from chemists. There is evidence that it’s effective in mild to moderate depression. It seems to work in much the same way as some antidepressants, but some people find that it has fewer side effects. You should discuss taking it with your doctor, particularly if you‘re taking other medication.
Like all medicines, antidepressants have some side effects, though these are usually mild and tend to wear off as the treatment goes on. The newer antidepressants (called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) may cause nausea and anxiety for a short while. The older antidepressants can cause dry mouth and constipation. Unless the side effects are very bad, your doctor will usually advise you to continue with the tablets.
Four out of five people with depression will get better without help. The shorter the time you have been depressed, the better the chance that it will lift on its own. However, even with treatment, one in five people will still be depressed two years later.
Support

It may be enough to talk things over with a relative or friend. If this doesn't help, talk it over with your family doctor.
Talk to someone close to you about how you feel. Going over a painful experience and crying it out can help you come to terms with it.
Get some regular exercise. This will help you keep fit and hopefully, sleep better. Do jobs around the house to take your mind off thoughts that make you depressed.
Eat well, even if you don’t feel like it. Don’t drink alcohol as this makes depression worse, although it might not seem to at first.
If you can't sleep, try not to worry about it. Do something relaxing in bed such as reading, watching TV or listening to the radio.
If you know what is making you depressed, write it down and think of ways to tackle it, pick the best ones and see if they help.
Keep hopeful, this is a very common experience and you will come through it, probably stronger and more able to cope than before.
Helping someone who is depressed
Listen to them but try not to judge them. Don’t offer advice unless they ask for it. If you can see the problem behind the depression, you can help the person to find a solution.
Spend time with them, listen to their problems and encourage them to keep going with activities in their routine.
If they're getting worse, encourage them to visit their doctor and get help.
This article was created in December 2008.

MORE ABOUT ISLAM

The word “Muslim” means one who submits to the will of God, regardless of their race, nationality or ethnic background. Becoming a Muslim is a simple and easy process that requires no pre-requisites. One may convert alone in privacy, or he/she may do so in the presence of others.If anyone has a real desire to be a Muslim and has full conviction and strong belief that Islam is the true religion of God, then, all one needs to do is pronounce the “Shahada”, the testimony of faith, without further delay. The “Shahada” is the first and most important of the five pillars of Islam.With the pronunciation of this testimony, or “Shahada”, with sincere belief and conviction, one enters the fold of Islam.Upon entering the fold of Islam purely for the Pleasure of God, all of one’s previous sins are forgiven, and one starts a new life of piety and righteousness. The Prophet said to a person who had placed the condition upon the Prophet in accepting Islam that God would forgive his sins:“Do you not know that accepting Islam destroys all sins which come before it?” (Saheeh Muslim)When one accepts Islam, they in essence repent from the ways and beliefs of their previous life. One need not be overburdened by sins committed before their acceptance. The person’s record is clean, and it is as if he was just born from his mother’s womb. One should try as much as possible to keep his records clean and strive to do as many good deeds as possible.The Holy Quran and Hadeeth (prophetic sayings) both stress the importance of following Islam. God states:“...The only religion in the sight of God is Islam...” (Quran 3:19)In another verse of the Holy Quran, God states:“If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter, he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (their selves in the Hellfire).” (Quran 3:85)In another saying, Muhammad, the Prophet of God, said:“Whoever testifies that there in none worthy of being worshipped but God, Who has no partner, and that Muhammad is His slave and Prophet, and that Jesus is the Slave of God, His Prophet, and His word[1] which He bestowed in Mary and a spirit created from Him; and that Paradise (Heaven) is true, and that the Hellfire is true, God will eventually admit him into Paradise, according to his deeds.” (Saheeh Al-Bukhari)The Prophet of God, may the blessing and mercy of God be upon him, also reported:“Indeed God has forbidden to reside eternally in Hell the person who says: “I testify that none has the right to worship except Allah (God),’ seeking thereby the Face of God.” (Saheeh Al-Bukhari)The Declaration of the Testimony (Shahada)To convert to Islam and become a Muslim a person needs to pronounce the below testimony with conviction and understanding its meaning:I testify “La ilah illa Allah, Muhammad rasoolu Allah.”The translation of which is:“I testify that there is no true god (deity) but God (Allah), and that Muhammad is a Messenger (Prophet) of God.”To hear it click here .When someone pronounces the testimony with conviction, then he/she has become a Muslim. It can be done alone, but it is much better to be done with an adviser through the “Live Help” at top, so we may help you in pronouncing it right and to provide you with important resources for new Muslims.The first part of the testimony consists of the most important truth that God revealed to mankind: that there is nothing divine or worthy of being worshipped except for Almighty God. God states in the Holy Quran:“We did not send the Messenger before you without revealing to him: ‘none has the right to be worshipped except I, therefore worship Me.’” (Quran 21:25)This conveys that all forms of worship, whether it be praying, fasting, invoking, seeking refuge in, and offering an animal as sacrifice, must be directed to God and to God alone. Directing any form of worship to other than God (whether it be an angel, a messenger, Jesus, Muhammad, a saint, an idol, the sun, the moon, a tree) is seen as a contradiction to the fundamental message of Islam, and it is an unforgivable sin unless it is repented from before one dies. All forms of worship must be directed to God only.Worship means the performance of deeds and sayings that please God, things which He commanded or encouraged to be performed, either by direct textual proof or by analogy. Thus, worship is not restricted to the implementation of the five pillars of Islam, but also includes every aspect of life. Providing food for one’s family, and saying something pleasant to cheer a person up are also considered acts of worship, if such is done with the intention of pleasing God. This means that, to be accepted, all acts of worship must be carried out sincerely for the Sake of God alone.The second part of the testimony means that Prophet Muhammad is the servant and chosen messenger of God. This implies that one obeys and follows the commands of the Prophet. One must believe in what he has said, practice his teachings and avoid what he has forbidden. One must therefore worship God only according to his teaching alone, for all the teachings of the Prophet were in fact revelations and inspirations conveyed to him by God.One must try to mold their lives and character and emulate the Prophet, as he was a living example for humans to follow. God says:“And indeed you are upon a high standard of moral character.” (Quran 68:4)God also said:“And in deed you have a good and upright example in the Messenger of God, for those who hope in the meeting of God and the Hereafter, and mentions God much.” (Quran 33:21)He was sent in order to practically implement the Quran, in his saying, deeds, legislation as well as all other facets of life. Aisha, the wife of the Prophet, when asked about the character of the Prophet, replied:“His character was that of the Quran.” (As-Suyooti)To truly adhere to the second part of the Shahada is to follow his example in all walks of life. God says:“Say (O Muhammad to mankind): ‘If you (really) love God, then follow me.’” (Quran 3:31)It also means that Muhammad is the Final Prophet and Messenger of God, and that no (true) Prophet can come after him.“Muhammad is not the father of any man among you but he is the Messenger of God and the last (end) of the Prophets and God is Ever All-Aware of everything.” (Quran 33:40)All who claim to be prophets or receive revelation after Muhammad are imposters, and to acknowledge them would be tantamount to disbelief.We welcome you to Islam, congratulate you for your decision, and will try to help you in any way we can.
[1] God created him through His statement, “Be!”

Source : islamreligion.com

Monday, April 27, 2009

International calls for an investigation


For the first time since the establishment of Israel in 1948 the government is facing serious allegations of war crimes from respected public figures throughout the world. Even the secretary general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, normally so cautious about offending sovereign states – especially those aligned with its most influential member, the United States – has joined the call for an investigation and potential accountability. To grasp the significance of these developments it is necessary to explain what made the 22 days of attacks in Gaza stand shockingly apart from the many prior recourses to force by Israel to uphold its security and strategic interests.
In my view, what made the Gaza attacks launched on 27 December different from the main wars fought by Israel over the years was that the weapons and tactics used devastated an essentially defenceless civilian population. The one-sidedness of the encounter was so stark, as signalled by the relative casualties on both sides (more than 100 to 1; 1300-plus Palestinians killed compared with 13 Israelis, and several of these by friendly fire), that most commentators refrained from attaching the label “war”.
The Israelis and their friends talk of “retaliation” and “the right of Israel to defend itself”. Critics described the attacks as a “massacre” or relied on the language of war crimes and crimes against humanity. In the past Israeli uses of force were often widely condemned, especially by Arab governments, including charges that the UN Charter was being violated, but there was an implicit acknowledgement that Israel was using force in a war mode. War crimes charges (to the extent they were made) came only from radical governments and the extreme left.
The early Israeli wars were fought against Arab neighbours which were quite literally challenging Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign state. The outbreaks of force were of an inter-governmental nature; and even when Israel exhibited its military superiority in the June 1967 six day war, it was treated within the framework of normal world politics, and though it may have been unlawful, it was not criminal.
But from the 1982 Lebanon war this started to change. The main target then was the presence of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) in southern Lebanon. But the war is now mainly remembered for its ending, with the slaughter of hundreds of unarmed Palestinian civilians in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila. Although this atrocity was the work of a Lebanese Christian militia, Israeli acquiescence, control and complicity were clearly part of the picture. Still, this was an incident which, though alarming, was not the whole of the military operation, which Israel justified as necessary due to the Lebanese government’s inability to prevent its territory from being used to threaten Israeli security.
The legacy of the 1982 war was Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon and the formation of Hizbullah in reaction, mounting an armed resistance that finally led to a shamefaced Israeli withdrawal in 1998. This set the stage for the 2006 Lebanon war in which the announced adversary was Hizbullah, and the combat zone inevitably merged portions of the Lebanese civilian population with the military campaign undertaken to destroy Hizbullah. Such a use of hi-tech Israeli force against Hizbullah raised the issue of fighting against a hostile society with no equivalent means of defending itself rather than against an enemy state. It also raised questions about whether reliance on a military option was even relevant to Israel’s political goals, as Hizbullah emerged from the war stronger, and the only real result was to damage the reputation of the IDF as a fighting force and to leave southern Lebanon devastated.
The Gaza operation brought these concerns to the fore as it dramatised this shift away from fighting states to struggles against armed resistance movements, and with a related shift from the language of “war” to “criminality”. In one important respect, Israel managed to skew perceptions and discourse by getting the media and diplomats to focus the basic international criminal law question on whether or not Israeli use of force was “disproportionate”.
This way of describing Israeli recourse to force ignores the foundational issue: were the attacks in any legal sense “defensive” in character in the first place? An inquiry into the surrounding circumstances shows an absence of any kind of defensive necessity: a temporary ceasefire between Israel and Hamas that had been in effect since 19 July 2008 had succeeded in reducing cross-border violence virtually to zero; Hamas consistently offered to extend the ceasefire, even to a longer period of ten years; the breakdown of the ceasefire is not primarily the result of Hamas rocket fire, but came about mainly as a result of an Israeli air attack on 4 November that killed six Hamas fighters in Gaza.
Disproportionate force? In other words, there were no grounds for claiming the right of self-defence as Israel was not the object of a Hamas attack, and diplomatic alternatives to force existed and seemed credible, and their good-faith reliance was legally obligatory. On this basis the focus of legal debate should not be upon whether Israeli force was disproportionate. Of course it was. The focus should be on whether the Israeli attacks were a prohibited, non-defensive use of force under the UN charter, amounting to an act of aggression, and as such constituting a crime against peace. At Nuremberg after the second world war, surviving Nazi leaders were charged with this crime, which was described in the judgment as “the supreme crime” encompassing the others.
The Gaza form of encounter almost by necessity blurs the line between war and crime, and when it occurs in a confined, densely populated area such as Gaza, necessarily intermingles the resistance fighters with the civilian population. It also induces the resistance effort to rely on criminal targeting of civilians as it has no military capacity directly to oppose state violence. In this respect, the Israeli attacks on Gaza and the Hamas resistance crossed the line between lawful combat and war crimes.
These two sides should not be viewed as equally responsible for the recent events. Israel initiated the Gaza campaign without adequate legal foundation or just cause, and was responsible for causing the overwhelming proportion of devastation and the entirety of civilian suffering. Israeli reliance on a military approach to defeat or punish Gaza was intrinsically “criminal”, and as such demonstrative of both violations of the law of war and the commission of crimes against humanity.
There is another element that strengthens the allegation of aggression. The population of Gaza had been subjected to a punitive blockade for 18 months when Israel launched its attacks. This blockade was widely, and correctly, viewed as collective punishment in a form that violated Articles 33 and 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention governing the conduct of an occupying power in relation to the civilian population living under occupation. This policy was itself condemned as a crime against humanity, as well as a grave breach of international humanitarian law.
It also had resulted in serious nutritional deficiencies and widespread mental disorders on the part of the entire Gaza population, leaving it particularly vulnerable to the sort of “shock and awe” attack mounted by Israel from land, air and sea. This vulnerability was reinforced by Israel’s unwillingness to allow Gaza civilians to seek safety while the tiny Strip was under such intense combat pressure. Two hundred non-Palestinian wives were allowed to leave, which underscored the criminality of locking children, women, the sick, elderly and disabled into the war zone, and showed its ethnically discriminatory character. This appears to be the first time in wartime conditions that a civilian population was denied the possibility of becoming refugees.
In addition to these big picture issues, there are a variety of alleged war crimes associated with Israeli battlefield practices. These charges, based on evidence collected by human rights groups, include IDF firing at a variety of civilian targets, instances where Israeli military personnel denied medical aid to wounded Palestinians, and others where ambulances were prevented from reaching their destinations. There are also documented claims of 20 occasions on which Israeli soldiers were seen firing at women and children carrying white flags. And there are various allegations associated with the use of phosphorus bombs in residential areas of Gaza, as well as legal complaints about the use of a new cruel weapon, known as DIME, that explodes with such force that it rips body parts to pieces.
These war crimes concerns can only be resolved by factual clarifications as to whether a basis exists for possible prosecution of the perpetrators, and commanders and political leaders to the extent that criminal tactics and weaponry were authorised as matters of Israeli policy. In this vein too are the Israeli claims relating to rockets fired at civilian targets and to Hamas militants using “human shields” and deliberately attacking from non-military targets.
Even without further investigation, it is not too soon to raise questions about individual accountability for war crimes. The most serious allegations relate to the pre-existing blockade, the intrinsic criminality and non-defensiveness of the attack itself; and the official policies (eg confinement of civilian population in the war zone) have been acknowledged. The charges against Hamas require further investigation and legal assessment before it is appropriate to discuss possible arrangements for imposing accountability.
A question immediately arises as to whether talk of Israeli war crimes is nothing more than talk. Are there any prospects that the allegations will be followed up with effective procedures to establish accountability? There are a variety of potentially usable mechanisms to impose accountability, but will any of these be available in practice? This issue has been already raised by the Israeli government at the highest levels in the form of official commitments to shield Israeli soldiers from facing war crimes charges.
The most obvious path to address the broader questions of criminal accountability would be to invoke the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court established in 2002. Although the prosecutor has been asked to investigate the possibility of such a proceeding, it is highly unlikely to lead anywhere since Israel is not a member and, by most assessments, Palestine is not yet a state or party to the statute of the ICC. Belatedly, and somewhat surprisingly, the Palestinian Authority sought, after the 19 January ceasefire, to adhere to the Rome Treaty establishing the ICC. But even if its membership is accepted, which is unlikely, the date of adherence would probably rule out legal action based on prior events such as the Gaza military operation. And it is certain that Israel would not cooperate with the ICC with respect to evidence, witnesses or defendants, and this would make it very difficult to proceed even if the other hurdles could be overcome.
The next most obvious possibility would be to follow the path chosen in the 1990s by the UN Security Council, establishing ad hoc international criminal tribunals, as was done to address the crimes associated with the break-up of former Yugoslavia and with the Rwanda massacres of 1994. This path seems blocked in relation to Israel as the US, and likely other European permanent members, would veto any such proposal. In theory, the General Assembly could exercise parallel authority, as human rights are within its purview and it is authorised by Article 22 of the UN charter to “establish such subsidiary organs as it deems necessary for the performance of its function”. In 1950 it acted on this basis to establish the UN Administrative Tribunal, mandated to resolve employment disputes with UN staff members.
The geopolitical realities that exist within the UN make this an unlikely course of action (although it is under investigation). At present there does not seem to be sufficient inter-governmental political will to embark on such a controversial path, but civil society pressure may yet make this a plausible option, especially if Israel persists in maintaining its criminally unlawful blockade of Gaza, resisting widespread calls, including by President Obama, to open the crossings from Israel. Even in the unlikely event that it is established, such a tribunal could not function effectively without a high degree of cooperation with the government of the country whose leaders and soldiers are being accused. Unlike former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, Israel’s political leadership would certainly do its best to obstruct the activities of any international body charged with prosecuting Israeli war crimes.
Claims of universal jurisdiction Perhaps the most plausible governmental path would be reliance on claims of universal jurisdiction (1) associated with the authority of national courts to prosecute certain categories of war crimes, depending on national legislation. Such legislation exists in varying forms in more than 12 countries, including Spain, Belgium, France, Germany, Britain and the US. Spain has already indicted several leading Israeli military officers, although there is political pressure on the Spanish government to alter its criminal law to disallow such an undertaking in the absence of those accused.
This path to criminal accountability was taken in 1998 when a Spanish high court indicted the former Chilean dictator, Augusto Pinochet, and he was later detained in Britain where the legal duty to extradite was finally upheld on rather narrow grounds by a majority of the Law Lords, the highest court in the country. Pinochet was not extradited however, but returned to Chile on grounds of unfitness to stand trial, and died in Chile while criminal proceedings against him were under way.
Whether universal jurisdiction provides a practical means of responding to the war crimes charges arising out of the Gaza experience is doubtful. National procedures are likely to be swayed by political pressures, as were German courts, which a year ago declined to proceed against Donald Rumsfeld on torture charges despite a strong evidentiary basis and the near certainty that he would not be prosecuted in the US, which as his home state had the legally acknowledged prior jurisdictional claim. Also, universal jurisdictional proceedings are quite random, depending on either the cooperation of other governments by way of extradition or the happenchance of finding a potential defendant within the territory of the prosecuting state.
It is possible that a high profile proceeding could occur, and this would give great attention to the war crimes issue, and so universal jurisdiction is probably the most promising approach to Israeli accountability despite formidable obstacles. Even if no conviction results (and none exists for comparable allegations), the mere threat of detention and possible prosecution is likely to inhibit the travel plans of individuals likely to be detained on war crime charges; and has some political relevance with respect to the international reputation of a government.
There is, of course, the theoretical possibility that prosecutions, at least for battlefield practices such as shooting surrendering civilians, would be undertaken in Israeli criminal courts. Respected Israeli human rights organisations, including B’Tselem, are gathering evidence for such legal actions and advance the argument that an Israeli initiative has the national benefit of undermining the international calls for legal action.
This Israeli initiative, even if nothing follows in the way of legal action, as seems almost certain due to political constraints, has significance. It will lend credence to the controversial international contentions that criminal indictment and prosecution of Israeli political and military leaders and war crimes perpetrators should take place in some legal venue. If politics blocks legal action in Israel, then the implementation of international criminal law depends on taking whatever action is possible in either an international tribunal or foreign national courts, and if this proves impossible, then by convening a non-governmental civil society tribunal with symbolic legal authority.
What seems reasonably clear is that despite the clamour for war crimes investigations and accountability, the political will is lacking to proceed against Israel at the inter-governmental level, whether within the UN or outside. The realities of geopolitics are built around double standards when it comes to war crimes. It is one thing to proceed against Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic, but quite another to go against George W Bush or Ehud Olmert. Ever since the Nuremberg trials after the second world war, there exists impunity for those who act on behalf of powerful, undefeated states and nothing is likely to challenge this fact of international life in the near future, thus tarnishing the status of international law as a vehicle for global justice that is consistent in its enforcement efforts. When it comes to international criminal law, there continues to exist impunity for the strong and victorious, and potential accountability for the weak or defeated.
It does seem likely that civil society initiatives will lead to the establishment of one or more tribunals operating without the benefit of governmental authorisation. Such tribunals became prominent in the Vietnam war when Bertrand Russell took the lead in establishing the Russell Tribunal. Since then the Permanent Peoples Tribunal based in Rome has organised more than 20 sessions on a variety of international topics that neither the UN nor governments will touch.
In 2005 the World Tribunal on Iraq, held in Istanbul, heard evidence from 54 witnesses, and its jury, presided over by the Indian novelist Arundhati Roy, issued a Declaration of Conscience that condemned the US and Britain for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and named names of leaders in both countries who should be held criminally accountable.
The tribunal compiled an impressive documentary record as to criminal charges, and received considerable media attention, at least in the Middle East. Such an undertaking is attacked or ignored by the media because it is one-sided, and lacking in legal weight, but in the absence of formal action on accountability, such informal initiatives fill a legal vacuum, at least symbolically, and give legitimacy to non-violent anti-war undertakings.
The legitimacy war In the end, the haunting question is whether the war crimes concerns raised by Israel’s behaviour in Gaza matters, and if so, how. I believe it matters greatly in what might be called “the second war” – the legitimacy war that often ends up shaping the political outcome more than battlefield results. The US won every battle in the Vietnam war and lost the war; the same with France in Indochina and Algeria, and the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The Shah of Iran collapsed, as did the apartheid regime in South Africa, because of defeats in the legitimacy war.
It is my view that this surfacing of criminal charges against Israel during and after its attacks on Gaza resulted in major gains on the legitimacy front for the Palestinians. The widespread popular perceptions of Israeli criminality, especially the sense of waging war against a defenceless population with modern weaponry, has prompted people around the world to propose boycotts, divestments and sanctions. This mobilisation exerts pressure on governments and corporations to desist from relations with Israel, and is reminiscent of the worldwide anti-apartheid campaign that did so much to alter the political landscape in South Africa. Winning the legitimacy war is no guarantee that Palestinian self-determination will be achieved in the coming years. But it does change the political equation in ways that are not fully discernable at this time.
The global setup provides a legal framework capable of imposing international criminal law, but it will not be implemented unless the political will is present. Israel is likely to be insulated from formal judicial initiatives addressing war crimes charges, but will face the fallout arising from the credibility that these charges possess for world public opinion. This fallout is reshaping the underlying Israel/Palestine struggle, and giving far greater salience to the legitimacy war (fought on a global political battlefield) than was previously the case.
Richard Falk
Richard Falk is professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University and in 2008 was appointed UN Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights

الامارات ثالث اكبر مستورد للاسلحة في العالم

قال معهد ستوكهولم الدولي لابحاث السلام الاثنين ان الامارات العربية المتحدة اصبحت ثالث اكبر مستورد للاسلحة في العالم. واشار المعهد الى ان الارقام الواردة من الامارات تشكل توجها اقليميا "مقلقا" لزيادة واردات الاسلحة الى الشرق الاوسط. واستوردت الدولة الغنية بالنفط نحو 6% من واردات الاسلحة العالمية في الفترة من 2004 الى 2008، طبقا لتقرير المعهد الذي اشار ان هذه النسبة هي نفس نسبة واردات كوريا الجنوبية من الاسلحة.

وجاء في تقرير المعهد ان نسبة واردات الصين بلغت 11% والهند 7%.

وقال التقرير ان الملفت انه في دراسة سابقة كانت تغطي الفترة من 1999 الى 2003 كان ترتيب الامارات 16 بين اكبر المستوردين للاسلحة في العالم.

ووصف المعهد صعود الامارات الى المرتبة الثالثة بانه "اكثر التغيرات اهمية" في دراستها الجديدة لمبيعات الاسلحة العالمية.

كما دلت الدراسة على ان حجم التجارة العالمية بالسلاح في الفترة من 2004 وحتى 2008 ارتفع بنسبة 21 بالمئة عن الفترة من 1999 الى 2003.

واظهرت الدراسة زيادة بنسبة 38 بالمئة في تجارة الاسلحة في الشرق الاوسط في اخر دراسة، مقارنة مع دراسة جرت قبل خمسة اعوام.

وقال بيتر فيزمان الباحث في المعهد في بيان انه "خلال السنوات الخمس الماضية، رأينا عودة الشرق الاوسط ليكون واحدا من كبار مستوردي انظمة الاسلحة".

واضاف "ورغم أننا بعيدون جدا عن المستويات التي سادت في منتصف الثمانينات، الا ان هذا التوجه لا يزال مقلقا في منطقة تعاني من العديد من مصادر النزاع المحتملة".

واظهرت الدراسة ان الولايات المتحدة لا تزال اكبر مزود للمعدات العسكرية حيث تبلغ مبيعاتها 31% من صادرات العالم. وتاتي روسيا في المرتبة الثانية (25%) والمانيا في المرتبة الثالثة (10%).

اوباما شاهد الشريط ... والمحطة الامريكية تضرب الامارات تحت الحزام بشريط اخر خلال 24 ساعة فقط

عرب تايمز - خاص
علمت عرب تايمز من مصادر في واشنطون ان الرئيس الامريكي باراك اوباما قد شاهد شريط التعذيب الذي قام ببطولته الشيخ عيسى بن زايد بن سلطان ال نهيان شقيق رئيس دولة الامارات والذي عرضت مقاطع منه محطة ايه بي سي الواسعة الانتشار ووفقا للمصادر فان الرئيس الامريكي اصيب بالصدمة ليس فقط بسبب هوية الشخص الذي يقوم بعملية التعذيب وانما ايضا لمشاركة شرطي من وزارة الداخلية الاماراتية بالتعذيب ووزارة الداخلية كما هو معلوم يتوزرها الشيخ سيف شقيق الشيخ عيسى بطل الشريط
ووفقا لما علمته عرب تايمز فان هذا الشريط سيكون من ابرز الاشارات في تقرير وزارة الخارجية القادم عن حقوق الانسان في الامارات وان هناك توجهات لاعادة فتح ملف القضايا التي رفعت ضد شيوخ دبي امام محاكم امريكية حول التعذيب وخطف الاطفال والتي تدخلت ادارة بوش لاسقاطها
الا ان الجديد في الامر ان المحطة الامريكية ذاتها ضربت الامارات بشريط اخر خلال اقل من 24 ساعة من عرض الشريط الاول وهو يتعلق بالعبودية والسخرة وتشغيل مئات الالاف من العمال الفقراء الاجانب ببلاش او مقابل دولارا واحد في اليوم لبناء ناطحات السحاب التي يفخر شيوخ الامارات بها ... وتبين ان العمال يعيشون في ظروف لا تحسدهم عليها حتى الحيوانات ... معسكرات اقرب الى معتقلات النازي ...

انفلونزا الخنازير وصلت الى تكساس ... والرعب يجتاح المكسيك

حذرت منظمة الصحة العالمية الاحد من ان اصابات أنفلونزا الخنازير فى المكسيك والولايات المتحدة يمكن أن تتطور لتصبح وباء عالميا و قالت مدير عام منظمة الصحة العالمية مارجريت تشان ان تلك الاصابات خطيرة جدا ويجب أن يتم مراقبة الوضع بشكل حثيث وعن قرب مضيفة أن المرض قادر على التحول الى وباء لان العدوى تنتقل بين البشر .ورغم النظرة السوداوية لدى منظمة الصحة العالمية حول هذا المرض الا أن تشان قالت انه من السابق لاوانه التكهن بتحول ذلك المرض الى وباء عالمى لكن المرض له قدرة على الانتشار ويتغير بسرعة ولا يمكن التكهن بسلوك الفيروس
وهرعت حكومات في شتى أنحاء العالم الأحد لتحري معلومات بخصوص انتشار انفلونزا الخنازير الذي قتل ما يصل إلى 81 شخصا في المكسيك وأصاب نحو عشرة أشخاص في الولايات المتحدة.وتجمع المكسيكيون داخل منازلهم في حين بدأت المستشفيات في الولايات المتحدة رصد المرضى الذين ظهرت عليهم أعراض انفلونزا كما بدأت دول أخرى تجري فحوصات طبية في المطارات مع تحذير منظمة الصحة العالمية من أن الفيروس يمكن أن يصبح وباء عالميا.ومنذ اعلان ظهور الفيروس يوم الجمعة أصبح تفشي المرض يمثل صداعا للمكسيك التي تشن بالفعل حربا عنيفة على المخدرات وتعاني من تباطؤ اقتصادي واصبح الفيروس سريعا أحد أكبر المخاطر الصحية في العالم منذ سنوات
ويمكن أن يتأثر قطاعا السياحة والتجزئة بشكل كبير من جراء الأزمة الاقتصادية وقد يوجه وباء عالميا جديدا ضربة قوية للاقتصاد العالمي الذي يواجه أسوأ ركود منذ عقود من الزمان جراء الأزمة في الأسواق المالية.وأعلنت منظمة الصحة العالمية إن ظهور الانفلونزا "حدث متعلق بالصحة العامة يثير قلقا دوليا وحثت مارجريت تشان مديرة منظمة الصحة العالمية العالم إلى تشديد اجراءات الترصد الوبائي تحبا لأي ظهور غير عادي لأمراض شبيهة بالانفلونزا.وقال الرئيس المكسيكي فيليبي كالديرون في الوقت الذي رصد فيه مسؤولون بقطاع الصحة حالات إصابة مشتبه بها في ست ولايات من الجنوب إلى الحدود الشمالية "نتابع لحظة بلحظة نمو هذه المشكلة في شتى أنحاء البلاد
والسلالة الجديدة من الانفلونزا هي خليط من فيروسات انفلونزا الخنازير وانفلونزا الطيور والانفلونزا التي تصيب الانسان وتمثل أكبر خطر لانتشار وباء عالمي على نطاق واسع منذ ظهور انفلونزا الطيور عام 1997 الذي تسبب في مقتل المئات. وفي عام 1968 لقي نحو مليون شخص حتفهم في شتى أنحاء العالم اثر تفشي وباء "هونج كونج" للانفلونزا.وأعلنت الأرجنتين حالة تأهب صحي يطالب أي من يصل على متن طائرات قادمة من المكسيك توضيح ما إذ كان يعاني من أعراض شبيهة بأعراض الانفلونزا. وفي هونج واليابان صعد مسؤولون بقطاع الصحة من اجراءات فحص المسافرين المرضى.ويمكن للسلالات الجديدة للانفلونزا الانتشار سريعا إذ يفتقر الجميع للمناعة الطبيعية منها كما أن تطوير الأمصال يحتاج لشهور. ونقل أحد أفراد طاقم قمرة قيادة طائرة تابعة للخطوط الجوية البريطانية إلى مستشفى بلندن بعد ظهور اعراض عليه تشبه الانفلونزا خلال رحلة من المكسيك
وقال وزير الصحة المكسيكي خوسيه أنجيل كوردوفا إن هذا التفشي الجديد لانفلونزا الخنازير ربما يكون أودى بحياة ما يصل إلى 81 شخصا في المكسيك ويخضع 1300 شخص لفحوص للاشتباه في اصابتهم. ومعظم من لقوا حتفهم أعمارهم بين 25 و45 عاما وهي إشارة مثيرة للقلق لأن عدد ضحايا الأوبئة العالمية التي ظهرت من قبل كان مرتفعا بين الشبان.وخصصت الحكومة 450 ألف دولار لتغطية تكاليف محاربة المرض ومنح كالديرون الحكومة سلطات خاصة لاجراء فحوص على المرضى واصدار تعليمات بعزلهم.وفي العاصمة المكتظة بالسكان ويبلغ تعداهم 20 مليون نسمة أغلقت المتاحف وألغيت الأحداث العامة من حفلات موسيقية إلى سباق عدو. وستقام مباريات كرة القدم المقررة اليوم دون جمهور
وخزن السكان زجاجات المياه المعبأة والأطعمة المحفوظة وطلب ممن يذهبون للكنائس البقاء في المنزل وطلب من السياح ارتداء أقنعة واقية.وقالت ساندي إترياجو "29 عاما" أثناء انتظارها مع والديها الحافلة التي ستقلهم في جولة سياحية "الوضع كله مثير للقلق نوعا ما لأنك كسائح لا تعلم ما إذا كان سيسمح له بالعودة للوطن. الأمر مثير للقلق إذ ليست هناك معلومات كافية."وساد الهدوء شوارع مكسيكو سيتي مساء السبت مع اغلاق السلطات 70 بالمئة من الحانات إضافة إلى الاستادات ودور السينما. وطلبت حانة واحدة على الأقل فتحت أبوابها من مسعفين الوقوف عند الأبواب لفحص الرواد قبل الدخول وقياس درجة حرارتهم.وأغلقت كل المدارس في مكسيكو سيتي والمناطق المحيطة بها وفي ولاية سان لويس بوتوسي حتى السادس من مايو آيار كما تعتزم بعض الشركات الطلب من العاملين بها العمل من المنزل
وبالرغم من أن الوفيات حتى الآن كانت في المكسيك إلا أن الانفلونزا تنتشر في الولايات المتحدة. وتأكد ظهور 11 حالة في كاليفورنيا وكانساس وتكساس وأصيب ثمانية من تلاميذ مدرسة في نيويورك بفيروس الانفلونزا "أ" ويقول مسؤولون بقطاع الصحة إن من المرجح أن تكون انفلونزا الخنازير.وفي المكسيك خارج العاصمة انتشر الفيروس في سان لويس بوتوسي وفي ولايتي فيراكروز وواهاكا الجنوبيتين اللتين تشتهران بالسياح وفي ولاية باجا كاليفورنيا الحدودية الشمالية

الاحتلال يهدم 5 منازل فلسطينية في القدس ونابلس

هدمت جرافات الاحتلال “الإسرائيلي”، أمس، خمسة منازل فلسطينية أحدها في جبل المكبر بمدينة القدس المحتلة، فيما هدمت أربعة أخرى في نابلس شمال الضفة الغربية. وذكرت المصادر “أن جرافات الاحتلال هدمت منزل المواطن عمار حديدون في جبل المكبر بزعم عدم الترخيص”. كما هدمت أربعة منازل في بلدة عقربا شرق نابلس وذلك بعد يومين فقط على إنذار أصحابها بالإخلاء تمهيداً للهدم. حيث باغتت أصحابها وشرعت بالهدم من دون أن تسمح لهم بنقل متاعهم، كما عمدت إلى هدم حظائر مواشيهم التي ساقوها بعيداً خوفاً من أن تفتك بها الجرافات. وفرض الاحتلال طوقاً عسكرياً شاملاً على المنطقة المحاطة بعدد من المستوطنات “الإسرائيلية”. وتزعم “إسرائيل” أنها شيدت من دون ترخيص هي الأخرى وتقع في منطقة جبلية تسكنها نحو 40 عائلة فلسطينية. وكذلك أخطرت أربع عائلات أخرى بهدم منازلها في المكان نفسه
كما اعتقلت “إسرائيل” ثمانية فلسطينيين في مناطق مختلفة من الضفة، وذكرت الإذاعة العبرية في موقعها الإلكتروني صباح أمس أنه تم اقتيادهم للتحقيق
وفي قطاع غزة، أصيب أربعة أشخاص جراء انفجار جسم مشبوه من مخلفات المحرقة “الإسرائيلية” شرق حي الزيتون جنوب القطاع. وقال الطبيب معاوية حسنين لوكالة أنباء “سما” الفلسطينية إن “أربعة مواطنين في العشرينات من العمر أصيبوا بجروح ما بين متوسطة وطفيفة وخطرة”، مشيرا إلى أن الانفجار تسبب في بتر ساق أحدهم

كركية من عشيرة المعايطة في الخامسة عشرة من عمرها ... تتلقى دعوات للالتحاق بكليات الطب في اشهر اربع جامعات امريكية حتى قبل ان تنهي تعليمها الثانوي


عرب تايمز - خاص
اسمها انا عصام المعايطة ... امريكية من اصل اردني في الخامسة عشرة من عمرها تقيم مع والديها واختها ( اية ) - التي لا تقل نبوغا عنها - في مدينة هيوستون بولاية تكساس... ابوها رجل اعمال معروف في هيوستون ... وجدها المرحوم العقيد عبد الحميد المعايطة كان مديرا للشرطة في الضفة الغربية وكان من ضمن الاسرى الاردنيين في حرب حزيران يونيو ... وعمها المرحوم محمود المعايطة عضو القيادة القطرية في سوريا سابقا وقائد تنظيم الصاعقة الفلسطيني واحد مؤسسي منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية ... بقيت لها سنتان للتخرج من الثانوية العامة في ولاية تكساس ومع ذلك ترى ادارة المدرسة ان انا المعايطة لا تحتاج للسنتين المتبقيتيين وانها مؤهلة لدخول الجامعة ( كلية الطب ) فورا لتفوقها وحصولها لاكثر من سنة دراسية على جميع التقديرات النهائية في جميع المواد الدراسية ( مائة في المائة ) وهو ما لفت انظار اكبر اكاديمية امريكية تعنى بالطلبة المتفوقين والموهوبين والعباقرة ( اكاديمية القيادة الوطنية ) كما لفت انظار اكبر واهم اربع جامعات امريكية منها جامهة هوبكنز وجامعة ييل وجامهة هارفرد وجامعة برنستون حيث تلقت انا عروضا للالتحاق بكليات الطب في هذه الجامعات حتى قبل انهاء تعليمها الثانوي ( ملحوظة من المحرر : الصورة للطفلة انا عصام المعايطة التقطت لها في مكتب عرب تايمز قبل سبع سنوات مع قطتي الزميل اسامة فوزي عنتر وعبلة )
بدأت الحكاية في مارس اذار الماضي حين قررت اكاديمية القيادة الوطنية اختيار طالب واحد من ولاية تكساس لتمثيل الولاية في السيمينار السنوي الذي تجريه المؤسسة لخمسين عبقريا متفوقا من طلبة المدارس يمثل كل واحد منهم ولاية امريكية ... وتتم عملية الاختيار من خلال مراجعة الدرجات ونتائج الاختبارات ( الامتحانات المدرسية ) في اخر عامين من حياة الطلبة واختيار طالب واحد فقط لتمثيل الولاية التي يقيم فيها على هذا الاساس ... ووجدت المؤسسة ان الصبية ( انا عصام المعايطة ) هي المؤهلة لتمثيل ولاية تكساس التي تعتبر من اهم واكبر الولايات الامريكية ويزيد عدد الطلاب فيها عن عشرة ملايين طالب ... انا عصام المعايطة هي الافضل وتقديراتها وفقا للنتائج المدرسية مثيرة ولافتة للنظر ... فتم ارسال دعوة لها في شهر مارس اذار الماضي لتمثل ولاية تكساس في السيمينار الذي سيقام في عدة ولايات منها واشنطن العاصمة تلتقي خلالها انا المعايطة مع المتفوقين الاخرين بالرئيس الامريكي و الرئيس السابق بيل كلينتون واكثر من اربعمائة عضو في مجلسي الشيوخ والنواب وعشرات من رؤساء الجامعات الامريكية الكبيرة ويشمل النشاط زيارات لاهم ثلاثين مؤسسة وجامعة امريكية عدا عن مدراء ورؤساء اهم المؤسسات الفدرالية الامريكية
البروفيسور جان سيكروسكي مدير الاكاديمية وقع الرسالة الموجهة الى انا المعايطة والتي تخبرها بانها اختيرت وحدها لتمثل ولاية تكساس لتفوقها التعليمي الباهر وقد اختيرت في مجال الطب
والد انا رجل الاعمال عصام المعايطة تلقى هو الاخر رسالة من الدكتور شاهشين دوشي مستشار الاكاديمية يعلمه فيها ان ابنته انا رشحت لتفوقها وانها مدعوة للمشاركة في السيمينار الذي سيتركز على المجال الطبي حيث سيتم تقديم انا لاشهر كليات الطب في امريكا وتعريفها بانظمة العمل والدراسة فيها وجمعها بمشاهير الاطباء لان الاكاديمية ترى - وفقا لما ورد في الرسالة - بان انا المعايطة مرشحة لان تكون طبيبة متفوقة جدا في مجالها لنبوغها المبكر في الميدان العلمي وقال الدكتور دوشي ان الاكاديمية التي تتخذ من واشنطون مقرا لها علمت بنبوغ وتفوق انا المعايطة من خلال مراجعتها لنتائج ودرجات طلبة ولاية تكساس حيث تبين ان اسم انا المعايطة كان على راس قائمة المتفوقين والنابغين في الولاية
وفي نهاية مارس اذار تلقت انا المعايطة رسالة من المقر العام للاكاديمية في ولاية جورجيا موقعة من ( كليز نوبل ) رئيسة الاكاديمية وتوضح الرسالة ان الاكاديمية اسستها عائلة ( نوبل ) التي تقدم جائزة نوبل الشهيرة وان هدف الاكاديمية هو العناية بالنابغين وتأمين البعثات والمنح الدراسية لهم وتوفير الفرص المناسبة لهم في الجامعات الاكثر شهرة لتنمية وصقل نبوغهم
ووفقا للاوراق والوثائق والدعوات الرسمية التي اطلعت عليها عرب تايمز سواء من كليات الطب الامريكية الشهيرة او من الاكاديمية المشار اليها اعلاه او من المؤسسات الاجتماعية التي تعنى بالنابغين في امريكا فان انا المعايطة مدعوة لدراسة الطب على نفقة اشهر الجامعات الامريكية كما انها مدعوة لزيارة واشنطون لمقابلة كبار المسئولين ونجوم السياسة والطب والمجتمع الامريكي تعبيرا عن تقدير امريكا للطلبة النابغين الذين يتوقع منهم الكثير في المستقبل
النماذج الباهرة لابناء الجالية العربية في امريكا كثيرة ... و الصبية العربية الاردنية الكركية الاصل انا عصام المعايطة مجرد مثال مشرف نفخر به ويقدم صورة مغايرة تماما لصورة العربي المنفرة التي بدأت تروج مؤخرا في وسائل الاعلام الامريكية ... وحالة انا عصام المعايطة توضح بما لا شك فيه انه واذا وجد في المجتمع العربي شيخ جاهل وابن رئيس مرتشي وحاكم لا يحسن كتابة اسمه ومجرم وديكتاتور وملك عربي لا يفك الخط ...فان فيه نماذج نابغة ومتفوقة وموهوبة يتشرف بها الامريكيون انفسهم .... وهذه الصبية الاردنية الصغيرة التي تنتمي لعشيرة اردنية كبيرة في جنوب الاردن مجرد نموذج فقط

Saturday, April 25, 2009

Afghanistan's First National Park Protects Deep Blue Lakes


A series of six deep blue lakes separated by natural dams made of the rich red rock travertine have been protected in the first national park established in Afghanistan.
The internationally recognized national park, named Band-e-Amir, was designated today by the Afghanistan's National Environment Protection Agency.
Travertine systems, created by mineral deposits, are found in only a few places throughout the world. The lakes are under growing threat from pollution and other human-caused degradation to the fragile travertine dams, and several animal species have disappeared from the area in recent decades or are at risk.
Band-e-Amir had been a destination for travelers since the 1950s, with a peak visitation in the 1970s. Tourism was almost entirely absent during the war years between 1979-2001. Today, Band-e-Amir is visited every year by thousands of Afghan tourists and religious pilgrims as well as many foreigners currently living and working in-country. The park is near the Bamyan Valley, where the 1,500-year-old giant Buddha statues destroyed by the Taliban once stood.
"At its core, Band-e-Amir is an Afghan initiative supported by the international community. It is a park created for Afghans, by Afghans, for the new Afghanistan," said Dr. Steven E. Sanderson, President and CEO of the Wildlife Conservation Society. "Band-e-Amir will be Afghanistan's first national park and sets the precedent for a future national park system."
Key funding was provided by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), with additional support from the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) to conduct preliminary wildlife surveys, identify and delineate the park's boundaries, and work with local communities and the provincial government. WCS also developed the park's management plan, helped the government hire and train local rangers, and provided assistance to the Afghan Government to design the laws enabling the park to be created.
Though much of the park's wildlife has been lost, recent surveys indicate that it still contains ibex (a species of wild goat) and urial (a type of wild sheep) along with wolves, foxes, smaller mammals and fish, and various bird species including the Afghan snow finch, which is believed to be the only bird found exclusively in Afghanistan.
Snow leopards were once found in the area but vanished due to hunting in the early 1980s.
Creating the national park will provide international recognition essential to helping develop Band-e-Amir as an international tourist destination, and assist it in obtaining World Heritage Status, which would provide additional protection, according to a WCS statement
By LiveScience Staff
posted: 22 April 2009 08:25 am ET