Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The Unmentionable Source of Terrorism

Expand Messages
  • World View
    We do not fear the threat of death. We will not bow to pressure. And resistance will continue until the occupation is ended. The battle is a battle for a
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 26, 2004
      "We do not fear the threat of death. We will not bow to pressure. And
      resistance will continue until the occupation is ended."

      "The battle is a battle for a nation, ideology and civilization, not
      only for the Palestinian people. The Palestinian people are defending
      the very dignity of the Muslim Ummah. We ask for your du`aa'."

      -- Sheikh Ahmad Yassin

      The Unmentionable Source of Terrorism

      by John Pilger - March 20th


      The current threat of attacks in countries whose governments have
      close alliances with Washington is the latest stage in a long
      struggle against the empires of the west, their rapacious crusades
      and domination. The motivation of those who plant bombs in railway
      carriages derives directly from this truth. What is different today
      is that the weak have learned how to attack the strong, and the
      western crusaders' most recent colonial terrorism (as many as 55,000
      Iraqis killed) exposes "us" to retaliation.

      The source of much of this danger is Israel. A creation, then
      guardian of the west's empire in the Middle East, the Zionist state
      remains the cause of more regional grievance and sheer terror than
      all the Muslim states combined. Read the melancholy Palestinian
      Monitor on the Internet; it chronicles the equivalent of Madrid's
      horror week after week, month after month, in occupied Palestine. No
      front pages in the West acknowledge this enduring bloodbath, let
      alone mourn its victims. Moreover, the Israeli army, a terrorist
      organisation by any reasonable measure, is protected and rewarded in
      the west.

      In its current human rights report, the Foreign Office criticises
      Israel for its "worrying disregard for human rights" and "the impact
      that the continuing Israeli occupation and the associated military
      occupations have had on the lives of ordinary Palestinians."

      Yet the Blair government has secretly authorised the sale of vast
      quantities of arms and terror equipment to Israel. These include leg-
      irons, electric shock belts and chemical and biological agents. No
      matter that Israel has defied more United Nations resolutions than
      any other state since the founding of the world body. Last October,
      the UN General Assembly voted by 144 to four to condemn the wall that
      Israel has cut through the heart of the West Bank, annexing the best
      agricultural land, including the aquifer system that provides most of
      the Palestinians' water. Israel, as usual, ignored the world.

      Israel is the guard dog of America's plans for the Middle East. The
      former CIA analysts Kathleen and Bill Christison have described
      how "two strains of Jewish and Christian fundamentalism have
      dovetailed into an agenda for a vast imperial project to restructure
      the Middle East, all further reinforced by the happy coincidence of
      great oil resources up for grabs and a president and vice-president
      heavily invested in oil."

      The "neoconservatives" who run the Bush regime all have close ties
      with the Likud government in Tel Aviv and the Zionist lobby groups in
      Washington. In 1997, the Jewish Institute for National Security
      Affairs (Jinsa) declared: "Jinsa has been working closely with Iraqi
      National Council leader Dr Ahmad Chalabi to promote Saddam Hussein's
      removal from office..." Chalabi is the CIA-backed stooge and
      convicted embezzler at present organising the next "democratic"
      government in Baghdad.

      Until recently, a group of Zionists ran their own intelligence
      service inside the Pentagon. This was known as the Office of Special
      Plans, and was overseen by Douglas Feith, an under-secretary of
      defence, extreme Zionist and opponent of any negotiated peace with
      the Palestinians. It was the Office of Special Plans that supplied
      Downing Street with much of its scuttlebutt about Iraq's weapons
      of mass destruction; more often than not, the original source was

      Israel can also claim responsibility for the law passed by Congress
      that imposes sanctions on Syria and in effect threatens it with the
      same fate as Iraq unless it agrees to the demands of Tel Aviv. Israel
      is the guiding hand behind Bush's bellicose campaign against
      the "nuclear threat" posed by Iran. Today, in occupied Iraq, Israeli
      special forces are teaching the Americans how to "wall in" a hostile
      population, in the same way that Israel has walled in the
      Palestinians in pursuit of the Zionist dream of an apartheid state.
      The author David Hirst describes the "Israelisation of US foreign
      policy" as being "now operational as well as ideological."

      In understanding Israel's enduring colonial role in the Middle East,
      it is too simple to see the outrages of Ariel Sharon as an aberrant
      version of a democracy that lost its way. The myths that abound in
      middle-class Jewish homes in Britain about Israel's heroic, noble
      birth have long been reinforced by a "liberal" or "left-wing" Zionism
      as virulent and essentially destructive as the Likud strain.

      In recent years, the truth has come from Israel's own "new
      historians," who have revealed that the Zionist "idealists" of 1948
      had no intention of treating justly or even humanely the
      Palestinians, who instead were systematically and often murderously
      driven from their homes. The most courageous of these historians is
      Ilan Pappe, an Israeli-born professor at Haifa University, who,
      with the publication of each of his ground-breaking books, has been
      both acclaimed and smeared. The latest is A History of Modern
      Palestine, in which he documents the expulsion of Palestinians as an
      orchestrated crime of ethnic cleansing that tore apart Jews and Arabs
      coexisting peacefully. As for the modern "peace process," he
      describes the Oslo Accords of 1993 as a plan by liberal Zionists in
      the Israeli Labour Party to corral Palestinians in South African-
      style bantustans. That they were aided by a desperate Palestinian
      leadership made the "peace" and its "failure" (blamed on the
      Palestinians) no less counterfeit. During the years of negotiation
      and raised hopes, governments in Tel Aviv secretly doubled the number
      of illegal Jewish settlements on Palestinian land, intensified the
      military occupation and completed the fragmentation of the 22 per
      cent of historic Palestine that the Palestine Liberation Organisation
      had agreed to accept in return for recognising the state of Israel.

      Along with the late Edward Said, Ilan Pappe is the most eloquent
      writer of Palestinian history. He is also one of the most scholarly.
      This combination has brought him many admirers, but also enemies
      among Israel's academic liberal mythologists in Britain, one of whom,
      Stephen Howe, was given the Pappe book to review in the New Statesman
      of 8 March. Howe often appears in these pages; his style is to damn
      with faint praise and to set carefully the limits of debate about
      empire, be it Irish history, the Middle East or the "war on terror."
      In Pappe's case, what the reader doesn't know is Howe's personal link
      to the Israeli establishment; and what Howe does not say in his
      review is that here for the first time is a textbook on Palestine
      that narrates the real story as it happened: a non-Zionist version of

      He accuses Pappe of "factual mistakes," but gives no evidence, then
      denigrates the book by dismissing it as a footnote to another book by
      the Israeli historian Benny Morris, who has long atoned for his own
      revisionist work. To its credit, Cambridge University Press has
      published Pappe's pioneering and highly accessible work as an
      authoritative history. This means that the "debate" over Israel's
      origins is ending, regardless of what the empire's apologists say.

      I have a name for it: conspiracy

      writes Jeff Blankfort in a Californian newspaper


      On the national level, the major Jewish organizations meet in
      Washington to strategize in behalf of Israel. On the local level, in
      every community with an extensive Jewish population, there is a
      Jewish Community Relations Council that successfully intimidates
      politicians and the media. The major newspapers in large cities are
      all monitored by Jewish organizations. Jewish organizations are
      constantly sending delegations of local public officials on all
      expense-paid trips to Israel. Does anyone seriously believe this is
      happening haphazardly? I don't and I have a name for it: conspiracy,
      and it is undermining what little is left of our democratic

      While it is generally acknowledged that the framing of Captain Alfred
      Dreyfus, a French Jew who had served his country honorably and
      faithfully is what ignited the efforts of Austrian journalist
      Theodore Herzl to lay the foundations of political Zionism with a
      goal of establishing a Jewish state, little attention is paid to what
      else was happening in Europe and elsewhere at the end of the
      Nineteenth Century.

      Zionism arrived on the scene after unified national entities had been
      created in Germany and Italy and only slightly more than a decade
      after the Europeans had carved up Africa for their nefarious colonial
      enterprises. If they can do it, why can't we, apparently thought
      Herzl who was thoroughly European and as racist as any imperialist of
      those times which was well before imperialism and colonialism became
      dirty words. Herzl's Zionist manifesto, Der Judenstaat (The Jewish
      State) makes his affection for such enterprises clear to any reader
      lucky enough to locate a copy.

      Roberta Werdinger's critique (Letters, March 10) of Russell Norvell's
      excellent review of "The Politics of Anti-Semitism" brought old man
      Herzl to mind because Werdinger seems caught up in the same mindset
      that infected Herzl and has informed the Zionist movement to this
      day, that is the notion that "anti-semitism," if sometimes dormant,
      is inherent among all non-Jews, that the existence of Jews among non-
      Jews eventually exacerbates the situation and leads to massacres and
      pogroms, and that the only solution to the problem is for Jews to
      have their own state and live by themselves.

      By one of the tragic ironies of history, that sentiment was what
      guided the Nazis in establishing the anti-Jewish Nuremberg laws in
      1935 which drew well documented support from the Zionist
      organizations within the Nazi state.

      The introduction to the Nuremberg Laws of 15 September 1935 state:

      "If the Jews had a state of their own in which the bulk of the people
      were at home, the Jewish question could already be considered solved
      today, even for the Jews themselves. The ardent Zionists of all
      people have objected least to the basic ideas of the Nuremberg Laws,
      because they know that these laws are the only correct solution for
      the Jewish people."

      And that was so. A minority among German as well as European Jews,
      the Zionists publicly welcomed the laws proscribing Jewish activity,
      and were rewarded by being alone among Jewish groups that were
      allowed to function without serious restrictions until the advent of
      WW 2. (See Lenni Brenner's "51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with
      the Nazis", Barricade Books, 2002)

      Haim Cohen, Israel's first attorney general and later a judge of the
      Supreme Court of Israel stated:

      "The bitter irony of fate decreed that the same biological and racist
      argument extended by the Nazis, and which inspired the inflammatory
      laws of Nuremberg, serve as the basis for the official definition of
      Jewishness in the bosom of the state of Israel" (quoted in Joseph
      Badi, Fundamental Laws of the State of Israel NY, 1960, P.156).
      Indeed, Adolph Eichmann had read Der Judenstaat, and startled the
      courtroom at his trial in Jerusalem by proclaiming himself to be a

      Werdinger seems to be making the same argument when she speaks of
      the "deep rooted and periodically savage malaise of anti-Semitism"
      and notes that "in these turbulent times, it would be surprising….if
      it did not emerge."

      The "turbulent times" she acknowledges is the "increasingly tragic
      situation unfolding in Israel/Palestine" but she writes that she is
      more "alarmed to read an assertion that the policies of Israel itself
      are the root cause of anti-Semitism" Now, of course, she is playing
      with words, because most observers not blinded by fealty to the
      Jewish state would agree that while Israel's policies are not
      the "root cause" of historical anti-semitism, they are certainly the
      major cause of its re-birth in the past few years.

      One can well imagine what would have happened if there were
      comparable white Afrikaner institutions in Europe (or the US for that
      matter) that openly supported the apartheid regime in South Africa
      and were attempting to use their political and economic clout to
      suppress all criticism of that racist regime.

      The charge of being "anti-Afrikaner" obviously wouldn't have had the
      same impact in polite circles as does anti-Semitism and would have
      subjected those making such a charge to ridicule. But when it comes
      to criticizing Jews for anything, the issue quickly becomes one in
      which the critics become the bad guys and soon find themselves buried
      up to their necks by spurious charges of anti-semitism.

      "Anti-Semitism," Werdinger writes, "like racism and homophobia,
      arises because of the deep divisions of the human heart, not because
      the Jewish population caused it." If so, one needs to ask, at this
      time, why "anti-Semitism" is in a separate category from all other
      forms of racism and why it is used and kept alive almost exclusively
      by Jews instead of using the more accurate term, "anti-Jewish

      "Jews in any country," asserts Werdinger, "have a right to wonder why
      Israeli human rights violations are put forward while similar human
      rights disasters as well as daily ongoing oppressions (many of them
      in nations neighboring Israel) go unmentioned."

      Israel's supporters across the political spectrum are constantly
      putting out such a message as if by repeating it over and over,
      people will accept it as true. Well, Ms. Werdinger, it isn't. While
      no one that I am aware of justifies undemocratic regimes in the
      Middle East, there are no similar human rights disasters taking place
      in these countries.

      There is oppression, jailing of political prisoners, and lack of
      basic democratic rights among Israel's neighbors, but none are
      occupying and confiscating another people's land, collectively
      punishing them on a daily basis for almost four decades, destroying
      their homes and orchards and holding over 6000 as political prisoners
      with no legal rights whatsoever. Moreover, none of them are
      recipients of billions of dollars in aid such as Israel is provided
      by the US not to mention America's blatant protection in the UN and
      other international forums which extends to its silence concerning
      Israel's known nuclear stockpile.

      Ms. Werdinger objects to a slogan that she saw on some signs at last
      year's anti-war rally which read, she claimed, `No War for the Jewish
      Supremacists." But if it used to be okay to openly criticize "white
      supremacy" as I am sure Ms. Werdinger and her friends once did, what
      is the problem with criticizing Jewish supremacy when it is clearly
      shown to be racist in the case of Israel? Or is not the fact that she
      and I, both Jews, have more of a right to live in Israel, should we
      so choose, than a Palestinian born there, racist on its face?

      Aside from that, it has become increasingly apparent that a
      collection of nearly two dozen neo-cons, almost all Jewish and very
      pro-Israel, have assumed positions of incredible influence over US
      foreign policy, particularly as it is applied in the Middle East.
      Having disposed of Saddam Hussein, as Israel requested, (after having
      been deceived by Israel's faulty intelligence concerning Iraq's
      alleged WMDs), they have now set their sights on Syria which has
      never done anything to harm the US and on Hizbollah, the Lebanese
      resistance organization whose only "crime," in Israeli eyes is that
      they whipped the butts of Israel's vaunted military and sent its
      occupying army back across the border in 2000, ending 22 years of US-
      funded occupation.

      The neocons would not have been able to act with such confidence
      without the strong backing of Israel's powerful domestic lobbies,
      foremost among them, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee
      (AIPAC) which holds both houses of Congress in thrall and the
      Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations which
      lobbies the White House and keeps the present Resident on a short
      leash. At the same time, the Democrats tumble over one another to
      find words pleasing to the major Jewish funders who usually have the
      final say so over who the party's candidate is going to be. John
      Kerry is only the latest to play the whore.

      On the national level, every month, as reported by JJ Goldberg,
      editor of the Jewish weekly Forward, in his 1996 book, "Jewish
      Power," the major Jewish organizations meet in Washington to
      strategize in behalf of Israel. On the local level, in every
      community with an extensive Jewish population, there is a Jewish
      Community Relations Council that successfully intimidates politicians
      and the media. The major newspapers in large cities like the New York
      Times, The Washington Post, the LA Times and the San Francisco
      Chronicle-- that two are Jewish owned is immaterial--are all
      monitored by Jewish organizations that scan their daily reporting
      from the Middle East for any sign of what can be interpreted as a pro-
      Palestinian or anti-Israel bias. Meanwhile, Jewish organizations are
      constantly sending delegations of local public officials on all
      expense-paid trips to Israel, knowing that is from their ranks that
      future members of Congress will emerge. Does anyone seriously
      believe this is happening haphazardly? I don't and I have a name for
      it: conspiracy, and it is undermining what little is left of our
      democratic institutions.

      To be sure, this conspiracy involves only a minority of America's
      Jews, essentially those who are active in established Jewish
      organizations, both religious and secular, but it is a powerful
      minority. From this segment comes the community's "official"
      spokesmen and .women while those with opinions critical of Israeli
      policies, outside of the organized community, are marginalized.. The
      problem is that the majority of those not actively engaged in pro-
      Israel activities and pushed to the margins (as well as many of those
      who claim to be working for the Palestinian cause) are in a state of
      denial about the role of the organized Jewish community, i.e., the
      pro-Israel lobby, and, like Roberta Werdinger, are just as quick as
      the latter to accuse anyone who suggests that there is a Jewish
      conspiracy of being an "anti-Semite."

      This represents more of a gut reaction on their part based on a
      deeply felt, if not wholly accurate, view of the historical Jewish
      past, than a deliberate cover-up, but the result is the same. Their
      obviously sincere statements that the official Jewish spokespersons
      don't represent them become, under these circumstances, little more
      than a form of "damage control" designed to shield any segment of the
      Jewish community from legitimate criticism, and this itself has
      contributed to the growth of "anti-semitism."



      Published today March 18, 2004 in the Anderson Valley Advertiser

      The Impact of Zionism on Jewish, Christian and Muslim Relations

      by Rajnaara Akhtar

      Friends of Al-Aqsa - London March 17, 2004 (info@...)

      On Monday March 15th , Friends of Al-Aqsa hosted a groundbreaking
      conference bringing together people of the Jewish, Christian and
      Muslim faiths to discuss the impact of the Zionist movement on the
      cross cultures around the world in general and in particular in
      Palestinian. The opening remarks by Mr Ibrahim Hewitt with the
      universal greeting of peace "Asalaamu alaikum", set the tone of
      the conference which remained prevalent throughout the event.

      The internationally respected panel of speakers included Dr Ilan
      Pappe from Haifa, Israel; Professor AbdelWaheb Elmessiri from Cairo,
      Egypt; Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss from New York, US; Reverend Stephen
      Sizer from the Christ Church, Virginia Water and Dr Azzam Tamimi from
      London. Each speaker courageously showed that he was not afraid to
      speak the silent truth of the effects of Zionism on his people.

      "Zionism is a colonial ideology instigated by Napoleon" were the
      words used by Reverend Stephen Sizer in describing the emergence of
      the idea of an exclusive Jewish State in the land of Palestine, which
      is the Zionist ideology. He stated that the beginnings of the state
      of Israel is intertwined with the desire of the British and the
      French to take control of this pivotal land so as to maintain their
      elevated positions over the emerging powers in South Asia, Africa and
      the Arab world. It was simple convenience that they also solved the
      European Jewish `problem' simultaneously. Dr Tamimi confirmed this in
      his speech when he elucidated on the Arab negotiations prior to the
      Balfour declaration, and he stated that the Arab Muslims at that time
      were willing to give refuge to the oppressed Jewish people fleeing
      Europe, just as they had historically given the Jews refuge. This
      offer was rejected and thus the state of Israel was created on land
      stolen from the Palestinian people, who to this day continue to suffer
      the oppression and torture.

      Rabbi Weiss is strongly opposed to Zionism and he detailed the
      history of Palestine and stating that over the centuries, many pious
      Jews had settled in Palestine but had never sought to rule it as the
      Zionists are doing, "by driving out many of [the Palestinians] and
      subjecting those that stayed to persecution and second class
      citizenship." He described this as a terrible sin and crime,
      expressly forbidden by the Torah. He detailed the peaceful co-
      existence between Jewish people and their Muslim Palestinian
      neighbours, who were collectively subject to persecution by assorted
      foreign powers during various points in time. "This peaceful
      existence was shattered when the Zionist immigration began and
      sought to deprive the indigenous people of their basic dignity as
      human beings."

      The Israeli government is quick to blame all acts of aggression
      against the Israeli people as acts of terrorism by
      Palestinian `terrorists'. The Rabbi's view is that the Zionists have
      rejected the second commandment of the Torah: "Thou shall not steal",
      by dispossessing the Palestinian people. "These rejections have
      assuredly been subject to Providential punishments and have
      created the armed resistance and its actions."

      The effects of the state of Israel are not limited to the Middle
      East region.

      Israel plays a pivotal role in the government policies of the only
      super power of our time – the United States . Reverend Sizer's
      presentation touched upon the effects of Christian Zionism in the
      US , which has an estimated 60 million supporters, 80 thousand
      churches and numerous media networks which it uses as a mouthpiece.
      This has been described as the fastest growing cult in America , and
      in the past has influenced presidents such as Carter and Reagan. Hard
      core Christian Zionists have labelled all peace initiatives
      as `satanic' and have openly expressed hostility to any peaceful
      existence of Israel side by side with Palestine . Dr Ilan Pappe
      backed this view and stated that American politics is very much
      supported and narrated by the American connection to Israel . It is
      widely believed that the Christian Zionist lobby group in America is
      the single most influential group and does not hesitate to back
      Israel no matter what their actions.

      Reverend Sizer believes that it is the Christian Zionists that form
      the greatest threat to the security of America and Israel , and
      also a significant cause for a rise in Anti-Semitism which he fears
      may occur in time. "Christian Zionists are following a political
      agenda which is leading us to an apocalyptic future".

      The convergence of ideas would have made many unaware of the
      differences between each speaker's faith. Dr Pappe particularly
      identified the growing Islamaphobia around the globe as being in
      favour of Israel . He described 3 struggles in his life: against
      denial by Israel of the true catastrophe's for the Palestinians in
      1948; against the fear being created in Israeli society by the
      purposeful demonisation of Islam; and the battle against the Israeli
      government to marginalise him and obstruct his work in spreading the

      He explained that the history being taught in Israel is very
      different to the reality of 1948 and the premises upon which Israel
      was built. "It is only recently that we have come to realise the
      scope and the extent of the ethnic cleansing that had taken place in
      Palestine in 1948." When he gained this understanding in the 1970's,
      he sought to disseminate the true facts and found that many
      Palestinians and indeed some Israeli Jews were seeking to disseminate
      the same facts. It is clear that his struggle against the Zionist
      lies and propaganda has not been easy. In particular, the Zionist
      regime has demonised Islam and successfully caused great fear of
      Muslims within the Israeli mind. Dr Pappe believes that this gives the
      Israeli government the autonomy to order any and every type of
      atrocity against the Palestinians without a need to justify each act
      to either the Israeli's nor the world at large. However, time is
      running out for them as their own people, and the people of their
      guardian the United States , will no longer accept what is being done
      to the Palestinians in their name. In order to reverse this
      inevitable trend, Israel is trying to obstruct people like Dr Pappe
      from educating people on the truth about the occupation and makes
      great efforts to marginalise them and their views. Speaking of the
      Israeli's, he poignantly stated that "if people want to be a part of
      the Middle East , they have to accept the Islamic civilisation".

      The conference was concluded on the theme of `Looking at the future",
      and Dr Tamimi shared his vision of a free Holy land for all people,
      whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim. He stated "No to Israel; Yes to
      Jews" as the future of the Middle East. His vision is that of an
      Islamic government ruling the Holy land, as it is Islam that compels
      the protection of all faith groups who live within Muslim lands. Jews
      living under Islamic rule would be protected from harm and entitled
      to their own social and legal systems as prescribed by their own
      chosen leaders. Islam would not be imposed upon them and nor would
      they be persecuted, oppressed or treated as second class citizens.

      Dr Tamimi stated that "the Palestinians have been victims but the
      Jews have been victim's as-well and we have to recognise that". His
      view is that the future lies with a "United States of the Middle
      East", as Israel would be unviable on its own. If they lost the
      support and backing of the United States , all the Israeli's would
      flee from Israel as they cannot sustain themselves. There are no
      natural resources and not enough water to ensure their survival. To
      continue there, they would need the support of the Muslims. He ended
      by stating that "the Jewish people have a place with us, as they
      always have had in the past".

      Friends of Al-Aqsa organised this conference with the aim of creating
      bonds between Jewish, Christian and Muslim friends, disseminating
      hidden truths about Zionism and bringing together the three faith
      groups for a united future.


      Name Feda' - Canada
      Title Stopping the Palestinian Resistance or the Israeli Aggression!?

      Question Dear Sheikh, As-Salamu `Alaykum wa Rahmatullah wa Barakatuh.
      In view of the current American call on the Palestinians and the Arab
      leaders that, if they really want peace, they should stop martyr
      operations first. Do not you think that the correct procedure is for
      the Israelis to return the usurped lands and stop its aggression
      against the Palestinians? We need your elaboration on this! Jazakum
      Allah Khayran!

      Date 22/Mar/2004

      Sheikh Faysal Mawlawi

      Wa`alykum As-Salaamu Warahmatullahi Wabarakaatuh.

      In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

      All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be
      upon His Messenger.

      Brother, thanks a lot for your question, which shows how far you are
      interested in supporting and serving the cause of your fellow
      Palestinians whose agony is unprecedented. We implore Almighty Allah
      to help Muslim Ummah restore its lost glory!

      As regards your question, we'd like to clarify that such a statement
      means nothing than pointing the finger at Muslims, as the only party
      to blame for the crisis. The question why the Palestinians fight back
      should be addressed in the light of the non-stop Israeli aggression
      against the innocent people, demolishing their homes, destroying
      their properties, humiliating their leadership, killing their

      Viewing the issue in Islamic perspectives, Muslim scholars, in all
      their fatwas, have made it clear that Islam, basically, does not
      sanction violence, be it on Muslims or non-Muslims. But they also
      stressed that, when attacked or their land invaded, Muslims have the
      right to resist the aggression. So if there is a genuine will to
      address the Middle East crisis, a strong warning should be directed
      to the source of aggression, not to the helpless victims, who are
      just defending themselves.

      Shedding more light on this fact, Sheikh Faysal Mawlawi, Deputy
      Chairman of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, states:

      "It's an unfailing demand of Islam that all forms of aggression
      practiced against innocent people should be halted, and peace should
      be given a chance to breathe. In case, the aggressor refuses to do
      this, we, Muslims are to fight him until he backs down. Almighty
      Allah says: "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight
      against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not
      aggressors." (Al-Baqarah: 190)

      So it's clear that Muslims are urged to listen to the call of peace
      only when the enemy stops his aggression. In the Qur'an, we
      read: "And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it, and
      trust in Allah. Lo! He is the Hearer, the Knower." (Al-Anfal: 61)

      It is not possible in any way to resort to peace while the enemy is
      still keeping his aggression in momentum. This will mean nothing than

      However, the US government still reiterates that it is the
      Palestinians who must stop violence first. This is unreasonable
      indeed! Israel refuses to stop its acts of aggression and occupation.
      Still, the Americans want the Palestinians to stand with their hands
      tied while their honor is being violated, their houses being
      destroyed, and their wives and children being slaughtered in cold
      blood. How come?!"

      Allah Almighty knows best.


      Zionism And The Politics Of Assassination

      On Extra-judicial Executions

      By Mazin Qumsiyeh

      03/22/04: As the fourth strongest army in the world, Israel could have
      arrested the quadriplegic and partially blind spiritual elder of the
      Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas). But history shows that such
      extrajudicial executions (200 so far) create instability and a cycle
      of revenge that is calculated to serve Zionist colonization efforts.

      Political Zionism started in 1845 with a British feasibility study for
      Jewish colonization in Palestine to further British interests in
      weakening the Ottoman Empire and establish connections to colonial
      holdings in India. The adoption of this political (as opposed to
      religious or cultural) Zionism by a small but very influential
      segment of Ashkenazi Jews in Europe was deemed crucial for success.
      Zionism remained marginal among Jews until it capitalized on the
      atrocities of WWII. Early advocates of Zionism did not shy away from
      using the term colonization to describe their activities or to
      describe the use of violence to achieve their goals because natives
      will always resist such efforts. This violence against native
      Palestinians started in 1917 when the Zionist Herbert Samuel was
      appointed as British high commissioner. He made it clear with violent
      action that the end result will be the creation of a Jewish state in
      a land that had less than 6% Jewish population.

      Most native Jews, including the Palestinian Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem,
      were opposed to Zionism at the time. Before 1917 Palestinian
      Christians, Muslims, and Jews coexisted in relative harmony. Violence
      between 1917 and 1949 resulted in the establishment of a Jewish state
      and the ethnic cleansing of 530 Palestinian villages and towns.
      Israel rejected International law by adopting exclusionary laws that
      prevent refugees from returning while offering automatic citizenship
      to Jews (including converts) from anywhere in the world. Zionists
      expected resistance of Palestinian Christians and Muslims. 800,000
      were made refugees by 1949 (now nearly 5 million including Yassin's
      family). Israeli leaders from Ben Gurion to Sharon have always used
      the 'Zionist response' to resistance: overwhelming violence and
      increased colonization.

      It was Zionist Jews who first to plant bombs in market places
      (1930s), first bomb civilian neighborhoods using aircraft (1947),
      first sent mail letter bombs (1940s), and first to hijack (1954) and
      shoot down (1973) civilian airplanes. As our biased mainstream US
      media keeps emphasizing, Palestinians also engaged in expected
      violent resistance. Violence is a symptom and was used to further
      colonization efforts whether in Palestine or in America (against
      Native Americans). It is not a coincidence that the major waves of
      expulsions of Palestinians occurred between October 1947 to January
      1949 and in June 1967. It is not a coincidence that in the name
      of 'security', Israel destroyed over 3000 Palestinian homes rendering
      some 15,000 civilians homeless most in the most desirable land. The
      Apartheid wall being built with the excuse of the violence is not
      separating Israel from the occupied areas but is surrounding
      Palestinians in small cantons to starve them and force them to leave.
      Thus, Zionist leaders deem violence and escalation a sound strategy
      because, as the first Prime Minister of Israel admitted, peace would
      mean having to restore rights to native people.

      Israel's assassination of Sheikh Yassin was described as stupid (Gush
      Shalom), horrendous mistake (Yossi Beilin), contrary to International
      law (Amnesty International and the European Union), and a war crime
      (Israeli liberal leaders). I think such actions remove any doubt
      about the fact that political Zionism is incompatible with peace in
      the 21st century. As for us here, Israel's strong lobby in congress
      drained us of over $100 billion in direct aid and much more
      indirectly. It is responsible for the low standing of the US around
      the world. The price tag is much higher in lives lost: American,
      Israeli, Palestinian, Iraqi, and others.

      Just like South Africa shed apartheid, Israel must shed Zionism and
      become a country for people of all religions rather than a country
      for and by Jews. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (including
      the right of refugees to return) provides the most logical road map
      to peace. The American public can no longer afford to allow our
      government to keep supporting violence and war against the will of
      the international community. Only then will we begin to rectify
      historic injustices and bring peace at home and abroad.

      Mazin Qumsiyeh is an associate professor at Yale University and co-
      founder of the Palestine Right to Return Coalition.

      Resolution condemning killing of Hamas leader defeated by US veto in
      Security Council

      UN News Center


      25 March 2004 – The United Nations Security Council today failed to
      adopt a resolution that would have condemned the assassination of
      Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, with the United States vetoing what
      it called a one-sided text.

      The resolution, sponsored by Algeria and Libya, garnered 11 tallies
      in favour, with the United States casting the sole vote against it.
      Germany, Romania and the United Kingdom abstained.

      Speaking before the vote, Ambassador John D. Negroponte of the United
      States explained that his country opposed the resolution because it
      was "silent about the terrorist atrocities committed by Hamas," did
      not reflect the realities of the conflict in the Middle East
      and "because it will not further the goals of peace and security in
      the region."

      Ambassador Negroponte said the United States was "deeply troubled" by
      the killing of Sheikh Yassin. "Israel's action has escalated tensions
      in Gaza and the region, and could set back our efforts to resume
      progress towards peace," he said.

      But he added that events must be considered in their context and the
      Council "does nothing to contribute to a peaceful settlement when it
      condemns one party's actions and turns a blind eye to everything else
      occurring in the region."

      Following the vote, Algeria's Ambassador, Abdallah Baali, said the
      result was as if the Security Council concluded that it had no say in
      the terrible tragedy unfolding in that part of the world. "By not
      condemning the extrajudicial killing of Sheikh Yassin, the Security
      Council is not sending the right message to the world which has
      unanimously condemned this crime," he said.

      Ambassador Baali added that the Council was not sending the right
      message to those who sincerely believed that it was the custodian of
      international law. "But it is certainly sending the wrong message to
      Israel, whose representative boasted two days ago in this very
      chamber about the crime and vowed to continue the unlawful policy of
      extrajudicial killings," he said.

      If adopted, the text would have condemned "the most recent
      extrajudicial execution committed by Israel, the occupying Power,"
      that killed Sheikh Ahmed Yassin along with six other Palestinians
      outside a mosque Monday in Gaza City, and called for a complete end
      to such killings.

      The draft expressed the Council's grave concern at the continued
      deterioration of the situation on the ground in the occupied
      Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, as a result of the
      escalation of violence and attacks, and condemned all terrorist
      attacks against any civilians as well as all acts of violence and

      The draft also called on all sides to immediately undertake an
      unconditional cessation of acts of violence, including all acts of
      terrorism, provocation, incitement and destruction.

      In a related provision, the Council would have called for the end to
      all illegal measures and practices and for respect for and adherence
      to international humanitarian law. Both parties would have been
      called on to fulfil their obligations under the Road Map and to work
      with the Quartet to implement it, in order to achieve the vision of
      the two States living side-by-side in peace and security.

      The Road Map is a plan sponsored by the UN, European Union, Russian
      Federation and United States that calls for a series of parallel and
      reciprocal steps leading to two States living side by side in peace
      by 2005.



      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.