Discussion about 09/11/2001: [imra] Daily digest - Volume: 2 Issue: 1355 (15 messages)

Friday, March 24, 2006

[imra] Daily digest - Volume: 2 Issue: 1355 (15 messages)

imra Fri Mar 24 00:22:53 2006 Volume 2 : Issue 1355

In this issue of the imra daily Digest:

Summary of Indictments Served Today
Against 'Al Qaeda' Terrorists in Samaria
Acting PM Olmert Meets With Members of
Movement For Quality Government in Israel
Palestinian Attack on Rafedia Hospital in Nablus
1 Citizen Killed and 3 Injured in Armed Clashes in Gaza
Syria to Buy 5 Thousands Tons Apples from
Occupied Syrian Golan Farmers
MEMRI: Mubarak's Recent Decree Allowing
Church Rebuilding is "Toothless"
FM Livni meets with Italian leaders
Study Decrying "Israel Lobby"
Marred by Numerous Errors
4 Citizens injured by Gunfire in a Wedding
Celebration in Khan Yunis
Excerpts: Mistreatment of foreign workers in
Dubai.Sectarian violence. 23 March 2006
Poll: Kadima 33-34 Labor 17-18 Likud 16-17
Yisrael Beiteinu 10-11 NRP/Nat'l Union 9
Gush Katif's rabbi: Chessed activities
should wait till after Election Day
Palestinians students burn their school
President Abbas, Dweik Agree Holding
Cabinet's Confidence Session Next Week
PLO Rejects Hamas Program,
Palestinian Stage Set for Crisis

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Summary of Indictments Served Today
Against 'Al Qaeda' Terrorists in Samaria

March 21st, 2006

BACKGROUND INFORMATION [provided by IDF Spokesperson's Office]

Attributed to "security sources"

Summary of indictments served today against two 'Al-Qaeda' terrorists

Today, March 21st 2006, an indictment was served to the military court in
Samaria against Azam Abu Al'aads and Ba'lal Hafnaui, both residents of
Nablus, born in 1986. The two are charged with conspiring to intentionally
cause death, active membership in the 'Al-Qaeda' terror organization,
illegal assembly and additional charges.

The main charges are as follows:

The two men were active members of the 'Al-Qaeda' terror organization,
created an 'Al-Qaeda' cell in the Nablus area and had planned to carry out a
large scale terror attack in the 'French Hill' neighborhood in Jerusalem.

In 2005 the two were recruited to 'Al-Qaeda' in Jordan, where they received
instructions from 'Al-Qaeda' members to build up an 'Al-Qaeda'
infrastructure in Judea and Samaria. This with the intent of carrying out
large scale attacks inside Israel. Abu Al'aads and Hafnaui agreed and began
to build up the infrastructure in the area of Nablus, recruiting members and
beginning to plan attacks.

The infrastructure was in close contact via the internet with 'Al-Qaeda'
members in Jordan who issued them orders and also transferred large sums of
money to the Nablus based cell.

Prior to their arrest the cell members had recruited potential suicide
bombers to carry out the terror attack involving a suicide bomber who was to
explode in a pizza parlor in the 'French Hill' neighborhood and a car bomb,
to be detonated near the crowd and rescue teams expected to assemble at the
site of the suicide bombing.

The two men were arrested by security forces on December 10th 2005 at the
'Allenby Bridge' crossing between Jordan and Israel, thwarting the planned
attack.

Hafnaui had been a member of the 'Hamas' terror organization between
2002-2003 and a member of the 'Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigades' terror
organization between 2004-2005. He is also charged with use/possession of
weaponry (explosive belts, pipe bombs, various assault rifles and
ammunition), manufacturing explosives and explosive devices and aiding
wanted terrorists.

Abu Al'aads was recruited to the 'Al-Qaeda' terror organization in May 2005.
He is also charged with possession of weaponry (pipe bombs and an assault
rifle) and participating in paramilitary training.

This is a general translated summary of the indictments, the full legal
documents are available in Hebrew. Press wishing to receive the indictments
are requested to contact the IDF Spokesperson News Desk.

------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Acting PM Olmert Meets With Members of
Movement For Quality Government in Israel

Acting PM Olmert Meets With Members of Movement For Quality Government in
Israel
(Communicated by the Prime Minister's Media Adviser)

Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met this afternoon (Tuesday), 21.3.06,
with members of the Movement for Quality Government in Israel
( www.mqg.org.il ), including its Chairman Eliad Shraga, and signed
the movement's charter against corruption. The Acting Prime Minister said
that he was pleased that the heads of most political parties in Israel have
signed the charter and added that the issue was of utmost importance.

------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Palestinian Attack on Rafedia Hospital in Nablus

PCHR
Palestinian Centre for Human Rights

Security Chaos and Proliferation of Small Arms
Attacking Public Institutions and Officials

Field Update
22 March 2006

Attack on Rafedia Hospital in Nablus

A number of gunmen stormed Rafedia Hospital in Nablus yesterday morning.
They assaulted a patient with sharp objects, worsening his injuries. In
addition, they injured other citizens as they fired at Palestinian security
personnel.

PCHR's initial investigation indicates that at approximately 10:00 on
Tuesday, 21 March 2006, two injured citizens were admitted to the hospital.
One of the injured was Eyad Zayed Jamil Dweikat, a 40-year old resident of
Rojit village, north east of Nablus. He was injured by a sharp object stab
in the left part of the neck. The second injured citizen is Ahmad Mohammad
Hasan Hamad, a 57-year old resident of Orraq El-Tayeh village, north of
Nablus. He was injured by a superficial stab to the chest area.

As the hospital staff members were tending the injured, a number of gunmen
armed with automatic stormed the hospital. They attacked Dweikat, and
stabbed him 3 times, making his injuries worse.

Hospital security arrived upon the request of physicians and nurses. However
the gunmen fired inside the hospital. They injured Fatima Awaysa, a 40-year
old resident of El-Laban El-Sharqeya village, southeast of Nablus. She was
hit with a bullet in the left leg. In addition, they injured Basel Dawud Abu
Taha, from Nablus, with shrapnel in the left leg.

Dr. Husam El-Johari, the hospital director, told PCHR's fieldworker that he
had informed governmental authorities about the incident, which is a
recurrent problem on a daily basis.

PCHR is concerned about the continuation of this dangerous attack and the
continued targeting of public institutions, which constitute a continuum of
the state of security chaos in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and
threatens the lives of citizens. The Centre reiterates its call upon the
PNA, represented by the Attorney-General, to investigate these attacks, and
to bring the perpetrators to justice.

Public Document
**************************************
For more information please call PCHR office in Gaza, Gaza Strip, on +972 8
2824776 - 2825893
PCHR, 29 Omer El Mukhtar St., El Remal, PO Box 1328 Gaza, Gaza Strip.
E-mail: pchr@pchrgaza.org, Webpage http://www.pchrgaza.org
-----------------------------------
If you got this forwarded and you want to subscribe, send mail to
request@pchrgaza.org
and write "subscribe" in the subject line.

------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: 1 Citizen Killed and 3 Injured in Armed Clashes in Gaza

PCHR
Palestinian Centre for Human Rights

Security Chaos and Proliferation of Small Arms
Clashes between Armed Groups or with Security Forces

Field Update
22 March 2006

1 Citizen Killed and 3 Injured in Armed Clashes in Gaza

One citizen was killed and 3 were injured, among them 2 policemen, in an
armed clash between a clan and the police in Gaza city. The incident, which
occurred this morning, took place after the kidnapping of a policeman.

PCHR's initial investigation indicates that at approximately 10:45 on
Wednesday, 22 March 2006, an armed school student called Salama El-Oweidat
(16) led a group of students in an effort to suspend school in the Nile
Secondary School for Boys in Sabra neighborhood in Gaza City. They did this
under the pretext of marking the anniversary of the martyrdom of Ahmad
Yassin. However, the school principal and teachers prevented him from doing
so. The policeman Ashraf Mansour, who was in the vicinity of the school,
intervened to take El-Oweidat and his companions out of the school, and
called for police reinforcements. The argument between the police and
El-Oweidat escalated, and the latter fired shots from his pistol at the
school gate. The police subdued El-Oweidat and arrested him.

Gunmen from El-Oweidat family came to the school and kidnapped the policeman
Ashraf Mansour. They fired their guns during the kidnapping. As soon as the
police learned of the kidnapping, a force was dispatched to the area where
the policeman was held, in El-Oweidat clan residences in Sabra neighborhood
in Gaza City. The police clashed with the gunmen. The citizen Eyad Mohammad
Suliman El-Deiri (18) was killed by a bullet to the head in the exchange of
fire. In addition, the citizen Yunis El-Shinbar (22) was injured by a bullet
in the leg. He was taken to Shifa Hospital for treatment. Also, 2 policemen
were also injured. The first is Nabil Abu Amra (22) who sustained shrapnel
injuries to the head. He was taken to Shifa Hospital for treatment. The
second policeman is Khalid Hamdi Arshi (20). He suffered a bullet injury to
the chest, and was taken to Al-Quds Hospital for treatment.

PCHR learned that the kidnapped policeman was released at approximately
15:00. Furthermore, the police released the detained youth, Salama
El-Oweidat.

PCHR is concerned about the continuation of these dangerous attacks, which
constitute a continuum of the state of security chaos in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory. The Centre calls upon the PNA, represented by the
Attorney-General, to investigate these attacks, and to bring the
perpetrators to justice.

------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Syria to Buy 5 Thousands Tons Apples from
Occupied Syrian Golan Farmers

Syria to Buy 5 Thousands Tons Apples from Occupied Syrian Golan Farmers
Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 08:35 PM

Qunaitera, SANA - Syrian News Agency
www.sana.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=24252&newlang=eng

Deputy Governor of southern city of Qunaitera Nadim Merza said Syria had
decided to buy apples from the farmers of the occupied Syrian Golan to
contribute to easing their suffering as the Israeli occupation imposes siege
on their products.

Al-Thawra Daily reported early this week that a number of trucks loaded with
apples crossed into the liberated city Qunaitera on Monday through
International Red Cross.

The report added that more than 5 thousands tons of apples are expected to
enter the Syrian markets gradually.

"The move comes in the framework of President Bashar al-Assad's directives
to support our people in Golan who are still adhered to the Syrian identity
and reject Israeli bids to judaize the Syrian Golan," Merza added.

Mazen / S. Younes

------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: MEMRI: Mubarak's Recent Decree Allowing
Church Rebuilding is "Toothless"

Special Dispatch - Egypt
March 23, 2006
No. 1122

Coptic Egyptian Website: Mubarak's Recent Decree Allowing Church Renovation
and Rebuilding is "Toothless"

In early December, 2005, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak issued a
presidential decree easing the severe restrictions on repairing and
rebuilding churches in Egypt.(1) In an editorial in the Coptic Internet
weekly Watani, editor Youssef Sidhom stated that the decree would
deliberately be implemented in a way that would render it meaningless, and
cited a letter by an Egyptian governor substantiating this claim.

The following are excerpts from the editorial, which was posted in English
on Watani:(2)

"Previous Presidential Decrees Which Eased Restrictions on Church Building
Have Frequently Been Implemented in a Manner That Emptied Them of Their
Content"

"[After the issuing of Decree 291,] the media rushed to praise [Mubarak's]
move, asking Copts of their opinion and pushing them to express their
gratitude. Some even went to the length of deluding the public into
believing that the decree put an end to all the problems of building
churches. They claimed the Himayouni Edict - which pre-requires a
presidential decree for the building of any new church - was abolished once
and for all, and that complete equality among Egyptians as regards building
and restoring places of worship has been attained.

"While some Copts adopted a pessimistic stance and argued that the decree
offered nothing new, Watani was keen to objectively analyse the move. We
wrote that the decree was a good step forward on the road towards a unified
law for places of worship and, if properly implemented, could alleviate many
of the hardships of church building. We argued that the presidential
authority over licensing new churches - as opposed to mosques, the building
of which was subject to no restrictions whatsoever - violated equality among
Egyptians. We wrote that the new decree should be taken with caution, since
previous presidential decrees which eased restrictions on church building
had been frequently implemented in a manner that emptied them of their
content. Security authorities, Watani wrote, should not be allowed to
interfere in the process, because they have been notorious in their
restrictive domination of church building."

"Was Decree 291 a Mere Attempt to Give the Egyptian Regime the [Appearance]
of Tolerance Before the Outside World?"

"No more than a few weeks later, our fears materialised. It appears that the
executive apparatuses in the municipalities are unhappy with the decree, and
find it extremely difficult to give up the power to humiliate Copts and
control church affairs. Before going into the details of the case in
question however, a few questions beg answers. Who defends presidential
decrees against trifling with? Was the decree 291 of 2005 a mere attempt to
give the Egyptian regime a gloss-over of tolerance before the outside world?
Did the decree fulfill its purpose through mobilising the media to praise
the generosity of the regime? If the answers to these questions is no, how
can the following story be explained?

"On 16 January 2006, the general manager of the office of Assiut governor
sent the following letter to local administrators: 'We have the honour to
attach herewith the instructions concerning the restoration and renovation
of existing churches. Please abide by these regulations with the utmost
precision. The following documents should be attached to any application in
this regard:

"1. A letter of authorisation from the head of the sect, citing the name and
address of the person sanctioned to follow up on the procedures.

"2. A registered ownership document that should be reviewed by the legal
department at the municipality.

"3. Six copies of the architectural drawings approved by a certified
architect.

"4. A map of the site and its location, approved by the survey authority.

"5. A letter from the antiquities authority proving that the building is not
registered among those of historical values.

"6. The presidential decree licensing the erection of the church.

"7. A report from the local building authority indicating the required work.

"8. A review of the architectural drawing in accordance with the law
organising and regulating building.

"9. The date the documents are delivered to our office after being
completely reviewed is the date of the actual submission of the
application.'"

"The [Governor's] Letter Implies a Host of Violations to Presidential Decree
291"

"The letter implies a host of violations to the presidential decree 291 of
2005. First and foremost, the decree authorises governors to approve the
pulling down and rebuilding of existing churches, and stipulates that
restoration and renovation may be conducted upon the approval of the local
building authorities. Governors therefore have no role whatsoever in this
regard. I do not believe that these facts were accidentally ignored. Rather,
I assume the disregard was deliberate, because those who are well acquainted
with reconstruction realise that the papers cited in the letter pertain to
pulling down and rebuilding churches rather than restoring and renovating
them. It should neither be comprehensible nor acceptable to confuse the two
issues.

"Furthermore, the instruction of attaching the presidential decree which had
originally licensed the erection of the church signifies a sinister intent,
since an application for pulling down, rebuilding, or restoring a building
should implicitly imply that the building is already there. This takes us
back to the fact that many existing churches were originally built with no
license, because of the difficulty - in many cases impossibility - of
obtaining licenses for new churches. Authorities later accepted the
existence of these churches as a fait accompli, stationed policemen to
protect them, and enjoyed subjecting their congregations to the utmost
indignity by controlling and trifling with the destiny of their places of
worship. When it now comes to renovating or restoring these churches
however, the authorities act as though these churches never existed. Some of
these churches have been there for some sixty years when Egypt was a
monarchy; are the church officials required to
produce the royal decree which licensed the building?

"Those who extol the tolerance and generosity of the presidential decree 291
of 2005 should stand up to defend it. They should tell the governors and
officials who appear incapable of grasping its meaning: 'Shame on you.'"

Endnotes:
(1) Al-Akhbar (Egypt), December 8, 2005.
(2) http://www.wataninet.com/article_en.asp?articleid=5956

*********************
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is an independent,
non-profit organization that translates and analyzes the media of the Middle
East. Copies of articles and documents cited, as well as background
information, are available on request.

MEMRI holds copyrights on all translations. Materials may only be used with
proper attribution.

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)
P.O. Box 27837, Washington, DC 20038-7837
Phone: (202) 955-9070
Fax: (202) 955-9077
E-Mail: memri@memri.org
Search previous MEMRI publications at www.memri.org

------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: FM Livni meets with Italian leaders

FM Livni meets with Italian leaders 22-Mar-2006
(Communicated by the Foreign Minister's Bureau)

On the eve of the gathering of European Community leaders in Brussels,
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni met tonight (Wednesday, March 22, 2006) in Rome
with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and her Italian counterpart,
Gianfranco Fini.

At her meeting with the prime minister, total agreement was reached on the
need to uphold and preserve the three prerequisite conditions set by the
international community regarding Hamas (recognizing Israel, abandoning
terorism, and upholding Israel's agreements with the PA). They took note
that, during its rotating presidency of the European Union, Italy led the
move to include Hamas on the EU's list of terrorist organizations.

During the meeting, Prime Minister Berlusconi asked about the condition of
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and expressed the hope that he would soon regain
consciousness and return to his family.

At her meeting with her colleague Fini, FM Livni said that the international
community's preconditions regarding Hamas are not in doubt. She made it
clear that no legitimacy can be given the Hamas government as long as these
conditions are not met. Livni noted that Hamas is not only a terrorist
organization, but an extremist Islamist organization that educates
Palestinian children to hate and to murder Jews and Christians. She stressed
nonetheless that Israel does not intend to punish the Palestinian population
and would act to prevent a humanitarian crisis in the Palestinian Authority.

At a joint press conference following their meeting, FM Fini said in answer
to a question about the Gaza disengagement that the Government of Israel and
Prime Minister Sharon had taken a courageous and painful decision. He said
the Government of Israel had demonstrated that, when a democratic government
takes a painful decision, and despite the inherent difficulty carries it
out, this shows how different Israel is from its neighbors in the Middle
East and proves it is a true democracy.

Commenting on the Iranian nuclear issue, the Italian minister pointed out
the danger posed to the world by Iran's development of nuclear weapons. FM
Livni said that Iran is trying to win time to continue its weapons effort
and that this is to the world's detriment. She said that the deadline for
Israel is not the date Iran obtains a bomb, but the date it obtains the
know-how to make one.

Later in the evening Livni was to meet with oppostion leader Romano Prodi
and Vatican Foreign Minister Giovanni Lajolo.

------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Study Decrying "Israel Lobby"
Marred by Numerous Errors

Study Decrying "Israel Lobby" Marred by Numerous Errors

March 20, 2006by Alex Safian - CAMERA
For annotated version:
www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=35&x_article=1099

Study Decrying "Israel Lobby" Marred by Numerous Errors

A new study by Harvard professor Stephen Walt and University of Chicago
professor John Mearsheimer charges that the "Israel lobby" has distorted the
foreign policy of the United States to the point of serious damage to U.S.
interests. Perhaps anticipating that their claims might be controversial,
the authors attempt to reassure any who might doubt them:

":Some readers will find this analysis disturbing, but the facts recounted
here are not in serious dispute among scholars."

In fact, even a cursory examination of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign
Policy reveals that it is riddled with errors of fact, logic and omission,
has inaccurate citations, displays extremely poor judgement regarding
sources, and, contrary to basic scholarly standards, ignores previous
serious work on the subject. The bottom line: virtually every word and
argument is, or ought to be, in "serious dispute."
In other words, a student who submitted such a paper would flunk.
According to the report, which is posted on Harvard's Kennedy School of
Government website:

"The U.S. national interest should be the primary object of American foreign
policy. For the past several decades, however, and especially since the Six
Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy has been its
relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering U.S. support for
Israel and the related effort to spread democracy throughout the region has
inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized U.S. security."

"This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the
United States been willing to set aside its own security in order to advance
the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the
two countries is based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral
imperatives. As we show below, however, neither of those explanations can
account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the
United States provides to Israel."

"Instead, the overall thrust of U.S. policy in the region is due almost
entirely to U.S. domestic politics, and especially to the activities of the
"Israel Lobby." Other special interest groups have managed to skew U.S.
foreign policy in directions they favored, but no lobby has managed to
divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest
would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S.
and Israeli interests are essentially identical."

Why does America support Israel?

Is it true that U.S. policy in the Middle East, and specifically our support
for Israel, is due almost entirely to the activities of the "Israel Lobby?"
The authors are hardly the first to so argue, though one wouldn't know it
from reading their report, which, as noted, ignores all prior serious work
on the subject, including the seminal book refuting such claims by the late
Professor A.F.K. Organski, The $36 Billion Bargain: Strategy and Politics in
U.S. Assistance to Israel.

Though the authors do cite Organski's book once, on the strategic importance
of Israel during the cold war, they entirely ignore his main point, which is
that the primary reason for U.S. support of Israel can't possibly be the
Jewish vote, or Jewish political contributions, or the activities of any
pro-Israel lobby, for the simple reason that, as polls indicate, Jews were
just as pro-Israel before 1970, when U.S. support for Israel was minimal, as
they were after 1970, when U.S. support for Israel grew rapidly. As Organski
put it in his preface:

"In 1983 I ran across a Congressional Research Service series on assistance
to Israel from 1948 to 1983, and I was surprised by what I saw. The numbers
told an important story. Assistance to Israel before 1970 had been very low.
After 1972 levels shot up. The data fairly screamed that American Jews could
not have been responsible for U.S. policy, for it is elementary that one
cannot explain a variable with a constant, and American Jews had been in
favor of assistance all along..."

Now, the president in 1970 was Richard Nixon, a Republican who knew very
well that overwhelmingly Democratic and left-leaning American Jews had
already voted against him in large numbers and would do so again in 1972. So
what happened in 1970 that convinced Nixon, the arch practitioner of
realpolitik, to press for increased support for Israel? Here we can turn to
another seminal work on U.S./Israel relations, Israel: The Embattled Ally,
by the late Harvard professor, Nadav Safran. According to Safran the turning
point in U.S./Israel relations was the so-called Black September crisis, in
which the Palestine Liberation Organization, assisted by invading Syrian
tanks, and in connivance with the Soviet Union, attempted to overthrow and
assassinate Jordan's King Hussein, an ally of the United States (see pages
451-456). Had these two Soviet clients succeeded in taking Jordan, they
would have created an arc of radical Soviet client states pointing right at
the Persian Gulf, thereby threatening western oil supplies. As Safran put
it:

"In the White House conception, Jordan under King Hussein ... constituted an
important buffer separating the pro-Soviet radical regime of Egypt from
those of Syria and Iraq, and all three of them from oil-rich, friendly Saudi
Arabia and the Persian Gulf principalities. The fall of the Jordanian regime
would bring about a solid pro-Soviet bloc from the Euphrates to the Nile
..."

Safran continued:

"... [when] the Syrians captured Irbid, an important junction of roads
linking Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Israel ... King Hussein sent additional
urgent appeals for American and British help. Consultations with the British
... revealed that they not only refused to intervene militarily ... but
[also] strongly counseled against American intervention. Similar opposition
was expressed by other European allies. The President ordered Kissinger to
work out contingency plans for a joint American-Israeli intervention ..."

Confident of American and Israeli support, King Hussein was able to commit
all his forces to battle; fearful of that support, specifically of a
flanking attack by massed Israeli tank columns, the Syrians withdrew, and
Jordan was saved. According to Safran this affair had a profound effect on
U.S/Israel relations:

"The Jordanian episode had a far-reaching effect on the American attitude
toward Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict... the President ... was deeply
impressed by the determination shown by the Israelis at a time when America's
formal allies had quit on him. "

"... the Jordanian episode drove home to the President and some of his
advisers ... the value for the United States of a strong Israel."

Needless to say, Safran's work was also ignored by the authors.

Has support for Israel damaged U.S. interests, or caused terrorists to
target us?

Of course, the authors don't just argue that U.S. support for Israel was due
to the pro-Israel lobby rather than U.S. interests, they also argue that
this support has in fact damaged U.S. interests. They claim for example,
that because of its support for Israel the U.S. is targeted by terrorists:

"... the United States has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so
closely allied with Israel, not the other way around. U.S. support for
Israel is not the only source of anti- American terrorism, but it is an
important one, and it makes winning the war on terror more difficult. There
is no question, for example, that many al Qaeda leaders, including bin
Laden, are motivated by Israel's presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the
Palestinians. According to the U.S. 9/11 Commission, bin Laden explicitly
sought to punish the United States for its policies in the Middle East,
including its support for Israel, and he even tried to time the attacks to
highlight this issue."

While the 9/11 Commission report did mention Israel as a factor in the
attacks, there is much evidence to argue against the assertion, and they
certainly did not point to Israel as the major factor in provoking the
attacks. Indeed, according to documents cited by experts on Al Qaeda, such
as Rohan Gunaratna, the group attacked the United States on 9/11 (and
before) not primarily because of our support for Israel, but because of our
support for Saudi Arabia and other "moderate" Arab countries. As Gunaratna
explains in his book Inside Al Qaeda: Global Network of Terror, after Saddam
Hussein invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia, bin Laden was horrified
that the Saudis were considering a U.S. offer to send troops to protect the
Kingdom. Bin Laden urged against what he saw as sacrilege, and offered to
protect the Kingdom with his Afghan mujahidin, but the Saudis turned him
down and invited in the Americans. For inviting in the infidels, the Saudi
rulers would never be forgiven by bin Laden. Gunaratna quoted from bin Laden's
key fatwa on the subject:

"Ignoring the divine shariah law; depriving people of their legitimate
rights; allowing the Americans to occupy the land of the two Holy Places
[Mecca and Medina] ... the regime has torn off its legitimacy...

"Clearly after belief (iman) there is no more important duty than pushing
the Americans out of the holy land [Arabia]... There is no precondition for
this duty and the enemy must be fought with one's best abilities."

Al Qaeda's aim is to restore the caliphate (the unitary Arab Islamic state
that existed in the days of Muhammed and his followers), but they understand
that as long as the United States props up Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait and
Egypt and Jordan, with weapons and soldiers and financial support, and the
promise of military intervention if necessary, these regimes are unlikely to
fall. A key example of such regime resilience was seen in Egypt after the
assassination of Sadat in 1981 by radical Islamists, who thought that with
the leader gone the regime would fall. Instead the regime survived and
launched a brutal crackdown, decimating Egypt's Islamist movement. Among
those imprisoned, but eventually released, was a young man named Ayman
al-Zawahiri, who later rose to become Osama bin Laden's deputy and the
operational leader of Al Qaeda. The lesson learned by Islamist leaders from
the Sadat assassination was clear - with a powerful U.S. active and engaged
in the Middle East, the supported regimes would not fall. There would be no
caliphate, therefore, until the U.S. is humiliated and driven from the
Middle East, at which point the corrupt regimes will crumble into the
waiting hands of Al Qaeda.

Thus the earlier Al Qaeda attacks against the Unites States, in Saudi
Arabia, in Kenya and Tanzania, in Yemen, and finally on the U.S. homeland on
9/11. These attacks had nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with
U.S. support for Arab regimes. It should be noted also that Al Qaeda never
even tried to attack an Israeli target, much less Israel itself, until after
9/11.

Israel allegedly a bad ally

In their efforts to prove their at best exceptionally flimsy case the
authors also argue that Israel is a bad ally. For example, they allege,
Israel has compromised sensitive U.S. military technology:

"... Israel has provided sensitive U.S. military technology to potential
U.S. rivals like China, in what the U.S. State Department Inspector General
called "a systematic and growing pattern of unauthorized transfers.""

What they don't tell readers is that after the State Department report was
released its credibility was shredded. Richard Clarke, for example, then the
official in the State Department responsible for overseeing arms transfers,
and later President Clinton's counter-terrorism chief, stated there was one,
minor improper transfer, not a pattern of them:

"Under President Bush, Mr. Clarke served as Assistant Secretary of State for
political and military affairs. In 1992, he was accused by the State
Department's Inspector General of looking the other way as Israel
transferred American military technology to China. "

""There was an allegation that we hadn't investigated a huge body of
evidence that the Israelis were involved in technology transfers," Mr.
Clarke said. "In fact, we had investigated it. I knew more about it than
anyone. We found one instance where it was true. The Israelis had taken
aerial refueling technology we sold them and sold it to a Latin American
country. We caught them, and they admitted they had done it." "(New York
Times, Feb. 1, 1999)

And an article in the American Journalism Review raised further serious
questions about the reliability of the IG's report
:
"... a series of interviews with officials in the Defense Department, State
Department and CIA leaves no doubt that there are major and bitter
disagreements about whether the intelligence reports about Israel were as
conclusive as some claimed. For example, a senior Defense Department
official who examined both the classified and unclassified versions of the
IG report, as well as the raw intelligence reports collected by Funk to
assemble his study, said firmly that the "IG abjectly misrepresents the
intent and bottom line of the documents upon which his report was based."
And a former government official who had access to the raw intelligence
charged that the IG report was politicized. "The IG report," he said, "was a
dumping ground for anyone who wanted to get their digs in on Israel.""(May
1992)

In the same vein, the authors also charge that Israel passed to the Soviet
Union information it received from convicted spy Jonathan Pollard,
supposedly to get more exit visas for Soviet Jews. But this claim, which
originated in an extremely controversial sentencing memorandum submitted by
Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger, is known to be false. This is what
Prof. Angelo Codevilla (a former Senior Staff Member of the Senate
Intelligence Committee and intelligence specialist) had to say about the
charge in an interview:

"But back to the issue of what Pollard is being punished for. The indictment
that he agreed to plead guilty to did not charge him with any breach of
sources or methods. It did not charge him with giving away a room full of
anything. After the plea bargain had been consummated and before sentencing,
there was an ex parte submission to the Judge by Caspar Weinberger. This
memorandum was entirely outside the indictment. Its contents have never been
made public. Nor have they been shared with the Senate Intelligence
Committee or the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board or the
Intelligence Oversight Board. But this memo contained the lie that Pollard
caused the deaths of countless U.S. agents. It also reportedly said the
Israelis sold part of the information to the Soviet Union. All of these
things are not only untrue, they were known by Weinberger not to be
true."(Washington Weekly, Jan. 11, 1999)

Undermining the moral case for Israel

The authors also try to undermine the moral case for supporting Israel,
arguing, for example, that it is not, and has never been, the underdog in
the Middle East conflict. Thus, they claim that:

"Contrary to popular belief, the Zionists had larger, better-equipped and
better-led forces during the 1948-1949 War of Independence."

This claim is simply laughable. Consider, for example, the relative
strengths of the Israeli forces and the Arab forces arrayed against them
during the first critical weeks of the war:
--------------------------------------Tanks/Aircraft/Artillery/Troops
Israel--------------------------------003--/035---/005----/28,000
Arabs*------------------------------270--/300---/150----/35,000

*(not including regular Palestinian units)(From Arab-Israeli Wars, A.J.
Barker)

Thus, contrary to the authors, and in contrast to the invading Arabs, Israel
had essentially no tanks, barely any artillery pieces, and few if any
aircraft.

As for Israel being better led, the authors are apparently unaware that the
invading Arab forces were professional armies, while the Israeli forces
facing them were no better than militias, with experience only in small unit
operations. Just how foolish the authors' claims are can be seen by looking,
for example, at the Jordanian army, which was led by a highly experienced
British officer, General Sir John Bagot Glubb, along with roughly 40 other
British officers serving in senior ranks. At the time Israel simply had
nothing to compare to this level of experience and professionalism.

How then did the Israelis win? Quite simply they were able to win because
they were fighting for their lives, unlike the Arab forces, who could lose
and go home, and because the Arab leaders did not trust each other and often
acted at cross purposes.

The authors also try to undermine Israel's moral standing by citing
seemingly damaging quotes from Israeli leaders. They claim, for example,
that Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion stated that:

"After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the
state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine."

The authors are a little naive, and are apparently unaware that there is a
whole "industry" of fake Zionist quotes, both on anti-Israel websites, but
also in many seemingly respectable books. Too bad, then, for the authors,
that they didn't check this "quote" more carefully. Here's the actual
protocol of the relevant part of the meeting that the above alleged quote is
based upon:

"Mr. Ben-Gurion: The starting point for a solution of the question of the
Arabs in the Jewish State is, in his view, the need to prepare the ground
for an Arab-Jewish agreement; he supports [the establishment of] the Jewish
State [on a small part of Palestine], not because he is satisfied with part
of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we constitute
a large force following the establishment of the state - we will cancel the
partition [of the country between Jews and Arabs] and we will expand
throughout the Land of Israel."

"Mr. Shapira [a JAE member]: By force as well?"

"Mr. Ben-Gurion: [No]. Through mutual understanding and Jewish-Arab
agreement. So long as we are weak and few the Arabs have neither the need
nor the interest to conclude an alliance with us... And since the state is
only a stage in the realization of Zionism and it must prepare the ground
for our expansion throughout the whole country through Jewish-Arab
agreement - we are obliged to run the state in such a way that will win us
the friendship of the Arabs both within and outside the state.(Efraim Karsh,
"Falsifying the Record: Benny Morris, David Ben-Gurion and the 'Transfer'
Idea,"" Israel Affairs, V4, No. 2, Winter 1997)

In other words, Ben-Gurion was stating the opposite of what the authors
would have their readers believe.

Unfortunately for the authors, they also "quoted" Ben-Gurion a second time,
this time apparently supporting brutal measures to expel Palestinians:

"...the Zionists had to expel large numbers of Arabs from the territory that
would eventually become Israel. There was simply no other way to accomplish
their objective. Ben-Gurion saw the problem clearly, writing in 1941 that
"it is impossible to imagine general evacuation [of the Arab population]
without compulsion, and brutal compulsion.""

Amusingly enough, in this case the authors' own citation undermines their
claim. They refer to a Palestinian author, Nur Masalha, and to the book
Righteous Victims, by Israeli Benny Morris. Now either they never really
checked the latter, or they are trying to fool their readers, for this is
how Morris actually recounts the quote:

""Complete transfer without compulsion - and ruthless compulsion, at that -
is hardly imaginable." Some - Circassians, Druze, Bedouin, Shi'ites, tenant
farmers, and landless laborers - could be persuaded to leave. But "the
majority of the Arabs could hardly be expected to leave voluntarily within
the short period of time which can materially affect our problem." He
concluded that the Jews should not "discourage other people, British or
American, who favour transfer from advocating this course, but we should in
no way make it part of our programme."" (Righteous Victims, p 169)

In other words, if you take seriously the authors' own citation, it
disproves their claim.

Of course David Ben-Gurion is not the only Israeli Prime Minister the
authors criticize. They also go after former Prime Minister Ehud Barak,
claiming that his peace offer to the Palestinians was not generous at all:

"...no Israeli government has been willing to offer the Palestinians a
viable state of their own. Even Prime Minister Ehud Barak's purportedly
generous offer at Camp David in July 2000 would only have given the
Palestinians a disarmed and dismembered set of "Bantustans" under de facto
Israeli control. "

This claim about "bantustans," or cantons, was directly contradicted by the
one person who was in on all the negotiations, Ambassador Dennis Ross,
President Clinton's chief Middle East negotiator. According to Ross:

"... the Palestinians would have in the West Bank an area that was
contiguous. Those who say there were cantons, completely untrue. It was
contiguous... And to connect Gaza with the West Bank, there would have been
an elevated highway, an elevated railroad, to ensure that there would be not
just safe passage for the Palestinians, but free passage." (Fox News, April
21, 2002)

In addition to criticizing Ben-Gurion and Barak, the authors also try to
link Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to war crimes:

"[the IDF] was also complicit in the massacre of 700 innocent Palestinians
at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps following its invasion of Lebanon in
1982, and an Israeli investigatory commission found then-Defence Minister
Sharon "personally responsible" for these atrocities. "

In fact, while the Kahan Commission did find that Sharon bore "personal
responsibility," it is clear from the rest of the report that the authors
misunderstood this reference, which was in contrast to Ministerial
responsibility. In the latter a ministry makes a serious mistake, and the
Minister, though unaware, must take responsibility, since he heads the
ministry. With personal responsibility, the Minister himself made the
mistake. Sharon indeed was found to have made mistakes, but he was found to
be only indirectly responsible for the outcome. To quote from the report:

"Contentions and accusations were advanced that even if I.D.F. personnel had
not shed the blood of the massacred, the entry of the Phalangists into the
camps had been carried out with the prior knowledge that a massacre would be
perpetrated there and with the intention that this should indeed take place;
and therefore all those who had enabled the entry of the Phalangists into
the camps should be regarded as accomplices to the acts of slaughter and
sharing in direct responsibility. These accusations too are unfounded. We
have no doubt that no conspiracy or plot was entered into between anyone
from the Israeli political echelon or from the military echelon in the
I.D.F. and the Phalangists, with the aim of perpetrating atrocities in the
camps.... No intention existed on the part of any Israeli element to harm
the non-combatant population in the camps. ... Before they entered the camps
and also afterward, the Phalangists requested I .D.F. support in the form of
artillery fire and tanks, but this request was rejected by the Chief of
Staff in order to prevent injuries to civilians. It is true that I.D.F. tank
fire was directed at sources of fire within the camps, but this was in
reaction to fire directed at the I.D.F. from inside the camps. We assert
that in having the Phalangists enter the camps, no intention existed on the
part of anyone who acted on behalf of Israel to harm the non-combatant
population, and that the events that followed did not have the concurrence
or assent of anyone from the political or civilian echelon who was active
regarding the Phalangists' entry into the camps.... If it indeed becomes
clear that those who decided on the entry of the Phalangists into the camps
should have foreseen - from the information at their disposal and from
things which were common knowledge - that there was danger of a massacre,
and no steps were taken which might have prevented this danger or at lea st
greatly reduced the possiblity that deeds of this type might be done, then
those who made the decisions and those who implemented them are indirectly
responsible for what ultimately occurred, even if they did not intend this
to happen and merely disregarded the anticipated danger. A similar indirect
responsibility also falls on those who knew of the decision; it was their
duty, by virtue of their position and their office, to warn of the danger,
and they did not fulfill this duty. It is also not possible to absolve of
such indirect responsibility those persons who, when they received the first
reports of what was happening in the camps, did not rush to prevent the
continuation of the Phalangists' actions and did not do everything within
their power to stop them. In a further effort to discredit Israel the
authors compare Israeli democracy unfavorably with U.S. democracy:"

"The United States is a liberal democracy where people of any race,
religion, or ethnicity are supposed to enjoy equal rights. By contrast,
Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on
the principle of blood kinship."

It is not clear what the authors mean by "blood kinship." Israel's
citizenship laws are quite similar to those of other countries, and do not
at all require that the applicant be Jewish or that they convert to Judaism.
To cite just one example, hundreds of Vietnamese boat people, some of them
rescued on the high seas by Israeli freighters and brought to Israel, were
granted full citizenship.

Perhaps the authors are trying to refer to Israel's Law of Return, which is
not a citizenship law per se, but which does grant individuals of Jewish
heritage present in Israel immediate citizenship upon application. The
heritage required is either to be born Jewish, or to have at least a Jewish
grandparent, or - and this is the important part - if they are a convert to
Judaism. So, contrary to what the authors may have meant, there is no
requirement of "blood kinship."

And, if the authors are going to argue that the Law of Return is somehow
racist, they should be aware that quite a few other countries, including
democracies, have similar laws, including Greece, Germany, Ireland, Finland,
etc.

Finally, the manner in which the authors compare Israel to the United States
is striking. The United States, they say, "is a liberal democracy where
people of any race, religion, or ethnicity are supposed to enjoy equal
rights." So Israel is to be judged on the basis of a falsified reality -
falsified anecdotes, or on Sabra and Shatilla (which was not committed by
the IDF) - while the U.S. is to be judged not by the reality of what does
happen, but by what is "supposed" to happen. The authors reach no
conclusions about the moral stature of the United States on the basis of,
for example, My Lai, which unfortunately was committed by our soldiers.

This technique, of measuring only Israel by absolute, idealized standards
which no country can meet, is a favorite tactic of propagandists. The
authors engage in throughout their article.

U.S. aid - to Israel and others

One obvious target for the authors is the supposedly massive level of US aid
to Israel.

"Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level
of support dwarfing the amounts provided to any other state. It has been the
largest annual recipient of direct U.S. economic and military assistance
since 1976 and the largest total recipient since World War II. Total direct
U.S. aid to Israel amounts to well over $140 billion in 2003 dollars. Israel
receives about $3 billion in direct foreign assistance each year, which is
roughly one-fifth of America's foreign aid budget. In per capita terms, the
United States gives each Israeli a direct subsidy worth about $500 per year.
This largesse is especially striking when one realizes that Israel is now a
wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to South
Korea or Spain. "

Interesting that the authors mention Israel being a wealthy industrial
state, like South Korea. The implication being that South Korea doesn't get
huge amounts of U.S. aid, while Israel, supposedly because of the lobby,
does, to the tune of about $3 Billion annually.

However, we have had around 40,000 U.S. soldiers stationed in South Korea
for about 50 years. The presence of these troops is a direct subsidy to the
South Koreans - because we are there protecting them, they have that much
less a defense burden, and we have that much more a defense burden (that is,
if we didn't have to defend them, we could have a smaller, less expensive,
military). The money that South Korea saves can be used to reduce taxes, or
to create, say, a car industry, or a steel industry, or a chip industry,
producing goods which they can then sell to the U.S., and jobs that they can
take from the U.S. All subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer. And what do those
troops and their equipment and other related items cost the U.S.? About $3
Billion a year. (source: New York Times, Jan. 8, 2003)

And what of the defense of Japan and the rest of East Asia (excluding South
Korea)? Perhaps another $40 Billion. Same consequences as above, just
multiplied by a factor of 13.

Which brings us to the defense of Western Europe - aka our more-than-60-year
NATO committment. That runs to about a third of the defense budget, roughly
$80 Billion a year. Same consequences as for Korea, just multiplied by a
factor of around 26.

Now, none of the above is to argue that the above money is wasted, or that
we derive no benefits from carrying the defense burden of so much of the
developed world. Maybe we do, and maybe we don't. But these are gigantic
costs that truly dwarf what we spend on aid to Israel. About these costs,
and the benefits or lack thereof to the "interests" of the United States,
the authors are silent - a silence that is truly deafening.

Misleading by omission - the Saudis

The authors also mislead by what they omit, such as the documented power of
the Saudis and the other oil states to directly influence U.S. policy,
thanks to their great wealth and their control of oil. Also omitted is the
Saudi use of powerful, influential U.S. corporations that do business in the
Gulf, such as Bechtel, as their agents of influence.

Another omission is the massive Saudi investment in U.S. colleges and
universities, including Harvard, which recently received a gift of $20
Million from Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal to create a University-wide
program on Islamic studies.

Other problems

The authors also make numerous other false and misleading claims, including
bogus allegations about CAMERA (plus they get our name wrong):

"the pro-Israel Committee for Accurate Middle East Reporting in America
(CAMERA) organized demonstrations outside National Public Radio stations in
33 cities in May 2003, and it also tried to convince contributors to
withhold support from NPR until its Middle East coverage became more
sympathetic to Israel."

In fact, CAMERA (The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in
America) did not organize the demonstrations outside NPR stations. They were
organized by a woman named Diana Muir, independently of CAMERA. And CAMERA
does not want coverage more "sympathetic" to Israel, we want coverage that
is fair, accurate and balanced.

Besides those already discussed, there is also at least one more claim by
the authors with a bogus reference:

"Pro-Israel forces have long been interested in getting the U.S. military
more directly involved in the Middle East, so it could help protect Israel."

They support this extremely dubious claim with footnote 181, which lists
only one reference, a report, Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy,
Forces and Resources for a New Century.

This report is easily searched, and it mentions Israel only once:

"Ever since the Persian Gulf War of 1991, when an Iraqi Scud missile hit a
Saudi warehouse in which American soldiers were sleeping, causing the
largest single number of casualties in the war; when Israeli and Saudi
citizens donned gas masks in nightly terror of Scud attacks; and when the
great "Scud Hunt" proved to be an elusive game that absorbed a huge
proportion of U.S. aircraft, the value of the ballistic missile has been
clear to America's adversaries." (p 51)

Obviously this report offers no support whatsoever for the claim that Israel
wants the U.S. to fight its battles. Whether this is a careless mistake, or
something more serious, it only further undermines the credibility of the
authors.

Conclusions

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is a deep embarrassment to both
Harvard University and the University of Chicago. While Mearsheimer and Walt
are free to make any assertions they like, no matter how baseless, Harvard
University should have nothing to do with such shoddy, biased work. Judged
just by the quality of its argumentation and its originality, it is at best
third-rate.

Harvard should remove the report from its website - and therefore remove
from the report the Harvard imprimatur - until the authors fix its manifold
deficiencies.

------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: 4 Citizens injured by Gunfire in a Wedding
Celebration in Khan Yunis

PCHR
Palestinian Centre for Human Rights

Security Chaos and Proliferation of Small Arms
Misuse of Weapons by Armed Groups and Security Personnel

Field Update
23 March 2006

4 Citizens injured by Gunfire in a Wedding Celebration in Khan Yunis

In the evening of Wednesday, 22 March 2006, four citizens were injured in
the city of Khan Yunis in the south of the Gaza Strip. The injuries occurred
after an armed man fired a gun during a friend's wedding.

PCHR's initial investigation indicates that at approximately 22:45 on
Wednesday, an armed man fired shots during a wedding to salute his friend,
the groom, Ismail Mohammad Mohsin (22-year old resident of Al-Amal
neighborhood in Khan Yunis). The shooter lost control of the gun; and
several bullets hit the ground. Shrapnel injured the groom in the right
shoulder and 3 others:
- Mohammad Khalel El-Zaqzouq, 25-year old resident of Khan Yunis,
hit by shrapnel in the abdomen;
- Ashraf Abdel Fattah El-Abed, 23-year old resident of El-Bureij
refugee camp, hit by shrapnel in the right leg and left thigh; and
- Naser Mustafa Hamad, 23-year old resident of El-Bureij refugee
camp, hit by shrapnel in the left thigh.

The injured were taken to Naser hospital for treatment. The injuries were
minor, except for those of Zaqzouq, whose injuries were moderate.

PCHR expresses great concern over misuse of weapons by armed groups and
individuals, which is a continuum of the ongoing security chaos. The Centre
calls upon the Palestinian National Authority, represented by the
Attorney-General, to investigate this crime and to bring the perpetrators to
justice.

------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Excerpts: Mistreatment of foreign workers in
Dubai.Sectarian violence. 23 March 2006

Excerpts: Mistreatment of foreign workers in Dubai.Sectarian violence. 23
March 2006

+++ARAB NEWS (Saudi) 23 Mar.'06:"Dubai Skyscraper Builders Riot Over Poor
Pay, Bad Treatment ",Jim Krane Associated Press

QUOTES FROM TEXT:
"almost a million migrants have poured into Dubai to provide low-wage
muscle"

"Asian workers angered by low salaries and mistreatment"

"skilled carpenters ...earned just $7.60 per day, with laborers getting just
$4.00 per day"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXCERPTS:
DUBAI, 23 March 2006 - Construction on a building expected to be the world's
tallest was interrupted yesterday after Asian workers angered by low
salaries and mistreatment rioted ... almost $1 million in damage.
The stoppage triggered a sympathy strike at Dubai International Airport also
yesterday, when thousands of laborers building a massive new terminal also
laid down their tools, airport and labor officials said.
Some 2,500 workers on the emerging Burj Dubai tower and surrounding housing
developments chased and beat security officers Tuesday night, broke into
temporary offices and smashed computers and files, and destroyed about two
dozen cars and construction machines, witnesses said.
. . .
The workers ... returned to the vast site yesterday but refused to work.
... leaders were asking for pay raises: skilled carpenters on the site
earned just $7.60 per day, with laborers getting just $4 per day.
... laborers were also asking ... for overtime pay, better medical care and
humane treatment by foremen.
. . ..
Labor stoppages in Gulf countries have recently become common ... centered
on unpaid salaries and triggered a Labor Ministry crackdown on
contract-breaching companies.
The strikes and riots by Al-Naboodah workers marred construction of the Burj
Dubai, which is ... expected to soar far beyond 100 stories.
. . .
The protesting workers are among almost a million migrants from India,
Pakistan, Bangladesh, China and elsewhere who have poured into Dubai to
provide the low-wage muscle behind one of the world's great building booms.
In five decades, Dubai has mushroomed from a primitive town of 20,000 to a
gridlocked metropolis of 1.5 million.

+++JORDAN TIMES 23 Mar.'06:

"Sectarian violence forces thousands out of their homes" by Bassem Mroue,
The Associated Press

QUOTES FROM TEXT:
"The killing in Iraq since the April 2003 ouster of Saddam Hussein has
nearly all been, at root, sectarian driven."
"Sunni minority ... loss of status ... became a ripe recruiting ground
for the insurgency"
"Shiites ... hitting back ... death squads ... said to operate out of
the
interior ministry"
EXCERPTS:
BAGHDAD - . . .
The math, then, shows the known number of displaced at more than 22,000 in
the past month alone.
And that figure does not count what must be hundreds, if not thousands, more
families who have moved in with relatives, taken shelter in community
centres and mosques or occupied partially built homes and those abandoned by
displaced members of the other Muslim sect.
The killing in Iraq since the April 2003 ouster of Saddam Hussein has nearly
all been, at root, sectarian driven.
Saddam's Sunni minority had run the country for decades, oppressing the
Shiite majority, which has since assumed a dominant political place.
The Sunnis, angered by their sudden loss of status, became a ripe recruiting
ground for the insurgency that, along with Sunni terrorists in the Al Qaeda
in Iraq organisation, have killed thousands over the past three years.
Shiites have begun hitting back, especially members of shadowy death squads
that are said to operate out of the interior ministry which is run by a
member of the sect.
In the past month a dozen or more bullet-riddled bodies of the victims of
sectarian killings, often showing signs of torture, have been found
scattered throughout Baghdad and other cities each day. Nearly 90 bodies
were found on one day alone earlier this month.
Reason enough to flee your home these days if you are among the minority in
your neighbourhood.
. . .
No one threatened me, but five Shiites who live in the same street were
killed." Saeed Haqqi, head of the Iraqi Red Crescent Society, said .
The US-led invasion promoted a vision of democracy and peace for Iraqis
after decades of oppression and tyranny, but for 31-year-old Abu Hussein
Abbas, a Shiite who fled Abu Ghraib, that dream no longer includes returning
home. . . .
Abbas said the family fled Abu Ghraib when they received a leaflet reading:
"You Shiites are infidels and we have every right to kill you." "Now," he
says, "it is only a dream to go home. The reality is I would be killed the
day I went back."

Sue Lerner, Associate - IMRA

------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Poll: Kadima 33-34 Labor 17-18 Likud 16-17
Yisrael Beiteinu 10-11 NRP/Nat'l Union 9

Poll: Kadima 33-34 Labor 17-18 Likud 16-17 Yisrael Beiteinu 10-11 NRP/Nat'l
Union 9

Aaron Lerner Date:23 March 2006

Telephone poll of a representative sample of adult Israelis (including Arab
Israelis) carried out by Geocartographia for Israel Radio's "Its all Talk"
on 22 March 2006

Knesset election vote expressed in mandates[current in brackets]
33.5 [00] Kadima
16.5 [40] Likud
17.5 [22] Labor
00.0 [15] Shinui (both the party and the break-away "Secular Zionist Party")
09.5 [11] Shas
08.5 [08] Arab parties
06.0 [06] Yachad [Meretz]
09.0 [07* & 6] National Union & NRP
10.5 [07*] Yisrael Beiteinu [Lieberman]
07.0 [05] Yahadut Hatorah
00.0 [00] Green Leaf (legalize hashish)
02.0 [00] Gil [retired people's party headed by Rafi Eitan]
* National Union & Yisrael Beiteinu together have 7 seats
"33.5" = 33-34

Who do you prefer to be prime minister after the elections?
Olmert 32.7% Netanyahu 23.2% Peretz 16.4% Other replies 27.7%

Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
(mail POB 982 Kfar Sava)
Tel 972-9-7604719/Fax 972-3-7255730
INTERNET ADDRESS: imra@netvision.net.il
Website: http://www.imra.org.il

------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Gush Katif's rabbi: Chessed activities
should wait till after Election Day

"Face to Face" Campaign of the national camp - update

http://groups.google.com/group/PanimLPanim?lnk=li

Gush Katif's rabbi: Chessed activities should wait till after Election Day

The Rabbi of Gush Katif, Rabbi Kaminetzky, gave a clear ruling today to give
precedence to election work even at the expense of chessed activities on
behalf of the Gush Katif refugees. "We all need to focus on the most
important thing right now, which is elections," he explained to a Mattot
Arim spokesperson, asking that his instructions be made available to the
public at large. "We are extremely grateful to all those who normally
perform much-needed chessed activities on behalf of our wronged community -
but we ask that these activities be postponed until after Election Day and
that people devote themselves to election work".

Mattot Arim sddym@bezeqint.net

------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: Palestinians students burn their school

PCHR
Palestinian Centre for Human Rights

Security Chaos and Proliferation of Small Arms
Attacking Public Institutions and Officials

Field Update
23 March 2006

In the first attack of its kind
A School Burned in Gaza on the Backdrop of Armed Clashes

A group of about 50 students burned the ground floor of the Nile Secondary
School for Boys in Tal El-Hawa neighborhood in Gaza City. The arson took
place on the backdrop of clashes between Palestinian police and a clan in
the Gaza.

PCHR's initial investigation indicates that at approximately 8:30 in
Thursday, 23 March 2006, a group of 50 students thought to be members of the
clans that were took part in the armed clashes with the police the day
before burned the school in protest over the clashes, which led to the death
of Eyad Mohammad El-Deiri.[1]

The fire was caused by burning tires placed by the students at the door of
the principal's office and secretary's office. The fire burned the two
offices and guards' room completely. In addition, other parts of the ground
floor were damaged. The students left the school after taking a computer
with them.

PCHR learned that the school administration had decided to suspend school
today, fearing the repetition or escalation of the clashes that took place
on Wednesday.

PCHR is concerned about the continuation of these dangerous attacks, which
constitute a continuum of the state of security chaos in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory. The Centre reiterates its call upon the PNA,
represented by the Attorney-General, to investigate these attacks, and to
bring the perpetrators to justice.

Security Chaos and Proliferation of Small Arms
Attacking Public Institutions and Officials

Field Update
23 March 2006

Shots Fired at the Vehicles of the Acting Mayor of Qalqilya and the Mayor of
Birzeit

In the ongoing security chaos in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT),
gunmen fired shots at the cars of the acting mayor of Qalqilya and the mayor
of Birzeit, causing extensive damage to both vehicles.

PCHR's initial investigation indicates that at approximately 5:00 on
Tuesday, 21 March 2006, unknown gunmen travelling in a white car fired shots
at the house of Dr. Mohammad Hashem Amin El-Masri, the acting mayor of
Qalqilya, in Hussein Hilal Street in the center of the town. Dr. El-Masri
was inside the house at the time of the attack. When he came out to
investigate, El-Masri found that 5 bullets had hit his car, causing
extensive damage.

And at approximately 23:30 on Monday, 20 March 2006, unidentified gunmen
fired at the house of Dr. Yousef Ibrahim Yousef Naser, the mayor of Birzeit,
in the Old University Street in the centre of the town. When he went
outside to investigate the incident, Dr. Naser found that a number of
bullets had hit his Mercedes car, which was parked in front of the house.
The attack caused extensive damage to the car.

PCHR is concerned about the continuation of these dangerous attacks, which
serve to perpetuate the state of security chaos in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory. The Centre reiterates its call upon the PNA, represented by the
Attorney-General, to investigate these attacks, and to bring the
perpetrators to justice.

------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: President Abbas, Dweik Agree Holding
Cabinet's Confidence Session Next Week

President Abbas, Dweik Agree Holding Cabinet's Confidence Session Next Week
www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_new/english/details.asp?name=14676

RAMMALLAH, Palestine, March 23,2006 (IPC+ Agencies) -[Official PA
website] -The President Mahmoud Abbas and the Legislative Council Speaker
Dr. Aziz Dweik, agreed yesterday to hold PLC session next week headed by he
PM designate Ismael Hanyia to give the new Palestinian government a vote of
confidence.

The President Abbas highlighted in the meeting yesterday in the President's
compound in Rammallah that the Palestinian liberation Organization (PLO) is
the only legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.

Abbas also briefed the PLC speaker on the results of the PLO executive
committee held earlier on Wednesday that underscored the PLO as the only
legitimate authorization for the Palestinian people.

In a press conference held after the PLO executive committee meeting in
Rammallah, Abbas set aside the prospect of constitutional crisis "it wound
be no constitutional crisis, I believe all are wary over the common
interests and everyone feel responsible."

Nabil Abu Rudenh, the Presidency spokesperson, criticized the remarks of
some Hamas leaders saying" no legitimacy for any government do not recognize
the PLO which is the master of the Palestinian political decision-making

The member of the executive committee Tayseer Khaled said "the committee
denied Hamas's cabinet agenda. This is biding to the President (Abbas) we
did not offer reservations but we said frankly Hamas's agenda is totally
unacceptable. Hamas has to act as a government not a political movement."

To this point, the Islamic Jihad movement emphasized on its backing to
Hamas's stand and its cabinet's agenda in the face of international
pressures to recognize Israel and international pressures as regarding the
Palestine Liberation Organization as the only legitimate representative of
the Palestinian people.

Khaddar Habeib, key leaders of Islamic Jihad, underlined in co- press
briefing with Khaled Al Batsh , Islamic Jihad leader in Gaza at Ramattan
News Agency Wednesday " we express our support to Hamas and refuse al the
international pressures practiced against it by any party to force it to
recognize the Zionist enemy and abandon resistance agenda."

------------------------------

From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: imra@imra.org.il
Subject: PLO Rejects Hamas Program,
Palestinian Stage Set for Crisis

PLO Rejects Hamas Program, Palestinian Stage Set for Crisis
Abed Rabbo: 150 Nations Recognize PLO, Hamas Government Doesn't
23/03/2006

Palestine Media Center - PMC
www.palestine-pmc.com/details.asp?cat=1&id=1109

The 18-member Executive Committee (EC) of the Palestine Liberation
Organization (PLO) rejected on Wednesday Hamas' political platform to form
the new Palestinian cabinet, a move that was immediately rejected by the
Islamic Resistance Movement as "unacceptable and illegal," thus setting the
stage for a Palestinian political and constitutional crisis.

PLO chief negotiator and Fatah legislator, Saeb Erakat, said President
Mahmoud Abbas planned to send Prime Minister-designate Ismael Haniyeh a
letter on Thursday expressing the PLO's reservations but authorizing the
Hamas leader to present his Cabinet to the Palestinian Legislature Council
(PLC) this weekend.

"He (Abbas) will tell them that he will not obstruct their ability to go to
the council with the Cabinet," Erakat said.

In his first response to the PLO's rejection, Haniyeh called on the PLC to
convene on Saturday, March 25, for a vote of confidence on his line-up.

Following a meeting of the PLO Executive Committee chaired by Abbas in the
West Bank town of Ramallah on Wednesday, EC member Yaser Abed Rabbo said:

"We decided that we can't deal with the platform of this government or
accept it, because the platform neglects the main achievement of the
Palestinian people, which is the PLO."

The PLO executives had three objections to Hamas' program and called on the
Islamic Resistance Movement to amend its government program accordingly, the
Palestinian official news agency WAFA reported on Wednesday:

1. The program does not "acknowledge the PLO, the legitimate and sole
representative of the Palestinian people, as the reference authority," the
EC said, noting that the formation of the Palestinian National Authority
(PNA) was decided by the leading institutions of the PLO and that the PNA
"represents an arm of the PLO inside the homeland."

The EC described the absence of this acknowledgement from Hamas' program as
dangerous and compromises the "Palestinian sole representation," which is a
30-year old national achievement.

Abed Rabbo told the Qatar-based al-Jazeera satellite television station on
Wednesday that it is an "ironic contradiction" that around 150 nations
worldwide recognize the PLO while the Palestinian government of Hamas doesn't.

2. The EC noted also that, "the political practice of any Palestinian
government must be based on the program of the PLO, the Declaration of
Independence in 1988, and the PLO's decisions as well as its Arab and
international commitments."

Any violation of this policy will "jeopardize our national achievements" and
challenge the PNA's "legitimacy," the PLO Executive Committee said.

3. Hamas government's program also ignored reference to "the major danger
that threatens our national program, namely the so-called unilateral
solution dictated by the government of Israel as the antithesis of the
negotiated and agreed-upon solution under international sponsorship."

Confronting this Israeli plan is "the most important issue during the next
stage," because in essence the Israeli plan aims at preventing the
Palestinian people from practicing self-determination, the PLO noted.

The PLO warned that any Palestinian policy which "considers the unilateral
solution as a withdrawal that could be dealt with or benefited from in any
form, and allegedly accepting it as long as it takes place without
negotiations is an explicit and dangerous fall into the trap of the Israeli
plan and its long-term targets."

The program of the new Palestinian government should "basically focus on
this threat and define the methods of rejecting and resisting it and not to
refer to it casually or implicitly," in order to develop a unified national
policy against this "imminent strategic threat," the PLO added.

Executive Committee member Tayseer Khaled told AFP after the PLO's rejection
of Hamas program:

"President Abbas will send the Hamas government a letter explaining his
situation over its unacceptable platform. The Hamas government should review
it and present a new platform taking into account the interests of the
Palestinian people."

President "Abbas will ask Hamas to change its program in keeping with PLO
policy," added another EC member, Zakaria Al-Agha.

Outgoing Palestinian Prime Minister, Ahmad Qurei, branded the Hamas platform
"unacceptable" for not recognizing the supremacy of the PLO.

"We cannot have a government that does not recognize the PLO," he said.

Crisis or No Crisis!

The leader of Fatah's bloc in PLC, Azzam Al-Ahmad, issued a stark warning of
a future "crisis between the government and the Palestinian Authority
presidency" unless Hamas changes its program.

But Abbas said the PLO decision would not lead to a constitutional crisis,
but it was important to submit the new government and program to the PLO,
which served as "the term of reference for the PNA."

Abbas entrusted Haniyeh with the formation of the next Palestinian
government after Hamas swept the January 25 Palestinian elections, winning
74 of the 132 seats in the PLC.

On 19 March 2006, Ismail Haniyeh submitted the list of a 24-member Cabinet
to President Abbas. The Cabinet, comprised of Hamas members, supporters and
technocrats.

Haniyeh said he would present his new government and its political economic
and social program to the PLC on Saturday.

Political differences among Palestinians should be resolved only though
dialogue and cooperation, Haniyeh said in a written statement faxed to
Deutsche Presse-Agentur, dpa, after the PLO decision.

The deputy PLC Speaker Hasan Khrueisheh said MPs would gather on Monday to
rubber-stamp the cabinet of 24 ministers stitched together by Hamas.

"We received an application from Ismail Haniyeh for the session to be on
Saturday but we found it difficult to hold it on Saturday, so we decided the
session will be on Monday," Khrueisheh said.

However Tayseer Khaled said that any confidence granted the new government
by the PLC would be "incomplete" and the government "will then have to live
in isolation because it has chosen to close all doors in front of it."

Abbas met with the PLC Speaker, Aziz Dweik, to set a date for the confidence
vote, reportedly next Thursday after Abbas returns from the Arab League
summit in the Sudanese capital, Khartoum.

Hamas: PLO Decision Unacceptable, Illegal

Hamas rejected PLO's demand to change its program.

"This decision is unacceptable and illegal... The PLC is the only
authority," which can decide on the program of government, Sami Abu Zuhri,
spokesman for Hamas, said on Wednesday.

"According to the Palestinian constitution (the Basic Law), the Palestinian
Legislative Council is the only body entitled to decide on the government's
political program," he added.

Zuhri said Hamas holds the PLO in due respect, but criticized it for failing
to be representative of all Palestinian factions and powers.

"We do endorse the PLO as a reference body for all factions, but we beg to
differ that it failed to bring under its umbrella major powers and factions,
which made it highly unrepresentative."

Hamas and the Islamic Jihad are not members of the PLO.

Adnan Asfour, a senior Hamas official from Nablus, said the PLO decision was
"unconstitutional" as under Palestinian Basic Law the newly-formed
government did not require the approval of the PLO.

However Hamas failed to sell its political program to the parliamentary
blocs of Fateh, Badil, the Third Way, Independent Palestine and the Popular
Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).

The PLO, which was founded in 1964, is a national umbrella group that
represents the Palestinian people, including the 3.8 million Palestinians of
the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem and the 4.8 million-strong
Diaspora community spread around the world.

The PLO is the signatory to interim peace deals with Israel, which Hamas
rejects.

------------------------------

From: imra-owner@imra.org.il
Subject: IMRA Subscription Info

--------------------------------------------
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis
Website: www.imra.org.il

For free regular subscription:
Subscribe at no charge: imra-subscribe@imra.org.il
Unsubscribe: imra-unsubscribe@imra.org.il

For free daily digest subscription:
Subscribe at no charge: imra-subscribe-digest@imra.org.il
Unsubscribe: imra-unsubscribe@imra.org.il

For a copy of all reports distributed for a given day please send a
message to:

monday@imra.org.il tuesday@imra.org.il wednesday@imra.org.il
thursday@imra.org.il friday@imra.org.il
saturday@imra.org.il sunday@imra.org.il
--------------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of [imra] Daily digest - Volume: 2 Issue: 1355 (15 messages)
**********

Discussion about 09/11/2001

Friday, March 24, 2006

[imra] Daily digest - Volume: 2 Issue: 1355 (15 messages)

No comments:

About Me

Last posts