Christians under attack in Iraq - More flee to France

.

Victims of Church attack

UN Condemns Attacks

The United Nations has condemned the brutal attacks against Iraqi Christians by Islamic militants.

In the past 10 days, the Christian community has been targeted by a series of bombings and an attack on a Baghdad Catholic church. More than 60 people have been killed.

The U.N. Security Council said it's appalled by the acts of violence, calling them a blow against religious diversity and democracy.

The council added that it condemned all attacks in Iraq, "particularly those motivated by religious hatred."

French ambassador Gerard Araud also told reporters that Iraq's Christians are "on the frontline of the fight for democracy."

Meanwhile, 37 survivors of October's deadly Baghdad church attack and their families arrived in France on Thursday. The French government has offered them asylum and will also welcome another 90 Iraqi Christians to their country in the next few days.

"France supports their desire to remain and live in peace on their land, where they have lived for centuries," French Immigration Minister Eric Besson said.

Bessen explained that the move is part of France's program for Iraqis belonging to "vulnerable religious minorities."

Pakistan Court Sentences Christian woman to death for blasphemy

LAHORE, Pakistan (AFP) – A Pakistani court has sentenced to death a Christian mother of five for blasphemy, the first such conviction of a woman and sparking protests from rights group Thursday.

Asia Bibi, 45, was sentenced Monday by a local court in Nankana district in Pakistan's central province Punjab, about 75 kilometres (47 miles) west of the country's cultural capital of Lahore.

Pakistan has yet to execute anyone for blasphemy, but the case spotlights the Muslim country's controversial laws on the subject which rights activists say encourages Islamist extremism in a nation wracked by Taliban attacks.
.

A Tale of Two Cities - Washington, DC and Jerusalem - Where Right seems to be Right

.

As the Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton peace initiative seems to fade into the land of lost dreams in the Middle East, where it can join the graveyard of dead peace initiatives of former presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2, a sense of futility is spreading through the peace participants.

I said "Right seems to be Right" and what I meant is the political reality of right leaning politics, both in America and Israel, are driving the failure. Perhaps it is the same wave of conservatism that has swept Communism from most nations and left the liberal socialists in Europe gasping for breath. Whatever it is, there can be no doubt of the impact.

Here in America Obama got clobbered in the Midterm elections because his agenda was too far left, too liberal, and too big government driven for the people he governs. The same was true in nation after nation across Europe the past few years as the socialist agenda was drowning the world in red ink.

Perhaps the most astute observers and practitioners of all special interests in America is the powerful Israeli lobby, the groups solely dedicated to the preservation of Israel. There are three main elements of the Israeli lobby groups, the Christians United for Israel, is the "largest" pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) which directly lobbies the United States Congress, and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which "is the main contact between the Jewish community and the executive branch" of the US government according to informed insiders.

Since the founding of Israel in 1948 no other lobbyists have dominated our nation's capitol like the Israelis. So complete is their power and control that Israel has unlimited access to arms and weapons systems, has over 200 nuclear warheads though it refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, has many ways to acquire American funds and dominates the American media.

Anyone who believes wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the saber rattling with Iran has no relationship to Israel is living in fantasy land and if I were Jewish I would not want it any other way. So complete is the Israeli dominance in Washington that both political parties fall all over themselves to prove they are the best hope for the Israeli future.

Most years the Democrats have always counted on the Jewish support in the elections, even while they were trying to solve the Middle East problems in a way to benefit both Arabs and Israelis. At the same time the Republicans have generally not got the Jewish support yet they are harder lined in defending the right of Israel to exist. It was a curious outcome but it changed this year.

With the election of Obama and his family ties to Muslims for once it seemed as if the president would diminish the support for Israel and work for a better deal for the Muslims. Notwithstanding the fact Obama had Rohm Emanuel as chief of staff, the only member of the Obama inner circle to have been in the Israeli army, relations with the Obama administration have been rocky for Israel.

The more Obama tried to engage the Muslims the more suspicious the Jewish lobby. When Obama launched his version of a Middle East peace agreement there was little chance of success. It often seemed as if it was a campaign stunt to make it look like his foreign relations were improving during the bitter Midterm elections.

Israel did little to help him and seemed to be stalling for the purpose of hoping for a Republican landslide to reinforce the support for Israel in congress. Once the landslide was obvious to the Israelis if not to our own news media the Israelis shut down the peace talks over the building of Jewish settlements on Arab lands. It was an issue Obama, Clinton and Emanuel had warned Israel against using many times, calling it a threat to peace.

In response Israel has announced plans for massive new settlement construction, a slap in the face of our young president and his efforts to let the vice president handle relations with Israel. There is no way the state of Israel is going to let a subordinate of the president be their conduit to the president.

Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, rejected the criticism from Obama, Biden and others and has recently said during his most recent trip to the US, “Israel sees no connection between the peace process and planning and building policy in Jerusalem.,”

The Israeli building plans, which have already been sharply criticized by Palestinian leaders, are at least one year from being implemented. But taken together they could pave the way for the construction of more than 2,000 housing units for Jewish settlers.

The two biggest projects focus on Har Homa, a settlement south of Jerusalem that has been the source of previous diplomatic friction between the US and Israel, and Ariel, a large settlement deep inside the Palestinian West Bank.

The new settlement projects were revealed only days before Mr. Netanyahu is due to meet Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, in Washington.

The Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) Prof. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu has strongly condemned the Israeli government's decision to construct 1.300 new settler homes in East Jerusalem, in addition to other 800 settlement units in "Ariel settlement", built on the West Bank lands.

The OIC Chief emphasized that Israeli settlement, not only affects the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, but also represents a flagrant violation of international law and the Fourth Geneva Convention.

He said that the intransigence of Israel in its violation of the international law, through imposing a new reality on the ground, settlement building, Isolating and Judaizing al-Quds city, is a blatant challenge to the international legitimacy.

The Secretary-General called the Quartet and the international community to compel Israel to stop all settlement acts that violate the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people.

A day after Israel announced its settlement plans, U.S. President Barack Obama, vehemently criticized the proposed construction of 1,300 Jewish settler homes in the disputed East Jerusalem region.

The U.S., the U.N., the European Union and Russia have all criticized Israel’s decision to approve building of new homes.

IsraCast News from Israel provides a view of the situation not available from the American media in these excerpts from a story by David Essing.

U.S. President Barack Obama and Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu are both grappling with a fundamental issue - the leader's role in a democratic society. Obama and his Democratic party have just been clobbered in the U.S. mid-term elections, while Netanyahu is still walking a tight-rope between American pressure for concessions to the Palestinians and securing his power base among Israeli Right-wingers. On entering the White House, Obama threw caution to the wind; he had seen the light and, like the biblical Moses, was the chosen leader destined to lead his people to the Promised Land of greater social equality. Nor was he deterred from his messianic mission by the pressing need to repair the collapsing economic system that had gone haywire under the Republicans' unbridled capitalism.

Obama would have done better if he had taken a page out of one of his illustrious Democratic predecessors, Franklin D. Roosevelt at the outset of World War II. British historian Ian Kershaw in his book 'Fateful Choices' described how Roosevelt was convinced the U.S. would have to confront Nazi Germany but also realized that he could not overturn the 80% of U.S. public opinion that supported isolationism and opposed getting embroiled again in another European bloodbath. So Roosevelt bowed to public opinion and chose to support British Prime Minister Winston Churchill with lend-lease etc., but even his role as a non-interventionist aroused the ire of the isolationists. Roosevelt had to bide his time until conditions changed which they did after Japan's devastating surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt realized something that Obama did not - if a democratic leader gets too far out in front of the pack, no matter how convinced he is in the justice of his cause, he may lose the pack. In Obama's case, he failed to understand there was a limit on the desire for change that had swept him into the White House. Obama now says the problem was that he was so busy with getting things done that he did not spend enough effort explaining his policies to the public.

In the Israeli context, Obama's 'go for broke' approach recalls Prime Minister Ehud Barak's 'all or nothing gambit' at Camp David 2000 with Yasser Arafat and Bill Clinton. Barak, with Clinton's blessing, staked all his chips on a comprehensive agreement with the Palestinian leader. In that case, Arafat was not ready for peace; he simply walked away from the table and flew home to launch the Second Intifada. Subsequently, Barak had to face an angry Israeli public that included part of his Left-wing power base. He was blamed him for going too far, too fast, 'giving away the kitchen-sink' while all he had to show for it was a bloody wave of Palestinian terrorism. Both Barak and Obama were blinded by their own visions and ignored the underlying reality. Obama will get a second time at the plate before the Presidential election in another two years - the way things are going it is doubtful if the Labor Party leader will get a second chance in the Prime Minister's office.

What can be said about Prime Minster Binyamin Netanyahu? Where has the Likud leader positioned himself in the choice between setting bold national goals in the face of changing circumstances or sticking to the platform that got him elected to office. Netanyahu appears to be wrestling with this fateful choice. Three Left-wing heavyweights Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak and now Yitzak Herzog, the young Laborite who is challenging Barak for party leadership, have all declared they believe Netanyahu when he says he is ready for the 'painful concessions' necessary to make peace with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. However, key Likud cabinet ministers such as Moshe Ya'alon, Benny Begin and Silvan Shalom contend that Netanyahu will honor his pledge to start rebuilding seriously in Judea & Samaria and doubt the PM's commitment to the two-state solution.

The settlers are a little worried - they are running paid ads in newspapers quoting the Prime Minister's promises to build again, as if Netanyahu needs reminding. Right-wingers are declaring: 'We elected Netanyahu and he must do our bidding!' There is a third course of action for an elected leader, the one coined by former PM Arik Sharon - 'What a prime minister sees after taking office is not the same as what he sees before being elected'. Sharon raised this justification after being hauled over the coals by the Right-wing for bowing to President George Bush's Roadmap for a two-state solution. However Sharon as did Yitzak Rabin stipulated that the reality of Israel's security will always be paramount in Palestinian peace-making. The majority of Israelis believed them as evidenced by their election victories. For his part, Netanyahu defied the Right-wing and his own Likud party by enforcing the ten month moratorium on settlement building that expired on Sept.26th. He opted for the move in order to placate the Obama administration after the Israeli government's building gaffe in eastern Jerusalem during the visit by Vice- President Joe Biden. The only reason Netanyahu was able to push through such an abhorrent step was his promise to send the bulldozers back in after the freeze expired. The PM had to reject American and Palestinian demands that he extend the moratorium if he was to save face with his domestic power base. The Arab League has given one month to find a solution and meanwhile Israel has refrained from wide scale building on the West Bank. So what happens now? If Peres, Barak and Herzog are right Netanyahu may possibly come up with a 'constructive ambiguity' when he sees Vice-President Joe Biden again, this time in the U.S. If so, Netanyahu will be declaring as did the late Yitzak Rabin: 'I'm leader and I'll do the navigating!' Otherwise, Netanyahu will be opting for: 'I'm their leader, so I have to do what my supporters want'.

The fact that Obama has stuck to his position, articulated in his Cairo address, that the 'settlements must stop' appears to leaves little room for Netanyahu to maneuver. But the question now being asked in Jerusalem is whether the battered Obama, about to be embroiled in a battle royal with a Republican majority in the House over economic policy will have the inclination to risk more of his political capital in the Middle East. Channel one TV has reported that Obama might replace envoy George Mitchell with old hands Martin Indyk or Dennis Ross. However, many Israeli pundits have said Obama will be preoccupied with economic issues at home, Two years ago during the presidential race they said the same thing and were proven wrong.

On the other hand, the grim IDF intelligence briefing by Gen. Amos Yadlin accentuated the reality of security threats to the Jewish state posed by a potential war on several fronts by multiple enemies. This reality was obviously made clear to the Prime Minister some time ago and undoubtedly stresses, as recently stated by President Peres, Israel's need to assist the U.S. in building the coalition against Iran by advancing on the Palestinian peace track.

.

Was Queen Noor Al-Hussein of Jordan Censured by NBC over Middle East Views during MSNBC Morning Joe Appearance?

.

Today on MSNBC Morning Joe Show Queen Noor of Jordan, American born widow of King Hussein of Jordan was being interviewed and began talking about the problems in Gaza where Israel has cut off the Palestine resident from the outside world including many supplies needed to live normal lives.

You would think a major world figure in Arab Israeli relations might be an interesting guest but it seems the show only had time for a short interview at the end of the three hour broadcast. When she did get on and began explaining the non-violent movement of Palestinians in Gaza, a movement in which the Hamas, Palestinians, Israelis and other people came together to save a village from being cutoff by the Israeli defense forces, she was asked about Israeli efforts to help promote the non-violent movie.

She began explaining how the Israelis had done everything possible to stop the film from being promoted and that the Israeli government had no interest in peace when all of a sudden music began playing in the background and a still picture of the Morning Joe logo appeared as her voice was faded way and then Mika could be heard thanking her for appearing as the Queen was still talking about the Middle East problem.

Did NBC deliberately delay her appearance until the end of the show? Since Morning Joe often runs long into the next morning news show why did they choose to cut off the Queen?

Was this a convenient excuse to pull the plug on a world figure defending the Palestinian side in the Middle East? Did the pro-Israeli bias of the news media have any influence on cutting off a discussion of the problems with Israel in the Middle East?

It sure looked like bias and censorship to me when we were just getting the other side of the Arab Israeli problem than what we are normally fed by the media and government. Both sides in the Middle East have made mistakes but denying a discussion of them, by non-violent people no less, serves no logical purpose.

Here is a Los Angeles Times review of the movie she was trying to discuss when she was so rudely cut off.

Los Angeles Times
Movie review: 'Budrus'


A documentary profiles a Palestinian village where a spirit of nonviolent protest led to cooperation and understanding.


October 22, 2010
By Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times Movie Critic


Budrus is a tiny village where something potentially very big happened, the setting for a hopeful story in an area of the world that has produced hardly any hope at all in recent years.


As introduced in the surprisingly heartening documentary of the same name, Budrus is a small agricultural settlement in the West Bank, definitely not the kind of place you'd expect a popular movement encouraging nonviolent resistance to take root and grow. But that, as this Julia Bacha-directed film shows, is what took place.


With most of its estimated 1,500 inhabitants members of families that have lived in the area for generations, Budrus gets both its income and its sense of self from its venerable olive orchards. As landowner Hosnie Youssef puts it, "uprooting trees is like death. What will we do without our land? How will we live?"


All this became an issue in 2003, when the Israeli government decided to build a separation barrier in the West Bank with the understandable aim of protecting its citizens from terrorists.


For Budrus, the barrier would separate the town from 300 acres of its farmland and about 3,000 olive trees, many of which would be bulldozed out of existence. "It's as if we were strangers in our own land," the ancient Youssef dramatically exclaims. "Death would be a relief."


Ayed Morrar, a Budrus resident and a quiet but determined Palestinian political activist, had the idea of using nonviolent resistance to try to stop the barrier. He didn't suggest this, he is quick to point out, because of nobility of spirit. He did it because he believed those tactics were the most likely to be effective.


Bacha, who co-wrote and edited the excellent "Control Room," was not present when these events took place, but she has done a professional job of getting her film up to speed. She did empathetic interviewing with many of the people involved, including Israelis such as border police officer Yasmine Levy, who was in Budrus from the beginning of the situation. Bacha also collected footage from more than a dozen individuals who were on the scene at key moments.


What is clear in "Budrus" is that the movement's initial success stemmed from the remarkable personality of organizer Morrar. One of five activist brothers and himself imprisoned for six years by the Israelis earlier in his life, the soft-spoken Morrar is a person with a gift for pragmatic cooperation that is far from business as usual in his part of the world.
.

Dark Clouds over the Middle East - Is Israel Going to War?

.



Late yesterday, after the White House enjoyed the signing of the health care bill, there was a 90-minute closed-door meeting between US President Barack Obama and Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It was extended another 70 minutes after the formal meeting. Then Israeli and White House support staff met until after 1:00 am this morning.



Just 24 hours before the meeting between the two heads of state Netanyahu spoke to the pro Israeli AIPAC, one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the United States. AIPAC stands for the America Israel Public Affairs Committee and was in Washington for its annual convention where over half of the United States Congress trooped through its doors to attend the Gala Banquet.

For those of you not familiar with AIPAC, their lobbying clout in Washington is second to none as proven by the $3 billion in US foreign aid going to Israel, a new record and up from $2.4 billion last year. At this meeting Netanyahu again defied President Obama and said Israel would build 1,600 more homes in the contested East Jerusalem settlement.



You may remember that Vice President Biden was embarrassed on his recent trip to Israel to restart the Middle East Peace negotiations when Israel announced the housing construction the same day he arrived. Obama had been adamant in his request that Israel stop all settlement construction in disputed territories in order to start the peace negotiations.

This curious action by the Israeli Prime Minister is the latest in a series of actions that seem to be burning bridges with the most ardent supporters of Israel in the world, the United States and Britain.



International outrage against Israel was already in evidence because the Israeli Mossad secret service was accused by the Dubai police of using fake passports from a number of allies including 12 from Britain to send 27 assassins to Dubai and assassinate a ranking leader of Hamas, Mabhoub al-Mabhouh, on January 19, in Dubai. The investigation and disclosures led the British to expel an Israeli diplomat from Britain in protest against the murder.

To date Israel has not commented on the Mossad role in the assassinations but did say they were pleased with the outcome, the death of al-Mabhouh. Relations between Israel and the United States led the Israeli ambassador to America to say they were the worst in 30 years. After the Biden incident the US canceled a visit by US peace envoy George Mitchell.



Could it be the Israelis are threatening relations with their two prime allies because they have decided to go to war with Iran over the nuclear capability of that rogue state? It is becoming clear that the United Nations will never take effective action to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability. There is no way China or Russia will ever approve tougher sanctions against Iran and earlier attempts by Obama to negotiate with the Iranians failed miserably.



Israel is armed with hundreds of nuclear weapons even though they refuse to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement and right now they are the only nation in the Middle East with such a stockpile of weapons. They have consistently insisted if diplomatic negotiations fail they will destroy the Iranian nuclear capability.



Could it be the perceived conflicts between Israel and the United States and Britain are a precursor to an attack on Iran by Israel, staged to put distance between the attack and their allies? It would not be in the interest of the United States or Britain to encourage such an attack and this is a rather simple way to show they were at odds with Israel, thus preventing them from being blamed for any consequences.



Stranger things have happened in the long history between the United States and Israel.

So the Obama and Netanyahu meeting took place in the shadow of these diplomatic controversies. Unlike past meetings between the two, it was held behind closed doors with no news media allowed. There were none of the usual photo ops, formal handshake photos, press briefings or public announcements on the meeting. In fact a veil of secrecy not seen often in our nation's capitol was tossed on the whole affair as if it never really took place.

To recap, these are the actions that happened.

Secret meetings between leaders and staff last long into the night.
Obama gets his proposals rejected by Israel.
Netanyahu defiantly defends East Jerusalem settlements before AIPAC.
Biden gets embarrassed by Israel.
Obama cancels a trip by George Mitchell to Israel.
Israeli Mossad accused of assassination in Dubai.
Forged passports are used by assassins.
British expel Israeli diplomat in protest of 12 British passports being used.



Dark clouds are indeed on the horizon casting a foreboding shadow on peace efforts in the Middle East and the chain of events would indicate that something far more serious may be underway. Do not be surprised if Israel does attack Iran and that may only be the beginning of a new wave of horrific warfare in the Holy Land.

.

Mohammad - Iranian Student - Do not Abandon Us In Iran

Barack Hussein Obama - Are You Listening to the People

This morning, Monday, a young Iranian was interviewed by CNN and he pleaded that President Obama please do not abandon the hundreds of thousands of Iranians risking their lives to bring about human rights and democratic reforms in Iran. Like the young woman Neda, murdered in the protests, he is one of the silent majority in Iran who have had enough.

As the President of the world leader in promoting Democracy, Obama has shown no more than a casual interest in the plight of the Iranian people whose protests since their fraudulent election has rattled the very foundation of the Islamic leadership that has kept the people in a state of captivity and second class citizenship since the 1979 Iranian revolution.

First Obama said it didn't matter who won the election, a slap in the face of the people risking their lives for democratic reforms and human rights. Then realizing he was wrong, he tried to paper over the earlier stand by saying the Iranian government should not use violence to stop the protesting. The unlawful government of Iran has been using violence and the abuse of human rights for 30 years against their own citizens yet he didn't even condemn it.

Wake up Obama. Are you willing to let thousands of young freedom fighters be slaughtered because you intend to pursue diplomacy with a ruthless regime? Ever since Obama took office Iran and North Korea have flaunted their violations of human rights, increased the suppression of their citizens, and laughed at the international calls for reform. Why do the Iranian freedom fighters have to burn an effigy of the President to get his attention?

While Obama twiddles his thumbs both Iran and North Korea have been on a fast track to complete the development of nuclear arms, rockets, and spawned hatred throughout the Middle East. Obama's goal of accommodation has encouraged threats to world peace throughout the world. He still thinks he can sit down and negotiate with soul less despots who place no value on human rights and dignity. When a cancer permeates a government it is time to replace the government and to back the people fighting the government.

Media reports indicate that even his Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are opposed to the inertia in the Administration concerning the freedom fighters in Iran. If he doesn't listen to his top advisors who is he listening to?

The lowly student risking his life in Iran has a simple idea to stop the oppressive regime, stop the flow of foreign gasoline that is fueling the Iranian war machine. He is willing to risk more harm to the people by stopping the flow of gasoline because freedom is worth the sacrifice. The gasoline is what keeps the development of the nuclear bombs underway and the military suppression of the people.

Where is the leadership of the free world Obama promised? Why does he continue to ignore the threats against the world and the violence against the people in Iran by a corrupt and suppressive regime? Why can't he hear the call for help from the hundreds of thousands of freedom fighters, mostly the young and future generation of the Middle East, to please not abandon us in our struggle?