The original construction of the Orthodox Church was built in the 6thCentury, in what is now Gaza

Phoebe Greenwood, writing from Gaza City in The Guardian on 23 December, reported:

"There hasn't been a Christmas tree in Gaza City's main square since Hamas pushed the Palestinian Authority out of Gaza in 2007 and Christmas is no longer a public holiday."

The headline said Hamas had "cancelled Christmas". Could this possibly be true?

When I visited Gaza in late 2007 Fr Manuel Mussallam, the feisty old priest in charge of the Catholic community, took me and others to meet Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh and some of his colleagues. Relations between Christian and Muslim – or at least between the Catholic community and the Hamasgovernment – seemed strong enough and friendly enough for Christmas celebrations to be left undisturbed.

The very idea of a ban actually makes me smile because Scotland, a Christian country of course, saw Christmas as a papist festival and for centuries discouraged it. When I lived there it wasn't even a public holiday.

But back to the Strip... Is Hamas being beastly to Gaza's Christians? Has Phoebe Greenwood got her story straight? I wrote to her at The Guardian, pointing out that revelations of this kind in the popular British press undo the hard work activists put in to help the Palestinian cause. Could she please throw more light onto it? I've had no reply.

I'm in England and unable to contact Hamas. Phoebe Greenwood is on the spot. Shouldn't someone from Mr Haniyeh's office be given a chance to comment?

As for Fr Manuel, he has finally retired and left Gaza. The school he ran there, part-funded by the Vatican, had 1200 pupils. About 1000 were Muslim and some of these the children of Hamas leaders.

The relationship between Muslim and Christian in the Holy Land, and the potential for friction, is frequently poked and prodded simply to make mischief.

Those with a rightful cause versus those who took it away

Archbishop Theodosius Hanna (Greek Orthodox Church), on a visit to Ireland a year ago, told politicians:

"The problem in Palestine has nothing to do with religion – it is not a religious issue. It is not a conflict of Christians, Muslims and Jewish people. It is a conflict between those who are the holders of a rightful cause and those who took away that right by military might.

"Palestinian people as a whole, including Christians and Muslims, have said repeatedly that what they want is peace. We want two states that live together in peace. However, the reality on the ground is that we are extremely far away from that goal because Israel does not want peace."

Fr Manuel, who accompanied the Archbishop, told his listeners what happened when the Christian school in Gaza was targeted.

"Five Hamas ministers visited the school after it was attacked and promised they would repair the damage... A Hamas minister, a Muslim, picked up the Holy Bible thrown on the ground, kissed it and put it back on the altar. He said Muslims were forbidden to do such things to the Bible. Hamas paid more than $122,000 to repair all the damage caused.

"Afterwards I met the Hamas prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh. When he embraced me he said this, and we believed it. He said: "Go to your family, but be assured that Hamas will employ weapons against Muslims to protect Christians in Gaza." This is the reality. Christians in Palestine are not suffering persecution, because we are not considered to be a religious community, but rather the people of Palestine. We have the same rights and the same obligations."

From left: Archbishop Theodosius Hanna and Father Manuel Mussallam

It is hardly surprising that Israeli oppression aided and endorsed by western Christendom, and the grinding poverty this evil alliance creates in the occupied territories, drives some Muslims into the arms of Islamic extremism. Hamas insists that extremist acts are incidents not policy.

Fr Manuel went on to tell the Irish what things were really like under military occupation.

"We have spoken to Israel for more than 18 years and the result has been zero. We have signed agreements here and there at various times and then when there is a change in the government of Israel we have to start again from the beginning. We ask for our life and to be given back our Jerusalem, to be given our state and for enough water to drink. We want to be given more opportunity to reach Jerusalem. I have not seen Jerusalem since 1990."

He described the nightmarish system of entry and exit permits, which Israel invariably refused.

"We want to see an end to this occupation, and please do not ask us to protect those who are occupying our territory."

A week ago, on Christmas Day, the Voice of Palestine website ran this news item:

DAMASCUS – Hamas Movement have offered its best wishes to all Palestinian Christians in occupied Palestine, and other countries on the occasion of Prophet Jesus' birth and wished them a happy holiday.

"On the occasion of rejoicing the birth of Prophet Jesus peace of God be upon him, the Islamic Movement of Hamas extends its sincere wishes to all our fellow Christians in their homeland Palestine, the cradle of prophecies and the land of divine messages, as well as to the Palestinian Christians in the Arab and Islamic countries and the whole world," Hamas said in a press release on Saturday.

Hamas wished this occasion to be an opportunity for uniting the Palestinian people and pooling the efforts of the world's free people to support the Palestinian cause and protect the Islamic and Christian holy sites.

In the past Hamas has shown great respect for the Christian tradition of Christmas and, I hear, Hamas officials in Bethlehem used to dress up as Santa Claus to distribute gifts to Christian children. So the question remains: has Hamas really become such a Scrooge* as to torpedo Christmas with a tree ban?

If so, it's a sure-fire way to lose friends and alienate people.

* for more about the mean-mindedness of that notorious character Ebenezer Scrooge, and his hatred of Christmas, see 'A Christmas Carol' by Charles Dickens. Scrooge eventually sees the light and redeems himself.

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart.

O little town of Bethlehem
How still we see thee lie
Above thy deep and dreamless sleep
The silent stars go by
Yet in thy dark streets shineth
The everlasting Light
The hopes and fears of all the years
Are met in thee tonight

While carving the turkey for your family and merrily quaffing mulled wine 'midst happy laughter, remember that the romantic Little Town of Bethlehem at the centre of our childhood Christmases is now "an immense prison" in the words of Michel Sabbah, former Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, and entirely surrounded by Israel's ugly 8-metre separation wall bristling with machine-gun towers.

The good citizens of Bethlehem are cut off from their capital Jerusalem, only six miles away, the rest of the West Bank and the whole world.

Consider that the United Nations, for obvious reasons, designated Jerusalem and Bethlehem a protected international zone under UN administration. Israeli rule was not to be permitted.

Consider also that when Palestine was under British mandate Christians accounted for 20 per cent of the population and how 63 years of terror, illegal occupation, dispossession, interference and economic wrecking tactics have whittled their numbers down to less than 2 per cent.

Consider that, at this rate, there will soon be no Christians left in the land where Christianity was born... thanks to the cowardice and inaction of our political leaders.

How will the 26 bishops sitting around in our House of Lords, doing nothing, explain that to their dwindling congregations?

As usual, many Palestinians in Bethlehem and the other cities and villages throughout occupied Palestine will be unable to reunite with their families or celebrate Christmas at their holy places in Jerusalem and Bethlehem due to cruel Israeli-imposed travel restrictions. Imagine for a moment what sort of Christmas the half-starved children in blockaded Gaza are having this year, and every year... and what New Year prospects face all the other Palestinian children struggling to grow up with the Israeli army's boot on their necks.

Deep down it is not about religion at all. The struggle is between justice and a criminal conspiracy of huge international proportions, the tentacles of which spread far beyond the Holy Land and impact on all of us, even here in the deepest recesses of England's green and pleasant land.

In the New Year civil society must resolve to DO SOMETHING about it, one way or another, before the evil spins irreversibly out of control.

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart.

As Israeli Jewish terrorist attacks on mosques in occupied Palestine are assuming a phenomenal frequency.

Indeed, with the Israeli government and security establishment doing next to nothing to put an end to this wanton and unprovoked terror, a huge fire is being started in the region.

In religious wars, all sides are usually variably culpable and blamable. However, in the occupied Palestinian territories, Jewish fanatics bear nearly 100% of the blame.

Their attacks against mosques are not provoked by similar Palestinian attacks against Jewish religious places. In fact, Jewish terror groups readily admit that arson attacks against mosques are meant to embarrass the Israeli occupation army.

The attacks are perpetrated under the slogan "Price Tag" every time the Israeli army moves to dismantle a Jewish settlement outpost.

So why is it that the Palestinians and their places of worship are attacked, not the Israeli army?

Well, it takes a thoroughly sick mind to rationalize, even glamorize such attacks, but the Israeli settler camp never faces a shortage of virulence, mental depravity and mental sickness.

We are talking after all about the worst of the worst that racist, Talmudic Judaism could breed, people who view the rest of mankind as subhuman.

The practical implications of such a venomous ideology are enormous and absolutely nefarious. If non-Jews are subhuman, then their lives must be worthless, have no sanctity and expendable.

Think not I am making an exaggeration as it is difficult to exaggerate the evilness of these racist thugs who spend a lifetime demonizing and dehumanizing humanity as they celebrate their Chosen-people or Master-race status.

Unfortunately, the Israeli government and security establishment are giving these criminal-minded thugs a free rein to gang up on virtually unprotected Palestinian civilians, torch mosques and churches and vandalize olive groves throughout occupied Palestine.

It is very hard to buy the Israeli government's argument that these terrorists are a marginal group. But even if they were a marginal group, this wouldn't minimize the gravity of their terrorist actions.

The Nazi Hitler Youth was once viewed as a marginal group. However, the world saw what that "marginal" group was able to do during Kristalnacht in November, 1938.

Hence, the question begs itself whether the Israeli government should wait until the so-called hill-top "troublemakers" morph into a Jewish Hitler Youth.

Unfortunately, the Israeli government, the most fascist ever, can't be given the benefit of the doubt.

In the final analysis, the suspected connivance and obvious leniency with which the Netanyahu government treats these despicable criminals, along with the mind-boggling reluctance to prosecute them raise many hard questions about the nature of that government.

One Israeli writer, when asked recently why the government didn't exercise its legal authority to arrest and try Jewish terrorists who attack Muslim and Christian holy place, said a venomous snake wouldn't bit its own tail.

There is another worrying dimension to this obscenity, namely the virtually complete absence of real condemnations of these terrorist acts by Jewish leaders in Israel and abroad.

Jewish leaders in Europe and North America wouldn't wait a minute to condemn the slightest anti-Semitic attack on Jewish targets, even if this target happened to be a lone Jewish grave in an isolated village in Eastern Europe .

Even remarks or even slip-of-the-tongue jokes are castigated and people are made to pay a price.

However, when fellow Jews carry out outrageous acts of terror, arson and vandalism against mosques and churches, we see that these same Jewish leaders become speechless as if the acts of terror took place in a different galaxy.

The Jewish leadership must realize that the orphans of Kahana and thuggish terrorists of Gush Emunim are more than trouble makers. They are in fact criminal fire-starters whose pyromania could burn Jews as well as non-Jews.

Hence, Jewish leaders must have the necessary courage and rectitude to admit that Jewish terrorism is a two-lane street and that Muslims won't stand idle if their peaceable holy places continue to be torched and vandalized in the most blatant and unprovoked manner.

Of course, it would be naïve to expect verbal condemnations by Jewish leaders to stem the tide of Jewish settler terror against Muslim and Christian holy places.

However, this is the very least Jewish leaders should and can do to exonerate themselves from the ostensibly logical Charge that these leaders adopt a duplicitous attitude toward Jewish terror in Palestine by denouncing it when speaking to a non-Jewish audience while praising it privately.

Finally, the Palestinians themselves must not entrust the task of protecting mosques and Churches to Israel . The Palestinian Authority (PA) must deploy armed guards in the vicinity of mosques in order to protect them from Jewish terror. Crying out for help won't help very much. We have to do our own duty first and none would blame us for doing what anyone else would if they were in our shoes.

* Khalid Amayreh a journalist based in the Occupied Palestinian town of Dura. He obtained his MA in journalism from the University of Southern Illinois in 1983.

Prime minister David Cameron has told Britain: "We are a Christian country and we should not be afraid to say so."

He was speaking on the occasion of the 400^th anniversary of the King James version of the Bible which, he said, had helped to give Britain a set of values and morals that make us what we are today.

And Cameron doesn't accept the argument about the church not getting involved in politics. "To me, Christianity, faith, religion, the Church and the Bible are all inherently involved in politics because so many political questions are moral questions."

True, but can our churchmen 'do politics'? They perpetually fail to get a result even on the Church's 'home turf', the Holy Land.

It's painful to be reminded that while Israel was planning its murderous 3-week assault on the people of Gaza (including the Christian community there), which it launched three Christmases ago, the Archbishop of Canterbury was visiting the former Nazi camps of Auschwitz-Birkenau in Poland with the Chief Rabbi to show joint solidarity against genocide.

"This is a pilgrimage not to a holy place but to a place of utter profanity," he announced. "How shall we be able to read the signs... that evil is gathering force once again?"

He needed to look no further than the prison camp that the Holy Land has been turned into by the never-ending Israeli occupation. Couldn't he sniff the stench of profanity besieging the Gaza Strip which, some claim, Israel uses as a warfare laboratory? Hasn't he noticed a strong whiff of evil in the judaisation of Jerusalem and the expulsion of its non-Jewish citizens?

And when the Archbishop visited the Holy Land in 2010 the Israelis prevented him seeing the horrors their thugs had inflicted on Gaza and obstructed him in his Christian mission there. But he still fraternised with their rabbinate and their President, and paid homage to Yad Vashem and the Holocaust, thus appearing to legitimise the blockade, the persecution of Muslim and Christian communities and Israel's contempt for international law and human rights.

The Pope fell for the same propaganda trick.

The Church clearly needs the mother of all shake-ups before it'll be capable of rolling up its sleeves and getting political.

Our not-so-Christian government

Britain as a country may still be Christian but what about its government? Mr Cameron describes himself as a "committed" Christian but only a "vaguely practising" one. What does that mean? Are Christian principles getting in his way?

Or is he sending a coded message of comfort to friends in Tel Aviv and Washington?

For Cameron also claims to be a Zionist.

He voted enthusiastically for the Iraq war, an irresponsible and un-Christian thing to do based on neo-con lies. And look what it has cost in lives and wholesale destruction. Now he and foreign secretary William Hague are upping sanctions designed to cripple the Iranian economy and bring misery to that country's civilian population. Shades of Iraq... sadistic action once again based on mere suspicion of wrongdoing, not actual proof. Is this proper behaviour for even the "vaguest" of Christians?

The political baggage Cameron has brought with him includes a foreign secretary who has been a member of Conservative Friends of Israel since his teenage years and a minister for Middle East affairs who's a former officer of that same fan club.

His defence secretary Liam Fox, now departed in disgrace, was dubbed "a champion of Israel within the government". He famously said: "In the battle for the values that we stand for, for democracy against theocracy, for democratic liberal values against repression - Israel's enemies are our enemies..."

How can it be right for Ministers of the Crown to make such ludicrous commitments to a belligerent foreign power that continually defies international and humanitarian law and, I hear, shoots children for amusement - according to a horrifying article by surgeon David Halpin, 'The methodical shooting of boys at work in Gaza by snipers of the Israeli Occupation Force'?

When Cameron became Conservative leader he proclaimed: "You need to know that if I become Prime Minister, Israel has a friend who will never turn his back on Israel." And once in Downing Street he pledged: "In me, you have a Prime Minister whose belief in Israel is indestructible...I want to be clear, we will always support Israel..."

Supporting Israel means, of course, endorsing the regime's lawlessness and criminal ambitions. Is that an option for a real Christian? And when will Mr Cameron have time to concentrate on Britain's best interests in the Middle East, which is the job he was elected for?

Furthermore Britain, like all other countries that think themselves civilised, is under a solemn international obligation to make sure there's no hiding place for the world's vilest criminals. It's a responsibility no Christian should shirk. However, when Tzipi Livni, who was responsible for mounting Operation Cast Lead and for the 1,400 deaths that followed, complained that a warrant had been issued for her arrest in London, Cameron and Hague immediately mangled our Universal Jurisdiction laws to create a safe haven for her and other Israelis wanted for crimes against humanity.

Having ensured that Madam Livni could safely go shopping in Bond Street, the devoted Mr Hague said: "The UK is committed to upholding international justice and all of our international obligations. Our core principle remains that those guilty of war crimes must be brought to justice."

The Zionist cuckoo in Christianity's nest

Cameron waxes lyrical about the King James Bible but acts as if he was brought up on the less admirable Scofield version, which has been the standard religious text on the other side of the Atlantic.

Cyrus Scofield, a convicted criminal and described by one American newspaper as "a shyster", was commissioned to re-write the King James version by inserting Zionist-friendly notes. The idea was to change the Christian view of Zionism by creating and promoting a pro-Zionist sub-culture within Christianity. The Oxford University Press appointed Scofield as editor, and the Scofield Reference Bible has been a best-seller especially in the US for nearly 100 years.

It introduced a new worship icon, the modern State of Israel, which did not exist until 1948 but was already on the drawing board of the World Zionist movement.

American journalist Grace Halsell explained the re-hashed Biblical message:

"Simply stated it is this: Every act taken by Israel is orchestrated by God, and should be condoned, supported, and even praised by the rest of us. Never mind what Israel does, say the Christian Zionists. God wants this to happen...

"Scofield said that Christ cannot return to earth until certain events occur: The Jews must return to Palestine, gain control of Jerusalem and rebuild a temple, and then we all must engage in the final, great battle called Armageddon. Estimates vary, but most students of Armageddon theology agree that as a result of these relatively recent interpretations of Biblical scripture, 10 to 40 million Americans believe Palestine is God's chosen land for the Jews."

Ultra-literal reading of certain Old Testament texts has persuaded Zionists to believe that Old Testament promises made to the ancient Jewish tribes are transferable to the largely unrelated people that comprise the modern state of Israel. They hope for, and are obviously working towards, the final battle they call Armageddon, in which Israel's enemies (and God's, of course) will be defeated. After that Jesus will return as the Jewish Messiah and King to reign in Jerusalem for a thousand years, and the Jewish people will enjoy privileged status in the world.

That is the Zionist dream of world domination in a nutshell.

We see how politicians become eager stooges, but if you are as puzzled as I am how a true Christian could possibly be taken in by Zionism, a short paper on the phenomenon is available from Sadaka [PDF].

An effective antidote is The Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism, a statement by the Latin Patriarch and Local Heads of Churches in Jerusalem issued in 2006. They are in the front line. They know the score. It is summed up in a single sentence:

"We categorically reject Christian Zionist doctrines as a false teaching that corrupts the biblical message of love, justice and reconciliation."

Merry Christmas, Mr Cameron.

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart.

Video link: http://youtu.be/obp2J3rVgSA

Usually at this time of year I put up a Christmas post in which I feature the folk Christmas tune called "The Cherry Tree Carol" and I point out its relationship to the beautiful story of the birth of Jesus in the Quran. Items 1 and 2 below are taken from my original Cherry Tree Carol post from 2009. Sting's rendition of the song is just plain gorgeous. It will change your mood. Please take a few moments and give it a listen.

1. The Cherry Tree Carol is a haunting story of the mystery and beauty of Christmas derived from one of the apocryphal Gospels, that of Psuedo- Matthew, which is also know as The Infancy Gospel of Matthew.

In this now popular Christmas carol, Joseph and Mary are walking near or through an orchard of cherry trees. She asks Joseph to pick some cherries for her because she is with child and would appreciate a helping hand. Joseph, as husbands tend to do when they discover their wives are pregnant and they know they are not the father, gets angry and tells her to just let the guy who got her pregnant get the cherries for her. No doubt dejected and feeling rejected, Mary knows not what to do.

But then a voice cries out from within his mother's womb. It's the voice of Jesus who commands the cherry trees bow down so that his mother may have something to eat. The trees do what any tree would do if ordered by Jesus, they bow down and Mary exclaims to the effect of "Hey Joseph, look, I can get all the cherries I want, nyah nyah." Joseph then realizes that there's more going on than he at first realized.

Now in the Psuedo-Gospel of Matthew, Chapter Twenty, the story as one might expect, is a bit different, but the similarities are clear. In this version, thought to be the inspiration for The Cherry Tree Carol, Mary, Joseph and a very infant Jesus are in the desert in Egypt and are exhausted from the heat. They come across a date palm tree where they rest. Mary asks Joseph for some dates, but they are pretty high up in the tree and he whines about it saying that instead she should be concerned because of the lack of water and their thirst. The baby Jesus orders the date palm to lower it's branches and his Mother is able to eat. Now the date palm, being humble and worshipful, did not rise back up after she had eaten, but rather it awaited Jesus' command. Jesus tells it to rise, says it will have its place in paradise, and then he makes one more request of it – something interesting in light of the Quranic version of this story that I will discuss below. He asks it to provide water through one of its hidden roots and it does so – providing clear, cool and sparkling water for the three of them and their animals.

2. Many features of the Cherry Tree Carol and the story from which it is derived are found in the Quranic version of the story in Surah 19, verses 16-34. In this version Joseph is noticeably absent, an absence which highlights the miraculous nature of Jesus' birth. The angel Gabriel appears to Mary, who has gone away from her people for some sort of religious purpose, in fully human form and tells her she will give birth to a son. She is astonished by this and asks how on earth that could be possible since she has never been touched by a man. Gabriel tells her that this is easy for God and that her son will be sent as a mercy to mankind.

So she is now with child and is driven to a date palm tree during the pains of childbirth, pains so severe she wishes she had never been born. But then a voice cries out – said by commentators to be that of Gabriel though in my own view it could even be that of Jesus – who tells her that all is well and that water has been provided for her beneath her feet. He then tells her to shake the date-palm and that fresh and ripe dates will come pouring down. He tells her to eat and drink and "cool thine eye." Lastly the voice commands her that if she comes across any man to say that she has vowed to speak to no one that day.

The next thing we see is Mary carrying her new baby back to her people who challenge her morality, as she had no doubt expected and feared. But keeping to her command, she said nothing to them and merely pointed to her baby. The crowd mocked her telling her that they could not possibly converse with a new born. At this point, the baby Jesus performs his own version of "enough is enough" as he addresses the crowd in no uncertain terms telling them, among other things, that God has made him a prophet and that he is to be blessed wherever he is. He also tells them that he has been commanded to be faithful to his mother, something he clearly intends to do. No doubt the audience was dumb struck. . .

The new-born Jesus then closes: "And peace be upon me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I am raised up alive."

3. The video below is the entire Surah of Mary recited in Arabic by Shaykh Idris Akbar. The story of Mary and her baby begins at exactly 2:59 into the video and runs to about 8:06. So if you want to hear the Quranic story of the birth of Jesus recited in Arabic by a great reciter, enjoy. The video includes the Arabic script so readers of this page who are studying Arabic can follow along.

When you hear "wathkur filkitaab Maryam" you will know you are at the start of the right section.

Video link: http://youtu.be/_PESbd1PqkE

4. The story of Jesus in the Quran may well have saved the lives of about 80 to 100 of the first Muslims living in Mecca with Muhammad. They had to flee Mecca to Abyssinia because of religious persecution and they sought refuge from the Christian ruler there. The Meccans tried to bribe the ruler into forcing them to return to Mecca, but this ruler actually behaved like a Christian ruler should and granted the Muslims asylum. (No doubt he'd never stand a chance of becoming the president of the US today, but I digress.) As part of the discussion and debate between the pagan Meccans who had come to Abysinnia to bribe the ruler on the one hand, and the Muslims seeking protection on the other, the Muslims recited the story about Jesus to which I have linked above. After hearing it, the Christian ruler was so moved that he granted his protection to them. Things sure have changed.

A frequent commentator on this blog, Perry, mentioned the film on Muhammad's life called "The Message" produced by the late Mustafa Akkad. Akkad did two versions of the film, one in Arabic and one in English – filming them at the same time and using different actors. Below is the English version of the story of the King of Abyssinia. Very nicely done. Thanks to Perry for bringing this movie back to my mind.

Video link: http://youtu.be/KePlv9olUAU

5. I also love Judy Collins' rendition of the Cherry Tree Carol.

Video link: http://youtu.be/YNeQNQdo8TM

6. "No US administration has done more in support of Israel's security than ours. None. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise. It is a fact," Obama told a cheering crowd.

"To back up his position, Obama cited American cooperation with Israel on developing the Iron Dome anti-rocket system, efforts to clear out the besieged Israeli embassy in Cairo in September, and actions to counter attempts to delegitimize Israel in international forums like the United Nations."

"Shoring up his hard line on Iran, Obama reiterated that no options were off the table inpreventing the Islamic Republic from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and touted his administration's imposition of "the most comprehensive, the hardest-hitting sanctions the Iranian regime has ever faced. We haven't just talked about it, we've done it."

7. Israel goes entire week without killing a Palestinian in Gaza, but finally gets its fix.

8. Somebody help me here, just why is it that we are supposed to kill these people? Abe? Alan? Newt? Michelle? Mitt? Herman? Barack? Please remind me, I just can't seem to remember.

(Note to Shas Party members, the young lady on your right in the video below has a beautiful voice. Not to be missed.)

Video link: http://youtu.be/nEX_G7wZlFY

Merry Christmas folks.

Part I

On 12 December 2011 hundreds of Israeli settler fanatics besieged a West Bank IDF army base. They destroyed equipment, set fires, and even stoned the base soldiers. This was the second such attack in a month. The cause? Anger over the army's dismantlement of a small number of isolated, unauthorized settler outposts. The Chief of the Central Command of the Israel "Defense" Forces, Major General Avi Misrahi, is quoted as saying "I have not seen such hatred of Jews towards soldiers during my 30 years of service." He must not have been looking.

This was not an exceptional event. The subsequent indignation over the attack expressed by Prime Minister Netanyahu ("red lines have been crossed") was, as Alex Fishman writing in Yedioth Ahronoth put it, staged hypocrisy. The Prime Minister is certainly aware that for some time there has been on-going skirmishing between the settlers and government security forces. Right wing settlers regularly throw rocks and fire bombs at police and army vehicles and "physical altercations" between settlers and Israeli police and soldiers are "almost routine." This is so despite the fact that the government, both Prime Minister and Knesset, "either tacitly or openly" support the settlers. Then why the hatred and why the attacks?

At this stage the battle is over strategy. The Israeli government wants to gobble up all of Palestine in an orderly step by step fashion. In part, this is to avoid too much international criticism at any particular stage of the process. On the other hand, the settlers don't give a damn about international opinion – no more than does al-Qaeda, to which they have an unsavory resemblance. Led "by fundamentalist religious leaders who do not recognize the state of Israel and its laws," they are driven by religious fanaticism and have no respect for governments or their agents. It is their ideological conviction that all of Palestine (including, by the way, Jordan) must be Jewish as soon as possible. The authorities sometime get in the way of this goal and that has led the settlers to, as Fishman puts it, "terrorize not only the Palestinian population but also the police and the army."

Prime Minister Netanyahu, belatedly noticing an erosion of government authority, has begun to set rules against settler violence when it is directed toward the IDF and police (but not toward the Palestinians). The New York Times reports that from now on such "radical Israelis" attacking soldiers or policemen will be treated just like "Palestinian militants." That is they will be "detained for long periods without charge and tried in military courts."

Alas, this new toughness won't work. For years Israeli governments have looked the other way as thousands of armed religious fanatics organized themselves and got stronger and more self-assured. Now, as Adam Keller of Gush Shalom tells us, "the Golem has turned on its creator." These are the people who assassinated Yitzhak Rabin. What makes Netanyahu believe that Israel's present army, police and courts which, reminiscent of the Weimar Republic, regularly show sympathy and leniency toward these criminals, are going to change their attitude on his orders? When a military reporter asked a brigade commander if he was prepared to act toward settler hostility in the same manner as he would Palestinian hostility, he answered "you would not expect me to open fire on a Jew...I am certain you didn't mean that."

The reporter would have gotten a very different answer if she had asked the fanatic settlers about how far they were willing to go. Anshel Pfeffer writing in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz notes that "the only red line that has yet to be crossed is a scenario in which an Israeli citizen [belonging to] the extreme settler right would open fire on IDF soldiers. There are those in Israel's security forces who fear that day is not so distant."

Netanyahu's apparent change of heart comes too late. What we have here is incipient civil war. Any really serious effort to stop these fanatics will result in their turning their weapons on those who represent the government. What you sow is what you reap.

Part II

This climate of internecine hostility contaminates the Jewish diaspora as well. There is no rock throwing or armed men threatening violence, but the hatred is there. Jewish critics of Israeli behavior are categorized as "Israel-haters" or, alternatively, "self-hating Jews." This is often expressed with the same vehemence displayed by Israel's settler fanatics. And, indeed, those pointing fingers in the U.S. are often supporters of the extremists on the West Bank.

Last week Howard Gutman, the U.S. Ambassador to Belgium, addressed "a group of European Jewish lawyers gathered...to discuss anti-Semitism" Gutman told them that there was now two different kinds of anti-Semitism: a "classic" type that is "directed against Jews for being Jews" and "a newer form" that is a product of "the Israeli-Arab conflict and can therefore be mitigated by reducing Israeli-Palestinian tensions." This is actually a conclusion that was reached by Israel's Defense Ministry as early as 1994. No matter, when Gutman's statement became public "the long knives" came out "for another Jewish liberal who committed the sin of stating the uncomfortably obvious truth about a causal relation between Israeli policy and Muslim anti-Semitism."

The Republican Jewish Coalition's Executive Director Matthew Brooks called Gutman's revelation "outrageous" and one that "makes excuses for anti-Semitic hatred and bigotry." Senator Joe Lieberman called Gutman's remarks "inexcusable" and Representative Gary Ackerman of New York suggested that Gutman himself might be anti-Semitic.

Again, the charge of anti-Semitism can be and frequently is leveled against fellow Jews who are critical of Israel. The logic goes something like this: Judaism and Israel are one and the same. Ergo if you are critical of Israeli behavior you are critical of Jewish behavior and that makes you an anti-Semite. Very neat. Of course, the whole train of thought rests on the false assumption that Israel and Judaism are two sides of the same coin.

Despite the viral reaction, Jewish criticism of Israel is growing quickly and this creates a frustrating dilemma for the Zionists. The pro-Israeli blogger Steven Plaut describes this situation in catastrophic terms. "Jewish anti-Semitism is all around us, part of the political air we breathe, a modern disease. In the twenty-first century the world is experiencing an explosion of it, a virtual plague."

Part III

None of this Zionist extremism can be dismissed as a passing phenomenon. It has been with us too long. In fact it has been with us since 1917 and the Balfour Declaration. That is when a certain segment of European Jewry began its obsessive drive to create and maintain a state for one group only. It was then, and continues to be an inherently racist project. Ideologies, like Zionism, that support such projects usually reject all opposition. And opposition from erstwhile members of the in-group is the very worst because it exposes the false nature of claims of ethnic, religious or racial solidarity.

When and if Israeli society comes to its senses and decides to rid itself of the Occupied Territories the settler fanatics will resist "fanatically," and the civil war that is now incipient will release its full potential violence. When and if that happens there will be repercussions for U.S. and European Jews and they too may well entail violence. It would seem that the people chosen to be a "light unto the nations" have only managed to create another badly flawed nation state–one with a preference for apartheid policies. Zionism said "let modern Israel be" and, pop, the light went out.

* Lawrence Davidson is professor of history at West Chester University. He is the author of numerous books, including Islamic Fundamentalism and America's Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood.

The dynamic of democratic, nationalist and class struggles throughout the Muslim world has set in motion a new constellation of alliances between the imperial West (US and European Union) and Islamist parties, leaders and regimes, dubbed "moderate" by US officials, propagandists and academics.

This essay analyzes the changing contemporary context of imperial domination, especially the demise of longstanding client regimes. It then examines the previous significant ties between western imperial powers and Islamist movements and regimes and the basis of 'historical collaboration'.

The third part of the paper will outline the political circumstances in which the imperial powers embrace "moderate" Islamists in government and utilize "armed fundamentalists" in opposition to secular regimes. We will critically analyze how "moderate" Islam is defined by the Western imperialist powers. Is this a tactical or strategic alliance? What are the political "trade-offs"? What do imperialism's neo-liberal clients and their new 'moderate' Muslim allies have in common and how do they differ?

In conclusion we will evaluate the viability of this alliance and its capacity to contain and deflect the popular democratic movements and repress the burgeoning class and national struggles, especially in regard to the 'obstacles' posed by the Israel-US-Zionist ties and the continued IMF policies which promise to worsen the crises in the Muslim countries.

The Transition from Neo-Liberal Client Rulers to Power-Sharing with Moderate Islamists

The key motivation in Washington's and the European imperial troika's (England, France and Germany) embrace of what their press and officialdom hail as "moderate" Islamist parties has been the collapse or weakening of their long-term client rulers. Faced with the ouster of Mubarak, in Egypt, Ali in Tunisia and Saleh in Yemen, mass protests in Morocco and Algeria, the US-EU turned to conservative Muslim leaders who were willing to work within the existing state institutional framework (including the army and state police), uphold the capitalist order and align with the empire against anti-imperial movements and states. In Egypt, the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) (the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood), in Tunisia the Renaissance Party, in Morocco the Justice and Development Party have all indicated their willingness to serve as reliable partners in blocking the pro-democracy movements that challenge the socio-economic status quo and the long-standing military-imperial linkages.

The Islamist collaborators are called "moderate and respectable" because they agree to participate in elections within the boundaries of the established political and economic order; they have dropped any criticism of imperial and colonial treaties and trade agreements signed by the previous client regions - including ones which collaborate with Israel's colonization of Palestine.

Equally important "moderate" means supporting imperial wars against nationalist and secular Arab republics, such as Syria and Libya, and isolating and/or repressing class based trade unions and secular-left parties.

"Moderate" Islamists have become the Empire's 'contraceptive of choice' against any chance the massive Arab peoples' revolt might give birth to substantive egalitarian social changes and bring those brutal pro- western officials, responsible for so many crimes against humanity, to justice.

The West and their client officials in the military and police have agreed to a kind of "power-sharing' with the moderate/respectable (read 'reactionary') Islamist parties. The Islamists would be responsible for imposing orthodox economic policies and re-establishing 'order' (i.e. bolstering the existing one) in partnership with pro-multinational bank economists and pro US-EU generals and security officials. In exchange the Islamists could take certain ministries, appoint their members, finance electoral clientele among the poor and push their 'moderate' religious, social and cultural agenda. Basically, the elected Islamists would replace the old corrupt dictatorial regimes in running the state and signing off on more free trade agreements with the EU. Their role would keep the leftists, nationalists and populists out of power and from gaining mass support. Their job would substitute spiritual solace and "inner worth" via Islam in place of redistributing land, income and power from the elite, including the foreign multi-nationals to the peasants, workers, unemployed and exploited low-paid employees.

Why the Empire Arms Fundamentalist Anti-Secular Muslims

While the US and EU have backed respectable "moderate Islam" in heading off a popular upheaval of the young and unemployed, in other contexts they have enlisted violent, fundamentalist Islamic terrorists to overthrow secular independent anti-imperialists regimes - like Libya, Syria - just as they had done earlier in Afghanistan and Yugoslavia. The US, Qatar and the European troika financed and armed Libyan fundamentalist militias and then engaged in a murderous eight months air and sea assault to ensure their client's 'victory' over the secular Gaddafi regime. Fresh from NATO's success, the US, the European 'Troika' and Turkey, with the backing of the League of Arab collaborator princes and emirs, have financed a violent Muslim Brotherhood insurrection in Syria, intent on destroying the nationalist economy and modern secular state.

The US and EU have openly unleashed their fundamentalists allies in order to destroy independent adversaries in the name of "democracy" and 'humanitarian intervention', a laughable claim in light of decade long colonial wars of occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan. All target regimes have one crime in common: Using their national resources to develop modern secular states - independent of imperial dictates.

NATO implements its campaigns through conservative 'moderate' or armed fundamentalist Islamist movements depending on the specific needs, circumstances and range of options in any given target nation. With the fall of pro-Empire 'secular dictatorships' in Egypt and Tunisia, pliable conservative Islamist leaders are the fall back "lesser evil". When the opportunity to overthrow an independent secular or nationalist regime arises, armed and violent fundamentalist mercenaries become the political vehicle of choice.

As with European empires in the past, the modern Western imperial countries have relied on retrograde religious parties and leaders to collaborate and serve their economic and military interests and to provide mercenaries for imperial armies to savage any anti-imperialist social revolutionaries. In that sense US and European rulers are neither 'pro nor anti' Islam, it all depends on their national and class position. Islamists who collaborate with Empire are "moderate" allies and if they attack an anti-imperialist regime, they become 'freedom fighters'. On the other hand, they become "terrorists" or "fundamentalists" when they oppose imperial occupation, pillage or colonial settlements.

Contemporary History of Islamist-Imperial Collaboration

The historical record of western imperial expansion reveals many instances of collaboration and cooptation as well as conflict with Islamist regimes, movements and parties. In the early 1960's the CIA backed a brutal military coup against the secular Indonesian nationalist regime of Sukarno, and encouraged their puppet dictator General Suharto to unleash Muslim militia in a veritable "holy war" exterminating nearly one million leftist trade unionists, school teachers, students, farmers, communists or suspected sympathizers and their family members. The horrific 'Jakarta Option' became a model for CIA operations elsewhere. In Yugoslavia the US and Europe promoted and financed fundamentalists Muslims in Bosnia, importing mujahedeen who would later form part of Al Qaida, and then backed the Kosovo Liberation Army, a known terrorist organization, in order to completely break-up and ethnically 'cleanse' a modern secular multi-national state - going so far as to have Americans and NATO bomb Belgrade for the first time since the Nazis in the Second World War.

During President Carter's administration, the CIA joined with Saudi Arabia's ruling royalty, providing billions of dollars in arms and military supplies to Afghan Muslim fundamentalists in their brutal but successful Jihad overthrowing a modern, secular nationalist regime backed by the USSR. The murderous fate of school teachers and educated women in the aftermath was quickly covered up.

Needless to say, wherever US imperialism faces leftists or secular, modernizing anti-imperialist regimes, Washington turns to retrograde Islamic leaders willing and able to destroy the progressive regime in return for imperialist support. Such coalitions are built mainly around fundamentalist and moderate Islamist opposition to secular, class- based politics allied with the Empire's hostility to any anti-imperialist challenge to its domination..

The same 'coalition' of Islamists and the Empire has been glaringly obvious during the NATO assault on Libya and continues against Syria: The Muslims provide the shock troops on the ground; NATO provides the aerial bombing, funds, arms, sanctions, embargoes and propaganda.

These Islamist-Imperialist coalitions are usually temporary, based on a common secular or nationalist enemy and not on any common strategic interest. After the defeat of a secular anti-imperialist regime, militant Muslims may find themselves attacked by the colonial neo-liberal regime most favored by the imperial west. This happened in Afghanistan and elsewhere after the overseas Islamist fighters (Afghan Arabs) returned to their own neo-colonized, collaborating home countries, like Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Egypt and elsewhere.

Contemporary History of Islamist-Imperial Conflict

The relation between Islamist regimes and imperialism is complex, changing and full of examples of bloody conflict.

The US backed the "modernizing" free market dictatorship of the Shah in Iran, overthrowing the nationalist Mosaddegh regime. They provided arms and intelligence for the Savak, the Shah's monstrous secret police as it hunted down and murdered tens of thousands of nationalist-Islamists and leftist resistance fighters and critics in Iran and abroad. The rise to power of the fundamentalist-anti-imperialist Khomeini regime fueled US armed attacks and provoked retaliatory moves: Iran backed and financed anti-colonial Islamist groups in Lebanon (Hezbollah), Palestine (Hamas) and Iraq (the Shia parties).

Subsequent to 9/11 the US invaded and overthrew the Islamist Taliban regime, re-colonized the country, establishing a puppet regime under US-European auspices. The Taliban and allied Islamist and nationalist resistance fighters organized and established a mass guerrilla army which has engaged in a decade long war with armed support from Pakistani Islamist forces responding to US military incursions.

In Palestine, Washington, under the overweening control of Israel's Zionist fifth column, has armed and financed Israel's war against the popularly elected Palestinian Islamist Hamas government in Gaza. Washington's total commitment to the Jewish state and its colonial expansion and usurpation of Palestinian (Muslim and Christian) lands and property in Jerusalem and elsewhere reflects the profound and pervasive influence of the Zionist power configuration throughout the US political system .They secure 90% votes in Congress, pledges of allegiance from the White House, and senior appointments in Treasury, State Department and the Pentagon.

What determines whether the US Empire will have a collaborative or conflict-ridden relation with Islam depends on the specific political context. The US allies with Islamists when faced with nationalist, leftist and secular democratic regimes and movements, especially where their optimal choice, a military-neo-liberal alternative is relatively weak. However, faced with a nationalist, anti-colonial Islamist regime (as is the case of the Islamic Republic of Iran), Washington will side with pro-western liberals, dissident Muslim clerics, pliable tribal chiefs, separatist ethnic minorities and pro-Western generals.

The key to US-Islamist relations from the White House perspective is based on the Islamists' attitude toward empire, class politics, NATO and the "free market" (private foreign investment).

Today's 'moderate' Islamist parties in Tunisia, Egypt, Turkey, Morocco (and elsewhere), which have offered their support to NATO and its wars against Libya and Syria, uphold 'private property' (i.e. foreign and imperialist client control of key industries) and repress independent working class and anti-imperialist parties: They are the Empire's "new partners" in the pillage of the resource-rich Middle East and North Africa.

The US-brokered counter-revolutionary alliance among moderate Islamists, the previous military rulers and Washington is fraught with tensions. The military demands total impunity and a continuation of its economic privileges; this includes a veto on any legislation addressing the previous regime's brutal crimes against its own people. On the other hand, the Islamist parties uphold their electoral victories and demand majority rule. Washington insists the alliance adhere to its policy toward Israel and abandon their support for the Palestinian national struggle. As these tensions and conflicts deepen, the alliance could collapse ushering in a new phase of conflict and instability.

Emblematic of "moderate Islamiist" collaboration with US-EU imperialism is the role of Qatar, home to the 'respectable' Arabic media giant, Al-Jazeera, and the demagogic Qatari "spiritual guide" Sheik Youssef al-Qaradawi. Sheik Youssef quotes the Koran and Islamic moral principles in defense of NATO's 8-month aerial bombing of Libya, which killed over 50,000 pro-regime Libyans (themselves Muslims). He calls for armed imperial intervention in Syria to overthrow the secular Assad regime, a position he shares comfortably with the state of Israel. He urges the "moderate Islamists" in Egypt and Tunisia to cease any criticism of the existing economic order, ( see "Spiritual guide steers Arabs to moderation", Financial Times, December 9, 2011 - p5). In a word, this respectable Muslim cleric is NATO's perfect Koran-quoting "moderate Islamist" partner - a dream come true.

The Strategic Utility of "Moderate" Islamist Parties

Islamist parties are approached by the Empire's policy elites only when they have a mass following and can therefore weaken any popular, nationalist insurgency. Mass-based Islamist parties serve the empire by providing "legitimacy", by winning elections and by giving a veneer of respectability to the pro-imperial military and police apparatus retained in place from the overthrown client state dictatorships.

The Islamist parties compete at the "grass roots" with the leftists. They build up a clientele of supporters among the poor in the countryside and urban slums through organized charity and basic social services administered at the mosques and humanitarian religious foundations. Because they reject class struggle and are intensely hostile to the left (with its secular, pro-feminist and working-class agenda), they have been 'half-tolerated' by the dictatorship, while the leftist activists are routinely murdered. Subsequently, with the overthrow of the dictatorship, the Islamists emerge intact with the strongest national organizational network as the country's 'natural leaders' from the religious-bazaar merchant political elite. Their leaders offer to serve the empire and its traditional native military collaborators in exchange for a 'slice of power', especially over morality, culture, religion and households (women), in other words, the "micro-society".

For their part, they offer to marginalize and undermine the left, anti-imperialist secular democrats in the streets. In the face of mass popular rebellion calling into question the imperial order, a 'moderate' Islamist-imperial partnership is a 'heavenly deal' praised in Washington, Paris or London (as well as Riyadh and Tel Aviv).

Conclusion: How Viable is the Imperial-Islamic Coalition?

Those who thought that the spontaneous pro-democracy movements spelled the end of the imperial order left out the role of organized "moderate" Islamist electoral parties as able collaborators of Empire. The brutally repressed mass mobilization of unemployed youth was no match for the well-funded grass roots community organization of the moderate Islamists. This is especially true when politics shifted from the street to the ballot box, a process that the Islamist parties facilitated. In the absence of a mass revolutionary party, seeking state power, the existing military-police state was able to work around the mass protesters and put together a power sharing agreement at least in the short-run.

In the November 2011 elections, the radical Egyptian Islamist party, Nour, gathered one-quarter of the vote in Cairo and Alexandria. Their showing was even higher among the urban poor districts, which promises even greater support among poor rural constituencies in the coming elections. Essentially a Salafist Islamist party, Nour, unlike the Muslim Brotherhood, combined denunciations of class abuses and elite corruption with mass appeals to a return to a mythic harmonious life. They used effective grass roots organizing around basic services in order to gain a greater proportion of the working class vote than all the leftist parties combined. Nour's message of "class retribution against the ...abuses of Egypt's elite fueled Nour's new found popularity", (Financial Times December 10, 2011 p6).

Despite the successes of the Islamist-Imperial partnership, the world economic crises and especially the growing unemployment and misery in the Arab countries will make it difficult for the 'respectable moderate' Islamists to stabilize their societies. They are inextricably constrained by their alliances to function within the confines of the 'orthodox neo-liberal framework' imposed by the Empire. For that reason, the "moderate" Islamists will try to co-opt some secular liberals, social democrats and even a few leftists as 'minority partners', so that they won't be held solely responsible for dashing the expectations of the poor in their countries.

The fact of the matter is that the pro-imperial Islamist parties have absolutely no answer to the current crises: Charities delivered from the mosque during the dictatorship won them mass support; now more austerity programs imposed from their ministerial posts will certainly alienate and infuriate their mass base. What will follow depends on who is best organized: Liberals are limited to media campaigns and tied to economic orthodoxy; the leftists have to advance from protest movements in the downtown squares to organized political units operating in popular neighborhoods, workplaces, markets, villages and slums. Otherwise radical fundamentalist, like the Salafists, will exploit the people's outrage with moderate Islamist betrayals and promote their own version of a closed clerical society, opposing the West while repressing the Left.

The US and EU may have 'temporarily' avoided revolution by accommodating electoral reforms and adapting to alliances with "moderate" Islamists, but their ongoing military interventions and their own growing economic crisis will simply postpone a more decisive conflict in the near future.

* James Petras is the author of more than 62 books published in 29 languages, and over 600 articles in professional journals. Petras' latest books, Global Depression and Regional Wars (Atlanta, Clarity Press, 2009) is the third in a series, including Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of US Power (Atlanta, Clarity Press 2008) and The Power of Israel in the United States (Atlanta, Clarity Press 2006), analyzing the influence of militarism and Zionism in American foreign policy.

Has anyone noticed that the political air is wafting rancid lately? That is the smell of modern barbarism. Modern barbarism is a malodorous umbrella concept. Underneath the umbrella are lots of fetid phobias, isms and behaviours: Islamophobia, homophobia, xenophobia, semi-fascism, scapegoating, stereotyping, bullying, libelling and a growing, aggressive intolerance of everything and everyone who is not to the liking of the modern barbarian.

Here are some recent instances of this phenomenon.

Mistaking the particular for the general

Michael Quigley, a Democratic congressman from Chicago

Quigley was correct about the growing levels of Islamophobia that confront Muslim Americans. Islamophobia is a delusional mind-set which mistakes the general for the particular, which condemns an entire group (which happens to have a billion plus members) for the particular actions of a very few. There is no logic to such an overreaching generalization. It is irrational.

Within days of Quigley's brief presentation he was "attacked harshly ... in the conservative blogosphere ... on radio and TV". There was "at least one death threat on a Fox news site that by week's end was still not taken down despite requests".

Along with "hundreds of nasty calls, emails and faxes" received by Quigley's office, he was soon lambasted by Bill O'Reilly, again on Fox, who denied that there was anything to apologize for. "What discrimination?" O'Reilly asked. "Statistics don't support claims of bias against Muslim Americans."

O'Reilly was simply wrong about this. As Ahmed Rehab, Executive Director of the Chicago office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), commented, O'Reilly would "have to be living under a rock" to believe there was no evidence. Both federal statistics on workplace complaints of discrimination and a recent report [.PDF] issued by the CAIR in conjunction with the Centre for Peace and Gender at the University of California at Berkeley have documented the rise of Islamophobia since the 9/11 attacks.

Despite O'Reilly being factually wrong on the issue of rising prejudice against Muslim Americans, Quigley's apology continued to draw scorn. Soon some right-wing spokesmen were trying to use the apology to call attention to what they believed to be the violent nature of Muslim culture. Ralph Peters​, who might be thought of as a professional anti-Muslim, called Quigley, who is just 51 years old, a "silly old fool" and said you might as well "apologize for preventing them [Muslims] from beating their daughters to death for flirting".

First of all such violence is not a trait of Islam. Secondly, the United States could be made to look like hell on earth for women simply by over-concentrating on nationwide instances of spousal abuse. Such is the danger of mistaking the particular for the general.

Cheers and jeers

At about the same time Islamophobia was also playing havoc with Republican politics in Florida. Nezar Hamze, a long time Republican as well as CAIR's South Florida Director, was systematically discriminated against (to the point of the purposeful changing of local party selection rules) when he stood for election to the Broward County Republican Executive Committee. Usually those who want to serve on this committee are automatically accepted. It was "the first time ... anyone could recall ... [someone being turned down] in a county where Republicans complain about being outnumbered by Democrats." When Hamze's membership in the executive committee was denied, the 300 or so people present at the meeting "cheered loudly". Those cheers were strikingly similar to the foot stomping and applauds that have been heard from the audiences attending the Republican presidential primary debates.

At the Republican debates it is not only Islamophobia that is on display, but rabid reactions to gay rights, scorn for the vulnerability of the uninsured and calls for the blood of those on death row.

To this you can add the following stances that have come to the fore under the influence of a wave of modern barbarism centred in the ranks of the Republican party: Tea Party assertions that environmentalism is "unbiblical" and cutting taxes for the rich is righteous; health care reform is "the equivalent of drug dealing" (Rick Santorum); there is a serious threat of America turning into a "secular atheist country ... dominated by radical Islamists" (Newt Gingrich​); "those who believe in evolution are part of a cult following" (Michelle Bachman​); and the friendly embracing of fundamentalists who believe that the Statue of Liberty is a "demonic idol" (Rick Perry).

Who are these people who give tea a bad name and show up at presidential debates only to behave as if they are enjoying a bear baiting exhibition? Actually, they are Richard Hofstadter​'s politically paranoid, Eric Hoffer​'s true believers and Ortega y Gasset's revolting masses. They are people who are always with us even in the midst of modernity. And they obviously feel that, here in America, it is now their time. Maybe they are correct. They have captured one of the two main parties in the US, taken at least temporary control of the House of Representatives and fashioned a slate of Republican presidential hopefuls in their own image. As has been noted, in the midst of the cheering and jeering of these modern barbarians "not one Republican candidate...spoke up to admonish the crowd and call for civility".

Conclusion

For the rest of America to ignore what is going on here is the equivalent of turning one's back on a mugging in progress. And what is being mugged is the entire country.

Actually, this threat has been building up for some time. What do you think Ronald Reagan​ was doing, in terms of both domestic and foreign policies, if not laying the ground for George Bush Jr​?

And the Democrats too have done their share to prepare the ground. Bill Clinton​ helped deregulate the economy to the delight of the devotees of greed and corruption, while simultaneously destroying the lives of millions of Iraqi innocents through draconian sanctions.

President Obama has allied with racists in the Middle East and let go free torturers and war criminals in our own midst.

Indeed, how many of us, politicians and voters, have turned a blind eye to the repeated bipartisan orgies of blood that sacrificed millions in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, among other places.

Who are these people? Well, intellectually speaking they are our lumpen proletariat. The one-dimensional thinkers and political savages that, until recently, had dwelled on the fringes of the conservative movement.

However, in another way they are a reflection of all of us and our frustrations with the built-in inadequacies of the democratic system. Winston Churchill​ was right when he said that democracy was the worst political system, except for all the others. The recurrent corruption, constant double standards, favouritism and influence peddling can get us all down.

But what sets the modern barbarians apart is their simple-minded intention to essentially dismantle government with nothing but a vague and vengeful minimalism in mind as a replacement. They are, if you will, intimations of our collective political ID.

So, Dr Jekyll, meet Mr Hyde. Who will it be? If you think you really share the character of Dr Jekyll, then you better assert yourself. Get active, get political, speak out, take a progressive stand. Otherwise, modern barbarism will have its way.

* Lawrence Davidson is professor of history at West Chester University. He is the author of numerous books, including Islamic Fundamentalism and America's Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood.

Fordson High School is a secondary school in Dearborn, Michigan. At times Dearborn has been a victim of hostility toward its Muslim community. The city has the largest concentration of Arabs outside of the Middle East.

The school and its football (American football) team is the setting for the new film "Fordson: Faith, Fasting, Football".

In recent years, Fordson's team faced a range of challenges, from racial slurs hurled at them while playing to being falsely accused of being terrorists.

The film, about Faith (Islam), Fasting (Muslims during Ramadan) and Football (the film's setting), premiered on September 9th, two days before the tenth anniversary of 9/11.

The team had to train during Ramadan, and in order to fast for the month, they set their practice times from 11 pm to 4 am.

Paul Brunick, reviewing the film for the New York Times, notes that "...sound bites of unidentified but recognizable talk radio and cable news mainstays are the kind of provocations regularly criticized by media watchdogs."

A narrator in the film says, "We've been called many names: an Islamic School, an Arabic School, a Hezbollah High School, camel jockeys, damn Arabs, towel heads, sand niggers."

One of the students comments, "It's real hate; you can feel it." But they're young, they're football players and they want to win, not just on the football field but as Arab Americans.

Says the narrator, "But when all of this hatemongering is mashed together with a sweeping orchestral march, the individual instances of bigotry are transformed into something larger: a glimpse of how monstrous our post-9/11 hysteria may appear to future students of American history."

In the film, residents of Dearborn react to the events of 9/11. One man says, "Please God, don't let them be Arabs" about those who flew the planes into the twin towers.

Another reflects, "We were hit twice; once by Osama bin Laden and second by those who associated us with Osama bin Laden."

Very few films or TV programmes portray Arabs in a favourable light. Those that do need to counter the negative images reflected in the bigotry of a century in Hollywood.

Films like Oscar nominated "Syriana" and "Kingdom of Heaven," which display Arabs and Muslims as people rather than stereotypes, can help break down the image that has been built up for years.

As Professor Emeritus Jack Shaheen made clear in his landmark study Reel Bad Arabs and his documentary based on the book, Hollywood has a long and reprehensible record of vilifying Arabs.

In a 2008 interview for Lebanon's Daily Star, Jim Quilty noted that "Regarded as a sort of 'Orientalism' for film junkies, Shaheen's book inspired 'Planet of the Arabs,' Jackie Salloum's 2003 video that stitches together nine minutes of reprehensible Arab representations like a feature-film trailer. In 2006, the book generated Sut Jhall's documentary 'Reel Bad Arabs'."

In the same year as his documentary appeared, Shaheen released his new book, "Guilty: Hollywood's verdict on Arabs after 9/11." In it, he reveals that instead of an improved image of Arabs, their portrayal has worsened following 9/11.

A review in Publishers Weekly points out that "In an index of more than 100 post-9/11 films, the book depicts and debunks the most prevalent stereotypes of reel Arabs—exotic camel-riding nomad, oppressed maiden, corrupt sheikh, terrorist. Dehumanizing portrayals of Arabs have real consequences..."

The road to deserved improvement of the Arab image in the west will be paved with films that portray Arabs as they really are.

It's time to put ignorant stereotypes to rest by countering the propaganda with reality as in the Fordson film.

* Paul J. Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for many years. He's a weekly Op-Ed columnist for the Gulf Daily News. Dr. Balles is also Editorial Consultant for Red House Marketing and a regular contributor to Bahrain This Month.

By Spencer Ackerman

The FBI is teaching its counterterrorism agents that "main stream" [sic] American Muslims are likely to be terrorist sympathizers; that the Prophet Mohammed was a "cult leader"; and that the Islamic practice of giving charity is no more than a "funding mechanism for combat."

At the Bureau's training ground in Quantico, Virginia, agents are shown a chart contending that the more "devout" a Muslim, the more likely he is to be "violent." Those destructive tendencies cannot be reversed, an FBI instructional presentation adds: "Any war against non-believers is justified" under Muslim law; a "moderating process cannot happen if the Koran continues to be regarded as the unalterable word of Allah."

These are excerpts from dozens of pages of recent FBI training material on Islam that Danger Room has acquired. In them, the Constitutionally protected religious faith of millions of Americans is portrayed as an indicator of terrorist activity.

"There may not be a 'radical' threat as much as it is simply a normal assertion of the orthodox ideology," one FBI presentation notes. "The strategic themes animating these Islamic values are not fringe; they are main stream."

The FBI isn't just treading on thin legal ice by portraying ordinary, observant Americans as terrorists-in-waiting, former counterterrorism agents say. It's also playing into al-Qaida's hands.

Focusing on the religious behavior of American citizens instead of proven indicators of criminal activity like stockpiling guns or using shady financing makes it more likely that the FBI will miss the real warning signs of terrorism. And depicting Islam as inseparable from political violence is exactly the narrative al-Qaida spins - as is the related idea that America and Islam are necessarily in conflict. That's why FBI whistleblowers provided Danger Room with these materials.

Over the past few years, American Muslim civil rights groups have raised alarm about increased FBI and police presence in Islamic community centers and mosques, fearing that their lawful behavior is being targeted under the broad brush of counterterrorism. The documents may help explain the heavy scrutiny.

They certainly aren't the first time the FBI has portrayed Muslims in a negative light during Bureau training sessions. As Danger Room reported in July, the FBI's Training Division has included anti-Islam books, and materials that claim Islam "transforms [a] country's culture into 7th-century Arabian ways." When Danger Room confronted the FBI with that material, an official statement issued to us claimed, "The presentation in question was a rudimentary version used for a limited time that has since been replaced."

But these documents aren't relics from an earlier era. One of these briefings, titled "Strategic Themes and Drivers in Islamic Law," took place on March 21.

The Islam briefings are elective, not mandatory. "A disclaimer accompanied the presentation stating that the views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. government," FBI spokesman Christopher Allen tells Danger Room.

"The training materials in question were delivered as Stage Two training to counterterrorism-designated agents," Allen adds. "This training was largely derived from a variety of open source publications and includes the opinion of the analyst that developed the lesson block."

Not all counterterrorism veterans consider the briefings so benign. "Teaching counterterrorism operatives about obscure aspects of Islam," says Robert McFadden, who recently retired as one of the Navy Criminal Investigative Service's al-Qaida-hunters, "without context, without objectivity, and without covering other non-religious drivers of dangerous behavior is no way to stop actual terrorists."

Still, at Quantico, the alleged connection between Islam and violence isn't just stipulated. It's literally graphed.

An FBI presentation titled "Militancy Considerations" measures the relationship between piety and violence among the texts of the three Abrahamic faiths. As time goes on, the followers of the Torah and the Bible move from "violent" to "non-violent." Not so for devotees of the Koran, whose "moderating process has not happened." The line representing violent behavior from devout Muslims flatlines and continues outward, from 610 A.D. to 2010. In other words, religious Muslims have been and always will be agents of aggression.

Training at Quantico isn't designed for intellectual bull sessions or abstract theory, according to FBI veterans. The FBI conducts its training so that both seasoned agents and new recruits can sharpen their investigative skills.

In this case, the FBI's Allen says, the counterterrorism agents who received these briefings have "spent two to three years on the job." The briefings are written accordingly. The stated purpose of one, about allegedly religious-sanctioned lying, is to "identify the elements of verbal deception in Islam and their impacts on Law Enforcement." Not "terrorism." Not even "Islamist extremism." Islam.

What's more, the Islamic "insurgency" is all-encompassing and insidious. In addition to outright combat, its "techniques" include "immigration" and "law suits." So if a Muslim wishes to become an American or sues the FBI for harassment, it's all just part of the jihad.

On Tuesday, the leaders of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), warned that law enforcement lacks "meaningful standards" to prevent anti-Islam material from seeping into counterterrorism training. Some FBI veterans suspect the increased pressure on American Muslims has a lot to do with the kind of training that Quantico offers.

"Seeing the materials FBI agents are being trained with certainly helps explain why we've seen so many inappropriate FBI surveillance operations broadly targeting the Muslim-American community, from infiltrating mosques with agents provocateur to racial- and ethnic-mapping programs," Mike German, a former FBI agent now with the American Civil Liberties Union, tells Danger Room after being shown the documents. "Biased police training can only result in biased policing." (Full disclosure: This reporter's wife works for the ACLU.)

The chief of the Training Division, Assistant FBI Director Thomas Browne, came into his current job in January. His official biography lists no terrorism expertise beyond serving as a coordinator for a bureau "Domestic Terrorism Program" in Tennessee sometime in the last decade.

It is unclear what vetting process the FBI used to approve these briefings; if any Muslim scholars contributed to them; and what criteria Quantico uses to determine Islamic expertise. "The development of effective training is a constantly evolving process," says FBI spokesman Allen. "Sometimes the training is adapted for long-term use. This particular training segment was delivered a single time and not used since."

Several of these briefings were the work of a single author: an FBI intelligence analyst named William Gawthrop. In 2006, before he joined the Bureau, he gave an interview to the website WorldNetDaily, and discussed some of the themes that made it into his briefings, years later. The Prophet "Muhammad's mindset is a source for terrorism," Gawthrop told the website, which would later distinguish itself as a leader of the "birther" movement, a conspiracy theory that denies President Obama's American citizenship.

At the time, Gawthrop's major suggestion for waging the war on terrorism was to attack what he called "soft spots" in Islamic faith that might "induce a deteriorating cascade effect upon the target." That is, to discredit Islam itself and cause Muslims to abandon their religion. "Critical vulnerabilities of the Koran, for example, are that it was uttered by a mortal," he said. Alas, he lamented, he faced the bureaucratic obstacle of official Washington's "political taboo of linking Islamic violence to the religion of Islam," according to the website.

* Spencer Ackerman: Brooklyn-raised, DC-based defense nerd. Reported from Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay a couple times.

Source: Wired

They are part of the national fabric that holds our country together. They contribute to America in many ways, and deserve the same respect as any of us. My Fellow American pledge to spread this message, and affirm the country's principles of liberty and justice for all.

Take the pledge: http://myfellowamerican.us/pledge

Video link: http://youtu.be/cjm0uk2JO58

By Mohamed Khodr * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

This image shows Anders Behring Breivik from a manifesto attributed to him that was discovered Saturday, July 23, 2011. / AP PHOTO

Where's the label of "Christian terrorist"; where's the label of "radical extremist Jihadist" since the culprit calls for a Christian holy war against Muslims; he called the killing of civilians "necessary"; but leave it to Ms. Rubin, the blind solid and countable zionist delphi oracle to immediately jump on her usual pro israel bandwagon that muslim terrorists are responsible for the Norway attack. This woman's entire purpose at the Pro Israel Post (it didn't use to be that way under Katherine Graham) but now is under her daughter's tutelage.

I'm not surprised that the Post deems Rubin's column worthy of an apology, after all the issue deals with the despicable Muslim world, a world genetically and religiously predisposed to terrorism; never mind the Babylonial Talmud and the multiple Halakic ruling of Israel's rabbis that gentiles are meant to serve and die for Jews and their children can be killed at times of war.

Forgotten is that Zionist terrorists and Israel introduced terrorism to the world of car bombings, hijacking of and shooting down of civilian planes, introduction of letter bombs, assassination of UN representatives, manufacturing deceitful bombings blamed on Arabs to inflame the U.S. such as the Lavon Affairs and the USS LIberty, the impunity of constant wars and attacks upon civilians, Lebanon multiple times, Sabra and Chatils, the multiple attacks on Gaza, imprisonment and torture of Palestinian women and children, and the total defiance of the UN and humiliation of U.S. Presidents.

Europe and the U.S. xenophobia against Islam and Muslim immigrants is so hypocritical given that both invaded and colonized the Arab and Muslim world with Christian soldier "immigrants" that came by overwhelming force to "civilize" and "education", and "Christianize" the southern hemiphere. They were not wanted but they stayed anyway, now Muslim immigrants in Europe, needed to do fill the jobs unwanted by Europeans (Hispanics) are despised and deported. Europe is aging and with low fertility needs foreign workers as long as they are not Africans, Asians, or Muslims.

It is as Prof. Samuel Huntington said in his book "clash of civilizations"

"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."

"Hypocrisy, double standards, and "but nots" are the price of universalist pretensions. Democracy is promoted but not if it brings Islamic fundamentalists to power; nonproliferation is preached for Iran and Iraq but not for Israel; free trade is the elixir of economic growth but not for agriculture; human rights are an issue for China but not with Saudi Arabia; aggression against oil-owning Kuwaitis is massively repulsed but not against non-oil-owning Bosnians. Double standards in practice are the unavoidable price of universal standards of principle"

The Post like the rest of the MSM have the same corrupt power on our government and society that Murdoch has in England. You are complicit in Israel's intransigence to avoid peace at all costs as it continues to steal Palestinian land and its water resources to thirst Palestinians while filling illegal settler swimming pools and fountains.

I doubt the Post will apologize for its knee-jerk attack against Muslims or ever change its ways to bring peace in the Holy Land despite its important to U.S. interests.

Rubin's attack on Muslims is the real "Anti-Semitism" since Arabs are the only true remaining Semites (languages not religion or ethnicity) while the Jews of today are not.

* Mohamed Khodr is a political activist who frequently writes on the plight of Palestinians living under the brutal occupation of Israel, U.S. Foreign Policy, Islam, and Arab politics.

By Paul J. Balles * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

In an earlier article I noted that evangelic preacher Pat Robertson, David Gaubatz, Paul Sperry and Daniel Pipes are Islamophobic cult leaders who take every opportunity they can to vilify Islam and Muslims.

They were all particularly vindictive following the shooting at Fort Hood by the psychopath Nidal Malik Hassan who also happened to be Muslim.

The fact that he was Muslim had nothing to do with his maniacal action. It was no more related to the teachings of Islam than the paedophilia of a few priests is connected with Catholicism or the acts committed by Rabbi Meir Kahane of the Anti-Defamation League were related to Judaism.

Reports of a number of incidents in the past year or so strongly reveal a spike in anti-Muslim hate crimes.

In May 2010, for instance, a bomb exploded at an Islamic centre in Jacksonville, Florida. In August, a man slashed the neck and face of a New York taxi driver after finding out he was Muslim.

Four days later, someone set fire to construction equipment at the future site of an Islamic centre in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. This March, a radical Christian pastor burned a Quran in Gainesville, Florida, leading to deadly riots in Afghanistan that left at least 20 people dead.

A few days ago, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) published a benchmark report on Islamophobia in America.

Islamophobia is close-minded prejudice against or hatred of Islam and Muslims. An Islamophobe is an individual who holds a closed-minded view of Islam and promotes prejudice against or hatred of Muslims.

CAIR identifies a number of individuals and groups who have rallied against Islamophobia as well as a number who can be identified as Islamophobes.

Those who CAIR says

deserve recognition for their outstanding contributions to pushing back against Islamophobic trends during the period include: New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg; Loonwatch.com; Congressional Tri-Caucus; Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN); Jon Stewart, Aasif Mandvi and "The Daily Show"; Keith Olbermann and Countdown; Stephen Colbert and "The Colbert Report"; Media Matters for America; interfaith leaders; and Rachel Maddow and "The Rachel Maddow Show."

Many are available on TV in Bahrain.

Some individuals, institutions and groups were at the centre of pushing Islamophobia in America during the period covered by the report:

Pamela Geller and Stop the Islamization of America; Robert Spencer and Jihad Watch; Brigitte Gabriel and Act! for America; Frank Gaffney and the Centre for Security Policy; Steven Emerson and the Investigative Project on Terrorism; Newt Gingrich; the four members of Congress who called for an investigation of Muslim Capitol Hill interns; Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda and other violent extremists; and Daniel Pipes.

According to those interviewed for the CAIR report, on a scale from 1 (best situation for Muslims) to 10 (worst possible situation for Muslims) Islamophobia in America stands at 6.4. Interviews were conducted in September and October of 2010.

The public's favourable rating of Islam sank from 40 per cent in November 2001 to 30 per cent in August 2010, according to the Pew Research Centre. In late November 2010, the Public Research Institute found that 45 per cent of Americans agree that Islam is at odds with American values.

"Sources of Islamophobia are those individuals and institutions that produce and package materials, ideas or rhetoric about Islam in order to promote a skewed view of the faith and to induce fear, hate or prejudice in those who receive the materials," says CAIR.

Islamophobic behaviour is being repeated in Europe and elsewhere. The much-needed CAIR report details its nature. The report can be accessed and downloaded [.PDF] from the internet.

CAIR's work on Islamophobia has been a long time coming; too long, as the disease grows and spreads. Zionists scream "anti-Semitism" to silence critics of Israel. Long overdue has been the more honest label "Islamophobia" for those who wrongly vilify Islam and Muslims.

* Paul J. Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for many years. He's a weekly Op-Ed columnist for the Gulf Daily News. Dr. Balles is also Editorial Consultant for Red House Marketing and a regular contributor to Bahrain This Month.

By Philip Giraldi * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

The issue of Israel is of critical importance to the antiwar movement, as frequenters of this website are surely aware. This is because Israel and its lobby in the United States have succeeded in so intertwining their interests with those of the United States that whenever Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sneezes four hundred congressmen say "Gesundheit!" What Israel does has consequences for every American citizen, and not only because Tel Aviv is the largest recipient of US economic and military assistance. It is indisputable that Israel and its friends in the White House and Defense Department played a major role in creating the lies and generating the momentum in the drive to war against Iraq in 2002, a conflict that continues to claim American casualties and which has left Iraq in ruins. Now the push is on to "do something" about Iran. There have been a number of bills in Congress that stop just short of declaring war on the Mullahs and there are signs that the Israeli government might be planning a military action before the end of the summer. Does anyone doubt that the United States would immediately be drawn into such a conflict, with disastrous consequences in terms of a terrorist response and energy prices that would skyrocket? It would be a particular misfortune in that there is no actual evidence of the alleged casus belli that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, the US is not threatened by anything Tehran does or could possibly do, and John Citizen has absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose by Washington going to war.

There were two stories last week that illustrate just how bad the situation has become in the wake of the virtual capitulation by President Barack Obama during Netanyahu's triumphal May visit to Washington, the first time in recorded history that a small nation with less than eight million citizens has subjugated a much larger country with a population of more than 310 million.

The first story is about the annual meeting of Ralph Reed's evangelical Faith and Freedom Coalition in Washington on June 3rd and 4th, which included cameo appearances and a number of speeches by Republican presidential candidates. Support for Israel was on the menu du jour in nearly every speech and for every panel. It dominated the conference. One panel had as its subject "Israel: surrounded yet undaunted in the face of evil." Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's oddly named Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission spoke for fifteen minutes about Israel, saying "If we want God to bless America, then we have to bless the Jews. God gave that land to his chosen people forever. That issue is settled by God almighty." Land called Obama "...the worst president of the United States that Israel has ever had," an assertion that probably had much deeper meaning than he intended. Danny Danon, a Knesset member for the Likud Party, warned President Obama "Take your hands from Jerusalem! Jerusalem will remain under Jewish control forever!"

Among the Republicans, only Mitt Romney failed to mention Israel, but he had already denounced Obama for "throwing Israel under the bus." Godfather Pizza magnate Herman Cain demonstrated complete ignorance on basic Middle Eastern issues when he revealed in an interview that he did not understand the meaning of "right of return." But he reportedly "blew the audience away" with his expressions of support-"You mess with Israel and you mess with the United States of America"-and then flew up to New York City to attend a Salute to Israel rally in Central Park. Michele Bachmann produced a standing ovation when she cited a "shocking display of betrayal of our greatest friend and ally Israel." She added "I stand with Israel...President Obama...does not speak for us on the issue of Israel." Tim Pawlenty enthused "We need a president of the United States who stands shoulder to shoulder with our great friend Israel."

The second story comes from a reported visit by Illinois Republican Senator Mark Kirk to Israel. The coverage of the visit by Josh Rogin (isn't he an actor?) on the Foreign Policy website, is headlined as a "new policy approach." The story features a photo of a beaming Kirk standing next to a similarly glowing Netanyahu, demonstrating beyond all doubt that excellent dentistry is available in both countries. Kirk, who appears to have some problem in keeping his resume straight regarding his military record, traveled to the Middle East on an "intense fact finding" mission funded by you and me, unfortunately.

Senator Kirk envisions a "host of ways" to bring about a lot more Israeli-US defense cooperation, suggesting that the $3 billion plus per year they already get is inadequate to their needs. He would like to have the Israeli navy assist the United States navy in patrolling for pirates in the Indian Ocean. Sounds good, doesn't it? The world's mightiest navy with eleven carrier battle groups needs help from Israel's three corvettes to patrol the Indian Ocean. Ah, but there must be a catch and I would guess that since Israel's navy is inadequate to the task, the United States will generously pay to muscle it up, provide a few new vessels and maybe some advanced weapons systems. Probably also cover all the operating costs. It makes perfect sense as everyone knows that Israel is vulnerable to attack from the sea, particularly by car ferries manned by ferocious Turks wielding sticks delivering aid to the Gazans.

Kirk would also like to have the Defense Department consider the purchase of Israel's Iron Dome defensive missile system to protect "our borders" in case either the Canadians or Mexicans decide to attack with Katyusha rockets. Iron Dome was largely developed with US funding but the sales would all go to Israel. Ka-ching!, just listen to that cash register opening up. Kirk would also like to have NATO buy the system to protect against somebody somewhere at some time who might be considering something bad. Ka-ching! Ka-ching!

But Senator Kirk's brilliant insights into the state of the Middle East do not end with the Israeli navy and buying needful things. Kirk advocates ending US funding to the Palestinians as long as Hamas is involved and also terminating it anyway if the Palestinians dare to declare statehood in the UN. Or if they fail to curb "anti-Israeli incitement in Palestinian schools." If those three reasons won't do, there are almost certainly others. Oh yes, and Kirk wants the Turkish humanitarian relief organization IHH, which supported the flotilla bringing aid to Gaza in May, declared a terrorist organization.

Kirk concluded his visit by making a video with Jewish Agency Chairman Natan Sharansky on human rights in Iran. Sharansky recited a list of dissidents in prison in Iran. He apparently misplaced the list of dissidents in prison in Israel, which would be a whole lot longer, as would the corresponding list of those shot and killed by Israeli security forces on the West Bank and in Gaza.

I really don't care what America's hypocritical evangelicals do except insofar as they waste my tax money on their divinely sanctioned wars and demand my grandson for cannon fodder. The fact that they ignore Christian teachings of love and forgiveness and seem to gravitate instead towards Old Testament bloodshed because of their skewed and ridiculous interpretation of what they think it says in the bible is a symptom of their ignorance and hubris. That a US senator goes to Israel to genuflect and kiss the Netanyahu ring is not that surprising either. But it would be a mistake to dismiss Ralph Reed's followers and the nincompoops that seem to proliferate in Congress because of their witlessness and hypocrisy. People like Land and the gaggle of Republican wannabes are both powerful and dangerous. The evangelicals appear to control who will be the next Republican presidential nominee, and their choice might well turn out to be a Bachmann or a Palin, with terrible consequences for the United States if they are elected and are able to carry out their fundamentalist agenda. Senator Mark Kirk is, by comparison, a useful idiot. He will give Netanyahu what he wants in return for support from the Chicago political machine to get reelected. But he buys that support with a Faustian bargain, using taxpayer money and compromising the security of every American. There was a time when someone like Kirk would be laughed out of the public forum, but currently every fool appears to have his day.

Americans have to make a hard decision on what kind of country they want to have. If they want a state shaped by a holy book and guided by the venal and hypocritical they can have it and it will turn out something like the Muslim equivalents in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Thought and moral guidance police on every corner with mandatory prayer services. Or we can opt to throw all this nonsense into the garbage where it belongs. Make Ralph Reed and his cheering Israel firsters go away or emigrate to Israel if that is their wont. We can make do without them.

* Philip Giraldi is a recognized authority on international security and counterterrorism issues. He is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served 18 years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was Chief of Base in Barcelona from 1989 to 1992 designated as the Agency's senior officer for Olympic Games support. He is a contributing editor to The American Conservative, a columnist with AntiWar.com, and his frequent media appearances include 60 Minutes, al-Jazeera TV, National Public Radio, and the British Broadcasting Corporation.

by Radhika Marya

More Saudi Arabian women drove their cars in the streets of capital Riyadh Wednesday, continuing a campaign - largely rooted in social media - to push the kingdom into overturning a ban on female drivers. At the same time, one of the European Union's top diplomats sent a long-requested message of support for their campaign.

The drivers were Sara Al-Khalidi, who was accompanied by her mother, and Azza Al-Shamasi, who was accompanied and filmed by blogger Eman Al Nafjan. The group was also filmed by Saudi media group Rotana.

http://youtu.be/4uTTyUpout0

Al Nafjan also filmed another drive on June 17, the original day the Women2Drive movement called for Saudi women with international licenses, or licenses issued by foreign countries, to drive their own cars. According to an email from Change.org Human Rights Editor Benjamin Joffe-Walt, someone later broke the car's glass and left a note in English that said, "Don't drive again, Bitch."

"This could have been a Saudi man or a hired driver worried about losing [his] job," Joffe-Walt says.

A note is placed next to the shattered side-view mirror of a car belonging to Saudi Iman al-Nafjan's family which the family says was put as a warning after she drove in Riyadh on June 22, 2011. Fayez Nureldine / AFP - Getty Images

The Saudi driving ban on women is not based on any written law, but religious rulings enforced by police have prevented most women - Saudi and foreign - from driving. This has caused Saudi women to rely on live-in drivers or male relatives for transportation, leading to the Women2Drive movement, which began picking up momentum on social media sites around two months ago.

Women did go driving on the designated date of June 17, even though key organizer Manal al-Sherif was arrested and jailed for a few days in May after posting a video of herself driving on YouTube. Some women, like the ones who ventured out Wednesday, are also driving on later dates. According to most reports so far, women stopped by the police have only been briefly detained since they began driving June 17. At least one woman, Twitter user @Maha1410, received a ticket.

Al-Shamasi says she feels the campaign is moving slowly. But Al-Khalidi says she thinks it's starting to move in a big way, adding that she's even heard some positive feedback from the more conservative members of Saudi society.

"It seems that a lot of people are appreciating what's happening," Al-Khalidi says. "We are not against anyone. We are not trying to provoke anyone." She does know of some women who have heard negative feedback, while she herself hasn't received any.

Meanwhile, even Al-Shamasi thinks the campaign might pick up speed. "I think more people are going to drive soon, and we can see that through YouTube," she says.

International Support

Women2Drive continues receiving attention outside Saudi Arabia. The latest message of support comes from Catherine Ashton, the European Union's high representative for foreign affairs and security policy. On Wednesday, a spokesperson for Ashton released a statement describing the women's movement as "courageous."

"The EU supports people who stand up for their right to equal treatment, wherever they are," the statement reads. "The Saudi women who are taking to the road are exercising their right to demand that equality. They are courageous and have the High Representative's support."

The message came after more than 7,000 people signed a Change.org petition asking Ashton for a public declaration of support, and just one day after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton voiced her support during a news conference.

Source: mashable.com