By Stuart Littlewood* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Can the resistance exploit the fake talks, re-position itself and finally "come good”?

Hamas "vows to step up attacks on Israel", say reports in the western media.

Reading further, we learn that this escalation is either "a natural response to the crimes of the occupation" or a spiteful reaction to being left out of the talks.

Either way, Hamas surely knows better than to let such crude impressions be formed.

This is their golden opportunity. The eyes and ears of the world are focused on the Israel problem, and will re-focus every two weeks.

Instead of hurling threats of more violence, which only serve to reinforce opinion that Hamas is a terrorist organization, the words and deeds of the resistance movement should be carefully chosen to harmonise with the West's values and beliefs.

This is Hamas's chance to 'educate' the rest of the world as to the truth about the evil that stalks the Holy Land. It is perhaps a final window of opportunity to define the massive, decades-old injustice accurately.

For example, Hamas could have said: "Israel doesn't have a monopoly on security and we Palestinians are equally entitled to feel safe... Armed Jewish squatters terrorise Palestinian families, menace our children, damage crops, poison our water and often cause fatal harm... Therefore any armed squatter on Palestinian soil risks the same fate as an armed Palestinian found in Israel."

Yes, call them what they are: squatters. 'Settlers' is too nice a word, suggesting peaceful intent when their motives are anything but. Israel's foreign minister is a squatter, which speaks volumes about Netanyahu's gangster government.

Produce a continuously updated, easily digested fact sheet showing the scale and enormity of Israel's crimes and how the stench clings to regime's misguided supporters.

The world needs reminding how the refusal by that delinquent duo - Obama and Netanyahu - to sit down with democratically elected Hamas tramples on everyone's democratic principles, not just the Palestinians', and how their contemptuous attitude disqualifies them from ever again preaching democracy to others.

The same goes for Tony Blair and his protégé Lady Ashton, both unelected meddlers who have wheedled their way into powerful positions - she as EU foreign minister and he as peace envoy (no, don't laugh) of the so-called Quartet (no, you really mustn't laugh). Both studiously avoid contact with the Palestinians' elected leaders even when visiting their territory, showing not only the appalling manners now commonplace among western political 'élites' but the conspiratorial enslavement of the western alliance.

Here is part of Netanyahu's pre-dinner speech at White House on the eve of the talks

"I came here today to make peace. I didn't come here today to play a blame game... I know the grief that has afflicted so many families who have lost their dearest loved ones. Only yesterday four Israelis, including a pregnant women - a pregnant woman - and another woman, a mother of six children, were brutally murdered by savage terrorists. And two hours ago, there was another terror attack. And thank God no one died. I will not let the terrorists block our path to peace, but as these events underscore once again, that peace must be anchored in security.

"We left Lebanon, and we got terror. We left Gaza, and we got terror once again. We want to ensure that territory we'll concede will not be turned into a third Iranian-sponsored terror enclave armed at the heart of Israel - and may I add, also aimed at every one of us sitting on this stage.

"This is why a defensible peace requires security arrangements..."

You can see how he paints his false scenario, claiming not to play the blame game while proceeding to do exactly that, weaving a tissue of lies, playing the beloved family card, demonizing Iran (as always) and seeking to justify his ultimate objective - a tight, permanent military stranglehold on the Holy Land.

Alternative, parallel peace talks?

What of George Mitchell, whose high reputation has allowed him to play possibly the most sinister part of all in the 'talks' pantomime without so far attracting hostile comment. His insistence that there is "no role" for Hamas at the peace table is at odds with the much-acclaimed Northern Ireland resolution he often refers to, where 'terrorists' Sinn Fein were eventually invited to talks and this led to peace (of sorts). Sinn Fein now plays a full part in the political process.

This is where Mitchell comes unstuck. One can only conclude that barring Hamas means peace in Palestine is not the objective, nor has it ever been. If he wanted to retain his heroic image he should have turned down his latest starring role in Middle East skullduggery.

So what is the fundamental problem? Well, people all over the world are beginning to understand that the delinquent duo and their pet quisling are puppets of the most craven kind, who wet their pants at the very thought of upsetting the pro-Israel lobby, a small fraction of a small tribe that accounts for just 2.2 percent of the US population and who, along with their hundreds of stooges in Congress, are allowed to call the shots.

Not one of them - not even the Palestinians' unrepresentative representative - either before or after the talks, acknowledged the binding decisions of the United Nations. They seem determined to ignore the internationally agreed position.

Their pantomime, however, is not receiving rave reviews and actually does the Palestinians a big favour by setting the scene for Hamas to turn the tables on their tormentors. With the co-operation of well-wishers and all who value freedom, they could bring about a public relations coup.

Will they seize the moment?

From now on, Hamas would do well to always link their words, actions and demands to established law, human rights declarations and UN recommendations, and press forward their equal entitlement to security, in order to show that their aims and aspirations are no different from the values of all decent citizens of the world.

They could even consider setting up alternative, parallel peace talks to ridicule the US-Israel-Fatah axis and to produce an alternative, parallel final status solution based on justice... just for fun, or maybe as a serious counterpoint.

Hamas would also do well to frame their case in a manner that allows others, outside the Holy Land, to sympathise and feel persuaded that it's time they were welcomed into the mainstream.

It is part of the re-positioning and re-branding process one hoped had already begun. But judging from those threats to step up violence they haven't yet made a start.

This is a disappointment considering the hopes of so many are pinned on Hamas coming good.

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

By Dr. Sami Alrabaa* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

The Holocaust Hypocrisy

Undoubtedly, the "Holocaust" which was inflicted on the Jews before the II World War was a crime against humanity; it was an egregious genocide, like several other genocides inflicted on the Native Americans, African Americans, and the Armenians, for instance. But as far the Jews are concerned the Holocaust is a "unique" crime, incomparable with any other crime. Day in and day out, the Jews across the globe insist that comparing the Holocaust with other crimes is politically incorrect and impermissible.

You can question the severity of any crime, but not the Holocaust, otherwise you are branded as anti-Semitic and one of those right-wing populists.

This is reminiscent of the racial discrimination in the US until the 1960s. Racial discrimination was "politically correct" at least in the America. Critics of racial discrimination were portrayed as "anti-American" and "communists".

Every chapter in the human history was dominated by a certain mindset, regardless how irrational and inhumane it was. What was politically correct proved later to be incorrect. Over more than three centuries, racial discrimination against African Americans was politically correct, at least in America.

After the II World War, the Jews have set out to single out their "Holocaust" as the WORST atrocity ever inflicted on a religious minority. They have insisted that any description short of that is improper and anti-Semitic. This implies a perverse discrimination against victims of other genocides. This mindset dominates the media and political life at least in the West and handled as politically correct per excellence. But, like other mindsets, sooner or later, this prevailing mindset will disappear and the Holocaust will be treated as not superior to other crimes against humanity. Many field studies, which have not been published for fear of provoking the Jewish lobby, prove without any shred of doubt that ordinary people view the Holocaust as a crime like any other crime.

In Germany and in the West at large, you are not allowed to compare any crime to the Holocaust. For the German establishment (media and politics across the board), controlled by an influential Jewish lobby, the Holocaust is a "UNIQUE" crime in the history of mankind. If someone slips and compares the Holocaust, even metaphorically, to any crime anywhere in the world, they are immediately urged to withdraw their comparison. The Holocaust is more "sacred" than the Bible and the Koran. Most recently, the Pope's secretary compared the media campaign about child abuse in Catholic institutions to the hate campaign against Jews under the Nazis before the II World War. The Jewish lobby rushed to muzzle him and ordered him to apologize, which he did.

Discrimination of any kind is politically incorrect. But it seems that Jews insist that discrimination against other victims of atrocities is "legitimate". It also seems that Jewish blood is more precious than other bloods.

By the way, denying the "Holocaust" is illegal and punishable in Germany and Austria. Think of the British David Irving who was jailed in Austria for simply saying that the 6 million Jews who were burned to death by the Nazis is exaggerated. Recently, a German court ruled that the British bishop, Richard Williamson had to pay a fine of € 10 million for claiming that the Holocaust never took place.

Likewise, if the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinajad happens to visit Austria or Germany, he would be persecuted and jailed, although he never denied the Holocaust. He simply criticized the number of Jews killed by the Nazis; Ahmedinajad believes that the 6 million is an exaggerated figure.

However, when you talk in private to Germans, they tell you, this is absurd. Nobody dare to compare the Holocaust to other crimes and genocides in the history of mankind. If you criticize that then you are branded as "anti-Semitic"!

By the way, the political establishment in Germany avoids conducting surveys about sensitive issues like the Holocaust and Islamism, for example, constructing minarets. More often than not, the public thinks differently than the political establishment and main stream media preach.

Jewish history is omnipresent in contemporary Germany. No day passes by without a Jewish story. All kinds of stories are told in newspapers, radios, and TVs, short, long, true, and fictitious stories are told.

How about crimes committed against the Native Americans and African Americans, just to name a few? For the Jewish lobby and mainstream media, you are comparing apples to oranges.

According to the British Encyclopedia, the Belgium King Leopold II (1835-1909) ordered the killing of 12 million Africans in Congo. This is real Holocaust. But this fact is as dead as Leopold himself. African Americans, Congolese, and Native Americans never received any kind of compensation, but the Jews received huge sums of money.

Along their history until now, the Jews have always marketed themselves as victims in the Diaspora; in Spain, Europe, and the Middle East.

The Iranian nuclear program which Israel blasts, day in and day out, is a welcome opportunity to play the victim. But how about the Israeli nuclear arsenal? Neither the West nor the IAEA dare check out this arsenal.

Further, Israel in not interested in peace. Peace with its Arab neighbors would mean an end to the "victim theory".

The Media Hypocrisy

I have been living in Germany for the past 30 years working as a sociology and communication professor. Hence, I know what I am talking about. I could fill up volumes about the hypocrisy and contradictions reproduced by the German media and German politics.

The German mainstream media and political establishment divide the world into democratic countries and dictatorships. Countries of the so called Third World which hold elections and have a parliament are branded as democratic, provided of course they are friendly to the West. It does not matter whether these countries introduce political and socio-economic reforms or not. Despotic Arab regimes with dismal human rights records are rarely criticized. They are branded as "moderate" and allegedly play a "geo-strategic role in the Middle East".

The truth of the matter, the West benefits from the Saudi billions of petrodollars. These huge sums of money are largely invested in the West. In addition, introducing real democracy in the Arab world would leave the West without stooge allies.

Democratic countries, like Iran, Bolivia, and Venezuela, for instance, which have introduced huge economic reforms and narrowed the gap between the rich and poor, are arbitrarily depicted by the Western media and political establishment as "dictatorships".

Also, the West accuses Third World countries of being corrupt. But how about the West? Isn't it also corrupt and greedy? Siemens and Mercedes, for example, have spent and still spend billions of dollars in corrupt channels in countries of the Third World. They bribe officials in these countries to gain bids. Siemens spent in the 1990s one and a half billions of dollars in corrupt transactions in Saudi Arabia alone. This was confirmed to me by a Siemens manager. Most recently, Mercedes agreed to settle corruption charges in a US court by paying a fine of 200 million dollars. Tony Blair, the former British Prime Minster ordered British courts and legislation NOT to investigate corruption charges in an arms deal of $ 20 billion instigated by the Saudi Bandar Bin Sultan. Blair argued at the time, "an investigation into the corruption charges" is not in British national interests and would harm the deal and damage thousands of jobs in the British arms industry.

Having said that, you can see that the West freezes democracy and human rights principles when their interests are in jeopardy. They use these principles when they conveniently suit them.

In the 1990s I used to teach at King Saud University and once in a while I was asked by the German Embassy to translate for German politicians visiting Saudi Arabia. In one of those visits by Juergen Moellemann, former chairman of the German Free Democratic Party (FDP), he received a gift check of 40 million dollars from Prince Salman, the governor of Riyadh. What for is the money? Moellemann distributed part of the money among influential journalists in Germany so that they keep silent as far as Saudi Arabia is concerned.

When the money, which Moellemann deposited in a secret account in Switzerland, was discovered he committed suicide in 2003.

Germany is celebrating the 20th anniversary of the fall of Berlin wall and the unification of east and west Germany. The German media brag: East Germany is now free. However, when you talk to people from East Germany, they tell you: "yes we are free now, we can travel wherever we want, but we do not have the money to do so. 40% of East Germans are jobless.

In contrast, it is big business in Germany which has benefited most from the unification. Whole state-owned industries and agricultural cooperatives were sold for peanuts.

Since the riots in Teheran after the latest presidential elections, the German correspondent of ARD TV, Peter Mezger has reported from Iran. He still reports from Teheran and concocts lies. He interviews "dissidents", but he never interviews supporters of the Iranian government.

If I were the Ambassador of Iran in Berlin, I would sue Mr. Mezger and his ilk for spreading lies. Certainly, the Ambassador would not win the case, where the German constitution, at least in theory, guarantees freedom of speech. But the case would instigate a debate on fair reporting.

In view of the fact that fewer people buy and subscribe daily papers and increasingly turn to the Internet for information, and in order to save costs and keep managing editors' salaries up, many of these German papers have withdrawn their correspondents from overseas. These journalists sit now in their cozy offices and concoct distorted reports about Iran, Venezuela, Bolivia, China, and Syria, for example. Insiders have confirmed this practice.

German TV stations, radio, and newspapers interview dissidents in Germany pretending that they were interviewed in their own home countries. People, who support their governments in the aforementioned countries and elsewhere, are sparsely interviewed. Their views seem not to be important for the German public.

I get sick when I see or read in German media that Mr./Ms. so and so is described as an expert in Iranian and Afghan affairs, for instance. When you check out their qualifications, you find out that they neither speak the language of these countries nor have studied their culture. Besides, they have never been to Iran or Afghanistan. They have read a couple of articles about these countries and hence have become "experts".

The German media condemn violence when Germany is not involved. As the American marines attacked an American ship, kidnapped by Somali pirates and freed the crew last year, the German media rushed to condemn the attack. When recently the Dutch marines attacked a German vessel and freed its crew from Somali pirates, the German media jubilated and approved of the attack.

Democracy and Human Rights Hypocrisy

How honest/dishonest is the West with regard to human rights?

The West claims that human rights are universal and must be respected everywhere in the world.

But does the West really support human rights activists equally across the world?

The answer is a big NO. The West supports human rights activists selectively as long as they suit them and serve their political and economic interests. The West blasts dismal human rights records in countries that are not friendly to the West and turns a blind eye to lack of these rights in "friendly" states.

While the West awards the Sacharov prize to Chinese dissidents, it ignores human rights activists in the Arab world.

Most recently, in his latest visit to Saudi Arabia, the German foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle ignored addressing the dismal human rights record of the Al Saud. Later as he was visiting China, he loudly urged the Chinese government in a press conference to respect human rights.

As far as Westerwelle is concerned, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt play a "vital strategic economic and political role". China is an economic and political adversary.

Obviously, the Cold War is not completely dead. Western propaganda is still active towards those countries which do not submit to the will of Western establishments. Western media and political establishments operate according to the motto: If you are friendly to us, we let you do whatever you want. If you are not friendly to us, then you are our enemy, and we will do everything in our power to topple you.

In general, Western Europe has always looked down at East European countries and has never recognized Turkey as part of the European continent.

During the Cold War Turkey was a member of the NATO. After the Cold War and collapse of the Soviet Union, Western Europe rushed to admit East European countries in the European Union (EU) and in the NATO. Turkey's wish to join the EU has so far been rejected, especially by Germany, Austria, and France. The EU argues Turkey is still backward and not European enough, although Turkey is not less developed than Bulgaria, Rumania, and Poland. All these countries, including Turkey have the same level of development in all walks of life. Why is this so?

Turkey has never been a "friend" of Russia (the core left of the Soviet Union) and would never ally itself with Russia. But East European countries could become allies of Russia if they were left outside the EU and NATO. Therefore, the EU was strategically more than happy to admit East European countries before they ally themselves with Russia, the old and new adversary of the West. Turkey was left out. It is politically insignificant in this equation.

The German media and the Western media at large come up with headlines like, "Tibet in Flames" and demand independence for this integral part of China. They allege that the natives of Tibet are oppressed and not allowed to practice their culture, language, and religion.

The truth of the matter is Tibet has been part of China for the past three centuries and its people are free to exercise their religion and culture. And Tibetans are not discriminated against as the Western media allege.

But how about Palestine and Kurdistan? For decades, the people of these countries have been fighting for independence. Until now, the West has ignored the basic rights of the Kurds for independence although they constitute an ethnic and cultural entity living in Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran. Yet, until recently, the Kurds in Turkey have been forbidden to use their own language and practice their own culture. In Syria, the Kurds are not recognized as an ethnic minority.

Viva Western rationale of democracy and human rights!

* Dr.ٍ Sami Alrabaa is a 60-year old retired sociology professor. Among other universities, he taught at Michigan State University, King Saud University, Kuwait University. He also published extensively in academia and print media. His latest book is "Veiled Atrocities" published by Prometheus Books, New York, 2010.

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

"We sent thee not, O! Muhammad, save as a mercy to all the people. Say, O! Muhammad: "It has but been revealed unto me that your God is the One and Only God: will you, then, surrender yourselves unto Him?" (Qur'an: 21: 107-108)

There is only one "Absolute" form of Free Speech in the west, the freedom and right to bash Islam, stomp, shoot, and flush the Holy Qur'an down the toilet, and portray Islam's beloved Prophet Muhammad (p) in the most vile manner in all forms of "art".

Freedom of Speech is an ever changing and evolving right that depends on time, person, place, method of delivery, issue, and people involved. Since the time of Socrates who was prosecuted for corrupting young minds to today's blasphemous attacks on Islam, the Quran, and Islam's Prophet; freedom of speech has always been defined and determined by those in power.

Bashing Islam is not new. In fact it began during the Prophet's own lifetime by those who rejected his message in Arabia only to be followed by Christians, Jews, and followers of other faiths. Saint John of Damascus (7th – 8th C) while ironically working as an administrative officer for the Muslim ruler of Damascus wrote that the Prophet Muhammad (p) was a "false prophet...heretic...an Anti Christ." Such attacks continued throughout historical Christian Europe by men such as Martin Luther, Voltaire, Dante, to , right wing European parties, to the U.S. by such men as Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Hal Lindsey (who called Allah (God) Satan), and politicians. Bashing Islam has become a respectable political and money making cottage industry.

Thus it's not surprising that 9/11 opened the flood gates for a wider multitude of westerners who inflame and further incite hatred of Islam. Such vileness arises out of total ignorance of Islam and the historical innate fear of the "other". The West fears what it does not know. In Europe, especially, fear of an Islamized Europe has conveniently morphed into a political agenda against the immigration of the "other", mainly people of color who immigrate to Europe from formerly European colonized nations.

It is inexplicable to describe the West as civilized when such uncivil behavior toward those of a different faith or color permeates a significant portion of the population. If civilization is based on education then such people must be hailed as arrogant, racists, supremacists, and ignorant fools.
The Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks as part of an art exhibition entitled "Dog in Art" decided to follow in the footsteps of the Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard (who drew cartoons depicting Muhammad as a terrorist) and drew a cartoon of the Prophet with the body of a dog. While the public rationale is freedom of speech, the underlying motive is pure racism. But freedom of speech in the west depends on who you offend. Offending Jews, discussing the Holocaust, criticizing Israel's brutality against the Palestinians is either attacked as "Anti-Semitic", or met with jail time while the western kosher media quashes such "free speech". God forbid such a cartoonist would draw a similar cartoon of Moses (p), a Jew with a swastika as a tail, or of the Crown Prince of Spain. (Spanish cartoonist fined for royal dishonour", UK Telegraph, Nov. 14, 2007)

The Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard wrote of Freedom or Speech, "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."

The European Union Human Rights reports on Racism and Xenophobia annually reports that racism against Muslims and people of color in Europe is an ever increasing problem. While the E.U. and Sweden have laws on "hate crimes", which I consider these foul cartoons to be, they seldom if ever prosecute the perpetrators of such hate crimes if the intended victim is Islam or Muslims. On the contrary such politicians and artists are applauded and welcomed in the U.S. (Salman Rushdie, "The Satanic Verses", in the White House), by Conservative Christians and Pro Israeli lobbies, think tanks, and the mainstream Pro Israel media as idols of free speech. Yet in Europe and the U.S. if the perceived crime is "Anti Semitic" governments are in the fore front to decry and prosecute such "hate crimes".

When Israel is portrayed in a negative light in the Arab media due to its murderous occupation of Palestinians and constant theft of their land both European and U.S. governments immediately and publicly condemn such actions as hateful and anti Semitic, but when Islam's Prophet is subjected to vile hate it is considered "freedom of speech". It is a fine line and slippery slope between what is considered free speech and blasphemy. Didn't the Nazis use hateful cartoons of Jews as part of their propaganda for the "final solution?

It is this double standard and hypocrisy by western governments that inflames the Muslim world against their policies and practices, especially with respect to Israel's invasions and genocide against Lebanese and Palestinian civilians. Criticizing Israel for its illegal occupation, inhumane siege of Gaza, massacring Gaza's children, demolishing thousands of homes, destroying hospitals, clinics, schools, churches and mosques, depriving the population of food, water and medicine, it's massive abuse of human rights and defiance of International laws, and much more is unacceptable, censored, hateful, and strongly defended by western governments and the media as "Israel's right to self defense", a right that its victims are denied.
Muslims are strictly forbidden from carrying out any violence or calling for death threats against the perpetrators of hate against the Prophet. The Holy Quran forbids such violence and directs Muslims to endure and be patient as the Holy Prophet endured during his lifetime.

"And, whenever they heard frivolous talk, having turned away from it and said: "Unto us shall be accounted Our deeds, and unto you, your deeds. Peace be upon you - [but] we do not seek out such as are ignorant [of the meaning of right and wrong]." (Quran: 28:55)

"Believers (Muslims), stand out firmly for God, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others toward you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety: and fear God. For God is well-acquainted with all that you do." (Qur'an 5:8)

The European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR) and the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe (FIOE) condemned the death threats issued by Al Qaeda and other small extremist groups against Lars Vilks, the Swedish cartoonist, and Ulf Johansson editor in chief of the paper that published his cartoon of the Prophet with a body of a dog. Such hate must be met with patience and a strong educational outreach program to tell the truth about Islam and its beloved Prophet Muhammad (p).

Perpetual racism, arrogance, and ignorance of Islam in the west are the combustible ingredients for assured mutual destruction of our planet. The lack of any sacredness in the west that belies the misguided application of free speech against the "other" rests on the premise that if I hold nothing sacred and I damn my own faith and religious figures then I have the right to damn yours and if you are civilized like me you will accept such racist rantings as free speech. That is the rational of fools who've surrendered their superficial intellect to misguided stupidity.

It's not enough that the west has annihilated, bombed, and committed holocausts across the globe against the "other"; now the "other" must endure the verbal and written bombs upon their faith, culture, and traditions.

What conceivable civilized aim can be achieved by denigrating a Prophet of 1.6 Billion Muslims? Why aren't Muslims retaliating with the same vile hate against Judeo-Christian religious founders such as Moses and Jesus, peace be upon them both, or the Torah and Gospel? Because Muslims believe and revere these two prophets and the original holy revelations they received.

The least that can be expected from "civilized" people who wish to criticize a faith is to have a working knowledge on the subject to confer some credibility for their critique. Such knowledge of Islam is sorely missing in the West, thus such critiques are frivolous and meaningless.
Both the Danish and Swedish cartoonists who drew the vile cartoons of the Prophet were unknown entities until they entered racist contests concocted by two small papers in a competition to defame and demonize a most exalted person. After the controversy these two men achieved the celebrity status that has eluded them for decades.

But what of this man, Muhammad (p), who for centuries became the object of racist depictions by people who knew nothing about him in Christian Europe and in the U.S. (Read: "Muhammad in Europe", by Minou Reeves)

The British Historian Michael H. Hart in his book: "The 100: Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History" chose Muhammad (p) as the most influential human being in history. He wrote:

"My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influential
persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he
was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the
religious and secular level."

The famous French writer, poet, and politician Alphonse le Lamartine (1790-1869) in his book, "Histoire De La Turque", wrote of Muhammad (p):

"If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astounding results are the
three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in
modern history with Muhammad"?

The renowned Professor of Comparative Religion Karen Armstrong wrote a book in 2006 entitled "Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time"

There are endless biographies, books, speeches and statements on Prophet Muhammad (p) by renowned authors around the world that exalt his person, his unshakeable spiritual beliefs, morality, ethics, compassion, mercy, and extraordinary leadership.

Sadly in America's educational system the study of cultures, world religions, history, and geography are sorely lacking. Such a vacuum can only lead to further misunderstanding and conflict between religions and peoples

"There will be no peace among the nations without peace among the religions. There will be no peace among the religions without dialogue among the religions."
--Hans Kung, Catholic Theologian

The foundation for a peaceful world is the knowledge that all humanity is equal in the eyes of God and in human laws and that human nature is the same throughout time, place, and geography. The secret is simple: R-E-S-P-E-C-T.

"O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise each other). Verily the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is he who is the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted with all things. (Qur'an: 49:13)

* 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.

Illustration By David Baldinger

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

'Civilization of the West is perversion of heart and mind,
Since its soul could not remain unpolluted,
But the heart in the unilluminated breast unblest with peace...
At war which is with men of truth
Its wisdom is immature and mission incomplete
In snatching bread from the weak its wisdom lies,
Annihilation of man is the business of modern civilization.
--Sir Muhammad Iqbal (Pakistani Poet, Philosopher, and Politician)

Professor Samuel Huntington in his book "The Clash of Civilizations" wrote: "Hypocrisy, double standards, and "but nots" are the price of universalist pretensions". Such has been the history of western "civilizations" marked by the arrogance of power, a sense of supremacy, a manifest destiny to colonize and civilize the weaker darker peoples through enslavement, genocides, abuse of human rights, theft of their natural resources, and frank racism that white is beautiful and good and dark is evil and savage.

The British Prime Minister during World War I, David Lloyd George, best expressed imperial racism when he said: "We insisted on the right to bomb niggers" [Mark Curtis The Great Deception, Pluto 1998, pg 135]

Such history manifests itself in paradoxes, contradictions, secrets, lies, and overwhelming violence toward what the British historian Mark Curtis calls the "Unpeople" in his book, Unpeople, he describes the characteristics of imperial power, especially British power as: "The principle victims of British policies are Unpeople--those whose lives are deemed worthless, expendable in the pursuit of power and commercial gain." This statement easily applies to all western imperialism from the Greeks, Romans, Europeans, and currently Americanism. By far the majority of –isms that led to the racial subjugation of the Unpeople arose in the west-from Imperialism, to Colonialism, Communism, Fascism, Nazism, Americanism, and the latest racist illegitimate child of western colonialism-Zionism.

Europe in the Post Enlightenment period alone has been the bloodiest continent in history accounting for tens of millions of dead civilians and the widest destruction of its cities. Abroad European imperialism resulted in additional tens of millions of dead Unpeople, all for greed and self enrichment. European powers saw no moral injustice or hindrance as they divided continents and created artificial nations under their separate rule or influence without the slightest regard for the indigenous populations.

In his book, The Wretched of the Earth (Penguin, 1990), Frantz Fanon wrote: "European opulence is literally scandalous, for it has been founded on slavery, nourished with the blood of slaves... The well-being and progress of Europe have been built up with the sweat and the dead bodies of Negroes, Arabs, Indians and the yellow races... Europe is literally the creation of the Third World".

Yet Europe and the west have the arrogant chutzpah to identify themselves as the saviors and upholders of civilization. The western sense of racial superiority and exclusivity found support in the New Testament:
"We know that we are of God and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one". 1 John 5:19 (NASB)

Jews also see themselves as exclusivists with the divine gift of supremacy and right to rule others. The foundation for such beliefs is the Babylonian Talmud, Judaism's holiest book. Quoting just one verse should illustrate the supremacy of Jews to Gentiles: "'The gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has "exposed their money to Israel." (Baba Kamma 37b)

Further analysis of western civilizations reveals the psychological disorder of a Split Personality much akin to the benevolent Dr. Jekyll and evil Mr. Hyde whereby the physician Dr. Jekyll is the healer of humanity and Mr. Hyde its destroyer.

No greater example of these multiple western characteristics exist than the lies propagated by Bush, Blair, and powerful media conglomerates that propagated their lies, that Saddam possessed WMD's, that ultimately led to the utter destruction of an innocent nation, Iraq, and the massacring of over one million of its civilians. Planning for such an invasion preceded 9/11, the very event that launched Bush's "war on terrorism". Today the world knows that it was all a fabricated lie to conquer Iraq's oil fields and protect Israel. Shockingly on BBC today, 12/12/09, Tony Blair admitted that he would've invaded Iraq anyway even if there were no WMD's just to remove Saddam Hussein because he used chemical weapons on his own people, chemicals given to him by the U.S. Obviously Blair conveniently forgot that it was Winston Churchill who first used chemical weapons to bomb Iraq. How noble and benevolent of Bush and Blair to free Iraq from its dictator.

George Orwell accurately observed that, "We in the rich world live in comparative comfort only because of the inordinate power our governments wield and the inordinate wealth which flows from that power- -Global democracy means ensuring that the world is run for our benefit"'

Of hypocrisy, double standards, lies, contradictions, and the so called "just wars" first identified by the Roman statesman Cicero, then codified by St Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, again reared their ugly head in Obama's acceptance speech of his Nobel Peace Prize, a prize given for the "preservation of peace", where he outlined his doctrine of peace through 'Just Wars". He was obligated to justify his escalation of the war in Afghanistan against 100 Al Qaeda fighters with a funding surge of $30 Billion, amounting to $30 million per Qaeda member, to create peace in the country and region. In awarding the Peace Prize to Obama the Nobel Committee cited his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". Surely Obama's speech shocked the Nobel Committee and gave them pause to wish they never awarded him such Nobel recognition. Never in the history of acceptance speeches for a peace prize has a world leader so extolled the moral justifications for war having mentioned war 44 times in the speech. He said such moral wars are justified in terms of self defense and resistance to oppression and tyranny. Obama selectively quoted Gandhi and Martin Luther King's creed for non violence, but forgot that King also said: "The greatest purveyor of violence on earth is my own government." and that Gandhi stated that: "Corruption and hypocrisy ought not to be inevitable products of democracy, as they undoubtedly are today".

While a "Just War" is a western righteous principle it is neither acceptable nor tolerated by the west when the Unpeople invoke the same right to fight western and Zionist oppression and colonialism. For every lofty rhetoric ever uttered by a western leader that the world must uphold the moral values of justice, freedom, equality and independence from dictators and oppressors, Israel is always excluded from upholding these moral values, for Israel is above western interests and international law. Freedom and self worth is the sole prerogative of the white man. Obama's speech was littered with hypocrisy and double standards, but delivered with arrogant assurance that belies his weakness, insecurity, and his dependence on his white house advisors who are incidentally mostly Jewish and staunchly Pro-Israel.

Obama is now officially a warrior President. He now owns the Pakistani-Afghan wars and all their unforeseen consequences. He should have heed Churchill's advice on wars.

"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events."

While extolling the virtues of freedom, democracy, and the world's need to fight international terrorism, especially by use of planes, America and Israel were the only two nations that hypocritically vetoed (vote was 153-2) the U.N. General Assembly Resolution A/RES/42/159 of December 7, 1987 that stated:

"Reaffirming also the inalienable right to self-determination and independence of all peoples under colonial and racist regimes and other forms of alien domination, and upholding the legitimacy of their struggle, in particular the struggle of national liberation movements, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter and of the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,"

"Noting the efforts and important achievements of the International Civil Aviation Organization and the International Maritime Organization in promoting the security of international air and sea transport against acts of terrorism, consistent with General Assembly resolution 40/61".

It's obvious why Israel and its American colony would veto a resolution that gives peoples the right of self determination, resistance, and independence from colonial racist regimes.

The west resorts to economic dominance of the third world through the World Bank run by Americans (the last three directors are Jewish) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) run by a European for the sole purpose of controlling and strangling third world economies to benefit western corporations. Political dominance is through the western created United Nations where the Security Council consists of a cabal of five nuclear powers who decide life and death of the Unpeople.

Militarily the U.S. is the sole superpower in the world. It has the largest military budget in the world (over $600 Billion) comprising 41.5% of the world share. It has over 700 military bases in over 130 countries. It also is the premier seller of arms to the world accounting for 41% of all world sales, primarily to hotspots such as the Middle East and Asia. The five members of the Security Council, keepers of the peace, account for 76% of all world arms sales, often to both sides of a conflict. Comparatively, the entire U.N. budget is only 1.8% of the world's military budget. War is profitable, peace is not.

According to a study done by the Congressional Research Service, October 7, 1983, the U.S. has undertaken 234 military interventions abroad. This number does not include covert actions or numerous instances in which U.S. forces have been stationed abroad since World War II in occupation forces or for participation in mutual security organizations, base agreements, or routine military assistance or training operations. Post World War II, the U.S. has bombed 22 nations, excluding Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, causing the death of millions of people. From 1945 to 2003, the United States attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements fighting against intolerable regimes. (William Blum: thirdworldtraveler.com)

"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we about living." -General Omar N. Bradley

Far from being the beacon of peace and freedom the U.S. has launched more foreign military interventions abroad, responsible for the most regime changes, most bombings of foreign nations, most assassinations of world leaders, while being supportive of rogue dictators and the roguest of nation of them all-Israel. If there was a prize for the most militaristic nation in history, America would easily win the prize.

The death of millions of Unpeople around the world is of no meaning, worth, or significance to the west. Western governments justify such "collateral damage" as the inherent price of war while their dead soldiers are gallant heroes who died for freedom and protection of western values. Both the American media and Pentagon ignore such worthless victims as evidenced by the remark of a U.S. General on Iraqi casualties: "we don't do body counts".

The schism between western governments and their uninformed, disinterested, literate but uneducated populace is vast allowing corporations and interest groups to dominate domestic and foreign policy. As long as the corporations and the media feed and distract their populace with television "expertise" and programs, the latest sales, newest and hottest gadgets, sports events, movies, and a debt ridden consumption appetite; bombs and missiles can riddle the homes and lives of the Unpeople with total impunity.

The west in due time will implode due to economic and social collapse. It can't sustain its infinite borrowing to satisfy a spoiled population and within decades its demography will change whereby the neglected colored Unpeople will dominate the government, media, think tanks, financial and academic institutions. Soon white people will be asking for Affirmative Action in universities and employment. This can only lead to mass social unrest. America is already divided and polarized between the "real" Fox Nation Americans and the "unreal" Americans, a euphemism for colored minorities. The biggest loser of this future is Israel which will finally have to face justice and accountability. Its history and past will haunt it and Jews around the world will similarly face accountability for their support of this racist murderous nation that holds nothing sacred except Jewish life and military expansionism.

Nay, the east and west shall meet when the western world becomes colorized and colonized by the very victims of western arrogance and might is right creed.

The west will then emerge out of its intoxication of arrogance, power, racism, impunity from justice, and invincibility to remember Tacitus who attempted to warn Rome's leaders that:
"To plunder, slaughter and rape they give the false name of empire, and where they make desolation they call it peace."

Oh colored masses, be patient, time, truth, justice, and history is on your side.

"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."
--Professor Samuel Huntington, "The Clash of Civilizations", Touchstone Books, p. 51

Sources:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Rogue_State_US/US_Bombing_Since_WWII.html
At least 22 nations have been bombed, by William Blum, historian

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Overseas_interventions_of_the_United_States
Military History/Foreign Policy of U.S. including Number of Wars/Interventions since 1776

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/crs_931007.htm
U.S. launched 234 military operations abroad: 1798 - 1993

http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Dictators/Friendly_Dictators.html
List of Friendly Dictators U.S. Installed or Supported with Blood on their Hands

http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Genocide/Amer_Genocide_Middle_East.html
The American Genocide in the Middle East

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#WorldMilitarySpending
Stats on World Military Expenditures

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/42/a42r159.htm
U.N. General Assembly Resolution on Self Determination and fighting International Terrorism

OpenSecrests.org - Where do the candidates get their money?
ProgressivePunch.org - How did your Senator or Representative vote?

* 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.

Iran Crisis - by Carlos Latuff

For the last three weeks the Western media had bombarded us with what they called the Iranian stolen election. They allege that the election was fraudulent and that the masses went into the streets of Tehran protesting the results and demanding new election. The Iranian government is described as fascist and oppressive and is responsible for the chaos in the streets. The opposition is described as reformists and democratic, who are peacefully demonstrating in the streets demanding justice and freedom.

This brings memories of similar previous Western media campaigns about elections in different countries around the world such as 2004 Georgia's election, 2002 Venezuela's election, 1992 Mongolias's election, 1991 Albania's election, and 1990 Bulgarian election just to name a few, where elections were described as stolen and the winning parties as oppressive of the, usually pro-American, alleged peaceful demonstrators in the streets demanding freedom and justice.

What is worth noting is the fact that none of the entire Western so-called Iran experts, who had strongly claimed that there was an obvious wide scale electoral fraud , had never provided any shred of evidence of such fraud. The lack of any evidence leads one to believe that such fraud accusations are only unsubstantiated accusations based on wishful thinking. They based their evaluation on what they claim the highly unlikely statistical probability that Ahmadinejad would have surpassed his opponents with almost 11 million votes (32%) margin. They denied the possibility of Ahmadinejad's wide popularity and successful campaigning.

Many had ignored the fact that democratic election is not new in Iran. Iran has a history of three decades of continuous unimpeded elections despite its war with Iraq, the imposed economic embargo, and the attacks of Western-supported terror organizations, such as Mujahideen el-Khalq, Jundullah, and Party for Free Life in Kurdistan, who carried a campaign of assassination of dozens of Iranian lawmakers among many other terror attacks. Iran has established a tradition of peaceful electoral orderliness, where elections are organized, monitored and counted by professionals including university professors, civil servants, and retirees.

None of the last thirty Iranian nationwide elections has been criticized by the West until today for obvious reason. Iran, under Ahmadinejad's leadership, has developed nuclear industry, strengthened its military forces, and confronted the American forces, who encircled Iran on all four directions as part of the American expansionist ambitions in the Middle East and South East Asia.

Ahmadinejad's victory came as a surprise to the West especially to the American administration, who expected his defeat. This expectation was based on American covert interventions in the Iranian affairs. It is an undeniable fact that the US has a long history of interference in the Iranian affairs. President Obama admitted to such interference in his Cairo speech in June 4th. Such intervention came in different forms. One mechanism came through what is called National Endowment for Democracy. This is a quasi-governmental agency funded by both the Congress and private organizations, whose main purpose is purportedly spreading freedom and democracy (causing regime change) in other countries by financially supporting foreign organizations sympathetic to the American foreign policy goals. This financial support, in the form of millions of Dollars and equipment, was given to oppositional groups in order to cause chaos and confrontation, especially in election time, to topple down the victorious, usually nationalist, parties, and to erect in their places pro-American governments. Such support was evident in Bulgaria, Albania, Mongolia, Haiti, Venezuela, and in Iran itself.

The National Endowment for Democracy has been active in Iran giving millions of American tax money to anti-governmental Iranian groups such as the Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation, who supports the National Movement of the Iranian Resistance, and hundreds of thousands of Dollars to the National Iranian American Council. Other money is used to cover the expenses of forming what is called scientific seminars, where Iranian figures are invited to attend, with all expenses paid. Mohammad-Javad Zarif, the Iranian ambassador to the UN, had accused the US of using these scientific seminars as a front cover for political meetings, whose goal was to execute a "velvet revolution" in Iran. Last November Zarif explained that "when the Iranians attend these sessions, they realize they have gathered to discuss measures to topple the Iranian government".

In 2006 Condoleezza Rice, then the Secretary of State, requested $75 million fund to be spent on mounting the biggest ever propaganda campaign against the Iranian government. The fund was used to pay for radio and television programs broadcasted into Iran, and to provide scholarships to Iranian students to study in the US. The State Department had also created the Office of Iranian Affairs, with a branch in Dubai, to reach out to Iranian dissidents in their diaspora and to recruit them against the Iranian government. The implicit goal here is to indoctrinate Iranians to effect regime change from within.

With their decision to support terrorist Israel as the dominant nuclear (WMD) country in the Middle East the Western countries concentrated on depriving Iran from any nuclear technologies even a peaceful one. They directed all kinds of pressure, including political, economical and the threat of nuclear bombardment, on the Iranian government to shut down its nuclear facilities. The Iranian government, instead, hastened its nuclear program, bolstered its military, and improved its relationships with many other countries including the Gulf States.

Finally the American administration decided to follow Kermit Roosevelt, Jr.'s Operation Ajax example to effect regime change in Iran. Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. had financed, in 1953, two Iranian thug groups to create chaos in the streets of Tehran and fight each other in order to destabilize Mosaddeq's government.

ABC News reporters Brian Ross and Richard Esposito reported on May 23rd, 2007 that "The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert black operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell ABC News".

The London Telegraph, also, had reported on May 27th, 2007 that "Mr. Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple the theocratic rule of the mullah".

In the New Yorker, June 29th, 2008, Symour Hersh reported that "Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million Dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country's religious leadership".

President Obama had denied, though, any American interference into the Iranian election. Yet, without any harsh criticism to the Iranian government, he expressed his admiration of the courage of Iranian people, who took to the streets demanding freedom and justice. Obama's administration knows very well that it will, eventually, have to deal with Ahmadinejad's government.

Zionist Republican Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John McCain of Arizona criticized Obama's soft approach and demanded tougher actions. Following Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu's promise, in his foreign policy speech June 4th, to form an international front against Iran, they called for tougher UN sanctions or other measures to put an "end to this tyrannical regime".

Israel, European countries (specifically British, French, and German), and the US do not really care about those courageous Iranian demonstrators, who have legitimate grievances against their government and aspire for more civil rights yet misguided about how to achieve them. In the eyes of the Western leaders these Iranian demonstrators are "useful idiots", who need to be sacrificed in order to achieve political gains.

All the Western politicians know very well that the Iranian government, similar to what all the Western countries had done throughout their history, will put an end to the chaos in the streets and maintain order. They also know very well that Iranian policies will not change, at least for now, whether Ahmadinejad, Moussavi, or any other leader forms the government. Similar to all the so-called democratic presidents of the world the Iranian President is a mere executer, rather than a drafter, of these policies.

The real goal of all this propaganda and disinformation war against Iran is to portray Ahmadinejad's government as an "election stealing illegitimate" government that the free world should not deal or negotiate with as Obama has intended to do.

A MUST READ!

Here is the summery of latest featured report by The Pew Global Attitudes Project. The report answers the question: "How Westerners and Muslims View Each Other." [Hat tip: Robin]

You can download the full report from here (PDF)!

Introduction and Summary

After a year marked by riots over cartoon portrayals of Muhammad, a major terrorist attack in London, and continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, most Muslims and Westerners are convinced that relations between them are generally bad these days. Many in the West see Muslims as fanatical, violent, and as lacking tolerance. Meanwhile, Muslims in the Middle East and Asia generally see Westerners as selfish, immoral and greedy - as well as violent and fanatical.

A rare point of agreement between Westerners and Muslims is that both believe that Muslim nations should be more economically prosperous than they are today. But they gauge the problem quite differently. Muslim publics have an aggrieved view of the West - they are much more likely than Americans or Western Europeans to blame Western policies for their own lack of prosperity. For their part, Western publics instead point to government corruption, lack of education and Islamic fundamentalism as the biggest obstacles to Muslim prosperity.

Nothing highlights the divide between Muslims and the West more clearly than their responses to the uproar this past winter over cartoon depictions of Muhammad. Most people in Jordan, Egypt, Indonesia and Turkey blame the controversy on Western nations' disrespect for the Islamic religion. In contrast, majorities of Americans and Western Europeans who have heard of the controversy say Muslims' intolerance to different points of view is more to blame.

The chasm between Muslims and the West is also seen in judgments about how the other civilization treats women. Western publics, by lopsided margins, do not think of Muslims as "respectful of women." But half or more in four of the five Muslim publics surveyed say the same thing about people in the West.

Yet despite the deep attitudinal divide between Western and Muslim publics, the latest Pew Global Attitudes survey also finds that the views of each toward the other are far from uniformly negative. For example, even in the wake of the tumultuous events of the past year, solid majorities in France, Great Britain and the U.S. retain overall favorable opinions of Muslims. However, positive opinions of Muslims have declined sharply in Spain over the past year (from 46% to 29%), and more modestly in Great Britain (from 72% to 63%).

For the most part, Muslim publics feel more embittered toward the West and its people than vice versa. Muslim opinions about the West and its people have worsened over the past year and by overwhelming margins, Muslims blame Westerners for the strained relationship between the two sides. But there are some positive indicators as well, including the fact that in most Muslim countries surveyed there has been a decline in support for terrorism.

The survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project was conducted in 13 countries, including the United States, from March 31-May 14, 2006. It includes special oversamples of Muslim minorities living in Great Britain, France, Germany and Spain. In many ways, the views of Europe's Muslims represent a middle ground between the way Western publics and Muslims in the Middle East and Asia view each other.

While Europe's Muslim minorities are about as likely as Muslims elsewhere to see relations between Westerners and Muslims as generally bad, they more often associate positive attributes to Westerners - including tolerance, generosity, and respect for women. And in a number of respects Muslims in Europe are less inclined to see a clash of civilizations than are some of the general publics surveyed in Europe. Notably, they are less likely than non-Muslims in Europe to believe that there is a conflict between modernity and being a devout Muslim.

Solid majorities of the general publics in Germany and Spain say that there is a natural conflict between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society. But most Muslims in both of those countries disagree. And in France, the scene of recent riots in heavily Muslim areas, large percentages of both the general public and the Muslim minority population feel there is no conflict in being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society.

The survey shows both hopeful and troubling signs with respect to Muslim support for terrorism and the viability of democracy in Muslim countries. In Jordan, Pakistan and Indonesia, there have been substantial declines in the percentages saying suicide bombings and other forms of violence against civilian targets can be justified to defend Islam against its enemies. The shift has been especially dramatic in Jordan, likely in response to the devastating terrorist attack in Amman last year; 29% of Jordanians view suicide attacks as often or sometimes justified, down from 57% in May 2005.

Confidence in Osama bin Laden also has fallen in most Muslim countries in recent years. This is especially the case in Jordan, where just 24% express at least some confidence in bin Laden now, compared with 60% a year ago. A sizable number of Pakistanis (38%) continue to say they have at least some confidence in the al Qaeda leader to do the right thing regarding world affairs, but significantly fewer do so now than in May 2005 (51%). However, Nigeria's Muslims represent a conspicuous exception to this trend; 61% of Nigeria's Muslims say they have at least some confidence in bin Laden, up from 44% in 2003.

The belief that terrorism is justifiable in the defense of Islam, while less extensive than in previous surveys, still has a sizable number of adherents. Among Nigeria's Muslim population, for instance, nearly half (46%) feel that suicide bombings can be justified often or sometimes in the defense of Islam. Even among Europe's Muslim minorities, roughly one-in-seven in France, Spain, and Great Britain feel that suicide bombings against civilian targets can at least sometimes be justified to defend Islam against its enemies.

Anti-Jewish sentiment remains overwhelming in predominantly Muslim countries. There also is considerable support for the Hamas Party, which recently was victorious in the Palestinian elections. Majorities in most Muslim countries say that the Hamas Party's victory will be helpful to a fair settlement between Israel and the Palestinians - a view that is roundly rejected by Western publics (see "America's Image Slips, But Allies Share U.S. Concerns over Iran, Hamas," June 13, 2006).

In one of the survey's most striking findings, majorities in Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan say that they do not believe groups of Arabs carried out the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The percentage of Turks expressing disbelief that Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks has increased from 43% in a 2002 Gallup survey to 59% currently. And this attitude is not limited to Muslims in predominantly Muslim countries - 56% of British Muslims say they do not believe Arabs carried out the terror attacks against the U.S., compared with just 17% who do.

But Muslim opinion on most issues is not monolithic, and there are some apparent anomalies in Muslims' views of the West and its people. While large percentages in nearly every Muslim country attribute several negative traits to Westerners - including violence, immorality and selfishness - solid majorities in Indonesia, Jordan and Nigeria express favorable opinions of Christians.

Moreover, there is enduring belief in democracy among Muslim publics, which contrasts sharply with the skepticism many Westerners express about whether democracy can take root in the Muslim world. Pluralities or majorities in every Muslim country surveyed say that democracy is not just for the West and can work in their countries. But Western publics are divided - majorities in Germany and Spain say democracy is a Western way of doing things that would not work in most Muslim countries. Most of the French and British, and about half of Americans, say democracy can work in Muslim countries.

Overall, the Germans and Spanish express much more negative views of both Muslims and Arabs than do the French, British or Americans. Just 36% in Germany, and 29% in Spain, express favorable opinions of Muslims; comparable numbers in the two countries have positive impressions of Arabs (39% and 33%, respectively). In France, Great Britain and the U.S., solid majorities say they have favorable opinions of Muslims, and about the same numbers have positive views of Arabs.

These differences are reflected as well in opinions about negative traits associated with Muslims. Roughly eight-in-ten Spanish (83%) and Germans (78%) say they associate Muslims with being fanatical. But that view is less prevalent in France (50%), Great Britain (48%) and the U.S. (43%).

In many ways, the views of Europe's Muslims are distinct from those of both Western publics and Muslims in the Middle East and Asia. Most European Muslims express favorable opinions of Christians, and while their views of Jews are less positive than those of Western publics, they are far more positive than those of Muslim publics. And in France, a large majority of Muslims (71%) say they have favorable opinions of Jews.

Moreover, while publics in largely Muslim countries generally view Westerners as violent and immoral, this view is not nearly as prevalent among Muslims in France, Spain and Germany. British Muslims however, are the most critical of the four minority publics studied - and they come closer to views of Muslims around the world in their opinions of Westerners.

Other Major Findings

- Concerns over Islamic extremism are widely shared in Western publics and Muslim publics alike. But an exception is China, where 59% express little or no concern over Islamic extremism.

- Muslims differ over whether there is a struggle in their country between Islamic fundamentalists and groups wanting to modernize society. But solid majorities of those who perceive such a struggle side with the modernizers.

- Fully 41% of the general public in Spain says most or many Muslims in their country support Islamic extremists. But just 12% of Spain's Muslims say most or many of the country's Muslims support extremists like al Qaeda.

- Nearly four-in-ten Germans (37%), and 29% of Americans, say there is a natural conflict between being a devout Christian and living in a modern society.

Navigate this report:

I. Muslims and the West - How Each Sees The Other
II. The Rift Between Muslims and the West: Causes and Consequences
III. Islam, Modernity and Terrorism
Voices from Countries
Methodological Appendix
Country Profiles
Questionnaire