KUALA LUMPUR, (IslamOnline & News Agencies) ? Malaysia's Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohammed said Monday, April 1, that the "state terrorism" that Israel is engaging in is much more dangerous than any other terrorist activity that any organization or individual carries out, news agencies reported
Mahathir was talking to the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) meeting in the Malaysian capital Kuala Lumpur on Monday, April 1, Agence France-Presse (AFP) reported.
Answering a question, Mahathir said that "at this moment, yes" we see that the Israelis are escalating their terrorism." He added that Israelis "are attacking civilians and a country's leadership without even formally declaring war on it. This is what we have to recognize as terrorism."
"The entire world must condemn and forcibly stop Israel's terrorist acts."
Mahathir said this in front of representatives from 52 Islamic countries that are meeting in Malaysia for three days.
In the conference, Mahathir warned against double-standards used by the U.S. in defining terrorism, "When the act of terror is being carried out by their friends, it is excusable, but when the act is being carried out by someone whom they do not care for or like, that is not excusable," the prime minister said.
Mahathir said the United States had been rallying support from the world against terrorism, "but unfortunately the U.S. supported the action by the Israeli government which also amounted to terrorism."
Malaysia's Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar on Monday called for a stronger but constructive and collective response to the developments affecting the Ummah in the aftermath of the Sept 11 attacks on the United States.
Addressing the opening session of the special session of the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers on Terrorism here, he said that by taking such a stance, Muslim would be fulfilling their obligations based on the true teachings of Islam.
"Now we see that the U.S. is the only country that has a difference of opinion (on terrorism)...many of the European countries have now voiced very strong objections to what the Israelis are doing in Palestine," he said.
Also present at the opening ceremony were United States ambassador Marie Huhtala, French ambassador Xavier Driencourt and British High Commissioner Bruce Cleghorn.
"I Don't Know Something Called International Principles," says Sharon
CAIRO, (IslamOnline & News Agencies)-- "I don't know something called International Principles. I vow that I'll burn every Palestinian Child born in this area. The Palestinian Woman and Child are more dangerous than the Man, Because the Palestinian Child existence refers that Generations will go on, but the man causes limited danger.
"I vow that if I was just an Israeli Civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him. With One hit, I've killed 750 Palestinians [in Rafah, 1956]. I wanted to encourage my soldiers by raping Arabic Girls as the Palestinian Woman is a slave for Jews, and we do whatever we want to her and Nobody tells us what we shall do, but we tell others what they shall do."
This is what Ariel Sharon said in an interview with General Ouze Merham in 1956, according to the Palestinian Chronicle. Forty-five years later, Sharon's draconic war plans still follow the same theme.
Sharon's public pretext for his war on the Palestinians is to eliminate alleged terrorist networks, but his real goal is to force the Palestinian President Yasser Arafat to make concessions and to dismantle Palestinian resistance groups, an Egyptian political expert said.
Speaking to IslamOnline, Dr. Hassan Nafaa, the chairman of the political science department in Cairo University said that they want Arafat to enter a confrontation with the resistance movements. "If a political solution was given that included returning to the 1967 borders, dismantling the settlements for example, then Arafat may consider putting an end to the resistance movements. Otherwise, it will be political suicide for him to do so," said Nafaa.
Sharon is acting under complete political cover from the United States, said Nafaa adding that both Powell and Bush accepted Israel's right to "defend itself." "The U.S. obviously gave Israel the green light. Even the 1402 Security Council resolution adopted a few days ago, the United States did not even try to formulate a mechanism to implement it," he said.
The real test to Sharon's policy is time. "The more time that passes and the more martyr operations are conducted, Sharon's policies start to be questioned. He will be embarrassed and will be under further international pressure as well as domestic pressure to go back to the negotiation table and find peaceful solutions," he said.
The pretext of being after Arafat is only for media consumption. "The real target is the Palestinian people. If they kill or harm Arafat, there will never be peace."
Answering a question about the possible Arab governments' response, Nafaa said that there are many demands that the people are calling for, including the complete termination of relations with Israel, recalling of the ambassadors in Israel and the United States and use of the oil weapon. "However, the Arab government's ability to respond to these demands are very weak," he said.
On Monday, Israeli daily newspaper, Ha'aretz, said that even if Sharon's plan of achieving stability in Israel after a resounding Israeli victory, his government will offer the Palestinians "a long term interim solution." This, the paper said, will destroy the Oslo accord with its principle of two states for two people.
"They [the Palestinians] will sign an agreement to forego forever any claim to Jerusalem or to the right of return, and to leave control over border crossing and air space to the IDF. And, of course, Jews will be entitled to expropriate land and receive special consideration on any site in Judea and Samaria,"said Ha'aretz.
This, the paper said will deepen the despair over the prospects of a just political solution among many in the Palestinian elite who advocate peace.
The Palestinian Chronicle said that Sharon's pledge not to harm Arafat should not be taken seriously. "This is the same Sharon, who assured Menachem Begin and President Reagan that he has no intention of invading Lebanon as Defense Minister in 1982 and only wants to secure 40 kilometers of southern Lebanon," the paper said.
Yet, at the time, Sharon took his invasion all the way to Beirut destroying villages and people in his path, which he besieged for 3 months indiscriminately annihilating buildings, hospitals, schools, mosques, churches, ambulances, electrical plants, orphanages, and killing 20,000, including 2000 massacred Palestinians in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila, failed to kill Arafat.
The paper compared Sharon's strategy of completely "unfinished business" in killing Arafat, to U.S. President George W. Bush's endeavor to kill Saddam Hussein, his father's "unfinished business."
William Safire, a writer for the U.S. daily newspaper the New York Times, spoke to Sharon about his military plans and what he hopes to achieve.
"We are creating a buffer zone, of some depth, along what used to be the green line. We are acting in this buffer zone already," Sharon told the paper.
Sharon said he does not know the details of the Saudi plan and that they only accept the U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338, calling for "secure and defensible borders."
"As far as I know, the Saudi plan doesn't include that. Israel cannot return to the '67 borders. " Israel would not be able to exist," said Sharon adding, "Do you imagine, for one minute, we could accept what the Palestinians call the right of return? It would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish democratic state."
Dr. Mousa Abu Marzouk, member of the political office of the Islamic Resistance Movement Hamas said Arafat?s siege aims at forcing him to sign agreements that will paralyze the Palestinian people.
Israeli daily newspaper, Yediot Aharanot, reiterated Marzouk?s fears and said that the Israeli military operations aims to bully the Palestinian Authority to make concessions to Israel that they would otherwise not agree to.
The plan aims to gradually occupy Palestinian cities and to stay in them for a long time and will be limited in its geographical range initially and perhaps later on expand, the paper said.
Ha?aretz reported that the Israeli forces were also operating in Tulkarem as they tightened the blockade over the city and in Beit Jala and other areas near Bethlehem.
In Ramallah, they maintained round-the-clock confinement of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, pinned down in his office.
The Israeli occupation army was getting ready to conduct operations in other Palestinian population centers as well with military sources saying that all cities of the West Bank would gradually ?be taken care of,? as well as the Gaza strip, reported the paper.
Ha?aretz said that these operations are likely to resemble what has been done up to now in Ramallah. ?The brunt of the work will be done by regular infantry units, though top-notch reserve units are to be deployed in some areas.
Reservists will hold positions in various Palestinian cities after the regular infantry soldiers complete their assignments there,? said the paper.
The paper quoted army sources saying that U.S. pressure could cause the activities to be terminated ahead of what has been planned. ?The aim is to carry out as many major initiatives as possible before Israel is forced to order a withdrawal of its troops,? the paper said. (Islamic Online)
How "Our Allies" Treat Us
By Maha Sbitani
An American living in Ramallah
Today at 5:00 a.m. I was awakened by what sounded like huge trucks. When I looked out the window I saw several tanks. Half an hour later, Israeli soldiers rang the bell. We did not answer. Then I heard them coming up the steps (obviously broke in the main door). They pounded on the door to the house, and my husband opened the door to find endless huge guns pointed at us. They pushed the door open and distributed themselves throughout the house and office.
Over 50 heavily armed soldiers were now in the office and home (which are adjacent). We asked what they wanted and they told us to shut up and sit down. I explained that I was American, they said that they did not care what I was. I insisted that they leave the house and told them that, as an American, I protest to what they are doing. They said "this is no worse than what your country is doing in Afghanistan."
I told them to use the steps and the roof if they insist on staying and to get out of the house and office. They said, "Shut up and sit down, we do what we want wherever we want."
I got my passport out and asked for the commanding officer.
The officer said that they are thinking about leaving. I asked when and he said soon. They started to rip the curtains and break things. I asked them not to do that and gave them an ashtray to put their cigarettes out in instead of the floor. One took the ashtray from me and threw it in the hallway. At that point, I realized they are out of control. I went to the phone to call the American Counsel. Three soldiers attacked me, one pushing, one twisting my arm and the other taking the phone away from me.
I went to the office to get my computer and they kept on pushing me, poking me with the guns and telling me to get back in the house. I started screaming, "I cannot believe you are doing this, don't you realize I am American??" The commanding officer asked them to leave me alone and gave permission for me to get my laptop. They started laughing and calling me [U.S. President George W.] Bush.
As I was getting my laptop I heard crashing noise, I ran to the house and found my husband on the floor with 3 guns pointed at him. I screamed for the commanding officer that came and pushed them away. They were everywhere and doing what they felt like doing - including urinating on the floor.
I went to the kitchen to get coffee and found olive oil spilled all over the place. They were just being vulgar and uncivilized and became extremely annoyed when I complained about the barbaric behavior.
The commanding officer took me in my bedroom where 4 soldiers were sitting and asked me about some buildings. I told him that most of the houses around us are full of children. One said, "Area A has no children."
I kept on trying to make phone calls from different phones only to get more physically abused and have the phone taken away from me, immediately taking the battery out. Then I asked to go to the bathroom and had a mobile in my robe pocket. I called some officials while the soldiers broke in the bathroom and tried to take the phone. Within half an hour, they got a phone order to clear out of the house and office - leaving the place in shambles.
As soon as they left I tried to talk to the Counsel General, his mobile was picked up by voice mail and I left a message informing him of what has taken place. I also called his office and insisted that I talk to him personally. They put me on the phone with the American Citizens Services section Ms. Victoria Coffineau (Chief of section). She told me I was one of dozens of American citizens making such complaints. The details of the disturbing phone call and response will follow soon to help other Americans in understanding what our offices abroad are about and what we actually get for our tax dollars. And how we allow ourselves to be treated by so called ?allies?.
That number of tanks is growing by the second. I have to get the message to you while I can. I will try to write later. They are trying to kill [Palestinian leader] Yasser Arafat. I can see it from my window. I will try to send the film clips that I have been able to capture.
"God help the innocent. And help Americans in seeing the truth."
The articles posted on this page reflect solely the opinions of the authors
War With Iraq, Peace With Israel
By Saeed Shehabi
Bahraini journalist --UK
The scene is being set for U.S. action in the Middle East. What action is expected to take place? Who will be the main players? What would their objectives be? These are some of the questions surrounding United States? ongoing attempts to stage one of its spectaculars in a region that has not been fully stable since the establishment of the Zionist state on Arab land in 1948.
Peace and war are two sides of the U.S. foreign policy coin; war against Iraq, and peace with Israel. The actors are the same, but the context differs. On one hand, Saddam Hussein is the "bad man," not because of his authoritarianism or the abuse of human rights that takes place in Iraq, but because he possesses weapons of mass destruction. Israel, on the other hand, is "not so bad," even though it possesses a large arsenal of these internationally prohibited weapons of mass destruction. The Zionist state has no less than 200 nuclear warheads, in addition to its biological and chemical warfare. For more than two decades, Arab countries have been calling for an end to amassing such lethal weapons and making the Middle East a nuclear weapons-free zone. Their call has been heeded neither by Israel nor the United States. Iraq is now being penalized for having acquired what Baghdad calls "defensive weapons," and the "saber rattling" goes on as the United States prepares the way for an eventual show-down with Iraq.
Parallel to this, Washington's efforts have been directed towards sheltering Israel politically, militarily and economically. No serious effort has been paid so far to bring Israel to account for its mass murders of innocent Palestinians. The United States rarely asks the Israeli government to bring its continuous offensive against civilian targets (with U.S.-made missiles and military aircraft) to a halt. Families have been dispossessed and slaughtered in the streets of Palestinian towns and villages in revenge for the humiliation of the once unbeatable occupying army. Israel's atrocities have been so appalling that George W. Bush asked the Israeli government once to "limit" its atrocities. Ari Fleischer, Mr. Bush's spokesman, said: "The President does believe that Ariel Sharon must take steps to ease the plight of the Palestinian people." Yet the blame is always laid against the victims.
The apparent change of the U.S. tone has several dimensions. First, it is an attempt to appease the Arab side to gain support for its policies in the Middle East. Second, it is intended to create a favorable atmosphere for the Saudi initiative, which clearly spells the endorsement of the Israeli occupation by recognizing Israel. Third, it is intended to soften Arab reaction to a possible attack on Iraq. It is ironic to see the intermingling of Middle East politics in a way that appears sometimes too complicated, either to undo or even comprehend. The American administration is keen on exploiting the divided Arab position on major issues, such as Palestine and Iraq, to push its agenda through. This comes in a time of heightened tension in Washington, following the recent American debacle in Afghanistan that led to the killing of ten American soldiers and the shooting down of at least one Chinook helicopter by Al-Qa'eda rebels.
The American administration is planning the second phase of its war against terrorism. Britain has already decided to join the war against Iraq, and may have been instrumental in influencing the American approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The issue of the UN arms inspection teams in Iraq has suddenly become a hot issue three years after they left Baghdad. There is a stiff resistance to a British involvement in any future operations against Iraq. More than fifty members of Parliament have asked the government not to be drawn into conflict with Baghdad. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Tony Blair has launched a high-profile initiative to try to sell the idea of taking part in the attack on Iraq to the nation. The British foreign minister, Jack Straw, warning Baghdad of hard times to come, wrote in The Times (5 March 2002):
We cannot allow Saddam to hold a gun to the heads of his own people, his neighbours and the world forever. Intense diplomatic efforts will continue, and I hope they will achieve our aim of removing the threat that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose to humanity. But if he refuses to open his weapons programmes to proper international inspection, he will have to live with the consequences.
This saber rattling is serious. What is more annoying is the fact that both the United States and Britain have chosen to ignore the increasingly deteriorating situation in the Occupied Territories: the plight of the Palestinians who are being slaughtered by U.S.-made weapons everyday. There is a divergence of aims between them and the Arab countries, which consider the Israeli threat more serious and dangerous than that of Saddam Hussein. On the other hand, Saddam Hussein has not helped his cause by indicating the willingness to recognize Israel in return for being spared U.S. attacks. Recognition, or lack of it, is a mask hiding many realities that, in addition to Israeli presence in the region, spans the whole spectrum of the political arena. The double-standard approach of the U.S. to the Middle East makes life easier for it. The real possibility is that it may be dragged into an open-ended conflict -- which they certainly could do without. Once again, U.S. interests are being sacrificed for the Zionist lobby operating in Washington.