Middle East Democracy: Blowback Through the Looking Glass

July 17, 2008

Robert Weitzel, July 17, 2008

“If I had a world of my own . . . nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would.” -Alice in Wonderland-

Alice: “You want democracy in the Middle East?”

Uncle Sam: “I do.”

Alice: “And Iran was a democracy?”

Uncle Sam: “It was.”

Alice: “With a constitution?”

Uncle Sam: “Of course!”

Alice: “But you replaced that democracy with a dictatorship?”

Uncle Sam: “ I certainly did!”

Alice: “I don’t understand you?”

Uncle Sam: “My dear, how else will democracy flourish in the Middle East?”

Alice: “It’s all so dreadfully confusing.”

In Lewis Carroll’s “Through the Looking Glass,” the White Queen assured Alice that “it’s a poor sort of memory that only works backwards.” A contemporary reader stepping into the “looking glass” world of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East may well understand the Queen’s contrariness as “blowback”—an event that appears to be without cause but is the unintended consequence of a past action. Blowback is a “sort of memory” that always works forward.

In 1953, Uncle Sam, at the behest of his British ally, stepped through the looking glass to attack Iran. The CIA’s month-long covert war deposed the popularly elected Mohammad Mossadegh and ended the Middle East’s oldest constitutional democracy.

To secure a foothold for democracy in the region—and keep oil flowing at an Anglo-American price—Uncle Sam placed Mohammad Reza Shah back on the Peacock Throne. The twenty-five years of oppressive dictatorship that followed was the “sort of memory” that came blowing back through the looking glass with the Islamic Revolution in 1979, which resulted in a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy in Iran and the transmogrification of Uncle Sam into “Shaytan Bozorg”—the Great Satan.

The Islamic Revolution brought to power a group of fanatically anti-Western clerics who have inspired a generation of new recruits in the war against the imperialist aggression of the West; a war that blew back through the looking glass—and the Twin Towers—as the “War on Terror.”

This June, both presumptive presidential candidates made their obligatory supplication at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee convention in Washington D.C. In the “looking glass” world of American politics, candidates for national office—from federal dogcatcher to the White House—cannot get elected without first being “voted in” by Israel’s representatives in the United States.

John McCain told the AIPAC audience, “The State of Israel stands . . . as the great democracy of the Middle East. [It has] thrived and . . . built a nation that’s an inspiration to free nations everywhere.”

Barack Obama told the same audience, “In a state of constant insecurity, Israel has maintained a vibrant and open discourse, and a resilient commitment to the rule of law.”

The White Queen told Alice, “Sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

In 1948, Uncle Sam was the first in line to recognize the birth of the State of Israel in the Land of Palestine. The birth pain of this “great [Jewish-only] democracy of the Middle East” is known to the entirety of the Arab world as the “Nakhba” (catastrophe)—the murder of 800 Palestinian Arabs in twenty-four separate Israeli terror attacks that were calculated to initiate the “ethic cleansing” of 700,000 Palestinians and the destruction of 500 villages.

After the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel occupied and began to illegally settle the whole of the Land of Palestine. It has since created an apartheid state whose “resilient commitment to the rule of law” has forced over four million Palestinians behind walls and beyond the reach of human rights.

In its sixty-years as an “inspiration to free nations everywhere,” Israel has yet to draft a constitution, much less a bill of rights. To do so would mean the self-destruction of the Jewish State as envisioned by the Zionist ideology that created and sustains it. If Israel is to self-destruct, it will be in an apocalyptic battle to save itself from itself.

Uncle Sam’s implicit support for Israel’s repressive policies against the Palestinian people and his overt support of Israel’s aggression against neighboring states has blown back through the looking glass with Iran’s determination to acquire the nuclear technology with which to both power and protect itself.

As AIPAC-vetted politicians vow to “totally obliterate” Iran if it continues along a nuclear path, the other side of the looking glass reveals Uncle Sam offering to help the Shah develop an Iranian nuclear weapons program in the 1970s, just as he had earlier given a wink and a nod—and no doubt assistance— as Israel began developing its now 200-strong nuclear arsenal.

Uncle Sam’s foreign policy in the Middle East has created Alice’s contrary world where “what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would.” It is a world filled with the “sort of memory” that always works forward to become the stuff of nightmares and the roost for returning chickens.

Alice: “So, you ended a democracy that was and support a “democracy” that isn’t or ever will be until it ceases being a “democracy” so that democracy will flourish in a land whose only experience of democracy has been what democracy isn’t?”

Uncle Sam: “Well said!”

Alice: “It would be so nice if something made sense for a change.”

Biography: Robert Weitzel is a contributing editor to Media With a Conscience. His essays regularly appear in The Capital Times in Madison, WI. He can be contacted at: robertweitzel@mac.com

Little War Criminals Get Punished, Big Ones Don’t

July 17, 2008

By Paul Craig Roberts | “ICH”, July 16, 2008

National Public Radio has been spending much news time on Darfur in Western Sudan where a great deal of human suffering and death are occurring. The military conflict has been brought on in part by climate change, according to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. Drought is forcing nomads in search of water into areas occupied by other claimants. No doubt the conflict is tribal and racial as well. The entire catastrophe is overseen by a government with few resources other than bullets.

Now an International Criminal Court prosecutor wants to bring charges against Sudan’s president, Omar al-Bashir, for crimes against humanity and war crimes.

I have no sympathy for people who make others suffer. Nevertheless, I wonder at the International Criminal Court’s pick from the assortment of war criminals? Why al-Bashir?

Is it because Sudan is a powerless state, and the International Criminal Court hasn’t the courage to name George W. Bush and Tony Blair as war criminals?

Bush and Blair’s crimes against humanity in Iraq and Afghanistan dwarf, at least in the number of deaths and displaced persons, the terrible situation in Darfur. The highest estimate of Darfur casualties is 400,000, one-third the number of Iraqis who have died as a result of Bush’s invasion. Moreover, the conflict in the Sudan is an internal one, whereas Bush illegally invaded two foreign countries, war crimes under the Nuremberg Standard. Bush’s war crimes were enabled by the political leaders of the UK, Spain, Canada, and Australia. The leaders of every member of the “coalition of the willing to commit war crimes” are candidates for the dock.

But of course the Great Moral West does not commit war crimes. War crimes are charges fobbed off on people demonized by the Western media, such as the Serbian Milosovic and the Sudanese al-Bashir.

Every week the Israeli government evicts Palestinians from their homes, steals their land, and kills Palestinian women and children. These crimes against humanity have been going on for decades. Except for a few Israeli human rights organizations, no one complains about it. Palestinians are defined as “terrorists,” and “terrorists” can be treated inhumanely without complaint.

Iraqis and Afghans suffer the same fate. Iraqis who resist US occupation of their country are “terrorists.” Taliban is a demonized name. Every Afghan killed–even those attending wedding parties–is claimed to be Taliban by the US military. Iraqis and Afghans can be murdered at will by American and NATO troops without anyone raising human rights issues.

The International Criminal Court is a bureaucracy. It has a budget, and it needs to do something to justify its budget. Lacking teeth and courage, it goes after the petty war criminals and leaves the big ones alone.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m for holding all governments accountable for their criminal actions. It is the hypocrisy to which I object. The West gives itself and Israel a pass while damning everyone else. Even human rights groups fall into the trap. Rights activists don’t see the buffoonery in their complaint that President Bush, who has violated more human rights than any person alive, is letting China off the hook for human rights abuses by attending the Olympics hosted by China.

President Bush claims that the enormous destruction and death he has brought to Iraq and Afghanistan are necessary in order for Americans to be safe. If we are accepting excuses this feeble, Milosovic passed muster with his excuse that as the head of state he was obliged to try to preserve the state’s territorial integrity. Is al-Bashir supposed to accept secession in the Sudan, something that Lincoln would not accept from the Confederacy? How long would al-Bashir last if he partitioned Sudan?

Last October the Atlanta Journal-Constitution had a photo on its front page above the fold of an elderly man with mikes shoved in his face. Paul Henss, 85 years old, is being deported from the US, where he has lived for 53 years, because Eli Rosenbaum, director the the US State Department’s Nazi-hunting bureaucracy, declared him a war criminal for training guard dogs used at German concentration camps. Henss was 22 years old when World War II ended.

A kid who trained guard dogs is being deported as a war criminal, but the head of state who launched two wars of naked aggression, resulting in the deaths of more than 1.2 million people, and who has the entire world on edge awaiting his third war of aggression, this time against Iran, is received respectfully by foreign governments. Corporations and trade associations will pay him $100,000 per speech when he leaves office. He will make millions of dollars more from memoirs written by a ghostwriter.

Does no one see the paradox of deporting Henss while leaving the war criminal in the White House?

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, an assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury during the Reagan Administration, is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

Afghan NATO force hits targets inside Pakistan

July 17, 2008

Jonathon Burch, Reuters North American News Service

July 16, 2008 10:41 EST

KABUL, July 16 (Reuters) – NATO forces in Afghanistan hit targets inside Pakistan with artillery and attack helicopters after coming under rocket fire from across the border, the alliance said on Wednesday.

Tension is high along the border with a sharp rise in attacks in eastern Afghanistan coming from inside Pakistan that Afghan and NATO officials blame on de-facto ceasefires between the Pakistani military and militants in its lawless tribal belt.

Troops from NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) “received multiple rocket attacks from militants inside Pakistan, July 15,” the alliance said in a statement.

“The troops identified a (compound) as the point of origin of the attacks and responded in self-defence with a combination of fire from attack helicopters and artillery into Pakistan.”

Nine Afghan soldiers were wounded by the rocket attacks and ISAF responded immediately, an ISAF spokesman said. ISAF and the Pakistani army “coordinated their operation closely from the outset. The Pakistani military agreed to assist and search the area if the border firing continued,” the statement said.

Despite cooperation and open lines of communication between army commanders on both sides of the border, Afghan leaders have blamed Pakistani agents for a string of attacks.

These have included a suicide bomb on the Kabul Indian Embassy last week that killed 58 people and an April assassination bid on President Hamid Karzai.

Pakistan rejects the accusations and says the Afghan government is trying to deflect criticism of its own failure to stem the rising tide of Taliban violence.

NO GROUND INCURSION

The U.S. military, which provides the vast majority of troops in eastern Afghanistan, says attacks are up by 40 percent in the area over the last year, partly because of increased penetration of their soldiers into the mountainous region.

Another factor is the ceasefires in Pakistan which help secure the militants’ rear.

But while cross-border firing has gone up from both sides, NATO denied it had any intention of mounting any incursion onto Pakistani soil.

“There is not, nor is there going to be, an incursion of NATO troops into Pakistan. There is no planning for, no mandate for, an incursion of NATO troops into Pakistan,” NATO spokesman James Appathurai told a news briefing in Brussels.

But, he said, NATO troops “have the right to fire back in self-defence into Pakistan.”

Western forces in Afghanistan are coming under increased pressure as the traditional summer fighting season gets into full swing with security analysts predicting July could be the worst month of violence yet since the Taliban’s fall in 2001.

Already more U.S. troops were killed in Afghanistan in May and June than in Iraq and there are less than a quarter the number of American soldiers in Afghanistan.

The Taliban have seized the initiative and the headlines in recent weeks with a series of high profile attacks.

U.S. troops pulled out of a remote outpost in northeastern Afghanistan, three days after Taliban militants briefly breached the defences and killed nine U.S. soldiers, the biggest single loss of life for American forces in Afghanistan since 2005.

Foreign troops have also come under pressure in Afghanistan from a series of charges that their aircraft killed civilians.

Four women, four girls and an eight-year-old boy were killed in airstrikes in the western province of Farah on Tuesday, local officials said. (Writing by Jon Hemming; Editing by Charles Dick)

Support for U.S. war resisters in Canada

July 17, 2008

HUNDREDS OF protesters gathered in front of Canadian consulates in 14 U.S. cities on July 10 to protest planned deportations of conscientious objector Corey Glass and other U.S. war resisters currently seeking refuge in Canada.

Glass, a National Guard sergeant who served in Iraq in 2005, moved to Toronto in 2006 rather than face the prospect of again participating in what he considered “an unjust war.”

“When I joined the national guard,” Glass explained at a May press conference, “they told me the only way I would be in combat is if there were troops occupying the United States…I signed up to defend people and do humanitarian work filling sandbags if there was a hurricane; I should have been in New Orleans, not Iraq.”

{ What you can do:

Contact the offices of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Canadian Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Diane Finley to demand that U.S. war resisters be given asylum in Canada.

Harper’s office can be reached by calling 613-992-4211 or e-mailing pm@pm.gc.ca; Finley’s office can be reached by calling 613-996-4974 and e-mailing finley.d@parl.gc.ca or finled1@parl.gc.ca.

For more information about U.S. war resisters in Canada, and what you can do to support them, visit Courage to Resist or the War Resisters Support Campaign. }

In June, Glass was given deportation orders, set for July 10, prompting the antiwar organizations Courage to Resist, Veterans for Peace and Project Safe Haven to call the emergency protests at consulates across the U.S.

In San Francisco, Courage to Resist was joined by members of the Raging Grannies, Veterans for Peace Chapter 69, American Friends Service Committee, BAY-Peace, the Campus Antiwar Network, Code Pink and the International Socialist Organization. The rally numbered close to 50 participants at its peak.

Shortly after the demonstrations, activists received word that a the Canadian Federal Court had granted Glass a last-minute reprieve, giving him the opportunity to appeal earlier rulings over the next few months, with the hope of remaining in Canada.

Organizer and veteran Adam Seibert explained the role he felt the protests played: “If you don’t have troops, you can’t have a war. The more troops who resist, the easier it is to stop the war–and the more visible public support that exists the easier it is for other troops to resist…Seventy-five percent of Conscientious Objector applications are denied, so for most soldiers resisting is the only option.

Continued . . .

Congressional Panel To Review Kucinich’s Call to Impeach Bush

July 17, 2008

But the House committee won’t actually consider removing the president from office.

by Laurie Kellman

WASHINGTON – Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s single impeachment article will get a committee hearing – but not on removing President Bush from office.0716 01 1 2 3

The House on Tuesday voted 238-180 to send his article of impeachment – for Bush’s reasoning for taking the country to war in Iraq – to the Judiciary Committee, which buried Kucinich’s previous effort.

This time, the panel will open hearings. But House Democratic leaders emphatically said the proceedings will not be about Bush’s impeachment, a first step in the Constitution’s process of a removing a president from office.

Instead, the panel will conduct an election-year review – possibly televised – of anything Democrats consider to be Bush’s abuse of power. Kucinich, D-Ohio, is likely to testify. But so will several scholars and administration critics, Democrats said.

The hearing is a modest gesture by House Democratic leaders to members like Kucinich who insist that Bush’s reasons for going to war meet the standard for impeachment. Kucinich had said that if his impeachment article is tabled he would just propose another one.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has made clear since she ascended to that post that there would be no impeachment proceedings. But that didn’t stop Kucinich from introducing 35 articles of impeachment, spending four hours in June reading them on the House floor and demanding hearings. The House summarily dispatched them for burial to the Judiciary Committee.

Kucinich came back with a single article, which was read into the record Tuesday. As it did with the others, the House referred it to the panel, chaired by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich.

But this time, Pelosi said with a conspicuous lack of enthusiasm, that it would see some committee action.

Democratic aides said the hearing could take place as soon as next week.

The impeachment resolution alleges that Bush misled the public into thinking that he had no choice but to wage war on Iraq and implied that Iraq had helped al-Qaida with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Democratic aides have widely suggested those gauging the bill’s prospects look to a precedent: the impeachment articles against Vice President Dick Cheney, which were sent to Conyers’ committee in November. There’s no evidence they will be considered before the Bush administration leaves office in January.

Those were Kucinich’s, too. Republicans, seeing a chance to force Democrats into an embarrassing debate, voted to bring up the resolution. Democrats countered by pushing through a motion to scuttle the bill from the floor.

© 2008 The Associated Press

First al-Bashir, next … Bush?

July 17, 2008

Al-Jazeera, July 16, 2008

By Mark Levine, Middle East historian
Mark Levine says Bush is as responsible for the disaster in Iraq as Bashir is for the humanitarian catastrophe in Darfur [GALLO/GETTY]

While there is little chance Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese president, will ever be brought to trial following his indictment by the International Criminal Court (ICC), the charges brought against him nevertheless offer hope for anyone concerned about human rights around the world.For Americans, however, the ICC indictment should offer a moment of sombre reflection not merely for our relative inaction with regard to years of mass murder in Sudan.

It is equally disturbing that much of the al-Bashir indictment could just as easily be applied to George Bush, the US president.

Here is part of what the indictment says:

“Bashir was directly responsible [for the activities of the militias]. He is the president. He is the commander-in-chief. Those are not just formal words. He used the whole state apparatus. He used the army; he enrolled the militia/Janjaweed. They all report to him. They all obey him. His control is absolute.”

In such context, Bush is also directly responsible for the horrific disaster in Iraq.

Bush’s imperial presidency, with its “Unitary Executive” and arrogation of the right to declare war from the constitutionally-appointed Congress, has similarly “used the whole state apparatus” to wage the Iraq war. He “enrolled” our soldiers and his military commanders who “all report to him”.

For Bush, like al-Bashir, “they all obey him. His control is absolute”.

Iraq’s chaos

When I was in Iraq in the late winter and early spring of 2004 I saw this clearly, and saw the already huge scale of the war crimes being committed systematically by US forces across the country.

It was clear to most Iraqis that the chaos being reaped by the US in their country was in fact deliberately sown by the US in order to create a situation that would make any US withdrawal almost impossible to pull off.

While the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis – for which Bush, and along with him, the American people who twice elected him, are responsible – is tragic, it should not be understated that the invasion itself was a crime against humanity.

The war and invasion were in clear breach of the UN charter, which prohibits invading other countries except when an attack on one’s sovereign territory is about to occur or has just occurred.

Add to that US torturing of prisoners, illegal secret renditions, and a host of other human rights abuses, and you have a long list of actions that are prohibited and outlawed by US federal law.

Ideal America

In an America that still lived up to its founding ideals Bush and his henchmen and women would not be worrying about an ICC indictment because they would be too busy already defending themselves against a US federal indictment for war crimes and other violations of US law.

At least in this imperfect world, Bush and the architects and executioners of the Iraq war can join al-Bashir in suffering the ignominy of being at-large international criminals.

Mark Levine is a professor of Middle East history at the University of California, Irvine and is the author of the newly released Heavy Metal Islam: Rock, Resistance, and the Struggle for the Soul of Islam.

Hamas: Zionist pressures cancelled Blair’s visit to Gaza

July 16, 2008

Palestinian Information Center, July 15, 2008

GAZA, (PIC)– The Hamas Movement on Tuesday said that Tony Blair, the international quartet committee’s envoy, cancelled his scheduled visit to the Gaza Strip due to Israeli pressures.

Dr. Sami Abu Zuhri, the Movement’s spokesman, said in a statement that the visit would have proven Hamas’s success in standing by its stands of refusing to recognize occupation or surrender resistance.

He added that the visit would have also proven an opportunity for the international community to have a close look into the humanitarian tragedy the Strip is suffering due to the Israeli siege and aggression.

He refuted the claim made by Blair’s office that the cancellation was due to security threats against him. “This allegation is not true and inappropriate and contravened the big security preparations taken by the Palestinian police to safeguard and facilitate the visit,” he elaborated.

Abu Zuhri noted that the security preparations were witnessed by John Ging, the UNRWA operations manager in Gaza and the one responsible for coordinating the visit, in addition to the reporters at Erez crossing.

The spokesman pointed to the media reports that Israeli war minister Ehud Barak made a telephone contact with Blair shortly before his visit made it clear who was responsible for the cancellation.

Stephen Harper, Bush’s Last Yes Man?

July 16, 2008

Canada, Guantanamo and Yankee Poodles

By ROBERT FANTINA | Counterpunch, Weekend Edition, 12 / 13 July, 2008

During the administration of Tony Blair as Prime Minister of Britain, he was sometimes referred to as the ‘Yankee Poodle,’ due to the constant and humiliating spectacle he made of himself with his obvious adoration of U.S. President George W. Bush.

Now, it seems, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has assumed Mr. Blair’s role. In no way is this more blatant than the shocking, tragic case of Omar Khadr.

Mr. Khadr is one of the inmates in the Cuban-based U.S. torture chamber known as Guantanamo. He arrived there from Afghanistan, where he was captured by U.S. soldiers in a house from which a hand grenade had been flung, killing a U.S. soldier. At the time of his capture and incarceration in that hell-hole, the American government evidently believed him to be an ‘enemy combatant.’ When captured, Mr. Khadr was fifteen years old.

It was apparently of no importance to Mr. Bush that Mr. Khadr was a minor at the time of his arrest, that at least one other ‘enemy’ soldier was alive in the building when Mr. Khadr was captured, thus making it at least ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ that Mr. Khadr was guilty of throwing the grenade. Nor did it seem to matter that most nations believe children cannot be guilty of military crimes because they are not sufficiently cognizant to understand what joining the military means. It was enough for Mr. Bush that Toronto-born Mr. Khadr was fighting the U.S. in Afghanistan, and that his father is alleged to have helped finance al-Qaeda.

This week Canada’s Foreign Affairs Department detailed the torture that Mr. Khadr, a Canadian citizen, has received at the hands of the U.S. government. While it is no longer news that the U.S. tortures its prisoners, the Harper government’s response to this horrific victimization of one of its own citizens is news. Mr. Harper, when asked about the situation, demonstrated nothing but loyalty to Mr. Bush.

“The previous government took a whole range, all of the information, into account when they made the decision on how to proceed with the Khadr case several years ago,” said Mr. Harper. Like Pontius Pilate washing his hands of the decision to crucify Jesus Christ, Mr. Harper said the decision to allow Mr. Khadr to be tortured was made by someone else. That may be the case, but Mr. Harper is now Prime Minister, and he can make a different decision.

What would it take, one might ask, to get Mr. Khadr released from Guantanamo and returned to Canada? What complex diplomatic channels would have to be navigated, what hoops jumped through, what concessions made by Canada? University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran has the answer: a single telephone call. Said Mr. Attaran:

“Without exception, every other leader of a Western country has got their citizens out of Guantanamo.”

So why does Mr. Harper not make that call? Why, when Mr. Bush ‘Yo Harper’d’ him at the G8 Summit this past week did he not request Mr. Khadr’s release? What is so frightening about a now-21-year-old young man who has experienced six years of unspeakable torture that Mr. Harper is willing to let him continue to suffer beyond comprehension at the hands of U.S. torturers? Why has every other Western nation rescued their citizens from Guantanamo, but Mr. Harper is content to let a citizen of his nation be tortured there?

Continued . . .

MIDEAST: Israel Targets Hamas Orphanages

July 16, 2008

By Peter Hirschberg

JERUSALEM, Jul 15 (IPS) – Shopping malls. Schools. Medical centres. Charities, orphanages. Soup kitchens. These are the latest targets in the campaign the Israeli military is waging against Hamas in the West Bank.

Israeli military officials have identified Hamas’s civilian infrastructure in the West Bank as a major source of the Islamic group’s popularity, and have begun raiding and shutting down these institutions in cities like Hebron, Nablus and Qalqilyah.

Last week, troops focused their efforts in Nablus, raiding the city hall and confiscating computers. They also stormed into a shopping mall and posted closure notices on the shop windows. A girls’ school and a medical centre were shut down in the city, and a charitable association had its computers impounded and documents seized.

This policy, officials say, is meant to deny the Islamic group, which is committed to Israel’s destruction, the ability to use these institutions as a pipeline by which money is channelled to finance attacks on the Jewish state. But the main goal of this campaign is to stem Hamas’s growing popularity in the West Bank, and ensure it does not seize control of the area as it did in Gaza a year ago, when its forces vanquished the more moderate Fatah movement headed by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

In Gaza, Hamas was able to capture the hearts and minds of the residents not just because it offered an alternative to the corruption-tainted Fatah leadership, but also because its network of schools, clinics, summer camps, after-school activities and charitable associations provided impoverished Gazans with the type of institutions and welfare alternatives that the Palestinian Authority failed to.

Continued . . .

Christian doctrine offensive to Muslims, says Archbishop of Canterbury

July 16, 2008

Key elements of Christian doctrine are offensive to Muslims, the Archbishop of Canterbury has said in a letter to Islamic scholars.

Ben Farmer | Telegraph.co.uk, July 16, 2008

Dr Rowan Williams also spoke critically of the violent past of both religions and Christianity’s abandonment of its peaceful origins.

His comments came in a published letter to Islamic leaders, intended to promote closer dialogue and understanding between the two faiths.

However they come just months after Dr Williams was forced to clarify comments in which he said some parts of Islamic law will “unavoidably” be adopted in Britain.

The comments are also made as the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference begins in Canterbury. Up to a quarter of bishops are boycotting the event, as the Anglican Church faces continuing division over the issues of women bishops and homosexual clergy.

The wide-ranging letter, which covers difficult issues including religious freedom and religiously-inspired violence is in response to a document written last year by Muslim scholars from 43 countries.

Discussing differences between the religions, Dr Williams acknowledges that Christian belief in the Trinity is “difficult, sometimes offensive, to Muslims”.

The Trinity is the Christian doctrine stating God exists as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and conflicts with Islamic teaching that there is one all-powerful God.

Speaking about the history of the two religions, Dr Williams said they had been too often confused with Empire and control.

He said: “Despite Jesus’ words in John’s gospel, Christianity has been promoted at the point of the sword and legally supported by extreme sanctions; despite the Qur’anic axiom, Islam has been supported in the same way, with extreme penalties for abandoning it, and civil disabilities for those outside the faith.

“There is no religious tradition whose history is exempt from such temptation and such failure.”

He goes on: “What we need as a vision for our dialogue is to break the current cycles of violence, to show the world that faith and faith alone can truly ground a commitment to peace which definitively abandons the tempting but lethal cycle of retaliation in which we simply imitate each other’s violence.”

The 17-page letter, called A Common Word for the Common Good, is in response to a letter from Muslim leaders written last September.

That letter, A Common Word Between Us and You, was signed by 138 Muslim scholars to declare the common ground between the two religions.

Dr Williams described the Muslim document as hospitable and friendly and added: “Your letter could hardly be more timely, given the growing awareness that peace throughout the world is deeply entwined with the ability of all people of faith everywhere to live in peace, justice, mutual respect and love.”

His own dense and meticulous letter did not mention sharia Islamic law at all. He received widespread criticism from politicians and other clergy for his comments in February and later told the General Synod he took responsibility for his “unclarity” and “misleading” choice of words.