The Militarization of the Police Has Produced a Murder Machine

Paul Craig Roberts

Update: Here is a report on the autopsy of Michael Brown. 

The facts directly contradict the false information police apologists are sending around the Internet. Note that the Missouri governor blamed the violence on the black community, not on the police who enraged the black community by gratuitously murdering a black teenager. One reader suggested that the macho goon thug cops with their military gear should be sent to Iraq where ISIS would cut them to ribbons.

I wasn’t surprised at some of the crude comments and hatred expressed toward blacks that came from a few white male anti-immigration Republicans in response to my article Cops Gone Wild. A few were so choked with rage over a “fucking pinko-liberal-commie” who would take the side of a “black bully thief” over the police that they never read beyond the introductory comment about Ferguson. Criticizing police can ignite the same kind of hysterical hatred as criticizing the Israeli governments murders of Palestinians.

As readers know, I often emphasize that a significant percentage of the population is incapable of thought and rational response. They want to hear what they want to hear and go into a rage when they don’t. They read not to learn but to have their ignorant biases substantiated.

Perhaps this is the way Americans have always been. However, it seems to me that it is much worse today than I remember from earlier decades. However mindless Americans might have been in the past, they seem much more so today.

Indeed, the media seems to speak with one voice–the government’s. Even academic freedom has been terminated in universities. There are so many examples.

One of the most notorious examples is the case of Professor Norman Finkelstein, whose parents were holocaust survivors. Finkelstein, who is Jewish, is a distinguished scholar who became a high profile critic of Israel’s misguided and immoral policies toward the Palestinians. The Zionist Lobby was able to reach into DePaul University, a Catholic university, and cause the cowardly president to overrule the decision of the Political Science Department and the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Personnel Committee, supported by the student body, to grant Finkelstein tenure.

Some suspect that the Zionist Lobby bought off the university president with promises of financial support for the university. Whether bribes were combined with threats, the university president, in my opinion, is a person devoid of integrity, and he drove a dagger through the heart of academic freedom and allowed Zionists to determine who receives tenure at DePaul University. Why parents would send their sons and daughters to such a university is beyond me.

Zionist attacks on American academic freedom are routine. Professor William Robinson of the University of California, Santa Barbara, tells the story of his experience with the Zionist Lobby on truth-out.org.

The Zionist Lobby’s unethical and immoral tactics create massive hostility toward Jews in general. From time to time I receive emails upbraiding me for refusing to blame everything wrong in the world on Jews. The extremism of Zionists prevents many critics of Jews from recognizing the fact that the strongest, most moral voices against Zionist extremism come from Jews themselves including some Israeli citizens and the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz.

Jewish critics of Israel’s behavior cannot be called “anti-semites.” The Zionist Lobby invented a new term for Jews afflicted by a moral conscience–”self-hating Jew.”

The Zionist Lobby with its ridiculous “enforcement organizations,” such as the ADL, by misusing the “anti-semite” accusation have made “anti-semite” and “self-hating Jew” badges of moral honor. Once upon a time “anti-semite” referred to a person who disliked Jews in general and perhaps wished harm to be inflicted on every Jew. Today “anti-semite” means a person who objects to illegal and immoral policies of the Zionist state, the government of which does not speak for all Jews or even for all Israelis.

Zionist focus on silencing their critics because Zionist policies cannot stand examination.

We see a similar response on the part of many Americans who rush blindly to the defense of the police whenever psychopaths with badges murder a black, a hispanic or a homeless person.

The gratuitous violence employed by police is no more justified than the gratuitous violence employed by the Israeli military toward Palestinians. “Law and order conservatives” confuse police accountability with the coddling of criminals and terrorists. They are unable to comprehend that unaccountable police are a greater threat to them than are criminals without badges.

This brief video, sent by a reader, shows how the militarization of US police has produced a murder machine.

And Now, Tom Tomorrow Puts It All In Perspective...

Gingrich Calls Palestinians 'Invented' People

Saturday, December 10, 2011 by Al-Jazeera-English

Republican presidential hopeful defends Israel and says Palestinians are Arabs who "had a chance to go many places".

Republican White House hopeful Newt Gingrich has stirred controversy by calling the Palestinians an "invented" people who could have chosen to live elsewhere.

Gingrich mocked the US policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, calling it 'out of touch with reality'.

The former House of Representatives speaker, who is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for the 2012 presidential race, made the remarks in an interview with the US Jewish Channel broadcaster released on Friday.

Asked whether he considers himself a Zionist, he answered: "I believe that the Jewish people have the right to a state ... Remember, there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire" until the early 20th century, "I think that we've had an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs, and who were historically part of the Arab community.

"And they had a chance to go many places, and for a variety of political reasons we have sustained this war against Israel now since the 1940s, and it's tragic."

Most historians mark the start of Palestinian Arab nationalist sentiment in 1834, when Arab residents of the Palestinian region revolted against Ottoman rule.

Israel, founded amid the 1948 Arab-Israel war, took shape along the lines of a 1947 UN plan for ethnic partition of the then-British ruled territory of Palestine which Arabs rejected.

More than 700,000 Palestinians were forced from their lands by Zionist armed groups in 1948, in an episode Palestinians refer to as the Nakba or "catastrophe".


'Irrational hostility'Gingrich's comments drew a swift rebuke from a spokesman for the American Task Force on Palestine, Hussein Ibish, who said:

"The idea that Palestinians are 'an invented people' while Israelis somehow are not is historically indefensible and inaccurate.

"Such statements seem to merely reflect deep historical ignorance and an irrational hostility towards Palestinian identity and nationalism."

Sabri Saidam, adviser to the Palestinian president, told Al Jazeera, "This is a manifestation of extreme racism and this is a reflection of where America stands sad, when Palestinians don't get their rights...this is sad and America should respond with a firm reaction to such comments that, if let go, more of which will come our way." 

"Let me ask Newt Gingrich if he would ever entertain the thought of addressing Indian Americans by saying that they never existed, that they were the invention of a separate nation, would that be tolerated?"

"Let's also reverse the statement; let's put ourselves in "the shoe of Jews who are listening now. Would they ever accept such statements being made about them?"

Saidam said, "I think it's time that America rejects such statements and closes the door to such horrendous and unacceptable statements."

Gingrich also sharply criticised US President Barack Obama's approach to Middle East diplomacy, saying that it was "so out of touch with reality that it would be like taking your child to the zoo and explaining that a lion was a bunny rabbit."

He said Obama's effort to treat the Palestinians the same as the Israelis is actually "favouring the terrorists".

"If I'm even-handed between a civilian democracy that obeys the rule of law and a group of terrorists that are firing missiles every day, that's not even-handed, that's favouring the terrorists," he said.

He also said the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, which governs the Gaza Strip, share an "enormous desire to destroy Israel".

The Palestinian Authority, which rules the occupied West Bank, formally recognises Israel's right to exist.

President Mahmoud Abbas has long forsworn violence against Israel as a means to secure an independent state, pinning his hopes first on negotiations and more recently on a unilateral bid for statehood via the UN.

Gingrich, along with other Republican candidates, are seeking to attract Jewish in the US support by vowing to bolster Washington's ties with Israel if elected.

He declared his world view was "pretty close" to that of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and vowed to take "a much more tougher-minded, and much more honest approach to the Middle East" if elected.

The Lost Opportunities of Barack Obama

What Could Have Been

by ROBERT FANTINA

 

 

It was just three short years ago when much of the United States, and the rest of the world, thrilled to the idea of the ‘audacity of hope’ and ‘change we can believe in.’ After eight disastrous years of President George Bush, years of escalating poverty, war, fear and the hatred of the United States by much of the world, it seemed that a new day was about to dawn.

The man to usher in this Utopia was a young, African-American senator, a man who could galvanize a crowd with his moving, inspiring speeches. He promised a new beginning for the United States; voters, young and old, male and female, of all religious and ethnic groups, responded to his message.

Now, a year before the next presidential election, the hope and change that were promised are no more than tarnished political sound bites, the clever rhetoric of yet another politician in statesman’s clothing.

One can look at the continuation of two wars, the stalled economy, and the inequality of the tax structure that places the burden on the dwindling middle-class that can ill afford it, while the wealthy reduce their taxes through various advantages and loopholes.

And now, with the opportunity to show real world leadership, President Obama is prepared to once again cave in to the demands of special interests, at the expense of justice and humanity.

This week, Palestine will apply to become the 194^th member country in the United Nations. The achievement of this goal would be profound. Palestine would then be in a position of power, not equal with Israel, but having a voice far louder than it has ever had before. Just a year ago, Mr. Obama said he looked forward to Palestine’s membership in the U.N. within the next year. That, of course, was before Israel slapped the U.S. in the face once again, and expanded settlements on disputed territory, thus shutting down the already long-pointless negotiations.  Palestine, with no leverage to force Israel to negotiate seriously, decided to go to the U.N.

This may appear to be part of the ‘Arab Spring,’ this time of uprisings against, and the overthrows of, repressive governments in the Middle East. Mr. Obama has hailed these revolutions as the democratic actions that they are: popular movements of people finally fed up with the horrific actions of their oppressors. And now, one would think, a true U.S. statesman would welcome and encourage Palestine’s bid for membership in the U.N. A nation that has been occupied for generations, whose citizens suffer cruelly at the hands of their oppressors, is seeking relief for its people. Isn’t the U.S. the world’s brightest beacon of human rights?

It is, if conditions are right. If the lobbyists and organizations that line the campaign coffers of the U.S.’s elected officials approve; if it will not alienate some vocal constituency; if it will produce photo ops that can be used in a future election, then the U.S. will always endorse any democratic movement for human rights.

Unfortunately, these conditions are not often met. South American countries that elect leftist presidents; Middle Eastern countries that elect leaders hostile to U.S.’s pets: these democratic movements must not be tolerated. Capitalist democracy that supports the needs of the rich over anyone else (thus following the U.S. model), and that doesn’t offend Israel, will always be endorsed. Any other version of democracy isn’t really, in the eyes of the U.S., democracy at all.

Can anyone imagine a United States where its leaders did what was right, rather than what was politically expedient? Where the safety nets for the poor were strengthened, even if it meant that the local CEO had to keep his or her Mercedes for two years, instead of just one? Where there was something more important than individual power?  Where ego took a back seat to service?

It is difficult to visualize such a United States. Many people believed, however naively, that the U.S. was on the verge of such an actuality as the inauguration of Mr. Obama approached, back in January of 2009. That seems, today, so long ago. While Mr. Obama cannot be blamed for all of the problems that continue to plague the country, he must take responsibility for many of them. For the first two years of his term, his party controlled both houses of Congress. During that time, his major achievement was a watered-down national health care policy, better, certainly, than what the U.S. had before, but a far cry from what other countries, such as Canada (where this writer resides), have. But costly, wasteful and useless wars were not ended; the infamous prison at Guantanamo Bay was not closed, although its population was reduced. The tax cuts that Mr. Bush gave to the wealthy were not removed, further sinking the country into economic ruin.

The hapless Mr. Obama seems to be like the prize-fighter who just doesn’t know how to use his strength. When the Republicans shriek ‘class warfare’ about a modest proposal to tax the wealthy at the same rate as the middle-class, Mr. Obama says barely a word in protest.  When Israel spits in the face of the U.S., expanding settlements in disputed territory against the expressed wishes of the U.S., Mr. Obama still continues to say, with a straight face, that a negotiated settlement between the Israelis and Palestinians is the only way to peace.

The Palestinian’s latest effort for justice will, in all likelihood, be rebuffed at the Security Council, where the U.S. has vowed to veto it. But it will be accepted by the General Assembly, which will not provide the same advantages as recognition by the Security Council, but will still be a game-changer for the Middle East.  The U.S., of course, will once again be on the wrong side of justice and human rights. But the powerful lobbyists will be pleased, and in twenty-first century America, that is one of the only constituencies that counts. The other important constituency can be found at your local country club, enjoying its various amenities.

US Asks Palestinians to Abandon UN Bid for State Recognition

The New York Times News Service | Report
Sunday 4 September 2011
by: Steven Lee Meyers and Mark Landler,

Washington - The Obama administration has initiated a last-ditch diplomatic campaign to avert a confrontation this month over a plan by Palestinians to seek recognition as a state at the United Nations, but it may already be too late, according to senior American officials and foreign diplomats.

The administration has circulated a proposal for renewed peace talks with the Israelis in the hopes of persuading the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, to abandon the bid for recognition at the annual gathering of world leaders at the United Nations General Assembly beginning Sept. 20.

The administration has made it clear to Mr. Abbas that it will veto any request presented to the United Nations Security Council to make a Palestinian state a new member outright.

But the United States does not have enough support to block a vote by the General Assembly to elevate the status of the Palestinians’ nonvoting observer “entity” to that of a nonvoting observer state. The change would pave the way for the Palestinians to join dozens of United Nations bodies and conventions, and it could strengthen their ability to pursue cases against Israel at the International Criminal Court.

Senior officials said the administration wanted to avoid not only a veto but also the more symbolic and potent General Assembly vote that would leave the United States and only a handful of other nations in the opposition. The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss diplomatic maneuverings, said they feared that in either case a wave of anger could sweep the Palestinian territories and the wider Arab world at a time when the region is already in tumult. President Obama would be put in the position of threatening to veto recognition of the aspirations of most Palestinians or risk alienating Israel and its political supporters in the United States.

“If you put the alternative out there, then you’ve suddenly just changed the circumstances and changed the dynamic,” a senior administration official involved in the flurry of diplomacy said Thursday. “And that’s what we’re trying very much to do.”

Efforts to head off the Palestinian diplomatic drive have percolated all summer but have taken on urgency as the vote looms in the coming weeks. “It’s not clear to me how it can be avoided at the moment,” said Ghaith al-Omari, a former Palestinian negotiator who is now executive director of the American Task Force on Palestine in Washington. “An American veto could inflame emotions and bring anti-American sentiment to the forefront across the region.”

While some officials remain optimistic that a compromise can be found, the administration has simultaneously begun planning to limit the fallout of a statehood vote. A primary focus is to ensure the Israelis and Palestinians continue to cooperate on security matters in the West Bank and along Israel’s borders, administration officials said.

“We’re still focused on Plan A,” another senior administration official said, referring to the diplomatic efforts by the administration’s new special envoy, David M. Hale, and the president’s Middle East adviser on the National Security Council, Dennis B. Ross. Mr. Hale replaced the more prominent George J. Mitchell Jr., who resigned in May after two years of frustrated efforts to make progress on a peace deal.

The State Department late last month issued a formal diplomatic message to more than 70 countries urging them to oppose any unilateral moves by the Palestinians at the United Nations. The message, delivered by American ambassadors to their diplomatic counterparts in those countries, argued that a vote would destabilize the region and undermine peace efforts, though those are, at least for now, moribund.

Two administration officials said that the intent of the message was to narrow the majority the Palestinians are expected to have in the General Assembly. They said that and the new peace proposal — to be issued in a statement by the Quartet, the diplomatic group focused on the Middle East comprising the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations — could persuade potential supporters to step back from a vote on recognition, and thus force Mr. Abbas to have second thoughts.

“The fact is there are countries who would choose not to do that vote if there was an alternative,” the first senior administration official said.

In essence, the administration is trying to translate the broad principles Mr. Obama outlined in May into a concrete road map for talks that would succeed where past efforts have failed: satisfy Israel, give the Palestinians an alternative to going to the United Nations and win the endorsement of the Europeans.

Diplomats are laboring to formulate language that would bridge stubborn differences over how to treat Jewish settlements in the West Bank, and over Israel’s demand for recognition of its status as a Jewish state. A statement by the Quartet would be more than a symbolic gesture. It would outline a series of meetings and actions to resume talks to create a Palestinian state.

The Quartet’s members are divided over the proposal’s terms and continue to negotiate them among themselves, and with the Palestinians and Israelis.

Among the issues still on the table are how explicitly to account for the growing settlements in the West Bank. The question of Israel’s status is also opposed by Russia and viewed warily by some European countries. The Palestinians have never acceded to a formal recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, in deference at least in part to the Palestinians who live in Israel.

The Quartet’s envoy, Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, visited Jerusalem on Tuesday to negotiate the terms of the proposal with the Israelis. He is expected to discuss it with the Palestinians soon.

The Israelis have so far responded positively to the draft, but the Palestinian position remains unclear.

Two administration officials said that Mr. Abbas had recently indicated that he would forgo a United Nations vote in favor of real talks. But a senior Palestinian official, Nabil Shaath, angrily dismissed the American proposal as inadequate and said a vote would go ahead regardless.

“Whoever wrote this thought we are so weak that we cannot even wiggle or that we are stupid,” he said in a telephone interview from Ramallah in the West Bank. He added, “Whatever is to be offered, it is too late.”

Within the administration, there are different views of the situation’s urgency. Some officials believe that the United States can weather a veto diplomatically, as it has before, and politically at home because of the strong support for Israel in Congress. But others view the Palestinian push for recognition as deeply alarming, raising the specter of new instability and violence in the West Bank and Gaza.

“The most powerful argument is that this will provoke a Palestinian awakening, that there will be a new violence and that we’ll be blamed,” said Martin S. Indyk, a former American ambassador to Israel.

GOP lawmaker calls for U.S. to pull funding if UN recognizes Palestine

by Madeleine Morgenstern, JTA,

June 7, 2011

Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) introduced a resolution calling for the withholding of U.N. funding if the General Assembly recognizes a Palestinian state.

Chabot said Tuesday that he hopes to dissuade any effort by the Palestinians to circumvent peace negotiations by going directly to the United Nations for statehood recognition when the General Assembly convenes in September. Chabot is chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia.

“I felt it was important to set down a marker to be very clear that there are those of us in Congress who are very concerned about this,” Chabot told JTA.

The non-binding resolution is a call for U.S. funding to the U.N. General Assembly to be withheld if the General Assembly adopts any resolution recognizing a Palestinian state outside formal negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

“You wouldn’t truly have a state, you’d just have one more irritant, one more thing that’s going to cause disruption in that important part of the world,” Chabot said. “The goal is to not have to take this measure by having the Palestinians backing down or the General Assembly indicating they don’t want to take the risk of having U.S. dollars cut off.”

The measure does not currently have any co-sponsors, but Chabot said he feels confident he’ll be able to recruit support among his colleagues when Congress is back in session next week.
“I have no concern that we won’t be able to attain a significant number,” Chabot said.

Israeli car ad boasts and depicts running over of Palestinian kids

Thu Apr 21, 2011 - PressTV

"We'll see who can stand against you," reads the Hebrew line to the right corner of the picture.

A new photo advertisement of a Japanese Subaru car in Israel has drawn considerable outrage for its implied promotion of running over Palestinian kids.

The commercial advertisement, published by a Subaru dealership in Israel, features the scene photographed last year, when an Israeli settler struck two Palestinian children with his car in the East al-Quds (Jerusalem) neighborhood of Silwan before speeding away, Xinhua reported on Thursday.

"We'll see who can stand against you," reads the Hebrew line to the right corner of the picture.

The October incident targeted two youngsters, aged 10 and 12, breaking the younger victim's leg.

Following the attack, the victims initially resisted to be hustled into a car, which apparently meant to take them to a hospital. Palestinian youngsters fear getting into strangers' vehicles because they have seen their friends taken away by Israeli troops posed as civilians on a regular basis.

The acting Palestinian Authority (PA) Chief Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party has said the promotion of the act of aggression "is a dirty advertisement and propaganda that reached to the status of calling for [the] killing Palestinian children by running them over."

The attacker, named David Be'eri, is the director general of Elad, a hard-line real estate development conglomerate.

The organization encourages Jews to move into dense neighborhoods in East al-Quds.

East al-Quds forms part of the Palestinian territories, which Tel Aviv occupied in 1967 and later annexed despite international refusal to recognize either aggression. It has been promised as the capital of any future Palestinian state.

Christian Advocacy in the Holy Land

The Kairos Document
By TIMOTHY SEIDEL

Much is said about Palestine-Israel. There is no shortage of reporting, analysis, and opinion. And there is no shortage of expressions of personal commitments to ‘peace’. One need only glance at recent headlines to discover this, especially with another push to reinvigorate the ‘peace process’.

But there is also much that is not said. For example, in many reports of Israel’s attack on an aid flotilla headed to Gaza earlier this year there was a glaring absence of a back story. Why are basic relief supplies needed in Gaza?

No reference to Israel’s occupation of Gaza. No reference to the fact that the 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza—the majority of whom are refugees—live in what is essentially the world’s largest open-air prison. No reference to the denial of access to needed services and economic opportunity with over 70 percent living in poverty, dependent on food aid.

Or take those headlines you may have read even this morning. While we read about the United States’ and Israel’s counsel to Palestinians not to miss the opportunity to re-engage in direct peace talks, recent house demolitions within the Occupied Territories and in Israel continue unabated and unaddressed. [1]

As the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions asserted in a recent news release, “Both the White House and the State Department will hold Iftar meals. But the bulldozers and other expressions of apartheid and warehousing tell a much different story.” [2]

It can be argued that our efforts at advocacy should be aimed at identifying what the British journalist Robert Fisk calls those “too many mendacious statements of optimism” and the “reluctance to confront unpleasant truths” that too-often inform our personal commitments to ‘peace’. [3]

Advocacy as such was discussed in the Kairos Palestine Document, “A moment of truth: A word of faith, hope and love from the heart of Palestinian suffering.” [4] More than a dozen Palestinian church leaders co-authored this document last year as a “cry of hope in the absence of all hope,” addressed to Palestinians, Israelis and “Christian brothers and sisters in the Churches around the world.”

In addition to challenging theologies that legitimize violence and dispossession, it points out the mission of the Church “to speak the Word of God courageously, honestly and lovingly,” and to “stand alongside the oppressed.”

The military occupation of Palestinian land is called a “sin against God and humanity.” It describes Palestinian livelihoods that continue to be devastated as more land is being expropriated for the expansion of settlements and the construction of a 430-mile barrier built not on the ‘Green Line’ but instead on Palestinian land. And as it cuts deeply into the West Bank, the Wall forms the borders of what some call ‘reservations’ or ‘bantustans’—evoking images of South Africa under apartheid—isolated islands of land on roughly 40 to 50 percent of the West Bank where Palestinians are confined, and out of which Palestinians are expected to negotiate a ‘Palestinian state’.

The Kairos Palestine Document urges Christians to “take a position of truth with regard to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land.” It favorably notes that some Palestinian civil organizations, as well as international organizations and churches, support boycotts and divestment as a form of nonviolent resistance to the occupation.

However one chooses to confront these unpleasant truths, recognizing that it is not some notion of ‘statehood’ that should consume us as Christian advocates but the well-being of all who inhabit ‘Mandate Palestine’—that is, present-day Israel, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip—begins with the confession that from a Christian perspective, we are called first and foremost to practice and witness for a politics of jubilee, one which brings liberty to the oppressed and a secure existence in the land (Luke 4; Leviticus 25) and to work for the day when each will sit under vine and fig tree without fear (Micah 4:4)—a vision that cannot be confined to our notions of ‘one state’ or ‘two states’.

Palestinian Christian leaders echo this by describing a message of “love and living together” to the Muslims and Jews of the ‘Holy Land’, condemning “all forms of racism.” The Palestine Kairos call is for a “common vision, built on equality and sharing, not on superiority, negation of the other or aggression, using the pretext of fear and security.” It is only in this manner that “justice and security will be attained for all.”

The Kairos call is one that understands ‘peacebuilding’ as a shared work for justice. And it is a call that challenges us to work for justice here at home in the United States, a work that requires our attention to the historical—and often-times unpleasant—truths about what our roles have been in this conflict. A work that requires hope, courage, and risk.

May the witness of our Palestinian and Israeli sisters and brothers move us to deeper engagement beyond good intentions and personal commitments and challenge us to vigilantly confront unpleasant truths.

Notes.

[1] Badil Resource Center, “Peace Talks in the Shadow of Demolitions,” BADIL.org, 19 August 2010; available online at http://www.badil.org/en/press-releases/135-2010/2555-press-eng-024.

[2] Jeff Halper, “Ramadan Kareem from the Netanyahu and Obama Administrations,” ICAHD.org, 11 August 2010; available online at http://www.icahd.org/?p=5994.

[3] Robert Fisk, “The Age of Terror – a landmark report,” The Independent, 8 October 2006; available online at http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-the-age-of-terror--a-landmark-report-418953.html.

[4] The Kairos Palestine Document, “A Moment of Truth: A Word of Faith, Hope and Love from the Heart of Palestinian Suffering,” 15 December 2009; available online at http://www.kairospalestine.ps/.