219 Chilcot inquiry: 2 of 5 are Jewish - one a Zionist, & one drafted Blair's Invasion policy

"The Inquiry committee members are Sir John Chilcot (Chairman), Sir Lawrence Freedman, Sir Martin Gilbert, Sir Roderic Lyne and Baroness Usha Prashar."
http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/about.aspx

(1) "Jewish lobby" preventing Obama from ending Afghan war - Mahathir
(2) Chilcot inquiry on Iraq War: mentioning that 2 of 5 are Jewish shows "prejudice"
(3) Chilcot inquiry: 2 of 5 are Jewish - one a Zionist, & one drafted Blair's Invasion policy
(4) Iraq littered with nuclear & dioxin contamination
(5) Hamas says it will sue Israel over organ harvesting
(6) Ariel, a Jewish town on Palestinian land, on a strategic corridor
(7) Barak says Palestinians a greater threat to Israel, than Iran's nuclear program
(8) U.S. Foreign Aid Summary: One-third of ALL US AID goes to Israel and Egypt

(1) "Jewish lobby" preventing Obama from ending Afghan war - Mahathir

From: Josef Schwanzer <donauschwob@optusnet.com.au> Date: 30.01.2010 02:54 AM

http://jta.org/news/article/2010/01/27/1010345/former-malaysian-pm-jews-cause-worlds-problems

Former Malaysian leader: Jews cause world’s problems

January 27, 2010

MELBOURNE, Australia (JTA) -- Malaysia’s former prime minister accused America’s "Jewish lobby" of preventing President Obama from ending the war in Afghanistan.

Local Malaysian media reported that Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, who ruled the Muslim nation between 1981 and 2003, told the Conference for the Support of Al-Quds on Jan. 21 that AIPAC was hindering two of Obama’s key election promises: ending the war in Afghanistan and closing the Guantanamo Bay prison.

“There are forces in the United States which prevent the president from doing some things,” the Malaysian Star quoted Mahathir as saying. “One of the forces is the Jewish lobby, AIPAC.”

Mahathir, long known for his anti-Semitic views, went on to say that Jews “had always been a problem in European countries. They had to be confined to ghettoes and periodically massacred. But still they remained, they thrived and they held whole governments to ransom.

“Even after their massacre by the Nazis of Germany, they survived to continue to be a source of even greater problems for the world,” he said.

Mahathir also said there was “strong evidence” that the 9/11 terror attacks on the United States were staged as an excuse to wage war against Islam.

“If they can make 'Avatar,' they can make anything,” he was quoted as saying.

In response, Australian federal lawmaker Michael Danby, who is Jewish, said that “Dr Mahathir’s comments that Jews had to be periodically massacred are abhorrent and should be condemned. Hopefully within a few months, when there are democratic elections, we will see a modern Malaysian leader in Anwar Ibrahim, who will lead a non-racialist coalition to election victory.”

(2) Chilcot inquiry on Iraq War: mentioning that 2 of 5 are Jewish shows "prejudice"

From: Josef Schwanzer <donauschwob@optusnet.com.au>  Date: 30.01.2010 04:19 AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/29/chilcot-inquiry-oliver-miles

Britain's affair with antisemitism

By questioning the allegiances of Jews serving on the Chilcot inquiry, Sir Oliver Miles continues a long tradition of prejudice

David Cesarani

guardian.co.uk, Friday 29 January 2010 13.00 GMT

His loyalty questioned: Benjamin Disraeli (1804-81), Conservative prime minister and novelist. (Engraving from a photograph, ca 1878.) Photograph: Hulton Archive/John Jabez Edwin Mayall/Getty

In November 2009, Sir Oliver Miles, a distinguished retired diplomat with years of service in the Middle East, wrote an article in the Independent lamenting that two Jews had been appointed to the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war. He triggered a spat that threatens the integrity of the inquiry and exposes the tenacity of prejudice in sections of British society.

Sir Miles didn't much approve of the other members, either. But he singled out the choice of Sir Lawrence Freedman and Sir Martin Gilbert. The fact that they were Jews, and that Gilbert was also well known as a champion of Israel, would provide "handy ammunition" for attacks on the committee's work, especially in the Arab media. Sir Miles was ticked off by the Times a few days later and there the matter might have rested. However, Sir Martin has now reignited the affair by suggesting that the attacks smack of antisemitism. Unaccountably he vented his ire in an interview on a rightwing Zionist online radio station serving Israeli settlers.

Sir Martin's retort actually fuels the row and may even overshadow the interrogation of Tony Blair. At another level, the controversy throws into doubt the vaunted multiculturalism of modern Britain and lays bare a stubborn vein of intolerance that has blighted the treatment of immigrants and minorities for centuries.

In a confrontation on BBC Newsnight last night, Denis MacShane MP accused Sir Oliver of resurrecting prejudices about the Jews that were more typical of the 1930s. He protested that it was unacceptable to make religion a criteria for determining whether a person was fit for public office, no matter what the task. In fact, discrimination against the Jews persisted a lot longer than that. In his history of MI5, Christopher Andrews regretted that the security services refused to employ Jews long into the postwar era. But the spooks were only continuing a tradition that went back to the 19th century and a furore that eerily prefigures the one we are currently witnessing.

In 1876, an uprising of Bulgarian Christians against Ottoman rule provoked a murderous response from the Muslim Turkish authorities. William Gladstone, former prime minister and grand old man of the Liberal Party, was so enraged by the massacres of Christians that he published a pamphlet The Bulgarian Horrors and the Question of the East. In it, he lambasted the then prime minister Benjamin Disraeli for abandoning the victims in preference for a pro-Turkish policy. Even though it had long been British policy to support the Ottoman Empire, Gladstone ascribed Disraeli's stance to the fact that he was born a Jew and therefore sympathised with the Ottomans who had treated their Jews fairly – unlike the new Christian states in the Balkans.

Writing to a Jewish correspondent who questioned this response, Gladstone explained: "I have always had occasion to admire the conduct of the English Jews in the discharge of their civil duties; but I deeply deplore the manner in which, what I may call Judaic sympathies, beyond as well as within the circle of professed Judaism, are now acting on the question of the East; while I am aware that as regards the Jews themselves, there may be much to account for it."

Gladstone's peculiar reference to those "beyond" the community of observant Jews was a swipe at Disraeli who had been baptised into the Anglican communion aged 12. He believed that Disraeli was perversely motivated by some residual racial loyalty. Gladstone had more respect for Jews affiliated to their community, but they fared little better. Their dual loyalty was simply more obvious and explicable.

Within a short time, Gladstone's tirade was being echoed by eminent intellectuals, including Professor AE Freeman, also a stalwart of the Liberal party, and Goldwin Smith, professor of history at Oxford. In addition to claiming that money-grubbing Jews exploited Christian guilt over past oppression (such as the Inquisition) and controlled the press, Smith declaimed that Jews could not be loyal citizens because "their only country is their race; which is one with their religion".

While he would no doubt dismiss the comparison, 134 years later this is exactly what Sir Miles is banging on about. Either he thinks it is a problem that Jews are serving on the Iraq inquiry because they have a dual loyalty or he thinks that less enlightened folk than him in the Arab world might draw this conclusion. The first possibility is dismaying but the alternative is no cause for relief. His response to the existence of bigotry is not to pour scorn on prejudice and defend the integrity of public servants who happen to be Jewish, but to appease it.

This suspicion of Jews is ingrained in certain quarters of Britain's ruling class but it is not only the Jews who should be concerned. Muslims, Hindus, Roman Catholics and members of every minority should pay attention to the implications. If the religious affiliation or origin of members of the Iraq inquiry is relevant because it may be used against the inquiry or taken to explain its shortcomings, what of other departments of state and government agencies?

Are Muslims to be barred from the Ministry of Defence or Home Office lest a terrorist outrage be perpetrated by a Muslim? After all, someone might say: this is what happens if you put Muslims in charge of our security. Are immigrants or the children of immigrants to be banned from working in the immigration services? It would indeed be embarrassing if there was a mishap in the controls and the minister responsible was, heaven forbid of "immigrant stock". What would the BNP say? And surely we can't trust Northern Ireland in the hands of a Roman Catholic, in case something goes wrong. Or a Protestant for that matter.

You can see where this argument is leading. Of course, Sir Miles and those who think like him may object that it is only this inquiry and these Jews that present the problem. But then you can see where that argument leads, too.

(3) Chilcot inquiry: 2 of 5 are Jewish - one a Zionist, & one drafted Blair's Invasion policy

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/oliver-miles-the-key-question-ndash-is-blair-a-war-criminal-1825374.html

Oliver Miles: The key question – is Blair a war criminal?

The terms of reference for the new Iraq inquiry allow for the big unknowns to be tackled. And we might just get to the truth

Sunday, 22 November 2009

{caption} Apocalypse then: The US's 'shock and awe' campaign in Iraq wreaked devastation. George Bush said he was inspired by the Old Testament {end}

The Iraq inquiry will start hearing evidence in open session on Tuesday, and it will almost certainly lead to fireworks. Let us hope the media cover it properly; five months ago, there was a sharp debate on Iraq in the Commons which the media ignored.

"Anyone with information" has been invited to get in touch, which includes serving officials and military. Some officials resigned because they disagreed with the war, but most stayed on. But there is plenty of evidence, including leaked documents, to show there was strong opposition to the war, and for good reasons. As a retired diplomat myself, I hope my former colleagues will not be shy.

The situation in Iraq is still horrible. More than 400 people died in violent incidents last month; more than 1,400 were wounded. Millions of Iraqis are still displaced, inside Iraq or in Syria, Jordan or elsewhere, with little prospect of their returning home. Water and electricity are limping along, the vital oil industry will take years to rebuild. British troops sent to train the Iraqi security forces were in Kuwait through the summer marking time, while the Iraqi government quibbled about their legal status.

We've had umpteen Iraq inquiries already, but this one should be different. Its terms of reference are open. Previous inquiries concentrated on the non-existent weapons of mass destruction, the misuse of intelligence to make the case for war, the "dodgy dossier" and so on. But there are plenty of other questions, starting with the big one: was this a war of aggression and therefore a war crime? There were two views about its legality, and the then attorney general seems to have held both of them.

What about the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qa'ida? – it seems there were no such links. What happened to the civil planning for after the fighting? – according to Clare Short, who was a member of the Cabinet, there "were preparations that were then all junked, because of the hubris and deceit that went into preparing for war". Were the arguments for and against war ever assessed by the FCO, and was formal advice submitted to the then secretary of state, the Cabinet and the prime minister? Here is Clare Short again: "All the Cabinet meetings were little chats: they were never a proper consideration of all the options." Is it true that the Iraq experts invited to No 10 in November 2002 (two of whom also took part in the seminar organised by the inquiry on 5 November) decided not to tell Tony Blair whether they thought an invasion was wise or not because they thought he wouldn't listen? We have heard a lot recently about the freedom of experts to give advice which is unpalatable to the Government, so why the self-censorship?

We need to know more about the exchanges between George Bush and Tony Blair. According to Colin Powell, the then US secretary of state, he and Jack Straw sometimes tried to get Blair to hold Bush back. "Jack and I would get him all pumped up about an issue. And he'd be ready to say, 'Look here, George'. But as soon as he saw the president he would lose all his steam." Can this be true?

When Bush tried to persuade President Chirac to go to war, Bush compared Saddam Hussein with Gog and Magog, obscure legendary figures named in the book of Ezekiel as enemies of the people of Israel. This sounds like a joke, but seems to be true. Chirac was baffled and his staff consulted a professor of theology who spilt the beans. Blair told his Iraq experts that Saddam was "uniquely evil"; the inquiry should ask him whether Bush mentioned Gog and Magog to him, or he to Bush.

The Prime Minister's choice of the members of the committee has been criticised. None is a military man, Sir John Chilcot was a member of the Hutton inquiry and has been closely involved with the security services, Baroness Prashar has no relevant experience, Sir Roderic Lyne was a serving ambassador at the time of the war, and so on.

Rather less attention has been paid to the curious appointment of two historians (which seems a lot, out of a total of five), both strong supporters of Tony Blair and/or the Iraq war. In December 2004 Sir Martin Gilbert, while pointing out that the "war on terror" was not a third world war, wrote that Bush and Blair "may well, with the passage of time and the opening of the archives, join the ranks of Roosevelt and Churchill" – an eccentric opinion that would seem to rule him out as a member of the committee. Sir Lawrence Freedman is the reputed architect of the "Blair doctrine" of humanitarian intervention, which was invoked in Kosovo and Afghanistan as well as Iraq.

Both Gilbert and Freedman are Jewish, and Gilbert at least has a record of active support for Zionism. Such facts are not usually mentioned in the mainstream British and American media, but The Jewish Chronicle and the Israeli media have no such inhibitions, and the Arabic media both in London and in the region are usually not far behind.

All five members have outstanding reputations and records, but it is a pity that, if and when the inquiry is accused of a whitewash, such handy ammunition will be available. Membership should not only be balanced; it should be seen to be balanced.

Tony Blair's responsibility for the Iraq war was a strike against him as a candidate for the role of president of the European Council. Perhaps the launch of the inquiry helped to kill the idea off. No European democratic institution has entertained the idea of electing someone under the shadow of a war crime charge since Kurt Waldheim became President of Austria in 1986.

Oliver Miles is a former British ambassador to Libya ==

Bush's biblical justification for war: http://secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=haught_29_5

(4) Iraq littered with nuclear & dioxin contamination

From: Kristoffer Larsson <kristoffer.larsson@sobernet.nu> Date: 28.01.2010 05:43 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/22/iraq-nuclear-contaminated-sites

Iraq littered with high levels of nuclear and dioxin contamination, study finds

• Greater rates of cancer and birth defects near sites
• Depleted uranium among poisons revealed in report

Martin Chulov in Baghdad

guardian.co.uk, Friday 22 January 2010 17.45 GMT

More than 40 sites across Iraq are contaminated with high levels or radiation and dioxins, with three decades of war and neglect having left environmental ruin in large parts of the country, an official Iraqi study has found.

Areas in and near Iraq's largest towns and cities, including Najaf, Basra and Falluja, account for around 25% of the contaminated sites, which appear to coincide with communities that have seen increased rates of cancer and birth defects over the past five years. The joint study by the environment, health and science ministries found that scrap metal yards in and around Baghdad and Basra contain high levels of ionising radiation, which is thought to be a legacy of depleted uranium used in munitions during the first Gulf war and since the 2003 invasion.

The environment minister, Narmin Othman, said high levels of dioxins on agricultural lands in southern Iraq, in particular, were increasingly thought to be a key factor in a general decline in the health of people living in the poorest parts of the country.

Toxic zones in Iraq

"If we look at Basra, there are some heavily polluted areas there and there are many factors contributing to it," she told the Guardian. "First, it has been a battlefield for two wars, the Gulf war and the Iran-Iraq war, where many kinds of bombs were used. Also, oil pipelines were bombed and most of the contamination settled in and around Basra.

"The soil has ended up in people's lungs and has been on food that people have eaten. Dioxins have been very high in those areas. All of this has caused systemic problems on a very large scale for both ecology and overall health."

Government study groups have recently focused on the war-ravaged city of Falluja, west of Baghdad, where the unstable security situation had kept scientists away ever since fierce fighting between militants and US forces in 2004.

"We have only found one area so far in Falluja," Othman said. "But there are other areas that we will try to explore soon with international help."

The Guardian reported in November claims by local doctors of a massive rise in birth defects in the city, particularly neural tube defects, which afflict the spinal cords and brains of newborns. "We are aware of the reports, but we must be cautious in reaching conclusions about causes," Othman said. "The general health of the city is not good. There is no sewerage system there and there is a lot of stagnant household waste, creating sickness that is directly affecting genetics. We do know, however, that a lot of depleted uranium was used there.

"We have been regulating and monitoring this and we have been urgently trying to assemble a database. We have had co-operation from the United Nations environment programme and have given our reports in Geneva. We have studied 500 sites for chemicals and depleted uranium. Until now we have found 42 places that have been declared as [high risk] both from uranium and toxins."

Ten of those areas have been classified by Iraq's nuclear decommissioning body as having high levels of radiation. They include the sites of three former nuclear reactors at the Tuwaitha facility – once the pride of Saddam Hussein's regime on the south-eastern outskirts of Baghdad – as well as former research centres around the capital that were either bombed or dismantled between the two Gulf wars.

The head of the decommissioning body, Adnan Jarjies, said that when inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency arrived to "visit these sites, I tell them that even if we have all the best science in the world to help us, none of them could be considered to be clean before 2020."

Bushra Ali Ahmed, director of the Radiation Protection Centre in Baghdad, said only 80% of Iraq had so far been surveyed. "We have focused so far on the sites that have been contaminated by the wars," he said. "We have further plans to swab sites that have been destroyed by war.

"A big problem for us is when say a tank has been destroyed and then moved, we are finding a clear radiation trail. It takes a while to decontaminate these sites."

Scrap sites remain a prime concern. Wastelands of rusting cars and war damage dot Baghdad and other cities between the capital and Basra, offering unchecked access to both children and scavengers.

Othman said Iraq's environmental degradation is being intensified by an acute drought and water shortage across the country that has seen a 70% decrease in the volume of water flowing through the Euphrates and Tigris rivers.

"We can no longer in good conscience call ourselves the land between the rivers," she said. "A lot of the water we are getting has first been used by Turkey and Syria for power generation. When it reaches us it is poor quality. That water which is used for agriculture is often contaminated. We are in the midst of an unmatched environmental disaster."

(5) Hamas says it will sue Israel over organ harvesting

From: WVNS <ummyakoub@yahoo.com> Date: 30.01.2010 03:43 AM

Hamas to sue Israel over organ harvesting
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-01/27/c_13153397.htm

GAZA, Jan. 27 (Xinhua) -- The deposed Hamas government in the Gaza Strip is calling on the Palestinians to feed it with information to support its quest to sue Israel over alleged organ harvesting, Hamas' Justice Minister said Wednesday.

"We have published advertisements in the Palestinian newspapers calling on the citizens in Gaza to give us whatever information they have to take advantage from it," said the minister Mohammed al-Ghoul.

"We are preparing to collect evidence confirming that the ( Israeli) occupation had stolen parts from dead martyrs," he added in a statement sent to the press. "We intend to file a suit against Israel before international courts."

In December, Eissa Qaraqe, minister of prisoners affairs, said Israel keeps bodies of Palestinian people in secret cemeteries and refuses to hand them over to their families "to hide the fact of stealing their body parts."

"There is an Israeli mafia trading with the body limbs and some of the Palestinian families received bodies of their sons with some organs taken away," Qaraqe added.

In the same month, a report by Israel's Channel 2 television sparked a controversy when former director of the Israeli Forensic Medicine Institute, in an interview, confirmed that skin and corneas were taken from dead Palestinian bodies in the 90s.

(6) Ariel, a Jewish town on Palestinian land, on a strategic corridor

From: Roy Tov <roytov@live.com> Date: 30.01.2010 01:24 PM

Silent Milestone

http://www.roytov.com/articles/ariel.htm

In my recent article about the deeds of Israel in Haiti, I commented how difficult it is sometimes to explain the Israeli reality to an outsider. This week I found another example of a very small news item, apparently of little importance – or even carrying a relatively positive message – that is just the tip of an evil iceberg.

On the last week of January 2010, Ehud Barak – Israel’s Minister of Defense – decided to upgrade Ariel’s college into a full university.

“Is that all? Who cares!” Some of the readers may be thinking along these lines by now, while Satan smiles, enjoying the banality of evil. Did these readers pay attention to the fact that the Minister of Defense approved a university? Isn’t that the job of the Minister of Education? And where is Ariel?

The initial planning of Ariel took place during Rabin’s first term as Prime Minister. The decision was taken later, by Prime Minister Menahem Begin, who in 1977 formed Israel’s first right wing government. For the building of the town, Israel confiscated territories belonging to four Palestinian villages in two different stages, claiming it was done for “military reasons.”

Unlike Israeli cities and councils, Ariel’s territory isn’t continuous but includes three different areas separated by grounds formally owned by Palestinians. Overall, the town’s territory is about five kilometers long and 700 meters wide. The town is surrounded by a fence, meaning Palestinians do not have access to their territories within the municipality. This was done in purpose, so that Israel confiscated less territory than it occupied later.

The population of Ariel is mixed. As most of the settlements, the hard core settlers are Jewish Americans – ready to return to their Fifth Avenue penthouses at the first sign of danger. In the nineties, Ariel’s population doubled with the help of the massive immigration of Russians – brought by the very attractive conditions offered by the State of Israel to those settling on Palestinian grounds. Israeli citizens living within the state borders can only dream of such benefits.

All the settlers are there in clear violation of Geneva’s Fourth Convention and are thus international criminals. Not many people are attracted by this status, regardless the bribes offered by the Zionists, unless they have an American passport – just in case - or are desperate refugees from former Communist countries. Thus a college was founded in Ariel. Colleges are unusual in the Israeli education system. The Israeli academic model follows European standards and thus is based on universities. Those are quite selective and many Israelis cannot enter them. For them, a few colleges were created. The one in Ariel would accept anybody capable of breathing and voting (Likud). This move created a drive for additional people to reach the town.

Overall it didn’t matter, since degrees given by colleges are not good for advanced research degrees, meaning graduated students couldn’t access the mainstream universities for further studies.

Why bothering with founding such a town? Technically, Ariel is within the Salfit Governorate of the Palestinian Authority and thus not part of the State of Israel. Beyond the limits of the Israeli Law, Ariel was planned as an enlargement of Gush Dan and as a provider of a strategic second corridor connecting Tel Aviv with Jerusalem.

“Gush Dan” – namely “Dan’s Block” – is the name given to the seven cities occupying central Israel, with Tel Aviv at the very center. This metropolis is the financial and commercial center of the country. All the Israeli Administration publications claim that Jerusalem is the capital and center of the Zionist entity, but that’s no so. The testimony is not only political – most countries including the US do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital – or financial.

At the very center of Tel Aviv – an area known as the “Kirya,” meaning the “town” – is the imposing needle of the Ministry of Defense, known also as the “Marganit Building.” It was built by a foreign contractor – Israel lacks the technology needed for building such structures. Underneath the building is the infamous “Bor” (hole), an underground bunker from where the Israeli army is run when there is no a war. From a sumptuous office on the fifth floor, the Israeli Minister of Defense runs most of the country. Within the ministry is the “Minhal Ezrahi” (Civil Administration) which is the legal entity responsible of the Occupied Territories administration. As such, the Minister of Defense is responsible for all matters regarding Ariel. He can say a kindergarten is a university and the Minister of Education cannot argue that.

Gush Dan and Jerusalem – the formal capital – are connected by a narrow corridor along Israel’s Highway #1. This is a strategically vulnerable point. To solve that, Ariel was designed as a Jewish city sitting on a new corridor connecting Gush Dan with Northern Jerusalem.

More than thirty years after this illegal plan was put in the move, it is still a failed one. Ariel is a small and insignificant town. Many of its denizens travel to Gush Dan for their daily work. In this context, the minister of defense move to recognize the college as a university looks different. It is in fact an attempt to reinforce the Zionist illegal hold on Palestinian lands and is a silent milestone, since for the first time an institution illegally located on Palestinian grounds was incorporated to the mainstream Israeli education system.

Israel becomes one step closer to annexing Ariel and all the territories along the very strategic “second corridor.”

(7) Barak says Palestinians a greater threat to Israel, than Iran's nuclear program

From: Roland Schenk <rs@singularitas.com> Date: 28.01.2010 04:42 AM

The Australian

Barak defies Bibi on threat to Israel

Ehud Barak defies Benjamin Netanyahu on threat to Israel

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/ehud-barak-defies-benjamin-netanyahu-on-threat-to-israel/story-e6frg6so-1225824120520

John Lyons, Middle East correspondent    The Australian    January 28, 2010  12:00AM 

ISRAELI Defence Minister Ehud Barak says the conflict with Palestinians poses a greater threat to Israel than Iran's nuclear program - a significant departure from the view of his Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

Mr Barak warned yesterday that unless Israel helped create a Palestinian state, it would end up losing its Jewish character or becoming undemocratic "and we will turn into an apartheid state".

His comments came as Mr Netanyahu visited Poland to attend an International Holocaust Remembrance Day ceremony at Auschwitz death camp, where he was expected to describe Iran's nuclear program as a modern threat equivalent to the Holocaust.

The major theme of Mr Netanyahu's speeches since becoming Prime Minister last March has been to list Iran's nuclear ambitions as the top threat to Israel.

In talks with US negotiators over recent months, he has listed Iran as a more urgent problem to resolve than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In a ceremony in Warsaw yesterday, Mr Netanyahu said: "At this place, from where hundreds of thousands of our people were sent to death camps and where we meet today the righteous among the nations, we encounter the worst evil and wickedness in the history of mankind, together with the greatest courage in the history of humanity.

"This is not an easy encounter, but it gives us hope and direction for our future."

At the Museum of the Uprising in Warsaw, Mr Netanyahu wrote in the visitors' book: "The nation of Israel has learned its lesson."

But back in Israel, Mr Barak's strong comments suggested a frustration with the failure to restart peace talks. As Defence Minister, a former prime minister and one of Israel's most decorated soldiers, Mr Barak has high credibility in Israel.

"The lack of defined boundaries within Israel, and not an Iranian bomb, is the greatest threat to our future," he said.

In a speech at Bar Ilan University, he said Israel was the strongest country in the region "but time is not on our side".

"We have a paramount interest in establishing defined borders between ourselves and the Palestinians that will set the stage for two states for two peoples," he said.

"It must be understood that if between the Jordan and the (Mediterranean) sea there is only one political entity, called Israel, it will by necessity either not be Jewish or not democratic and we will turn into an apartheid state."

With agencies

(8) U.S. Foreign Aid Summary: One-third of ALL US AID goes to Israel and Egypt

From: Judy Schuchmann <j_schu@sbcglobal.net> Date: 30.01.2010 07:59 PM

U.S. Foreign Aid Summary

U.S. Budget

Politics Summaries

U.S. Foreign Aid Summary

http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/politics/us-foreign-aid.htm

{visit the link to see the table}

HERE is a summary chart of United States Foreign Aid payments.
Data is listed by major recipients, for the 6 years from 2001 to 2006.

United States Foreign Aid Summary Chart
All figures in millions of US dollars (rounded off)

Top U.S. Foreign Aid Recipient Countries ...

     Notes

Israel & Egypt:

These 2 countries receive one-third of the total aid, the majority of which pays for armaments.
Yet, neither is a "developing" country. One-third of ALL US AID goes to Israel and Egypt.