Institute for Middle Eastern Democracy

Institute for Middle Eastern Democracy

The Institute for Middle Eastern Democracy (IMED) is a new group that brings together people of differing religious, nonreligious and political views who all share a desire for liberty and democracy in the Middle East. See the 'About Us' page for more information.

We have an active blog, a journal of topical reports and articles is being set up, an 'Iran and the Bomb' campaign; we offer speakers, host debates and other events, and we try to provide a network for local, regional and university campus groups and societies who share our aims.

Palestinian Solidarity Campaign anti-semitism

Shocking anti-semitism from the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign (PSC)

A video taken by a Zionist Federation member at a PSC meeting last Tuesday 1st December at Bloomsbury Baptist Church in Shaftesbury Avenue.

There will be a Pro-Israel Silent vigil outside the Jews for Boycotting Israel Goods event at The Actors Church, St Pauls, Covent Garden, WC2E 9ED on Tuesday 8th December at 18.45 organized by a group of individuals. Bring Israeli flags – leaflets will be provided.  For more info email gary@zfuk.org

O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him

Just a quick post to remind people that Hamas is not a democratic political party; it is an anti-democratic, fascist, religious fundamentalism, anti-Semitic terrorist organisation who target Holocaust survivors and small children, sacrifice Palestinian children in a brutal display of moral nihilism; all in order to achieve their goal - that is, the eradication of the Jews.

Yale University has issued a translation of their covenant

Some excerpts:

Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realised.

...

The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

...

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.

Why don't you have Palestine Democracy Week?

Khaled Abu Toameh will be speaking this Monday night on ‘Are Palestinians ready for Statehood?’. 

A recent blogger who attended an event with Khaled wrote: 

But when Toameh spoke, what stood out was not that he is pro-Israel, but that he is pro-Palestine.

For example, he spoke about the virulent anti-Israel atmosphere he is seeing on U.S. college campuses, about which, he observed, "there is sometimes more sympathy for Hamas than I see in Ramallah."

When he asked these students, "What makes you pro-Palestinian?" the answers were usually the same: "Israel is an apartheid state, Israel is a violent occupier, etc."
"But that's anti-Israel," he challenged them. "That's not pro-Palestine. I'm pro-Palestine. What makes you pro-Palestine?

"If you're really pro-Palestine, come help us instead of just spewing poison about Israel. Come teach my people democracy. Instead of Israel Apartheid Week, why don't you have Palestine Democracy Week?"

More information: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=191152786626 

Book now at: http://zionist.org.uk/index.php?id=57 but quickly before it sells out.

The Devil can wear different clothes...

The Community Security Trust (CST) has issued a statement stating that British Jews should not be drawn into supporting groups such as Stop Islamisation of Europe (SIOE) or the English Defence League (EDL).

Here at Instmed, we could not agree more. Our earlier post on the emotional idealism that accompanies hatred stated the need for rational discussion and the danger of collectivist emotion-driven movements. This does not just refer to anti-Israeli groups, but to nationalist groups such as SIOE and EDL as well.

Many of the members manifest feelings that are not directed at the political and societal aims of fundamentalist Islam, but are directed at the entire religion as a whole. This is wrong.

We repeat CST calls: do not join these groups or attend their protests - they are just as appalling as all those opposed to liberty and democracy.

CST Statement:

A small Islamophobic group, called Stop Islamisation Of Europe (SIOE), has called for 1,000 Jews to attend its forthcoming demonstration at Harrow mosque; and for each Jew to bring an Israeli flag.

This is strikingly similar to appeals that have also been made in recent months by the English Defence League (EDL). It is also essentially the same as opportunistic attempts by British National Party leader Nick Griffin to ditch both his and his party’s antisemitic heritage, by stressing his supposed new-found support for Israel and Jews.

SIOE’s appeal for Jewish participation sits alongside this grotesque Islamophobic image on its website:

There have been many arguments as to what the word Islamophobia means; or indeed if such a word ought to even exist. Regardless of the philosophy, this image tells us everything we need to know about SIOE and Islamophobia. (Or, if you prefer, everything you need to know about anti-Muslim racism, or hatred, or bigotry).

If a Jew cannot understand why the image is racist, or hateful, or bigoted then they should try imagining it as a synagogue: with blood dripping from a Star of David; with blood dripping down the rabbi’s pulpit; and with blood dripping from the mouth of a skull that wears an Israeli army helmet.

A demonstration against Harrow mosque under the banner “Stop the Islamisation of Europe”, is as stupid and offensive as a demonstration against Harrow synagogue, under the banner “Stop the Zionisation of Europe”.

This has nothing to do with the necessary and legitimate work to counter extremism and antisemitism wherever and whenever it genuinely occurs. CST has raised awareness of the activities of extreme Islamist groups in the UK for many years. But to demonise an entire community, every Muslim and every mosque, in the way that SIOE does, shows exactly the kind of bigotry from which Jews have suffered so often in our history. For SIOE to appeal to Jews to support them shows a complete ignorance of the Jewish experience of being on the receiving end of exactly this type of politics.

It is ludicrous to imagine that one form of racism can be fought by employing another form of racism. Take, for example, the unprecedented wave of antisemitic incidents that British Jews experienced during Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza and Southern Israel in January 2009. Here we had Israel being accused of racist bloodshed – by people who were themselves committing racist attacks against British Jews. Similarly, whatever differences of opinion British Jews and British Muslims may have over Israel/Palestine, and however alarmed Jews are – quite rightly – at the antisemitic agitation of groups like al-Muhajiroun or Hizb ut-Tahrir, nobody should be fooled into supporting SIOE’s incitement against all Muslims.

This is by no means the first occasion on which CST has stressed why Jews should not be fooled by anti-Muslim bigotry, even when it dresses itself up in pro-Jewish guise. As we stated previously:

…this is the politics of hatred and division, which has nothing positive to offer any part of society. The fact that Muslims are the current target simply means that it is Muslims who should be the recipients of anti-racist solidarity.

Hatred, division, cycles of inter-communal violence, intimidation and polarisation feed the extremists on every side. They encourage social division and leave all minorities vulnerable. Anti-Muslim bigotry is a vital recruiting sergeant for both the far right, and its Islamist extremist counterparts. It generates votes for the BNP and, at the furthest ends of this political spectrum, it even provides the fuel for terrorism. British Jews should have no part of it.

Goldstone Report

On December 1st there will be an advert in The Times that begs Gordon Brown to back the Goldstone report when it is put to a vote in the UN. The report is based solely on Hamas eye witness accounts and has been widely dismissed as a shoddy and legally dubious piece of propaganda designed once again to smear and disproportionately demonise Israel.

The Israeli Solidarity Campaign is championing this petition. Sign the petition to oppose the Goldstone Report


http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/NoToGoldstone/


We need to get this to 5000 signatures.

From the Jerusalem Post:

The Goldstone Mission vs. The Peace Process

By Danny Ayalon

For eight years, while Hamas indiscriminately shelled Israeli civilians with rockets provided by its patrons in Iran, the UN stood silent. Only when Israel, after years of restraint, moved to put an end to the terror, did the Human Rights Council act - by condemning Israel. This one-sided body passed a one-sided resolution calling for a one-sided investigation. Last month, the results of this "investigation" were presented by Justice Richard Goldstone to the HRC. Yet instead of dealing responsibly with the report, HRC members engaged in yet another anti-Israel travesty, which even Goldstone acknowledged as one-sided. 

There have been dozens of international inquiries into events in the Gaza operation, and Israel has cooperated fully with almost all of them, including one undertaken by the UN Secretary General. Only in those instances where it was clear beyond any doubt that an inquiry was motivated by a political agenda - and not concern for human rights - did Israel decide not to cooperate. Unfortunately the HRC's Fact-Finding Mission was one of these. 

Sadly, what was clear to Israel from the outset, has only now become clear to Goldstone. He is now trying to distance himself from the results of his own handiwork. 

Last Friday he discussed his disappointment with the action taken by the HRC, telling the Swiss daily Le Temps: "This draft resolution saddens me as it includes only allegations against Israel, there is not a single phrase condemning Hamas." 

WE MUST now deal with the consequences. The council's adoption of the Goldstone report constitutes nothing less than a prize for terrorism in more ways than one. 

First, the resolution adopted Friday perverts the reality of Hamas criminality, blaming the victim, rather than the true perpetrator of war crimes in Gaza. For the HRC, it was totally irrelevant that Hamas committed grave war crimes by openly calling for Israel's destruction, purposely firing thousands of missiles at Israeli civilians, endangering Gaza civilians by firing from populated areas and abducting Gilad Schalit. 

It was likewise irrelevant to the HRC that Israel had a responsibility to protect its citizens, made every effort to avoid confrontation and did all that it could to minimize civilian casualties. The only relevant consideration for the HRC was the fact that an opportunity had presented itself to demonize Israel in the international arena. 

Second, the resolution undermines moderate Palestinians who are interested in peace with Israel. There is a power struggle going on within Palestinian society. It is a zero-sum game, in which any gain for extremism comes at the expense of support for moderation. When the Hamas "tail" is allowed to wag the Middle East "dog," the Palestinian street takes heart and the entire region takes heed. In our neighborhood, everybody loves a winner. So when an international body upholds Hamas's atrocious behavior and exploits it once more to bash Israel, Mahmoud Abbas's Palestinian Authority loses face, moderate Arab states lose ground and the Hizbullah-Syria-Iran axis gains strength. 

Thirdly, the resolution creates a new obstacle in the global battle against terrorism. A new form of warfare has emerged, in which terror groups launch attacks against "enemy" civilians from behind a shield of "friendly" civilians. This resolution grants immunity to the terrorists and prevents law-abiding states from defending their citizens. With the blessing of the HRC, this tactic will be repeated by terrorists throughout the world, to the detriment of all other democracies struggling against terrorism, putting millions of innocent civilians in danger. 

FINALLY, AND most tragic, this whole episode has led Israelis to doubt the underlying assumptions that have guided them until now in their internal debate on how best to achieve peace. Most Israelis supported the willingness of their leadership to take calculated risks to advance the peace process, with the understanding that the "world" would support such efforts and "hedge their bets." Israelis assumed that if, after making compromises, things didn't work out, they would at least retain the right to defend themselves and the world would support them in their struggle. 

Yet now, a nightmare has come true. After taking the tangible risk of leaving contested territory for the sake of advancing peace, Gaza was turned into a lawless enclave of Hamas-led, Iranian-backed terrorism. Yet, when Israel was forced to defend itself, the world reacted not with support and understanding, but with accusations of "crimes against humanity." Damned when they do and damned when they don't, Israelis are now asking themselves "Was the sacrifice worth it?" 

While Israelis consider their options, the Goldstone snowball is threatening to gain momentum. From Geneva, the issue has now been passed to the UN General Assembly in New York for further action. But, it is still not too late. An international rejection of the HRC's treatment of the Goldstone report would signal to the Israeli public that the world indeed supports its compromises toward peace. 

The writer is Israel's deputy foreign minister.

Emotional Fraud

"How come Barak, Israel’s Defence Minister, is under threat of being arrested in the UK while Khaled Mashaal, the leader of Hamas, roams London free of concern?" asks Alan Dershowitz.

We note that hypocrisy has always existed and will continue to do so. After all, such tenacious efforts are made by the public here to impede the vile sermons from naively depraved groups such as the BNP. But some of the same people who would help stop such people appearing on a public platform are regularly involved with genocidal persons who advocate the same destruction of liberty that the BNP do.

An example is Hezbollah's Ibrahim Mousawi, whom Stop the War coalition invited to Britain a few years back. This is a man who, when working for Hezbollah's TV station Al-Manar, serialised the infamous forgery 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' and broadcast such odious anti-semitism that the television station was banned in most Western countries. Stop the War did not invite an Israeli representative because, according to their spokesperson, "[Israel is] not interested in peace."

Even if you discount the huge number of Israeli pro-Palestinian groups, Israeli human rights groups such as B'Tselem and the frequent rallies in support of peace held across Israel that are attended by people of all religious and political viewpoints; it would appear that the insinuation is that Israeli Politicians are not interested in peace.

And so how bizarre, how ironic, how cruel and how unjust! - that as Dershowitz says: Mashaal may visit Britain without worry, despite his personal involvement with countless murders, including the slaughter of Holocaust survivors, while Barak faces the prospect of arrest.

This is the same Barak that in 2001 at Tabla, offered the Palestinians 97% of the West Bank with border adjustments for the remaining 3%, the entire of the Gaza Strip and a shared capital of Jerusalem - the very set of demands that the Palestinians had laid out.

Needless to say, Arafat refused the deal. And so one must ask, where is the justice for Israel, a country that does proffer peace and compromise, the country that has made steps towards an end to violence? It simply does not make sense that these Israeli leaders should face arrest while nihilistic murderers from Hamas might walk freely around the streets of London - it is not rational, it is not moral and it does not portend the advent of peace.

It is the same politically charged emotion that has allowed so many depraved men to perpetuate their depravities, while the innocent suffer on all sides; be they politicians or public - the emotional idealism of so many in the West has ensured - we concede mostly unintentionally - that the misery of all is maintained.

Sam Westrop

Timid Jews

An interesting article here from Isi Leibler on the timidity of the British Jewish community when it comes to defending Israel.

A few years ago, Henry Grunwald, the recently retired president of the Board of Deputies, even wrote an op-ed in The Jerusalem Post expressing pride in the effectiveness of a policy based on "whispering" rather than "shouting."

That approach is reflected by public demonstrations of solidarity with the Jewish state being deferred until forced under pressure from the Jewish street; inadequately confronting anti-Semites like the former mayor of London; and insufficiently opposing those seeking to boycott and delegitimize Israel.

...

Miliband was thus able to inform his parliamentary colleagues that the Jewish community was not problematic and that its leaders had not only ignored the Goldstone Report but even failed to relate to Israel in any meaningful manner.

...

The time has surely come for British Jews to say enough is enough. They should replace these "trembling Israelites" with leaders who recognize that silence is not always golden but is sometimes just yellow, and that Jewishself-respect demands that we speak up and present a dignified viewpoint as proud Jews. (Read the full Jerusalem Post article)

Here at IMED, we believe that Mr Leibler has a point, and so it is with an urgent pride that we launch our 'Israeli Solidarity Campaign'. You can access its website on the tab at the top of the page.

About the Israeli Solidarity Campaign

The Israeli Solidarity Campaign is part of IMED and exists to advocate the state of Israel, not blindly, but fairly; encourage liberty and democracy in the Middle East; expose anti-Israeli literature and information that are false; campaign against the oppressive, undemocratic Iranian regime and its nuclear programme; and finally, to combat the damaging, unjustified attempts of groups like PSF or Stop the War to ascribe to Israel an image of apartheid and hatred.

Run by a committee of seven with different religious, nonreligious and political backgrounds. We are one of the first apolitical, secular pro-Israel groups in the UK and are eager to include persons of any religious or political viewpoint. 

Nuclear Arms Race

An excellent post from The Israel Project that details the nuclear arms race occurring throughout the Middle East and beyond:

For almost 20 years, Iran hid its nuclear weapons development program from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and denied its existence.[6] Then, in August 2002, the program’s existence was exposed by an exiled opposition group, the People’s Mujaheddin Organization of Iran.[7] Only then did Iran inform the IAEA of its plans to pursue its nuclear energy program, specifically that it was "embarking on a long-term plan….to construct nuclear power plants with a total capacity of 6,000 MW (megawatts) within two decades."[8]

Following (in alphabetical order) is a list of Arab and Muslim countries developing nuclear programs in the wake of Iran’s continued push to enrich enough uranium to produce a nuclear weapon.

Algeria
February 2009: Algerian Energy and Mines Minister Chakib Khelil announces Algeria will establish a nuclear power plant by 2020.[9] In addition, Algeria plans on building a new reactor "every five years."[10]
November 2008: Argentina signs a deal with Algeria to cooperate on nuclear energy development.[11]
June 2008: France signs a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement with Algeria, its former colony.[12]
June 2007: Algeria signs a nuclear cooperation pact with the United States that permits cooperation between Algeria and U.S. laboratories and researchers.[13] January 2007: Algeria and Russia strike a deal on future cooperation in nuclear energy technology.[14]
Bahrain

December 2008: Bahrain and France hold talks over nuclear development.[15]
March 2008: U.S. and Bahrain sign a nuclear power cooperation agreement.[16]
February 2008: Bahrain and other Arab countries jointly evaluate their nuclear energy development plans.[17]
November 2007: Bahraini’s crown prince tells The Times, “While they [Iran] don’t have the bomb yet, they are developing it, or the capability for it.”[18]
October 2007: King Hamad declares a plan to introduce nuclear energy technology to Bahrain.[19]

Bangladesh
July 2009: Russia and Bangladesh sign a nuclear cooperation pact.[20]
September 2007: Bangladesh's head of the Atomic Energy Commission declares a new nuclear plant will be built by 2015[21] in Rooppur, 77 miles (125 km) northwest of Dhaka.[22]
June 2007: IAEA gives approval to Bangladesh to build a nuclear reactor.[23]

Egypt
July 2009: Egypt's ambassador to Kuwait declares that all nations have a right to pursue a peaceful nuclear energy program.[24]
May 2009: An IAEA report reveals inspectors found traces of weapons-grade uranium in Egypt, specifically at Inshas, where two nuclear research reactors are located northeast of Cairo.[25]
December 2008: Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit says, “Egypt supports international efforts to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.”[26]
October 2007: Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak declares Cairo will build 10 nuclear power plants.[27]
September 2006: Egypt revives its dormant nuclear program and announces it will construct a new nuclear power station within a decade. Cairo admits that its previous nuclear IAEA reports lacked transparency.[28]
February 2005: The IAEA reports it is investigating Egypt's nuclear program, which began four decades earlier.[29]

Indonesia
August 2007: Indonesia’s vice president states that uranium needed for its nuclear plants will likely be purchased from Australia.[30]
April 2005: The Indonesian government announces its first nuclear reactor will be built on the island of Java by 2016.[31]

Jordan
July 2009: Jordan and Russia sign a 10-year deal to build four new nuclear reactors.[32] Britain, France, Canada and the United States previously signed nuclear cooperation agreements with Jordan.[33] Japan also agrees to help develop the infrastructure necessary for Jordan’s nuclear program.[34]
August 2008: Jordan and China sign an agreement for uranium exploration and mining cooperation.[35] An estimated 200,000 tons of uranium can be extracted from Jordan.[36]
November 2007: In an interview with Germany’s Der Spiegel, Jordan’s King Abdullah says “Iran, I believe, does have aspirations to develop nuclear weapons.”[37]
August 2007: At a meeting of the Supreme Committee for Nuclear Energy Strategy in Amman, Jordan announces it will start operating its first nuclear power reactor by 2015.[38]
January 2007: Jordan’s King Abdullah says his government seeks to attain nuclear power.[39]
Kuwait

June 2009: French and Kuwaiti officials hold talks, proposing increased cooperation for developing a joint civilian nuclear program.[40]
February 2009: A French company begins studying Kuwaiti plans for nuclear power plants.[41]
January 2009: Kuwait orders 5.4 million anti-nuclear radiation pills for its citizen-safety program.[42]
February 2008: Kuwait Petroleum Corporation’s CEO says nuclear energy could supply the country's energy needs.[43]

Libya
July 2009: At a Sharm el-Sheikh summit of 118 developing nations, Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi says, “If Iran wants to enrich uranium to make an atomic bomb, we are against this.”[44]
November 2008: Libya and Russia sign a nuclear cooperation agreement.[45]
August 2007: Nuclear experts reveal that Libya continues to store hundreds of tons of uranium marked for destruction since 2003.[46]
July 2007: France and Libya sign nuclear power cooperation deals in which France agrees to facilitate the construction of a nuclear reactor for Libya.[47]
December 2003: IAEA Secretary General Mohamed El Baradei reveals that Libya was just a few years shy of developing a nuclear weapon when the United States and Britain dismantled Libya’s nuclear program in December 2003.[48]

Malaysia
July 2009: Malaysia’s deputy science, technology and innovation minister says his country will consult with the IAEA and the United Nations on its nuclear development.[49]
September 2008: Malaysia’s energy, water and communications minister announces Malaysia's intention to use nuclear power by 2023.[50]
June 2008: Malaysian utility company, Tenaga, tenders the construction of the country's first nuclear reactor for $3.1 billion.[51]

Morocco
October 2007: France signs a deal with Morocco to help develop its civilian nuclear project.[52] Morocco says it is seeking to build a nuclear plant within 15 years.[53]
March 2007: Russia’s Atomstroy export company commences construction of a nuclear power plant in Morocco after the two countries sign an agreement.[54] Morocco holds an international conference on nuclear energy technology.[55]
November 2006: The IAEA reveals Morocco is seeking nuclear technology.[56]
December 2005: Morocco approves the construction of a nuclear power plant.[57]

Nigeria
June 2009: Russia signs an agreement with Nigeria, consenting to build a nuclear power plant and research reactor.[58]
August 2008: Nigeria signs a nuclear pact with Iran, agreeing to share with Iran nuclear technology for civilian purposes.[59]
March 2004: Pakistan offers Nigeria its nuclear know-how.[60]

Oman
June 2009: Russia and Oman sign an agreement for nuclear cooperation.[61]
October 2004: Oman echoes Iran’s declaration that all countries have a right to develop nuclear power.[62]

Pakistan
September 2009: Pakistan's former chief nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan admits helping Iran develop its nuclear program with Islamabad's permission.[63]
May 2009: Pakistan is estimated to have 60 - 80 nuclear weapons.[64]
May 2009: Satellite imagery reveals Pakistan continues construction of the world's largest plutonium-producing reactors.[65] In addition, France signs an agreement with Pakistan to cooperate on civilian nuclear power projects.[66]
November 2004: A CIA report states that Khan provided “significant assistance” to Iran’s nuclear program, including designs for “advanced and efficient” weapons components.[67]
July 2002: The UK’s Joint Intelligence Committee concludes that Khan’s network is crucial to all aspects of Libya’s nuclear program.[68]
May 1998: Pakistan detonates nuclear devices underground.[69]

Qatar
November 2008: Qatar launches a study to determine the best locations for its nuclear reactor.[70]
January 2008: Qatar signs a nuclear assistance and cooperation deal with France for an estimated $700 million.[71]
June 2007: IAEA agrees to assist Qatar develop a nuclear security plan.[72]
February 2006: Qatar and South Korea begin talks on nuclear energy cooperation.[73]

Saudi Arabia
August 2009: Saudi minister of water and electricity announces a plan to build the first nuclear power plant.[74]
March 2009: Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal says the Arab world needs “a common vision for issues that concern Arab security and deal with the Iranian challenge,” including its “nuclear drive.”[75]
January 2008: France and Saudi Arabia sign a nuclear cooperation pact.[76]
March 2006: Western security sources say Saudi Arabia is developing a clandestine nuclear program with Pakistan’s help.[77]
September 2003: A strategic Saudi government document recommends that, for the kingdom’s security, it either needs to acquire nuclear capabilities for deterrence, align with nuclear powers or campaign for a nuclear-free Middle East agreement.[78]

Sudan
April 2006: Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei says he is willing to transfer nuclear technology to Sudan, a country designated by the U.S. as a state-sponsor of terrorism.[79]
March 2006: Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir announces plans to develop a civilian nuclear program.[80]
January 2006: International investigators implicate Sudan as a possible transit and storage location for nuclear weapons’ equipment.[81]

Syria
February 2009: U.S. and Israel believe Syria is secretly helping Iran develop nuclear technology.[82]
October 2008: IAEA officials state that the agency found traces of processed uranium at the nuclear reactor Israel bombed in September 2007.[83]
June 2008: Israeli intelligence reveals Syria’s plan to transfer nuclear fuel to Iran for development of weapons-grade plutonium.[84] UN Security Council Resolution 1737, passed on Dec. 23, 2006, banned the transfer of nuclear materials and technology to Iran by any country.[85]
April 2008: United States intelligence accuses Syria of using North Korean assistance to build a covert nuclear reactor.[86]
September 2007: Israel reportedly conducts airstrikes against a Syrian nuclear reactor under construction in the Syrian desert. The reactor was modeled on a similar one in North Korea.[87]

Tunisia
April 2009: France signs a $100 million deal with Tunisia to help develop its nuclear program.[88]
November 2006: A Tunisian electricity and gas company chief announces that Tunisia will have its first nuclear power reactor by 2020.[89]

Turkey
August 2009: Russia agrees to assist Turkey in developing a nuclear reactor.[90]
June 2008: Syria and Turkey sign a mutual nuclear cooperation understanding.[91]
March 2006: Turkish Energy Minister Hilmi Guler declares the first nuclear reactor will be built by 2012.[92]

United Arab Emirates
June 2009: United Arab Emirates signs a nuclear agreement with South Korea, stipulating the transfer of nuclear technology and know-how.[93]May 2009: UAE announces its first nuclear reactor will be built by 2015.[94] In addition, President Obama signs an agreement to assist the UAE in attaining nuclear power.[95]July 2008: UAE begins surveying new sites for construction of three nuclear power plants.[96]January 2008: France signs a nuclear assistance pact with the UAE.[97]March 2008: UAE launches the Nuclear Energy Implementation Organization for the purpose of tendering proposals for its nuclear energy program.[98]December 2005: In response to a letter by Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa raising concerns over Israel’s alleged nuclear weapons, UAE’s foreign minister says that if Moussa is “talking about threats to Arab national security, [he] should have raised concerns about the Iranian program.”[99]

Yemen
October 2007: Yemen cancels a $1 billion deal with a U.S. company following revelations that the company is not qualified to construct the proposed nuclear reactors.[100]September 2007: Yemen signs a $15 billion deal with the U.S. company Powered Corp to build five nuclear reactors over a period of 10 years.[101]

Dispatches - The Pro-Israel Lobby

Channel 4's Dispatches programme will be broadcasting an investigation into 'Britain's pro-Israel lobby' tonight.

The programme particularly attempts to examine the Conservative Friends of Israel, and will describe them as, "beyond doubt the most well-connected and probably the best funded of all Westminster lobbying groups."

There is also a claim that donations from CFI to leading Conservative politicians adds up to £10 million, a figure that CFI strongly reject.

This Dispatches programme follows the recent book by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer that explored the influence of the Israel lobby over US foreign policy. 

CST has gathered together some of the comments written on the Channel 4 website and notes that:

Each one of these comments is from a different  poster, but there is a very obvious common theme: foreign agents hidden within the corridors of power; a monster controlling MPs, the media and both houses of Parliament; and that old favourite, “global Zionism”.

This is eerily reminiscent of anti-Jewish writings throughout history, most notably the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an infamous Russian forgery published in 1903 which details a dastardly plan for global Jewish domination:

In order that the masses themselves may not guess what they are about WE FURTHER DISTRACT THEM WITH AMUSEMENTS, GAMES, PASTIMES, PASSIONS.... SOON WE SHALL BEGIN THROUGH THE PRESS TO PROPOSE COMPETITIONS IN ART, IN SPORT OF ALL KINDS: these interests will finally distract their minds from questions in which we should find ourselves compelled to oppose them. Growing more and more disaccustomed to reflect and form any opinions of their own, people will begin to talk in the same tone as we, because we alone shall be offering them new directions for thought.

Under particular attack from the programme is BICOM. Poju Zabludowicz, the BICOM chairman, wrote in the Jewish Chronicle:

For those who don’t know Bicom, we are a British pro-Israel, pro-peace, pro-two-state solution organisation that works with British journalists to give them a better understanding of Israel and the Middle East.

Over the past two years we have taken more than 60 journalists to Israel and the PA, working with at least 50 more regularly. Foreign editors, correspondents and leading commentators regularly attend our events, rely on us for information and, after joining our delegations to Israel, regularly recommend that colleagues do the same.

Journalists engage with us because we have credibility and we do our job well. We put journalists in front of a wide range of different voices — Israeli and Palestinian, Jewish and Arab, Left and Right — because we have confidence that the more journalists see of Israel, the more they will see a people desperate for peace but living under constant threat.

It seems that Israel’s critics are no longer content with just attacking Israel. People who even dare to support Israel are attacked. Their implications are clear. The shadowy pro-Israel lobby has prevented the man on the street from learning the truth.

Hezbollah calls for Diary of Anne Frank to be banned

Hezbollah's Al-Manar TV station has condemned a Lebanese textbook because it contains excerpts from The Diary of Anne Frank'.

Al-Manar explained that the book has focus "on the persecution of Jews during the war, but even more dangerous is the theatrical and dramatic method employed to narrate the diary [entries] in an emotional way."

Hezbollah's lawyer, Naeem Qal'ani, told the TV station, "This act is definitely punishable under the penal code, and the dealers and importers of the book will certainly be prosecuted," Qal'ani told Al-Manar. "It's a flagrant violation of the law and is a move towards normalisation with Israel. The Prosecutor-General's Office must take action immediately, for this is a criminal act."

Project Aladdin - a UNESCO-funded initiative aimed at countering Holocaust denial and promoting dialogue between Muslims and Jews - later issued a statement "condeming this campaign of vilification and intimidation by Hizbullah's TV.

Let's remember that Al-Manar is popular with British anti-Israeli organisations. The supposedly 'anti-war' group Stop the War Coalition invited Ibrahim Moussawi to speak in Birmingham in 2007.

Funded by Iran, Al-Manar is one of the reasons for Hezbollah's international support, spreading anti-Israeli propaganda all over the World - this includes a six-part dramatisation of 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' and a documentary stating that 4000 Jews did not turn up to work on 9/11, and that this terrorist attack was masterminded by the Israelis.

Israel attracted strong criticism when it bombed the station during the 2006 war, despite the station encouraging Lebanese civilians to join Hezbollah and fight the Israelis.