Nabila Al-Bassam, a Saudi businesswoman on a trip to Bombay, told Arab News how she became exasperated at not being able to watch Arab channels at Bombay's leading five-star Oberoi Hotel. When she took up the issue with the hotel manager, she was told that Arab television channels had been banned across India.

A perplexed Al-Bassam then sent an SMS to Arab News Editor in Chief Khaled Almaeena to verify whether this was indeed the case. "Oberoi Hotel tells me that the government of India has banned all Arab TV channels. Why? I hate watching CNN and BBC," she wrote to Almaeena.

Talking to Arab News, Oberoi Hotel Manager Mohit Nirula did allude to the fact that a ban was in place. "The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has laid down certain rules. It is our duty to abide by and follow the rules of the country," he told this correspondent.

Minister of Information and Broadcasting Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi was busy in Parliament and was unavailable for comment on the issue. However, a ministry official explained why the Indian government decided to enforce the ban. The official highlighted that India enjoys close and cordial relations with Israel and the US more than any of the Arab governments.

According to another source within the government, the ban is a clear sign to all governments in the Middle East that the Israeli, American and British governments carry far more influence in India than any of the Arab governments.

Several senior Indian journalists explained that the ban was an indication that India had succumbed to Israeli pressure rather than American.

"The whole exercise is to browbeat Arabs and show them as terrorists. The government is subscribing to the absurd argument that channels like Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya promote hatred and encourage terrorism," they said.

Political analysts in India described the move as a game of double standard that India is playing. On the one hand India establishes friendship with the Arab world while simultaneously it joins with Israel and the US in defaming them. It seems that the pro-Israeli lobby wishes to drive a wedge between India and its time-tested Arab allies. The Indian government's present stance is in stark contrast to the late Mrs. Indira Gandhi's staunch support of the Palestinian cause.

The banning of Arabic channels is a federal government decision, done under what senior Indian journalists claim to be intense pressure from the Israeli, American and British governments.

The Indian government has been vocal in its condemnation of Israeli barbarity and has offered millions of rupees in aid to refugees in Lebanon. Arabs sympathetic to India have therefore met the news with surprise.

Many Arabs draw inspiration from India's heroic struggle against British imperialism and the Indian independence struggle is seen by Palestinians as a brilliant example of throwing out the yoke of imperialism. It is sad that 50 years after independence the world's largest democracy unfairly suppresses alternative opinion and allows itself to be dictated to by foreign powers.

The analysts believe the Indian government may have used a clause within the Cable TV Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, that certain channels or programs that can potentially cause damage to India's friendly relations with foreign countries can be banned, a clear violation of democratic ideals such as freedom of expression and freedom of speech.

The response to the ban by hotel administrations across Bombay has been dismal. Chad Alberico, JW Marriott's customer care official in Washington, said: "We have reviewed your recent inquiries regarding the television offerings at our JW Marriott Bombay. We have phoned our colleagues at the hotel to discuss the matter at hand, but as it is the weekend, we will need additional time to form a complete response."

"I'm on my way home, it's the weekend and I will respond on Monday," said Shehnaz Ankelsaria from the Taj President Hotel. Annan Udeshi from The Hilton was unavailable and asked for a message to be left on her recorder. Khushnooma Kapadia of Marriott Hotel said she would get back later. Rafat Kazi from the Grand Central Sheraton said that she would answer after consulting her general manager. Puja Guleria of Sheraton Maratta said she needed time to deal with the questions. Firuza Mistry of Grand Hyatt said that she was not aware of the facts and would check and respond, and Priya Mathias of Hyatt Regency said that she would also need to check with her senior officials to comment.

But no communication whatsoever has taken place. U.S. policy remains to ignore the Syrian government. And it remains fundamentally wrong.

It hasn't always been this way. When President George H.W. Bush faced Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, he realized the strategic need for Syria and knew how to lure us into the American-led alliance: by inviting Syria to the Madrid peace conference.

As a result, and within a short period of time, the Clinton administration engaged Syria and Israel in serious peace talks that, had they succeeded, would have created a very different paradigm in this troubled area.

In Syria, we consider the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin as the fatal blow that felled the peace efforts, and since that tragic event, Israel has had no leader with the courage or vision required to accept the inevitable "land for peace" compromise enshrined in U.N. Security Council resolutions 224 and 338.

In sharp contrast, the current U.S. administration has publicly dissuaded Israel from responding to the repeated Syrian invitations to revive the peace process. Syria still hopes that this position might change, as there exists a growing alienation against the U.S. and its policies in the Arab and Islamic world, which is undoubtedly creating fertile breeding conditions for terrorism.

Syria thought that the atrocious events of Sept. 11, 2001, would be a much-needed wake-up call for the Bush administration.

After Sept. 11, we cooperated with the U.S. in fighting terrorism. Syria had been fighting extreme fundamentalist movements in the region for the previous three decades, so we promptly initiated intelligence and security cooperation with the U.S., providing a wealth of information about Al Qaeda, some of which was described in a letter to Congress by former Secretary of State Colin Powell as "actionable information" that led to "saving American lives." Consequently, bilateral relations improved dramatically at the time, much to the chagrin of the neoconservative cabal that doggedly opposed any engagement with Syria, no matter how productive.

This effective cooperation ended when Syria and the U.S. found themselves at odds over how to address the Iraqi problem. Syria fiercely opposed the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq and continues to do so. The fact that Hussein was Syria's archenemy did not blind our eyes to the grave consequences such an occupation would bear on our region: bloodshed, destruction, instability, extremism and the ugly face of sectarianism.

The Bush administration never forgave Syria for its opposition to the war. Despite the fact that Syrian-U.S. intelligence and security cooperation continued, even after the fallout on Iraq, well up to January 2005, heavyweights in the White House continued to engage in a rhetorical campaign against Syria. Members of Congress, influenced by the powerful pro-Israel lobby, overwhelmingly passed the Syria Accountability Act in November 2003, enacting trade sanctions on Damascus without serious debate or reference to the crucial intelligence support provided by Syria.

Concurrently, administration officials devised a new "policy" toward my country: Don't talk to Syria at all, and maybe its regime will collapse.

That is why the U.S. decided to change its 20-year position toward Syrian involvement in Lebanon. Suddenly, Syria's "stabilizing and necessary presence" in Lebanon became, overnight and without any change in Syria's behavior, "an evil occupation that should immediately be ended."

The underlying idea behind demanding Syrian withdrawal was simple: It would precipitate the fall of the Syrian regime, and the U.S. would end up with a new government in Damascus that is both Israel-friendly and an ally of the U.S. Does that have any resemblance to the neoconservative justification for the war on Iraq?

To the dismay of U.S. policymakers, this belligerent attitude only rallied Syrians behind their own government.

Ultimately, the Bush administration has to realize that by trying to isolate Syria politically and diplomatically, the U.S. continues to lose ability to influence a major player in the Middle East. In the wake of the ongoing instability in Iraq and violence in Palestine and Lebanon, it begs the larger question: Has isolating Syria made the region more secure?

Currently, the White House doesn't talk to the democratically elected government of Palestine. It does not talk to Hezbollah, which has democratically elected members in the Lebanese parliament and is a member of the Lebanese coalition government. It does not talk to Iran, and it certainly does not talk to Syria.

Gone are the days when U.S. special envoys to the Middle East would spend hours, if not days, with Syrian officials brainstorming, discussing, negotiating and looking for creative solutions leading to a compromise or settlement. Instead, this administration follows the Bolton Doctrine: There is no need to talk to Syria, because Syria knows what it needs to do. End of the matter.

When the United States realizes that it is high time to reconsider its policies toward Syria, Syria will be more than willing to engage. However, the rules of the game should be clear. As President Bashar Assad has said, Syria is not a charity. If the U.S. wants something from Syria, then Syria requires something in return from the U.S.: Let us address the root cause of instability in the Middle East.

The current crisis in Lebanon needs an urgent solution because of the disastrous human toll. Moreover, the whole Middle East deserves a comprehensive deal that would put an end to occupation and allow all countries to equally prosper and live in dignity and peace.

Putin called the sanctions an "illegitimate attempt to make foreign companies work by internal American rules," after the US banned all American companies from dealing with two Russian firms that sold hardware to Iran.

One of the companies, Rosoboronexport, is headed by Sergei Chemezov, a former member of the KGB who worked with Putin in East Germany during the Cold War.

President Putin explains, "These sanctions, which the US unilaterally imposes on other countries and their organizations, are an obvious political and legal anachronism."

The US Department of State says the companies were helping the Iranians to develop weapons of mass destruction, as well as cruise or ballistic missile systems to compliment its upcoming nuclear power.

According to an MSNBC report, the sanctions could have far-reaching implications; U.S. companies such as Boeing, works with Sukhoi in Russia and is a large customer of VSMPO-Avisma, a Russian titanium company, which has been targeted for a takeover by Rosoboronexport.

Under the sanctions, no American company can deal with the banned Russian firms for two years.

While some observers are criticizing Bush for the ban, it's not the first time Putin has made a move against the US. Recently, President Putin's government forced Russian radio stations to stop broadcasting news reports from the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Ironically, according to the VOA, President Bush praised his Russian counterpart Putin for his "helpful role" in international diplomacy.

The sanctions will be the first time the US government has taken action against the Russians. For many years, government officials turned a blind eye to Russian duplicity.

For instance, when the US called for an arms embargo on Iran last April for its defiance on its nuclear programs, the Russians ignored the call. Russia was already in the process of selling Iran 29 TOR M1 mobile surface-to-air missile defense systems and went forward with the sales.

The United States had hoped that the United Nations Security Council could impose sanctions on Iran for its nuclear programs. It's hardly a surprise that Russia has been reluctant to do so.

"Why are people so surprised that the Russians are not cooperating? They stand to make a lot of money selling arms and military technology to Iran, especially since they lost a good customer in Iraq," said one intelligence analyst.

Russia's arms and technology transfers to Iran have created diplomatic and security headaches for Washington, as Tehran develops some fairly sophisticated military capabilities and builds ballistic missiles armed with weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that threaten US interests and allies in the region. Even more troubling for Washington, the US has been able to do very little about it and its options seem limited.

In addition, intelligence experts believe -- as with the Saddam regime in Iraq -- Russian intelligence officers are assisting the Iranians. Jane's Intelligence Review reports that while the KGB was dismantled, the Russians are continuously growing a huge intelligence network that is deeply entrenched in the Middle East.

It's believed that Russia is hosting Iranian intelligence officers at their training facilities and academies in order to upgrade their training in intelligence gathering and analysis, covert actions, and strategic planning.

In spite of the enormous amount of evidence that Putin's government has repeatedly worked against the United States, the Bush Administration appears to be oblivious to the Russians' duplicity on the world stage. When documents and tape recordings indicated that Russian military officers were in Iraq assisting the Iraqis prior to the US-led invasion, and that their assistance went so far as to provide Iraq's dictator with US invasion plans, the silence in the Bush White House was deafening.

The sanctions against two Russian companies may be a good beginning, but that's all it is -- a beginning.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he's a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He's a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com. He's also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he's syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He's appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri's own website is located at jimkouri.us

The anti-nuclear campaign group Trident Ploughshares said its activists had boarded a US plane while carrying out an investigation into the British government's involvement in the transport of arms to Israel.

The group named the members involved in this morning's action as Marcus Armstrong, 46, from Milton Keynes, Chris Bluemel, 35, from Southampton, and Angie Zelter, 55, from Norfolk.

Sarah Lasenby, 68, from Oxford, Douglas Shaw, 56, and Jean Oliver, 48, both from Biggar, South Lanarkshire, and Matt Bury, 50, from Somerset, also took part in the investigation, it said. They were expected to appear in court tomorrow.

Four people were arrested at the airport yesterday after breaking through security fencing and running onto the main runway.

The latest incidents follow protests last weekend when two flights carrying hazardous material were diverted to RAF Mildenhall in Suffolk.

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), the body responsible for policing the transit of flights through civilian airports, said yesterday that it had given permission for the two US flights to stop at Prestwick last weekend but not for any others.

"We have not issued permission for the carriage of any dangerous cargo to Israel," a spokesman said.

Last month, President Bush apologised for having failed to ask permission from the British government for a plane carrying bombs bound for Israel to land at Prestwick airport.