"Israel is operating against Hamas centers in Gaza. We will expand the operations, but we will not remain for an extended period in Gaza," Olmert said in response to criticism by a number of MKs against Israel's current operation.

MKs Effie Eitam and Zvi Hendel (NRP-National Union), as well as Limor Livnat and Dan Naveh (Likud) said the IDF is not operating aggressively enough against Gaza militants.

Olmert told the committee that 300 militants have been killed in the course of the IDF's Gaza operations over the past three months.

The prime minister described the efforts as aiming to "end the launching of Qassam rockets and strike at the stores of weapons and ammunition that have been accumulating in the Gaza Strip," adding that there is significant smuggling going on through the Philadelphi Route, on the border separating the Gaza Strip from Sinai.

"Individuals who we have marked as having links to terrorism or belonging to various terrorist organizations are passing through the Rafah crossing, and according to the agreements [on the regime governing the
crossing], they should not be passing there," Olmert said.

The prime minister also warned that, "We must be very sober regarding what is going on in Gaza. The calls for putting an end to the terrorism from Gaza are easy to make and difficult to carry out, but at the same
time it is clear to me that we must act." Olmert added that Israel's action will not include an operation in which Israeli forces are permanently positioned in the Gaza Strip.

Olmert told the Knesset committee that in recent months, the IDF killed 300 militants in the Gaza Strip.

However, Olmert was also quick to warn of a pending humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip and said that unless it is contained, it can deteriorate into a humanitarian disaster.

He said Israel was not to blame for the situation, and blamed militant groups and domestic infighting among the Palestinian factions for transforming the Gaza Strip into an area of human suffering.

The prime minister did acknowledge that it is in Israel's interest to limit any humanitarian crisis to a minimum.

"Toward this effort [minimizing civilian suffering], we shall open the crossings in order to allow fresh supplies to reach the citizens, we will be prepared to bolster the forces supporting Abu Mazen [Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas], we will assist humanitarian organizations directly, and we will cooperate with all international parties," Olmert said.

The prime minister noted that there is no basis to the reports that Egypt bolstered its forces along the border with the Gaza Strip.

Olmert also responded to MK Yossi Beilin's question regarding his refusal to respond favorably to peace calls by Syria's Basher Assad, saying that he will not talk with Assad so long as he supports terrorist organizations and grants them asylum in Damascus.

Haniyeh: Additional IDF operation in Gaza 'dangerous escalation'

Officials said the goal of an expanded IDF offensive would be to prevent arms smuggling along the porous Egypt-Gaza frontier.

"What has happened is that the border between the Palestinian border and Egypt has deteriorated and that may entail additional activities that we haven't done until now," Miri Eisin, a spokeswoman for Olmert, said. "But that doesn't mean we're going to go back... and reoccupy any part of Gaza."

Israel has been fighting in Gaza since June, when Hamas militants there
carried out a cross-border raid, killing two soldiers and seizing a third.
However, the army has largely avoided acting in the border area with Egypt - going in only once since its withdrawal last September.

Recently, Israel said that arms smuggling across the border had increased significantly, and newspaper reports that Israel planned to bomb the area led Egypt to reinforce its side of the frontier over the weekend.

Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said any additional military
operations in Gaza, specifically along the border with Egypt, would be a
"dangerous escalation."

On Saturday, Egyptian officials said 5,000 police officers had been sent to reinforce the border with Gaza. Olmert, however, told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Monday that there is no basis to reports that Egypt intends to deploy an additional 5,000 border policemen.

Brigadier General Gal Hirsch, the commander of Division 91, will be appointed to head the strategic brigade of the chief of staff planning department, a position also responsible for the IDF's foreign communication. The command of Division 91 will be taken over by Brigadier General Imad Fars.

Brigadier General Guy Tsur, who served as commander of Division 162, will be appointment as head commander of the military base at Tze'ilim. He will switch positions with Brigadier General Uzi Moskowitz, who will take over command of Division 162.

Brigadier Generals Erez Zuckerman and Eyal Eisenberg, who served as commanders of reserve divisions during the war, will remain in their positions for a third year.

Halutz had hinted in recent weeks of his intention, announcing that the investigation of the war would not end with "decapitation in the city square." The four commanders have been under investigation for their divisions' conduct in the war.

Senior military sources said the decision to reassign the commanders was not surprising. "From the minute the chief of staff himself decided not to take responsibility for the problems of the war and resign, it was very difficult for him to demand it of someone else," the said.

The sources added that the new assignations were not promotions, but would not necessarily prevent them from receiving future promotions.

Katsav refused to suspend himself an entire war ago, when the saga first broke after the president and a senior female aide traded simultaneous allegations in early July, she of rape, he of extortion and character assassination.

He refused again while the war with Hezbollah came and went, each missile matched like a bad tabloid dream with salacious media accounts of the mushrooming criminal probe into Katsav's behaviour around women.
The president refused to suspend himself once again two weeks ago, after Israeli police presented a dossier of evidence based on interviews with 10 female complainants with a bombshell bottom-line: recommendations that Katsav be charged with rape, forceful indecent assault, indecent assault without consent and sexual harassment offences.

And to the utter incredulity of his critics, Katsav refused yet again yesterday, delivering a legal submission that argued the Israeli Supreme Court has no authority to compel him to resign.

He has immunity, after all. Constitutional experts in Israel say the case has now entered uncharted territory, as no precedent exists for a president facing such serious allegations. But if Katsav chooses to cling to his largely ceremonial office, another four or five months could pass before the next tumbler falls - a decision by Israeli Attorney General Menachem Mazuz on whether to proceed with an indictment.

Katsav, who has maintained all along he is the victim of conspiracy, issued another statement of innocence yesterday, insisting, "I am totally convinced that I am innocent and all have to respect the law and processes."

Whatever the truth, the pressure to stand aside pending a legal outcome is now approaching a crescendo, as Israelis ponder the impact of the scandal on the office of the presidency itself.

"It is baffling, stunning, depressing and distressing. Even for a public that doesn't expect much from its present leaders, this is an all-time low," said Frances Raday, a professor of law at Hebrew University and a leading Israeli advocate of women's rights.

"At a time when all (Katsav) can do is drag the insignia of the presidency through the mud by generating headlines all over the world, he has the responsibility to suspend himself.

"Even if in the end it is decided he is snow white and never dreamt of such a thing, it doesn't matter. The continuing damage to Israel's image is just untold."

Katsav's ability to fulfill the duties of the presidency is now in question as complaints over his presence multiply. In September he absented himself from the swearing in of Israel's new Supreme Court president Dorit Beinisch after one retired high court justice recommended Katsav "be sick that day."
And the day after tomorrow, Katsav is not expected to attend a memorial service in the Knesset when parliament gathers to mark the Hebrew calendar's 11th year since the assassination of former prime minister Yitzhak Rabin.

Beinisch hinted last night that the president's dogged insistence on "business as usual" may soon incur the wrath of the very Supreme Court whose authority he challenges, telling the Israeli daily Haaretz: "The court cannot stand silent in the face of disrespect for the law."

Israel is hardly unaccustomed to sexual imbroglio involving senior public figures. But for those who toil hardest in the struggle against sexual violence, the allegations not only travel far beyond mere imbroglio - they harken to an era of unbridled Israeli machismo many had thought was behind them.

"We are still a very old-fashioned, conservative society in many ways. I think most people understand that it comes in part from life in the military, which sets Israel apart from most countries," said Tal Kramer, executive director of the Association of Rape Crisis Centres in Israel, an umbrella group representing the country's nine sexual assault facilities.

"So many young women go into the army and find themselves taking orders in a hierarchical structure that is ripe for sexual misconduct. We've worked very hard for social change but, as in many countries, sexual violence remains the only crime where society blames the victims and sometimes even the victim blames herself."

The Israeli Knesset transformed that landscape in 1998, approving one of the most sweeping sexual harassment laws anywhere.

Israel's then-defence minister Yitzhak Mordechai was the first high profile figure to run afoul of the new legislation, forced to resign after he was convicted of sexual assault and harassment sparked by the complaints of several women who worked with him in government and during his long army career.

"Regardless of whether he is innocent or guilty, the very sad message Katsav is sending to Israelis is that a man can walk around with his head held high even when the police say there is reason to indict him," said Hebrew University's Raday.

"It is a horrendous message because it gives enormous support to the view that you don't need to believe these women even if the police believe them."

The data compiled by the organization draws on, among other sources, information from a European parliament committee as well as various European states.

On May 7, 2003, an American GulfStream jet took off from Beirut in Lebanon to Larnaka in Cyprus. From there, it flew to "Tel Aviv" (meaning Ben-Gurion Airport on the outskirts of the city). Two days later, the plane returned to Larnaka, from where it departed for Morocco.

A week later, on May 13, records show a Hercules jet with registration number N8213G and owned by a company called Prescott Support flew from Athens to Tel Aviv. According to the American media, Prescott Support is a straw company for the CIA.

On the same day, the same plane departed Tel Aviv for Yerevan, the Armenian capital (a spokeswoman for the Israel Airports Authority confirmed the four flights as reported by Statewatch, but stressed that this flight went to Avignon in France, and not to Yerevan).

A year later, on May 8, 2004, a GulfStream plane took off from Larnaka and flew to Tel Aviv, before returning to Larnaka a short time afterward. Two days later, the plane returned to Tel Aviv from Larnaka, and then flew back to Cyprus before heading to Amman.

The Airports Authority spokeswoman said that she could confirm just two of the four flights.

Records also show dozens of flights flew to and from the airport in the Jordanian capital, Amman.

The international media and European aviation authorities have uncovered details about these flights, including the identity numbers of the planes, their make and model, the companies from which they were leased and their destinations.

The planes are chartered by the CIA from American concerns, mostly front companies.

There is no known American-Israeli interrogation facility on Israeli soil, although it is known that the Israeli and American intelligence organizations share information about the arrests and interrogation of Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad terror suspects.

But a coincidental meeting at the Kishon prison, near Haifa, between a Jordanian-Pakistani detainee and an Israeli lawyer has shed new light on the intelligence cooperation between Israel and Jordan and these countries' special relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency and America's war on global terrorism.

The Shin Bet security service has confirmed it is holding Marwan Ibrahim Ali Jabur at the Shin Bet security service wing of the Kishon jail, on suspicion of terror activity and has stated his custody is subject to court approval.

This could also turn out to be the first case of the United States handing Israel a world jihad suspect who is not linked to Palestinian terror or Hezbollah. Hundreds of similar cases - of suspects being transferred between countries - have been publicized over the last few years. However, this is the first time such a case has come to light in Israel.

All information comes from the statement Jabur signed and the conversations he conducted with attorney Nizar Mahajna and another lawyer, Maher Talhami, who is also dealing with the case.

Mahajna, from Umm al-Fahm, says that he first became aware of Jabur's presence at Kishon when he met with detainees at the jail last year.

"A few detainees were brought into the hall," said Mahajna. "And one of them told me, 'I'm not of them'" - meaning he was not a Palestinian from the West Bank or Gaza - "and asked, 'Do you have time for me?' I told him yes. He seemed very frightened."

That day, September 22, Mahajna spent several minutes listening to Jabur's surprising story, and then had him sign a statement whose details are being publicized here for the first time.

Jabur was born on October 15, 1976, in Amman, Jordan, to Palestinian refugees from the Gaza town of Khan Yunis. When he was 2 years old, his family moved to Saudi Arabia. When Jabur was 19, he went to Pakistan to study mechanical engineering. There he met and married a Pakistani woman and they had three children.

He became a Pakistani citizen - he holds both a Pakistani passport and a Palestinian ID. He completed his engineering internship in France, after which he returned to Pakistan and visited Afghanistan several times. This travel pattern, which characterizes quite a few Al-Qaida and international terror operatives who have been arrested since the September 11, 2001 attacks, aroused the suspicion of the Pakistani security services.

Jabur provided several versions of the circumstances of his arrest. The first appears in the statement he signed, in which he states he was arrested on May 9, 2004: "I was arrested by Pakistani forces because I was a foreigner and an Arab in Pakistan, under the excuse that I belonged to terrorist Islamist groups, which is not true."

The close cooperation between Israel and Jordan regarding the war on terror is also nothing new. The two countries cooperated even before signing a peace treaty in 1994, and Jordan's King Hussein and his top officials, including the secret service heads, would secretly meet with Israeli leaders and intelligence officials. Once the peace treaty was signed, the cooperation increased.

A shot, a pill, a flight
Jabur's statement sheds more light on the matter. This is what he had to say about Jordan and Israel: "I was taken to Jordan by the American forces, on a plane, not before we got an injection and a pill. The Jordanian forces received us and began an interrogation, which lasted a month and a half. Afterward they took me to the border and handed me over to Israeli intelligence."

Jabur said he was taken by car from the detention facility in Jordan and that the Jordanians then told him to get on a bus to Israel. He said he refused and told them: "If you want to hand me over to the Jews, you'll have to do it yourself."

The Jordanians put him in a car carrying Israeli security officials. "I saw sunlight for the first time when they brought me to Israel," said Jabur. "It was also the first time I saw the Red Cross in two and a half years."

In his statement, Jabur makes no complaints of torture against the Shin Bet, in contrast to what he said he underwent at the hands of Pakistani and American interrogators.

Mahajna and Talhami became familiar with the incident because the former represents the Palestinian Authority "prisoners club," and the two lawyers took down Jabur's statement on behalf of the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel.

According to the Shin Bet, Jabur was first detained in Israel on September 18, and his remand has been extended several times since then. The last extension was granted on October 23 for eight days.

The military tribunal at Kishon prison is due Tuesday to discuss whether to extend Jabur's remand again, indict him or return him to Jordan. Jabur is concerned about something else: that he will be transferred, like merchandise, to the Palestinian Authority security services.

Locals in Bint Jbeil, a town which saw fierce fighting, told yesterday how Hizbollah was using the major reconstruction efforts to rebuild their security infrastructure.

"They are working extremely fast," said one, who did not want to be named. "Militants in Shia strongholds have interconnected tunnels and bunkers under their houses. These are being rebuilt under cover of the reconstruction work."

He said cables and telecommunications equipment had been installed and the number of trucks delivering aid and supplies made it easy to disguise weapons smuggling.

"They have a security network of hundreds of motorcycles, linked up by walkie-talkies. Wherever outsiders move in the south they are followed. You don't see guns, but Hizbollah knows exactly where you are." On the crater-lined streets of Bint Jbeil, there was evidence of substantial reconstruction and young men on motorcycles, but it was impossible to discern whether any were Hizbollah fighters.

Another resident said: "Hizbollah is everywhere. But after the war the fighters put away their guns and uniforms and went back to being school teachers, engineers, farmers and business people."

The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil) argues that the presence of 8,800 "blue helmets" and 12,000 Lebanese soldiers between southern Lebanon's Litani river and the Israeli border since the Aug 14 ceasefire has severely restricted Hizbollah activity.

UN vehicles were in plentiful evidence yesterday, and at numerous points Lebanese soldiers scrutinised traffic.

"We have fixed outposts between which we patrol night and day," said Lt Laurent Trochet, the deputy commander of the French Unifil contingent based north of Bint Jbeil. "This makes the smuggling of arms very difficult."

But Lt Trochet admitted that the UN forces had very little intelligence about Hizbollah activity. "I imagine that the people here are Hizbollah, but they don't show themselves," he said. "We're trying to make contact with the militants, but it's difficult because they're so disciplined." UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which brought an end to the conflict, calls for Hizbollah to disarm and stop smuggling arms from Syria. The UN argues that its patrols have no mandate to disarm militants, merely to prevent the smuggling of arms, track suspicious trucks and boats, and report their findings to the Lebanese army.

But locals argue that Hizbollah's popularity among the south's predominantly Shia population has provided it with an extensive spying network, which makes such work increasingly difficult.

Despite increasing pressure from the international community for Hizbollah to put aside its weapons, analysts see it as highly unlikely that the group will disarm voluntarily.

Timur Goskel, a former Unifil spokesman with close connections to the group, said: "If Hizbollah is in parliament, having only been born in 1982, it's there because of the guns. They're never going to give those guns up."

In Bint Jbeil, the overwhelming feeling among the locals was that Hizbollah should keep its weapons.

"Still the Israelis come over the border, with their drones and jets" said one woman. "Only Hizbollah keeps us safe. If they leave the area, we will leave too."

The training is taking place in Jericho, at a compound near the InterContinental Hotel, and involves men from Force 17, an elite Fatah force traditionally assigned the protection of the Palestinian Authority Chairman.

According to reports, 400 Force 17 troops have been involved in the training since August.

The Palestinian Authority Chairman's office has recently barred the access of reporters to the compound.

Palestinian sources say that the training program is part of Dayton's recommended initiative for the reinforcement of Abbas' forces, and which involves the transfer of $2 million to set up the necessary training
facilities.

According to foreign press reports, the United States would like to see the number of men in Force 17 grow from approximately 3,500 to 6,000. Conscripts in the force range from 18 to 22, and undergo basic training for three months. Some are then selected for the Presidential Guard.

In the past, Dayton had proposed that the Presidential Guard, bolstered by international inspectors, be deployed at the Karni crossing in the northern Gaza Strip in order to expand the transit of goods between Gaza and Israel.

Israeli sources say that the United States is interested in the fall of the Hamas government currently in power in the Palestinian Authority.

During the Quartet meeting in London, the Americans expressed their satisfaction with the results of the boycott of Hamas' government, which has undermined its standing among the Palestinians.

However, the U.S. administration is also certain that the sanctions against Hamas will inevitably result in a violent confrontation between Hamas and Fatah, and in such a scenario, they would prefer to strengthen the "good guys" headed by Abbas.

It is unclear whether the European and Russian representatives of the Quartet support this position.

Senior administration officials David Welch and Elliott Abrams, who participated in the Quartet meeting, will arrive here Monday as part of preparations for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's visit to Washington in two weeks.

Olmert is scheduled to depart for the U.S. on November 12, and will meet that same evening with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, in anticipation of a meeting with President George W. Bush the following day.

Olmert will also meet with Vice President Dick Cheney. He will then depart for Los Angeles, where he will address the annual General Assembly of the United Jewish Communities of North America.

Baroud poignantly describes the dilemma Palestinians face. The generalization that all Palestinians are "terrorists" or "militants," allows the Israeli government to act with virtual impunity and equips Israeli forces with a moral endowment; they are acting in the name of "good" and challenging this policy is tantamount to collusion with the "forces of evil." Baroud offers the reader this grim truth, "Being a Palestinian activist means you could be targeted in a taxicab, in your office, sipping coffee with your neighbors, or sitting in your home. When you live, you live in poverty, deprived of all freedoms and joys of life. And when you die, it's a horrible death by a surface-to-surface missile, a car bomb, or a sniper's bullet."

The sincerity and passion in Baroud's approach is remarkable and commendable. The reader is given the opportunity to feel the angst and heartfelt anger sparked inside Baroud, a Palestinian born in a Gazan refugee camp and a writer who searched Jenin in hopes of finding the truth and preserving the stories of those that had suffered. Baroud has worked tirelessly to shine light on the mischaracterized Palestinian; civilians and activists who have been and continue to be sacrificed as inconsequential variables in Israel's fight for "the greater good."

For more than five years, successive Israeli governments implemented policies that undermined the possibilities of freedom and democracy in Occupied Territories, the very principals the United States proclaimed it tried to spread throughout the region. Palestinians further saw their human rights and chances for sustenance and sustainability calculatedly stripped away by Israel's supposed "moral" military. Time and again, Baroud debunks the falsehoods put forth by Israel and America, falsehoods consequently disseminated by Western media outlets. Israel's objective is to reinforce the notion that it is the Palestinian people who are the aggressors, while Israel is the patient victim-acting in self defense under only the most extreme cases. Baroud notes, "It's the same dreadful scenario repeated incessantly. Israel murders many innocent civilians; the international community hears nothing, sees nothing, and does nothing...in anger and desperation, a Palestinian blows himself up in a crowd of Israeli...the Western world is utterly overcome with a wave of condemnations of "Palestinian terrorism," "the enemies of peace."

Baroud comes back to the issue of suicide bombings several times in his book. An erroneous claim presented in Western circles is that the Palestinian people are brought up to hate, kill, foment intolerance and engage in regressive thought and actions. This supposedly triggers the reason for a Palestinian to become a suicide bomber. Baroud aptly asserts, however, that Palestinians are not driven to end their lives because they are products of intolerance or consumed with hatred. Rather he gives a more practical motivation for one to commit such an act. Baroud states, "When a policy of starvation, assassination, and systematic killing is imposed, when people are brutalized in the streets, when schools are raided by Apache helicopters...when a whole nation is collectively abused and violated with almost no protection...for those victims...blowing oneself up might actually seem like a rational way out of a despairing situation."

Baroud makes it clear that the way forward is to take the moral high ground, no matter how hard the struggle, and no matter what dividends one may think it yields, politically or personally. This is what has fundamentally separated the occupier and occupied for so long in this conflict; a clear cut victim existed, it was the Palestinians, suffering 39 years of occupation, with many still affected by the hardships of dispossession 58 years later. Baroud writes, "To maintain its moral edge, the Palestinian revolution should not depart from its all-encompassing, tolerant, and inclusive path, it should not be tainted by the fallacies of the occupier...These values must remain untainted, wholesome even, so that the will of the people might some day prevail over tyranny and oppression. And it will, of this I am certain."

The spirit of non-violent resistance has been alive since the birth of the Palestinian struggle. Most notably, the non-violent protests of the first Intifada, which were met by the iron fist of the Israeli state. This iron fist policy was a specialty of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon during the second Intifada. Baroud writes, "They go to the streets to protest the killing of a child, and they return home carrying another shot while protesting." Non-violent protests have been plentiful in the second Intifada, but through growing desperation, measures that were traditionally absent from the Palestinian struggle were taken up by individuals consumed with feelings of helplessness and anger, triggered by the wrongs inflicted upon their people by the Israeli state.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the "Butcher of Beirut," the rogue military man who wasn't afraid of controversy and saw diplomacy as a nuisance, wasn't scared to put down resistance of any kind, whether the resistance came in the form of children throwing rocks or a group non-violently protesting against the Apartheid Wall. His bulldog tactics and ruthless policies were not only his modus operandi but his raison d'être. It was in this context that his policies were carried out, without regard to "collateral damage."

Baroud aptly asserts that the Palestinian response to Israeli aggression "should have been a wake-up call for the Israeli government, making it clear that violence begets nothing but violence and...that a solution to the conflict would only come through the implementation of international law, not Apache helicopters and missiles." If the Israeli government wouldn't pull back the reigns of Ariel Sharon, then surely the US, the UN, the EU or any country with the slightest backbone could have uttered words of condemnation against Israel. The status quo, however, continued: America rallied around Israel, the rest of the international community remained silent and the Palestinians suffered the consequences.

In deep rooted conflicts, it is important to note that intention matters much more than action. Take for example, the unilateral disengagement of the Gaza Strip; Sharon had no intention of giving the Palestinian people autonomy, nor did he have the intention of giving Gazans control of their resources, airspace, territorial water, or borders. Sharon saw the pullout as a necessary militaristic and political move, a shift in policy that benefited Israel, without any consideration for the lives of the 1.4 million Palestinians that would be left living in an open air prison, under de facto Israeli occupation. Without missing a beat, the international community and media applauded Sharon's "gesture of peace." This was the fundamental flaw of the unilateral disengagement of the Gaza Strip, it was predicated on the assertion that disengagement equated to peace, and it's what makes the notion that Sharon had gone through a transformation such an egregious fallacy.

Throughout the conflict, the primary US excuses to support Israel has been that "Israel is our friend," it is the "only democracy in the Middle East," and "given the times we live in" (i.e. the post 9/11 world), it is more crucial than ever to support Israel's struggle against "tyranny and Islamic fanaticism." After that tragic morning, when nearly 2800 American citizens lost their lives, the people of the US have been constantly ingested with propaganda promoting policies suitable for the US government and its "friends", but directly contradict the principals of humanity and any sensible definition of justice. Policy makers and government officials in the West have used this heartbreaking event to create an "us versus them" type of world, without educating us on who "them" is.

Baroud explains the new model, "Fighting terror is the new trend; whereby aggressive, powerful countries crush their weaker foes, deprive them of freedom, while continuing to blame them for all the woes of the world. And we, the people of this world who mean well but fail to act, are expected to believe everything we are told. Israel is defending itself as though it were the Palestinian who occupy Israeli territories, besiege the Israel people, blow up their homes, steal their land, and gun down their children." At some point the light switch has to turn on in our heads that killing and creating "evil empires" when it serves interests, rather than when it serves logic, is a flaw that tears at the very fabric of truly democratic societies. Baroud writes, "When will we treasure the lives of people of all nations on an equal level, whether they be American, Afghani, Iraqi, Israeli, Palestinian, Turkish, Kurdish, Russian, Chechen, or any other? How long will we remain blinded by empty slogans, unexplained hatred, and pretentious condemnations?"

Baroud leaves no one untouched in The Second Palestinian Intifada. He does much to underscore the shortcomings of the late Yasser Arafat, the weakness and lack of credibility of Mahmood Abbas, and the many failures of US intervention (passed off as honest brokering). Baroud doesn't pull punches when critiquing the Palestinian Authority (PA), particularly its corruptness and incompetence.

Baroud specifically uncovers the disingenuousness of "negotiations" led by Abbas and highlights the acquiescence and political posturing of Palestinian figures in times when strength and political purity was needed. Under the rule of the "old guard," the PA lost sight of the Palestinian struggle. The PA's duties were supposed to include preserving and fighting for the rights of its people, defending its citizens against the sordid policies of Israel, and demanding that the international community intervene. Yet, the leaders within the PA were so intent on keeping power and following defunct policies rooted in corruption and nepotism, that they failed to remember that they weren't representing themselves, but a population of 3.8 million people, a people who were suffering the daily realities of occupation.

Palestinian ineptitude only strengthened Israel's position and policy, which Israel had no intention of changing. Israel never had any desire, or pressure, to implement international law, nor did it intend to pursue a course of action that respected Palestinian human rights. Whether Labor, Likud, or Kadima, each Israeli administration knew that a change in policy would fly in the face of what it was trying to accomplish: the territorial control and expropriation of fertile Palestinian land in the West Bank, the annexation of East Jerusalem, the control of the Palestinian people's water supply, and the suppression of the Palestinians inalienable right to autonomy and freedom from occupation in any form. This is why resolution 194 (calling for the right of return), and resolution 242 and 338 (calling on Israel to pull back to the June 1967 borders) have never been seriously discussed-not after the signing of the Oslo Accords, not at Camp David in 2000 and surely not since.

It is not just the ruling Palestinian Authority that faced problems, but rather all factions, particularly in the lead up to the unilateral "disengagement" of the Gaza Strip. Baroud suggests, "By failing to take care of their own destiny in a unified fashion, Palestinians...were taking the risk of being marginalized and victimized by mandates and caretakers...A[n] internal dispute coupled with muscle-flexing would deeply harm all that the Palestinians had fought long and hard to achieve. The media was, as ever, willing to condemn and lambaste Palestinians, their incompetence and failures, retrospectively validating Israel's policy"

Baroud's glimpses of frustration, anger, and jarring sarcasm gives his story a distinct humanness, a tone that is refreshing, and one that the reader can identify with. After being inundated with death tallies and daily reports of carnage, readers many times become desensitized to the news, making one forget how horrible, tragic, and grueling occupied Palestinian life truly is.

At one point, Baroud seems fed up with the almost comical confines the Palestinian people are put in. Baroud asserts, "It [Israel] killed and wounded hundreds of civilians in its 'targeted killing' sprees. Yet, Palestinians were condemned if they showed the mere desire to respond. Even the targeting of occupation soldiers was taboo. So what were the Palestinians permitted to do in self-defense, in accordance with the twisted pro-Israeli Bush doctrine? How about marching in a peaceful demonstration? In, Rafah, that too was anathema and could not be tolerated. It was handled with resolute vigor, the same way a 'terrorist' threat deserved to be handled: A missile fired from a U.S.-supplied Apache helicopter was all that it took to eliminate that option of resistance."

The Second Palestinian Intifada is not merely a tirade on the Palestinian people being subjected to Israeli policy and US support of that policy. The way forward is clear: the acceptance and instituting of international law, the end to the 39 year occupation, and the emergence of fair brokers, mainly the US, the UN, and the European Union.

The relevancy and necessity for Baroud's analysis and critique in these pressing times cannot be overstated. The genuineness of Baroud's approach is one to be admired and applauded. His insistence to uncover injustices carried out by Israel (with full support of the US administration) is unwavering, yet doesn't cloud his judgment.

At his core, Baroud stays hopeful, "It has always been an old habit of mine to sign off messages in the days preceding the New year by expressing: 'I pray that the coming year will bring peace and justice to our troubled world.' Despite disappointing experiences, I persist in this, because hope is essential."

The fight for Palestine, a vision to end the injustice imposed upon them, illustrates the common threat of injustice that plagues all oppressed people. This struggle is something to be cherished, to work for and to improve. Baroud explains, "In spite of dashed hopes and failed summits, peace and justice movements around the word, representing an array of struggles, continue to look to the Palestinian people as an icon of resistance."

What is happening today in the Occupied Territories isn't politics. It is an overwhelming nightmare that plagues 3.8 million people every day. Each person in the Occupied Territories has a story, a story that is equally significant and heartbreaking, whether revealing that a relative has been killed, land has been taken from them, their home has been bulldozed to the ground or the humiliating act of being stopped, restricted, or harassed by Israel forces, this is the reality with which they live. The human story Baroud puts forth is meant not only to educate and inform, but to encourage and inspire. The peoples of struggle mustn't be forgotten, nor should they be silenced. Baroud does service to this cause and because of it, has left the flame of struggle burning brighter.

The Second Palestinian Intifada : A Chronicle of a People's Struggle, published by Pluto Press, can be found on Amazon.com.

Remi Kanazi is the primary writer for the political website www.PoeticInjustice.net He is the editor of the forthcoming book of poetry, Poets for Palestine, for more information go to Poetic Injustice. He lives can reached via email at remroum@gmail.com

Butros al-Harb, Unep's Middle East director, told a Lebanese radio interviewer at the weekend: "If uranium was used, we will find out and we will announce it. We cannot confirm anything now, but we will wait for results."

Yesterday Israel issued its most explicit denial yet. Major Avital Leibovitz, a spokeswoman for the Israel Defence Forces, said: "We deny using any weapons containing uranium." One official suggested that if the environmentalists had indeed found traces of uranium, they would have to look for a different explanation.

Chris Busby, the scientific secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, based in Brussels, reported last week that two soil samples thrown up by Israeli bombs in the south Lebanese villages of Khiam and At Tiri, centres of fierce fighting between Israel and Hizbollah, showed "elevated radiation signatures". Dr Busby warned that particles from the explosions were long-lived in the environment and could be inhaled into the lungs, causing "significant" health effects on civilians.

The Harwell laboratory for mass spectrometry in Oxfordshire confirmed the concentration of uranium isotopes in the samples, but the European experts were puzzled about what weapons Israel might have been using and why. Chris Bellamy, a professor of military science and doctrine at Cranfield University, said the initial tests "present an enigma". But he dismissed speculation that Israel was using a "dirty bomb" or micro-yield nuclear weapon.

Government officials said Israel had received no approaches from either the Unep or the European committee. Mark Regev, the Foreign Ministry spokesman, said: "If someone comes with a complaint, comes with a charge, we will review it." But he protested that Israel was being singled out when nobody had accused it of deploying weapons banned under international law or practice. "The sort of munitions we used in the Lebanon campaign," he said, "were almost identical to the sort of weaponry used in conflicts over the past decade by Nato countries, by Western countries. Sometimes there's a feeling that the Jewish state is being singled out for special treatment. One really has to ask why it is that the finger is being pointed at Israel."

Palestinian officials have frequently accused the IDF of firing shells tipped with depleted uranium, a hard metal byproduct of uranium enrichment, in the Gaza Strip. But Israel has denied it and no conclusive evidence has been produced.

* Israel's Attorney General, Menachem Mazuz, called for President Moshe Katzav to stand down for the duration of any judicial proceedings after police recommended indicting him for alleged sexual offences against women employees.