By MATTI FRIEDMAN Associated Press Writer

JERUSALEM—The Israeli government will remove references to what Palestinians call the "catastrophe" of Israel's creation from textbooks for Arab schoolchildren, the education minister said Wednesday.
The reference to "al-naqba," the Arabic word catastrophe, as Palestinians call their defeat and exile in the war over Israel's 1948 creation, was inserted by a dovish Israeli education minister in 2007.
The phrase remains contentious six decades later, a symptom of the continuing divisions in Israel. Many Israeli Arabs identify politically with their Palestinian counterparts in the West Bank and Gaza. As a result, some Israeli Jews accuse Israeli Arabs of disloyalty to the country.
Israel's current government, headed by Benjamin Netanyahu and his hard-line Likud Party, includes members who favor cracking down on Israeli Arabs by ordering loyalty oaths or even moving them out of Israel.
"No other country in the world, in its official curriculum, would treat the fact of its founding as a catastrophe," Education Minister Gideon Saar of Likud told Israel's parliament on Wednesday.
Israeli Arab lawmaker Hana Sweid accused the government of "naqba denial."
"It's a major attack on the identity of the Palestinian Arab citizens of the state of Israel, on their memories and their adherence to their identity," he told the Associated Press.
Teachers will be free to discuss the personal and national tragedies that befell Palestinians during Advertisement
the war, Saar said, but textbooks will be revised to remove the term, he added.
The decision applied to a third-grade textbook for Arab schoolchildren. Jewish textbooks make no mention of the term.
Yossi Sarid, a dovish former education minister, said Saar's decision showed insecurity.
"Zionism has already won in many ways, and can afford to be more confident. We need not be afraid of a word," Sarid said.
The 1948 war saw Arab nations invade the newly founded Jewish country after a United Nations decision to partition the British-controlled territory of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. Jewish forces won, seizing territories beyond what the U.N. had allotted to it, while Egypt and Jordan took what was left of the territories the U.N. intended for a Palestinian state.
More than 700,000 Palestinians are thought to have fled or been expelled from areas that came under Israeli control.
Official Israeli histories of the country's establishment, especially those written for schoolchildren, have typically focused on the heroism of Israeli forces and glossed over the Palestinian flight, attributing the mass exile to voluntary escape if mentioning it at all.
In recent years, several Israeli historians have published books claiming that while many Palestinians did flee of their own accord, many others were forced from their homes as fighting raged.
Palestinians demand the right to repatriate the surviving refugees and more than 4 million descendants to their original homes in Israel.
Israel rejects the demand, saying the refugees should receive compensation and be resettled where they now live or in a Palestinian state.
The Arabs who remained inside Israel now make up about 20 percent of the country's population of 7.3 million.
ReprintPrint Email

More of Nuclear supplies and no body makes a noise...

Is every body sleeping or dead? What is Pakistan media doing? Just going after Pervez Musharraf I guess?

NEW DELHI, July 20 -- The United States and India on Monday established a high-level forum designed to further strengthen a relationship that has dramatically improved in recent years. The two governments also announced relatively modest agreements that could foster potential sales of sophisticated U.S. arms and civil nuclear reactors.

The "strategic dialogue," unveiled on the final day of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's three-day tour of India, will be one of only about a half-dozen such relationships the United States has with other countries.
The annual sessions will be co-chaired by Clinton and External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna and will bring together cabinet secretaries of both countries for formal discussions.
Clinton, at a news conference with Krishna, stressed that the talks are designed to inspire broad partnerships beyond the government level, bringing Americans into closer contact with one of the world's fastest-growing economies.
"We do not, however, intend for this to be a dialogue between ministers or even between governments, but between our nations and our peoples, our scientists and business leaders, our civil society activists and academics, charitable foundations, farmers, educators, doctors, entrepreneurs," Clinton told reporters.
Underscoring that point, Clinton stretched the bounds of traditional diplomacy during her visit. She met with business leaders in the commercial capital of Mumbai, talked to poor female weavers, toured an environmentally friendly "green" building, visited a farm to learn about new crop techniques and discussed Indian education issues at a university forum.

On Monday, she delved into more-official contacts, meeting with Krishna; Manmohan Singh, the prime minister; Sonia Gandhi, the head of the ruling Congress party; and L.K. Advani, the leader of the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party.
Clinton announced that she had conveyed an invitation to Singh from President Obama to visit Washington on Nov. 24 for what would be the first state visit of the new administration. Singh accepted, U.S. officials said.
The other agreements announced Monday were of less import, essentially marking incremental steps toward realizing potential military and nuclear sales.
India agreed to accept congressionally mandated monitoring of the use of sensitive military equipment, which will allow U.S. companies to compete for the sale of 126 fighter jets worth about $10 billion. India also identified two sites for potential U.S.-made nuclear reactors, also worth $10 billion, though the Indian government must still pass a controversial law limiting liability for U.S. companies before they can compete.
Clinton and Krishna also signed a technology agreement that will permit the use of U.S. parts on Indian satellite launch vehicles and established a $30 million fund for joint science and technology projects.
The United States and India had chilly relations during the Cold War, but a thaw began during the presidency of Clinton's husband, Bill Clinton. President George W. Bush built on that foundation by inking a landmark civil nuclear agreement with India, and now the Obama administration has made it clear it wants to further deepen ties.
One U.S. official involved in this week's talks said that until recently the two countries "managed problems." It was such an unsatisfactory relationship that very few senior U.S. officials wanted to meet with their Indian counterparts. But Bush's nuclear deal, which allows India to buy civil nuclear equipment even though it did not sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, cleared away a long-standing sore point between the two nations.
Meanwhile, Singh's party won a commanding victory in May, allowing it to shed left-leaning coalition partners suspicious of Washington. The U.S. official said that now the heads of various agencies are fighting over who can join the U.S.-India dialogue. "There's a sense that we can accomplish something," he said.
Still, stark differences between the two countries on such issues as a global agreement to limit greenhouse gases were apparent during Clinton's trip.
Clinton is an Indiaphile, clearly fascinated by the country, its people and its food. Speaking to about 700 students at Delhi University on Monday, she said it would be a mistake to allow stereotypes portrayed in popular culture to influence relations between the two countries.
"People watching a Bollywood movie in some other part of Asia think everyone in India is beautiful and they have dramatic lives and have happy endings," Clinton said to laugher. "And if you were to watch American TV and our movies, you'd think that we don't wear clothes and we spend a lot of time fighting with each other."

In his analysis published in today’s The News International, Mr. Ikram Sehgal provides an interesting assessment of the latest episode in the Pakistani political circus. The focus is on Pervez Musharraf’s legal problems, the real strength of President Zardari versus Nawaz Sharif/Prime Minister Gilani. And, most importantly, why the Supreme Court of Pakistan under the restored Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry is avoiding taking up the NRO, the law that whitewashed financial corruption at the highest levels in government. Finally, Mr. Sehgal makes some interesting observations about how the Pakistani military leadership could be viewing this mess.

On Musharraf’s Fate:

Pervez Musharraf must be content in his London apartment, in less than a year Zardari has replaced him as the unpopular figure in Pakistan. Unlike Zardari, Musharraf always enjoyed a base of popularity. Given the present abysmal performance of the Zardari-Gilani government, this will force-multiply exponentially. If the Army can stomach Zardari, why should they mind Musharraf back as president one day? Even though Musharraf's Oct 12, 1999, takeover was illegal in all senses of the word, in all fairness it was popular in the streets with both the intelligentsia and the masses fed up with bad governance. No tears were shed for the Nawaz Sharif regime. Almost everyone welcomed, myself included, a military coup in the name of hope, or as hope is known in Pakistan, "the doctrine of necessity." That public faith in Pervez Musharraf eroded dramatically after the rigged 2002 elections was no surprise. That is the fate of all who close their ears to good advice and shoot messengers bringing bad news. As long as Asif Zardari does not meddle with the military, and until now he has shown no inclination for this rather fatal pastime, the military hierarchy seems more comfortable having him (Kayani was DG ISI before he became COAS, he cannot claim ignorance about all the Zardari controversies) around than Mian Sahib. One can understand the Army's lack of enthusiasm in repealing the 17th Amendment and Clause 58 (2) (b). Why shackle themselves for the next time around? It stands to reason they seem supportive (as does the US) of a strong president and an ineffectual prime minister.


On Whether Zardari Is Cornered:

Despite being under pressure lately, Zardari has made notable accomplishments. The success of sorts in Swat has been bought at a heavy price, the blood of our young men in uniform. Sufi Muhammad took a day as a sign of weakness the abject and shameful surrender by Pakistan's Parliament in its passage of a resolution for so-called peace in less than a day. The Taliban were not prepared for the outraged reaction of the Pakistani public. Their attempt to brutally take over Swat and adjacent districts was fully exploited by the Army. That most of the IDPs are returning is a clear measure of the military's success (and, it so happens, Zardari's). Complete success will only be possible when Maulana Fazlullah and his top aides are physically eliminated. Surviving March 15 virtually unscathed is a credit to Zardari's political craftsmanship, being reduced to a figurehead president is certainly not in keeping with his personality, or the shenanigans of his friends. A master of the art of playing for time, he has again consigned the 17th Amendment to the cold storage of a parliamentary committee. Yusuf Reza Gilani vacillated in the name of party unity when the opportunity arose to get back the prime minister's powers under the 1973 Constitution. By not maintaining the March 15 momentum he blew his chances. That the Supreme Court decision overturning Mian Sahib's conviction on the aircraft hijack case came the same day as Zardari's Raiwind visit is no coincidence. Zardari needed to head off Mian Nawaz Sharif running loose in the National Assembly with Gilani on constitutional issues.

On Double Standards Of Nawaz Sharif & THE RESTORED CHIEF JUSTICE:

While Mian Sahib must be congratulated for not becoming another political beneficiary of the infamous National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO), nonetheless his "democratic" silence about this blackest of black laws is intriguing. Even though it seems they presently seem to lack enthusiasm, there seems to be method in the Supreme Court's benign ignorance of something that has disfigured Pakistan's politics and threatens our existence as a nation. At present all eyes are on the Supreme Court as they decide on the blatantly illegal Nov 3 action. The NRO will have to be addressed; his lordships cannot ignore it forever under "a doctrine of necessity." Ordinary mortals do expect that their lordships while suo moto-ing everything under the sun, will ultimately address this black hole in Pakistan's heart. The NRO provides for London being the first (and Dubai the second) home for our leaders. Our leaders alternate in giving us bad governance, collect their booty (and their gifts which seems to be their right by being president and/or prime minister), and go back to London (and Dubai), at least till all is forgotten and forgiven by our gullible masses, and their popularity returns.

U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006

02/28/06 Zogby

• Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll shows just one in five troops want to heed Bush call to stay “as long as they are needed”
• While 58% say mission is clear, 42% say U.S. role is hazy
• Plurality believes Iraqi insurgents are mostly homegrown
• Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11, most don’t blame Iraqi public for insurgent attacks
• Majority of troops oppose use of harsh prisoner interrogation
• Plurality of troops pleased with their armor and equipment

An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and nearly one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.
The poll, conducted in conjunction with Le Moyne College’s Center for Peace and Global Studies, showed that 29% of the respondents, serving in various branches of the armed forces, said the U.S. should leave Iraq “immediately,” while another 22% said they should leave in the next six months. Another 21% said troops should be out between six and 12 months, while 23% said they should stay “as long as they are needed.”

Different branches had quite different sentiments on the question, the poll shows. While 89% of reserves and 82% of those in the National Guard said the U.S. should leave Iraq within a year, 58% of Marines think so. Seven in ten of those in the regular Army thought the U.S. should leave Iraq in the next year. Moreover, about three-quarters of those in National Guard and Reserve units favor withdrawal within six months, just 15% of Marines felt that way. About half of those in the regular Army favored withdrawal from Iraq in the next six months.

The troops have drawn different conclusions about fellow citizens back home. Asked why they think some Americans favor rapid U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, 37% of troops serving there said those Americans are unpatriotic, while 20% believe people back home don’t believe a continued occupation will work. Another 16% said they believe those favoring a quick withdrawal do so because they oppose the use of the military in a pre-emptive war, while 15% said they do not believe those Americans understand the need for the U.S. troops in Iraq.

The wide-ranging poll also shows that 58% of those serving in country say the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear in their minds, while 42% said it is either somewhat or very unclear to them, that they have no understanding of it at all, or are unsure. While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,” 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.”

“Ninety-three percent said that removing weapons of mass destruction is not a reason for U.S. troops being there,” said Pollster John Zogby, President and CEO of Zogby International. “Instead, that initial rationale went by the wayside and, in the minds of 68% of the troops, the real mission became to remove Saddam Hussein.” Just 24% said that “establishing a democracy that can be a model for the Arab World" was the main or a major reason for the war. Only small percentages see the mission there as securing oil supplies (11%) or to provide long-term bases for US troops in the region (6%).

The continuing insurgent attacks have not turned U.S. troops against the Iraqi population, the survey shows. More than 80% said they did not hold a negative view of Iraqis because of those attacks. About two in five see the insurgency as being comprised of discontented Sunnis with very few non-Iraqi helpers. “There appears to be confusion on this,” Zogby said. But, he noted, less than a third think that if non-Iraqi terrorists could be prevented from crossing the border into Iraq, the insurgency would end. A majority of troops (53%) said the U.S. should double both the number of troops and bombing missions in order to control the insurgency.

The survey shows that most U.S. military personnel in-country have a clear sense of right and wrong when it comes to using banned weapons against the enemy, and in interrogation of prisoners. Four in five said they oppose the use of such internationally banned weapons as napalm and white phosphorous. And, even as more photos of prisoner abuse in Iraq surface around the world, 55% said it is not appropriate or standard military conduct to use harsh and threatening methods against insurgent prisoners in order to gain information of military value.
Three quarters of the troops had served multiple tours and had a longer exposure to the conflict: 26% were on their first tour of duty, 45% were on their second tour, and 29% were in Iraq for a third time or more.

A majority of the troops serving in Iraq said they were satisfied with the war provisions from Washington. Just 30% of troops said they think the Department of Defense has failed to provide adequate troop protections, such as body armor, munitions, and armor plating for vehicles like HumVees. Only 35% said basic civil infrastructure in Iraq, including roads, electricity, water service, and health care, has not improved over the past year. Three of every four were male respondents, with 63% under the age of 30.
The survey included 944 military respondents interviewed at several undisclosed locations throughout Iraq. The names of the specific locations and specific personnel who conducted the survey are being withheld for security purposes. Surveys were conducted face-to-face using random sampling techniques. The margin of error for the survey, conducted Jan. 18 through Feb. 14, 2006, is +/- 3.3 percentage points.