1st Significant Event of 2008

Nope, it's not the sex DVD... it's Iowa caucuses... not quite a turning point to anywhere, as far as muslims are concerned, it will still be the same... i'm not quite sure how and when the world went wrong, how does people of one country determine the livelihood of the whole world... and they call it democracy in practice... sadly, not quite...

__________________

Source: Aljazeera

Hillary Clinton is among the strongest supporters of Israel [GALLO/GETTY]

Election power of the Israel lobby
By Rob Winder


As US presidential candidates battle it out to become the leader of the world's only superpower there is one subject on which they all, in public at least, agree - the US relationship with Israel.

To leading politicians on both sides of the partisan divide the special relationship is sacrosanct, largely due, critics say, to the power of pro-Israel lobby groups.

Those critics also say that pro-Israeli groups are set to play a major role in the forthcoming election battle, both in terms of funding candidates and by publicly criticising any candidate critical of Israel or the US's relationship with it.

John Mearsheimer, who alongside Stephen Walt is the author of a controversial series of articles and a recent book on the Israel lobby, told Al Jazeera: "Almost all of the major candidates are falling over themselves to demonstrate how deeply committed they are to America's special relationship with Israel.

"Hardly a word of criticism is directed at anything Israel does and that is due to the activities of the lobby."

What is the pro-Israel lobby?

The lobby is made up of dozens of pro-Israel political action committees that draw a large part of their support from the US Jewish community and provide funding to presidential candidates.

But Christian Zionists, who are among the most vociferous supporters of Israel in the US, also play a major role.

They believe that by strengthening and supporting the state of Israel, they are more likely to bring about the "second coming" of Jesus as prophesied in the Bible.

At the lobby's vanguard is the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), which works mainly in US congress.

It boasts its recent "victories" include the US decision to brand Iran's Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organisation, securing US aid to Israel and freezing US aid to the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority in 2006.

Money and power

Defenders of the Israel lobby say that the views of presidential candidates are really a natural reflection of the views of most Americans and that it has little influence over elections.

US money pays for Israeli military equipment
used in Gaza and Lebanon [GALLO/GETTY]

But money talks in politics and the figures tell a different story.

The Centre for Responsive Politics (CRP), which monitors the role of money in US politics, says pro-Israeli groups and individuals have already donated more than $845,000 to presidential candidates in the 2008 campaign - 70 per cent of it to Democrats.

In the entire 2004 presidential campaign pro-Israel interests contributed at least $6.1 million to federal candidates and parties.

"Money translates into influence in Washington, so generally the interests that spend the most money are going to get the best access and results," says Massie Ritch, communications director at the CRP.

And it is outside of the presidential race and in congress, which holds the purse strings on the key area of aid to Israel, that the lobby makes its financial mark.

Aipac and other groups spent more than $1.5 million on federal lobbying in 2006 and more than $1.25 million in the first half of 2007, meaning that this year could be a record one for the lobby.

The pro-Israel lobby accounts for about one-quarter of all foreign policy lobbying on Capitol Hill, the CRP says.

Information flow

Arab efforts to put their case across are, in contrast, minimal.

The National Association of Arab-Americans and the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee reported spending just $80,000 on federal lobbying in 2006 and $40,000 in the first six months of 2007.

The financial power of the Israel lobby also allows it to provide one-sided information to US politicians not always familiar with the complexities of conflict in the Middle East.

Aipac provides educational trips to congressman and their staff - more trips than any other sponsor, according to the CRP.

"Members of congress and their staffs have been to Tel Aviv more often in recent years than they've been to Chicago," says Ritch.

Anti-Semitism charges

Aipac's defenders say that this is where the organisation plays an important role, as an information source for politicians - including US presidential candidates.

But critics say that pro-Israel lobby groups go much further - as John Mearsheimer says: "The lobby monitors what the candidates say very closely."

In March, Democratic candidate Barack Obama gave a speech in the key primary state of Iowa where he said: "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people."

A local Aipac member immediately contacted the media to denounce the comment, describing it as "deeply troubling".

In July Jim Moran, a Democratic congressman who has criticised Aipac in the past, accused the organisation of pushing for war on Iraq.

Seventeen members of congress immediately wrote a letter to Moran condemning him and saying that his remarks "unfortunately fit the anti-Semitic stereotypes some have used historically used against Jews".

Barack Obama has come in for criticism
from Aipac supporters [GALLO/GETTY]

Eric Cantor, the house of representatives Republican deputy chief whip, reportedly went further and was quoted as as saying: "Unfortunately, Jim Moran has made it a habit now to lash out to the American-Jewish community.

"I think his remarks are reprehensible, I think his remarks are anachronistic, and hearken back to the day of Adolf Hitler."

In such a political climate it is easy to see why those seeking a job in the Oval Office are wary of speaking out for any change in the US relationship with Israel or against Aipac.

The charge of anti-Semitism is regularly used by the Israel and lobby and was one of the charges faced by John Mearsheimer.

"We are not anti-Semites and the book is not anti-Semitic," he says.

"Calling critics of Israeli policy or the US-Israel relationship is standard operating procedure for the lobby. It's the standard strategy they use to stifle criticism of Israel and to marginalise those critics."

Military action

Beyond the politics of elections, the lobby's critics say that pro-Israeli groups, after pushing for war on Iraq, are now advocating military action against Iran.

"If you look at who is pushing the US to use military force against Iran, the two driving forces are Israel and the Israel lobby," says Mearsheimer.

Jim Moran, in an interview with the Tikkun, a Jewish peace magazine, said US action against Iran is proposed only because it is a threat to Israel.

"No one's suggested that Iran is a potential threat to the United States," he told the magazine, "any more than Iraq could ever have been a threat to the United States."

"In effect, all the same groups and individuals who were pushing for war against Iraq are pushing for war against Iran."

Aipac, however, vehemently denies it is asking for anything other than sanctions.

Jim Moran has said Aipac pushed the
US into war on Iraq [GALLO/GETTY]

"Aipac solely advocates sanctions as the best way to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons or the capability to make them," Josh Block, an Aipac spokesman, told Al Jazeera.

Real friendship

Mearsheimer argues that the US needs to normalise its relationship with Israel, treating it more like the UK, Germany or India.

He and other critics, from both inside and outside the Jewish community in the US, argue that Israel also suffers from its privileged position in terms of US aid.

They believe that the Israel lobby's support in the US encourages Israel to act without fear of international sanction.

This has emboldened Israeli leaders to sanction the illegal occupation of Palestinian land, the building of settlements and for the Israeli military to carry out numerous human rights abuses.

"If these presidential candidates were real friends of Israel as they claim to be, they would not only be criticising Israel for its policies in the occupied territories ... they would be arguing that the US put significant pressure on Israel and the Palestinians to reach an agreement on a two-state solution," Mearsheimer told Al Jazeera.

"That's what a real friend would do."

US Aid to Israel :
Military : 2.25 Bn
Economic :237 m
Immigration : 40 m
Other : 0.5 m

Source : CRS Report for US Congress, 2006 figures

Doctor slang is a dying art

The inventive language created by doctors the world over to insult their patients - or each other - is in danger of becoming extinct.

So says a doctor who has spent four years charting more than 200 colourful examples.

Medicine is a profession already overflowing with acronyms and technical terms, and doctors over the years have invented plenty of their own.

However, Dr Adam Fox, who works at St Mary's Hospital in London as a specialist registrar in its child allergy unit, says that far fewer doctors now annotate notes with acronyms designed to spell out the unsayable truth about their patients.

Top medical acronyms CTD - Circling the Drain (A patient expected to die soon) GLM - Good looking Mum GPO - Good for Parts Only TEETH - Tried Everything Else, Try Homeopathy UBI - Unexplained Beer Injury

The increasing rate of litigation means that there is a far higher chance that doctors will be asked in court to explain the exact meaning of NFN (Normal for Norfolk), FLK (Funny looking kid) or GROLIES (Guardian Reader Of Low Intelligence in Ethnic Skirt).

Dr Fox recounts the tale of one doctor who had scribbled TTFO - an expletive expression roughly translated as "Told To Go Away" - on a patient's notes.

He told BBC News Online: "This guy was asked by the judge what the acronym meant, and luckily for him he had the presence of mind to say: 'To take fluids orally'."

Quaint up North

Regional dialects abound, even in the world of the medical acronym.

In the north of England, the TTR (Tea Time Review) of a patient is commonplace, but not in the south.

And the number of terms for patients believed to be somewhat intellectually challenged is enormous.

From LOBNH (Lights On But Nobody Home), CNS-QNS (Central Nervous System - Quantity Not Sufficient), to the delightful term "pumpkin positive", which refers to the implication that a penlight shone into the patient's mouth would encounter a brain so small that the whole head would light up.

Regular visitors to A&E on a Friday or Saturday night are also classified.

DBI refers to "Dirt Bag Index", and multiplies the number of tattoos with the number of missing teeth to give an estimate of the number of days since the patient last bathed.

A PFO refers to a drunken patient who sustained injury falling over, while a PGT "Got Thumped" instead.

Medical terms - A glossary Digging for Worms - varicose vein surgery Departure lounge - geriatric ward Handbag positive - confused patient (usually elderly lady) lying on hospital bed clutching handbag Woolworth's Test - Anaesthetic term (if you can imagine patient shopping in Woolies, it's safe to give a general anaesthetic)

This is an international language - Dr Fox's research reveals that a PIMBA in Brazil can be translated as a "swollen-footed, drunk, run-over beggar".

Doctor insult

And much of the slang is directed at colleagues rather than patients.

Thus rheumatology, considered by hard-pressed juniors one of the less busy specialties, becomes "rheumaholiday", the "Freud Squad" are psychiatrists, and "Gassers" and "Slashers" are anaesthetists and general surgeons respectively.

Dr Fox is keen to point out that neither he, nor the other authors of the paper, published in the journal Ethics and Behavior, actually advocate using any of the terms.

He said: "It's a form of communication, and it needs to be recorded.

"It may not be around forever."

He said: "I do think that doctors are genuinely more respectful of their patients these days."

If that is the case, perhaps the delights of a "Whopper with Cheese", "Handbag positive" or "Coffin dodger" could be lost forever.

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: Muslims have much to thank Britain for

We have never acknowledged the fact that 'infidels' campaign ceaselessly to guard our rights

Published: 10 December 2007 (The Independent)

Around this time of the year, my mum, Jena, a devout Shia Muslim, who died last year, would ask to be taken to see the Christmas lights in town, and when dropped off back home would entreat in Kutchi, our home language: "Say something nice in your newspaper article, time for that. It's their Christmas. Don't make people upset. This is a good country for us, you know."

I can hear her mellow voice today, and do as she bid. For in many ways, she is right. This is a good country for us and we Muslims don't say that often enough. Mea culpa.

Even now, in the riven world, our lives here are more secure, treated as more precious, than they are in most Muslim and European countries, the US, Australia and the Far East. British Muslims, or at least the most vocal of them, have never acknowledged the fact that "infidels" – Christians, atheists, Jews, secularists, Hindus and Sikhs – campaign ceaselessly to guard our fundamental rights as citizens of this nation.

These allies may recoil from Muslim militancy and the perpetually dissatisfied British Muslims who demand accommodation of their cultural practices, some of which are abhorrent in a free society. Yet they go all out to defend us when the state threatens to take away our freedoms or invoke undemocratic measures to protect democracy.

When the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, plans to increase from 28 days to 42, the time suspects can be held without charge, the right-wing Tory David Davis comes out fighting as if for his life. Why should a powerful white man care to oppose something brought in to intimidate and quell Muslims? But he does.

Henry Porter, the journalist, white and powerful, has been even more committed and uncompromising. Liberty, under Shami Chakrabarti (most definitely not a Muslim), has given unprecedented time and resources to interrogate skilfully and disable the tyrannical anti-terrorism measures dreamt up by New Labour since 9/11.

A 23-year-old British Muslim saleswoman, Samina Malik, was convicted last month under some of these draconian laws after downloading some jihadi material and for writing miserable and murderous poems fantasising about beheadings. I find what she did repellent, but hers were thought crimes, which should not lead to prosecutions in any democracy worth the name.

English PEN rose to condemn Malik's conviction, and among the most eloquent of the writers to come out for her was Hari Kunzru (again, not a Muslim) who wrote: " ... rationality seems to be ebbing away. We seem to have accepted the principle that it should be illegal to think, read and write certain things ... We are being taught to be circumspect. How long before it's suggested we should shut up altogether?" Malik might just escape her inner demons if she allows herself to read humanist writers like Kunzru.

Martin Amis's xenophobic "adumbrations" and imaginings were met with fierce moral and intellectual ripostes from white men, such as the novelist Ronan Bennet, Peter Wilby, the former editor of The New Statesman, and Professor Terry Eagleton. And also the Indian writer and critic, Pankaj Mishra (no, not a Muslim). When there are attacks on Muslims on the streets they are supported by grassroots organisations set up to defend all victims of racially aggravated crimes.

The same empathy is evident when looking at foreign affairs. Lindsey German of the Stop the War Coalition has never stopped reminding the nation of the mayhem in Iraq; Robert Fisk, the most highly regarded journalist in, and on, the Middle East, is not, I don't think, a closet Musselman. A few weeks back, at a conference, we heard the lawyer Phil Shiner reminding us of the alleged torture of Iraqi prisoners by British soldiers. For years now, he has tried to get justice for them, as has Rabinder Singh QC.

I am not suggesting Muslims have not been as effective and involved in these struggles. They have, and some have proved themselves impressive battlers, in particular, lawyers and politicians. However, there is too little public recognition of the non-Muslim individuals and lobbyists who have taken up our cause and stood with us. Decency demands we give them thanks.

That wouldn't suit or please separatists like Hizb-ut-Tahrir et al, for whom there is only them and us, the West and Islam, forever clashing on the road to hell. Sadly, the most integrated Muslims at times seem to have persuaded themselves that they are hated by the rest of humanity and their faith is under siege.

Such a view is only possible if you close down, shut the doors, turn off the sounds and blank out the sights that tell you a different story – that even these worst of times bring out the best in the best of us. For such big mercies, I am truly grateful. Mum always was, and she was right.

mailto:y.alibhai-brown@independent.co.uk