Can You Smell What The Articles Roundup Is Cooking???

OK, so I haven't done a roundup in about a week due to the insane business of the holidays and other drama. However, I have a lot of great articles to share with you, so bear with me. I thought about doing this in two or three parts, but as the next round of holidays are quickly finding their way upon us, and I have to hurry up and get my papers together for my last semester of my MA degree, I just realize that I simply don't have the time. If you can't sit through the whole thing, at least peruse around for the articles that find the most interest with you since these are written in no particular order.

-Starting out tonight, is Jewish World View. As British PM Tony Blair's almost decade long premiership comes to an end, there are those that are pontificating that he might be ousted earlier than expected because of his support for ISRAEL this past summer in their war against Hezbollah. Yes, that's right. Because PM Blair "allowed" Israel to defend its sovereignty and citizens against thousands of rockets being lobbed INDISCRIMINATELY at 1/3 of its populationg, including thousands of Israeli Arabs and Druze, he has been staunchly criticized and threatened. Watch the previous article's documentary on the down-ward fall of the British Left to find out why. Anyways, these accusations against Blair are extremely ironic given the facts of the following article.

Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair is Israel's best friend in Europe.

And he's not a very good friend.

Immediately after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US, Blair was instrumental in convincing US President George W. Bush to view the Palestinian jihad against Israel as a conflict completely separate from the global jihad. His success in convincing Bush of this distinction turned the anti-Semitic - not to mention strategically disastrous — view that terrorists who kill Israelis should be treated differently from terrorists who kill anyone else, into one of the cognitive foundations of the US war on Islamic terror. This foundation was first enunciated at Bush's address Sept. 20 before the joint session of Congress where he identified "every terrorist with global reach" — that is every terrorist that isn't part of the Palestinian Authority — as enemies of the US.

Later, Blair was a principal force behind Bush's move to abandon the guidelines for dealing with the Palestinians that he enunciated in his speech on June 24, 2002. In that address, Bush stipulated that the Palestinians needed to transform themselves from a society that supported terror into one that combated terror in order to receive US support for Palestinian statehood. Shortly after the fall of Baghdad to Coalition forces in April 2003, Blair convinced Bush to accept the Road Map plan for Palestinian statehood. The Road Map, which effectively locks in US support for Palestinian statehood irrespective of Palestinian terrorism and radicalism, represented a practical abandonment of the positions that Bush set out in his June 24, 2002 address.
[....]

READ THE REST...
-Next up in Jewish World Review, Andy Borowitz takes a good look at the poll numbers and shows how when it comes to a Democratic Presidential match-up between Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, most people would rather prefer SUICIDE.
-Zionism-Israel also has a couple of good articles in their line-up this week. First up, they show how an innocent looking New York Times article really translates into the blatant fact that the new "robust" UNIFIL force in Lebanon is merely there to once again to protect HEZBOLLAH against Israel.

Under the innocent sounding headline, U.N. Force Is Treading Lightly on Lebanese Soil, the New York Times explains that essentially the UN force in Lebanon is betraying its mandate under UN Security Council Resolution 1701. Instead of stopping the flow of arms to Hezbollah and beginning the process of disarming the terrorist group, the UN force is there to protect the Lebanese against Israel, according to UN soldiers. Since the only force Israel would attack in Lebanon is the Hezbollah, this means essentially that the UN is providing a shield for a terrorist group, if the New York Times article is correct.
[....]

-Next up and related to the above article, the writers look at whether it's even possible to ignore the UN.

[...] Israeli governments have been generally able to afford the attitude of "oom shmoom" (UN is BS in free translation) for many years, protected largely by US vetos in the Security Council. However, the idea that the UN has no effect whatever on Israel is false, and continuing to ignore the real problems in the UN in the future is reckless.

UN anti-Israel resolutions and their activities under the so-called The Question of Palestine produce direct damage, indirect damage and collateral damage.

Direct damage are resolutions that are unfair to Israel because they condemn Israel unilaterally and actions such as the International Court of Justice ruling on the Security Fence and countless resolutions condemning Israeli actions in Jerusalem. The egregious examples are resolutions of the General Assembly such as the "Zionism is Racism" resolution which was essentially an international lynch of Israel, and which delegitimized Zionism throughout the world. The resolution was repealed, but the effect is to some extent not reversible. We can also count on UN Cease Fire resolutions that will generally stop the fighting in any Middle East war only when Israel is clearly winning or gaining some advantage. If the Hezbullah had conquered half the Galilee, there would have been no UN Resolution 1701 to stop the fighting in Lebanon. As long as Israel was losing the Yom Kippur war, there was no resolution to stop that war. There was no resolution condemning Arab aggression in 1967 or 1973 or in 2006. The UN is not really trying to get back the Israeli hostages held by Hezbollah. UN action or inaction costs Israeli lives.

Indirect Damage is caused by biased interpretation of resolutions, and biased implementation. This is egregiously evident in the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which was supposed to neutralize the Hezbollah, and is instead being used essentially to protect the Hezbollah and give them a screen for building up Hezbollah forces to attack Israel. UN resolutions on internationalization of Jerusalem were remembered by the Security council only when Israel violated them. For 19 years the Jordanian government illegally occupied the old city of Jerusalem, transferred population there in violation of international law, and prevented Jews from worshipping at their holy places, in violation of the armistice agreements. The N did absolutely nothing. UN General Assembly Resolution 194 has been reinterperted by Arab states to mean that Palestinian refugees have a right to return to Israel, even though the resolution refers to all refugees (including Jewish refugees) and does not mention a "right" to return. This interpretation is now accepted by much of the world and many organizations including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, even though in this case "right of return" contradicts international law. UN General Assembly Resolution 242 is now interpreted by Arabs and Europeans as requiring Israeli withdrawal from ALL territories conquered in the 6 day war, even though this interpretation was specifically excluded by the framers of the resolution. The excuse is that the French version is worded differently, but in fact the French version does not refer to withdrawal from "all territories" either.
[....]

-Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook, from Palestinian Media Watch ask whether the past release of masses of Palestinian prisoners and terrorists are the cause of this summer's kidnappings. My answer would be Nuh-Duh, but I'm sure their article is a little bit more elquent than that.
-Out of all the great articles written in the past week by the Jerusalem Post, I picked the next 4 articles to include in today's roundup.
In the past, the center of the Arab World and Arab authority was Egypt. However, after its failures in both 1956 and 1967 wars against Israel, its authority and strength was extensively questioned by all members of the Arab Leagure and Arabs around the world. After it made peace with Israel in the late 1970s after "redeeming" itself in the Yom Kippur War, it seemed Egypt's reign over the Arab World had ended. However, it seems that now, once again, all eyes are on Egypt.

The Middle East has enough crises already, but there is one more creeping up, almost invisibly, on the region that may some day soon eclipse all the others: Who and what will rule Egypt after President Hosni Mubarak leaves the scene?

It used to be that Egypt was obviously the most important of Arabic-speaking countries in everything from population size, to regional influence, to cultural power. And if this is not as apparent as it was a couple of decades ago, the relative importance of Egypt still looms large.

Only thrice in the last 55 years has power changed hands at the top in Cairo: in 1952 to the military junta that brought forth Gamal Abdel Nasser; in 1970, when Anwar Sadat succeeded to the presidency on Nasser's death; and in 1981, when Mubarak took over when Sadat was assassinated.

That's a pretty impressive record of stability. Whether the next time will be as smooth and consistent is, however, very much open to question.
[...]
Those who know what goes on in Cairo say that no real decision has been made about Mubarak's successor. When Sadat died, vice president Mubarak stepped into his place. Today, there is no vice president. The name one most hears spoken of as the next president is Mubarak's son, Gamal.

TO SOME extent, Gamal has been moved in the direction of inheriting Egypt. He has become an important personage in the ruling party; he has been dispatched on trips to the United States and Europe. As with Syria's current president and former crown prince Bashar Assad, Gamal has been portrayed, probably with better reason than his Syrian counterpart, as a sort of Westernized, New-Age, hi-tech kind of guy.

Yet he has clear limitations. Reportedly, a European ambassador fell asleep in the midst of a Gamal lecture and others were similarly uninspired. Charisma, he hasn't.
[....]

-As any-one who has been watching any sort of news over the last year knows, Gaza and the Palestinian Authority are very much on the verge of collapse and civil war. Briefly halted for a couple of months after the kidnapping of Cpl Gilad Shalit and Israel's military response, Hamas Vs. Fatah terrorist gang wars are now back in full swing. Just this past weekend, over a dozen people were killed in protests by opposing terrorist members, including at least one child. Why parents bring their children to "protests" and "parades" or even funerals where gun-toting socio-paths negligently and randomly shoot their Kolichnikovs, pistols, and M-16s every which way is beyond me, but I digress. Anyways, this past week's violent clashes, the MSM's quick attempts to hide and obfustigate what's really going on, and the complete ineptitude of Abbas to form a unity government with ruling Hamas may be the turning point into turning a budding clash between rival terrorist organizations into total chaos, anarchy, and complete civil war. Not that these things weren't aroung already, but the picture's getting harder to ignore. When Condi Rice says that peace is still possible even with the "current government" is juxtaposed with the "current government", Hamas, shooting at protesters crying for their pay checks, it's getting just a tad harder to take these "diplomatic" words very seriously.
-In keeping with the UN theme, we move to a differnt UN organization that has been solely formed and specially designated to work 24/7/365 on the Palestinian refugee "problem", UNRWA. Yes, this bears repeating until you bloody left-wing liberals get it through your thick pot smoked brains. Out of the MILLIONS of refugees that exist in the world today, in much more dire conditions than the Palestinians [I might add], it ONLY the Palestinians that have received special recognition and special designation and organizations formed just for THEM. Don't you feel all warm and fuzzy inside now? In any case, it seems that, and not surprising in the least bit, UNRWA has been ciolating regulations when it hires employees.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) does not check agency beneficiaries against a list of known terrorists identified by the police or Israeli government, US Congressmen Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Steven Rothman (D-NJ) told US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a letter released for publication on Thursday.

In the letter, Kirk and Rothman cited a recently released United Nations Board of Auditors report that included a harsh assessment of UNRWA's management, efficiency and security.

Additionally, Kirk and Rothman called on Rice to do more to ensure UNRWA is complying with federal anti-terrorism laws.
[...]
Repeatedly, UNRWA has refused to give names of Palestinian staff who left their agency positions to run for the PA parliament as Hamas candidates. While pledging to the State Department that they deny humanitarian assistance to terrorists, UNRWA does not check beneficiaries against a list of known terrorists provided by the police or Israeli government.

"In the increasingly hostile environment of the Middle East, with the Palestinian Authority now controlled by the Hamas terrorist organization, we must upgrade our oversight of the more than $100 million US taxpayers contribute to UNRWA," said Kirk. "After an exhaustive review of the UN's own audit, it is clear UNRWA is wrought by mismanagement, ineffective policies, and failure to secure its finances. We must upgrade UNRWA's financial controls, management and enforcement of US law that bars any taxpayer dollars from supporting terrorists."

"US anti-terror law explicitly prohibits taxpayer dollars from supporting terrorists. However, we know that a number of UNRWA staff ran for parliament in the Palestinian territory as official Hamas candidates earlier this year. We know that Hamas supports the indiscriminate killing of civilians. We know that UNRWA cannot account for large amounts of money it has spent.

And we know that UNRWA does not check Palestinian beneficiaries against a list of known terrorists," said Congressman Steve Rothman (D-NJ). "With all of this information known, the United States must find out what is unknown: Are US tax dollars funding terrorists through UNRWA?"
[....]

-Finally, in another exmple of the British Jewish community's rapid down-ward spiral into dhimmitude, The Board of Guardians of British Jews have banned Jewish comedian, Sacha Baron Cohen, otherwise known as Ali G from attending any British synagogue for at least the next 6 months. Why? Because one of his bits, spoofing a Khazakh reporter, has pist off the Kazakhstan government, and the British Jewish community has been "working so hard" (insert boohoohooing cry here) to create a solid relationship with that country. Give me a break! Barring some-one from synangogue is called Herem, excomminication. That means he won't even count as part of a Minyan, or the minimum 10 men over the age of 13 required for a congregation to pray certain things. Excommunication is only given to a person who has committed only the most agrievous acts, like adultery or murdery etc. Last time I checked, pissing off the Kazakhstan government, who can't seem to take a joke, isn't grounds for excommunication.
-Drinking Coke or Pepsi lately? Been donning the fancy makeup like L'Oreal or wearing L'eggs pantyhose? Have you not been able to give up those darn Marboro cigarettes that are just so good and oh so bad? Well, guess what? You have become part of the Zionist conpspiracy!!! HAHAHAHA!!!! Well, or so Iran says.

Iran Lists Coke and Pepsi Among 'Zionist Companies' to be Boycotted

Both Coke and Pepsi have been accused by Iran’s state-run media of funding Israeli “colonialism.”

A three-minute broadcast on Iranian says, “Pepsi stands for ‘Pay Each Penny to Save Israel,” adding that “Zionists are the biggest shareholders in the soft drinks industry, and each year they make billions of dollars for their colonialist aims.”

“[Coke also] openly supports Israel and has even said that it is ready to allocate a great deal of money to topple the Islamic republic,” the broadcast continues. “For each purchase, the money is converted into bullets piercing the chests of Lebanese and Palestinian kids.”

Other companies labeled Zionist by the Islamic Republic were Sara Lee, Champion sportswear, L'eggs pantyhose, Marks & Spencer, Nestle, Intel, MacDonald's, Marlboro, Disney, Timberland, Revlon, Hugo Boss, Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger, L'Oreal, and Garnier.

-Tired of seeing Israel as the only country being constantly and consistently accused of violating international human rights while other countries literally get away with murder and genocide? Are you that person that believes every single bad thing that's reported about Israel to the point where you answer a poll question saying that Israel if the NUMBER ONE THREAT TO THE WORLD AND WORLD PEACE? If so, you need to watch this video to get a sense of what's really going on and what Israel has really done about humanitarian crises.
-Being that Yom Kippur just passed us by a couple of days ago, I thought it would be nice and appropriate to pass along these Yom Kippur reflections.
-Surprisingly and very un-PC of the Pentagon, in a recent briefing they concluded that suicide bombers rationally use and follow the Koran's words when committing their murderous and terrorist acts.

With suicide bombings spreading from Iraq to Afghanistan, the Pentagon has tasked intelligence analysts to pinpoint what's driving Muslim after Muslim to do the unthinkable.

Their preliminary finding is politically explosive: it's their "holy book" the Quran after all, according to intelligence briefings obtained by WND.

In public, the U.S. government has made an effort to avoid linking the terrorist threat to Islam and the Quran while dismissing suicide terrorists as crazed heretics who pervert Islamic teachings.

"The terrorists distort the idea of jihad into a call for violence and murder," the White House maintains in its recently released "National Strategy for Combating Terrorism" report.

But internal Pentagon briefings show intelligence analysts have reached a wholly different conclusion after studying Islamic scripture and the backgrounds of suicide terrorists. They've found that most Muslim suicide bombers are in fact students of the Quran who are motivated by its violent commands – making them, as strange as it sounds to the West, "rational actors" on the Islamic stage.

In Islam, it is not how one lives one's life that guarantees spiritual salvation, but how one dies, according to the briefings. There are great advantages to becoming a martyr. Dying while fighting the infidels in the cause of Allah reserves a special place and honor in Paradise. And it earns special favor with Allah.

"Suicide in defense of Islam is permitted, and the Islamic suicide bomber is, in the main, a rational actor," concludes a recent Pentagon briefing paper titled, "Motivations of Muslim Suicide Bombers."
[....]

-Think this philosophy is being applied in only fringe societies in fringe parts of the world? Think again. Take a look at the list of terror attacks that occurred in past 4 months, alone. Tell me again how terrorism is confined to the Israel-Arab conflict and how if there were only peace between Israel and the Palestinians, all terrorism and the world's problems would dissapear. If you bother to read the descriptions of the attacks, you'll notice a very strong pattern. The majority of these terror attacks are committed by Muslims against OTHER MUSLIMS!
-I don't want to dwell on it too much since I don't believe it's worth the time. Why? Because I don't believe the Pope did or said anything wrong in his speech that has the world-wide Muslim community all hot and bothered. However, here is an excellent article about the hypocricy of the left and terror apologists. To put it simply, Pope Benedict is being blamed and astrocized for contronting evil in our midst while the left continue to use Pope Pius XII as an example of religion not doing enough to STOP evil in the world. For those of you a little soft on your holocaust history, Pope Pius XII was the Pope preceeding and during World War II and the Holocaust. Even after numerous and countless pleas from not only Jews but from many many brave Catholics, priests and worshippers alike, and other non-Jews, the Pope refused to do anything to help or protest the plight of the Jews and those catholics being persecuted by the Nazi regime. Left, make up your mind. Either, you want the Church to confront evil, or you want them to shut their mouths to it. You can't have both, and you certainly can't apologize for evil while castigating yourself to it at the same time. No playing both sides of the fence in this war.
-OK, one more article in regards to the reaction to the Pope's speech. The Australian has had some brilliant articles lately on how the big controversy and question surrounding the Pope's speech shouldn't be and ISN'T whether he should apologize or what the apology should consist of. But, rather, they've been asking the elephant in the room question of why hasn't anybody been asking why perceived offences against Islam always ends up in violence, murder, and threats of whole-sale infidel genocide instead of peaceful protests and petitions. The latest article deals with the blatant fact that all proclaimed moderate Muslims need to embrace and incorporate into their ever-day thinking. Islamo-fascists believe that violence against innocent people is a basic belief and tenent of Islam. In order to properly deal with it, it must be confronted and talked about. Criticizing the bad things that occur within a religion cannot be threatened and silenced, or else the problem will truely become catastrophic.

[...] According to Britain's Daily Mail, Anjem Choudary of the British Muslim organisation al-Ghurabaa, was leading a rally outside Westminster Abbey when he asked for Catholicism's supreme leader to be subjected to capital punishment, and Somali religious leader Abubukar Hassan Malin has declared that the Pope should be hunted down and killed "on the spot".

Australia's Cardinal George Pell weighed into the debate, suggesting that violent responses to the Pope's September 12 lecture demonstrate the link "for the Islamists" between religion and violence.

On the other hand, no less a figure than the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdel Aziz al-Sheikh, issued a statement on the official Saudi news service, defending Muslims' divine right to resort to violence: "The spread of Islam has gone through several phases, secret and then public, in Mecca and Medina. God then authorised the faithful to defend themselves and to fight against those fighting them, which amounts to a right legitimised by God. This ... is quite reasonable, and God will not hate it."
[...]
Any attempt to critique some of Islam's teachings is likely to be met with loud and vociferous denunciations of the church's moral failings, such as its appalling track record of anti-Semitism. And did I mention the crusades? Finally, the reality is that Muslims adhere to widely varying beliefs and practices. Most people are understandably afraid to come to their own conclusions about violent passages in the Koran, lest they find themselves demonising Muslims.

But does the Koran incite violence, and how does its message compare with the Bible?

The Koran: It is self-evident that some Koranic verses encourage violence. Consider for example a verse which implies that fighting is "good for you": "Fighting is prescribed upon you, and you dislike it. But it may happen that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you. And Allah knows and you know not." (2:216)

On the other hand, it is equally clear that there are peaceful verses as well, including the famous "no compulsion in religion" (2:256).

Resolving apparently contradictory messages presents one of the central interpretative challenges of the Koran. Muslims do not agree today on how best to address this. For this reason alone it could be regarded as unreasonable to claim that any one interpretation of the Koran is the correct one.
[...]
Any attempt to critique some of Islam's teachings is likely to be met with loud and vociferous denunciations of the church's moral failings, such as its appalling track record of anti-Semitism. And did I mention the crusades? Finally, the reality is that Muslims adhere to widely varying beliefs and practices. Most people are understandably afraid to come to their own conclusions about violent passages in the Koran, lest they find themselves demonising Muslims.

But does the Koran incite violence, and how does its message compare with the Bible?

The Koran: It is self-evident that some Koranic verses encourage violence. Consider for example a verse which implies that fighting is "good for you": "Fighting is prescribed upon you, and you dislike it. But it may happen that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you. And Allah knows and you know not." (2:216)

On the other hand, it is equally clear that there are peaceful verses as well, including the famous "no compulsion in religion" (2:256).

Resolving apparently contradictory messages presents one of the central interpretative challenges of the Koran. Muslims do not agree today on how best to address this. For this reason alone it could be regarded as unreasonable to claim that any one interpretation of the Koran is the correct one.
[....]

-Want a quick 90 second history of the Middle East? Head over to Maps of War for an excellent presentation.
-Don't believe that massive Muslim immigration into Europe has become a problem? Afraid you might be branded a xenophobe if you ask? Want to call be a xenophobe for even bringing it up? Well, why don't you read about Muslim Arab gang RAPE epidemic occurring throughout all of Europe. While you're at it, take a good long hard look at the pictures of the victims and then come back and call me a xenophobe.
-Have you been protesting Israel's Security Fence lately? Hmmm...? Are you joining n the cries of accusing Israel of being an Apartheid State, and using the "Apartheid Wall" as proof of your accusation? Well, maybe you need to read about all the other countries building fences along their borders in order to prevent TERRORISTS from seeping into their midsts. M'kay?

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - Saudi Arabia is pushing ahead with plans to build a fence to block terrorists from crossing its 560-mile border with
Iraq — another sign of growing alarm that Sunni-Shiite strife could spill over and drag Iraq's neighbors into its civil conflict.
[...]
The ambitious project reflects not only concern over terrorism but also growing alarm over the situation in Iraq, where U.S. forces are struggling to prevent sectarian violence from escalating to full-scale civil war between that nation's Shiite majority and Sunni minority.

All of Iraq's neighbors, including the Saudis, fear the violence could spill over the borders and threaten their own security.
[....]

-OK, fine, one more bed-time story about the UN. As Kofi Annan readies himself to step down from the Secretary General's podium and ride off into the sun-set and let another hapless anti-semitic despot terrorist dictaror apologist take his reign, it's necessary to look at Kofi's tenure to see what he's really done in office. In addition to the Oil-For-Food scandal, the epidemic and almost regulated rape committed by UN "peace-keeping" forces in Africa against the very people they're sworn to protect, the lack-thereof of any response to the labeled genocide going on in Darfur, not to mention being the reigning SG over the Durbin Conference in 2001 in which Israel was demonized and blamed for every ill and human rights violation in the world and basically voted on to cease to exist, it would be interesting to see whether the venerable UN Secretary General Kofi Annan actually has blood on his own hands.

As Kofi Annan prepares to stand down as UN secretary-general, Adam LeBor investigates the accusations made against the world’s chief defender of human rights
THE CASE AGAINST KOFI ANNAN

The bodies were still warm when Lieutenant Ron Rutten found them: nine corpses in civilian clothes lying crumpled by a stream, each shot in the back at close range. It was July 12, 1995, and the UN-declared “safe area” of Srebrenica had fallen the previous day. The lush pastures of eastern Bosnia were about to become Europe’s bloodiest killing fields since 1945.

Refugees poured into the UN compound. But the Dutch peacekeepers (Dutchbat) were overwhelmed and the Serbs confiscated their weapons. “From the moment I found those bodies, it was obvious to me that the Bosnian Serbs planned to kill all the men,” Rutten said. He watched horrified as Dutch troops guided the men and boys onto the Serb buses.

Srebrenica is rarely mentioned nowadays in Annan’s offices on the 38th floor of the UN secretariat building in New York. He steps down in December after a decade as secretary-general. His retirement will be marked by plaudits. But behind the honorifics and the accolades lies a darker story: of incompetence, mismanagement and worse. Annan was the head of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) between March 1993 and December 1996. The Srebrenica massacre of up to 8,000 men and boys and the slaughter of 800,000 people in Rwanda happened on his watch. In Bosnia and Rwanda, UN officials directed peacekeepers to stand back from the killing, their concern apparently to guard the UN’s status as a neutral observer. This was a shock to those who believed the UN was there to help them.

Annan’s term has also been marked by scandal: from the sexual abuse of women and children in the Congo by UN peacekeepers to the greatest financial scam in history, the UN-administered oil-for-food programme. Arguably, a trial of the UN would be more apt than a leaving party.
[....]

Technorati Tags: Israel, Great, Britain, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Hizbollah, Tony, Blair, UN, United+Nations, Kofi, Annan, Pope, Muslim, Islam, Terror, Terrorist, Koran, Quran, Bombing, Attack, Rwanda, Bosnia, Egypt, Saudi+Arabia, Fence, Apartheid, War