About Me

Aloem
Saya adalah seorang pelajar di kota Bandung yang begitu indah. Dengan memiliki semangat yang tinggi dan tanpa menyerah,saya ingin menjadi orang yang berguna bagi semua orang, dan juga ingin mendapatkan apa yang saya inginkan.
View my complete profile

List of Qassam rocket attacks

5:46 PM Edit This 0 Comments »

List of Qassam rocket attacks

From Wikipedia


Most Qassam rockets hit Sderot in Israel
Number of Mortar & Rocket hits in Israel

This is a list of notable and/or newsworthy Qassam rocket and mortar attacks in the background context of the larger number of both rocket and mortar attacks. The high frequency of background attacks does not generally appear in the international news. Qassams were first fired at Israeli targets in April 16, 2001 and have both continued and increased since then. The first time an Israeli city was hit was on March 5, 2002, when two rockets struck Sderot. Some rockets have hit as far as the edge of Ashkelon. From 2001 until May 2008, there have been over 3,050 Qassam rockets fired at Israeli targets,[1], mainly against Sderot and the Western Negev. Fifteen (15)[citation needed] Israelis have been killed and over 433 injured, along with significant property damage. Additionally, more than 2,500 mortar attacks have been launched against Israel from Gaza. This has resulted in eight (8) Israeli deaths. Qassam's have a range of 3 to 10 kilometers. Mortars have a range of 1.7 to 6.0 kilometers. The Palestinian Sariya-1 is a 240 mm mortar with a 15 kilometer range.. The Grad rocket has a 20.5 kilometer range. Most of Israel remains out of range of these weapon systems. However, over time the range of the weapons used has increased. For example the transition from Qassam 1 through to Qassam 3 the range went from 3 to 10 kilometers and the explosive payload went from 0.5 kilograms to 10 kilograms, and this is expected to rise in the future. Since at least October 2007 Gaza terrorists have been using Google Earth to search for their targets.

A radar system or "red dawn alarm", was installed by the Israeli government. Sderot had a system installed before September 2005. Ashkelon began installation in July 2005, by April 2006 the system was completely installed. Red Color alerts Israelis to incoming rocket fire, but does not alert Israelis to mortar shelling. On cold or rainy days, the radar is ineffective in detecting the rocket launches. Sderot residents have 15 seconds, once the siren goes off, to escape to a bomb shelter. In 2005 Israel started a program to fortify homes and public buildings within range of Gaza missiles. This program was expanded in 2008, the cost estimates are over one billion shekels. An Iron Dome anti-rocket system is under development by Rafael. It is expected to be operational by 2011.

The Qassam rocket attacks have resulted in Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in both children and adults, with an estimated 33% of children living in Sderot suffering from PTSD .

Stop Pressing Israel to Make Concessions

11:58 AM Edit This 0 Comments »
The bloodshed of recent weeks confronts Palestinians, Israelis and Westerners with a major choice.

The Palestinians can decide either to end their campaign of violence against Israel or sustain it for months or even years. The historical record shows they might go either way: In August 1929 and September 1996, for example, their violence lasted only days. But from 1936 to 1939 (the "Arab Revolt") and 1987 to 1991 (the "intifada"), they used force for several years, showing a remarkable willingness to sacrifice lives and economic well-being.

What is likely this time--days or years? The mood among Palestinians, as well as their Arab and Muslim supporters, points to a long campaign of violence for many reasons, but primary among them is the Palestinian realization that Israel is no longer the heroic country of old. Rather, it is a weak, demoralized place, easily intimidated by small-scale violence.

Note how the much-vaunted Israeli army fled Lebanon this past May, defeated by a rag-tag group of Hezbollah terrorists. Just over a week ago, Israeli troops abandoned Joseph's Tomb, a Jewish holy site, under pressure from a street mob. Nor did Israel's response to the lynching of two of its soldiers last week impress: It dropped bombs from the air on some empty buildings, making sure not to inflict casualties.

With the Israelis seemingly in retreat, Palestinians have adopted aggressive slogans ("Down with the olive branch, long live the rifle!") and jihad-like calls for violence ("Kill the Jews") that suggest an intent to continue the violence for a long time to come.

Israelis also face a decision: whether to resume negotiations with the Palestinians on the basis of the Oslo assumptions. Translated from diplomatese, this means: Do Israelis go on expecting Yasser Arafat and the Palestinians, once they gain a state, to live in harmony with Israel? Or do they instead look at Palestinian behavior over the past seven years and draw the conclusion that the Palestinian urge to destroy Israel is immutable? Put another way, is the ultimate Palestinian goal the establishment of a state (Palestine) or is it the destruction of a state (Israel)?

In the aftermath of recent violence, Israelis have with a rare near-unanimity concluded that Palestinians will never accept the permanent existence of a sovereign Jewish country in the Middle East.

Oddly, however, this consensus does not translate into the logical policy decision, which would be to give up on Oslo-based diplomacy. A poll published on Friday shows that 63% of Israelis support a return to the table to negotiate with the Palestinians. Hearing them, Prime Minister Ehud Barak says he hopes to restart the diplomacy; toward that end, he has called on world leaders to pressure Arafat in the hope of convincing him to reach a "peace of the brave."

In other words, Israelis are so tired of fighting that even the current spasm of violence does not dissuade them from trying to reach a deal. Even if the negotiations begun in 1993 have not produced the desired results, the country's horror of war leads it to try again and again. Stonings, lynchings and other brutalities do not seem to touch the Israeli conclusion that "there is no alternative" to Oslo.

Finally, Americans, Europeans and the whole outside world face a choice: continue pressing Israel to make concessions to the Arabs, or adopt a very different approach.

Getting Israel to pull back from territory seized in the course of its defensive warfare is a story as old as Israel itself. In the short term, Israeli concessions bring many benefits to the outside world, for they tamp down the Arab-Israeli conflict, tone down Arab and Muslim anger toward the West and ease many government-to-government relations.

But this pattern of Israeli concessions cannot go on forever. At some point, Israel runs out of land to hand over. Buying off the Palestinians is at best a temporary policy, not something that can be indefinitely sustained.

Also, Israel gets precious little in return for its willingness to turn over land and other benefits. And rather than win goodwill from enemies, it prompts them to despise Israel and find it weak. Magnanimity leads not to friendship but to a dangerous mood of exhilaration and ambition.

Events like the retreat from Lebanon led the Arabs to see Israel as vulnerable. The smell of blood is in the air; from Morocco to Iran and beyond, large crowds have taken to the streets and overtly called for the destruction of the "Zionist entity." The Arab defeat of 1967 had seemingly dispatched this aspiration to the dustbin of history; but Israeli demoralization has revived the sense that just one more exertion is needed to eliminate the Jewish state.

This excitement has ominous implications. It directly challenges the Egyptian and Jordanian peace treaties with Israel. It sends the oil and stock markets into gyrations. Worst of all, it increases the chances of a full-scale Arab-Israeli war. Some Israelis are cognizant of this; a former aide to Yitzhak Rabin explains that "the image, especially in the media, of a weak Israel, has always led to war."

Nothing could be more detrimental to Western interests than such a war. The combination of Israeli demoralization and Arab triumphalism suggests the time has come for the United States and other Western states to stop pressing Israel to make concessions and instead to encourage it to adopt a policy of deterrence, to hang tough and to signal to its enemies that they risk terrible consequences if they use violence against it.

To do this requires the West to adopt a policy quite the reverse of what is now in effect: Rather than urge Israel to comply with the Arabs' wishes, urge it instead to impress them with its resolve to defend its security interests and take steps to show that resolve.

As unlikely as it sounds, such a policy is now necessary if the outside world wishes to take steps to prevent today's low-intensity conflict in the Middle East from turning into full-scale warfare.

by Daniel Pipes
Los Angeles Times
October 17, 2000

Who Will save Palestine?

11:54 AM Edit This 0 Comments »
Who will save Palestine?
Sonja Karkar, The Electronic Intifada, 11 July 2007

After Israel approved the release of 250 Palestinian prisoners from the Fatah movement, relatives of Palestinian prisoners not included in the 250 protest outside the Red Cross offices in Gaza City, 9 July 2007. (Wissam Nassar/MaanImages)

These days the Hamas acting government and Fatah "emergency government" are sapping the interest from any news story that might report on Israel's criminal acts inside Gaza and the West Bank. Both these Palestinian enclaves are still under Israel's military occupation -- one shunned and isolated by political intrigue and the other apparently working at cooperating with the occupier, and there's the tragedy of it all. Nothing that has happened in the last fortnight has stopped Israel in its tracks. Life for the Palestinians in the occupied territories is just as bitter and just as terrifying as it ever was only with a new dimension -- no one knows whom to believe or if there is a viable Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) left to champion their struggle against Israel's unrelenting land theft, apartheid practices and violent human rights abuses.

Israel swaggers on the world stage as if it has had no hand in the whole miserable Palestinian drama. This archenemy -- never given to negotiating a genuine peace -- is now being sought out as a negotiating partner when it has never accepted any Palestinian leader on an equal footing, much less given an inch. Its highly vaunted disengagement from Gaza did not give the Palestinians their freedom: instead, they found themselves in a vice-like grip from outside. In the West Bank, Israel has continued its settlement expansion uninterrupted, and for all the talks, Palestinians have only ever seen their land and property rights taken away and their freedom further curtailed. For the Palestinians to forget that in the current climate, would truly spell the end of the final status issues for which so many have given their lives and so many others have waited decades to see justly resolved. If such a travesty of justice were to occur, peace would be forever elusive.

It would be nice to think that Israel is simply weary of occupying four million people after 40 years, but Israel's economy is booming and there is a chilling reason for the rapid growth in what Israel calls the homeland security sector. Writing in The Guardian (16 June 2007), Naomi Klein says that "Israel has learned to turn endless war into a brand asset, pitching its uprooting, occupation and containment of the Palestinian people as a half-century head start in the 'global war on terror.'" How that will marry with the new political developments that should see Israel ease the punishing restrictions in the West Bank and opening the way for a Palestinian state, is anyone's guess. Chaos in the occupied territories has been extremely lucrative for Israel, enabling it to experiment with ever-more rigorous methods of population control using hi-tech surveillance systems. And a majority in Israel are not in the least perturbed by the mess of humanity squirming under the state's formidable "security" matrix, as long as the demographic threat is controlled, even eliminated.

If we take just the past week when Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas met with other leaders in Sharm el-Sheikh to discuss the way forward for Palestinians, what emerged was the usual proviso -- any concessions made by Israel would depend on Abbas' progress in bringing an end to violence. This completely ignores the ongoing violence of Israel's occupation and, in effect, requires the Palestinians to submit to that occupation before they will get any concessions from Israel. A cursory glance at the realities on the ground in the occupied territories would show just why Abbas would find that as difficult to achieve as his predecessor Arafat. Even as these leaders spoke and smiled for the world's cameras, Israeli army tanks lumbered into the Gaza Strip backed by Apache helicopters and F-16 fighter planes while around 80 Israeli army jeeps rolled into Nablus city in the northern West Bank. In Gaza, 14 Palestinians were killed and many more were injured; in Nablus some 30 Palestinians were arrested after Israeli soldiers began randomly shooting and blowing open the front doors of homes as they went from house to house in search of militants.

This is Israeli violence which apparently does not need to be reined in -- a violence the Palestinians are living with daily. People are constantly being arrested in large numbers: Israeli jails are overflowing with more than 11,000 Palestinian prisoners, amongst them women and children. People can be held for up to 18 days without charge and with no way of telling their families; they have no recourse to a fair trial and many are tortured. It makes a mockery of the 250 prisoners from the Fatah party whom Olmert has offered as a goodwill gesture to Abbas' "emergency government." Abbas may well find himself in the same position as Arafat when he was given the role of policing his own people after Oslo. Then, Arafat's police force was constantly subjected to arrests and attacks from the Israeli military in what soon became clear was a deliberate attempt by Israel to dismantle Arafat's administration. Emasculated, Arafat was unable to stop Palestinian armed resistance to the occupation and Israel took matters into its own hands and punished the Palestinians. Last week, Israel did not even bother to wait for Abbas to stabilise the situation in the West Bank. Its military decided to enforce "order" arbitrarily by raiding homes and arresting those it suspected of armed resistance. As long as the Palestinians remain under such belligerent occupation, Abbas or anyone else, will find it very difficult to build good governance as every attempt is sure to be undermined by Israel.

If Abbas needs a more recent reminder of just how impossible it is to normalize the governance of his people under Israel's conditions, he need look no further than the ceasefire he and former Israeli Prime Minister Sharon announced in 2005 to kick start US President Bush's "Road Map" negotiations and the eventual establishment of a Palestinian state. Abbas was required to end violence and suppress all armed resistance to Israel; Sharon agreed to end "operations." Well, Israel's belligerence did not stop even and it continued to take Palestinian land. That week, the Israeli government announced the construction of 400 housing units in a new illegal Jewish settlement near Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem just after the Israeli High Court had decided to allow building to continue on the Apartheid Wall, contrary to the opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Weeks later, Israel announced another 3,500 housing units in the largest illegal settlement of Ma'ale Adumim, effectively cutting Jerusalem off from the West Bank. And to put that in perspective, every one of those housing units and every addition to the Wall, has taken land away from the Palestinians and has made more Palestinians homeless. They have had to watch their homes being demolished, crops and trees uprooted, land razed and not a single penny paid in compensation.

Interestingly, Hamas did agree to a ceasefire or hudna which they held for 18 months, and other militant groups also complied, but it made no difference. Israel refused to enter into this ceasefire with Hamas and continued to assassinate its leaders even though Hamas held resolutely to the ceasefire. It was Hamas that held out the olive branch and Israel that rejected it. None of this should give any Palestinian party confidence in Israel's current promises or offerings. Over and over again, Israel has demonstrated a complete disdain for negotiating peace with the Palestinians.

The danger in cooperating with Israel when it is continuing to violate international law and ignore the ICJ advisory opinion is that it actually "normalizes" Israel's colonial efforts and may also prejudice any final status negotiations. Israel has been repeatedly told by the UN and the US to freeze all settlement activity, but it has not done so and has not been pressed to do so. Neither is Israel admonished nor held to account. The attempts to treat the Wall as a humanitarian rather than a political issue by the UN, also takes the pressure off Israel. There has been little talk of bringing the Wall down as advised by the ICJ, but plenty of talk about its path; without anyone realizing it, the Wall becomes "normalized." Every official discourse has edged away from insisting that the Wall violates international law: it has become expedient to ignore the rule of law, especially amongst those who should be upholding it. Without checks and balances in place and adhered to by everyone, Israel will always do what it wants and it is very evident from Israel's unresponsive past that waiting for Israel's cooperation alone will not be enough gain its compliance.

The situation is so dire now that Palestinians and their supporters are finding other ways of forcing Israel's compliance. Already, there is a growing move towards boycotts and sanctions which is being taken up globally, despite nasty campaigns to intimidate those prepared to take such nonviolent action. This form of resistance is very powerful because it is really the only effective way of bringing Israel's economic boom to a halt, particularly in the area of homeland security which impacts so drastically on the Palestinians under occupation. That is not in anyway to minimize the courageous non-violent resistance against the Apartheid Wall and other Israeli violations in communities affected all over the West Bank. The Palestinians' on-the-ground experience of the Wall's insidious effects on their personal lives and society has mobilized them as neither the Palestinian Authority nor the PLO has been able to do. They are refusing to accept any "normalization" of the Wall's presence, not just its path. The ICJ opinion is very clear on that -- the wall must be dismantled. Their nonviolent, but determined protests challenge its legitimacy with barely a mention in the Western media, if at all. In response, Israel uses tear gas, rubber bullets, beatings and arrests. This is what ought to be making the headlines, not whether Abbas or Hamas are fit partners for "peace."

The divisions that have caused so much bitterness internally threaten the national liberation framework. It is not helpful for Abbas to demand that the Hamas movement be isolated, especially since Hamas is calling for the resumption of the unity government. And, it does not look good that Israel's interference in Palestinian affairs is helping Abbas. Israeli Shin Bet interrogators have offered to release imprisoned Palestinian members of parliament and government officials, mostly from the Hamas party, only if they resign from their posts. They have refused. According to Palestinian Basic Law, it is the Legislative Council which must approve any new Cabinet or Prime Minister (Article 78) and with most of the members of parliament in Israeli prisons, no quorum can be formed to "legitimize" Abbas' "emergency government."

It would be far better for Abbas to urge both the Fatah and Hamas parties to come together in a show of solidarity and give the people some sense of resisting Israel's arrogant demands. Risking the disintegration of the Palestinian national agenda for a few crumbs will never satisfy the Palestinians: certainly, there is no reason to believe that cooperating with Israel will bring the final status issues any closer to the negotiating table. Olmert has already withdrawn his "peace" offer to Abbas that would have removed some roadblocks in the West Bank.

Any party that assumes the mantle of government must encourage unity and must recognize the human potential in every Palestinian regardless of religious or political affiliation. For it is in the people that Palestine has its strongest savior. Familial and community loyalty, their millennia-long history, their deep attachment to the land and their capacity to endure have made the Palestinians unbelievably resilient. Real leadership must build on that loyalty, not divide it. It means working with the people on a campaign of organized non-violent civil disobedience against Israel's inhuman abuses rather than the hopeless rounds of negotiations that have never delivered a single promise to the Palestinian people and have only further entrenched their occupation and tightened Israel's control.

Nonviolent civil disobedience inside Palestine will allow Palestinians in the Diaspora and their supporters to increase their own protests even more effectively and inspire others to become involved. We have already seen how horrified people were when they saw the brutality of Israel's actions in its war on Lebanon. Crying "war on terror," "victim," "Israel's security" and "Israel's right to exist" too many times is already beginning to rebound on those propagating Israel's "vulnerability" and people are asking what is the other side of the story. In many places now and through different media, people are beginning to listen to the Palestinian narrative, especially as people are becoming more and more sceptical about the honesty and motives of today's leaders.

One does not have to look far for inspiration to save Palestine. There are Palestinians in Beit Hanina, Beit Surik, Biddu, Dahya, Ram, Saffa, Beil'in, Hebron, Budrus -- and the list goes on -- who protest non-violently and creatively in organized groups against the Wall, against Israel's land theft and destruction, against the uprooting of trees, and against home demolitions. These grassroots movements should be emulated at every level of society until those who run the government have no choice but to listen and change. The smallest committed group can have a profound effect in influencing others and it is happening around the world. Churches have begun to divest from Israel; trade unions and universities have begun boycotts; doctors, members of parliament, writers and actors have signed petitions; retired ambassadors, statesmen and even a former US president are speaking out; and there are also Israelis who refuse to accept their government's policies and practices and are saying "not in our name."

There is more than the quivering of a movement. The awakening does not always happen immediately, but eventually the "butterfly effect"-- that notion that the flapping of a butterfly's wings will have a far-reaching ripple effect on events that seem impossibly removed in time and space -- takes hold. It already has. We can feel it here in distant Australia. One can only hope that this will give succour to the Palestinians struggling for liberation. If the leaders cannot do it, then the people themselves and everyone who believes in justice and peace the world over may yet indeed find a way to save Palestine -- and not before time.

Sonja Karkar is the founder and president of Women for Palestine in Melbourne, Australia.

History of Jerusalem

11:41 AM Edit This 0 Comments »
Ceramic evidence indicates the occupation of Ophel, within present-day Jerusalem, as far back as the Copper Age, c. 4th millennium BCE,[28][5] with evidence of a permanent settlement during the early Bronze Age, c. 3000-2800 BCE. The Execration Texts (c. 19th century BCE), which refer to a city called Roshlamem or Rosh-ramen and the Amarna letters (c. 14th century BCE) may be the earliest mention of the city. Some archaeologists, including Kathleen Kenyon, believe Jerusalem as a city was founded by West Semitic people with organized settlements from around 2600 BCE. According to Jewish tradition the city was founded by Shem and Eber, ancestors of Abraham. In the biblical account, when first mentioned, Jerusalem is is ruled by Melchizedek, an ally of Abraham (identified with Shem in legend). Later it is under control of the Jebusites until the 10th century BCE when David conquered it and made it the capital of the United Kingdom of Israel and Judah (c. 1000s BCE). Recent excavations of a large stone structure are interpreted by some archaeologists as lending credence to the biblical narrative.

Ceramic evidence indicates the occupation of Ophel, within present-day Jerusalem, as far back as the Copper Age, c. 4th millennium BCE, with evidence of a permanent settlement during the early Bronze Age, c. 3000-2800 BCE.[28][29] The Execration Texts (c. 19th century BCE), which refer to a city called Roshlamem or Rosh-ramen[28] and the Amarna letters (c. 14th century BCE) may be the earliest mention of the city.[30][31] Some archaeologists, including Kathleen Kenyon, believe Jerusalem as a city was founded by West Semitic people with organized settlements from around 2600 BCE. According to Jewish tradition the city was founded by Shem and Eber, ancestors of Abraham. In the biblical account, when first mentioned, Jerusalem is is ruled by Melchizedek, an ally of Abraham (identified with Shem in legend). Later it is under control of the Jebusites until the 10th century BCE when David conquered it and made it the capital of the United Kingdom of Israel and Judah (c. 1000s BCE). Recent excavations of a large stone structure are interpreted by some archaeologists as lending credence to the biblical narrative.

Temple periods

According to Hebrew scripture, King David reigned until 970 BCE. He was succeeded by his son Solomon, who built the Holy Temple on Mount Moriah. Solomon's Temple (later known as the First Temple), went on to play a pivotal role in Jewish history as the repository of the Ark of the Covenant. For over 600 years, until the Babylonian conquest in 587 BCE, Jerusalem was the political capital of the Kingdom of Judah and a religious center of the Israelites. This period is known in history as the First Temple Period. Upon Solomon's death (c. 930 BCE), the ten northern tribes split off to form the Kingdom of Israel. Under the leadership of the House of David and Solomon, Jerusalem remained the capital of the Kingdom of Judah.

The Tower of David as seen from the Hinnom Valley

When the Assyrians conquered the Kingdom of Israel in 722 BCE, Jerusalem was strengthened by a great influx of refugees from the northern kingdom. The First Temple period ended around 586 BCE, as the Babylonians conquered Judah and Jerusalem, and laid waste to Solomon's Temple. In 538 BCE, after fifty years of Babylonian captivity, Persian King Cyrus the Great invited the Jews to return to Judah to rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple. Construction of the Second Temple was completed in 516 BCE, during the reign of Darius the Great, seventy years after the destruction of the First Temple.[39][40] Jerusalem resumed its role as capital of Judah and center of Jewish worship. When Macedonian ruler Alexander the Great conquered the Persian Empire, Jerusalem and Judea fell under Macedonian control, eventually falling to the Ptolemaic dynasty under Ptolemy I. In 198 BCE, Ptolemy V lost Jerusalem and Judea to the Seleucids under Antiochus III. The Seleucid attempt to recast Jerusalem as a Hellenized polis came to a head in 168 BCE with the successful Maccabean revolt of Mattathias the High Priest and his five sons against Antiochus Epiphanes, and their establishment of the Hasmonean Kingdom in 152 BCE with Jerusalem again as its capital.

Jewish-Roman wars

Roman siege and destruction of Jerusalem (David Roberts, 1850)

As Rome became stronger it installed Herod as a Jewish client king. Herod the Great, as he was known, devoted himself to developing and beautifying the city. He built walls, towers and palaces, and expanded the Temple Mount, buttressing the courtyard with blocks of stone weighing up to 100 tons. Under Herod, the area of the Temple Mount doubled in size. In 6 CE, the city, as well as much of the surrounding area, came under direct Roman rule as the Iudaea Province and Herod's descendants through Agrippa II remained client kings of Judea until 96 CE. Roman rule over Jerusalem and the region began to be challenged with the first Jewish-Roman war, the Great Jewish Revolt, which resulted in the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE. In 130 CE Hadrian Romanized the city, and renamed it Aelia Capitolina. Jerusalem once again served as the capital of Judea during the three-year rebellion known as the Bar Kochba revolt, beginning in 132 CE. The Romans succeeded in recapturing the city in 135 CE and as a punitive measure Hadrian banned the Jews from entering it. Hadrian renamed the entire Iudaea Province Syria Palaestina after the biblical Philistines in an attempt to de-Judaize the country. Enforcement of the ban on Jews entering Aelia Capitolina continued until the 4th century CE.

In the five centuries following the Bar Kokhba revolt, the city remained under Roman then Byzantine rule. During the 4th century, the Roman Emperor Constantine I constructed Christian sites in Jerusalem such as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Jerusalem reached a peak in size and population at the end of the Second Temple Period: The city covered two square kilometers (0.8 sq mi.) and had a population of 200,000 From the days of Constantine until the 7th century, Jews were banned from Jerusalem.

Roman-Persian wars

Within the span of a few decades, Jerusalem shifted from Roman to Persian rule and returned to Roman dominion once more. Following Sassanid Khosrau II's early seventh century push into Byzantine, advancing through Syria, Sassanid Generals Shahrbaraz and Shahin attacked the Byzantine-controlled city of Jerusalem (Persian: Dej Houdkh).

In the Siege of Jerusalem (614), after 21 days of relentless siege warfare, Jerusalem was captured and the Persian victory resulted in the territorial annexation of Jerusalem. After the Sassanid army entered Jerusalem, the holy "True Cross" was stolen and sent back to the Sassanian capital as a battle-captured holy relic. Persians massacred up to 90,000 Christians. The conquered city and the Holy Cross would remain in Sassanid hands for some fifteen years until the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius recovered them in 629.

Islamic rule

Dome of the Rock viewed through Cotton Gate

Jerusalem is considered Islam's third holiest city after Mecca and Medina. Among Muslims of an earlier era, it was referred to as al-Bayt al-Muqaddas; later, it became known as al-Quds al-Sharif. In 638, the Islamic Caliphate extended its dominion to Jerusalem. With the Arab conquest, Jews were allowed back into the city. The Rashidun caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab signed a treaty with Monophysite Christian Patriarch Sophronius, assuring him that Jerusalem's Christian holy places and population would be protected under Muslim rule.[54] Umar was led to the Foundation Stone on the Temple Mount, which he cleared of refuse in preparation for building a mosque. According to the Gaullic bishop Arculf, who lived in Jerusalem from 679-688, the Mosque of Umar was a rectangular wooden structure built over ruins which could accommodated 3,000 worshipers. The Umayyad caliph Abd al-Malik commissioned the construction of the Dome of the Rock in the late 7th century. The 10th century historian al-Muqaddasi writes that Abd al-Malik built the shrine in order to compete in grandeur of Jerusalem's monumental churches. Over the next four hundred years, Jerusalem's prominence diminished as Arab powers in the region jockeyed for control.

Crusaders, Saladin and the Mamluks

Medieval illustration of capture of Jerusalem during the First Crusade, 1099

In 1099, Jerusalem was conquered by the Crusaders, who massacred most of its Muslim inhabitants and the remnants of the Jewish inhabitants; the Crusaders later expelled the native Christian population and created the Kingdom of Jerusalem. By early June 1099 Jerusalem’s population had declined from 70,000 to less than 30,000. According to Benjamin of Tudela, Two hundred Jews were in the city in 1173. In 1187, the city was wrested from the Crusaders by Saladin who permitted Jews and Muslims to return and settle in the city. In 1244, Jerusalem was sacked by the Kharezmian Tartars, who decimated the city's Christian population and drove out the Jews. The Khwarezmian Tatars were driven out by the Egyptians in 1247.From 1250-1517, Jerusalem was ruled by the Mamluks, during this period of time many clashes occurred between the Mamluks on one side and the crusaders and the Mongols on the other side. The area also suffered from many earthquakes and black plague.

Ottoman rule

In 1517, Jerusalem and environs fell to the Ottoman Turks, who generally remained in control until 1917. Jerusalem enjoyed a period of renewal and peace under Suleiman the Magnificent - including the rebuilding of magnificent walls around the Old City. Throughout much of Ottoman rule, Jerusalem remained a provincial, if religiously important center, and did not straddle the main trade route between Damascus and Cairo.[61] However, the Muslim Turks brought many innovations: modern postal systems run by the various consulates; the use of the wheel for modes of transportation; stagecoach and carriage, the wheelbarrow and the cart; and the oil-lantern, among the first signs of modernization in the city. In the mid 19th century, the Ottomans constructed the first paved road from Jaffa to Jerusalem, and by 1892 the railroad had reached the city.

With the annexation of Jerusalem by Muhammad Ali of Egypt in 1831, foreign missions and consulates began to establish a foothold in the city. In 1836, Ibrahim Pasha allowed Jerusalem's Jewish residents to restore four major synagogues, among them the Hurva.

Turkish rule was reinstated in 1840, but many Egyptian Muslims remained in Jerusalem. Jews from Algiers and North Africa began to settle in the city in growing numbers. In the 1840s and 1850s, the international powers began a tug-of-war in Palestine as they sought to extend their protection over the country's religious minorities, a struggle carried out mainly through consular representatives in Jerusalem. According to the Prussian consul, the population in 1845 was 16,410, with 7,120 Jews, 5,000 Muslims, 3,390 Christians, 800 Turkish soldiers and 100 Europeans. The volume of Christian pilgrims increased under the Ottomans, doubling the city's population around Easter time.

In the 1860s, new neighborhoods began to go up outside the Old City walls to house pilgrims and relieve the intense overcrowding and poor sanitation inside the city. The Russian Compound and Mishkenot Sha'ananim were founded in 1860.

Action after the war

11:40 AM Edit This 0 Comments »


The Coalition held a series of protests during November 2003 climaxing in a march on the 20th protesting against what it claims is the aggressive foreign policy of U.S. President George W. Bush, and against the continued U.S. detention of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, which protesters claim is an illegal infringement of human rights and the Geneva conventions. A march past parliament was organised climaxing in a rally in Trafalgar Square. A papier-mâché statue of Bush was toppled in an action reminiscent of the much televised pulling down of a statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad by American soldiers. Speakers included maverick MP George Galloway(then member of Labour Party now expelled and joined Respect), Scottish National Party leader Alex Salmond and Vietnam War veteran Ron Kovic.

The coalition estimates that 300,000 people were present at the demonstration, but this figure is disputed by the police estimate which put it as low as 100,000 people.[5]

On 19 March, 2005, StWC organised a large demonstration in Westminster with supporters marching from Hyde Park to Parliament Square via the US embassy. The supporters were calling for the invading troops to move out of Iraq, for the US to not attack Iran and Syria, for the UK government to halt reductions in the civil liberties of UK citizens including the right to protest and a free trial (which they allege would result from the recent Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005), and for a reduction in racism in the UK.

The date was chosen as the it was the international day of anti-war demonstrations, as called by the Assembly of the Social Movements at the 2004 European Social Forum. Estimates of the number of marchers vary from 45,000 by the police to over 100,000 by StWC to 200,000 by some observers. The protest was significant as it was the first time that a march had passed the US embassy in London since the protests over the Vietnam War.[citation needed]

Later in 2005 StWC sought to join the Make Poverty History coalition of groups campaigning around the 31st G8 summit, held in July of that year, for an end to poverty, but was prevented from doing so, by the MPH Coordinating Team, on the grounds that the issues of economic justice and development are separate from that of war. Nevertheless they independently organised for the MPH demo in Edinburgh on 2 July and in some areas campaigners from MPH and StWC worked together on a local level. They also managed to negotiate a stage in the park at the end of the march. It has been speculated that they were prevented from joining the MPH coalition because organisers wanted to avoid radical criticism of the Labour government[6]. Fellow anti-war group and StWC member organisation CND were allowed to join.

Following the 7 July 2005 London bombings, StWC in association with CND and the Muslim Association of Britain held a Vigil for the Victims at the Peace Garden in Euston, London on Saturday, 9 July, 2005 and a further solidarity gathering at Russell Square, close to one of the Underground stations targeted, on Sunday, 17 July, 2005. At the latter StWC national convenor Lindsey German condemned the bombings but added that “The only way to end the bombings is to withdraw from Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine. When we have justice around the world we will have peace as well.[7]. The StWC also supported vigils across the country.

In Autumn 2005 the StWC organised a demonstration on the 24th of September with the slogans Stop the Bombings, Stop the War, Bring the Troops Home, Defend Civil Liberties and Defend the Muslim Community. The protest was timed so as to coincide with the protests in Washington and to occur just before the start of the Labour Party Conference.

On 10 December, 2005 the StWC held an 'International Peace Conference' attended by around 1,500 people. Speakers from across the world included Cindy Sheehan, the American mother whose son died in Iraq; and Hassan Juma, president of the Iraqi Southern Oil Workers Union. At this conference a call was launched for an international demonstration on 18 March, 2006.

The March 18, 2006 anti-war protest in London took place with coaches coming from across the country.[citation needed]

Almost all the major British trade unions are affiliated to the Coalition and they are also mostly affiliated to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.[citation needed]

On 23 September, 2006 a demonstration was held outside the venue for the Labour Party Conference in Manchester which George Galloway, on his TalkSport radio show predicted would have a million protesters. Estimates of attendance varied from "around 20,000" by the police, "up to 50,000" from the Coalition[8], to "more than 50,000" by the Socialist Worker[9].

After the 2007 march, speeches in Trafalgar Sq.

The 2007 demo took place on 24 February 2007 in London, jointly organised with the CND. The themes of this march were No Trident and Troops Out of Iraq.

On 15th March 2008 another demonstration was held, marking the 5-year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq; although numbers did not match the original demonstrations, around 40,000 people marched from Trafalgar Square, across the Thames, and back around to Parliament Square, where banners were placed in sight of the House of Commons.

-Wikipedia-

STOP WAR

11:34 AM Edit This 0 Comments »
He Stop the War Coalition (StWC) (informally just Stop the War) is a United Kingdom anti war group set up on 21 September 2001.

The coalition has opposed the various wars that are claimed to be part of the ongoing war on terrorism. It has been the most prominent group in Britain campaigning against the war in Afghanistan and the Iraq War. The demonstration against the latter on 15 February 2003, which it organised in association with Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) and the Muslim Association of Britain, is claimed to be the largest public demonstration in British history..

The impetus to form the Stop the War Coalition came following the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States. The Coalition was launched at a public meeting of over 2,000 people at Friends' House in London [2], which was chaired by Lindsey German, then editor of the Socialist Workers Party's magazine Socialist Review. German argued that the action in Afghanistan, then under contemplation unless the Taliban government gave up Osama bin Laden, would lead to that country's "destruction", and "possibly a wider conflagration in the Indian subcontinent, Iran and the Middle East." Other speakers at the meeting included Jeremy Corbyn (Labour Member of Parliament (MP) for Islington North), Bruce Kent (of the CND), and John Rees (of the Socialist Workers Party).

Lindsey German became Convenor of the Coalition and a meeting on October 28 settled the Coalition's official aims. This meeting also elected a Steering Committee which consisted of a spectrum of left-wingers including representatives of Labour Left Briefing and the Communist Party of Britain. The Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee) and Alliance for Workers' Liberty failed to get elected, although both became members of the Coalition and participated in its activities.

The 'war' in title of the group refers the various wars that are claimed to be part of the ongoing war on terrorism. Once plans for the invasion of Iraq were under way, the slogan 'Not in my name' was widely used.

At their initial meeting the Coalition also adopted the slogan 'Against the racist backlash', asserting that a war against Afghanistan would be perceived as an attack on Islam and that Muslims, or those perceived as Muslim, would face racist attacks in Britain if the government joined the war. The Coalition worked closely with the Muslim Association of Britain in organising its demonstrations.

It also has the slogan 'Defend civil liberties' and has campaigned against the restrictions, such as detention without trial, which has been brought in by the present Labour government.

From Wikipedia