Rep. Ron Paul Stands Alone in Senate against Powerfull Israel Lobby

CNI reports

Rep. Ron Paul Stands Alone (defying AIPAC) in Voting Against Gaza Bill (see the latest CNI send about Dr. Paul's courage below):

On Wednesday, March 5, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 951, which condemns the ongoing Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, holding both Iran and Syria responsible for "sponsoring terror attacks." Additionally, the resolution claims that "those responsible for launching rocket attacks against Israel routinely embed their production facilities and launch sites amongst the Palestinian civilian population, utilizing them as human shields …". For the full text of House Resolution 951, please click here.

This resolution problematically includes a strong defense of the recent Israeli incursions in Gaza. The following is one such exert: "Whereas the inadvertent inflicting of civilian casualties as a result of defensive military operations aimed at military targets, while deeply regrettable, is not at all morally equivalent to the deliberate targeting of civilian populations as practiced by Hamas and other Gaza-based terrorist groups…"
The resolution passed the House with an unequivocal majority of 404 to 1 with four representatives voting present and nineteen abstaining. Who was the lone Member of Congress to stand up to the Israel Lobby? Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) not only voted against HR 951, but also made a very strong statement explaining why he opposed such a biased pro-Israel statement.

Below is Rep. Paul's statement he gave to the House before the vote:

Mr. Speaker I rise in opposition to H. Res. 951, a resolution to condemn Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli civilians. As one who is consistently against war and violence, I obviously do not support the firing of rockets indiscriminately into civilian populations. I believe it is appalling that Palestinians are firing rockets that harm innocent Israelis, just as I believe it is appalling that Israel fires missiles into Palestinian areas where children and other non-combatants are killed and injured.

Unfortunately, legislation such as this is more likely to perpetuate violence in the Middle East than contribute to its abatement. It is our continued involvement and intervention - particularly when it appears to be one-sided - that reduces the incentive for opposing sides to reach a lasting peace agreement.

Additionally, this bill will continue the march toward war with Iran and Syria, as it contains provocative language targeting these countries. The legislation oversimplifies the Israel/Palestine conflict and the larger unrest in the Middle East by simply pointing the finger at Iran and Syria. This is another piece in a steady series of legislation passed in the House that intensifies enmity between the United States and Iran and Syria. My colleagues will recall that we saw a similar steady stream of provocative legislation against Iraq in the years before the US attack on that country.

I strongly believe that we must cease making proclamations involving conflicts that have nothing to do with the United States. We incur the wrath of those who feel slighted while doing very little to slow or stop the violence.

The Council for the National Interest denounces H.R. 951 and encourages our members to call their Representative to let them know that this approval of Israeli aggression and flagrant human rights abuses is unacceptable. To find out how your Representative voted, please click here.

In addition, please thank Rep. Paul for his brave actions on Wednesday. Contact his office today and express your gratitude by calling (202) 225-2831.


Reported by CNI@ Council for the National Interest Foundation

Were the Archbishop's Comments on Sharia Law Justifiable?

A debate at Press TV london

Broadcast on 26 February 2008.

Watch @ PresTV, Forum

The Forum - Sharia controversy: justified fear or media circus?

Host: Phil Rees

Panelists:
The Reverend Stephen Coles, is a member of the General Synod of the Church of England and Vicar of St Thomas', Finsbury Park, London

Dr Daud Abdullah is deputy secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain

Alex Deane, member of Church of England. He is the author of 'The Great Abdication: Why Britain's Decline of the Middle Class' and is former Chief of Staff to leader of the Conservative Party David Cameron MP.

Mohammad Saeed Bahmanpour, raised in Iran, studied at Queen Mary College London, the London School of Economics and the Allameh Tabatabai University in Tehran and most recently a lecturer at the Islamic College for Advanced Studies in London. His latest book, Muslim Identity in the 21st Century, was published in London in 2001.

Preview:
This week Forum was discussing sharia law in the UK. A lecture to lawyers by the chief religious leader of the Church of England, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, earlier this month, has sparked off serious attacks against him in the media with headlines including 'Bash the Bishop.' Commentators from both from the political right and left both criticised him, some calling for his resignation, whilst colleagues in his Church have questioned his judgement. The subject at the centre of the row is sharia law in the UK, with Williams questioning whether British law should legally recognise aspects of religious law.

Political leaders Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg all disagree fearing the universal value of equality before the law in the UK would be undermined by the introduction of parallel foreign laws. Fears also of the fragmenting of society have been stoked up by the recycling of an ICM poll in 2006 claiming 40% of Muslims would favour the introduction of sharia laws in the pre-dominantly Muslim areas. But few have asked exactly what is sharia and what parts of the legal system would be affected.

Can sharia like elements of other religious laws be formally practiced in the UK? Those sympathetic to sharia claim sharia courts have been operating in England for a number of years and Muslims are only seeking equality in the law with the likes of the Jewish and other communities.

Should we be more concerned with sharia or with the reporting behind it? And does this tell us about wider underlying attitudes towards Muslims behind the issue of the sharia law?

Watch @ PresTV, Forum