Search our collection of 12.063 BOOKS


Search our 2.824 News Items



We found 1 books

We found 10 news item(s)

The covers of the following books are not yet photographed

THE WAR, The War. Weekly Magazine covering the war, s.l., -, February-April 1940.

Tehran Times
Iran eist schadevergoeding van USA voor acties sinds 1953
Edited: 201605190005
Iranian parliament has passed a bill demanding that the government seek damages from the United States’ “hostile action and crimes” committed since 1953, citing “material or moral damage” caused by Washington’s policy toward Iran.
Among the “hostile actions” mentioned in the bill are the US support for the coup against the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953, aiding Saddam Hussein in the war between Iraq and Iran in the 1980s, destruction of oil platforms in the Persian Gulf in 1988, and espionage against the Islamic Republic as well as confiscation of Iranian external assets, Tehran Times reports.
RT News
Women in Saudi Arabia: no coffee at Starbucks
Edited: 201602051253
Women in Riyadh have been banned from local Starbucks after a barrier designed to keep the genders apart collapsed. The company suggested female customers send their drivers to pick up drinks.
The coffee shop now has a sign in Arabic and English: “Please no entry for ladies only. Send your driver to order. Thank you.”
A woman tweeted the warning, saying “Starbucks store in Riyadh refused to serve me just because I’m a woman and asked me to send a man instead.”
Female segregation is enshrined in Saudi Arabian law. Women are required the approval of a male to leave the house. Last December, women in Saudi Arabia were given the right to vote in local elections, but they are still forbidden to drive.
Als die Soldaten kamen. Die Vergewaltigung deutscher Frauen am Ende des Zweiten Weltkriegs.
Edited: 201503150814

ISBN 978-3-421-04633-8
Darin werden insbesondere Vergewaltigungen durch westliche Alliierte thematisiert, wodurch das Werk eine kontroverse Debatte auslöste. Gebhardt fordert unter anderem, Vergewaltigungen nach Kriegsende stärker aufzuarbeiten.Rezensenten lobten, Gebhardt habe eine „Stärkung der Empathiekompetenz der Öffentlichkeit“ zum Ziel.
Miriam Gebhardt (* 28. Januar 1962 in Freiburg) ist eine deutsche Historikerin, Autorin und Journalistin.

Comment in English:
A million women were raped by Allied soldiers in Germany in the immediate aftermath of World War II, a new books claims.
‘When The Soldiers Came,’ by historian Miriam Gebhardt, is hailed as the definitive account of the treatment meted out to the defeated women of Nazi Germany which they remained silent about for decades out of shame and humiliaton.
‘At the very least 860,000 women and girls – and also men and young boys – were raped by the occupying Allied soldiers and their helpers. It happened everywhere,’ begins the book.
Until now it was widely thought that only the Red Army, which advanced on Germany with rape as a weapon sanctioned by Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, committed the mass rapes upon tens of thousands of women, many of whom committed suicide.
‘Soldiers of the western Allies were also guilty,’ said Mrs. Gebhardt, a renowned historian in Germany who tracked down some victims to interview them about their ordeal at the hands of British and American soldiers.
‘I researched the book for over a year and-a-half,’ she said. ‘I wanted to tell the story of what ‘happened from the perspective of the victims. I wanted to reconstruct the crimes as gently as I could.’
She said the ‘terrible crimes’ did not only take place in the Soviet zones of occupation – long chronicled and well-known about – but also in French, British and American sectors.
A familiar slogan of the times was: ‘It took six years for the Americans to struggle against the German armies but it only took a day and a slab of chocolate for them to conquer German women.’
But not all collaboration in the bedroom was voluntary, writes Gebhardt.
She said the false impression grew up after the war that German women gave themselves to western soldiers because they brought with them things they desperately needed – nylons, food, cigarettes, coffee.
‘The impression grew that there was no rape in the west but rather a kind of prostitution grew up,’ said the author.
But in fact countless women were raped, she said, with soldiers believing they could treat them as they wanted after bearing coveted gifts.
‘Post-war society was hardly ready to differentiate between voluntary and forced sexual contact.
‘Between women who prostituted themselves out of emergency needs and those who had become victims of rape.’
Added to the trauma of the western victims was the shame suffered by the children they bore from their attackers.
‘Their fathers were, mostly, unknown, and the women received no financial help at all,’ said Gebhardt.
She said in parts of southern Germany, occupied by American troops, there were often ‘free nights’ where soldiers were encouraged to abuse women at will for up to 48 hours at a time.
The alleged victims are ‘relieved’ their hardship is coming to light, she added.

Source Credits: Allan Hall in the Daily Mail from Berlin.
Cockburn Patrick
The Rise of Islamic State: ISIS and the New Sunni Revolution
Edited: 201501150745
Paperback, 192 pages
ISBN: 9781784780401
Published: January 2015
The essential “on the ground” report on the fastest-growing new threat in the Middle East from the Winner of the 2014 Foreign Affairs Journalist of the Year Award

Born of the Iraqi and Syrian civil wars, the Islamic State astonished the world in 2014 by creating a powerful new force in the Middle East. By combining religious fanaticism and military prowess, the new self-declared caliphate poses a threat to the political status quo of the whole region.

In The Rise of Islamic State, Patrick Cockburn (1950) describes the conflicts behind a dramatic unraveling of US foreign policy. He shows how the West created the conditions for ISIS’s explosive success by stoking the war in Syria. The West — the US and NATO in particular — underestimated the militants’ potential until it was too late and failed to act against jihadi sponsors in Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan.
American-allied nations are secretly helping ISIS to grow - US Colonel Ann Wright
Edited: 201409080901
The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 came with many warnings that it would lead to a dire consequences for the whole region. A decade later, and the brutal jihadists from ISIS are dominating the north of the devastated country. Now, the US is again mulling the possibility of sending its army to Iraq once more - but would that actually help solve the issue? From where does the money come for the Islamic State? Is America obliged to save Iraq after what it's done to that nation? We ask these questions to American Colonel and former diplomat Ann Wright on Sophie&Co today.

Follow @SophieCo_RT

Sophie Shevardnadze:Colonel, the 2003 war in Iraq was a reason you left the U.S. military after many years. Do you feel the roots of what’s happening now lie back then?

Ann Wright: Well, yes. In 2003 I did resign from the Federal government. I actually had order to retire from the military; I was a U.S. diplomat, and I was one of the three diplomats who resigned in opposition to the war in Iraq. And I do feel that there are so many similarities now, 11 years later with the issue that the Obama administration is bringing forward, and they are seeming intent that they will be using military force to resolve the further issues in Iraq, and perhaps even in Syria.

SS: But what I really meant was that… I’m talking about ISIS expansion and the will of the ISIS to create a caliphate. Do you think that, what’s going on right now, has to do something with the invasion in Iraq in 2003, or those are two separate things?

AW: I think they are two separate things. Certainly, the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq has precipitated what we now see, 11 years later, with the growth of ISIS and other forces that initially came in to the region to battle with Assad in Syria, but are taking the opportunity with the disarray that came starting with the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. And then, the Al-Maliki government that has been so brutal towards the Sunnis in Iraq, that the ability of ISIS to move remarkably quickly, to gain territories in Syria and now in Iraq is very worrisome and dangerous.

SS: Now, president Obama has authorized deployment of additional 350 american troops to Iraq. Last month, the U.S. launched an aerial campaign against the Islamic State. Will any good come out of this?

AW: Well, the issue of the protection of the U.S. facilities in Baghdad and other cities of Iraq by U.S. military forces is one rational for the deployment of certain number of military folks. And then, the administration has already said that they will be sending in special forces to help train or re-train Iraq military to battle ISIS. And also, the use of CIA operatives up in the north, in northern Iraq and the Kurdish area of Iraq - one could argue that this does give the Iraqi military and the Kurdish Peshmerga a better opportunity to battle ISIS. One of the fears, though, is that the continuation of the U.S. providing U.S. military equipment will end up as we've seen what has happened now, when ISIS has overrun Iraqi military facilities and have taken U.S. military equipment that has been given to the Iraqi military. So, one of the great dilemmas is when you start funneling more military equipment into this type of situation, it may be turned up on you as we've seen - that equipment now being in hands of ISIS and being used to battle almost in one way the remnants of the Iraqi military.

SS: Steven Sotloff was the second journalist executed by the Islamic State. Let’s hear president Obama’s response to this:

OBAMA: And those who make a mistake of harming Americans will learn that we will not forget, and that our reach is long and that justice will be served.

SS: Now, the U.S. president has vowed to avenge the death of U.S. journalist and called for the war plan to be drawn up. Should there be further involvement?

AW: Well, indeed, it’s horrific what ISIS is doing, not only to the international media, to U.S. reporters that are being beheaded, but in even greater measure, what ISIS is doing to Iraqis and Syrians that they have captured. The wholesale murder, massacre of large numbers of Iraqi military and people in villages who have repelled or attempted to repel the ISIS military onslaught. There’s no doubt about it, ISIS is very brutal, terrible group of people who are rampaging across that area of the world.

SS: Well, yeah, but that’s my question - does the U.S. really have any other choice but to get involved and act in the face of these kidnappings?

AW: The people that have been kidnapped - I mean, the international folks have been in the hands of ISIS for quite a few months now. The beheadings of course are horrific, and as vice-president Biden has said...something about the “gates of hell” being opened; I think the administration certainly feels the pressure that something needs to be done about it, about this group of horrific people. Now, whether it is further american military on the ground - I suspect not, because the feeling in the U.S. is that we do not want our military involved in ground operations any further in Iraq or in Syria. However, I do believe that the types of pressure that can be put on groups that do support ISIS, that have allowed ISIS to purchase military equipment, that are working with ISIS to buy on the black market oil from the oil fields that ISIS has captured - I think that’s really where ultimately the pressure points are…

SS: Which groups are you talking about? Could you be more precise?

AW: If you look at who is behind the oil, who is behind the oil from those oil fields, where it is going, through what borders is it going - some of it is going up into Turkey, so you've got to put pressure on the Turkish government to stop the flow of oil; you've got to put pressure on the Turkish government to stop allowing these large groups of international fighters that have crossed the border from Turkey for the last several years. I would say, you have to put pressure on the Saudis: the Saudis have been pouring a large amounts of money, as have the governments of Kuwait and of Qatar, into various groups of the foreign fighters.

SS: But so had the Americans, I don’t think these are the only people that are funding the foreign fighters in Syria. Americans are the ones who are funding them just as much as are the Qataris or the Saudis…

AW: Yes, I totally agree with you on that; I do not believe that they are funding ISIS, the U.S. is funding other, what they think are more moderate groups that are fighting the Assad government, but the ones I was actually talking about were those that either by turning a blind eye, or by actually funneling money and weapons into ISIS are giving it the power to gain territory and hold it.

SS: So there’s my question - the U.S. has propped up many allies that it later had to confront. The likes of Al-Qaeda, or Taliban - do you feel like it contributed to the rise of ISIS in Syria as well - involuntarily, of course - by funding the rebels?

AW: Certainly, the instability that has been caused by the U.S., starting 10, 11 years ago, from 2003, with the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq and earlier than that, the U.S. going in to Afghanistan after 9/11 - all of those events have triggered a large number of people from Arab and Muslim worlds, who have to the U.S.: “we don’t like what you’re doing in those areas”, and they have been coming in to Iraq and in Afghanistan and have been trained, and equipped and then have been available to go to other parts of the world, including Libya, to act as mercenaries for whomever wants to hire them.

SS:Now, if president Obama had launched a bombing campaign in Syria in 2013, do you think that could have stopped the rise of ISIS?

AW: One could argue that yes, bombing of not only ISIS but of other radical groups in Syria could perhaps have decimated some of their fighting force. However, the thing that people are very concerned about is that that in itself is drawing more of the foreign fighters to the fight, that indeed the U.S. bombing of Muslim fighters does draw in even more of the Muslim fighters.

SS: Just to wrap the subject of ISIS in Iraq - do you feeling like that Washington has the responsibility for the future of Iraq and what becomes of it?

AW: Part of the problem is, first, the initial invasion and occupation by the Bush administration; then, you have the Al-Maliki government that was… many people say that U.S. put that government in: Al-Maliki who brought in more Shia leaders and pushed out the Sunni leaders that should have been brought in to the government that was all-inclusive of all of the groups in Iraq. One could say that the U.S. has spent billions of dollars on the training and equipping Iraqi military and it folded against the force that was not nearly as large as it actually was. I personally, as a person that resigned initially over the theory that military force was going to resolve the issue of Saddam Hussein regime, I don’t believe that further use of our military is what ultimately going to resolve the issues in that region.

SS: Afghanistan is another unresolved issue - the U.S. troops may leave for good by the end of this year, but will the weak Afghan government be left to deal with the Taliban like Iraq was left to deal with ISIS, what do you think?

AW: You’re exactly right - here we have Afghanistan after 13 years that U.S. has been involved in there, and weak government, in fact, it is still disputed on who’s going to be the next president of the country. You have many of the people who were called warlord prior to the U.S. invasion, or the groups of people that the U.S. hired to work with it to push the Taliban and Al-Qaeda out, many of them with severe human rights abuses allegations to start with… I myself am not too optimistic that here, 13 years later and hundreds of billions of dollars later and the expenditure of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lives, that the future of Afghanistan is a stable secure country, where all groups will be treated honestly and fairly and that country will progress in a way that one would hope it would - I myself am not very optimistic about it.

SS: Now, ISIS is being called the “new Al-Qaeda”, but the actual Al-Qaeda has declared a new front in India. How do these groups fit together? Are we seeing expansion into new territory after ISIS took over the old “feeding grounds”?

AW: It’s kind of “targets of opportunity” it looks like that various groups are using. As ISIS fills into one area of Iraq and Syria and becomes the dominant force there, Al-Qaeda is looking for another place where it can stake its own territory. Certainly it had its inroads into Pakistan… It’s interesting here that they indeed have claimed that they are going to India.

SS: So, what are we going to see? Jihadist corporate rivalry unraveling?

AW: Indeed, “Jihadist inc.” When we really look at it, sadly, throughout the North Africa and the Middle East and then going on into South Asia, you do see the rise of various types of militant groups, to include not only Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Al-Nusra; you've got the Afghan Taliban, the Pakistani Taliban. It is a growth industry. You look also to Libya, where there are many groups, each fighting for different parts of the territory of the country, to the extent that the U.S. had to close its embassy there, because none of the locations where we had embassies or consulates are safe enough, in the opinion of the State Department, that we can leave our diplomats. So, it is a tragic function in this era, that we see the growth and expansion of these jihadist groups.

SS: You've mentioned earlier on in the program that the pressure should be put on groups that are actually helping ISIS to get money from the oil sales - it’s true that ISIS is raking in billions through things like oil. Could this movement be more about money than establishing a religious state?

AW: I think it certainly is a movement about money, it’s a very well-funded organisation, but from I gather, it is a group that is intent on establishing a geographical location for it’s beliefs, the caliphate that they talk about. They intent to hold territory and indeed they have, to the extent that they control major cities, that they are generating their own income through oil and I think it is going to be a challenge for the international community to go in and push them back from these established areas that they've had some of them for almost a year now.

SS: Israeli-Palestinian conflict is something that you've also spoken a lot about, spoken strongly against the Israeli offensive in Gaza. Is there any way that international pressure can push Israel into a genuine peace process?

AW: It’s a very good question. How the international community has pressured Israel - has been ineffective, mainly because it really hasn't used the full force that it has at its disposal. The U.S. itself could do much more to pressure Israel to stop the illegal settlements of which they have just announced that they are annexing a thousand acres of Palestinian land into Israel. The pressure to stop the occupation of the West Bank and to lift the siege of Gaza - these are things that have been demands of the Palestinians for the longest time. The U.S. is the greatest pressure point of Israel, because we give Israel almost $3 bn a year in military assistance alone, plus all sorts of economic incentives. The U.S. is allowing itself to be pressured by very large and well-funded Zionist lobby that works for the protection of the State of Israel, and works primarily in the U.S. Congress to threaten the U.S. Congress people that if they don’t vote for pro-Israeli issues then they will be turned out of office; we've seen that AIPAC, the American-Israeli Public Affairs committee, the big lobby for Israel, has been very effective at threatening and scaring and then trowing out of office people that say that they are going to look honestly at what’s happening there, and may support the Palestinian cause in cases.

SS: I want to talk a little bit about Hamas. You know how the appearance of ISIS with its deliberate focus on cruelty and no compromises, does it make you feel like it’s easier to treat groups like Hamas with more respect? As a matter of fact, you know, “we don’t negotiate with the terrorists” - that attitude is almost universal, but do you feel like maybe these days there are groups of terrorists that you can talk to and that slogan actually should change?

AW: Yes, I certainly think so, and the latest of this week, the Israeli propaganda is that “ISIS is Hamas, Hamas is ISIS” - well, that’s just not true. Hamas was elected as the governing body of Gaza. I don’t agree with the rockets that Hamas and other groups in Gaza have sent into Israel, but the level of violence that is between Palestinians and Israelis is overwhelmingly from the Israeli side towards the Palestinian side - there’s no doubt about that. Over 2000 Palestinians were killed versus 64 Israelis in this latest attack, and in 2009, fourteen hundred Palestinians versus 11 Israelis… Hamas does not have 24 hour drone coverage over Israel, it does not have F-16 that are bombing Israel every single day as is happening with the Israelis in their naval attacks and ground attacks, and air attacks on Gaza. So, there’s a very distinct difference in the level and the proportion of violence in there.

SS: Thank you so much for this wonderful interview. Colonel Ann Wright, U.S. veteran and former diplomat. We were talking about what brought upon the spread of ISIS and could it be contained, and also are there terrorists that we can talk to, and are there groups that we can’t. That’s it for this edition of Sophie&Co, we’ll see you next time.
BLEIER Ronald, [DAVID Ron]
The following book review of Ron David's Arabs and Israel for Beginners was published (with minor changes) in Middle East Policy, Volume III, 1994, Number 3, pp. 170-173.
Edited: 199409001014

Illustrated by Susan David
Writers and Readers Publishing, Inc.
New York, 1993. 210 pp.
Ron David begins Arabs and Israel for Beginners by explaining that he wants to let the reader know "where his book is heading. That way, if you consider it despicable, you can leave it in the bookstore." David's embattled stance is understandable because his book challenges the popular, pro-Israeli version of the Israeli-Arab conflict. In his view, the Palestinian Arabs, who had populated Palestine for many generations before the Jewish settlers began to arrive in the tens of thousands in the late nineteenth century, were robbed of their country by the successful Zionist effort to create a Jewish state there. Ron David's book is an attempt to tell the "real" story of the struggle for Palestine stripped of Zionist mythology which misrepresents the essential elements of how the Pales tinians lost their land.
In his review of the history of the Middle East, the author reminds us that the name "Israel" comes from Genesis in the Old Testament when Jacob changed his name to Israel after fighting with an angel and that from Jacob's twelve sons came the twelve tribes of Israel. He explains that the name Canaan, meaning "land of purple" came from the precious purple dyes that were traded in the Mediterrane an coastal plain. The author suggests an explanation for the biblical story that the Jews spent forty years in the desert after escaping from Egypt. When Moses sent spies out to the land of Canaan "their report was discouraging: 'It's full of people.'" So the Jews waited in the desert until they were strong enough militarily to conquer the native inhabitants.

The author presents a useful "Summary of Jewish Countries in the Middle East" detailing the Jewish Kingdoms from 1020 BC to 586 BC. By 6 A.D., however, the author writes, the Romans made Judah a Rom an province and although "there were a couple last gasps of Jewish revolt -- Masada and Bar Kokhba ... the Jews and the ancient Middle East had had enough of each other."

Perhaps for reasons of space -- or perhaps such a task is too complicated for the purposes of this book -- Ron David decided not to provide a similar chart of Jewish habitation in the Middle East after the fall of the Jewish kingdoms and the fall of the second temple in 70 A.D. Such a chart might have been useful if only in order to give the reader a better idea of the strength of present Jewish claims to the area.

Ron David makes a point of covering Islam in some depth. The well established Arab / Bedouin code of virtue, the muruwwah, is explained. We learn that Muhammad's inspiration came from his understanding that the wealthy and powerful merchant class were ignoring their duty to the poor, an essential tenet of the muruwwah. Perhaps because of Islam's dramatic appeal to the masses, barely a century a fter the death of Mohammad in 632, "Muslims controlled an empire that stretched from Spain to the borders of China and the Arabs were entering a Golden Age."

Some of the examples of the flowering of Arab civilization in literature, psychology, science, medicine and mathematics are detailed. It is also emphasized that Islam (which means surrender to God) nurtured and was nurtured by the cultures it embraced, especially Jewish culture. "Teaching the knowledge-hungry Muslims got the Jewish scholars' creative juices flowing. The result was a Jewish Golden Age, especially in Spain, during which doctors, poets, and scholars combined secular and religious knowledge in a way that has never been achieved since."

As Ron David tells it, the Crusades (1096 - 1270) and then the Mongol invasions (1218 - 1258) brought an end to the zenith of Arab culture. After 200 years of fighting "in their own backyards, the Arabs were all used up." At the same time, the author emphasizes the irony that "the knowledge that [the Crusaders] got from the Arabs helped them break out of the brain - dead Middle Ages into the Renaissance ..."

A crucial section of the book is devoted to the events leading up to the emergence of the State of Israel in 1948. This momentous event, a huge victory for world Jewry, is at the same time for Palestinians, al-Nakbah, the catastrophe.


The new Ottoman land code of 1850 over time led to the removal of the Palestinian peasants from their land. Previously Palestinian peasants could live on and cultivate their land and pass it on to their heirs. The new land law changed that and as a result, through land purchases, often from absentee Arab landlords in Beirut, Jewish settlers began to move Palestinian peasants off the land that they had farmed for generations.
Note Lucas Tessens (201602020): This is a difficult matter in Ron David's exposé but it is key and needs more attention than it gets: If the Jews really bought the land, the Arabs no longer owned it in a legal sense. If the French buy half of Belgium they become the legal owners. In my view it is the inequality in purchasing power that leads to desinheritance of the land and the expulsion of their former tenants/farmers. Refusing to accept this process is in fact rejecting the whole capitalist system. Or should land be excluded from the list of goods that can be bought? If the answer is 'YES' then you are in a new system.

The expulsion of Palestinian farmers by the Jewish settlers frequently led to confrontations between the two sides as early as the last decade of the 19th century. The fierce rioting of 1929 in which there were hundreds of casualties on both sides resulted in a new British policy statement in late 1930 which was meant to restrict Jewish immigration and land purchases. If the new policy had held for the long term, the Palestinians might not have lost their country. However, in only a few months, the Zionists in England were powerful enough to cause the British Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald, to rescind the new policy statement and revert back to the pro-Jewish policies of the Balfour Declaration (1917) which stated that the British government would "view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people ... "

The advent of Hitler in 1933 and the pro-Jewish immigration policies of the British led to the Arab revolt of 1936 - 1939. Afterwards, when the British tried to redress the balance in favor of the Arabs it became the turn of the Jews to rebel and their successful terrorist actions played a key role in forcing the British to give up their mandate in Palestine in favor of the U.N.


The U.N. Partition Resolution of November 29, 1947, recommended the division of Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state. While the Jews hailed it as a major breakthrough, the Arabs rejected it because it gave much of what was theirs to the Jews. The Jewish community in Palestine which at that time made up about a third of the population and held less than 7% of the land, were "given" more than 50% of the area of Palestine, including prime Arab farmland in the Galilee and on the Mediterranean coast and elsewhere. Equally important, the U.N. scheme placed hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs in areas that were to be controlled by the Jews. This would mean that there would be about 500,000 Arabs in a state of about 650,000 Jews -- a plan that both sides, in effect, rejected.
It is widely believed that the war between the Arabs and the Jews began with the Arab invasion on May 15, 1948, immediately after the Jews declared their state. In reality, the war actually began after the U.N. Partition Resolution, in December 1947. In this communal war the much better organized and equipped Jews captured the areas that the British were evacuating. As Israeli historian Simha F lapan writes, so successful were the Jewish forces that by the beginning of May 1948, they held most of the territory that was designated for their state by the U.N. Resolution.

The success of the Jewish campaign against the Palestinian forces may be gauged by the 300,000 Arab refugees who were forced to flee their homeland before the middle of May 1948. The situation was such an international scandal -- comparable to the ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia -- that the U.S. and other countries actually entertained plans to substitute a trusteeship for Palestine rather than allow the U.N. Partition Resolution to stand. In the event, the Truman administration, with its eye on the Jewish lobby at home, withdrew its objections and was quick to recognize the new Jewish state.

When the Jewish leaders declared their new state on May 14, 1948, there were still about 400,000 Palestinians in areas that became Israel. Ben Gurion's government decided to risk war because they wished to increase their territorial gains and to cleanse the area of more Palestinians. Viewed in the light of Jewish military victories, the Arab invasion of May 15, becomes not, as pictured by the Zionists, an attempt by implacable enemy forces to drive the Jews into the sea, but rather, in large part, a pan-Arab effort to stave off further Jewish gains in Palestine and to stem the flow of even more Palestinian refugees.

Moreover, in Zionist mythology, no credit is given to Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt for sheltering and sustaining the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees. Indeed Zionists frequently say that the Arab countries created and maintained the Palestinian refugee problem as a way of scoring propaganda points against Israel. It turns out that the opposite is the case. In Michael Palumbo's The Palestinian Catastrophe: The 1948 Expulsion of a People From Their Homeland (1987), evidence is presented which indicates that Ben-Gurion flatly rejected proposals by the U.S. and Syria to permanently resettle hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees. Palumbo thinks that Ben-Gurion's motivation was the idea that "as long as the refugee problem remained unsolved there would be tensions in the region which could eventually be used to ignite a new war of conquest."

Palumbo points to the territory that Israel conquered in 1967 in Palestine, Jordan, and Syria as evidence of Israel's expansionist program. Ron David's section on Lebanon provides more support to Palumbo's thesis as well as it adds perspective on Israel's control of its self-designated "security zone" in Southern Lebanon which it has held illegally since 1982. Ron David cites evidence from the diaries of Moshe Sharett, Israel's second Prime Minister, that as early as the 1950s, Israel was planning to destabilize Lebanon by pitting the Moslem community against the Lebanese Christians. The idea was to create a puppet state there so that Israel could control the land and water resources in the south.

In view of Zionist responsibility for the carnage and instability in the Middle East for much of this century, it's understandable that Ron David should raise the question at the end of his book of the billions of dollars in aid that the U.S. gives Israel every year. The author quotes an article by Jeffrey Blankfort in Lies of Our Times, pointing out how secretive our own media is on the issue of U.S. aid to Israel. "February 1989," Blankfort writes, "was the last time the New York Times ran a story describing Congress' role in approving aid to Israel." In a wonderful quote, Ron David writes, "I would rather flush that money down the toilet than give it to Israel.... At least when you flush money down the toilet, it doesn't hurt anybody."

Arabs and Israel for Beginners, one of a series of "documentary comic books," with its format of illustrations on every page, is easy to read and is highly recommended for those interested in a controversial and more objective point of view. Unfortunately, it is marred by a score or more of typos, frequent use of street language, and some mistakes: the 35,000 Arabs that Ron David says were expelled in the '56 war is silently corrected two pages later to 3,000 to 5,000; and "Eretz Yisrael" means not only, as Ron David has it, the biblical land of Israel but also the modern state of Israel . However, these lapses are a small price to pay for an extremely important book which challenges old assumptions on an issue that may be with us for generations despite the promise of the Oslo Accords.
1955: uranium: boek van Kathleen Bruyn (geboren Reynolds)
Edited: 195500001489
Just before World War I began, a British Army major discovered a rich pitchblende deposit in the Haute Katanga Province of the Belgian Congo. Because the deposit was so remote, because the Belgians were aware of the possibility of a war with Germany, and because they feared that Germany might win the war, the Belgian and British governments kept the discovery secret. Shortly after Germany capitulated, the Belgian mining company Union Miniere du Haut Katanga began developing the Shinkolobwe Mine.(45) The ore from this mine reached the market in 1922. The Congo ore contained so much radium per ton that prices worldwide immediately dropped.

When the president of the Radium Company of Colorado, Arthur H. Bunker, heard of the Congo discovery, he hurried to Europe in 1923.(46) Here he learned the Congo pitchblende ore assayed as high as 80% U3O8, compared to less than 2% for the average Colorado carnotite. Although he knew the end of RCC was in sight, Bunker's survival instincts took over and he convinced the Belgians to let his experienced company design the radium processing plant in Oolen, near Antwerp. RCC designed the Oolen [zoekhulp: Olen] plant using a process design originated by chemist M. Frank Coolbaugh for RCC's sister company in Denver, Metals Exploration Company. RCC ceased operation in 1924, but Metals Exploration Company went into the vanadium business and later rebuilt the old Durango silver smelter into a vanadium-uranium extraction plant. (20031021)

Noot LT: de voetnoten 45 en 46 in bovenstaande tekst verwijzen naar Bruyn, Kathleen, Uranium Country (Boulder: University of Colorado Press, 1955), blz. 10 en 68-70

Noot LT: over Bruyn vonden we: Kathleen BRUYN, nee REYNOLDS {US} (F: 1903 Jan 23 - 1983 Feb) (20031021)

Verkoper-informatie: Bruyn, Kathleen. URANIUM COUNTRY. Boulder: Univ CO, 1955. Pict wps, hj165 pp, 6 B&W photos. Xlibv, lower spine sl split o/w VG. $ 10.00 (20031021)
Treaty of Darin between UK and The House of Saud
Edited: 191512260901
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Treaty of Darin, or the Darin Pact, of 1915 was between the United Kingdom and Abdul-Aziz Al Saud (sometimes called Ibn Saud) ruler of Nejd, who would go on to found the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932.

The Treaty was signed on the island of Darin[1] (also known as Tarout Island) in the Persian Gulf, on 26 December 1915 by Abdul-Aziz and Sir Percy Cox on behalf of the British Government.[2]

The Treaty made the lands of the House of Saud a British protectorate and attempted to define its boundaries.[3] The British aim of the treaty was to guarantee the sovereignty of Kuwait, Qatar and the Trucial States.[4] Abdul-Aziz agreed not to attack these British protectorates, but gave no undertaking that he would not attack the Sharif of Mecca[5] Also, he agreed to enter the war against the Ottoman empire (the Middle Eastern theatre of World War I) as an ally of Britain.[2]

The Treaty was the first to give international recognition to the fledgling Saudi state. Also, for the first time in Nejdi history the concept of negotiated borders had been introduced.[4] Additionally, although the British aim was to secure its Gulf protectorates, the Treaty had the unintended consequence of legitimising Saudi control in the adjacent areas.[4] The Treaty was superseded by the Treaty of Jeddah (1927).
Barbary Wars Timeline (1783-1830)
Edited: 178309031601
September 3, 1783: Signing of the Treaty of Paris ends the American war for independence; American ships are no longer protected under British treaties

October 1784: The Boston merchant ship Betsy is captured off the coast of Africa and its crew are sold into slavery in Morocco

1786: United States signs a peace treaty with Morocco

1794: Congress raises one million dollars to purchase peace with the Barbary States and begins to construct a small naval force

1795: United States signs a treaty with Algiers

1796: United States signs a treaty with Tripoli

1797: United States signs a treaty with Tunis

July 1797: William Eaton is appointed American consul to Tunis

December 1799: United States agrees to pay Tripoli $18,000 per year to secure safety for American trade ships in the Mediterranean; similar agreements with the other Barbary powers are also settled

February 17, 1801: Thomas Jefferson becomes President of the United States

March 1801: Tripoli declares war on the United States and seizes numerous American merchant ships

May 15, 1801: Jefferson sends a naval squadron, commanded by Captain Richard Dale to Tripoli to blockade the port; the blockade lasts from July 24-September 3

August 1, 1801: Andrew Sterett and the USS Enterprise capture Admiral Rais Mahomet Rous’ ship Tripoli after a bloody battle; the event is considered the first U.S. naval victory of the Barbary Wars

February 6, 1802: Congress passes the Act for Protection of Commerce and Seamen of the United States Against the Tripolitian Corsairs, essentially a declaration of war

June 17, 1802: The Emperor of Morocco declares war against the United States but negotiates a peace settlement in August

January 17, 1803: Commodore Edward Preble leads an American squadron to the Mediterranean; subordinate officers include Stephen Decatur, John Rodgers, Isaac Chauncey, Oliver Hazard Perry, and David Porter

March 4, 1803: Commodore Charles Morris and Captain John Rogers are arrested by the Bey of Tunis and are forced to pay Eaton’s debts

May 12, 1803: Captain Rodgers and the John Adams capture the Tripolitan frigate Meshouda

June 10, 1803: Tobias Lear is appointed consul general to the Barbary States

October 31, 1803: William Bainbridge and his warship the Philadelphia surrender to Tripoli after running aground in Tripoli harbor

February 16, 1804: Stephen Decatur on the Intrepid set the captured Philadelphia on fire as it is anchored in Tripoli harbor

August 3, 1804: Commodore Preble launches an attack on Tripoli that lasts until September 11

April 27, 1805: After a two month march across the Libyan desert, William Eaton, former Tripoli Pasha Hamet Karamanli, and a group of mercenaries attack Derna by land, meanwhile three US warships under Captain Isaac Hull strike Derna by sea; together they take the fort

May 15, 1805: Rodgers takes over command of the American fleet from Samuel Barron

June 4, 1805: The Pasha agrees to a treaty with Lear and takes over Derna; America no longer needs to pay yearly tributes to Tripoli

June 10, 1805: Treaty of Tripoli is officially signed

November 1805: Tobias Lear is stationed at Algiers as U.S. consul

1807: The Mediterranean Squadron is withdrawn and Barbary powers resume capturing American trading ships

March 5, 1809: James Madison becomes president

July 25, 1812: The Dey of Algiers refuses the annual American tribute and expels Tobias Lear and his colleagues from Algiers

July 25, 1812: Algerian corsairs capture the brig Edwin

Fall 1812: At the outset of the War of 1812, the British blockade the Atlantic seaboard of the United States, thus halting much Mediterranean commerce

April 9, 1813: Tobias Lear arrives in New York City

December 24, 1814: United States and Great Britain sign the Treaty of Ghent, ending the War of 1812

March 3, 1815: Congress, with Madison’s support, declares war on Algiers

May 15, 1815: Commanding the American fleet, Stephen Decatur leaves New York for Algiers

July 3, 1815: Stephen Decatur destroys several Algerian ships before suing for peace with Algiers. William Shaler negotiates treaty that ends the practice of paying tribute, frees American and European slaves from Algiers, and secures full American shipping rights in the Mediterranean

November 12, 1815: Stephen Decatur and the Guerriere return to New York City to a hero’s welcome

December 5, 1815: The Algiers Treaty is taken before Congress

December 15, 1815: Madison declares the Barbary War over; American squadrons still patrol the Mediterranean

January 5, 1816: Oliver Hazard Perry is sent as captain of the Java to patrol the Mediterranean

June 1816: Isaac Chauncey replaces Stephen Decatur as commander of the Mediterranean Squadron, which enforces the Algiers Treaty

1830: Andrew Jackson appoints David Porter consul general to Algiers

see more on the site of the Univ of Michigan
The Battle of Barnet (14 April 1471)
Edited: 147104140702
The Battle of Barnet (14 April 1471) during the Wars of the Roses, followed by the Battle of Tewkesbury, secured the throne for Edward IV of England and launched fourteen years of Yorkist rule. Near Barnet, then a small Hertfordshire town north of London, Edward led the House of York against Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, and the House of Lancaster, which backed Henry VI for the throne. The battle began in a thick fog at dawn. While the main forces struggled, John de Vere, 13th Earl of Oxford, and his Lancastrian troops routed the Yorkists under Lord William Hastings, chasing them up to Barnet. On their return to the battlefield, Oxford's men were erroneously shot at by his allies commanded by John Neville, 1st Marquess of Montagu. The Lancastrians lost the battle as cries of treason spread through their line and many abandoned the fight. While retreating, Warwick was killed. Historians regard the battle as one of the most important clashes in the Wars of the Roses, bringing about a decisive turn in the fortunes of the two houses.