Domino's pizza defends halal-only outlet

By Matthew Cooper, Press Association
Thursday, 12 February 2009

The Domino's pizza chain today defended its decision to give the go-ahead for a halal-only outlet which does not offer its customers ham or bacon.

The firm said it had "thought long and hard" about the decision not to offer pork products at its store in Hall Green, Birmingham, which serves an area with a large Muslim population.

Some customers at the store have criticized the new policy, claiming it limits their freedom of choice and discriminates against non-Muslims.

But a spokeswoman for Domino's stressed that replacement items such as halal pepperoni had been sourced wherever possible.

The spokeswoman said: "In that particular area of Birmingham there are a large number of Muslims so there is naturally more of a demand for halal-based products.

"We appreciate we cannot please everybody but there are alternatives, such as turkey ham, and we have thought long and hard about this decision and we are sure it is the right one."

Domino's said the outlet was accredited by the Halal Food Authority (HFA) and was the first in the country to offer its pizzas to customers who prefer to eat halal.

The store's halal menu still includes many of the country's favorite pizzas, but with a halal twist on the toppings, Domino's added.

Items on the menu include halal spicy beef sausage, roast and tandoori chicken, halal pepperoni and halal cured turkey.

Abdul Mumtaz, the store's franchisee, said the halal store better served the needs of local residents.

Mr Mumtaz said: "Domino's is a national brand with a strong sense of the local communities in which it operates, and the halal store has been launched following huge demand from the people of Hall Green, where a high proportion of customers are followers of the Islamic faith.

Israel ready to launch military offensive on Iran

Israel ready to launch a military offensive against Iran
In the wake of Gaza, can the world afford to live with a nuclear Israel?

By Lech Biegalski

URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12307

Global Research, February 14, 2009

On February 14, Australian News Agency “The Age” reported:

A SENIOR Israeli diplomat has warned that Israel is ready to launch a military offensive against Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons.

In an interview with The Age, Dan Gillerman, who was Israel's permanent representative at the United Nations from 2003 until last September, said time for diplomatic efforts to stop Iran acquiring a nuclear capability might have already expired.

“The world cannot afford to live with a nuclear Iran,” Mr Gillerman said.

The truth is that, after witnessing Israeli war crimes in Lebanon and in the illegally occupied Palestinian territories, the world cannot afford to live with nuclear Israel. As opposed to Iran, Israel has secretly developed hundreds of nuclear warheads and delivery weapons outside of any supervision by international community. Iran continues to run its nuclear program in cooperation with the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

According to the Press TV report of February 13,

The new chief of US intelligence has confirmed the findings of a 2007 intelligence report that Iran has no nuclear weapons program.

Dennis Blair told the Senate Intelligence Committee that his organization has assessed that Tehran does not have nuclear weapons design and weaponization work.

A National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), issued in November 2007 by the sixteen US intelligence agencies, clarified that Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

The 2007 intelligence report was widely seen as a setback for Bush administration efforts to pressure Iran and halt its nuclear program.

The UN nuclear watchdog, which has carried out the highest number of inspections in its history on Iranian nuclear sites, has also found nothing to indicate that the program has diverted toward weaponization.

In the meantime, both US and Israeli governments continue to press the issue of suspected development of military nuclear technology in Iran, slapping three rounds of sanctions against Tehran. Israel openly threatens to attack Iran in order to destroy its nuclear and scientific facilities.

The real problem, as we all know by now, is this:

Unlike the US and Israel, Iran has not attacked other countries in recent history. There is enough documented evidence indicating that the US planned the oil wars long ago and that Iran was one of the targets. Strong Iran is also an obstacle for Israeli territorial expansion in Arab countries. In this situation, EVEN IF Iran was trying to develop an effective nuclear deterrence capability IN SELF-DEFENSE, it would be perfectly understandable and perfectly justifiable.

If the US and Israel want other countries to give up their nuclear programs, they should give an example by doing same first. This, however, will not happen because these two “partners” believe that they can unilaterally bully other nations into submission. The clear pattern here is: disarm, so that we can take over your resources and your territories, or else we will attack you!

By the way, nobody has yet explained why “the world cannot live with a nuclear Iran”. The world lives with nuclear America, with nuclear Russia, nuclear China, and India, and Pakistan, and nuclear France, and United Kingdom, with nuclear Israel, and probably a host of other nuclear countries - and nobody threatens a war against them for this reason. Somehow, the world is safer, when countries have nuclear deterrence capabilities. Nobody questions their rights to develop nuclear programs for peaceful or military purposes. So why Iran? I think I have already answered that naive question.

Interestingly, Russia is not using their veto power in the UN Security Council to block the sanctions against Iran. Maybe Russia wants us to step into this mess and stretch ourselves flat? I wouldn't be surprised. Russia is extremely good at diplomacy and at long-term chess games.

Recently,

US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, stated late Tuesday that the Obama administration might reconsider plans for a missile defense system in Europe, if Iran stops what U.S. officials believe is a drive for nuclear weapons. (Source)

This was a direct ultimatum addressed to Russia. “Help us bully Iran, or we will set up our rockets on your border”. Again, the real question is, “If the European missile defense system is to prevent Iranian nuclear warheads from reaching America, why are they being placed in Poland instead of Germany, the UK or France? Or in Iceland? Or, in Canada?” Obviously, the European missile defense system in Poland threatens Russia and this is why it became a bargaining chip in the geopolitical game for the Middle East and Caucasus. Hillary (who allegedly has an extensive experience in politics) has finally admitted it.

Surely, Mr. Lavrov is working on an appropriate move in response to this “invitation”. Perhaps, the answer should be, “In the spirit of cooperation and pending the UN investigation into Israel's war crimes in Gaza, if the US helps us force Israel to eliminate its nuclear weapons and to accept international inspections of its nuclear facilities, we will help you deal with Iran.”

Source: Global Research.
Link: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12307.

Israel seizes land for settlement expansion

By KARIN LAUB, Associated Press Writer

EFRAT, West Bank – Plans to expand a West Bank settlement by up to 2,500 homes drew Palestinian condemnation Monday and presented an early test for President Barack Obama, whose Mideast envoy is well known for opposing such construction.

Israel opened the way for possible expansion of the Efrat settlement by taking control of a nearby West Bank hill of 423 acres. The rocky plot was recently designated state land and is part of a master plan that envisions the settlement growing from 9,000 to 30,000 residents, Efrat Mayor Oded Revivi said.

Israeli officials said any new construction would require several years more of planning and stages of approval.

The outgoing government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said it reserves the right to keep building in large West Bank settlement blocs that it wants to annex as part of a final peace deal with the Palestinians. Efrat is in one of those blocs.

The composition of Israel's next government is not clear yet, because last week's elections were inconclusive. However, right-wing parties are given a better chance to form a ruling coalition, with hard-line leader Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister.

Speaking to U.S. Jewish leaders Monday, the two contenders for leading the new Israeli government expressed their differences over the Palestinian issue.

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, whose centrist Kadima party won 28 of the 120 seats in parliament, said Israel must withdraw from "parts of the Land of Israel," a reference to the West Bank, in a peace deal.

Netanyahu, whose hawkish Likud won 27 seats, said he does not want to govern Palestinians but insisted on Israeli control of borders, airspace and electronic communications.

Netanyahu supports settlement expansion and has derided peace talks with the Palestinians as a waste of time, saying he would focus instead on trying to improve the Palestinian economy. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has called Netanyahu's approach unacceptable, and his aides said recently that peace talks can resume only if settlement construction is halted.

"We oppose settlement activity in principle, and if the settlement activity doesn't stop, any meetings (with the Israelis) will be worthless," Abbas said Monday.

Settlement expansion is likely to create friction not only with the Palestinians, but with Obama, whose Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, has long pushed for a freeze on the expansion of Jewish settlements.

Still, settlements have grown steadily, including during the past year of U.S.-backed peace talks that ended without results.

Nearly 290,000 Israelis live in West Bank settlements today, or 95,000 more than in May 2001, when Mitchell led a U.S. fact-finding mission to the West Bank to find ways of ending several months of Israeli-Palestinian violence and resuming peace talks.

At the time, Mitchell called on Palestinian authorities to rein in militants involved in deadly bombings and shootings against Israelis, and he said Israel must freeze all settlement construction.

The newly designated state land, called "Eitam Hill" by settlers, is more than 2 kilometers (a mile) north of Efrat and just east of a cluster of Palestinian towns and villages, with biblical Bethlehem at the center.

Abdel Rahman al-Haj, a Palestinian plumber in Bethlehem, said that he owns 5.5 acres (2 hectares) between Efrat and Eitam Hill and that intruders with bulldozers had repeatedly tried to clear a dirt road across his land since last month, in an apparent attempt to create access to Eitam Hill. The dirt road was clearly visible during a visit Monday.

Al-Haj said he filed a complaint with the Israeli police and obtained a stop-work order from Israel's Civil Administration, the branch of the Israeli military that deals with West Bank land use. Civil Administration officials had no immediate comment on the case.

Revivi, the Efrat mayor, said he was unaware of bulldozers clearing al-Haj's land. "Everything is done in accordance with what the government is allowing us to do," he said.

However, Efrat municipal engineer Moshe Ben Elisha wrote in a recent edition of the settlement's newspaper, Efraton, that "efforts are currently under way to create continuity between Olive Hill (an area of Efrat) and Eitam Hill." He did not elaborate.

Yesh Din, an Israeli human rights group involved in the case, said Monday that over the years Israel's government has assigned almost all areas designated as state land to settlements. Yesh Din said that is a violation of international law, which requires an occupying power to act for the benefit of the local population.

"Declaring these huge amounts of land as `state land,' as done by the Civil Administration, is only for expanding the settlement and not for the local Palestinian population," Yesh Din said.

New U.S. Administration Disappoints Israel

By MEL FRYKBERG

JERUSALEM -- As predicted by seasoned analysts both in the U.S. and Israel, it appears the Barack Obama administration and Israel could be heading on a collision course in several areas as the new U.S. administration gets a little firmer with Israel.

Three particular issues are concerning Israel: The new administration's desire to hold talks with Iran when Israel would prefer military action, Washington's decision to attend a preparatory meeting for the forthcoming U.N. World Conference Against Racism, and a probable American crackdown on Israel's illegal settlement building and expansion in the Palestinian West Bank.

Following the news that U.S. President Barack Obama intends to pursue dialogue with Tehran and Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, Israeli officials are busy putting together a position paper for the new administration in Washington.

Last year the George W. Bush administration thwarted an Israeli attempt to take military action against Iran, according to a report in The New York Times.

The Israelis held simulated dummy runs for an attack on Iran by partaking in aerial maneuvers over eastern Greece in June last year.

Tel Aviv requested bunker-busting bombs from Washington to use against Iran's alleged underground nuclear reactor in Natanz.

Upgraded refueling jets, which would be necessary for a strike on Iran, were also requested as was a clear flight path over Iraq in order to strike Iran. Israel received 100 bunker-busting bombs but the flight path over Iraq was turned down.

The position paper being formulated by the Israelis lists the problems facing international efforts to curb Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions.

Israel doesn't want to see prolonged negotiations between the U.S. and Iran and has argued that Washington should only hold talks for a short period. And should negotiations fail, it has recommended harsh sanctions against Tehran as a precursor to military action.

But Iran is not the only problem the Israelis are facing. The U.S. administration has decided to attend preparatory talks for the forthcoming U.N. Conference Against Racism, Durban 2, to be held in Geneva in April – much to Israel's chagrin.

"This will be the first opportunity the Obama administration has had to engage in the negotiations for the Durban Review, and – in line with our commitment to diplomacy – the U.S. has decided to send a delegation to engage in the negotiations on the text of the conference document," the U.S. State Department said in a statement.

"The intent of our participation is to work to try to change the direction in which the review conference is heading," it said. "We hope to work with other countries that want the Conference to responsibly and productively address racism around the world."

The conference is named after the first conference which took place in Durban, South Africa, in 2001, amongst bitter acrimony between conference attendees and Israeli delegates.

Critics of Israel stated in Durban that Zionism was racism. Israel in turn accused its critics of being anti-Semitic.

Israel is again afraid that against the background of its recent three-week bloody assault on Gaza, which left over 1,300 Palestinians dead, nearly 5,000 wounded, most of them civilian, and much of the territory's infrastructure decimated, that it could again receive a lambasting.

Israeli Foreign Ministry officials had previously sought to block efforts by senior American administration officials to change Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's decision to boycott the conference.

One of these officials included Susan Rice, the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and Obama's former campaign adviser. Rice is also pushing for the U.S. to join the U.N. Human Rights Council, which is based in Geneva.

The body had been boycotted by the U.S., partly because of Washington's view that it is one-sided in its criticism of Israel.

Samantha Power, another Obama adviser at the National Security Council, is the other official pushing for American participation in Durban 2. Power participated in the initial Durban conference as the representative of a non-government organization and is known for her strong criticism of Israel.

In the past, she expressed support for cutting U.S. military assistance to Israel and transferring the funds as aid to build a Palestinian state. The U.S. will later make a decision on whether to attend the conference in Geneva.

In the interim, Israel's continued settlement building and expansion in the West Bank could come under fire when U.S. envoy George Mitchell and Hillary Clinton next visit Jerusalem.

It is expected that the new U.S. administration will pressure Israel heavily to freeze settlement construction and keep its promise to lift some of the more than 600 Israeli military roadblocks in the West Bank.

Mitchell will bring a team of experts with him who are au fait with the facts surrounding the settlements. They are also up to date on new developments and Israel's various excuses as to why it failed in the past to meet its obligations under the international peace Quartet's "road map."

Measures the Obama administration could possibly take include cutting the equivalent sum of the latest investments in settlements from the remaining budget for U.S. guaranteed loans. This is approximately $1.3 billion out of a total of $10 billion that the U.S. made available to Israel for it to absorb immigrants from the former Soviet Union.

Meanwhile the State Department is evaluating the implication of reports that MP Avigdor Lieberman, head of Yisrael Beiteinu – which came third in Israel's elections last week and is expected to heavily influence the composition of the next Israeli government – was a member of the extremist organization Kach.

Kach appears on the State Department list of terrorist organizations.

Shariah deal signed with Swat militants

PESHAWAR: Pakistan yesterday signed a deal with hardliners recognizing the rule of Shariah law in the northwest Swat valley in a bid to end violence in the troubled region.
The agreement came as a suspected US missile strike destroyed an Afghan Taliban camp, killing 26 people in the tribal area of Kurram, security officials said.
The Shariah deal, widely seen as a government concession to militants, followed talks between ministers in the troubled North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and a local militant leader, Sufi Mohamed, on formalizing the implementation of Islamic law.
The agreement will cover Pakistan’s Malakand area, one of the districts of NWFP, which includes the Swat valley and is home to around 3mn of the estimated 20mn people who live in the northwest province.
“All laws against Shariah will be abolished and Shariah will be enforced under this justice system,” provincial information minister Mian Iftikhar Hussain told reporters in the regional capital Peshawar.
“The implementation of this agreement will be done with the establishment of peace in the region when the writ of the government is restored,” said a copy of the deal, signed by ministers and Maulana Mohamed Alam, Sufi’s deputy.
The Islamists vowed to disarm once Islamic justice was established.
“We are satisfied. When Shariah is implemented practically, people will lay down their arms,” said Mohamed Iqbal Khan, a senior follower of Mohamed.
“We will soon convene a meeting of our shura (consultative council) after which Sufi Mohamed will visit Swat and convince the Taliban there to disarm,” Khan added.
Until two years ago, Swat was a jewel in the crown of Pakistani tourism, frequented by foreign and local holidaymakers.
But the region descended into chaos after radical cleric Maulana Fazlullah embarked on a violent campaign to enforce Taliban-style Shariah law, prompting tens of thousands to flee and suffocating day-to-day life.
Taliban spokesman Muslim Khan said on Sunday that a 10-day ceasefire, announced as a “goodwill gesture,” could become permanent if a deal were signed.
Pakistan, under massive Western pressure to clamp down on extremists, has deployed its poorly equipped military to try to flush out the militants and wrest back control of Swat.
But despite the military campaign, the government believes negotiations are the best hope of restoring peace, although past deals have collapsed. An agreement signed with pro-Taliban militants in Swat last May unraveled rapidly.
The lawless tribal areas in northwest Pakistan have been wracked by violence since hundreds of Taliban and Al Qaeda rebels sought refuge in the region after the US-led invasion of Afghanistan toppled the Taliban regime in late 2001.

Newest US troops in dangerous region near Kabul

By JASON STRAZIUSO, Associated Press Writer

LOGAR PROVINCE, Afghanistan – Close to 3,000 American soldiers who recently arrived in Afghanistan to secure two violent provinces near Kabul have begun operations in the field and already are seeing combat, the unit's spokesman said Monday.

The new troops are the first wave of an expected surge of reinforcements this year. The process began to take shape under President George Bush but has been given impetus by President Barack Obama's call for an increased focus on Afghanistan.

U.S. commanders have been contemplating sending up to 30,000 more soldiers to bolster the 33,000 already here, but the new administration is expected to initially approve only a portion of that amount. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday the president would decide soon.

The new unit — the 3rd Brigade Combat Team of the 10th Mountain Division — moved into Logar and Wardak provinces last month, and the soldiers from Fort Drum, N.Y., are now stationed in combat outposts throughout the provinces.

Militants have attacked several patrols with rifles and rocket-propelled grenades, including one ambush by 30 insurgents, Lt. Col. Steve Osterhozer, the brigade spokesman, said.

Several roadside bombs also have exploded next to the unit's MRAPs — mine-resistance patrol vehicles — but caused no casualties, he said.

"In every case our vehicles returned with overwhelming fire," Ostehozer said. "We have not suffered anything more than a few bruises, while several insurgents have been killed."

Commanders are in the planning stages of larger scale operations expected to be launched in the coming weeks.

Militant activity has spiked in Logar and Wardak over the last year as the resurgent Taliban has spread north toward Kabul from its traditional southern power base. Residents say insurgents roam wide swaths of Wardak, a mountainous province whose capital is about 35 miles from Kabul.

The region has been covered in snow recently, but Col. David B. Haight, commander of the 3rd Brigade, said last week that he expects contact with insurgents to increase soon.

"The weather has made it so the enemy activity is somewhat decreased right now, and I expect it to increase in the next two to three months," Haight said at a news conference.

Haight said he believes the increase of militant activity in the two provinces is not ideologically based but stems from poor Afghans being enticed into fighting by their need for money. Quoting the governor of Logar, the colonel called it an "economic war."

Afghan officials "don't believe it's hardcore al-Qaida operatives that you're never going to convert anyway," Haight said. "They believe that it's the guys who say, 'Hey you want $100 to shoot an RPG at a Humvee when it goes by,' and the guy says, 'Yeah I'll do that, because I've got to feed my family.'"

Still, Haight said there are hardcore fighters in the region, some of them allied with Jalaludin Haqqani and his son Siraj, a fighting family with a long history in Afghanistan. The two militant leaders are believed to be in Pakistan.

Logar Gov. Atiqullah Ludin said at a news conference alongside Haight that U.S. troops will need to improve both security and the economic situation.

"There is a gap between the people and the government," Ludin said. "Assistance in Logar is very weak, and the life of the common man has not improved."

Ludin also urged that U.S. forces be careful and not act on bad intelligence to launch night raids on Afghans who turn out to be innocent.

It is a common complaint from Afghan leaders. President Hamid Karzai has long pleaded with U.S. forces not to kill innocent Afghans during military operations and says he hopes to see night raids curtailed.

Pointing to the value of such operations, the U.S. military said Monday that a raid in northwest Badghis province killed a feared militant leader named Ghulam Dastagir and eight other fighters.

Other raids, though, have killed innocent Afghans who were only defending their village against a nighttime incursion by forces they didn't know, officials say.

"We need to step back and look at those carefully, because the danger they carry is exponential," Ludin said.

Haight cautioned last week that civilian casualties could increase with the presence of his 2,700 soldiers.

"We understand the probability of increased civilian casualties is there because of increased U.S. forces," said the colonel, who has also commanded Special Operations task forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. "Our plan is to do no operations without ANA (Afghan army) and ANP (Afghan police), to help us be more precise."

The U.S. military and Afghan Defense Ministry announced last week that Afghan officers and soldiers would take on a greater role in military operations, including in specialized night raids, with the aim of decreasing civilian deaths.

The presence of U.S. troops in Wardak and Logar is the first time such a large contingent of American power has been so close to Kabul, fueling concerns that militants could be massing for a push at the capital. Haight dismissed those fears.

"Our provinces butt up against the southern boundary of Kabul and therefore there is the perception that Kabul could be surrounded," Haight said. "But the enemy cannot threaten Kabul. He's not big enough, he's not strong enough, he doesn't have the technology. He can conduct attacks but he can't completely disrupt the governance in Kabul."

Hezbollah says it has right to have air defense weapons

Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah said Monday that the militant group has the right to possess air defense weapons to face the Israeli warplanes that regularly fly over Lebanon, al-Manar TV reported.

"The resistance (Hezbollah) has enough courage to use air defense weapons if possessed, and the right to use these weapons," Nasrallah said when addressing crowded of supporters in the southern suburbs of Beirut.

His remarks came on the occasion of the first anniversary of assassination of Hezbollah official Imad Mughniyeh, who was killed in a car bomb in Damascus on Feb. 12 last year. Hezbollah blamed Israel for Mughniyeh's killing, but Israel denied involvement.

Nasrallah said Hezbollah will respond to Israeli threats with more threats, adding that "the students of Mughniyeh (and other martyrs) would destroy the Israeli army if it tries to invade Lebanon."

"The main lesson learned from the Gaza war is that the Israeli army is not capable of winning a battle," Nasrallah said, adding that "Arab armies have never been weak, but Arab decision makers have been weak."

Referring to the upcoming legislative elections scheduled for June, Nasrallah said Lebanon can only be ruled by consensus, no matter who wins the elections.

"If the resistance (opposition) wins the election, we would give the other side a veto power in cabinet, if they refuse, we will rule without consensus, but with a national perspective," he said.

The upcoming Lebanese elections will determine who will rule the country for the next four years.

Majority leader Saad Hariri said last week that he will not join the government if the opposition wins, but stressed that he would respect the outcomes of the elections which he hoped would take place in a democratic atmosphere.