--Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his minister of defense, Ehud Barak, are leading a campaign to launch a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, and The New York Times calls them an "odd couple," in a report from Jerusalem by Ethan Bronner, a Jewish American journalist whose son served in the occupation army. The report says the two men, coming from different positions, and representing different policies and expertise, have agreed to join forces to work against an Iranian nuclear bomb. Is this true? The two men are on the right of the Likud. I know Barak is the head of the left-wing Labor Party, after he left the position of army chief in 1995. But I wrote at the time that Barak joined Labor because there was no place for him in Likud. He has used his presence in the party of the Zionists who established Israel to destroy the party and the peace process with it. Last year, Israeli newspapers wrote that Netanyahu was looking for a place for Barak within Likud. I cannot believe that I know about these two war criminals things that The New York Times does not. I know that Netanyahu is a war criminal who took part in the destruction of civilian planes at Beirut Airport in 1968, and that Barak killed Palestinian leaders in Beirut on 9 and 10 April 1973. I stepped on the blood of my friend Kamal Adwan at his home on that awful night. --Iran's plan for a second Holocaust must be stopped. Who is saying this? John Bolton is, and he is one of the vilest of the neoconservatives, and the most extreme. He has worked for Israel inside and outside the administration, and was George Bush's ambassador to the United Nations, without Congress' approval. Iran cannot carry out a second holocaust, even if it wanted to. But Bolton was a key member of the holocaust in which 1.5 million Arabs and Muslims have been killed over the last ten years, and not 65 years ago, as with the European Jews. The justice of land and heaven demand the trial of the neo-Nazis who have killed Arabs and Muslims on deliberately falsified pretexts, in Nuremburg, for example, as the Nazi leaders were tried. Any justice court would order to execution of Bush and his vice president, Dick Cheney, along with Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, John Bolton and other members of the gang. --When a terrorist influenced by al-Qaida killed three young children and their teacher in Toulouse, I was in Bahrain. I called my secretary in London and asked her to post on my Twitter account in Arabic and English that if recovering Palestine takes place by killing children, then I do not want it. I changed an article that was ready for publication during my absence and added to it a condemnation of the killer and the crime. I have two observations here: The first is that the first terrorists in our region in the modern period were the founders of Israel. The current government of Israel contains known terrorists who justify counter-terror. I hold Israel responsible for the rise of al-Qaida and its terror against Muslims, before Jews, and against all people. The second is that the supporters of Israel are using Toulouse to blame all Muslims. I have said this since 28 September 2000, or the beginning of the second intifada and up to today, around 1,500 Palestinian children have been killed, compared to 135 Israeli children. Israel has killed many times more than the terrorist in Toulouse. --After politics, I will end with history. I read something about a new book by Tom Holland, "In the Shadow of the Sword: The Battle for Global Empire and the End of the Ancient World." The book reminded me of a mistake repeated in the telling of European history. There is an insistence on the battle of Poiters, where Charles Martel and his allies defeated the Arabs, led by Abdel-Rahman al-Ghafiqi, representing the end of the Islamic conquests in Europe. However, the history books of Arabian Andalusia only have a few lines about the battle, in which al-Ghafiqi was killed. They consider it one of many similar invasions, as the conquering of Andalusia took place in 711, when Tariq bin Ziad and Musa bin Nusayr crossed the sea from Morocco. The Battle of Poitiers was in 732, and the Arabs remained in Andalusia until 1492. This battle was part of the beginning of their history in Andalusia, and was followed by invasions across the Pyrenees and the Arabs' occupation of southern France, or today's Riviera, although it had little resources and few people at the time, so it was abandoned. I do not object to western historians, but I am comparing their version to Arab versions, and I will let the reader decide the importance of that battle-invasion.
