The Judaisation of Jerusalem

http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/articles/arab-media/3550-the-judaisation-of-jerusalem

The Judaisation of Jerusalem has occupied a prominent place in the Arab and Muslim media recently, and is the focus of many statements made by officials and heads of state on the grounds that the city's future concerns those who care about Islamic and Christian holy sites there. Recent conferences in Doha and Beirut released statements confirming Jerusalem's Arab identity and the need to protect the holy places as well as cultural and historical monuments which characterise the city.

While this powerful rhetoric in defence of Jerusalem was being uttered, Israeli bulldozers were creating new roads in the city and preparing the ground for the construction of more housing units for illegal Jewish settlers; Israel was proceeding apace with its Judaisation policy.

We often hear from Arab leaders and the Arab media that there is a Zionist conspiracy for the Judaisation of Jerusalem; this is usually followed by harsh criticism of Zionism, and Israel and its supporters, without knowing the exact details of the plot. It is believed that there is a behind-the-scenes conspiracy, but Israel is not Judaising Jerusalem behind closed doors or in secret; Israel's moves are plain for all to see, with no need for long explanations. Israel confiscates Palestinian land and demolishes Palestinian homes in full view of the world and the media; the evidence has been available for many years in books, magazines, newspapers and television programmes.

Plans for the Judaisation process for the city of Jerusalem go way back to 1918 when Britain's General Edmund Allenby summoned engineer William McLean to develop a plan for the city's re-organisation. In 1919, the British Mandate authorities and nascent Zionist movement asked Patrick Geddes to develop a masterplan for Jerusalem. Developments took place up until 1949 and again in 1967 until today.

It is important to note that Israel's plans are published and can be viewed by the public, but it seems that the Arabs do not like to read and think that they will liberate Jerusalem through frequent speeches. Israel's plans regarding the old city and its surroundings are clear, and include the details of residential areas, streets, tourist attractions, public institutions, markets and parks, car parks, hotels, schools, arenas, etc. It is also clear with respect to residential areas for Arabs, and the direct vicinity of the old city including the old Muslim cemetery and Silwan. That is, they do not leave anything for the media to discover and reveal; there's nothing new that has not been disclosed in advance.

Although the Israeli plans are published and detailed, Palestinian and Arab leaders are only provoked into "action" when the Israeli and Western Media talk about the implementation of new projects in the holy city. For example, it is clear that Israel drafted plans to demolish homes in Silwan a long time ago but Palestinian and Arab responses only appeared when the Israeli bulldozers did. This was also the case with Jabal Abu Ghneim (now known as the Har Homa illegal settlement), which is shown in Israeli drawings as a settlement/"neighbourhood of Jerusalem", but the Arab leaders only expressed concerns after Israel began preparing the ground to build housing units.

The influence of the media in publicising Israel's Judaisation policy becomes clear when people see housing units being built in many of the settlements scattered across the occupied West Bank quietly and without any noise. These units do not raise any concerns among Arab or Palestinian leaders, or in the Arab and Palestinian media, even though they are clear to everyone and passersby can see them getting bigger day by day. This leads me to ask if such leaders would do or say anything at all if Israel implemented its plans with no media coverage. I think not. Arab and Palestinian leaders only take action to defend Jerusalem out of embarrassment and not through any motivation to save the city. If the opposite was true, would we only hear their outrage after Israeli projects begin?

Since 1948, Arab action regarding East Jerusalem has focused on the following issues:

a) Under Jordanian rule, the Jerusalem municipality developed two plans for the eastern sector of the city in 1962 and 1965, in which they identified residential and industrial areas but the city was taken over by Israel in 1967.

b) Since 1967, Arabs have been submitting complaints to the UN against Israel in East Jerusalem, and a number of non-binding resolutions have been issued by the UN General Assembly and Security Council, which call upon Israel not to change the character of the holy city and to stop all procedures it's carrying out in this regard. Israel has ignored these and continued to implement its plans in full view of the world, and the Arabs still insist on going to the UN. For example, the Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas, has expressed his intention to go the UN to have the Judaisation of Jerusalem stopped.

c) Palestinian Arabs have tried to implement housing projects in East Jerusalem post-1967, such as the Nusseibeh project, but they have usually not proceeded because of Israel's actions and its assault on Palestinian housing.

d) Arab efforts have focused largely on words of condemnation and denunciation of the Judaisation policy Israel has adopted, and to allocate some funds to support the people of Jerusalem. Some of these funds have already been distributed and invested in a proper manner.

Alongside its Judaisation policy, Israel has worked on putting the Palestinians in an insecure position on the economic, housing and physical levels. Taxes have been imposed which are disproportionate to income levels, and the Palestinians are pressured economically to join the Israeli work force and become dependent on the occupation to earn a living. They are tying their children's economic future to Israel, which has prevented them from restoring their homes and imposed very strict rules on building permits, whether for adding rooms to existing buildings, or building new ones. Israel does not hesitate to demolish their homes, whether licensed since the Jordanian era, or unlicensed by the Jerusalem municipality, which carries out the state's Judaisation policy. Israel also went after people for political and security reasons, and arrested many under "administrative detention", tightening searches and creating an atmosphere of terror.

Israel is interested in maintaining this uncertainty for the Palestinian population in the hope that they will leave voluntarily ("silent transfer"), and many have done so. They have been unable to bear the constant pressure, and have preferred to move to other parts of the occupied West Bank; others have moved overseas.

At the same time, Israel is working to provide security for Jews in order to encourage them to live in Jerusalem, both East and West, and to stay there without any thoughts of leaving. Thus, it has worked consistently to provide work for all those of working age, and has provided them with housing in the illegal settlements on very easy financial terms.

This issue is the precise point illustrating that the Israelis are going too far and the Arabs not far enough. Israel understands the importance of the security issue so it has made the Palestinians insecure and strengthened security for the Jews. The Palestinians, meanwhile, have been led to believe that they can relax under occupation and not put the Israelis under any kind of pressure to make most think twice before moving into East Jerusalem. Many Arabs thought that the solution to the problems of the people of Jerusalem was money but did not realise that cash can be drained into Israeli coffers through Tel Aviv's fiscal policies and taxes. Arab funds have helped the people of Jerusalem to a certain degree, but they've also boosted the Israeli treasury.

It is important to strengthen the patriotic spirit of the people of Jerusalem by raising their sense of belonging and loyalty, and guiding individuals and groups towards economic resistance, the rejection of normalisation in very abnormal circumstances, and standing up to Judaisation. This does not mean that the people of Jerusalem are not patriotic, but that programmes promoting national consciousness should be put in place by the PLO and Palestinian factions; this would raise the sense of security among Palestinians, and reduce it for Israelis. Arab policies must be aimed against Israeli security policies.

Unfortunately, the focus on money has led to financial corruption, harming the people of Jerusalem and their city's case. It is also regrettable that some leaders who are supposed to defend Jerusalem have already recognised Israel and normalised relations; they set a bad example of patriotism.
Jerusalem cannot be saved by money alone; it needs the people. If they are patriotically, psychologically and ideologically sound, then funds will strengthen their position. But if they are incapable, then all the funds in the world will not help them; only people can keep a cause alive. It is no secret to most Palestinians that the goal of the Israelis, and those Arabs and Palestinians who collaborate with them, is to conquer Palestine and transform Palestinians into consumers without any real human existence.

Due to the inability of the Arabs and Palestinians to confront Israel in a way that its leaders understand, it will continue the Judaisation of Jerusalem with total indifference to Arab conferences and statements. The President of the Palestinian Authority will have no option but to run to the United Nations and to urge Arabs to visit Jerusalem, with an Israeli permit to pray in Al-Aqsa Mosque under Israeli guns. When Israel refuses the permits and uses the guns, what worth then for a prayer in Al-Aqsa being rewarded so much more than in other mosques?

Next >

http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/articles/arab-media/3550-the-judaisation-of-jerusalem

Let me tell you about Palestine, the way it used to be"
Sumia Ibrahim writing from the United States, Live from Palestine, 26 January 2009

The author's grandparents and their children in Baghdad in 1955.

I have never seen my grandmother without a large medallion hanging from her neck. As a child, I stared at the pendant's engraving of a gold-domed structure, watched the turquoise walls glimmer as they caught light from the piercing Iraqi sun. When I asked Tata what the pendant depicted, she replied, "The place where I'm from." I thought of it as a palace towering in a far, mythic land, like the great emerald castle of Oz.

I later understood that it was the Dome of the Rock, located at the heart of Jerusalem's Old City. The city, a religious and at times economic and cultural hub of a predominately Arab Palestine for nearly 1,200 years, has been in modern times, hotly contested with the establishment of the State of Israel on Palestinian soil in 1948. With the birth of the Zionist state, came the destruction of Palestinian society, and Tata was forced to flee her home along with more than 700,000 other Palestinians. When I finally understood the pendant's historical context, I realized that for Tata, it symbolized a land that she treasured but could not return to, an emblem of both beauty and tragedy.

As years passed, the medallion became lackluster, its once glimmering surface now dull, corroded by decades of wind and sand. No longer charming the sun's light, it became an unassuming feature on Tata's body, like a scar on a friend's face that one used to discreetly examine but now rarely notices. I overlooked the pendant and overlooked Tata's experience. But like a scar whose origin has gone unpronounced, the desire for discovery lingers until it is fulfilled. The year 2008 began, marking the 60th anniversary of the Nakba, the forced expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland. Across the world, people celebrated Israel's "Independence Day." Others remembered the lives of the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians killed or displaced in its wake and the nearly four million Palestinians still living under the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and the brutal siege of the Gaza Strip, and the population of five million Palestinian refugees that have yet to see their right of return realized. On this memorable anniversary, and the year of Tata's 80th birthday, I asked her for the first time, "What was it like for you?"

Tata clasped the pendant and smiled. "Let me tell you about Palestine, the way it used to be," she said in Arabic. "The thing I'll remember most is my childhood in the city of Jaffa. Every day we would go to the beach and play in the sand. It was just one block from our home, the apartment building that my father owned. At night we would sit on the balcony and watch the big ships sail by, listening to them whistle." Tata laughed. "We ate so many oranges! They called them 'the yellow gold.' My uncles worked as orange merchants. They would bring big bags to our house. I would pile up ten, 11 oranges in my lap and eat them all at once."

She also told me about the hardships of being a girl in the 1930s. "When I was in seventh grade, my father heard a sermon at the mosque that girls should not be too educated. The imam said that it's enough for girls to be able to read and write. So my father pulled me out of school at the age of 12."

Tata's voice softened. "I had been very happy in school. I loved learning and spending time with my friends. So I was very upset when I couldn't go anymore. I cried a lot. I would see my friends through the window walking to school, see them walking happily without me, and I'd cry."

As Tata began to talk about her marriage, her tears dried and her honey-colored eyes sparkled with girlhood excitement. "At first they said he was too old for me. But then they said it was fine. He was a principal of a school in a nearby village. When we first moved into our house in the village, I couldn't believe how big it was. My friends would come visit me while your grandfather was at work and we would jump rope together in the middle of the living room."

Soon, Tata was no longer smiling as she began to tell me about the political situation that existed in Palestine during her childhood. "When I was a child, I heard all about the Jews that were immigrating little by little to Palestine, especially Tel Aviv, which was close by us. We knew they wanted our land, but they weren't very powerful. We didn't pay much attention to it."

"I remember hearing about Balfour, though," Tata continued, "The British wrote this declaration [in 1917] which said that Jews needed their own homeland in Palestine. Palestinians didn't agree. It was our land, why should we divide it?" Tata sighed, "Then it began."

"We were hearing about Jews raiding Palestinian towns. My brother bought a pistol for self-defense, in case there was a raid. The Palestinian resistance began. There was a four month general strike [in 1936] throughout Palestine to protest. No one went to work. My father would stay home all day." This has come to be known as the Arab Revolt in Palestine, which was concentrated in the years 1936 to 1939. The nearly 10,000 Arab fighters and Palestinian society at large demanded an end to the British Mandate, which helped facilitate Zionist immigration and settlement of the land. Zionist paramilitary organizations and British forces stifled the revolt and 120 Arabs were sentenced to death, my grandfather among them. Though he was tortured in captivity, he was luckily able to narrowly avoid execution.

"At this time [1947-1948] we were still hopeful. Arab forces came from all over to fight for Palestine. At the same time, huge ships came in full of Jewish people immigrating to Palestine. I saw them getting off the boats at the docks."

"Then the massacres of villages began. There were three villages by Jaffa that were massacred. Deir Yassin was the one that led us to leave. It was a Friday and men were all out praying at the mosque. The Jewish forces entered the houses and killed children and their mothers. They threw them in wells and killed children while they were in their mother's laps. [Your grandfather] came home. He had heard about the massacres. He said 'that's it, we can't stay anymore.' He heard about the women being raped and that was the last straw."

"At first we moved to an apartment further away from the bay. We thought this would be safer. Everyone else in our building left too. But we didn't want to leave Palestine for good. We thought the Arab forces would come and save us. Your grandfather was asked to give news on a radio station run by Arab troops. He did this for some time, trying to convince people not to leave our country, to stay and fight."

"There were bombings during that time. I used to look outside the window and see explosions coming from all directions. My daughters, one four years old, the other two years old, were very scared."

"Because of the situation, we decided it would be best for our daughters if we moved further away from the fighting, to Nablus, for some time. This was in the early summer of 1948. All we took with us were some clothes, a roll up mattress, a small carpet, a prayer rug, a few kitchen supplies, and some books. We only had 80 Jordanian dinars with us. We left our furniture because we were worried it would break on the way. We left our diplomas. We thought, 'we'll back in three months or so.' We thought by then the Zionists would be defeated. When we left, we left everything."

"In Nablus we lived in a tiny apartment. There was only one room for all of us to sleep in, a small kitchen, and a bathroom. We didn't have any furniture, so we piled up our things on the floor against the walls."

"We wanted the Arab troops to fight so we could return to our home in Jaffa and return to our lives. We saw Arab troops around and we would ask them, 'Why are you here? Why aren't you fighting?' They responded, 'We don't have the orders to fight.' We would see Arab troops spending their whole days at the public baths, so we used to have a rhyme that went 'There aren't orders for the battlefield, but there are orders for the bath.'" Tata smiles briefly then adds soberly, "We realized this wouldn't be over quickly."

"We stayed for two months in Nablus. We decided for our family's safety, for our daughters, we had to leave the country until we got it back. Your grandfather was working for an English pharmaceutical company called Evans, in the advertising department. They had a branch in Baghdad too. He arranged to transfer his position to Baghdad. He had a friend in Iraq in the Foreign Ministry, a man who sent him translated articles for free gave us Iraqi passports. So we tied all of our things up on the top of a taxi and drove to Amman. It was very expensive, it cost us 40 dinars. From Amman we went to Baghdad."

"On our way to Baghdad we saw many pick up trucks with Palestinian refugees in the back. They were coming from villages that had been massacred or destroyed, taken by Iraqi troops to Baghdad. They traveled all that way under the hot sun, with nothing above them to provide shade. I would see them throwing up out of the back of the trucks, getting sick from the heat. They were taken to 'Tobchee,' a neighborhood with government housing, and received assistance from the Iraqi government." Tata explained that these refugees, the ones that were able to resettle in Iraq, were the lucky ones.

Many Palestinians ended up in refugee camps in squalid circumstances, both "internally" in what came to be known as the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and externally in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. Many Palestinian refugees faced hostility from their government hosts, but in some countries such as Lebanon, they held and still hold practically no rights amid systematic policies of discrimination towards refugees.

Tata begins to describe the hardships her family faced as refugees in a foreign country. "At first, when we got to Baghdad, we stayed in the best hotel. It was paid for by Evans. But after that, things didn't work out with their branch in Baghdad. They paid your grandfather two months salary then let him go. We were very worried. But he heard from other Palestinians that Arab Bank was opening a branch in Baghdad. He got a job there as a teller for a very low wage. His manager loaned him money to support his family. Eventually he was promoted to be a manager."

"Your grandfather started working as a translator as well, translating books and articles from English to Arabic. He was always working. He worked two or three jobs to support us all. He got very sick. He was tired all the time and complained of pain, but he still had to work." Tata explained that he grew up as a farmer in a small Palestinian village, Budrus, and spent his entire life engaged in relentless hard work in an attempt to advance his family's circumstances.

Upon visiting Budrus in 2006, I was told stories of my grandfather's determination for advancement. He used to place his feet in a pot of icy water, I was told, to keep himself alert as he studied. He used to stand on a chair with his head in a noose that hung from the ceiling while he studied through the night, motivating himself not fall asleep. "He was a great man," people exclaimed to me. With his father, he built the first girls' school in the village and went door to door convincing parents to allow their daughters to go to school. He also walked miles daily to a nearby town in order to attend high school, and taught himself to be proficient in English. I understood his desire for upward mobility upon seeing the house that he spent his early childhood in. He lived in a small, cobbled stone structure, the first floor of which was a stable that housed animals and the second floor of which was used for residence. It was entirely empty except for a hole in the wall where blankets were stored.

Tata recalls how my grandfather dreamed of building a large home in Baghdad for all of his children and their families, dreamed of meals together filled with enthusiastic conversation and laughter. Yet this dream died with the rise of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, and the beginning of what would be an eight year war with Iran, sending many in the family to live elsewhere. This double displacement weighed on him and Tata.

"We had to leave Palestine," Tata said, "then our family began leaving Iraq. We were spread across the world. Your grandfather was tired. He used to come home and say 'I just want to go back to Palestine and die there.' He would say, 'maybe one day my children will be able to go back.' He died wishing to return."

"If I could return, I wish most of all to see Jaffa," Tata smiled distantly, "To walk down the beach like I used to. To see my father's house." She added, "But even if they let me return, I couldn't go. I couldn't see Jaffa the way it is now, taken by the Israelis, the place I was raised gone, my family's house gone, and my family gone, dispersed around the world. I couldn't handle facing that."

Yet Tata's face filled with hope. She clasped the medallion and smiled, the gold peeking through her fingers like doves through the wires of their cage. "There must be a day when we can go back, if not our children, then our grandchildren. Inshallah [God willing]."

Sixty years later, millions of Palestinian refugees have not been able to exercise their right to return, enshrined by United Nations Resolution 191. One of the "final status" issues, a resolution concerning refugees is pivotal to reaching a peace agreement. Even Mahmoud Abbas, whose official term as Palestinian Authority president expired earlier this month, and who is a favorite of the United States and Israel, has made this clear in recent months. A resolution on refugees must include the admission of guilt by the Israeli government and a public apology, which Israel has refused in past negotiations. It must include the homecoming of refugees who wish to return to their native cities and towns that are now within the borders of Israel (polls show that this constitutes only about 10 percent of Palestinian refugees). It must include the return of refugees who desire to live in a Palestinian state. Finally, it must include reparations paid to refugee families, which Israel has refused to provide, even partially.

As the 60th anniversary of the Nakba passes, we must not allow the plight of refugees to be forgotten, buried under the inevitable snowstorms of the new year. "I know that if we ever return, it will never be the same. Some things will always be lost," Tata said. "But to walk on our soil again and to live by our people again, to know the world didn't forget our struggle but helped us realize our rights, this would be so much. And though some things are lost forever, maybe others will be gained."

Sumia Ibrahim is an Iraqi-Palestinian residing in the United States. She is an activist for the end of the occupations of Palestine and Iraq and can be reached by email for comments and questions at sumiaibrahim AT gmail DOT com.


Latest articles on EI:

Palestine : Opinion/Editorial: The shortcut to peace (28 January 2009)

Palestine : Business & Economy: Palestinian economy: Foundation of a state or common burden? (27 January 2009)

Palestine : Human Rights: Ceasefire broken from day one (27 January 2009)

Palestine : Opinion/Editorial: The Indian example (26 January 2009)

Palestine : Diaries: Live from Palestine: "May God take revenge on those who did this!" (26 January 2009)

Palestine : Art, Music & Culture: Book review: "Cycles of violence," US media and Palestine (26 January 2009)

Palestine : Diaries: Live from Palestine: "Let me tell you about Palestine, the way it used to be" (26 January 2009)

Palestine : Role of the Media: BBC violates its own principles by not airing Gaza appeal (26 January 2009)

Palestine : Human Rights: Unexploded bombs hold more deaths (26 January 2009)

Palestine : Human Rights: Israeli forces arrest seven children in West Bank (23 January 2009) //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// LOOK / http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10240.shtml

Mousa Abu Marzook, The Electronic Intifada, 23 January 2009

Thousands of Palestinians attend a rally organized by Hamas in Gaza City days after Israel declared a unilateral ceasefire, 20 January 2009. (Mohamed Al-Zanon/MaanImages)

Israel's objectives from the war on Gaza were set long before its launch: to remove the Hamas movement and government, achieve the reinstallation of the Fatah leader, Mahmoud Abbas, in Gaza, and end the armed resistance. Two other objectives were not announced. First, restore the Israeli public's wavering confidence in its armed forces after its defeat by Hizballah in 2006. Second, boost the coalition government in the coming elections.

Accordingly, we declare that Israel lost, and lost decisively. What did it achieve? The killing of large numbers of civilians, children and women, and the destruction of homes, ministry buildings and other infrastructure with the most advanced United States weapons and other internationally banned chemical and phosphorous elements. Almost 2,000 children were killed and injured in desperate pursuit of political goals. Many international organizations called these attacks war crimes, yet barely a word of denunciation was uttered by any western leader. What message does the European Union mean to send Palestinians by its shameful silence on these crimes, when it speaks incessantly on human rights?

If anything, the last three weeks, and previous 18 months, have proved that the Palestinians can never be broken by either starvation, economic strangulation or brutal attack. European leaders have only one option: to recognize the outcome of a democratic process they had called for and supported.

The aggression failed to undermine or weaken the Hamas-led government, or turn Palestinians against Hamas. If anything, public support is stronger than ever in Palestine and worldwide. Hamas's military capabilities have not been hurt, either. This explains Israel scurrying to sign such a strange agreement with the US to stop arms reaching Hamas. It is doomed to fail. As the former Israeli chief of staff Moshe Yaalon and Benjamin Netanyahu agreed, Israeli forces failed to achieve their objectives.

Why is Israel allowed a continuous flow of the most lethal arms, including banned weapons, while national resistance movements are denied the means of defense? International laws permit occupied nations to resist their occupiers, and that is a right we aim to utilize to the full.

Israel must accept the reality that it is incapable of breaking the Palestinian resistance. Similarly, Europe must accept that bringing back Abbas on an Israeli tank is not an option. Nor are attempts to win by "diplomacy" what the might of the Israeli military failed to secure by force. To state that all aid for Gaza reconstruction must go through the illegal government of appointed Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad suggests there is no end to some parties' exploitation of Palestinians. We will never cease to pursue national unity, but we will never allow it to be attained by compromising Palestinian rights.

And to President Obama we say: the wave of hope that met your election was heavily dampened by your silence on the Gaza massacre. This was compounded by your pre-election statement siding with the Israeli settlers of Sderot. You would do well to know the history of the places of which you speak. Sderot, which may be known to some as an Israeli town, lies on the ruins of Najd, a Palestinian village ransacked in May 1948 by Zionist terrorist gangs. Villagers were forced from their beds and homes with nothing but the clothes they were wearing, rendering them refugees for the next 61 years. That is the story of Sderot. It is never a good start to get your tyrant and victims mixed up, but there is still room for a revival of passionate optimism. Only if you decide to fairly address the issue of the 6 million Palestinian refugees and the ending of occupation of Palestinian lands, including Jerusalem, will you be able to start a new relationship with the Muslim world.

Mousa Abu Marzook is deputy chief of the Hamas political bureau mousa DOT abumarzook AT gmail DOT com. This essay was first published in The Guardian's Comment is Free.


Related Links

• BY TOPIC: Gaza massacres
• http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10237.shtml

Saddam's defence sues Bush and Blair
1/22/2006 6:00:00 PM GMT

<NOSCRIPT></NOSCRIPT>

Saddam's lawyers plan to file a law suit against the American President and the British PM

Lawyers defending the toppled Iraqi leader SADDAM HUSSEIN said Sunday they're planning to file a law suit against the U.S. PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH and British Prime Minister TONY BLAIR, the United Press International reported Sunday.

Speaking to journalists on Sunday, Saleh Armouti, President of the Jordan Bar Association, who recently joined Saddam's defense team, said that the lawyers plan to file a law suit against the American President and the British Prime Minister in a European international court, on charges of illegally invading and occupying IRAQ.

SADDAM's trial is set to resume Tuesday.

SADDAM and seven members of his former regime are facing charges of killing 148 Shias in the Iraqi town of Dujail north of Baghdad in 1982 after a failed attempt to assassinate the former Iraqi President.

SADDAM's defense team will also ask for the immediate release of Saddam "because his arrest is a violation of international charters after the United States declared an end to hostilities and war in Iraq," Armouti said.

* Army officer found guilty in Iraqi's death

The highest-ranking U.S. Army officer charged with killing a detainee in IRAQ was found guilty of negligent homicide late Saturday in the death of an Iraqi general at a detention camp.

But Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer Jr was spared a conviction of murder that could have sent him to prison for life.

A jury of six army officers found Welshofer not guilty of the murder of Maj-Gen Abed Hamed Mowhoush who dies in Iraq in 2003.

The Army officer, now faces up to three years in jail for homi, was acquitted of assault after six hours of deliberations.

Prosecutors said that Welshofer put a sleeping bag over the head of Mowhoush, sat on his chest and used his hand to cover the general's mouth while asking him questions in 2003.

It's one of various cases involving death of prisoners the U.S. holds in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN.

Welshofer, who showed no reaction when the verdict was announced at the trial, Welshofer faces a dishonorable discharge and up to three years in prison for negligent homicide and three months for negligent dereliction of duty.

The defense claimed that a heart condition was behind Mowhoush's death, affirming that senior commanders approved the interrogation method used against the Iraqi General, who died while being held at Al Qaim in Iraq, near the Syrian border.

"What he was doing he was doing in the open, and he was doing it because he believed the information in fact would save lives," attorney Frank Spinner claimed, adding that he was disappointed with the verdict.

"The verdict recognizes the context in which these events took place," he said. "It was a very difficult time in Iraq. There was confusion, and they were not getting clear guidance from headquarters."

Welshofer sent an e-mail to a commander, prosecutor Maj. Tiernan Dolan said, stating that restrictions on interrogation techniques were impeding the the soldiers' ability to gather intelligence, adn that authorized methods came from Cold War-era doctrine that did not apply in IRAQ.

"Our enemy understands force, not psychological mind games," Dolan quoted from Welshofer's message.

More on Iraq...

* CAIR sends delegation to secure Carroll's release <o:p></o:p>
* Shias win Iraq's elections <o:p></o:p>
* "Fraud marred Iraq's polls" <o:p></o:p>
* 10 Iraqis killed, 2 foreigners seized in bloody ambush <o:p></o:p>

More on Iraq...

CAIR sends delegation to secure Carroll’s release <o:p></o:p> Shias win Iraq’s elections <o:p></o:p> “Fraud marred Iraq’s polls” <o:p></o:p> 10 Iraqis killed, 2 foreigners seized in bloody ambush <o:p></o:p>

War-era doctrine that did not apply in IRAQ.

It's one of various cases involving death of prisoners the U.S. holds in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN.

he highest-ranking U.S. Army officer charged with killing a detainee in IRAQ was found guilty of negligent homicide late Saturday in the death of an Iraqi general at a detention camp.

Lawyers defending the toppled Iraqi leader SADDAM HUSSEIN said Sunday they’re planning to file a law suit against the U.S. PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH and British Prime Minister TONY BLAIR, the United Press International reported Sunday.

Speaking to journalists on Sunday, Saleh Armouti, President of the Jordan Bar Association, who recently joined Saddam's defense team, said that the lawyers plan to file a law suit against the American President and the British Prime Minister in a European international court, on charges of illegally invading and occupying IRAQ.

SADDAM's trial is set to resume Tuesday.

SADDAM and seven members of his former regime are facing charges of killing 148 Shias in the Iraqi town of Dujail north of Baghdad in 1982 after a failed attempt to assassinate the former Iraqi President.

SADDAM's defense team will also ask for the immediate release of Saddam "because his arrest is a violation of international charters after the United States declared an end to hostilities and war in Iraq," Armouti said.