The New Nation - Internet Edition

The security aid package the United States has refused to give Israel for the past few months out of concern that Israel would use it to attack nuclear facilities in Iran included a large number of "bunker-buster" bombs, permission to use an air corridor to Iran, an advanced technological system and refueling planes.

Officials from both countries have been discussing the Israeli requests over the past few months. Their rejection would make it very difficult for Israel to attack Iran, if such a decision is made.

About a month ago, Haaretz reported that the Bush administration had turned down an Israeli request for certain security items that could upgrade Israel's capability to attack Iran. The U.S. administration reportedly saw the request as a sign preparations were moving ahead for an Israeli attack on Iran.

Diplomatic and security sources indicated to Haaretz that the list of components Israel included:

Bunker-buster GBU-28 bombs: In 2005, the U.S. said it was supplying these bombs to Israel. In August 2006, The New York Times reported that the U.S. had expedited the dispatch of additional bombs at the height of the Second Lebanon War. Thebombs, which weigh 2.2 tons each, can penetrate six meters of reinforced concrete. Israel appears to have asked for a relatively large number of additional bunker-busters, and was turned down.

Air-space authorization: An attack on Iran would apparently require passage through Iraqi air space. For this to occur, an air corridor would be needed that Israeli fighter jets could cross without being targeted by American planes or anti-aircraft missiles. The Americans also turned down this request. According to one account, to avoid the issue, the Americans told the Israelis to ask Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki for permission, along the lines of "If you want, coordinate with him."

Refueling planes. An air attack on Iran would require refueling of fighter jets on the way back. According to a report on Channel 10 a few weeks ago, the U.S. rejected an Israeli request for more advanced refueling tankers, of the Boeing 767 model.

The refueling craft the Israel Air Force now uses are very outmoded, something that make it difficult to operate at long distances from Israel. Even if the Americans were to respond favorably to such a request, the process could take a few years.

The IDF recently reported that it is overhauling a Boeing 707 that previously served as the prime minister's plane to serve as a refueling aircraft.

Advanced technological systems. The Israeli sources declined to give any details on this point.

The Israeli requests were discussed during President George W. Bush's visit to Israel in May, as well as during Defense Minister Ehud Barak's visit to Washington in July. In a series of meetings at a very senior level, following Bush's visit, the Americans made clear to the Israelis that for now they are sticking to the diplomatic option to halt the Iranian nuclear project and that Jerusalem does not have a green light from Washington for an attack on Iran.

However, it appears that in compensation for turning down Israel's "offensive" requests, the U.S. has agreed to strengthen its defensive systems.

During the Barak visit, it was agreed that an advanced U.S. radar system would be stationed in the Negev, and the order to send it was made at that time. The system would double to 2,000 kilometers the range of identification of missiles launched from the direction of Iran, and would be connected to an American early warning system.

The system is to be operated by American civilians as well as two American soldiers. This would be the first permanent U.S. force on Israeli soil.

A senior security official said the Americans were preparing "with the greatest speed" to make good on their promise, and the systems could be installed within a month.

The Israeli security source said he believed Washington was moving ahead quickly on the request because it considered it very important to restrain Israel at this time.

At the beginning of the year, the Israeli leadership still considered it a reasonable possibility that Bush would decide to attack Iran before the end of his term.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, in private discussions, even raised the possibility that the U.S. was considering an attack in the transition period between the election in November and the inauguration of the new president in January 2009.

However, Jerusalem now assumes that likelihood of this possibility is close to nil, and that Bush will use the rest of his time in office to strengthen what he defines as the Iraqi achievement, following the relative success of American efforts there over the past year and a half.

Firoz Bakht Ahmed

With so many voices stating that the religion advocates violence, Islam is today under the scanner. Not all of them can be wrong - people judge by what they see and today these terrorists speak and act violently in the name of Islam.

The familiar drill after every terror attack was repeated last month after the twin Hyderabad blasts killing about 50 people - the government passing the buck to foreign involvement, the announcement of compensation to the dead and news updates that normalcy has been restored and, finally, the worn out cliché that terrorist designs to upset peace are defeated.

More Muslims need to realise that Islamist terrorists are not simply "misguided" individuals acting on a whim but are people who know what they are doing and are doing it deliberately in the name of Islam. It is simply not enough just to condemn their demoniac acts without actually doing something as observed by London-based journalist, Hasan Suroor. Islamic terrorism hasn't descended from another galaxy, rather it breeds within the community and is a result of a particular mindset that misinterprets Islam.

These suicide bombers - criminals against humanity - often invoke Islam for their dirty criminal deeds and assume Arabic sounding names and call themselves mujahids (holy warriors) to pass their misdeeds as an act of jehad. Muslims must come out openly on the streets against terror outfits like the Lashkar-e-Toiba( LeT), Harkat-ul-Jihad- e-Islam (HuJi), Al Qaeda, Sipah-e-Sahaba and other.

Many of the terrorists acting in the name of Islam cite Palestine, Chechnya, Iraq and Afghanistan to justify their killings. They have lost their moral compass. For them anyone who does not agree with their point of view is an infidel and can be eliminated. From 9/11 to 25/8 Hyderabad now, theirs is a bloody tale of hate and retribution.

The word jehad comes from its Arabic root jahada meaning 'to struggle'. The word jehad has been so badly misused both by wayward Muslim terrorists and Islam-baiters that it has completely lost its meaning. The term jehad has been misinterpreted to conjure up bizarre images of violent Muslims forcing people to submit under duress. Islam rejects violence in all its forms but the jehadis take that path without caring as to what impact it can have on a common Muslim by making him a usual suspect. According to Prophet Mohammed, jehad is the inner struggle for virtue to submit to god in all walks of life.

Do these jehadis know that murder is prohibited by the Quran and that during fighting non-combatants are guaranteed security of life if the state is at war? They don't read those verses that declare that taking the life of one innocent individual means killing the whole humanity. They have a skewed vision. They are able to misinterpret verses from the Quran to justify their heinous and horrendous designs of killing innocent people.

According to Prophet Mohammed, "Indeed whoever intentionally kills, himself will be punished in the fire of hell, wherein he shall dwell forever." Regardless of how legitimate the cause may be, the Quran does not condone killing of innocent people. Terrorising defenceless civilians, bombing, killing and maiming of innocent men, women and children are most abhorred by Islam and those who indulge in these in the name of religion are not to be termed as Muslims.

Frankly speaking, this is not the time to quote from the Quran on peace, but to act. Truly, those who have killed innocents, have nothing to do with Islam. Sura Al-Baqr (Verse: 114) in the Quran states that Allah dislikes those who indulge in arson, loot and killings. Sura Al-Kafirun (Chapter: 30) mentions: Lakum dinokum waley yadeen (You follow your religion; let them follow theirs). Islam's very meaning is submission.

As a long term strategy of dealing with the menace of terrorism, the government should absorb patriotic Muslims in their departments to spy upon their fanatical co-religionists-as we see in the role of Zaid Khan, a devoted ACP in the Mumbai police force in Mahesh Bhatt's latest film "Dhokha" that goes into the roots of terrorism and aims at finding a solution based on reason and sanity.

The SIMI (Students Islamic Movement of India), Shahi Imam Bukhari, fanatics in Coimbatore and Maharashtra, the calls for jehad and the distribution of inflammatory posters have enraged middle class Hindus. Minor issues like a few Muslim leaders opposing the singing of Vande Mataram on national occasions add fuel to the fire increasing animosity between the two communities over the years.

Also, a large majority of Muslims remain isolated from people belonging to other faiths. During these times, there's a distinct divide between Islam and the West that is the worst thing to happen. Muslims should interact with people of other faiths. Interaction and dialogue inculcates tolerance in one's self.

Isolation will deprive the world from getting to know the true spirit of Islam and will let all the stereotypes keep getting reinforced.

The Muslim clergy, on its part, must get involved in weaning away the obdurate followers of Islam, following the message from the Quran that killing innocent people is a sin. Let us not wage a war of religion but one of reason and tolerance. Let us engage in a dialogue. Let us prove all those who link Islam with violence wrong.

The need of the hour in Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai and other cities is that the moment the community observes any suspicious person living in their neighbourhood, they must without ado inform the local police. These jehadis prefer Muslim ghettoes, as nobody is bothered what activities are going on.

It is also important that the Muslim community itself develops a broad range of tactics - from traditional counter-terrorist methods to softer more sophisticated strategies - to destroy this jehadi trend.

Jehadi groups are relentlessly pursuing their roadmap to extremism in their effort to establish Dar-ul-Islam (land of Islam) in India that is already Dar-ul-Aman (land of peace) by brainwashing and inciting innocent youth. What is lamentable is that there is no sign of a debate in the community. This is a matter of serious concern.

A liberal Muslim must check a communalist Muslim and a communal Hindu should be checked by a liberal Hindu. Muslim voices of sanity aren't loudly heard. There shouldn't be "ifs" and "buts" while condemning terror acts. We have to agree to the principle that the killing of innocents cannot be justified irrespective of race, religion, place or ethnicity.

(Firoz Bakht Ahmed is a commentator on social and educational issues. He can be reached at firozbakht@rediffma il.com.)