The exit of Bush from the White House is already anticipated in the Arab region with sighs of relief. But what is ahead under the next US president; more of the same, regardless of who wins, or change? 

True, Obama has promised some degree of withdrawal from Iraq and a level of communication with Iran. But even these promises are ambiguous and can be easily modified to fit political interests and lobby pressures at any time. Any military redeployment in Iraq would, now we are told, be matched with greater military build up in Afghanistan, a sign that the militant mentality that motivated the war hawks in the Bush administration is yet to change; the valuable lesson that bombs don't bring peace, yet to be heeded.

Even talking to Iran is an indistinct promise. To begin with, various officials in the Bush administration have already been talking to Iran - in less touted meetings, but they have engaged Tehran nonetheless - in matters most pertinent to US, not Israeli, interests (i.e. the Iraq war). Moreover, in what was widely seen as "a shift of policy", senior US diplomat William Burns joined envoys from China, Russia, France, Britain, Germany and the EU in their talks with Tehran in Geneva 19 July. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad praised US participation and the "respect" the US envoy had shown during the meeting.

Obama's statements to assure Israel on his proposed talk with Iran are most alarming. He has tirelessly repeated that the "military option" remains on the table to ensure Israel's security. Isn't this the exact same policy trademark infused during the Bush administration, which eventually led to the war on Iraq? The US will exhaust every diplomatic channel, but the "military option" remains on the table. This was the gist of the message repeated by the warmongers of the White House through Bush's two terms. Does one need any proof of why such an attitude is not reflective of well-intentioned diplomacy?

What is equally dangerous in Obama's uttering is that he might be, and is already, feeling pressured to balance his seemingly soft attitude towards Iraq and Iran by exaggerating his country's pro-Israel stance in a way that will derail any possibility for a peaceful solution to the Palestinian- Israeli conflict, at least during his term. In fact, ominous signs of that pressure, and his succumbing to it are ample, the last of which was his statement, prior to his visit, that Jerusalem must remain undivided, a position that negates international law and the consistent tradition of various US administrations, including Bush's.

One need not repeat what Obama has said during his visit to Israel, for such rhetoric is becoming most predictable. His "commitment" to Israel and to the ever "special relationship" that unites both nations were generously invoked. Obama promised to do his utmost to keep Israel secure and to stop Iran from obtaining the atomic bomb. As for the Palestinians, he seems keenly interested in engaging their non-democratic forces and shuns those who dare to challenge his country's biased official line that has contributed in myriad ways to the ongoing conflict.

Obama insists on disregarding the US official blind spot that has continued to destabilize the Middle East for generations. If he is indeed interested in straightening the distorted course of his country's foreign policy in this region, then he is certainly viewing it from an Israeli looking glass, the same as that used by the Bush neoconservative clique that led America into an unrivalled downfall in Mesopotamia.

But Obama is not alone. If he wins the presidential race he will join a growing club of Western leaders who refuse to heed to common sense and who behave erratically, even against the wishes of their own people. 

Starting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel's visit to Israel last March, to French President Nicolas Sarkozy's in June, to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's in July, no one has failed to deviate from the predictable mantra: Israel first and foremost. True, some like Sarkozy dared voice some criticism of Israel's settlement policy in Jerusalem - one that Obama cannot dare repeat, even in private - but the underpinnings are the same: Israel, a country of a few million, remains the primary concern of the West in a region of hundreds of millions. Those leaders' brazen "commitment" to Israel, regardless of the consistently brutal policy carried out by the latter, is surely bizarre to say the least; bizarre, and in fact non-Democratic.

An international poll, conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org examined the views of people from 18 countries, including France, the UK and the United States. The findings of the poll were released 1 July and were most telling. In 14 countries "people mostly say their government should not take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Just three countries favor taking the Palestinian side (Egypt, Iran and Turkey) and one is divided (India). No country favors taking Israel's side, including the United States, where 71 per cent favor taking neither side." The entire hoopla about the "common cause" and "special relationship" and "promised land", and the fear mongers of the Armageddon crowd, failed to sway the views of the great majority of Americans.

Why then, doesn't the "candidate of change", Obama, listen to his people and truly change his government's destructive path regarding Palestine and Israel? Why doesn't the UK's Brown and France's Sarkozy listen to their peoples, considering that an equal percentage in both of their countries - 79 per cent - is beseeching them to do the same? These results have of course been consistent with public opinion in Western countries for years. It might behoove these leaders to respect the cannons of democracy in their own countries before lecturing others.

Following his Israel trip, Obama kick-started a European tour that took him to Germany, France and the UK. The moods were described as "cheerful" and the expectations as "high" everywhere the senator went, including Israel. As for the Palestinians, it's more of the same for them: the same arrogant demands, same unfair policies, and ever-historic bias.

In the southern Israeli town of Siderot, widely grinning Obama receive a t-shirt that read, "Siderot loves Obama". Obama, of course, didn't visit the Gaza concentration camp to find out what Palestinians there thought of him, considering his ardent defense of Israel's brutal policies against the Strip in recent years. One can only imagine what a Gazan t-shirt for Obama might have read.

Islamism and Heavy Metal

Heavy metal has had a more powerful and controversial appeal than perhaps any other element of Western culture that has taken hold in the Muslim world. It might seem strange that a genre of music long associated with sex, drugs and even Satan worship should be popular in Muslim countries. But heavy metal can't be reduced to the "hair" or "glam" metal epitomized by one-time MTV staple bands such as Motley Crue or Quiet Riot. Instead, the much harsher sound of death, doom and other forms of extreme metal are winning a growing following across the Muslim world.

Rejected: ads too tough for Amnesty

Amnesty International has disowned a series of hard-hitting posters produced by its advertising agency partners as part of a pitch for the organisation's campaign against China in the lead up to the Olympics.

The creatives, produced for the human rights organisation's branches in Slovakia and France, are staged photos showing actors posing as dissidents in the throes of being abused in a series of sporting backdrops.

In one of the most graphic ads, a "dissident" - with his arms handcuffed behind him - is depicted having his head dunked in a swimming pool by two "policemen".

The poster carries the caption: "After the Olympic Games, the fight for human rights must go on."

The ad is one of a series of three produced by the French arm of The Omnicom Group's TBWA Worldwide agency and have been virally circulating around the internet.

(Coincidentally, the same agency's Beijing branch is responsible for producing a series of jingoistic ads for Adidas showing Chinese athletes being lifted higher on the arms of adoring fans.)

The French ads are very similar in style to an earlier set of three poster ads produced for Amnesty Slovakian branch.

In these ads, "dissidents" are depicted being manhandled by a wrestler, punched by a boxer and threatened by a pistol shooter.

The ad using the Beijing Olympic slogan "China is getting ready", but adds: "in the name of ensuring stability and harmony in the country during the 2008 Olympic Games, the Chinese Government continues to detain and harass political activist, journalist, lawyers and human rights workers."

"Neither set of images fits with the internationally developed communication strategy, in tone or concept," said

Amnesty International's Beijing Olympics Project Manager, Rob Godden in an email sent in response to a series of questions about the aborted campaigns.

"In particular, they depicted violence linked to sporting events or equipment that could be offensive to some or confusing in its message."

Godden said the Slovakian ads were also though to potentially violate Olympic copyright restrictions on the use of the Olympic rings.

He also rejected suggestions that the ads were deliberately leaked on the internet as part of a viral campaign and said that Amnesty had not given permission for the images to be released and had attempted to have them taken down.

"It is the case that ad agencies like to show off their work to attract business," he said. "In both cases this work was posted on the internet without Amnesty International's permission. Once on the web they went viral, however this was never our intent nor were we involved in placing the ads on the internet in the first place."

However, according to the Wall Street Journal, Amnesty allowed TBWA to run the ads once so they could be entered into the leading International Advertising Festival in Cannes where it won a bronze award.

The ads have attracted the attention of Chinese bloggers who have seized on them as the latest example of what they see as the 29th Olympic sport: China bashing.

"In China, advertising people make advertisement based on facts, but you are not!" read a comment posted by Lei Shi, an account director at OgilvyOne Worldwide in Beijing. "In China, advertising people make advertisement with full sense of social responsibility and basic human moral, but you are not!"

Gay man challenges Red Cross on donation

• Andrew Darby, Hobart
• August 8, 2008

A CHANGE to blood donor rules sought by a gay man to remove discrimination threatens to bring infection and death, according to the Australian Red Cross.

A national Red Cross donor rule rejecting sexually active gay men is being challenged before the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Tribunal, which was told yesterday it amounted to textbook discrimination. The organisation replied that the proposed change would be an experiment with the blood supply that made humans the guinea pigs, at real risk of HIV infection.

Electronics technician Michael Cain, 21, of West Launceston, was rejected as a donor in October 2004, after replying "yes" in the Red Cross questionnaire to whether he had had male-to-male sex in the past 12 months. The tribunal heard male-to-male sex was lawful in Tasmania, where legislation prohibited discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, or lawful sexual activity.

Mr Cain's counsel, Peter Tree, SC, said that since the outbreak of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s, scientific tests had enabled detection of HIV antibodies in donated blood. The tribunal heard that a "window" period for screening blood also applied. Mr Tree said that to eliminate a particular group beforehand was not merely discriminatory, but illogical and medically flawed.

Counsel for the Red Cross, Jeremy Ruskin, QC, said Australia had one of the world's safest blood supplies. Male-to-male sex remained the riskiest activity for HIV here, accounting for 86% of newly acquired infections, Mr Ruskin said. Mr Cain's proposal amounted to an experiment with the blood supply, he said. "We are talking about infection and death."

The hearing continues.

The City Circle is pleased to host the launch of the Muslim Marriage Contract prepared by the Muslim Institute.

The speakers will be Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, Director of the Muslim Institute, Mufti Barkatulla, Islamic Shari'ah Council, Cassandra Balchin, Muslim Women Network UK, Maulana Shahid Raza, Imams and Mosques Council UK and Shaykh Usama Hasan, City Circle.

The new Contract - launched on the day - provides women entering a Muslim marriage written proof of their marriage and of the terms and conditions agreed between the spouses. In the absence of such proof, women have faced particular difficulties in securing the financial rights guaranteed to them under the Shari'ah upon divorce.

The Contract has been drafted after lengthy consultations over a number of years with religious leaders, community organisations and women's groups across the country, and reflects a consensus effort to protect the rights of both parties to a Muslim Nikah (non-registry marriage) and that are guaranteed under the Shari'ah.

The new Contract is designed to guarantee greater harmony within Muslim marriages in Britain. It lays out the rights and responsibilities of the husband and wife in a Muslim marriage, and emphasises the Qur'anic vision of marriage as a relationship of mutual love, mercy and kindness (mawaddah, rahmah and sukun).

The Contract recognises the role Muslim women play in modern societies. Hence it does not require a 'marriage guardian' (wali) for the bride, and also makes delegation of the right of divorce to the wife (talaq-i-tafweed) automatic. This right does not affect the husband's right of divorce (talaq) but enables the wife to initiate divorce and retain all her financial rights agreed in the marriage contract. The Contract also requires "two adult witnesses of good character", rather than the traditional insistence on two Muslim men.

In today's multi-cultural Britain, women and non-Muslims must be recognised as just as capable of providing a reputable guarantee that the marriage took place and of the terms and conditions the couple agreed upon.

The Contract has been prepared by the Muslim Institute and endorsed by The Muslim Law (Shari'ah) Council UK, the Imams and Mosques Council UK, Muslim Council of Britain, Muslim Parliament, Utrujj Foundation, Muslim Women's Network UK, Fatima Women's Network, Muslim Community Helpline (formerly Muslim Women's Helpline) and The City Circle.

Side by side with efforts to popularise the new Contract within the Muslim community, the Muslim Institute is encouraging more mosques to become places registered for civil ceremony under the 1948 Marriage Act so that marriages they conduct are recognised under English law and Muslim couples can access the British courts regarding marital issues.

Subject: Launch of 'The Muslim Marriage Contract' Venue: Abrar House, 45 Crawford Place, London W1H 4LP (nearest tube: Edgware Road or Marble Arch) Date: 6.45pm - 8.30pm, Friday 8 August 2008