First dear Jonny- your reputation as a manly man is very questionable. Since a manly man would never refer to himself as such, it goes without saying/ a given fact. Second, in a typical faraax style you’re failing to walk the walk now stop hiding behind ibti oversized hijaab and get on with it. Ibti despite the bravado/ attempt of showcasing ones fake wisdom in the matter Jonny still believes in this nonsense. And I demand the opportunity to ridicule and laugh at it. Cara- oh yes, just loved his dry-sarcastic sense of humour. Aaah remember Ethel?

Ibti- you’ve never read Archie’s as a toddler?

looooooooooooooooooooooooool@when someone kisses you strong and passionate that means they love you and therefore are the one & you know how much the person loves you….i don’t know whether to cry or laugh at this. poor boi, cut your subscription to Archie’s at once.

Ibti- stop shattering the boy quest for the “one”. He believes she’s out there and just like sleeping beauty once he kisses her she will miraculously come into being. Jonny- What’s Waali? p.s I’m still waiting for you to cascade your wisdom to dear boi here. So far very disappointed.

LOL. The kiss will help you realise that how?

Xalalification.

David Miliband, the UK's foreign secretary, has apologised to his Israeli counterpart, Avigdor Lieberman, after the humiliation and embarrassment caused by the issuing of a warrant for the arrest of Tzipi Livni, the former Israeli foreign minister. The arrest warrant was issued over Livni's suspected war crimes role during Israel's war on Gaza, but was later withdrawn after she cancelled her visit to London. Miliband also promised to begin work immediately to change UK laws to ensure that no such warrants would be issued for Israeli officials in the future. As an added sweetener to the act of contrition, Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, also personally called Livni to assure her she would always be welcomed to visit the UK. All of this is easier said than done. Already there is a huge outcry in Britain over the mere thought of changing UK laws or reneging on treaty obligations simply to protect Israeli officials involved in the serial breach of international law. In their deluded fantasy the Israelis claim that the judicial order in London will seriously impair bi-lateral relations between London and Tel Aviv, jeopardise the Middle East peace process and undermine Britain's image in the region. Historic Middle East role What a gross distortion. Britain's historic relationship and role in the Middle East is unquestioned. Even though it has on many occasions acted against the national interests of the people of the region and the Palestinians in particular, it would be wishful thinking to suggest that it could be excluded from future negotiations. Instead of being eternally grateful to Britain for creating their state in Palestine, Israeli officials are today attempting to bite the very hand that fed them. To claim that Britain is in trouble or would be the loser because of the court order is disingenuous. Actually, the only losers are those who planned, commissioned and executed the war crimes committed in the Gaza Strip. They are the ones in hot water, so to speak, and the greatest service Brown could make on behalf of universal jurisdiction is to leave them to stew in it. These sentiments were expressed by his former cabinet colleague Clare Short, a member of the Labour Party and an independent MP, while addressing a conference organised by the Palestinian Return Centre, in London. A former minister for international development, Short said the crimes committed in Gaza during Israel's Operation Cast Lead last year marked a defining moment in the conflict. She criticised how Israel has undermined the international system by its cavalier breach of conventions and established norms in an apparent attempt to tell the world that there are special laws for certain states and that it is a state above the law. She derided the hypocrisy of those who seek to prosecute Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese president, while at the same time they refuse and obstruct efforts to investigated and prosecute Israeli criminals. Violations of international law The groveling apology to Israel, after the British ambassador was summoned for a reprimand by the Israeli foreign ministry, is the type of reaction expected from a banana republic, not from Great Britain. Should the foreign secretary entertain Lieberman, a Jewish settler himself and a resident of Nokdim, a West Bank settlement considered illegal under international law? What a contradiction. The official policy of the UK government is that all settlements in the lands occupied in 1967 are illegal and violate UN Security Council resolutions and the Fourth Geneva Convention. It is poignant to point out that Livni's father and mother were regarded as "terrorists" by the British Mandate authorities in Palestine in the 1940s and were both captured and locked up. Under Article 146 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Britain still has an obligation to "to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts". What is at stake in this imbroglio is the independence of the British judiciary, an institution that for hundreds of years has been a source of national pride and emulated by many nations. It is for this reason there is anger and outrage over the government's declared intent to succumb to Israel. The implication, of course, is the fear that in future Britain would not be able to lay any claim to be a bastion and guardian of international law. The rhetoric of 'rule of law' will run hollow if there was any change of the law for no other reason except to protect war criminals who happen to be members of the club. Compelling evidence It must be recalled that these laws came into being because of the Nazi war crimes and crimes against humanity. Only last month there was great satisfaction and hubris when John Demjanjuk was brought before a German court more than 60 years after allegedly committing his crimes. The message was clear: that war crimes and crimes against humanity are so repugnant that they must not go unpunished. The case against the Israeli minister and her accomplices was made not by Richard Goldstone only. A number of independent reports including the report of Independent Fact-Finding Committee on Gaza to the Arab League, the Martin Commission report to the UN secretary-general on attacks on UN premises, and reports by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Physicians for Human Rights and the National Lawyers Guild, all support the conclusion that war crimes and crimes against humanity were committed by the Israeli military in its Operation Cast Lead. It was because of this compelling evidence that a British judge issued the warrant for Livni's arrest. To present the matter as if it were a malicious witch hunt is simply beside the point. Surely it would be a travesty of justice if what occurred in Gaza was not investigated and prosecuted. Peace in the region has remained elusive precisely because of this failure to be even-handed in the application of international law, always at the expense of Palestinian rights. If Palestinians do not have recourse to the law, one wonders what other options are left to them when their legitimate grievances are ignored. ByDaud Abdullah is the director of the Middle East Monitor, an independent media research institution founded in the United Kingdom to foster a fair and accurate coverage in the Western media of Middle Eastern issues and in particular the Palestine Question.

Israel has admitted that it harvested organs from the dead bodies of Palestinians and Israelis in the 1990s, without permission from their families. The admission follows the release of an interview with Jehuda Hiss, the former head of Israel's forensic institute, in which he said that workers at the institute had harvested skin, corneas, heart valves and bones from Israelis, Palestinians and foreign workers. In the interview, which was conducted in 2000 when Hiss was head of Tel Aviv's Abu Kabir forensic institute, he said: "We started to harvest corneas ... Whatever was done was highly informal. No permission was asked from the family." Nancy Scheper-Hughes, who conducted the interview, told Al Jazeera on Monday that Hiss had said the "body parts were used by hospitals for transplant purposes - cornea transplants. They were sent to public hospitals [for use on citizens]. Guidelines 'not clear' "And the skin went to a special skin bank, founded by the military, for their uses", such as for burns victims. The practice is said to have ended in 2000. The interview was also reported on Israel's Channel 2 television, which quoted an Israeli military statement that said: "This activity ended a decade ago and does not happen any longer." Israel's health ministry said in the Channel 2 report that at the time the guidelines for transplants "were not clear" and that for the last 10 years "Abu Kabir has been working according to ethics and Jewish law". Scheper-Hughes, who is a professor of anthropology at the University of California-Berkeley, said that she made the interview public because of the controversy last summer over allegations of organ harvesting made by a Swedish newspaper. In August the Aftonbladet newspaper ran an article alleging that the Israeli army had stolen body organs from Palestinian men after killing them. Israel denied the claims, calling them anti-Semitic, and the incident raised tensions when Sweden refused to apologise for the article, saying that press freedom prevented it from intervening. 'Conflict deaths' Donald Bostrom, the journalist who broke the story in Aftonbladet, told Al Jazeera: "UN staff came to me and said that you have to look into this very serious issue. Palestinian young people were disappearing in the areas and five days later they appear back in the villages with an autopsy done on them against the will of the families. "We need to know who are the victims. Mothers need to know what happened to their sons." Bostrom said that there is no proof that people were killed for their organs but that an investigation is needed to find out whether there was a policy in place or if the bodies used were random. Bostrom added that Hiss is the "main key" to solving such unanswered questions, but that there would also be other people involved who could help uncover the truth. Scheper-Hughes said that some of the dead Palestinians from whom organs were harvested were killed during military raids. "Some of the bodies were definitely Palestinians who were killed in conflicts," she told Al Jazeera. "Their organs were taken without consent of families and were used to serve the needs of the country in terms of hospitals as well as the army's needs." 'Technically illegal' She said that Hiss told her "that the people who did the harvesting were sent by the military. They were often medical students". "He did it informally and without permission, and it was technically illegal," she said. The military establishment gave their "sanction and approval" to the procedures, according to Scheper-Hughes. During his interview with Scheper-Hughes, Hiss said that the eyelids of bodies were glued shut to prevent the removal of corneas being found out. Hiss was dismissed as head of Abu Kabir in 2004 over irregularities in the use of organs, but charges against him were eventually dropped. He still holds the position of chief pathologist at the institute. Source: Al Jazeera

My image failed to publish right@SS

:rolleyes:

Ibti- contrary my dear, and their equally as bad and even worse in some cases. Juxa what’s qafiif? Sheer? Thank you my dear and yes may god bless me with longevity. As for the terrorising bit….you know they love it. you lucky so and so@Malika

Old man No. But one never knows with this things….I went private you see and I thought it would be nice to have a full medical check. *Waves at Malika. Mambo mpendwa. p.s Cancelled on a friend to meet up with another only to be caught red-handed. Life can be oh so political sometimes.

Soo Green.

Just got my full medical check certificate today and I didn’t know I was holding my breath until I saw it. Grateful to be healthy as a pound today. Hi JB

Morning people.

What a load of rubbish. There was no plot whatsoever. I want my money back. Half way throw it became soo predictable and borderline painful watch.

I know old man…shocking. What was that word you used? Ibti- so do you ask him? Before we go any further how many female friends do you have? Shocking. So he has female friends, so what? What are you guys objecting too?

Juxa- they trick you by going off and getting married. In some cases to fools. P.s just read your signature me'like

You people are nuts. What’s with the overwhelming NO to having the opposite sex for a friend?

Your job vs getting involved in matters that don’t concern you? mhhhh Juxa this is not the climate for one to start interfering with married people’s issues. Baby or not. Minding ones business is the best course of action in this sorts of situations. Ibti- are you kidding me. Speaking from experience, I can assure you their equally as bad. p.s I still don’t understand where this feeling of uncomfortable came from Ibti. You did nothing period, why care what she thinks and how she is looking at you or what she’s getting at? That’s all unnecessary waste of brain-power if you ask me. *really fears for her yaya-sisterhood membership card now* where is Malika this-days?

Ibti- the evil route is always the best route. (p.s am completely shocked at the lack of evilness on your plan there) Juxa- married people have issues period. Look at the women serenity is talking about…ISSUES.COM

*waves@juxa*

Ibti one would only feel uncomfortable if one did in-fact do something. Since you did nothing, I don’t understand why you let it bother you? Juxa- I must say, your one heck of a lady.

How Ibti, How? p.s i'm talking about the music part.