Sauce For The Goose – Mark Glenn

A ‘crazed Muslim fanatic’ entering the holy of holies–a ‘seminary’ (the Christians will better identify with that word than they will the word yeshiva) and kills 8 soon-to-be Rabbis whom the Jewish Talmud says are even smarter than God Himself…The world is brought to a standstill…The news media is on the scene and covering it as if nothing else where taking place anywhere…Scenes of wailing Jews, crying out to the God in heaven who loves them more than anyone else ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken us?…’

Boy THAT sure was a lucky coincidence for Israel, huh? Right in the ‘knick of time,’ as they say…I mean, what could have been more timely and fortuitous, and particularly with what just took place last week? All that bad press that this ‘shitty little country’ (as one diplomat once described the Jewish state) was getting after it invaded Gaza and murdered over 100 people, to say nothing of the fact that before murdering them they tortured them for several months by preventing the most basic necessities such as food, fuel and medicine from entering the most densely populated area on the planet.

Continue reading the full article here

Posted in Disclosure | Leave a comment

Islam & Women – How I came to love the Veil By Yvonne Ridley

How I Came to Love the Veil
By Yvonne Ridley

Sunday, October 22, 2006; B01
LONDON

I used to look at veiled women as quiet, oppressed creatures — until I was captured by the Taliban.

In September 2001, just 15 days after the terrorist attacks on the United States, I snuck into Afghanistan, clad in a head-to-toe blue burqa, intending to write a newspaper account of life under the repressive regime. Instead, I was discovered, arrested and detained for 10 days. I spat and swore at my captors; they called me a “bad” woman but let me go after I promised to read the Koran and study Islam. (Frankly, I’m not sure who was happier when I was freed — they or I.)

Back home in London, I kept my word about studying Islam — and was amazed by what I discovered. I’d been expecting Koran chapters on how to beat your wife and oppress your daughters; instead, I found passages promoting the liberation of women. Two-and-a-half years after my capture, I converted to Islam, provoking a mixture of astonishment, disappointment and encouragement among friends and relatives.

Now, it is with disgust and dismay that I watch here in Britain as former foreign secretary Jack Straw describes the Muslim nikab — a face veil that reveals only the eyes — as an unwelcome barrier to integration, with Prime Minister Tony Blair, writer Salman Rushdie and even Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi leaping to his defense.

Having been on both sides of the veil, I can tell you that most Western male politicians and journalists who lament the oppression of women in the Islamic world have no idea what they are talking about. They go on about veils, child brides, female circumcision, honor killings and forced marriages, and they wrongly blame Islam for all this — their arrogance surpassed only by their ignorance.

These cultural issues and customs have nothing to do with Islam. A careful reading of the Koran shows that just about everything that Western feminists fought for in the 1970s was available to Muslim women 1,400 years ago. Women in Islam are considered equal to men in spirituality, education and worth, and a woman’s gift for childbirth and child-rearing is regarded as a positive attribute.

When Islam offers women so much, why are Western men so obsessed with Muslim women’s attire? Even British government ministers Gordon Brown and John Reid have made disparaging remarks about the nikab — and they hail from across the Scottish border, where men wear skirts.

When I converted to Islam and began wearing a headscarf, the repercussions were enormous. All I did was cover my head and hair — but I instantly became a second-class citizen. I knew I’d hear from the odd Islamophobe, but I didn’t expect so much open hostility from strangers. Cabs passed me by at night, their “for hire” lights glowing. One cabbie, after dropping off a white passenger right in front of me, glared at me when I rapped on his window, then drove off. Another said, “Don’t leave a bomb in the back seat” and asked, “Where’s bin Laden hiding?”

Yes, it is a religious obligation for Muslim women to dress modestly, but the majority of Muslim women I know like wearing the hijab, which leaves the face uncovered, though a few prefer the nikab. It is a personal statement: My dress tells you that I am a Muslim and that I expect to be treated respectfully, much as a Wall Street banker would say that a business suit defines him as an executive to be taken seriously. And, especially among converts to the faith like me, the attention of men who confront women with inappropriate, leering behavior is not tolerable.

I was a Western feminist for many years, but I’ve discovered that Muslim feminists are more radical than their secular counterparts. We hate those ghastly beauty pageants, and tried to stop laughing in 2003 when judges of the Miss Earth competition hailed the emergence of a bikini-clad Miss Afghanistan, Vida Samadzai, as a giant leap for women’s liberation. They even gave Samadzai a special award for “representing the victory of women’s rights.”

Some young Muslim feminists consider the hijab and the nikab political symbols, too, a way of rejecting Western excesses such as binge drinking, casual sex and drug use. What is more liberating: being judged on the length of your skirt and the size of your surgically enhanced breasts, or being judged on your character and intelligence? In Islam, superiority is achieved through piety — not beauty, wealth, power, position or sex.

I didn’t know whether to scream or laugh when Italy’s Prodi joined the debate last week by declaring that it is “common sense” not to wear the nikab because it makes social relations “more difficult.” Nonsense. If this is the case, then why are cellphones, landlines, e-mail, text messaging and fax machines in daily use? And no one switches off the radio because they can’t see the presenter’s face.

Under Islam, I am respected. It tells me that I have a right to an education and that it is my duty to seek out knowledge, regardless of whether I am single or married. Nowhere in the framework of Islam are we told that women must wash, clean or cook for men. As for how Muslim men are allowed to beat their wives — it’s simply not true. Critics of Islam will quote random Koranic verses or hadith, but usually out of context. If a man does raise a finger against his wife, he is not allowed to leave a mark on her body, which is the Koran’s way of saying, “Don’t beat your wife, stupid.”

It is not just Muslim men who must reevaluate the place and treatment of women. According to a recent National Domestic Violence Hotline survey, 4 million American women experience a serious assault by a partner during an average 12-month period. More than three women are killed by their husbands and boyfriends every day — that is nearly 5,500 since 9/11.

Violent men don’t come from any particular religious or cultural category; one in three women around the world has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime, according to the hotline survey. This is a global problem that transcends religion, wealth, class, race and culture.

But it is also true that in the West, men still believe that they are superior to women, despite protests to the contrary. They still receive better pay for equal work — whether in the mailroom or the boardroom — and women are still treated as sexualized commodities whose power and influence flow directly from their appearance.

And for those who are still trying to claim that Islam oppresses women, recall this 1992 statement from the Rev. Pat Robertson, offering his views on empowered women: Feminism is a “socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.”

Now you tell me who is civilized and who is not.

hermosh@aol.com

Yvonne Ridley is political editor of Islam Channel TV in London and coauthor

of “In the Hands of the Taliban: Her Extraordinary Story” (Robson Books).

Source – Washington Post

Yvonne Ridley.org | Yvonne Ridley: From captive to convert – BBC | Yvonne Ridley @ Wikipedia

Posted in Disclosure, Redemption, Religion of Abraham | 1 Comment

‘US plot against Hamas’ revealed

The US plotted to overthrow the democratically elected Hamas government in the Palestinian territories, documents obtained by Al Jazeera reveal.

One of the documents appears to show that Washington tried to persuade Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president and leader of Fatah, to remove Hamas from power.

One document, dated March 2007, states “the plan will enable the Palestinian leadership to be more credible in the eyes of Israel and the others”.

But, when that plan failed, the US set up an operation to fund Fatah fighters and drive Hamas out.

In Cairo, Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, justified the arming of Fatah, saying the situation had called for it.

She said she had not read a report in Vanity Fair magazine which quoted a former US intelligence official said to be knowledgeable of the US plans to overthrow Hamas after it failed to convince Abbas to dissolve the cabinet.

US support

“It is very clear that Hamas is being armed. And it is very clear that they are being armed in part by the Iranians,” Rice said on Tuesday.

“So if the answer is that if Hamas gets armed by the Iranians and nobody helps to improve the security capabilities of the legitimate Palestinian Authority security forces, that’s not a very good situation.”

Rice said that international forces, including the US, would therefore continue to work with the PA to bolster its forces to keep security in its mandated region.

Responding to Rice’s comments about Iranian support for Hamas, Khaled Meshaal, the exiled Hamas political leader, told Al Jazeera Rice was “lying”.

“Their main concern is to provoke Iran,” Meshaal said. “I’m saying it again if they have proof of this let them produce it”.

“Everyone knows the origins of the Israeli weapons, it’s American made while our men are using very simple homemade arms,” he said.

The US has openly supported Fatah and after Hamas seized control of Gaza in June 2007, the US announced an $80m funding deal for Fatah’s security services in the West Bank.

Nour Odeh, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Ramallah, said that many Palestinians would be upset that Fatah appeared to have played into the hands of an American foreign policy that wanted to make an example out of Hamas, whom the US labels a “terrorist” organisation.

Emerging evidence

Hamas won democratic elections in January 2006, prompting Western governments, which have refused to engage with Hamas, to threaten to withdraw financial aid to the Palestinians.

Left with little international support, by June that year Hamas and Fatah had agreed to form a unity government but were unable to broker a conclusive end to factional fighting on the streets of Gaza.

Allegations the US sought to remove Hamas in a coup dates back to 2006, after the group had come to power through Palestinian elections.

The leaked documents include a memo sent to Fatah officials, apparently by a senior US diplomat in Jerusalem in November 2006, encouraging Fatah to declare a state of emergency and take control.

The memo stated: “If Hamas does not agree [to accept a new government] within the prescribed time, you should make clear your intention to declare a state of emergency and form an emergency government explicitly committed to that platform.”

The plan was ignored by Abbas who instead formed a unity government with Hamas in 2007, intended to bring an end to fighting between the two factions.

The unity government, agreed in February 2007 with the mediation of Saudi Arabia, appears to have prompted the second document and a plan to oust Hamas by force, with the US bolstering Mohammed Dahlan, the head of Fatah’s security forces.

But the unity government failed to end factional fighting and in June Hamas seized Gaza, dividing the Palestinian territories into Gaza and the Fatah-controlled West Bank.

Plot denied

The US on Tuesday denied the coup plot allegations.

“There is no accuracy to that story. I’ve checked and there is no truth to it,” Sean McCormack, the US state department spokesman, said.

A statement from the office of Mohammad Dahlan, the former head of the Palestinian national security council, called the Vantiy Fair article “highly inaccurate and misleading”.

“Accordingly there was (and remains) no secret plan to carry out a coup against Hamas,” said the statement.

“Although the US offered its financial support for the plan to reform the PA’s [Palestinian Authority’s] security forces (by offering assistance for non-lethal equipment as requested by the PA), financial support was never received.”

No official US stamps or seals appear on the document.

Source

Posted in Palestine | Leave a comment

The 1956 Suez War

An Egyptian naval gunboat patrols the Suez Canal. Nasser did not anticipate an attack following his nationalisation of the vital waterway

The second Arab-Israeli war, also known as the Suez War, broke out on October 29, 1956 when Israel, Great Britain and France launched a joint attack against Egypt aimed at instituting a ‘regime change’ and deposing Gamal Abdel Nasser, the country’s charismatic leader.But this significant war failed to achieve its goals and marked the decline of Britain’s colonial powers in the Middle East.

It also brought home the realities of Cold War politics.Tensions first arose when Nasser struck an arms deal with Czechoslovakia – a move that worried Great Britain and the US who viewed it as a shift towards closer ties with the Soviet Union.The World Bank, prodded by the US, retaliated by withdrawing a loan to Egypt for the building of the Aswan Dam. In the ongoing tit-for-tat, Nasser surprised the world by nationalising the Suez Canal, a vital waterway, and replacing the private Anglo-French company which ran it.

Surprise move

In 2006, Adel Ezzat, who worked closely with Nasser, recalled the moments leading up to the nationalisation decision.

“Only three of us were in the know,” Ezzat told AFP.

He had been working with Mohammed Yunes,

Nasser’s adviser on petroleum affairs.

“President Nasser had chosen us to carry out the nationalisation,” Ezzat said. “On July 23, 1956, I metNasser for the first time during the celebrations for the fourth anniversary of the revolution.
 “The president whispered something in Yunes’ ear,” Ezzat recalls. “Over the next 24 hours, Yunes seemed agitated and preoccupied.”

“The next day, he summoned me and my colleague Abdel Hamid Abu Bakr in his office and locked the door behind us, which I found very odd.

“‘The president has tasked me with nationalising theSuez Canal,'” he said.”This decision had to remain top secret.”

Egyptian commandos

The three-man commando unit had 48 hours to plan the take-over based on little information.

Little did they know the move would not only spark a war with the West but also reshape

Egypt’s economy by regaining control of the most crucial chokepoint in world trade. “All we had were a few publications on the canal given to Yunes by the president. We didn’t even have a mole in the Compagnie Universelle du Canal Maritime de Suez that ran the waterway,” Ezzat remembers. The trio gathered a wider group of around 30, who were to break up into three groups tasked with overrunning the company’s offices in Port-Said, Suez and Ismailiya. “We weren’t armed. Our instructions were to carry out the operation peacefully,” Ezzat told AFP. Launch signal Ezzat recalls that the signal for the operation’s launch was when Nasser, who was delivering a speech in Alexandria, pronounced the words “de Lesseps”, in reference to Ferdinand de Lesseps who founded the canal in 1869.
 “Our mission was so secret that the drivers who took us from

Cairo didn’t even know our destination. Except us three, the people who we were with didn’t know. They had only been told to bring a few clothes.” The three groups were only informed of their respective assignments upon arriving at the Al-Galaa military base near Ismailiya on July 26, at around 4:00 in the afternoon. “Some of them hesitated. They were afraid of the reaction of the British troops guarding the canal. But we refused to abandon our plan, history was on the march,” Ezzat says. The three groups fanned out. They crept up to the Suez company’s offices but stayed out of sight, as they listened toNasser’s speech, their hearts throbbing with anxiety.
 Peaceful operation “The president said ‘de Lesseps’. Then he repeated it a second time, and a third, as if he feared we hadn’t heard him.” Ezzat says the commandos went in at around 7:00 pm, found mostly empty offices and simply informed the guards that they had come to nationalise the

Suez Canal. No blood was shed. “The president then delievered his speech on the nationalisation. People poured into the streets and their support gave us more strength,” he recalls. At that moment, Egypt regained control of the 19th century canal for whose construction an estimated 125,000 Egyptians perished in forced labour.

Secret tripartite strategy

But Britain, as a former colonial occupier of the country, and France were determined to punish Nasser.

Nasser quickly blockaded the Gulf of Aqaba, barring Israel’s access to the Red Sea.

While Great Britain saw the conflict as a means to regain lost ground, Israel sought to invade Egypt for economic and strategic interests.

Paris on the other hand, had been angered by Nasser’s support of the Algerian rebellion against French colonisers.

France, Britain and Israel engineered a secret plan whereby the Jewish State would seize the Canal. Britain and France would then demand the withdrawal of both Israel and Egypt from the Canal Zone. If Egypt refused, as expected, Britain and France would intervene and force the Egyptians out.

On October 29, Israel initiated the hostilities when it invaded Gaza and the Sinai, then, on October 30, moved to the Suez Canal zone.

Attack denounced

Outraged that the US was not informed of the secret attack plan and fearful that the Soviet Union – which had close ties with Egypt – would be drawn into the conflict, Dwight Eisenhower, then US President, sponsored a UN resolution denouncing the attack.

It was passed on November 2. While the ultimatum to Israel and Egypt had been ignored as expected, British and French troops were busy trying to take control of the canal zone.

On November 6, 1956, the US threatened to cancel vital loans to its European allies and a few days later hostilities ended.A ceasefire came into effect and a UN emergency force was stationed in the area; the Suez was returned to Egypt.
While Nasser lost the war in military terms, he gained politically. The conflict marked the dramatic end of British and French influence in the region, and left the US poised to become the most influential power in the region.

Source

Posted in History, Middle East | Leave a comment

Losing the Jews of Arabia By Rachel Shabi

A Jewish family outside their tent at the new immigrants' camp at Beit Lid in the newly-established State of Israel [GALLO/GETTY 

“The war between Israelis and the Arabs made it impossible for them to stay,” says the Israeli historian, Tom Segev of the almost one million Jews who had lived in Arab countries for several millennia prior to 1948.

Jewish populations, who once were a significant and largely harmonious minority presence in countries such as Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Iran, migrated en masse following the establishment of Israel in 1948.

In 1949-50, 49,000 Jews from Yemen were flown to Israel; in 1951, 120,000 Iraqi Jews did the same; by 1967, around 200,000 Jews had left Morocco – although not all of them to Israel.

Why did they go? Some argue that the Zionist movement, at the time predominantly European, recruited those Jews to the cause of settling Israel and setting up underground movements in Arab countries with that purpose in mind.

‘Pushed’ or ‘pulled’?

Many Israelis who came from countries such as Morocco or Iraq remember being promised better lives, large homes and plenty of work upon arrival to the new Jewish state.

Others place the impetus in religious terrain, explaining that strongly pious Jewish communities saw a messianic calling in the creation of Israel. Talk to some Israelis of Moroccan or Yemeni origin and they might say that they knew nothing about Zionism back then, just that they loved Jerusalem.

A different narrative suggests that rather than being “pulled” to Israel, these Jewish communities were instead “pushed” out of their home countries in the Arab world.

Even prior to the war in 1948, the increasing tensions between Palestinians and Jewish settlers to the territory were having an adverse effect on Jewish citizens of the Arab world.

That manifested either in assaults at street level or in government-sanctioned discrimination: curtailment of rights, loss of employment, stopped access to state education.

These measures were not necessarily anti-Jewish in intent, but that was their effect.

Deflection device?

In Iraq, a series of emergency measures introduced during the 1948 war were presented as anti-Zionist laws but were defined in such a way as to enable their abuse: Jews were often rounded up as suspected Zionists, as a means of extortion.

Significant numbers of Jews in such countries were not Zionists, but rather members of the Communist or nationalist movements, joining the struggle against the colonial rule that dominated the Middle East at that time.

It can be argued that, seeking a way to cope with rising and regular nationalist protests against pro-colonial governments, those regimes used their Jewish subjects as a deflection device.

Caught in the turbulent waters of conflicting currents, the Jews of Arab countries suffered the practical consequences of a conflation of terms: “Jewish” became synonymous with “Zionist” and the latter synonymous with “enemy”.

The historian Segev says: “They were not a part of that war, but as Jews they were automatically made part of Zionist aspirations, even if [those aspirations] were not necessarily theirs.”

There are myriad individual narratives of migration from Arab countries to Israel, but the collective history of this exodus has now been hijacked by agendas of each side, Arab and Israeli.

Historian Yehuda Halevi has written: “Only two contradictory tales are admitted to this mythology: the anti-Zionist myth of the perfect integration of all Jews in all Arab societies at all times, and the Zionist myth of the permanent persecution of Jews under Islam.”

The truth about the Jewish exodus from the Middle East almost certainly lies somewhere in between.

But in the ever-polarised conflict between Arab and Jew, it has become practically impossible to hold this middle ground.

Source

Posted in History, Middle East, Palestine | Leave a comment

US Soldier throws puppy off cliff – Nothing like American values & character

How lucky we are NOT to be American. After killing the puppy he probably went on to slaughter some Iraqi women and children.

“Its not fascism when we do it”

Alternative link if above clip doesn’t work

Posted in Redneckia | 1 Comment

The Bonds That Kill – Obama and Israel By JOSHUA FRANK

Barrack Obama

In an attempt to squelch rumors that he is pro-Palestinian, or god forbid Muslim, Barack Obama made it clear in the final Democratic Presidential debate on Tuesday that he is anything but. After being prodded by NBC’s Tim Russert on the issue, Obama said he has long been a “stalwart friend of Israel’s,” believing the country to be one of the United States’ “most important allies in the region,” and even going as far as to call the security of Israel “sacrosanct.”

The hallowed confirmation that he would maintain the US’s lopsided support for Israel came the same day seven Palestinians were killed by Israeli air strikes in Gaza. Since “peace negotiations” resumed in November, Israeli military forces have reportedly killed over 200 Palestinians.

Barrack Obama

Speaking to a group of 100 pro-Israel supporters in Cleveland this week, Obama assured the crowd that as president he would keep Iran in the crosshairs to protect Israeli interests.

“Now the gravest threat … to Israel today, I believe, is from Iran. There the radical regime continues to pursue its capacity to build a nuclear weapon and continues to support terrorism across the region,” he explained. “Threats of Israel’s destruction can not be dismissed as rhetoric. The threat from Iran is real and my goal as president would be to eliminate that threat.”

After reiterating that he’d end the war in Iraq first, Obama then promised he would turn his attention to the country’s neighbor. “My approach to Iran will be aggressive diplomacy: I will not take any military options off the table.”

In fairness, Obama did mention something few Democrats in Washington dare to utter, “I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel and that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel.”

After pointing out the obvious, however, Obama praised Israel’s most recent invasion of Lebanon, the pro-Israel tilt on Capital Hill, and his quest for Israel to remain a Jewish State.

“[Any] negotiated peace between Israelis and the Palestinians is going to have to involve the Palestinians relinquishing the right of return as it has been understood in the past,” he averred. “And that doesn’t mean that that there may not be conversations about compensation issues.”

How gracious, but what does Obama plan to do with the over 1.4 million non-Jewish Arabs that live in the country? Continue to treat them like second-class citizens or just boot them out? Obama has called Israel a “democracy,” but as the former editor of the Harvard Law Review you’d think he would know what the term actually means. Sure Israeli Arabs can vote, but they can’t hold office if they are democratic secularists who want civil rights for all of the country’s citizens. They have no constitutional protections (Israel has no formal constitution) and can only own land in certain locales as a consequence of unfair laws that grant special treatment to Jewish residents.

Simply put, as Jimmy Carter took so much heat for rightly observing, Israel is an apartheid-ridden country where the Arab population is not exactly welcomed with open arms.

Barack Obama won’t confront this reality, nor will he end Israel’s violent incursions into the occupied territories or halt the US military threats toward Iran. The Obama campaign may pledge to bring “hope” and “change” to the White House, but when it comes to what the Democratic frontrunner calls our “special relationship” with Israel, that promise an out-and-out lie.

Joshua Frank is the co-editor of DissidentVoice.org, and author of Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush, and along with Jeffrey St. Clair, the editor of the forthcoming Red State Rebels, to be published by AK Press in March 2008. He can be reached through his website, BrickBurner.org.

Source

Posted in Disclosure | Leave a comment

Saving the Palestinian sinking ship

 

Israel’s military assault on Gaza appears to ignore the desire of most of the Israeli people to see talks opened with the territory’s Hamas leadership.

But rather than exposing a conflict in Israeli attitudes, it actually reveals two sides of a calculated perennial method of manipulating the leaders of the Palestinian people.

The Israeli establishment’s purpose is to ensure that whichever group leads the Palestinians – Hamas, Fatah or any other group or coalition – it will protect Israel by containing Palestinian resistance, while Israel is free to continue its systematic violence aimed at crushing opposition to its power over the territory.

The support of the Israeli public for talks with Hamas follows the same logic, that Israel should talk to the party that can control the Palestinian population and the Palestinian resistance.

As the Palestinian Authority has lost control over the Gaza Strip, Israelis only support negotiations with Hamas if they will lead to armed groups being controlled and rocket attacks stopped.

Thus both the threats against Hamas and the calls for talks with Hamas are not aimed at opening negotiations with the movement, but are two ways of subduing Palestinian resistance.

As Israel decides, it will continue pounding Gaza to force its people to either bring down Hamas or surrender.

Punishment and assassinations

The two options do not preclude assassinations: Israel’s constant message to the Palestinians’ leaders is that, if they fail to carry out what Israel wants, they will be punished – with imprisonment or by assassination – regardless of their political positions.

The notion that Palestinian leaders are only tolerated if they police their own people without defending them from Israeli aggression is not new.

It preceded Hamas’s ascension to power, the launching of Qassam rockets into Israel and suicide bombings there.

Israel applies the concept to leaders who “recognise Israel” such as Yasser Arafat, the late Palestinian leader, and those who do not, like Hamas.

Israel never forgave Arafat as he refused to give up national Palestinian rights in return for a fragmented and powerless entity and supported the second Palestinian Intifada that followed.

Today, Israel assassinates Hamas leaders in Gaza while imprisoning hundreds of Hamas and Fatah activists for resisting its diktats.

It recently assassinated three members of Al Aqsa brigades in the Balata refugee camp and continues to kill Hamas fighters on a daily basis.

And while Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, is received with a smile by Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, he is treated as “a failed partner” who did not stand the test of controlling the Palestinian people.

Neither Abbas’s condemnations of Hamas nor his refusal to stop unpopular negotiations with Israel – seen by Palestinians as being futile and a cover for Israel’s ongoing military operations – have led to him being anointed “a trusted partner”.

US support

Right from the onset of the Madrid Peace Conference, in 1991, Israel, with full US backing, refused to abide by the Fourth Geneva Conventions that ban an occupying power from confiscating lands, dispossessing populations, imposing closures, and bombing a population under its occupation.

This continued throughout the Oslo process as Israel stipulated in consecutive agreements that the Palestinian leadership should assume key security task containing the Palestinian population as a prerequisite to Israeli troop redeployments from Palestinian areas.

The noose was further tightened on the Palestinian leadership’s neck when, in 1998, George Shultz, the former US secretary of state, offered guarantees that Israel was the only party to an American “letter of guarantees” which authorised Israel to define its security requirement as it saw fit.

The letter, believed to have been drafted by the then openly pro-Israeli Dennis Ross, then assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs, provided Israel with a pretext for delaying its troop withdrawals.

More significantly it gave a green light for Israeli military actions against the Palestinians under the pretext that the latter did not fulfill “the security requirements”.

It was the formalisation of an existing Israeli policy that aimed to restrict the Palestinian leadership’s room to manoeuvre as Israel continued to expand Jewish settlement construction, refuse to release Palestinian prisoners and delay any moves towards an end of the occupation.

Yet, without exonerating the American government, Israel and complicit Arab governments from their own responsibility, it was also the self delusion of the Palestinian leadership that reduced its role to trying to prove to the world its “credentials” in controlling the Palestinian people.

Leadership failure

The failure of a conciliatory leadership to deliver hope for independence was, to a large part, the reason why Hamas won parliamentary elections in 2006.

But again it was the mentality of the Palestinian leadership which, tragically, wanted to prove that it alone could deliver Israeli security that played a big role in the ensuring internal conflict that culminated in the Hamas military over the Gaza Strip last June.

But the most tragic and ironic turn of events is that the Hamas leadership in Gaza has entangled itself in the same game.

It has used its new-found authority in the Gaza Strip to send messages to Israel that it alone can deliver a truce – thus joining in the very game that it opposes.

It is an open secret that both leaderships in Ramallah and Gaza are vying to prove to the world that Israeli security is in their hands.

It is an understandable tactic as part of a strategy to force Israel to enter serious negotiations to end the occupation.

However, the power struggle between the two Palestinian leaderships is eclipsing the scenes of death and devastation.

Ramallah and Gaza are competing for Arab and international recognition – but to their detriment, as the Palestinian territories risk being turned into two fragmented and powerless entities.

Supporters of Hamas, who are buoyed by the Israeli calls for talks to end the rocket fire, should learn from Fatah’s painful experience – that the “security arrangements” do not amount to a meaningful political agreement to end the Israeli occupation.

And supporters of the Palestinian Authority have to remember that security co-ordination does not exonerate any Palestinian leadership from Israeli wrath in the event it outlives its usefulness.

Both leaderships are in the same boat: Abbas’s niceties no longer please the Israelis, while Hamas’s obdurate position of proving to the world that they are the alternative partner comes with a high price tag that threatens its legitimacy.

As the situation stands, and unless the two leaderships get serious about a national reconciliation, a frustrated and angry Palestinian population will take the initiative and erupt in a third intifada.

Both Ramallah and Gaza will then have to follow or witness their own demise.

The writer is an Al Jazeera Middle East analyst.

Source: Al Jazeera

Israel threatens to unleash ‘holocaust’ in Gaza

Posted in Disclosure | Leave a comment

How Islamic inventors changed the world

Muslims drinking coffee

From coffee to cheques and the three-course meal, the Muslim world has given us many innovations that we take for granted in daily life. Paul Vallely nominates 20 of the most influential- and identifies the men of genius behind them.

1 The story goes that an Arab named Khalid was tending his goats in the Kaffa region of southern Ethiopia, when he noticed his animals became livelier after eating a certain berry. He boiled the berries to make the first coffee. Certainly the first record of the drink is of beans exported from Ethiopia to Yemen where Sufis drank it to stay awake all night to pray on special occasions. By the late 15th century it had arrived in Mecca and Turkey from where it made its way to Venice in 1645. It was brought to England in 1650 by a Turk named Pasqua Rosee who opened the first coffee house in Lombard Street in the City of London. The Arabic qahwa became the Turkish kahve then the Italian caffé and then English coffee.

2 The ancient Greeks thought our eyes emitted rays, like a laser, which enabled us to see. The first person to realise that light enters the eye, rather than leaving it, was the 10th-century Muslim mathematician, astronomer and physicist Ibn al-Haitham. He invented the first pin-hole camera after noticing the way light came through a hole in window shutters. The smaller the hole, the better the picture, he worked out, and set up the first Camera Obscura (from the Arab word qamara for a dark or private room). He is also credited with being the first man to shift physics from a philosophical activity to an experimental one.

3 A form of chess was played in ancient India but the game was developed into the form we know it today in Persia. From there it spread westward to Europe – where it was introduced by the Moors in Spain in the 10th century – and eastward as far as Japan. The word rook comes from the Persian rukh, which means chariot.

4 A thousand years before the Wright brothers a Muslim poet, astronomer, musician and engineer named Abbas ibn Firnas made several attempts to construct a flying machine. In 852 he jumped from the minaret of the Grand Mosque in Cordoba using a loose cloak stiffened with wooden struts. He hoped to glide like a bird. He didn’t. But the cloak slowed his fall, creating what is thought to be the first parachute, and leaving him with only minor injuries. In 875, aged 70, having perfected a machine of silk and eagles’ feathers he tried again, jumping from a mountain. He flew to a significant height and stayed aloft for ten minutes but crashed on landing – concluding, correctly, that it was because he had not given his device a tail so it would stall on landing. Baghdad international airport and a crater on the Moon are named after him.

5 Washing and bathing are religious requirements for Muslims, which is perhaps why they perfected the recipe for soap which we still use today. The ancient Egyptians had soap of a kind, as did the Romans who used it more as a pomade. But it was the Arabs who combined vegetable oils with sodium hydroxide and aromatics such as thyme oil. One of the Crusaders’ most striking characteristics, to Arab nostrils, was that they did not wash. Shampoo was introduced to England by a Muslim who opened Mahomed’s Indian Vapour Baths on Brighton seafront in 1759 and was appointed Shampooing Surgeon to Kings George IV and William IV.

6 Distillation, the means of separating liquids through differences in their boiling points, was invented around the year 800 by Islam’s foremost scientist, Jabir ibn Hayyan, who transformed alchemy into chemistry, inventing many of the basic processes and apparatus still in use today – liquefaction, crystallisation, distillation, purification, oxidisation, evaporation and filtration. As well as discovering sulphuric and nitric acid, he invented the alembic still, giving the world intense rosewater and other perfumes and alcoholic spirits (although drinking them is haram, or forbidden, in Islam). Ibn Hayyan emphasised systematic experimentation and was the founder of modern chemistry.

7 The crank-shaft is a device which translates rotary into linear motion and is central to much of the machinery in the modern world, not least the internal combustion engine. One of the most important mechanical inventions in the history of humankind, it was created by an ingenious Muslim engineer called al-Jazari to raise water for irrigation. His 1206 Book of Knowledge of Ingenious Mechanical Devices shows he also invented or refined the use of valves and pistons, devised some of the first mechanical clocks driven by water and weights, and was the father of robotics. Among his 50 other inventions was the combination lock.

8 Quilting is a method of sewing or tying two layers of cloth with a layer of insulating material in between. It is not clear whether it was invented in the Muslim world or whether it was imported there from India or China. But it certainly came to the West via the Crusaders. They saw it used by Saracen warriors, who wore straw-filled quilted canvas shirts instead of armour. As well as a form of protection, it proved an effective guard against the chafing of the Crusaders’ metal armour and was an effective form of insulation – so much so that it became a cottage industry back home in colder climates such as Britain and Holland.

9 The pointed arch so characteristic of Europe’s Gothic cathedrals was an invention borrowed from Islamic architecture. It was much stronger than the rounded arch used by the Romans and Normans, thus allowing the building of bigger, higher, more complex and grander buildings. Other borrowings from Muslim genius included ribbed vaulting, rose windows and dome-building techniques. Europe’s castles were also adapted to copy the Islamic world’s – with arrow slits, battlements, a barbican and parapets. Square towers and keeps gave way to more easily defended round ones. Henry V’s castle architect was a Muslim.

10 Many modern surgical instruments are of exactly the same design as those devised in the 10th century by a Muslim surgeon called al-Zahrawi. His scalpels, bone saws, forceps, fine scissors for eye surgery and many of the 200 instruments he devised are recognisable to a modern surgeon. It was he who discovered that catgut used for internal stitches dissolves away naturally (a discovery he made when his monkey ate his lute strings) and that it can be also used to make medicine capsules. In the 13th century, another Muslim medic named Ibn Nafis described the circulation of the blood, 300 years before William Harvey discovered it. Muslims doctors also invented anaesthetics of opium and alcohol mixes and developed hollow needles to suck cataracts from eyes in a technique still used today.

11 The windmill was invented in 634 for a Persian caliph and was used to grind corn and draw up water for irrigation. In the vast deserts of Arabia, when the seasonal streams ran dry, the only source of power was the wind which blew steadily from one direction for months. Mills had six or 12 sails covered in fabric or palm leaves. It was 500 years before the first windmill was seen in Europe.

12 The technique of inoculation was not invented by Jenner and Pasteur but was devised in the Muslim world and brought to Europe from Turkey by the wife of the English ambassador to Istanbul in 1724. Children in Turkey were vaccinated with cowpox to fight the deadly smallpox at least 50 years before the West discovered it.

13 The fountain pen was invented for the Sultan of Egypt in 953 after he demanded a pen which would not stain his hands or clothes. It held ink in a reservoir and, as with modern pens, fed ink to the nib by a combination of gravity and capillary action.

14 The system of numbering in use all round the world is probably Indian in origin but the style of the numerals is Arabic and first appears in print in the work of the Muslim mathematicians al-Khwarizmi and al-Kindi around 825. Algebra was named after al-Khwarizmi’s book, Al-Jabr wa-al-Muqabilah, much of whose contents are still in use. The work of Muslim maths scholars was imported into Europe 300 years later by the Italian mathematician Fibonacci. Algorithms and much of the theory of trigonometry came from the Muslim world. And Al-Kindi’s discovery of frequency analysis rendered all the codes of the ancient world soluble and created the basis of modern cryptology.

15 Ali ibn Nafi, known by his nickname of Ziryab (Blackbird) came from Iraq to Cordoba in the 9th century and brought with him the concept of the three-course meal – soup, followed by fish or meat, then fruit and nuts. He also introduced crystal glasses (which had been invented after experiments with rock crystal by Abbas ibn Firnas – see No 4).

16 Carpets were regarded as part of Paradise by medieval Muslims, thanks to their advanced weaving techniques, new tinctures from Islamic chemistry and highly developed sense of pattern and arabesque which were the basis of Islam’s non-representational art. In contrast, Europe’s floors were distinctly earthly, not to say earthy, until Arabian and Persian carpets were introduced. In England, as Erasmus recorded, floors were “covered in rushes, occasionally renewed, but so imperfectly that the bottom layer is left undisturbed, sometimes for 20 years, harbouring expectoration, vomiting, the leakage of dogs and men, ale droppings, scraps of fish, and other abominations not fit to be mentioned”. Carpets, unsurprisingly, caught on quickly.

17 The modern cheque comes from the Arabic saqq, a written vow to pay for goods when they were delivered, to avoid money having to be transported across dangerous terrain. In the 9th century, a Muslim businessman could cash a cheque in China drawn on his bank in Baghdad.

18 By the 9th century, many Muslim scholars took it for granted that the Earth was a sphere. The proof, said astronomer Ibn Hazm, “is that the Sun is always vertical to a particular spot on Earth”. It was 500 years before that realisation dawned on Galileo. The calculations of Muslim astronomers were so accurate that in the 9th century they reckoned the Earth’s circumference to be 40,253.4km – less than 200km out. The scholar al-Idrisi took a globe depicting the world to the court of King Roger of Sicily in 1139.

19 Though the Chinese invented saltpetre gunpowder, and used it in their fireworks, it was the Arabs who worked out that it could be purified using potassium nitrate for military use. Muslim incendiary devices terrified the Crusaders. By the 15th century they had invented both a rocket, which they called a “self-moving and combusting egg”, and a torpedo – a self-propelled pear-shaped bomb with a spear at the front which impaled itself in enemy ships and then blew up.

20 Medieval Europe had kitchen and herb gardens, but it was the Arabs who developed the idea of the garden as a place of beauty and meditation. The first royal pleasure gardens in Europe were opened in 11th-century Muslim Spain. Flowers which originated in Muslim gardens include the carnation and the tulip.

“1001 Inventions: Discover the Muslim Heritage in Our World” is a new exhibition which began a nationwide tour this week. It is currently at the Science Museum in Manchester. For more information, go to www.1001inventions.com.

Source

Posted in History, Religion of Abraham | Leave a comment

Indian Kashmir separatists get boost from Kosovo independence

Shabir Shah SRINAGAR, India (AFP) – Separatists in Indian Kashmir said Saturday that Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence has bolstered their resolve to achieve the same status for the disputed Himalayan territory.

Kosovo last Sunday declared independence from Serbia, which vowed never to recognise the move.

Kosovo’s independence declaration has “strengthened our resolve to achieve freedom for Kashmir,” leading Kashmiri separatist Shabir Shah told AFP.

Several countries including the United States and Britain have recognised Kosovo as a new state, but India said it was studying the legal ramifications.

India is wary of recognising Kosovo as an independent state because of its potential implications for Kashmir, racked by a nearly two-decade revolt against New Delhi’s rule that has left more than 43,000 people dead.

Nuclear-armed rivals India and Pakistan, which have fought two wars for control of the Muslim-majority region, each hold part of the territory but claim it in full.

“Kosovo’s independence is an indicator that struggles based on truth and justice never fail,” Shah said, adding the day is not “far when Kashmiris will be free.”

Shah, 54, who heads the pro-independence Democratic Freedom Party, is dubbed the “Nelson Mandela” of Kashmir after spending more than 20 years in Indian jails.

“The world community, the European Union in particular, should play a Kosovo-like role in getting the dispute resolved” in Kashmir, added Yasin Malik, chairman of pro-Independence Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front.

Both Malik and Shah want India and Pakistan to withdraw from Kashmir to pave the way for its independence.

So far, 23 of the 27 European Union member states back Kosovo’s independence, either formally recognising it or declaring their intention to do so.

Kosovo has been administered by the United Nations since 1999 after NATO bombed Belgrade to end a Serbian crackdown on ethnic Albanian separatists, but it remained technically part of Serbia.

Source

Posted in South Asia | Leave a comment