Daily News
Just how many people are behind the polygamy push?
Cairns Muslims win fight for mosque
Global News
Indonesia backs sharia law, poll shows
Net activism rattles Arabs
Dawah News
n/a
Friday, June 27, 2008
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Daily News - Wed 25/06/08
Local News
n/a
Global News
US court says Muslim held illegally
Dawah News
Islamist group challenges Berlin's five-year ban
n/a
Global News
US court says Muslim held illegally
Dawah News
Islamist group challenges Berlin's five-year ban
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Islamic scholar voted world's No 1 thinker
Robert Tait in Istanbul
The Guardian,
Monday June 23, 2008
Does the movement inspired by Fethullah Gülen represent a modern brand of Islam, or a subtle attempt to infiltrate religion into secular Turkey? The Guardian's religious affairs correspondent, Riazat Butt, reports from Istanbul
Video
A hitherto largely unknown Turkish Islamic scholar, Fethullah Gülen, has been voted the world's top intellectual in a poll to find the leading 100 thinkers.
Gülen, the author of more than 60 books, won a landslide triumph after the survey - which is organised by the British magazine, Prospect, and Foreign Policy, a US publication - attracted more than 500,000 votes.
The top 10 individuals were all Muslim and included two Nobel laureates, the novelist Orhan Pamuk, who is also Turkish, at No 4, and the Iranian human rights lawyer Shirin Ebadi, in 10th.
The result surprised organisers, who attributed it to a sustained campaign by Gülen's followers, known as the Gülen Movement, after Turkey's biggest-selling newspaper, Zaman, publicised the poll.
Prospect's editor, David Goohart, admitted to not having previously heard of Gülen and said his supporters had "made a mockery" of the poll. But he said the result flagged up significant political trends in Turkey.
"The victory of Gülen draws attention to the most important conflict in Europe, played out in Turkey between the secular nationalist establishment and the reforming Islamic democrats of the AK [Justice and Development] party," he said.
The AKP, which is allied to Gülen, is contesting a case brought by Turkey's chief prosecutor to shut it down and ban it from politics for allegedly trying to usher in Islamic rule, in breach of the country's secular constitution.
A Gülen supporter, Bulent Kenes, who is editor-in-chief of Today's Zaman newspaper, denied the poll had been hijacked. "There are many people who promote Gülen's ideas, which contribute to world peace by urging international dialogue and tolerance."
Gülen, 67, is known for a modernist brand of Islam. He was cleared of trying to topple the state in 2006 after being charged over footage in which he apparently urged civil service supporters to await his orders to overthrow the system. He said the film had been doctored.
Gülen, who has lived in the US since 1998, is credited with establishing a global network of schools which preach Islam in a spirit of tolerance. He has been praised in the west for promoting dialogue and condemned Osama bin Laden as a monster after September 11.
Source
The Guardian,
Monday June 23, 2008
Does the movement inspired by Fethullah Gülen represent a modern brand of Islam, or a subtle attempt to infiltrate religion into secular Turkey? The Guardian's religious affairs correspondent, Riazat Butt, reports from Istanbul
Video
A hitherto largely unknown Turkish Islamic scholar, Fethullah Gülen, has been voted the world's top intellectual in a poll to find the leading 100 thinkers.
Gülen, the author of more than 60 books, won a landslide triumph after the survey - which is organised by the British magazine, Prospect, and Foreign Policy, a US publication - attracted more than 500,000 votes.
The top 10 individuals were all Muslim and included two Nobel laureates, the novelist Orhan Pamuk, who is also Turkish, at No 4, and the Iranian human rights lawyer Shirin Ebadi, in 10th.
The result surprised organisers, who attributed it to a sustained campaign by Gülen's followers, known as the Gülen Movement, after Turkey's biggest-selling newspaper, Zaman, publicised the poll.
Prospect's editor, David Goohart, admitted to not having previously heard of Gülen and said his supporters had "made a mockery" of the poll. But he said the result flagged up significant political trends in Turkey.
"The victory of Gülen draws attention to the most important conflict in Europe, played out in Turkey between the secular nationalist establishment and the reforming Islamic democrats of the AK [Justice and Development] party," he said.
The AKP, which is allied to Gülen, is contesting a case brought by Turkey's chief prosecutor to shut it down and ban it from politics for allegedly trying to usher in Islamic rule, in breach of the country's secular constitution.
A Gülen supporter, Bulent Kenes, who is editor-in-chief of Today's Zaman newspaper, denied the poll had been hijacked. "There are many people who promote Gülen's ideas, which contribute to world peace by urging international dialogue and tolerance."
Gülen, 67, is known for a modernist brand of Islam. He was cleared of trying to topple the state in 2006 after being charged over footage in which he apparently urged civil service supporters to await his orders to overthrow the system. He said the film had been doctored.
Gülen, who has lived in the US since 1998, is credited with establishing a global network of schools which preach Islam in a spirit of tolerance. He has been praised in the west for promoting dialogue and condemned Osama bin Laden as a monster after September 11.
Source
Monday, June 23, 2008
Are we civilised?
By David Horton - posted Wednesday, 11 June 2008
The rulers of Burma and Zimbabwe have recently made sure, if there was a shred of doubt remaining, that they don't run civilised countries. And they are not alone of course.
It got me to thinking more generally - how do you recognise a civilised country?
Most Australians, perhaps all, believe they are part of a civilised society. But then people in many other countries believe the same thing (a bit like thinking that Australia is the greatest country in the world, when all the other countries think they are, too).
Can we think of an objective test? Migrants to the country now have to sit an exam testing their knowledge of Donald Bradman before they are allowed to become citizens of this greatest country in the world.
How about we scrap the old United Nations and create a new one from scratch? But this time, countries have to sit a test to decide whether they are civilised enough to join with others in looking after the good of the planet in a civilised kind of way.
So, imagine if you can, the General Assembly Hall at the United Nations. You are there representing Australia, and all around you are the anxious representatives of other countries, nervously lining up pencils, putting little clocks in place, playing with the exam paper turned face down on the desk, trying to surreptitiously lift a corner to get a look at the questions. And then the second hand reaches the top, and the time is 9am, and the Secretary-General says "You may start".
Your eyes flick over the page quickly, looking for an easy question to get you going, but there aren't any easy questions, and, after chewing your pencil, you start with question one.
The Civilisation ExamAnswer all questionsFour marks for each question to which you can answer "True"; partial marks may be awarded.Pass mark is 50.
1. The military-industrial complex plays no role in the government of your country.
2. Religion plays a very small role in society in your country; neither forbidden nor compulsory.
3. Scientists, teachers, nurses and artists are all valued more than sports people and celebrities in your country.
4. Speech is free and the media varied with many different owners in your country.
5. There are few if any guns owned by people in your country.
6. The environment of your country is cared for as the highest priority.
7. The government of your country does not execute its people.
8. Women have full social and economic equality with men in your country.
9. Minorities, whether ethnic, linguistic, cultural or religious, are not persecuted in your country.
10. Your country does not consider sexuality a criterion for human rights.
11. Education of children is universal, free and secular in your country.
12. Other species of animals are respected, valued and protected by the people of your country.
13. Everyone secretly votes in your country and every vote is openly counted independent of government.
14. Regulation protects people from giant corporations operating in your country.
15. Your armies do not invade other countries and war isn't glorified in your country.
16. Your country does not consider wealth a criterion for political success, or social worth.
17. Art and heritage are valued in your country and literature, film and television increase in quality over time.
18. In your country natural disasters bring massive state support for the hurt, homeless and helpless.
19. The old, the sick and the disabled are cared for by your country, not profited from.
20. The government of your country tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but.
21. Public enterprise is as valued as private enterprise in your country.
22. The courts and police are independent of your country's politicians.
23. Trade unions flourish in your country.
24. Your country aims to make the balance between life at work and life at home a healthy one.
25. Aspirations are achievable by all your country's people.
You finish and look around. The hall is full of people puzzling over some of the answers. Guns? Girls? Gays? God?
We lose points for those?
Who knew?
Sport and war are good, aren't they?
What are trade unions?
Some representatives left early after reading the paper and attempting no answers.
You decide to add up the points for Australia. Achieving 50 should be easy, we're a civilised country.
But you can't make it, even with some fudging, add up to more than 45 points. Is anyone going to pass this exam you wonder, surely they will have to drop the pass mark.
You walk disconsolately to the front of the hall, and hand your paper in to the Secretary-General. And you just know that when you get it back you will have a fail mark, and a comment from the examiner "Must try harder".
Source
The rulers of Burma and Zimbabwe have recently made sure, if there was a shred of doubt remaining, that they don't run civilised countries. And they are not alone of course.
It got me to thinking more generally - how do you recognise a civilised country?
Most Australians, perhaps all, believe they are part of a civilised society. But then people in many other countries believe the same thing (a bit like thinking that Australia is the greatest country in the world, when all the other countries think they are, too).
Can we think of an objective test? Migrants to the country now have to sit an exam testing their knowledge of Donald Bradman before they are allowed to become citizens of this greatest country in the world.
How about we scrap the old United Nations and create a new one from scratch? But this time, countries have to sit a test to decide whether they are civilised enough to join with others in looking after the good of the planet in a civilised kind of way.
So, imagine if you can, the General Assembly Hall at the United Nations. You are there representing Australia, and all around you are the anxious representatives of other countries, nervously lining up pencils, putting little clocks in place, playing with the exam paper turned face down on the desk, trying to surreptitiously lift a corner to get a look at the questions. And then the second hand reaches the top, and the time is 9am, and the Secretary-General says "You may start".
Your eyes flick over the page quickly, looking for an easy question to get you going, but there aren't any easy questions, and, after chewing your pencil, you start with question one.
The Civilisation ExamAnswer all questionsFour marks for each question to which you can answer "True"; partial marks may be awarded.Pass mark is 50.
1. The military-industrial complex plays no role in the government of your country.
2. Religion plays a very small role in society in your country; neither forbidden nor compulsory.
3. Scientists, teachers, nurses and artists are all valued more than sports people and celebrities in your country.
4. Speech is free and the media varied with many different owners in your country.
5. There are few if any guns owned by people in your country.
6. The environment of your country is cared for as the highest priority.
7. The government of your country does not execute its people.
8. Women have full social and economic equality with men in your country.
9. Minorities, whether ethnic, linguistic, cultural or religious, are not persecuted in your country.
10. Your country does not consider sexuality a criterion for human rights.
11. Education of children is universal, free and secular in your country.
12. Other species of animals are respected, valued and protected by the people of your country.
13. Everyone secretly votes in your country and every vote is openly counted independent of government.
14. Regulation protects people from giant corporations operating in your country.
15. Your armies do not invade other countries and war isn't glorified in your country.
16. Your country does not consider wealth a criterion for political success, or social worth.
17. Art and heritage are valued in your country and literature, film and television increase in quality over time.
18. In your country natural disasters bring massive state support for the hurt, homeless and helpless.
19. The old, the sick and the disabled are cared for by your country, not profited from.
20. The government of your country tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but.
21. Public enterprise is as valued as private enterprise in your country.
22. The courts and police are independent of your country's politicians.
23. Trade unions flourish in your country.
24. Your country aims to make the balance between life at work and life at home a healthy one.
25. Aspirations are achievable by all your country's people.
You finish and look around. The hall is full of people puzzling over some of the answers. Guns? Girls? Gays? God?
We lose points for those?
Who knew?
Sport and war are good, aren't they?
What are trade unions?
Some representatives left early after reading the paper and attempting no answers.
You decide to add up the points for Australia. Achieving 50 should be easy, we're a civilised country.
But you can't make it, even with some fudging, add up to more than 45 points. Is anyone going to pass this exam you wonder, surely they will have to drop the pass mark.
You walk disconsolately to the front of the hall, and hand your paper in to the Secretary-General. And you just know that when you get it back you will have a fail mark, and a comment from the examiner "Must try harder".
Source
Daily News - Mon 23/06/08
Local News
Muslim music for modern times
Terrorism help for Pakistan
Terror warning system 'useless'
Muslim 'chaplains' to minister to our troops
Global News
Descent into Chaos: How the War Against Islamic Extremism Is Being Lost
How Islam Came to Germany
Israeli army accused of prisoner abuse
Dawah News
Danish prosecutors refuse to ban Islamic movement
No ban on Islamist party in Denmark, says proseuctor
Hizb-ut-Tahrir declared legal
MP under attack for backing terror laws
Two female islamists convicted in Uzbekistan
Muslim music for modern times
Terrorism help for Pakistan
Terror warning system 'useless'
Muslim 'chaplains' to minister to our troops
Global News
Descent into Chaos: How the War Against Islamic Extremism Is Being Lost
How Islam Came to Germany
Israeli army accused of prisoner abuse
Dawah News
Danish prosecutors refuse to ban Islamic movement
No ban on Islamist party in Denmark, says proseuctor
Hizb-ut-Tahrir declared legal
MP under attack for backing terror laws
Two female islamists convicted in Uzbekistan
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Virtual Caliphate: Islamic extremists and their websites
James Brandon - Centre of Social Cohesion (UK)
Virtual Caliphate shows how Islamic extremists in the United Kingdom have established dedicated websites in order to circumvent British anti-terrorism measures introduced after July 2005. It is the first report to catalogue the content of these websites and to analyse how British extremists use these sites to spread jihadist ideologies, co-ordinate their activities and win new recruits.
Report
Virtual Caliphate shows how Islamic extremists in the United Kingdom have established dedicated websites in order to circumvent British anti-terrorism measures introduced after July 2005. It is the first report to catalogue the content of these websites and to analyse how British extremists use these sites to spread jihadist ideologies, co-ordinate their activities and win new recruits.
Report
In Wiggles we trust - and Mary can mind the house
Yuko Narushima
June 19, 2008
AUSTRALIANS trust the Wiggles and Princess Mary but are sceptical of politicians such as Brendan Nelson and Tony Abbott, who scraped in just ahead of criminal businessman Rodney Adler in a list of the nation's most trustworthy people.
The Trust Survey released by Reader's Digest yesterday asked 750people who they would enlist to mind the house, pack a parachute and back them in a pub fight.
For the fourth year running, the burns surgeon and mother of six, Dr Fiona Wood, was named the most trusted person in the country, followed by the clinical immunologist Professor Ian Frazer and the Clean Up Australia Day campaigner Ian Kiernan.
"You cannot be divisive and top that list," the demographer Bernard Salt said. "It's all about capturing that broad middle space."
A likely candidate to bump DrWood from her post would be Australian and have links to Princess Diana, someone on whom the nation could cast its aspirations, he said.
"If Prince William were to come to Australia and pick a bride from the western suburbs of Sydney who worked at a kindergarten, she'd have all of the pistons working in her direction," he said.
In the next tranche of favourites were entertainers and animal lovers. These included the veterinarian Dr Harry Cooper, the children's band the Wiggles, Princess Mary and the TV personality Ernie Dingo.
At the tail end of the field were politicians and Australians with high-profile falls from grace. MrAdler, a former HIH director, was Australia's least-trusted person, with the philandering AFL star Wayne Carey and fellow player Ben Cousins, who was charged with drug possession, filling the next two places.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was the most-trusted politician, rating 62nd on the list of 100people. The Opposition Leader, Brendan Nelson, rated 93rd.
Who we'd trust with our kids - and our lives
TOP 5 MOST-TRUSTED AUSTRALIANS
1. Dr Fiona Wood - burns specialist
2. Professor Ian Frazer - cancer researcher
3. Ian Kiernan - Clean Up Australia
4. Dr Harry Cooper - TV veterinarian
5. The Wiggles - entertainers
FIVE LEAST-TRUSTED AUSTRALIANS
Rodney Adler - disgraced businessman
Wayne Carey - retired AFL player
Ben Cousins - suspended AFL player
David Hicks - confessed terrorism supporter
Sol Trujillo - Telstra CEO
Source: Reader's Digest
Source
June 19, 2008
AUSTRALIANS trust the Wiggles and Princess Mary but are sceptical of politicians such as Brendan Nelson and Tony Abbott, who scraped in just ahead of criminal businessman Rodney Adler in a list of the nation's most trustworthy people.
The Trust Survey released by Reader's Digest yesterday asked 750people who they would enlist to mind the house, pack a parachute and back them in a pub fight.
For the fourth year running, the burns surgeon and mother of six, Dr Fiona Wood, was named the most trusted person in the country, followed by the clinical immunologist Professor Ian Frazer and the Clean Up Australia Day campaigner Ian Kiernan.
"You cannot be divisive and top that list," the demographer Bernard Salt said. "It's all about capturing that broad middle space."
A likely candidate to bump DrWood from her post would be Australian and have links to Princess Diana, someone on whom the nation could cast its aspirations, he said.
"If Prince William were to come to Australia and pick a bride from the western suburbs of Sydney who worked at a kindergarten, she'd have all of the pistons working in her direction," he said.
In the next tranche of favourites were entertainers and animal lovers. These included the veterinarian Dr Harry Cooper, the children's band the Wiggles, Princess Mary and the TV personality Ernie Dingo.
At the tail end of the field were politicians and Australians with high-profile falls from grace. MrAdler, a former HIH director, was Australia's least-trusted person, with the philandering AFL star Wayne Carey and fellow player Ben Cousins, who was charged with drug possession, filling the next two places.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was the most-trusted politician, rating 62nd on the list of 100people. The Opposition Leader, Brendan Nelson, rated 93rd.
Who we'd trust with our kids - and our lives
TOP 5 MOST-TRUSTED AUSTRALIANS
1. Dr Fiona Wood - burns specialist
2. Professor Ian Frazer - cancer researcher
3. Ian Kiernan - Clean Up Australia
4. Dr Harry Cooper - TV veterinarian
5. The Wiggles - entertainers
FIVE LEAST-TRUSTED AUSTRALIANS
Rodney Adler - disgraced businessman
Wayne Carey - retired AFL player
Ben Cousins - suspended AFL player
David Hicks - confessed terrorism supporter
Sol Trujillo - Telstra CEO
Source: Reader's Digest
Source
Daily News - Thu 19/06/08
Local News
n/a
Global News
Realism over idealism
Rumsfeld agreed to intimidation of prisoners: Senator
EU adopts new illegal immigrant laws
Dawah News
n/a
n/a
Global News
Realism over idealism
Rumsfeld agreed to intimidation of prisoners: Senator
EU adopts new illegal immigrant laws
Dawah News
n/a
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Twins 'dead a week'
Christine Kellett
June 17, 2008 - 3:50PM
The parents of 18-month-old twins, found dead last night, could be charged with murder as soon as Thursday, a Brisbane court heard today.
The decaying bodies of the boy and girl - who had been dead at least a week and each weighed four kilograms or less - were found in their home in Sunnybank Hills, in Brisbane's south, about 7pm (AEST) yesterday.
Their parents faced Brisbane Magistrates Court today charged with failing to provide the necessities of life.
However, prosecutors this afternoon took the unusual step of asking for the couple to be remanded in custody for a further 48 hours, pending the results of a post-mortem examination.
While results are yet to be finalised, the likely cause of the twins' death was malnutrition.
The court heard the twins' mother, 30, had told police she was aware the babies were dead from about June 8 or 9.
They were found by an 11-year-old sibling yesterday after other children noticed an odour coming from a front bedroom.
After making the gruesome discovery, the court heard the 11-year-old child told the mother, "I know why you've been crying now."
The children later told police they had rarely seen the twins since they were born.
Police prosecutor Tina Green said the parents were "most likely ... heading towards either manslaughter or murder charges".
The court heard that the mother, who cannot be named, admitted she only fed the twins with a bottle and changed them only occasionally.
"I don't think I fed them enough," she said in a police statement read to the court.
Prosecutors said both children's bodies were decaying when found and appeared malnourished.
The mother, who appeared overweight and wearing a brown prison tracksuit with her hair tied back, kept her eyes downcast throughout the briefing.
The toddlers' father, 28, also appeared in court wearing handcuffs.
Defence lawyer Michael Cridland, acting for the children's father, said the man had little or no contact with the twins in the six months before their deaths, arguing the chance of securing a murder conviction against him was remote.
However, Sergeant Green said the man lived under the same roof as the toddlers and had to walk past the bedroom where they were kept to reach his own.
He also drove the couple's four other children to school on his way to work as a project manager on a major Brisbane road project.
Mr Cridland also said his client had only yesterday afternoon been made aware of the twins' deaths, shortly before police removed their bodies from the house.
However, the magistrate, Noel Nunan, granted police permission to hold the pair, describing the circumstances surrounding the alleged crime as "bizarre".
"I think it would be wise to wait for the outcome of the post-mortem examination," Mr Nunan said.
The mother is undergoing a psychiatric assessments, while the father has refused a psychiatric assessment.
AAP reports: A neighbour of the parents said older children from the family often came over looking for food.
It is understood three older siblings have been taken away by child safety workers to another residence.
Neighbour Nyakong Maying said she had lived in the same street as the family for five years and sometimes gave food to the children in the family.
'I'm hungry'
"The youngest boy [four years old] comes over here and says 'I need something to eat, I'm hungry,' " Ms Maying said.
"When they came here about four months ago I give them some snacks or fruit with my children but after that I stopped it."
Ms Maying, who came to Australia from Sudan, said she never saw the parents.
"I never see the mother or the father also, I just see the kids because they come around my house," she said.
Another neighbour, Fiona Ma said she had noticed a boy aged three or four who was allowed to run around the neighbourhood unsupervised.
"I feel confused because [the] parents are not attending to him," Ms Ma said today. "He's so young and he just runs in the street."
Source
June 17, 2008 - 3:50PM
The parents of 18-month-old twins, found dead last night, could be charged with murder as soon as Thursday, a Brisbane court heard today.
The decaying bodies of the boy and girl - who had been dead at least a week and each weighed four kilograms or less - were found in their home in Sunnybank Hills, in Brisbane's south, about 7pm (AEST) yesterday.
Their parents faced Brisbane Magistrates Court today charged with failing to provide the necessities of life.
However, prosecutors this afternoon took the unusual step of asking for the couple to be remanded in custody for a further 48 hours, pending the results of a post-mortem examination.
While results are yet to be finalised, the likely cause of the twins' death was malnutrition.
The court heard the twins' mother, 30, had told police she was aware the babies were dead from about June 8 or 9.
They were found by an 11-year-old sibling yesterday after other children noticed an odour coming from a front bedroom.
After making the gruesome discovery, the court heard the 11-year-old child told the mother, "I know why you've been crying now."
The children later told police they had rarely seen the twins since they were born.
Police prosecutor Tina Green said the parents were "most likely ... heading towards either manslaughter or murder charges".
The court heard that the mother, who cannot be named, admitted she only fed the twins with a bottle and changed them only occasionally.
"I don't think I fed them enough," she said in a police statement read to the court.
Prosecutors said both children's bodies were decaying when found and appeared malnourished.
The mother, who appeared overweight and wearing a brown prison tracksuit with her hair tied back, kept her eyes downcast throughout the briefing.
The toddlers' father, 28, also appeared in court wearing handcuffs.
Defence lawyer Michael Cridland, acting for the children's father, said the man had little or no contact with the twins in the six months before their deaths, arguing the chance of securing a murder conviction against him was remote.
However, Sergeant Green said the man lived under the same roof as the toddlers and had to walk past the bedroom where they were kept to reach his own.
He also drove the couple's four other children to school on his way to work as a project manager on a major Brisbane road project.
Mr Cridland also said his client had only yesterday afternoon been made aware of the twins' deaths, shortly before police removed their bodies from the house.
However, the magistrate, Noel Nunan, granted police permission to hold the pair, describing the circumstances surrounding the alleged crime as "bizarre".
"I think it would be wise to wait for the outcome of the post-mortem examination," Mr Nunan said.
The mother is undergoing a psychiatric assessments, while the father has refused a psychiatric assessment.
AAP reports: A neighbour of the parents said older children from the family often came over looking for food.
It is understood three older siblings have been taken away by child safety workers to another residence.
Neighbour Nyakong Maying said she had lived in the same street as the family for five years and sometimes gave food to the children in the family.
'I'm hungry'
"The youngest boy [four years old] comes over here and says 'I need something to eat, I'm hungry,' " Ms Maying said.
"When they came here about four months ago I give them some snacks or fruit with my children but after that I stopped it."
Ms Maying, who came to Australia from Sudan, said she never saw the parents.
"I never see the mother or the father also, I just see the kids because they come around my house," she said.
Another neighbour, Fiona Ma said she had noticed a boy aged three or four who was allowed to run around the neighbourhood unsupervised.
"I feel confused because [the] parents are not attending to him," Ms Ma said today. "He's so young and he just runs in the street."
Source
Daily News - Wed 18/06/08
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Muslim world and West have a lot in common, says PM
Monday June 9, 2008 MYT 4:27:16 PM
By IZATUN SHARI
KUALA LUMPUR: There is a need to reframe the discourse on the divide between the Muslim world and the West given the fact that both sides have a lot in common, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said.
The Prime Minister said there was a need to establish recognition that the Muslim world and the West were not total strangers but, in fact, parties, which do not share a historical, existential and philosophical worldview.
"If we can accomplish this, we would have taken an important step in closing the gap," Abdullah said Monday in his keynote address at the third "International Conference on the Muslim World and the West: Bridging the Gap" at the Shangri-La Hotel here.
He said there were more commonalities among the three great monotheistic religions of Islam, Christianity and Judaism than among any other world religions because they shared traditions and values, in spite of their differences.
"We should therefore nurture these common grounds in the interest of a common agenda of peace, rather than quibble and magnify these differences to serve some other political or strategic agendas."
He said the Islamic world and the West must work to regain mutual trust, respect, understanding and cooperation that were important for world peace and security.
In order to move forward, he said both sides must listen with an open mind and an equally open heart.
"We must stand together with a firm commitment to establish a culture of tolerance and harmony in order to better promote the wellbeing of humankind, notwithstanding the differences or dissimilarities that exist between us as communities."
He noted that the divide between the Muslim world and the West originated in the hearts and minds of humans.
"It is geo-politics and the cynical manipulation of religious creed or secular ideology that trigger these conflicts and which bring about this divide.
He said that if the feelings, attitudes and perceptions that each side had of the other were altered, the gap would close to a very significant degree.
He pointed out that the negative attitudes and perceptions among Westerners and Muslims, which created and sustained the divide, were actions of a few bigoted players on both sides.
"They have been created and fuelled by several defining political events, and abetted by certain socio-economic and religious factors.
"For example, when the Soviet Union imploded in 1989, a number of influential Western thinkers decided that Islam was their next existential enemy after Communism. Thus began the shaping of some of the negative western attitude and actions towards the Muslim ummah (people)."
Abdullah also expressed Malaysia's intention to work closely with the United Nations and the Alliance of Civilisations (AoC), as part of the worldwide effort undertaken by the AoC to create understanding between and among civilisations of the world.
"As a member of the group of friends of the AoC, Malaysia's own efforts in this regard will complement those of the Alliance and will be part of the AoC's global programmes of action. We want to be contributing to the global efforts - to be a spoke within the overarching wheel of the UN-supported AoC."
He said Malaysia's effort would be a regional one that would be reinforcing and sustaining those of the AoC in what might well be a long-term global undertaking.
Established in 2005 at the initiative of the Spanish and Turkish governments under the auspices of the UN, the alliance is supported by a group of friends - a community of over 85 member countries and international organisations and bodies to build a bridge among a diversity of culture and communities but not inclusively between Muslim and Western societies.
"Malaysia believes that success in this endeavour requires the cooperation of governments working in partnership with the private or business sector, the religious sector, and civil society, and that this work has to be carried out in both the Western and Muslim countries."
Abdullah said the effort required a comprehensive and dynamic approach, with each sector supporting and reinforcing, in a spirit of cooperation and competition for the common good of all sectors.
Source
By IZATUN SHARI
KUALA LUMPUR: There is a need to reframe the discourse on the divide between the Muslim world and the West given the fact that both sides have a lot in common, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said.
The Prime Minister said there was a need to establish recognition that the Muslim world and the West were not total strangers but, in fact, parties, which do not share a historical, existential and philosophical worldview.
"If we can accomplish this, we would have taken an important step in closing the gap," Abdullah said Monday in his keynote address at the third "International Conference on the Muslim World and the West: Bridging the Gap" at the Shangri-La Hotel here.
He said there were more commonalities among the three great monotheistic religions of Islam, Christianity and Judaism than among any other world religions because they shared traditions and values, in spite of their differences.
"We should therefore nurture these common grounds in the interest of a common agenda of peace, rather than quibble and magnify these differences to serve some other political or strategic agendas."
He said the Islamic world and the West must work to regain mutual trust, respect, understanding and cooperation that were important for world peace and security.
In order to move forward, he said both sides must listen with an open mind and an equally open heart.
"We must stand together with a firm commitment to establish a culture of tolerance and harmony in order to better promote the wellbeing of humankind, notwithstanding the differences or dissimilarities that exist between us as communities."
He noted that the divide between the Muslim world and the West originated in the hearts and minds of humans.
"It is geo-politics and the cynical manipulation of religious creed or secular ideology that trigger these conflicts and which bring about this divide.
He said that if the feelings, attitudes and perceptions that each side had of the other were altered, the gap would close to a very significant degree.
He pointed out that the negative attitudes and perceptions among Westerners and Muslims, which created and sustained the divide, were actions of a few bigoted players on both sides.
"They have been created and fuelled by several defining political events, and abetted by certain socio-economic and religious factors.
"For example, when the Soviet Union imploded in 1989, a number of influential Western thinkers decided that Islam was their next existential enemy after Communism. Thus began the shaping of some of the negative western attitude and actions towards the Muslim ummah (people)."
Abdullah also expressed Malaysia's intention to work closely with the United Nations and the Alliance of Civilisations (AoC), as part of the worldwide effort undertaken by the AoC to create understanding between and among civilisations of the world.
"As a member of the group of friends of the AoC, Malaysia's own efforts in this regard will complement those of the Alliance and will be part of the AoC's global programmes of action. We want to be contributing to the global efforts - to be a spoke within the overarching wheel of the UN-supported AoC."
He said Malaysia's effort would be a regional one that would be reinforcing and sustaining those of the AoC in what might well be a long-term global undertaking.
Established in 2005 at the initiative of the Spanish and Turkish governments under the auspices of the UN, the alliance is supported by a group of friends - a community of over 85 member countries and international organisations and bodies to build a bridge among a diversity of culture and communities but not inclusively between Muslim and Western societies.
"Malaysia believes that success in this endeavour requires the cooperation of governments working in partnership with the private or business sector, the religious sector, and civil society, and that this work has to be carried out in both the Western and Muslim countries."
Abdullah said the effort required a comprehensive and dynamic approach, with each sector supporting and reinforcing, in a spirit of cooperation and competition for the common good of all sectors.
Source
Rand: AK Party closure will deepen divide
Monday, 16 June 2008
The ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is likely to take a moderate course if it is not closed down by the Constitutional Court and act more cautiously about pressing for measures that could be perceived as changing the secular-religious balance in the country or provoking the secularists into another attempt to remove it from power, a study sponsored by the Pentagon has predicted.
The report, sponsored by the undersecretary of defense for policy and conducted by the International Security and Defense Policy Center of the RAND National Defense Research Institute, also found that the religious-secularist divide will deepen within Turkey and that Turkey's relations with the European Union will become more problematic if the ruling party is closed. Shutting down the AK Party, however, is unlikely to eliminate it as a political force because "if it is closed, the party is likely to simply reemerge under another name," the report said.
"It would, however, sharpen the secularist-religious divide within Turkey and could lead some pious Turks to lose faith in the political system. Turkey's prospects of EU membership, already facing serious obstacles, would be further jeopardized," the report, penned by Angel Rabasa and F. Stephen Larrabee, predicted.
The AK Party is facing closure on charges of becoming a focal point of anti-secular activities. Its senior members, including Prime Minister Erdoğan, and President Abdullah Gül, a former AK Party member, are also facing political bans.
Assessing the alternative scenarios for Turkish politics, the RAND report said the AK Party will be faced with structural limits for opening space for Islam in the public sphere. One such limitation stems from the fact that “the Kemalist establishment remains largely intact” and that “any government that crosses the lines that define the acceptable role of religion in politics risks accentuating political tensions and possibly provoking intervention by the military.” Other factors, such as Turkey’s Western orientation and the presence of a moderate and pluralistic tradition of Islam that does not embrace rigid interpretations or Shariah rule will also lead the AK Party to take a moderate path.
According to the report, there are other scenarios under which the AK Party could pursue a more aggressive Islamist agenda or the military could intervene in the country’s politics, but they look less likely. It noted that there were secularist Turks who were worried that the AK Party would appoint Islamists to state posts and turn away from Europe to create a rival Islamic bloc. But this “creeping Islamization” scenario is unlikely for several reasons: “First, it would lead to greater political polarization and would likely provoke intervention by the military. Second, most Turks support a secular state and oppose a state based on the Shariah. Third, EU membership has been a core element of the AK Party’s foreign policy,” said the report.
As for possible direct military intervention, the report said this would occur only as a last resort in the event that the AK Party presses for an Islamic agenda more aggressively. “A confrontation could take place if the AK Party takes actions seen by the military as crossing important lines. …While direct intervention by the military cannot be excluded from consideration, especially if the AK Party begins to push an Islamic agenda more aggressively, it is not very likely and would occur only as a last resort after the military had exhausted all other options,” said the report.
The report noted that the AK Party’s Erdoğan, unlike his Islamist predecessor, Necmettin Erbakan, was oriented toward Europe and that the party’s electoral success “does not translate into popular support for an Islamist agenda.” Assessing the implications of the AK Party’s pro-European policies, the report said they paved the way for the reconfiguration of Turkish politics as well: “As the West became a tacit ally of the AK Party, formerly pro-Western secularists surfaced as opponents of EU accession. The [main opposition Republican People’s Party] CHP, once the champion of a Western orientation for Turkey, has increasingly moved in a more nationalistic direction and has adopted a more ambiguous attitude toward the West, seeing some aspects of the West’s influence as a threat to the integrity of the Turkish state and Kemalism.”
Lessons for US: Turkish alliance in Mideast not taken for granted
With its renewed focus on Middle Eastern affairs and growing interests in the region, Turkey is likely to avoid offering the United States a blank check for military cooperation, a US study has revealed.
The study, sponsored by the Pentagon and conducted by the International Security and Defense Policy Center of the RAND National Defense Research Institute, said the Turkish policy toward the Middle East is likely to remain a sensitive issue in bilateral US-Turkish relations. “Turkey’s growing interests in the Middle East are likely to make Ankara wary about allowing the United States to use its military facilities for regional contingencies except where such operations are clearly perceived to be in Turkey’s interest,” it said, calling for a diversification of US access options that would provide alternatives to İncirlik air base in case Turkey increases restrictions on US use of it or other Turkish facilities.
Turkey disappointed the US by refusing to cooperate militarily in the war on Iraq in 2003. Iran, whose nuclear program is viewed with deep suspicion by the US, is expected to be the next issue of contention between Ankara and Washington in the event the US administration decides to go ahead with military sanctions to force Tehran to end its nuclear program.
The RAND report also cautioned the US administration against describing Turkey as a “model” for coexistence of Islam and democracy in its political system because this makes many Turks, particularly the secularists and the military who believe that it pushes Turkey politically closer to the Middle East and weakens Turkey’s Western identity, “uncomfortable.”
This, however, does not mean that Turkey is different from other Muslim countries in its long experience with fusing Islam with Westernization. Referring to Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party), the report said: “The ability of a party with Islamic roots to operate within the framework of a secular democratic system while respecting the boundaries between religion and state would refute the argument that Islam cannot be reconciled with modern secular democracy. On the other hand, if the experiment fails, it could lead to greater secular-Islamic polarization, further reducing the middle ground needed to build the moderate Muslim bulwark needed to contain the spread of radicalized Islam.”
“Beyond Turkey, the accommodation of Islam with democracy and secularism that has been achieved there is a valuable resource in the current ideological conflict between radical and mainstream interpretations of Islam. Mainstream entities in Turkey, therefore, should be encouraged to partner with groups and institutions elsewhere in the Muslim world to propagate moderate and pluralistic interpretations of Islam,” the report also noted.
The report dismissed characterization of the current tensions in Turkey as a struggle between “Islamists” and “secularists” and said these tensions were “a part of a struggle for power between newly emerging social sectors and the secularized elite -- a struggle between the ‘periphery’ and the ‘center’-- that has deep roots in Ottoman and recent Turkish history.”
It also noted that while the AK Party has Islamic roots, “it enjoys broad-based political support that transcends religious, class, and regional differences” and suggested Washington should remain committed to supporting Turkey’s membership in the EU because this would “rebut the claim that the West, especially Europe, is innately hostile to Muslims.”
Future US administrations will need to work closely with congressional leaders to ensure that the Armenian issue does not poison future relations with Turkey, the report said, and urged Washington to follow up with concrete steps in its current cooperation with Turkey against the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).
İstanbul Today’s Zaman
Source
RAND - The Rise of Political Islam in Turkey
RAND - TURKEY AS A U.S. SECURITY PARTNER
The ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is likely to take a moderate course if it is not closed down by the Constitutional Court and act more cautiously about pressing for measures that could be perceived as changing the secular-religious balance in the country or provoking the secularists into another attempt to remove it from power, a study sponsored by the Pentagon has predicted.
The report, sponsored by the undersecretary of defense for policy and conducted by the International Security and Defense Policy Center of the RAND National Defense Research Institute, also found that the religious-secularist divide will deepen within Turkey and that Turkey's relations with the European Union will become more problematic if the ruling party is closed. Shutting down the AK Party, however, is unlikely to eliminate it as a political force because "if it is closed, the party is likely to simply reemerge under another name," the report said.
"It would, however, sharpen the secularist-religious divide within Turkey and could lead some pious Turks to lose faith in the political system. Turkey's prospects of EU membership, already facing serious obstacles, would be further jeopardized," the report, penned by Angel Rabasa and F. Stephen Larrabee, predicted.
The AK Party is facing closure on charges of becoming a focal point of anti-secular activities. Its senior members, including Prime Minister Erdoğan, and President Abdullah Gül, a former AK Party member, are also facing political bans.
Assessing the alternative scenarios for Turkish politics, the RAND report said the AK Party will be faced with structural limits for opening space for Islam in the public sphere. One such limitation stems from the fact that “the Kemalist establishment remains largely intact” and that “any government that crosses the lines that define the acceptable role of religion in politics risks accentuating political tensions and possibly provoking intervention by the military.” Other factors, such as Turkey’s Western orientation and the presence of a moderate and pluralistic tradition of Islam that does not embrace rigid interpretations or Shariah rule will also lead the AK Party to take a moderate path.
According to the report, there are other scenarios under which the AK Party could pursue a more aggressive Islamist agenda or the military could intervene in the country’s politics, but they look less likely. It noted that there were secularist Turks who were worried that the AK Party would appoint Islamists to state posts and turn away from Europe to create a rival Islamic bloc. But this “creeping Islamization” scenario is unlikely for several reasons: “First, it would lead to greater political polarization and would likely provoke intervention by the military. Second, most Turks support a secular state and oppose a state based on the Shariah. Third, EU membership has been a core element of the AK Party’s foreign policy,” said the report.
As for possible direct military intervention, the report said this would occur only as a last resort in the event that the AK Party presses for an Islamic agenda more aggressively. “A confrontation could take place if the AK Party takes actions seen by the military as crossing important lines. …While direct intervention by the military cannot be excluded from consideration, especially if the AK Party begins to push an Islamic agenda more aggressively, it is not very likely and would occur only as a last resort after the military had exhausted all other options,” said the report.
The report noted that the AK Party’s Erdoğan, unlike his Islamist predecessor, Necmettin Erbakan, was oriented toward Europe and that the party’s electoral success “does not translate into popular support for an Islamist agenda.” Assessing the implications of the AK Party’s pro-European policies, the report said they paved the way for the reconfiguration of Turkish politics as well: “As the West became a tacit ally of the AK Party, formerly pro-Western secularists surfaced as opponents of EU accession. The [main opposition Republican People’s Party] CHP, once the champion of a Western orientation for Turkey, has increasingly moved in a more nationalistic direction and has adopted a more ambiguous attitude toward the West, seeing some aspects of the West’s influence as a threat to the integrity of the Turkish state and Kemalism.”
Lessons for US: Turkish alliance in Mideast not taken for granted
With its renewed focus on Middle Eastern affairs and growing interests in the region, Turkey is likely to avoid offering the United States a blank check for military cooperation, a US study has revealed.
The study, sponsored by the Pentagon and conducted by the International Security and Defense Policy Center of the RAND National Defense Research Institute, said the Turkish policy toward the Middle East is likely to remain a sensitive issue in bilateral US-Turkish relations. “Turkey’s growing interests in the Middle East are likely to make Ankara wary about allowing the United States to use its military facilities for regional contingencies except where such operations are clearly perceived to be in Turkey’s interest,” it said, calling for a diversification of US access options that would provide alternatives to İncirlik air base in case Turkey increases restrictions on US use of it or other Turkish facilities.
Turkey disappointed the US by refusing to cooperate militarily in the war on Iraq in 2003. Iran, whose nuclear program is viewed with deep suspicion by the US, is expected to be the next issue of contention between Ankara and Washington in the event the US administration decides to go ahead with military sanctions to force Tehran to end its nuclear program.
The RAND report also cautioned the US administration against describing Turkey as a “model” for coexistence of Islam and democracy in its political system because this makes many Turks, particularly the secularists and the military who believe that it pushes Turkey politically closer to the Middle East and weakens Turkey’s Western identity, “uncomfortable.”
This, however, does not mean that Turkey is different from other Muslim countries in its long experience with fusing Islam with Westernization. Referring to Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party), the report said: “The ability of a party with Islamic roots to operate within the framework of a secular democratic system while respecting the boundaries between religion and state would refute the argument that Islam cannot be reconciled with modern secular democracy. On the other hand, if the experiment fails, it could lead to greater secular-Islamic polarization, further reducing the middle ground needed to build the moderate Muslim bulwark needed to contain the spread of radicalized Islam.”
“Beyond Turkey, the accommodation of Islam with democracy and secularism that has been achieved there is a valuable resource in the current ideological conflict between radical and mainstream interpretations of Islam. Mainstream entities in Turkey, therefore, should be encouraged to partner with groups and institutions elsewhere in the Muslim world to propagate moderate and pluralistic interpretations of Islam,” the report also noted.
The report dismissed characterization of the current tensions in Turkey as a struggle between “Islamists” and “secularists” and said these tensions were “a part of a struggle for power between newly emerging social sectors and the secularized elite -- a struggle between the ‘periphery’ and the ‘center’-- that has deep roots in Ottoman and recent Turkish history.”
It also noted that while the AK Party has Islamic roots, “it enjoys broad-based political support that transcends religious, class, and regional differences” and suggested Washington should remain committed to supporting Turkey’s membership in the EU because this would “rebut the claim that the West, especially Europe, is innately hostile to Muslims.”
Future US administrations will need to work closely with congressional leaders to ensure that the Armenian issue does not poison future relations with Turkey, the report said, and urged Washington to follow up with concrete steps in its current cooperation with Turkey against the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).
İstanbul Today’s Zaman
Source
RAND - The Rise of Political Islam in Turkey
RAND - TURKEY AS A U.S. SECURITY PARTNER
Duke University hires its 1st Muslim chaplain
Posted on Mon, Jun. 16, 2008
By YONAT SHIMRON
McClatchy Newspapers
DURHAM, N.C. --In a sign of the changing makeup of its students, Duke University has hired its first imam, or Muslim religious leader, becoming one of only a handful of universities in the United States that have full-time Muslim clergy.
Abdullah Antepli, a native of Turkey who is completing his doctoral work at Hartford Seminary in Hartford, Conn., will become the Muslim imam and chaplain on campus, beginning July 1.
Antepli will join a roster of at least 20 faith leaders, including a rabbi, a Roman Catholic priest and a dozen Protestant ministers who attend to the spiritual needs of Duke's increasingly diverse student body.
"Here's a university seeing a growing need for a qualified Muslim chaplain and graciously responding to the need," Antepli said Monday. "It's really admirable. They could easily have ignored it or asked the Muslim community to pay for it."
Duke has at least 300 undergraduate and graduate students who claim Islam as their religion. The university has no precise numbers because students are not required to disclose their faith. About 50 of those students are actively involved in its Muslim Student Association. Duke also has dozens of Muslims working for the university in various capacities.
Antepli's role will be to lead them in Friday "Juma" prayers, teach the Quran, lead discussion groups and offer pastoral care to students who want it. He will also teach introductory classes on Islam at the Duke Divinity School, which is paying half his salary.
"It's an important moment for a university that has historic Methodist roots in the South," said Tom Tweed, formerly a professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, and now at the University of Texas at Austin.
Duke's earlier incarnation, Trinity College, affiliated with the Methodist Church in 1859. That affiliation has loosened over the years, as Trinity became Duke University. Its divinity school is still tied to the Methodist church, and for most of the 20th century, its character remained overwhelmingly Protestant. But today, the largest group of students on campus is Roman Catholic. Several years ago, Duke hired its first full-time rabbi.
"It's time for leading institutions in the West to step up and actively seek to shape the next generation of global Muslim leaders," said the Rev. Sam Wells, the dean of the chapel at Duke. "It's up to institutions like Duke to take the initiative, with all the values Duke stands for."
For the past nine years, Muslim students on campus have had the benefit of a volunteer imam, Abdul hafeez-Waheed, a resident of Durham. But the university wanted a scholar, too, and conducted a national search. Waheed was invited to remain active on campus.
The trend to add Muslim leaders to serve students has gained momentum in recent years. Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., is among the first in the nation to hire an full-time imam. Ivy League schools, including Princeton and Yale, are now hiring full-time imams.
"Duke is reaching beyond mere toleration of diversity and is taking an extra step toward engagement," said Michael Goldman, rabbi for Jewish life at Duke.
Antepli completed his basic imam training in his native Turkey. From 1996-2003, he worked on a variety of humanitarian projects in Myanmar and Malaysia with the Association of Social and Economic Solidarity with Pacific Countries.
Prior to his work at Hartford Seminary, Antepli was the first Muslim chaplain at Wesleyan University, from 2003-2005. He is the founder and executive board member of the Muslim Chaplains Association and is a member of the National Association of College and University Chaplains.
Goldman said Antepli's hiring rounds out the family of faiths at Duke. "We feel like a new family member has arrived," he said.
Source
By YONAT SHIMRON
McClatchy Newspapers
DURHAM, N.C. --In a sign of the changing makeup of its students, Duke University has hired its first imam, or Muslim religious leader, becoming one of only a handful of universities in the United States that have full-time Muslim clergy.
Abdullah Antepli, a native of Turkey who is completing his doctoral work at Hartford Seminary in Hartford, Conn., will become the Muslim imam and chaplain on campus, beginning July 1.
Antepli will join a roster of at least 20 faith leaders, including a rabbi, a Roman Catholic priest and a dozen Protestant ministers who attend to the spiritual needs of Duke's increasingly diverse student body.
"Here's a university seeing a growing need for a qualified Muslim chaplain and graciously responding to the need," Antepli said Monday. "It's really admirable. They could easily have ignored it or asked the Muslim community to pay for it."
Duke has at least 300 undergraduate and graduate students who claim Islam as their religion. The university has no precise numbers because students are not required to disclose their faith. About 50 of those students are actively involved in its Muslim Student Association. Duke also has dozens of Muslims working for the university in various capacities.
Antepli's role will be to lead them in Friday "Juma" prayers, teach the Quran, lead discussion groups and offer pastoral care to students who want it. He will also teach introductory classes on Islam at the Duke Divinity School, which is paying half his salary.
"It's an important moment for a university that has historic Methodist roots in the South," said Tom Tweed, formerly a professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, and now at the University of Texas at Austin.
Duke's earlier incarnation, Trinity College, affiliated with the Methodist Church in 1859. That affiliation has loosened over the years, as Trinity became Duke University. Its divinity school is still tied to the Methodist church, and for most of the 20th century, its character remained overwhelmingly Protestant. But today, the largest group of students on campus is Roman Catholic. Several years ago, Duke hired its first full-time rabbi.
"It's time for leading institutions in the West to step up and actively seek to shape the next generation of global Muslim leaders," said the Rev. Sam Wells, the dean of the chapel at Duke. "It's up to institutions like Duke to take the initiative, with all the values Duke stands for."
For the past nine years, Muslim students on campus have had the benefit of a volunteer imam, Abdul hafeez-Waheed, a resident of Durham. But the university wanted a scholar, too, and conducted a national search. Waheed was invited to remain active on campus.
The trend to add Muslim leaders to serve students has gained momentum in recent years. Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., is among the first in the nation to hire an full-time imam. Ivy League schools, including Princeton and Yale, are now hiring full-time imams.
"Duke is reaching beyond mere toleration of diversity and is taking an extra step toward engagement," said Michael Goldman, rabbi for Jewish life at Duke.
Antepli completed his basic imam training in his native Turkey. From 1996-2003, he worked on a variety of humanitarian projects in Myanmar and Malaysia with the Association of Social and Economic Solidarity with Pacific Countries.
Prior to his work at Hartford Seminary, Antepli was the first Muslim chaplain at Wesleyan University, from 2003-2005. He is the founder and executive board member of the Muslim Chaplains Association and is a member of the National Association of College and University Chaplains.
Goldman said Antepli's hiring rounds out the family of faiths at Duke. "We feel like a new family member has arrived," he said.
Source
Nine Geopolitical Myths
Thursday, 12 June 2008
Geopolitics has traditionally been the study of the relationship and links between political power and geographic space. The doctrine of Geopolitics gained attention largely through the work of Sir Halford Mackinder in England and his formulation of the Heartland Theory in 1904, which in reference to the British Empire at the time explored the significance of sea power in world conflict.
Whilst politics looks at the application of power, geopolitics looks at power in relation to places and resources. The Western world has dominated the geopolitical scene since the beginning of the 20th century. This has led to the creation of a number of myths, whilst a number of narratives also hide the underlying problems with the Western world. As aware Muslims we should be acquainted with the global situation for not only is this necessary for the defence of the ummah and Islam, it also exposes the weakness of the Capitalist West.
What follows is a list of such myths:-
The world is over populated
The rate of population growth over the last century has been labelled the underlying cause of the world standing on the brink of disaster; it is argued we are running out of food to sustain such growing population. It is argued by the proponents of over-population that the huge growth in world population is responsible for poverty, environmental destruction and social unrest. Economic development in the third world is impossible as long as populations continue to grow as a result international agencies and governments have developed numerous programmes to curtail the rate of population growth, all of these have been implemented in the third world.
This alleged over-population has to be in relation to something to qualify it being over. That something is the use of resources. The resources being consumed leading to global imbalances are attributed to population sizes.
When all assumptions on the effects of population growth are scrutinised population increases in no way has ever contributed to the many ills of the world today and what becomes clear is that there is a clear political agenda in attributing the increasing global population as the cause of the worlds potential disaster. This agenda is to shift the real cause away from the lifestyles, living patterns, un-sustainability of consumerism, poverty and blatant abuse of the Third world in order that the western world can live of the third world.
The developed world also faces a very series conundrum; Japan, Russia, Germany, Switzerland and much of Eastern Europe are experiencing population decline, due to a huge reduction in births. The rest of the Western world would also have declining populations was it not for immigration. As population numbers decline in the West relative to the third world and Muslim world such countries will have a legitimate right based upon their numbers to demand greater say in so called international institutes and representation on international bodies. The issue of overpopulation is a very useful tool to vilify nations with rising populations and at the same time protecting its potential loss of future influence. This can be seen clearly with Turkish EU accession, upon joining the EU, Turkey's almost 70 million inhabitants would bestow it the second largest number of MEPs in the European Parliament. In addition Demographic projections indicate Turkey would surpass Germany in the number of seats by 2020. Turkey's membership would have wide ranging consequences for the future direction of the EU including the thorny issue of future enlargement plans, grounds by which Valéry Giscard d'Estaing of France has opposed Turkey's admission.[1] d' Estaing has suggested that it would lead to demands for accession by Morocco.
The world in not overpopulated, the West just consumes too much
Western intervention in the Balkans in the 1990's was in order to help Muslims
The NATO attack on Yugoslavia in 1993, was presented by the West as the consequence of Yugoslavia's stubborn refusal to settle for any reasonable peace plan - in particular its rejection of plans for an international security force to implement a peace plan in Kosovo. Intervention by the West and then the eventual bombing campaign by NATO is continually held as evidence that the current ‘war on terror' is not a war on Islam and how the West will intervene across the world for ‘humanitarian' purposes even helping Muslims as they apparently did in 1993. In reality the geopolitical aims were very different. The political instability in the Balkans during the 1990's was exacerbated by American determination to reduce Russia's influence in the region, increase Europe's dependency upon her and confer new legitimacy to NATO when it appeared increasingly redundant after the Cold War.
The Western powers and specifically both the US and Britain worked for the fragmentation of Yugoslavia as was revealed by the then US Ambassador to Yugoslavia Warren Zimmerman in January 1992 before the outbreak of hostilities ‘we are aiming for a dissolution of Yugoslavia into independent states.'[2] On the 18th March 1992 the EU brokered a deal in Lisbon among Bosnian Muslims, Croatian and Serb communities partitioning the Serb republic into three ethnically based cantons which would act as a confederation functioning as an independent state. This agreement was sabotaged by the US which urged the Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic to renege the deal by declaring statehood saying ‘this was justified by the referendum on March 1st .' Jose Cutileiro, sectary general of the Western European union confirmed ‘to be fair President Alija Izethbegovics and his aids were encouraged to scupper the deal and to fight for a unitary Bosnian state by Western mediators.' This is what caused the Bosnian civil war.
Today 11 000 troops are stationed in Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia for peace, however such troops have ensured US economic interests are secured. Former US congressman Lee Hamilton commented in the New York Times ‘we have completely taken over the control of the Balkans. US officials exercise managing functions all states of the former Yugoslavia. We are virtually the pro consul.' Karen Talbot geopolitical expert confirmed "the determination by the U.S and NATO, at all costs, to occupy Kosovo and virtually all of Yugoslavia, is spurred on by the enticement of abundant natural resources. Kosovo alone has the richest mineral resources in all of Europe west of Russia. The New York Times observed that "the sprawling state-owned Trepca mining complex, the most valuable piece of real estate in the Balkans, is worth at least $5 billion." producing gold, silver, pure lead, zinc, cadmium, as well as tens of millions of dollars in profits annually. "Kosovo also possesses 17 billion tons of coal reserves and Kosovo (like Serbia and Albania) also has oil reserves."[3] President Bill Clinton at the time let slip ‘If we are going to have a strong economic relationship that includes our ability to sell around the world, Europe has got to be a key...That‘s what the Kosovo thing was all about.'[4]
Since the bombing has ended, numerous US bases in the Balkans have been set up. A military base is being built in Kosovo, described as the largest US foreign base built since the Vietnam War. US domination of NATO meant intervention by NATO forces in the Balkans would ensure US influence in the region. A leaked version of the Pentagon's 1994-1999 Defense Planning Guidance report advises that the United States ‘must seek to prevent the emergence of European-only security arrangements which would undermine NATO ... Therefore, it is of fundamental importance to preserve NATO as the primary instrument of Western defense and security, as well as the channel for US influence and participation in European security affairs.'
This all confirms the influence of Russia, the oil in the Caspian sea and the revitalisation of NATO (to continue US influence) where the geopolitical aims behind US and Western intervention, the lives of thousands of innocent people, the lives of the slaughtered in Srebrenica were a price worth paying for continued US dominance.
The world is running out of Oil
The struggle for global supremacy between Germany and Britain at the beginning of the 20th century drove them to search for alternative fuels to power the bulky coal based war machines. The discovery of oil fields in the Middle East in the 1920's spurred a century of new technologies, created new patterns of society and consumption and changed the global balance of power.
However like oil fossil fuels they are limited and will eventually finish. For the most part of the 20th century this was never a discussion as most of the worlds oil will still not discovered, technologies such as the fighter jet, tanks, automobiles were all designed to run on oil, apart from oil prices exploding if oil was drying up, such technologies would also become redundant.
Peak oil was fist introduced in the 1970's, this is the point where half of the known oil has been consumed, and at the time this view wad ridiculed and labelled a fringe view. Today it is considered a mainstream view and the world is running out of oil is considered a geopolitical headache for the world. No doubt the world is running out of oil; however this masks a number of deeper political issues.
The world is running out of oil is a convenient excuse for West's over consumption, to reduce consumption is considered the ultimate taboo. As more and more nations scramble for the ever dwindling supply of oil, this has exposed the West. The Western world consumes 50% of the 21st century's most important resource but produced less then a quarter of it. It is over consumption rather then China and India that are causing the crisis. The US specifically produced only 8% of the world's oil but consumes 25% of it
As US consumption continues to rise the competition for dwindling energy sources will intensify, this will make the Muslim lands even more important and as with Iraq, occupation may well be justified for stable supplies of the black stuff.
The third world is in poverty because their is not enough food in the world
Numerous organisations have researched into the general causes of poverty which range from the lack of resources to the nature of the local climate to the lack of democracy. There is generally no consensus on the causes by sociologists and think tanks however a dominant idea that exists is that only the diffusion of capitalism with its free markets is the cure. However a cursory glance at not just the Muslim world but the third world in general shows a handful of factors have played a large part in the poverty in the world today.
The role IMF and World Bank and their notorious structural adjustment policies in countries such as Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Egypt have directly aided some of the underlying economic problems. The general solution provided by such institutions is the engaging of trade to climb out of poverty. In reality there are a number of obstacles placed by the developed nations that ensure developing nations will never reach a level where they can compete. What this actually means is that Western goods should be imported rather than allow imports from poorer countries. The theory is that only via trade will nations pull themselves out of poverty. The development of a market economy with a greater role for the private sector was therefore seen as the key to stimulating economic growth and removing poverty.
As an example Pakistan actually required essential investments in health, education and infrastructure before they could compete internationally. The World Bank and IMF instead required Pakistan to reduce state support to these sectors and concentrate on exports. They insisted on pushing Pakistan into markets where they were unable to compete with the might of the international private sector. Such policies inevitably undermined the economic development of Pakistan.
Africa is being asked to repay it's a legacy of the colonial era. Africa's debt is partly the result of the unjust transfer to them of the debts of the colonizing states, in billions of dollars, at very high interest rates. It also originates from ‘odious debt', whereby debt was incurred as rich countries loaned funds to dictators and corrupt leaders when it was known that the money would be wasted. South Africa, for example inherited "apartheid-caused debt" at £28 billion (which is now $46 billion). Post Apartheid Africa was forced to repay debts incurred by the apartheid regime so, in effect, South Africans are paying for their own oppression. In 1998 ACTSA (Action for Southern Africa) estimated that the £11 billion (now $18 billion) that South Africa borrowed to maintain apartheid, and the £17 billion (now $28 billion) that the neighbouring states borrowed because of apartheid destabilisation and aggression now represents 74% of African debt owed.
Much of the situation in the Muslim world stems from the colonial era and is summed up best by David Fromkin, Professor and expert on Economic History at the University of Chicago "Massive amounts of the wealth of the old Ottoman Empire were now claimed by the victors. But one must remember that the Islamic empire had tried for centuries to conquer Christian Europe and the power brokers deciding the fate of those defeated people were naturally determined that these countries should never be able to organize and threaten Western interests again. With centuries of mercantilist experience, Britain and France created small, unstable states whose rulers needed their support to stay in power. The development and trade of these states were controlled and they were meant never again to be a threat to the West. These external powers then made contracts with their puppets to buy Arab resources cheaply, making the feudal elite enormously wealthy while leaving most citizens in poverty".[5]
The third world remains poor due to the policies of the West and will remain poor not because of a shortage of food but due to the excessive consumption of the West - the West with 20% of the world population consume 80% of the worlds agricultural production.
The United Nations upholding of international law makes it best placed to regulate international relations and solve international conflicts.
The UN was founded in 1945 primarily to ‘save succeeding generations from the scourge of war'. Since then there have been more then 250 conflicts worldwide, it is patently clear the UN has been unsuccessful for the purpose it was created for.
The West as well as many policymakers from the third world considers the UN a non-biased, internationally represented institution boasting nearly 200 member states, who uphold the beacon for the values of internationalism, multilateral action, democracy, pluralism, secularism, compromise, human rights and freedom. This could not be further from the truth.
The UN in reality is a tool of exploitation where it is manifestly apparent from the inherent structure of the organisation that it legitimises wholesale abuse by the colonialist, permanent members of the Security Council. Many events have undermined the UN. The invasion of Iraq, the selective application of international law on the State of Israel, the failure to stop the massacre of Srebrenica and ethnic cleansing in Rwanda under its watchful eye.
In reality the UN is an international organisation which the five permanent security members have used as an extension of their foreign policies. Also international law in reality does not exist, only international norms. For international law to exist enforcement must be possible at a global level, supranational level. As this does not exist we must expect nation-states to flout the regulations of the international agencies when it suits them - neo-realism (cf. Waltz. K. 1979. ‘A Theory of International Politics').
The third world need to liberalise their economies for them to develop
The last three decades have seen Capitalism dominate the international development scene. It has completely monopolised economic development and enforced its formula upon the world. The Asian tiger economies of China, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong are held regularly held as successful nations who adopted liberalism and progressed. The IMF alongside the World Bank proclaimed industrialisation and the diffusion of liberal economic ideas would transform traditional economies and societies. These influences would place poor countries on a path of development similar to that experienced by Western industrialised nations during the Industrial Revolution.
Today Poverty is the state for the majority of the world's people. 3 billion people in the world live on fewer than two dollars a day; another 1.3 billion people live on less than one dollar a day. 1.3 billion have no access to clean water; 3 billion have no access to sanitation and 2 billion have no access to electricity. Liberalism has actually been the cause of the wealth disparities in the world and the poverty the majority of the world's people face. A number of surveys have highlighted that liberlism has created even more poverty stricken people in the world. The 7th December 2006 saw the culmination of a global study - from the World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations. Some of its findings are staggering; by gathering research from countries all over the world the studies findings concluded that the richest 1% of the world owns 40% of the planet's wealth and that only 10% of the world's population owned 85% of the world's assets.[6]
Liberalism has resulted in the Western world feeding of the remainder of the world. Liberalism in no way helped alleviate poverty, it actually contributed to it, and hence any continuation of liberal economic policies in the third world will result in the poor getting even poorer.
Global warming is due to the development of India and China
Global warming and climate change refer to an increase in average global temperatures. Natural events and human activities are believed to be contributing to the increase in average global temperatures. This is caused primarily by increases in the greenhouse which is the rise in temperature on Earth as certain gases in the atmosphere trap energy gases such as Carbon Dioxide (CO2).
Every few years, leading climate scientists at the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have released major reports detailing the progress in understanding climate change. From the outset they have recommended that there be emission reductions. This body is comprised of hundreds of climate scientists from around the world. At the beginning of January 2007, the IPCC's fourth major report summarised that they were even more certain than before of human-induced climate change because of better scientific understanding; ‘The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading to very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.' Their definition of "very high confidence" and "very likely" is a 90% chance of being correct. (Their 2001 report claimed a 66% certainty).
In terms of historical emissions, industrialised countries account for around 80% of the carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere to date. Since 1950, the US has emitted a cumulative total of roughly 50.7 billion tons of carbon, while China (4.6 times more populous) and India (3.5 times more populous) have emitted only 15.7 and 4.2 billion tons respectively. Annually, more than 60% of global industrial carbon dioxide emissions originate in industrialized countries, where only about 20% of the world's population resides.
Much of the growth in emissions in the developed world stem from rapid industrialisation from the industrial revolution era. The US with its $14 trillion economy is the world's largest polluter and has acted as an obstacle to any agreement on emission reduction targets. Reducing emissions would mean industry in the West would need to produce less - this would lead to the economies of the West to collapse rather then grow. To reduce consumption is considered Shirk in Capitalism. By the same token, the rate of consumption of fossil fuels in developed countries is also extremely high relative to the rest of the world. The depletion of non-renewable resources and environmental destruction is primarily caused by the consumption patterns of US. US consumption of fossil fuels is well over five times the global average.
Global warming is the result of rapid industrialisation from the West with the sole concern of profit making. Although there exist technologies that allow the development of clean low-emission industrial development, their costs are high and as a result have been unable to break into the mainstream market. China and India have only in the last 20 years have seen rapid development, global warming was already high prior to that, US continued attacks on China and India for developing too quickly in reality is attempts by the world superpower to stifle their development.
The Muslim world does not want Islam
For years the West argued Muslim across the world want democracy and freedom rather then Islam, they argued only a minority of people in Pakistan and Afghanistan want Islam, the majority of the world was smitten by the West and wants to live by Capitalism. However today it is modernist Muslims who argue the Muslim world do not want Islam and are not ready for it. The West on the other hand is convinced the Muslim world wants Islam and have begun the process of defending themselves from the emergence of such a threat.
The US national intelligence council published its report following its ‘global 2020' project, entitled ‘mapping the global future.' The national Intelligence council (NIC) is the American intelligence community's centre for mid-term and long-term strategic thinking. The report set out the likely scenario the world will face in 2020. The report concluded that the appeal of Islam today revolved around is call to return to earlier roots of Islam where the Islamic civilisation was at the forefront of global change under the khilafah. The report portrayed a fictional scenario ‘of how a global movement fuelled by radical religious identity could emerge.'[7] The report revealed unequivocally that at the highest levels of US policy planning preparation is being made for the emergence of the khilafah. Other reports from US policy makers and think tanks across the world acknowledged there is a broad based ideological movement seeking for the return of the Khilafah.
The CIA has already revitalized programs of covert action that once helped win the Cold War, targeting Islamic media, religious leaders, and political parties. The agency is receiving ‘an exponential increase in money, people, and assets' to help it influence Muslim societies.
At the same time various surveys, think tank reports and policy makers have all accepted that Muslims globally have rejected western values. This represents a glaring failure on the part of the West as it has faced no challenges to its global supremacy. This means the battle for hearts and minds and physical occupation represents a last ditch effort to salvage the emergence of an alternative system of governance.
The actins of the West clearly show rather then the Muslim wanting Islam; they are not very far from achieving such aims.
Israel is invincible, it has proven this in 4 wars, hence the Muslim world should accept its here to stay
Since its formation in 1948, the reality of Israel's military strength has been shrouded by a mythical aura of invincibility. Interestingly such myths have not been actively expressed by Israel, but have been given life by the actions of the treacherous Muslim rulers
Israel's performance in the wars of 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973 against the Muslims in the region has long been seen as confirmation of Israel military superiority. In light of this apparent superiority and its seizure of Muslim lands, it is argued that direct military conflict with Israel is not a viable course of action for the Arab states, creating the necessity of entering into negotiations. The direct consequence of such a move has been the acceptance of Israel's sovereignty through plans such as the peace process.
In reviewing Israel's supposed military might one must keep in mind: What purpose does the construction of this myth serve?
1948 war - Israel's creation
The war of 1948 led to the establishment of the State of Israel. On the surface, one may find it difficult enough to understand how 40 million Arabs could not match the fighting strength of just 600,000 Jews. A closer study of the defenders of the Palestinian cause shows how their actions in fact led directly to the establishment of Israel.
The primary representatives of the Palestinian cause was King Abdullah of Transjordan, King Farook of Egypt and the Mufti of Palestine, all of them were extremely weak rulers subject to constant manipulation by the British. King Abdullah's portrayal of himself as a defender of the Palestinian cause was a façade. It was known he and Ben Gurion (Israel's first Prime Minister) were students together in Istanbul and that in clandestine meetings Abdullah had offered to accept the establishment of Israel in return for Jordanian control of the Arab populated parts of Palestine.
Abdullah had the Arab Legion at his disposal, a highly trained unit of 4,500 men, with General John Glubb an Englishman as its commanding officer. Glubb in his memoirs recounted that he was under strict orders from the British, not to enter areas under Jewish control. Egypt further weakened the attack against Israel when Nakrashi Pasha , the Prime Minister initially did not use existing military units but sent an army of volunteers that had only been organised in January of that year. Jordan had also delayed the passage of Iraqi troops across its territory thus thwarting any attack against Israel. This is why a blind Imam brought to rouse the Jordanian army prior to the battle embarrassed Abdullah when he said : "O army I wish you were ours." (referring to the Arab Legion being British)
Although the combined Muslim forces were 40,000 only 10,000 were trained soldiers. The Zionists had 30,000 armed personnel, 10,000 men for local defence and another 25,000 for home guard. Furthermore there were nearly 3,000 specially trained Irgun and Stern gang terrorists. They were armed with the latest weaponry and funded heavily through Zionist agencies in America and Britain. Despite the preparedness of the Jews, the treachery of the
Muslim rulers secured a foothold for the Jews in Palestine.
The 1956 Suez Canal crisis
This conflict was never a war for the liberation of Palestine but rather a struggle between America and Britain for control of the strategically important Suez Canal.
The US saw Egypt as a critical ally if America was to gain influence in the Middle East. Through the CIA, she moved to depose the Pro British King Farook in a coup in 1952, bringing into power the Free Officers who were soon afterwards led by Nasser. The CIA worked on a project in 1951 known as "The Search for a Moslem Billy Graham." Mike Copeland the CIA operative, published classified information in his memoirs in 1989, The Game Player, about The CIA supported coup d'etat that ousted the British puppet King Farook. Copeland, who activated the project, explains that ‘the CIA needed a charismatic leader who would be able to divert the growing anti-American hostility that was building up in the area.' He explains both the CIA and Nasser were in agreement on Israel. For Nasser talk of war with Israel was irrelevant. Much more of a priority was British occupation of the Suez Canal Zone. Nasser's enemy was Britain.
In 1956 Nasser carried out American demands of nationalising the Suez Canal. The response of Britain was to lure France and Israel into the struggle. This was outlined by historian Corelli Barnett, who wrote about the Suez in his book, ‘The Collapse of British Power,' ‘France was hostile to Nasser because Egypt was helping the Algerian rebels, and attached to the canal for historical reasons. After all, a Frenchman built it. Israel was longing to have a go at Nasser anyway because of Palestinian fedayeen attacks and the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran.' so Sir Anthony Eden (British Prime Minister) concocted a secret tripartite plot with France and Israel. [8] He further explained ‘that Israel would invade Egypt across the Sinai Peninsula.' ‘Britain and France would then give an ultimatum to the parties to stop fighting or they would intervene to 'protect' the canal.[9]
The US and USSR exercised diplomatic pressure to force Britain to withdraw. Russia directly threatened Paris and London with nuclear attacks. The immense international pressure forced the British and French to withdraw and consequently lose their footing in Egypt. The American administration, under Eisenhower, went as far as threatening the Israelis with economic sanctions if they did not withdraw from occupied territory seized from Egypt, a measure that would have had disastrous consequences on Israel at the time. In the aftermath of the crisis, America emerged as the dominant force in the Middle East.
1967 six day war
This war was again another episode in the Anglo-American conflict for control of the region. Britain had been surpassed as the region's dominant force 11 years earlier, but still retained some influence through its agents in Jordan, Syria and Israel. In an attempt to weaken Nasser, Britain sought to lure Israel to drag Egypt into a war whereby Israel would seize territory and use it as a bargaining tool in a land for peace settlement, a means through which to achieve the security which the Israelis so desperately sought. On 5 June 1967 Israel launched a pre-emptive strike destroying 60% of Egypt's grounded air force and 66% of Syrian and Jordanian combat aircraft.
From Jordan the Israelis seized the West Bank and east Jerusalem. King Hussein, prior to the battle, had positioned his troops in different areas from where the main battle was taking place. In a matter of 48 hours the Israelis seized the major West Bank towns and most of those who were shot dead of the Jordanian forces were in retreat. In a similar manner the Israelis seized the Golan Heights on the 6th day of the war. The Syrian troops occupying the Golan Heights heard news of Israel's capture of the strategically important heights through their own State radio announcing the Israeli capture of the heights while the Syrian troops were still clearly occupying them. Israel also dealt America's Nasser a blow by capturing Sharm al Sheikh and securing the waterway of the Straits of Tiran. The objective of weakening the regime of Nasser was achieved, thus indirectly aiding British interests within the region. Israel was able to seize more land and use it as a bargaining asset in any land for peace negotiations, which today is still used as a basis for negotiations rather then the status of 1948.
1973 war: more treachery by the rulers
An examination of the October 1973 war launched by Egypt and Syria against Israel shows that the aims were limited and never included the liberation of Palestine. The aims never even included the liberation of the Golan Heights which were designed to be restored as part of a peace treaty between Syria and Israel. The aims were to solidify the positions of Anwar Sadat and Hafez al Assad who were relatively new leaders in countries prone to military coups. Sadat in particular was vulnerable given the fact that he had succeeded the charismatic Nasser.
Mohammed Heikal the respected editor of Al Ahram from 1957 - 1974, who witnessed the war, he explained the extent of Anwar Sadats underlying motives in his book ‘The Road to Ramadhan' where he cites Sadat's mood in the run up to the war. Heikal quotes one of Sadat's generals, Mohammed Fouwzi who gave the analogy of a samurai drawing two swords - a long one and short one in preparation for battle. Fouwzi said that this battle would be a case of the short sword, signifying a limited battle for certain motives.
Anwar Sadat had no intention of having a protracted war of liberation with Israel. This is why he sought peace with Israel whilst commanding a winning position in the war. In the first 24 hours of the war Egypt smashed through the Israeli's much heralded Bar-Lev fortifications east of the Suez canal with only 68 casualties. Meanwhile 2 Syrian divisions and 500 tanks swept into the Golan Heights and retook some of the land captured in 1967. In two days of fighting Israel had lost 49 aircraft and 500 tanks. In the midst of this Sadat sent a message to US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in which he said that the objective of the war was ‘the achievement of peace in the Middle East and not...partial settlements.' The message went on to state that if Israel withdrew from all occupied territories Egypt would be prepared to participate in a Peace conference under UN or neutral auspices.
Thus despite having an immense strategic advantage Sadat was in the mood for negotiation in this early stage. Sadat's refusal to press home his initial advantage and his delay in launching the second Sinai offensive allowed Israel to mobilise with aid from the US and she began to seize back lost territory. Hostilities formally came to an end on 25 October after Israel had violated previous cease-fire agreements.
All the wars with Israel best illustrate how the Muslim rulers have never seriously fought Israel with the intention of liberating Palestine, all the mentioned examples illustrate the reality behind the myths which the Ummah has been led to believe. The real treachery has been committed by the insincere rulers who have collaborated and helped create the myth of Israeli superiority, kindling it, nurturing it and maintaining it. The wars the Arab world fought show that the Muslim countries have never singularly nor collectively fought Israel with the intention of destroying it. Each of the wars was conducted in order to meet specific objectives, none of which were to liberate the land of Palestine and eliminate Israel. Hence the objective of seriously threatening Israel was never an aim, despite the unquestionable strength of the combined Arab armies.
Conclusions
History is always written by the victors, this is also the case with geopolitics. There are many myths that still exist including the reasons for WW1 and WW2 and apart from deceiving the world of the West's invincibility; this is also a very useful tool to continue to fool the host populations in the West. US superiority has taken a major hit due to the Iraq and Afghanistan war, as well as Israel's invincibility with its defeat at the hands of Hizbullah in 2006. Muslims should bear in mind that however dire the situation may look globally for the ummah, much of this picture is a mirage and can very easily be changed and replaced.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] "The ins and outs: The EU's most effective foreign-policy instrument has been enlargement. But how far can it go?" The Economist, March 2007, http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=682266&story_id=8808134
[2] US Ambassador Warren Zimmerman in an interview with the Croatian daily Danas, 12 January 1992, reprinted at http://www.emperors-clothes.com/interviews/nothing.htm
[3] Karen Talbot ‘Backing up Globalization with Military Might' New World Order Onslaught, Covert Action Quarterly, Issue 68, Fall 1999, retrieved 22nd May 2008, http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Articles/Backing.asp
[4] Benjamin Schwarz & Christopher Layne ‘The Case Against Intervention in Kosovo,' the nation, 19th April 1999, retrieved 22nd May 2008, http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990419/schwarz/single
[5] Fromkin D, A Peace to End All Peace, p 45, New York: Avon Books, 1989
[6] www.iariw.org/papers/2006/davies.pdf
[7] National Intelligence Estimate, December 2004, Report of the National Intelligence Councils 2020 project, ‘Mapping the Global Future,' Pg 83-92, retrieved 26th October 2007, http://www.foia.cia.gov/2020/2020.pdf
[8] Barnett C (1972) ‘The Collapse of British Power,' Macmillan, ISBN 0333679822, and also Paul Reynolds, ‘Suez: End of empire.'
[9] Barnett C (1972) ‘The Collapse of British Power,' Macmillan, ISBN 0333679822
Source
Geopolitics has traditionally been the study of the relationship and links between political power and geographic space. The doctrine of Geopolitics gained attention largely through the work of Sir Halford Mackinder in England and his formulation of the Heartland Theory in 1904, which in reference to the British Empire at the time explored the significance of sea power in world conflict.
Whilst politics looks at the application of power, geopolitics looks at power in relation to places and resources. The Western world has dominated the geopolitical scene since the beginning of the 20th century. This has led to the creation of a number of myths, whilst a number of narratives also hide the underlying problems with the Western world. As aware Muslims we should be acquainted with the global situation for not only is this necessary for the defence of the ummah and Islam, it also exposes the weakness of the Capitalist West.
What follows is a list of such myths:-
The world is over populated
The rate of population growth over the last century has been labelled the underlying cause of the world standing on the brink of disaster; it is argued we are running out of food to sustain such growing population. It is argued by the proponents of over-population that the huge growth in world population is responsible for poverty, environmental destruction and social unrest. Economic development in the third world is impossible as long as populations continue to grow as a result international agencies and governments have developed numerous programmes to curtail the rate of population growth, all of these have been implemented in the third world.
This alleged over-population has to be in relation to something to qualify it being over. That something is the use of resources. The resources being consumed leading to global imbalances are attributed to population sizes.
When all assumptions on the effects of population growth are scrutinised population increases in no way has ever contributed to the many ills of the world today and what becomes clear is that there is a clear political agenda in attributing the increasing global population as the cause of the worlds potential disaster. This agenda is to shift the real cause away from the lifestyles, living patterns, un-sustainability of consumerism, poverty and blatant abuse of the Third world in order that the western world can live of the third world.
The developed world also faces a very series conundrum; Japan, Russia, Germany, Switzerland and much of Eastern Europe are experiencing population decline, due to a huge reduction in births. The rest of the Western world would also have declining populations was it not for immigration. As population numbers decline in the West relative to the third world and Muslim world such countries will have a legitimate right based upon their numbers to demand greater say in so called international institutes and representation on international bodies. The issue of overpopulation is a very useful tool to vilify nations with rising populations and at the same time protecting its potential loss of future influence. This can be seen clearly with Turkish EU accession, upon joining the EU, Turkey's almost 70 million inhabitants would bestow it the second largest number of MEPs in the European Parliament. In addition Demographic projections indicate Turkey would surpass Germany in the number of seats by 2020. Turkey's membership would have wide ranging consequences for the future direction of the EU including the thorny issue of future enlargement plans, grounds by which Valéry Giscard d'Estaing of France has opposed Turkey's admission.[1] d' Estaing has suggested that it would lead to demands for accession by Morocco.
The world in not overpopulated, the West just consumes too much
Western intervention in the Balkans in the 1990's was in order to help Muslims
The NATO attack on Yugoslavia in 1993, was presented by the West as the consequence of Yugoslavia's stubborn refusal to settle for any reasonable peace plan - in particular its rejection of plans for an international security force to implement a peace plan in Kosovo. Intervention by the West and then the eventual bombing campaign by NATO is continually held as evidence that the current ‘war on terror' is not a war on Islam and how the West will intervene across the world for ‘humanitarian' purposes even helping Muslims as they apparently did in 1993. In reality the geopolitical aims were very different. The political instability in the Balkans during the 1990's was exacerbated by American determination to reduce Russia's influence in the region, increase Europe's dependency upon her and confer new legitimacy to NATO when it appeared increasingly redundant after the Cold War.
The Western powers and specifically both the US and Britain worked for the fragmentation of Yugoslavia as was revealed by the then US Ambassador to Yugoslavia Warren Zimmerman in January 1992 before the outbreak of hostilities ‘we are aiming for a dissolution of Yugoslavia into independent states.'[2] On the 18th March 1992 the EU brokered a deal in Lisbon among Bosnian Muslims, Croatian and Serb communities partitioning the Serb republic into three ethnically based cantons which would act as a confederation functioning as an independent state. This agreement was sabotaged by the US which urged the Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic to renege the deal by declaring statehood saying ‘this was justified by the referendum on March 1st .' Jose Cutileiro, sectary general of the Western European union confirmed ‘to be fair President Alija Izethbegovics and his aids were encouraged to scupper the deal and to fight for a unitary Bosnian state by Western mediators.' This is what caused the Bosnian civil war.
Today 11 000 troops are stationed in Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia for peace, however such troops have ensured US economic interests are secured. Former US congressman Lee Hamilton commented in the New York Times ‘we have completely taken over the control of the Balkans. US officials exercise managing functions all states of the former Yugoslavia. We are virtually the pro consul.' Karen Talbot geopolitical expert confirmed "the determination by the U.S and NATO, at all costs, to occupy Kosovo and virtually all of Yugoslavia, is spurred on by the enticement of abundant natural resources. Kosovo alone has the richest mineral resources in all of Europe west of Russia. The New York Times observed that "the sprawling state-owned Trepca mining complex, the most valuable piece of real estate in the Balkans, is worth at least $5 billion." producing gold, silver, pure lead, zinc, cadmium, as well as tens of millions of dollars in profits annually. "Kosovo also possesses 17 billion tons of coal reserves and Kosovo (like Serbia and Albania) also has oil reserves."[3] President Bill Clinton at the time let slip ‘If we are going to have a strong economic relationship that includes our ability to sell around the world, Europe has got to be a key...That‘s what the Kosovo thing was all about.'[4]
Since the bombing has ended, numerous US bases in the Balkans have been set up. A military base is being built in Kosovo, described as the largest US foreign base built since the Vietnam War. US domination of NATO meant intervention by NATO forces in the Balkans would ensure US influence in the region. A leaked version of the Pentagon's 1994-1999 Defense Planning Guidance report advises that the United States ‘must seek to prevent the emergence of European-only security arrangements which would undermine NATO ... Therefore, it is of fundamental importance to preserve NATO as the primary instrument of Western defense and security, as well as the channel for US influence and participation in European security affairs.'
This all confirms the influence of Russia, the oil in the Caspian sea and the revitalisation of NATO (to continue US influence) where the geopolitical aims behind US and Western intervention, the lives of thousands of innocent people, the lives of the slaughtered in Srebrenica were a price worth paying for continued US dominance.
The world is running out of Oil
The struggle for global supremacy between Germany and Britain at the beginning of the 20th century drove them to search for alternative fuels to power the bulky coal based war machines. The discovery of oil fields in the Middle East in the 1920's spurred a century of new technologies, created new patterns of society and consumption and changed the global balance of power.
However like oil fossil fuels they are limited and will eventually finish. For the most part of the 20th century this was never a discussion as most of the worlds oil will still not discovered, technologies such as the fighter jet, tanks, automobiles were all designed to run on oil, apart from oil prices exploding if oil was drying up, such technologies would also become redundant.
Peak oil was fist introduced in the 1970's, this is the point where half of the known oil has been consumed, and at the time this view wad ridiculed and labelled a fringe view. Today it is considered a mainstream view and the world is running out of oil is considered a geopolitical headache for the world. No doubt the world is running out of oil; however this masks a number of deeper political issues.
The world is running out of oil is a convenient excuse for West's over consumption, to reduce consumption is considered the ultimate taboo. As more and more nations scramble for the ever dwindling supply of oil, this has exposed the West. The Western world consumes 50% of the 21st century's most important resource but produced less then a quarter of it. It is over consumption rather then China and India that are causing the crisis. The US specifically produced only 8% of the world's oil but consumes 25% of it
As US consumption continues to rise the competition for dwindling energy sources will intensify, this will make the Muslim lands even more important and as with Iraq, occupation may well be justified for stable supplies of the black stuff.
The third world is in poverty because their is not enough food in the world
Numerous organisations have researched into the general causes of poverty which range from the lack of resources to the nature of the local climate to the lack of democracy. There is generally no consensus on the causes by sociologists and think tanks however a dominant idea that exists is that only the diffusion of capitalism with its free markets is the cure. However a cursory glance at not just the Muslim world but the third world in general shows a handful of factors have played a large part in the poverty in the world today.
The role IMF and World Bank and their notorious structural adjustment policies in countries such as Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Egypt have directly aided some of the underlying economic problems. The general solution provided by such institutions is the engaging of trade to climb out of poverty. In reality there are a number of obstacles placed by the developed nations that ensure developing nations will never reach a level where they can compete. What this actually means is that Western goods should be imported rather than allow imports from poorer countries. The theory is that only via trade will nations pull themselves out of poverty. The development of a market economy with a greater role for the private sector was therefore seen as the key to stimulating economic growth and removing poverty.
As an example Pakistan actually required essential investments in health, education and infrastructure before they could compete internationally. The World Bank and IMF instead required Pakistan to reduce state support to these sectors and concentrate on exports. They insisted on pushing Pakistan into markets where they were unable to compete with the might of the international private sector. Such policies inevitably undermined the economic development of Pakistan.
Africa is being asked to repay it's a legacy of the colonial era. Africa's debt is partly the result of the unjust transfer to them of the debts of the colonizing states, in billions of dollars, at very high interest rates. It also originates from ‘odious debt', whereby debt was incurred as rich countries loaned funds to dictators and corrupt leaders when it was known that the money would be wasted. South Africa, for example inherited "apartheid-caused debt" at £28 billion (which is now $46 billion). Post Apartheid Africa was forced to repay debts incurred by the apartheid regime so, in effect, South Africans are paying for their own oppression. In 1998 ACTSA (Action for Southern Africa) estimated that the £11 billion (now $18 billion) that South Africa borrowed to maintain apartheid, and the £17 billion (now $28 billion) that the neighbouring states borrowed because of apartheid destabilisation and aggression now represents 74% of African debt owed.
Much of the situation in the Muslim world stems from the colonial era and is summed up best by David Fromkin, Professor and expert on Economic History at the University of Chicago "Massive amounts of the wealth of the old Ottoman Empire were now claimed by the victors. But one must remember that the Islamic empire had tried for centuries to conquer Christian Europe and the power brokers deciding the fate of those defeated people were naturally determined that these countries should never be able to organize and threaten Western interests again. With centuries of mercantilist experience, Britain and France created small, unstable states whose rulers needed their support to stay in power. The development and trade of these states were controlled and they were meant never again to be a threat to the West. These external powers then made contracts with their puppets to buy Arab resources cheaply, making the feudal elite enormously wealthy while leaving most citizens in poverty".[5]
The third world remains poor due to the policies of the West and will remain poor not because of a shortage of food but due to the excessive consumption of the West - the West with 20% of the world population consume 80% of the worlds agricultural production.
The United Nations upholding of international law makes it best placed to regulate international relations and solve international conflicts.
The UN was founded in 1945 primarily to ‘save succeeding generations from the scourge of war'. Since then there have been more then 250 conflicts worldwide, it is patently clear the UN has been unsuccessful for the purpose it was created for.
The West as well as many policymakers from the third world considers the UN a non-biased, internationally represented institution boasting nearly 200 member states, who uphold the beacon for the values of internationalism, multilateral action, democracy, pluralism, secularism, compromise, human rights and freedom. This could not be further from the truth.
The UN in reality is a tool of exploitation where it is manifestly apparent from the inherent structure of the organisation that it legitimises wholesale abuse by the colonialist, permanent members of the Security Council. Many events have undermined the UN. The invasion of Iraq, the selective application of international law on the State of Israel, the failure to stop the massacre of Srebrenica and ethnic cleansing in Rwanda under its watchful eye.
In reality the UN is an international organisation which the five permanent security members have used as an extension of their foreign policies. Also international law in reality does not exist, only international norms. For international law to exist enforcement must be possible at a global level, supranational level. As this does not exist we must expect nation-states to flout the regulations of the international agencies when it suits them - neo-realism (cf. Waltz. K. 1979. ‘A Theory of International Politics').
The third world need to liberalise their economies for them to develop
The last three decades have seen Capitalism dominate the international development scene. It has completely monopolised economic development and enforced its formula upon the world. The Asian tiger economies of China, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong are held regularly held as successful nations who adopted liberalism and progressed. The IMF alongside the World Bank proclaimed industrialisation and the diffusion of liberal economic ideas would transform traditional economies and societies. These influences would place poor countries on a path of development similar to that experienced by Western industrialised nations during the Industrial Revolution.
Today Poverty is the state for the majority of the world's people. 3 billion people in the world live on fewer than two dollars a day; another 1.3 billion people live on less than one dollar a day. 1.3 billion have no access to clean water; 3 billion have no access to sanitation and 2 billion have no access to electricity. Liberalism has actually been the cause of the wealth disparities in the world and the poverty the majority of the world's people face. A number of surveys have highlighted that liberlism has created even more poverty stricken people in the world. The 7th December 2006 saw the culmination of a global study - from the World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations. Some of its findings are staggering; by gathering research from countries all over the world the studies findings concluded that the richest 1% of the world owns 40% of the planet's wealth and that only 10% of the world's population owned 85% of the world's assets.[6]
Liberalism has resulted in the Western world feeding of the remainder of the world. Liberalism in no way helped alleviate poverty, it actually contributed to it, and hence any continuation of liberal economic policies in the third world will result in the poor getting even poorer.
Global warming is due to the development of India and China
Global warming and climate change refer to an increase in average global temperatures. Natural events and human activities are believed to be contributing to the increase in average global temperatures. This is caused primarily by increases in the greenhouse which is the rise in temperature on Earth as certain gases in the atmosphere trap energy gases such as Carbon Dioxide (CO2).
Every few years, leading climate scientists at the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have released major reports detailing the progress in understanding climate change. From the outset they have recommended that there be emission reductions. This body is comprised of hundreds of climate scientists from around the world. At the beginning of January 2007, the IPCC's fourth major report summarised that they were even more certain than before of human-induced climate change because of better scientific understanding; ‘The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading to very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.' Their definition of "very high confidence" and "very likely" is a 90% chance of being correct. (Their 2001 report claimed a 66% certainty).
In terms of historical emissions, industrialised countries account for around 80% of the carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere to date. Since 1950, the US has emitted a cumulative total of roughly 50.7 billion tons of carbon, while China (4.6 times more populous) and India (3.5 times more populous) have emitted only 15.7 and 4.2 billion tons respectively. Annually, more than 60% of global industrial carbon dioxide emissions originate in industrialized countries, where only about 20% of the world's population resides.
Much of the growth in emissions in the developed world stem from rapid industrialisation from the industrial revolution era. The US with its $14 trillion economy is the world's largest polluter and has acted as an obstacle to any agreement on emission reduction targets. Reducing emissions would mean industry in the West would need to produce less - this would lead to the economies of the West to collapse rather then grow. To reduce consumption is considered Shirk in Capitalism. By the same token, the rate of consumption of fossil fuels in developed countries is also extremely high relative to the rest of the world. The depletion of non-renewable resources and environmental destruction is primarily caused by the consumption patterns of US. US consumption of fossil fuels is well over five times the global average.
Global warming is the result of rapid industrialisation from the West with the sole concern of profit making. Although there exist technologies that allow the development of clean low-emission industrial development, their costs are high and as a result have been unable to break into the mainstream market. China and India have only in the last 20 years have seen rapid development, global warming was already high prior to that, US continued attacks on China and India for developing too quickly in reality is attempts by the world superpower to stifle their development.
The Muslim world does not want Islam
For years the West argued Muslim across the world want democracy and freedom rather then Islam, they argued only a minority of people in Pakistan and Afghanistan want Islam, the majority of the world was smitten by the West and wants to live by Capitalism. However today it is modernist Muslims who argue the Muslim world do not want Islam and are not ready for it. The West on the other hand is convinced the Muslim world wants Islam and have begun the process of defending themselves from the emergence of such a threat.
The US national intelligence council published its report following its ‘global 2020' project, entitled ‘mapping the global future.' The national Intelligence council (NIC) is the American intelligence community's centre for mid-term and long-term strategic thinking. The report set out the likely scenario the world will face in 2020. The report concluded that the appeal of Islam today revolved around is call to return to earlier roots of Islam where the Islamic civilisation was at the forefront of global change under the khilafah. The report portrayed a fictional scenario ‘of how a global movement fuelled by radical religious identity could emerge.'[7] The report revealed unequivocally that at the highest levels of US policy planning preparation is being made for the emergence of the khilafah. Other reports from US policy makers and think tanks across the world acknowledged there is a broad based ideological movement seeking for the return of the Khilafah.
The CIA has already revitalized programs of covert action that once helped win the Cold War, targeting Islamic media, religious leaders, and political parties. The agency is receiving ‘an exponential increase in money, people, and assets' to help it influence Muslim societies.
At the same time various surveys, think tank reports and policy makers have all accepted that Muslims globally have rejected western values. This represents a glaring failure on the part of the West as it has faced no challenges to its global supremacy. This means the battle for hearts and minds and physical occupation represents a last ditch effort to salvage the emergence of an alternative system of governance.
The actins of the West clearly show rather then the Muslim wanting Islam; they are not very far from achieving such aims.
Israel is invincible, it has proven this in 4 wars, hence the Muslim world should accept its here to stay
Since its formation in 1948, the reality of Israel's military strength has been shrouded by a mythical aura of invincibility. Interestingly such myths have not been actively expressed by Israel, but have been given life by the actions of the treacherous Muslim rulers
Israel's performance in the wars of 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973 against the Muslims in the region has long been seen as confirmation of Israel military superiority. In light of this apparent superiority and its seizure of Muslim lands, it is argued that direct military conflict with Israel is not a viable course of action for the Arab states, creating the necessity of entering into negotiations. The direct consequence of such a move has been the acceptance of Israel's sovereignty through plans such as the peace process.
In reviewing Israel's supposed military might one must keep in mind: What purpose does the construction of this myth serve?
1948 war - Israel's creation
The war of 1948 led to the establishment of the State of Israel. On the surface, one may find it difficult enough to understand how 40 million Arabs could not match the fighting strength of just 600,000 Jews. A closer study of the defenders of the Palestinian cause shows how their actions in fact led directly to the establishment of Israel.
The primary representatives of the Palestinian cause was King Abdullah of Transjordan, King Farook of Egypt and the Mufti of Palestine, all of them were extremely weak rulers subject to constant manipulation by the British. King Abdullah's portrayal of himself as a defender of the Palestinian cause was a façade. It was known he and Ben Gurion (Israel's first Prime Minister) were students together in Istanbul and that in clandestine meetings Abdullah had offered to accept the establishment of Israel in return for Jordanian control of the Arab populated parts of Palestine.
Abdullah had the Arab Legion at his disposal, a highly trained unit of 4,500 men, with General John Glubb an Englishman as its commanding officer. Glubb in his memoirs recounted that he was under strict orders from the British, not to enter areas under Jewish control. Egypt further weakened the attack against Israel when Nakrashi Pasha , the Prime Minister initially did not use existing military units but sent an army of volunteers that had only been organised in January of that year. Jordan had also delayed the passage of Iraqi troops across its territory thus thwarting any attack against Israel. This is why a blind Imam brought to rouse the Jordanian army prior to the battle embarrassed Abdullah when he said : "O army I wish you were ours." (referring to the Arab Legion being British)
Although the combined Muslim forces were 40,000 only 10,000 were trained soldiers. The Zionists had 30,000 armed personnel, 10,000 men for local defence and another 25,000 for home guard. Furthermore there were nearly 3,000 specially trained Irgun and Stern gang terrorists. They were armed with the latest weaponry and funded heavily through Zionist agencies in America and Britain. Despite the preparedness of the Jews, the treachery of the
Muslim rulers secured a foothold for the Jews in Palestine.
The 1956 Suez Canal crisis
This conflict was never a war for the liberation of Palestine but rather a struggle between America and Britain for control of the strategically important Suez Canal.
The US saw Egypt as a critical ally if America was to gain influence in the Middle East. Through the CIA, she moved to depose the Pro British King Farook in a coup in 1952, bringing into power the Free Officers who were soon afterwards led by Nasser. The CIA worked on a project in 1951 known as "The Search for a Moslem Billy Graham." Mike Copeland the CIA operative, published classified information in his memoirs in 1989, The Game Player, about The CIA supported coup d'etat that ousted the British puppet King Farook. Copeland, who activated the project, explains that ‘the CIA needed a charismatic leader who would be able to divert the growing anti-American hostility that was building up in the area.' He explains both the CIA and Nasser were in agreement on Israel. For Nasser talk of war with Israel was irrelevant. Much more of a priority was British occupation of the Suez Canal Zone. Nasser's enemy was Britain.
In 1956 Nasser carried out American demands of nationalising the Suez Canal. The response of Britain was to lure France and Israel into the struggle. This was outlined by historian Corelli Barnett, who wrote about the Suez in his book, ‘The Collapse of British Power,' ‘France was hostile to Nasser because Egypt was helping the Algerian rebels, and attached to the canal for historical reasons. After all, a Frenchman built it. Israel was longing to have a go at Nasser anyway because of Palestinian fedayeen attacks and the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran.' so Sir Anthony Eden (British Prime Minister) concocted a secret tripartite plot with France and Israel. [8] He further explained ‘that Israel would invade Egypt across the Sinai Peninsula.' ‘Britain and France would then give an ultimatum to the parties to stop fighting or they would intervene to 'protect' the canal.[9]
The US and USSR exercised diplomatic pressure to force Britain to withdraw. Russia directly threatened Paris and London with nuclear attacks. The immense international pressure forced the British and French to withdraw and consequently lose their footing in Egypt. The American administration, under Eisenhower, went as far as threatening the Israelis with economic sanctions if they did not withdraw from occupied territory seized from Egypt, a measure that would have had disastrous consequences on Israel at the time. In the aftermath of the crisis, America emerged as the dominant force in the Middle East.
1967 six day war
This war was again another episode in the Anglo-American conflict for control of the region. Britain had been surpassed as the region's dominant force 11 years earlier, but still retained some influence through its agents in Jordan, Syria and Israel. In an attempt to weaken Nasser, Britain sought to lure Israel to drag Egypt into a war whereby Israel would seize territory and use it as a bargaining tool in a land for peace settlement, a means through which to achieve the security which the Israelis so desperately sought. On 5 June 1967 Israel launched a pre-emptive strike destroying 60% of Egypt's grounded air force and 66% of Syrian and Jordanian combat aircraft.
From Jordan the Israelis seized the West Bank and east Jerusalem. King Hussein, prior to the battle, had positioned his troops in different areas from where the main battle was taking place. In a matter of 48 hours the Israelis seized the major West Bank towns and most of those who were shot dead of the Jordanian forces were in retreat. In a similar manner the Israelis seized the Golan Heights on the 6th day of the war. The Syrian troops occupying the Golan Heights heard news of Israel's capture of the strategically important heights through their own State radio announcing the Israeli capture of the heights while the Syrian troops were still clearly occupying them. Israel also dealt America's Nasser a blow by capturing Sharm al Sheikh and securing the waterway of the Straits of Tiran. The objective of weakening the regime of Nasser was achieved, thus indirectly aiding British interests within the region. Israel was able to seize more land and use it as a bargaining asset in any land for peace negotiations, which today is still used as a basis for negotiations rather then the status of 1948.
1973 war: more treachery by the rulers
An examination of the October 1973 war launched by Egypt and Syria against Israel shows that the aims were limited and never included the liberation of Palestine. The aims never even included the liberation of the Golan Heights which were designed to be restored as part of a peace treaty between Syria and Israel. The aims were to solidify the positions of Anwar Sadat and Hafez al Assad who were relatively new leaders in countries prone to military coups. Sadat in particular was vulnerable given the fact that he had succeeded the charismatic Nasser.
Mohammed Heikal the respected editor of Al Ahram from 1957 - 1974, who witnessed the war, he explained the extent of Anwar Sadats underlying motives in his book ‘The Road to Ramadhan' where he cites Sadat's mood in the run up to the war. Heikal quotes one of Sadat's generals, Mohammed Fouwzi who gave the analogy of a samurai drawing two swords - a long one and short one in preparation for battle. Fouwzi said that this battle would be a case of the short sword, signifying a limited battle for certain motives.
Anwar Sadat had no intention of having a protracted war of liberation with Israel. This is why he sought peace with Israel whilst commanding a winning position in the war. In the first 24 hours of the war Egypt smashed through the Israeli's much heralded Bar-Lev fortifications east of the Suez canal with only 68 casualties. Meanwhile 2 Syrian divisions and 500 tanks swept into the Golan Heights and retook some of the land captured in 1967. In two days of fighting Israel had lost 49 aircraft and 500 tanks. In the midst of this Sadat sent a message to US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in which he said that the objective of the war was ‘the achievement of peace in the Middle East and not...partial settlements.' The message went on to state that if Israel withdrew from all occupied territories Egypt would be prepared to participate in a Peace conference under UN or neutral auspices.
Thus despite having an immense strategic advantage Sadat was in the mood for negotiation in this early stage. Sadat's refusal to press home his initial advantage and his delay in launching the second Sinai offensive allowed Israel to mobilise with aid from the US and she began to seize back lost territory. Hostilities formally came to an end on 25 October after Israel had violated previous cease-fire agreements.
All the wars with Israel best illustrate how the Muslim rulers have never seriously fought Israel with the intention of liberating Palestine, all the mentioned examples illustrate the reality behind the myths which the Ummah has been led to believe. The real treachery has been committed by the insincere rulers who have collaborated and helped create the myth of Israeli superiority, kindling it, nurturing it and maintaining it. The wars the Arab world fought show that the Muslim countries have never singularly nor collectively fought Israel with the intention of destroying it. Each of the wars was conducted in order to meet specific objectives, none of which were to liberate the land of Palestine and eliminate Israel. Hence the objective of seriously threatening Israel was never an aim, despite the unquestionable strength of the combined Arab armies.
Conclusions
History is always written by the victors, this is also the case with geopolitics. There are many myths that still exist including the reasons for WW1 and WW2 and apart from deceiving the world of the West's invincibility; this is also a very useful tool to continue to fool the host populations in the West. US superiority has taken a major hit due to the Iraq and Afghanistan war, as well as Israel's invincibility with its defeat at the hands of Hizbullah in 2006. Muslims should bear in mind that however dire the situation may look globally for the ummah, much of this picture is a mirage and can very easily be changed and replaced.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] "The ins and outs: The EU's most effective foreign-policy instrument has been enlargement. But how far can it go?" The Economist, March 2007, http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=682266&story_id=8808134
[2] US Ambassador Warren Zimmerman in an interview with the Croatian daily Danas, 12 January 1992, reprinted at http://www.emperors-clothes.com/interviews/nothing.htm
[3] Karen Talbot ‘Backing up Globalization with Military Might' New World Order Onslaught, Covert Action Quarterly, Issue 68, Fall 1999, retrieved 22nd May 2008, http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Articles/Backing.asp
[4] Benjamin Schwarz & Christopher Layne ‘The Case Against Intervention in Kosovo,' the nation, 19th April 1999, retrieved 22nd May 2008, http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990419/schwarz/single
[5] Fromkin D, A Peace to End All Peace, p 45, New York: Avon Books, 1989
[6] www.iariw.org/papers/2006/davies.pdf
[7] National Intelligence Estimate, December 2004, Report of the National Intelligence Councils 2020 project, ‘Mapping the Global Future,' Pg 83-92, retrieved 26th October 2007, http://www.foia.cia.gov/2020/2020.pdf
[8] Barnett C (1972) ‘The Collapse of British Power,' Macmillan, ISBN 0333679822, and also Paul Reynolds, ‘Suez: End of empire.'
[9] Barnett C (1972) ‘The Collapse of British Power,' Macmillan, ISBN 0333679822
Source
Daily News - Tue 17/06/08
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)