dawah tools: March 2008

Kevin Rudd's motion in Parliament congratulating Israel on 60 years of occupation and dispossesion.

Brendan Nelson's remarks follow.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I move: That the House:

(1) celebrate and commend the achievements of the State of Israel in the 60 years since its inception;

(2) remember with pride and honour the important role which Australia played in the establishment of the State of Israel as both a member state of the United Nations and as an influential voice in the introduction of Resolution 181 which facilitated Israel’s statehood, and as the country which proudly became the first to cast a vote in support of Israel’s creation;

(3) acknowledge the unique relationship which exists between Australia and Israel; a bond highlighted by our commitment to the rights and liberty of our citizens and encouragement of cultural diversity;

(4) commend the State of Israel’s commitment to democracy, the Rule of Law and pluralism;

(5) reiterate Australia’s commitment to Israel’s right to exist and our ongoing support to the peaceful establishment of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian issue;

(6) reiterate Australia’s commitment to the pursuit of peace and stability throughout the Middle East;

(7) on this, the 60th Anniversary of Independence of the State of Israel, pledge our friendship, commitment and enduring support to the people of Israel as we celebrate this important occasion together.

Today the parliament of Australia notes the occasion of this year, being the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the state of Israel. The story of the establishment of the state of Israel begins with the unimaginable tragedy of the Holocaust. At the Holocaust memorial at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem the words of the Australian delegate to the 1938 Evian Conference are recorded. He said that Australia could not encourage refugee immigration because, ‘as we have no real racial problem, we are not desirous of importing one’. Thankfully, later in 1938 the Australian government took the decision to admit 15,000 Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. But by the time the war began only 6,500 had reached Australia.

By war’s end, six million Jews had been murdered. By war’s end, the international community finally began to look again in earnest at the question of a homeland for the Jewish people. Australia is proud to have played a significant part in the international process that led to the foundation of the state of Israel. Australia’s then Minister for External Affairs, Dr Evatt, was part of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, which recommended in August 1947 the termination of the Mandate for Palestine. And he was chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee meeting on the Palestinian Question that proposed the partition of Palestine. He strongly believed that the fundamental right of self-determination for the Jewish people and for Palestinians could only be achieved by each having their own state. The resolution that the United Nations adopted in November 1947 reflected that. It proposed the establishment of two independent states—one Arab and one Jewish. And Australia was the first state in the historic vote of the international community on that resolution to cast its vote in support of the modern state of Israel. On 14 May 1948 David Ben-Gurion declared the foundation of the modern state of Israel.

Prime Minister Ben Chifley, too, was closely involved in Australia’s policy towards Israel. In June 1948 he reinforced Evatt’s strong support for a two-state solution when he cabled British Prime Minister Clement Attlee and urged early recognition of Israel, saying that:

Such [a] declaration would properly indicate willingness to agree in principle to the recognition of the Provisional Government of Israel, and at the same time willingness to recognise de facto the Arab authorities in actual control of Arab Sections of Palestine.

On 29 January 1949 he announced that Australia would become one of the first countries to recognise the new state of Israel, describing it as ‘a force of special value in the world community’. As President of the General Assembly ‘Doc’ Evatt then presided over the historic May 1949 vote admitting Israel as the 59th member of the United Nations. On 11 May 1949 the Chifley Labor government opened an embassy in Tel Aviv. Evatt later said that, when working on the question of Israel, he wanted to ensure that the ‘new State of Israel, whose people had in the past done so much for humanity, would be welcomed, not merely formally but with good heart and good conscience’ into the international community.

The 60 years since the establishment of Israel have been full of challenges and full of trials. Similarly, the process for the emergence of a Palestinian state has come along a torturous path. There has been too much bloodshed. But over those 60 years there has also been cause for hope.

We think today of Prime Minister Menachem Begin standing with President Jimmy Carter and Egypt’s President Anwar Sadat, at the White House on March 26 1979 at the signing of the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty that followed from the Camp David Accords. Prime Minister Begin used both the Hebrew and Arabic words for peace when he urged: ‘No more war, no more bloodshed, no more bereavement. Peace unto you. Shalom, salaam, forever.’ We can think, too, of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, shaking hands with his lifelong enemy Yasser Arafat on the lawns of the White House on September 13 1993, saying:

We, the soldiers who have returned from battles stained with blood; we who have seen our relatives and friends killed before our eyes; we who have attended their funerals and cannot look in the eyes of their parents; we who have come from a land where parents bury their children; we who have fought against you, the Palestinians—we say to you, in a loud and clear voice, enough of blood and tears. Enough!

All peoples of goodwill yearn for that vision to be realised. It has not been realised yet. To borrow again from former Yitzhak Rabin, a man who tragically paid the ultimate price while pursuing peace: ‘The risks of peace are preferable by far to the grim certainties of war’.

We firmly believe the establishment of an independent and economically viable Palestinian state must remain a key objective in the Middle East peace process. This is important for the future. It was important in the vision of 1947. It remains the vision today, just as our objective must be for Israel to exist within secure and internationally recognised boundaries.

Today, we in Australia support the ongoing negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian

Authority towards a final status agreement by the end of 2008, as launched at the Annapolis Conference in November last year. To support the establishment of a viable and sustainable Palestinian state Australia pledged a $45 million assistance package at the donors conference for the Palestinian territories in Paris on 18 December. Australia remains, as we have in the past, committed to an effective two-state solution.

Over the past 60 years Israel has preserved its robust parliamentary democracy and has built a vibrant society and economy. If anyone wants a dictionary definition of the term ‘robust’ they should spend an afternoon in the Israeli Knesset. That is where you see the definition of ‘robust’ at work. By contrast we are a pack of pussycats in here!

Over the past 60 years governments from both sides of politics in Australia have supported our strong relationship with Israel. That relationship is strong and it is deep—and it will remain so. Because we are both democracies, as democracies sometimes we will agree and sometimes we will disagree. That is in the nature of strong relationships. But the underlying friendship between us does not alter.

Australia offers our congratulations to the government and people of Israel on this the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the modern Israeli state. We acknowledge our special history and relationship and we look forward to its continued strength and development into the future.

I commend this motion to the House.

Brendan Nelson's reply

I rise on behalf of the alternative government to provide our very strong support for this motion and to support the remarks on the historical circumstances of the development of the state of Israel, the role that Australia played in that, the relationship between our two countries, the initiatives that are being taken by the current Australian government and indeed those taken by the most recent government to further the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians.

Jewish identity over the last 100 years has been shaped by three things. The first is anti-Semitism, which remains a virulent and repugnant force still in far too many parts of the world and in the dark recesses of some people’s hearts. The second is the holocaust, which saw the systematic extermination of more than six million Jews through the course of the Second World War. The third is the continued threats to the very existence of the state of Israel, which is constantly embattled and, every single day, every week and every year, needs to struggle to defend its very existence.

In a region of the world that is characterised more by theocracies and autocracies, the state of Israel is the custodian of the most fragile yet powerful of human emotions, and that is hopeful belief in the freedom of man, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly. There are many things for which Israel stands and which characterise the modern state of Israel, but included amongst them is the celebration of knowledge for its own sake and knowledge as the driver of economic development and emancipation from human poverty. Israel also stands for personal independence, a free parliament and an independent judiciary. It is a nation where Christians, Baha’is, Muslims and Arabs enjoy equal rights. Israel, like all democracies, is far from perfect, but it is, in every sense of the word, on the front line of the struggle for the things that we hold dear, not only as Australians and free people but as human beings. And it is far too frequently on the front line of the struggle against all the things that are repugnant to universal human ideals.

On 14 May 1948, the day that the British mandate expired, the Jewish People’s Council gathered at Tel Aviv Museum and approved the Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel. It read, in part:

THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

Israel is home to many things that are spiritual, but it is home in the end to the human spirit of resilience, of confidence, of determination and of respect for one another irrespective of political, religious or other affiliations. It is a land that boasts many ancient buildings, but its people are firmly focused on building the future. That it is difficult to achieve a peaceful resolution to the tensions surrounding Israel’s existence should only strengthen our resolve to reach out not only to Israel but also to Palestinians of good heart who genuinely seek and should achieve a two-state solution. No Australian who believes in the dignity of man, in freedom and in democratic principles should ever, through neglectful indifference, allow Israel to be a stranger. To do so would be to diminish ourselves and our own true security.

To any Australian who has not done so already and who has the privilege and the opportunity to visit Washington: I urge you to visit the Holocaust Memorial Museum. There is a very large sign out the front of the museum that says: ‘Never forget what you have seen here’. There are piles of shoes that were worn by Jews exterminated, photographs of men and women and children looking out into lives that were never lived, and many other things to remind us of why our relationship with Israel and our respect for the Israeli cause and the two-state solution is so important to our own beliefs, our own values and ultimately our own freedoms and security. Shabbat shalom forever.

Question agreed to.

John Howard & Irving Kristol on the Importance of Ideas

Moving beyond the usual mix of empty rhetoric and ideological babble, John Howard's most insightful words at the AEI's 2008 Irving Kristol Lecture were in fact a quote attributed to AEI's founder:

"I know that it will be hard for some to believe that ideas can be so important. This underestimation of ideas is a peculiarly bourgeois fallacy, especially powerful in the most bourgeois of nations, our own United States. For two centuries, the very important people who managed the affairs of this society could not believe in the importance of ideas--until one day they were shocked to discover that their children, having been captured and shaped by certain ideas, were either rebelling against their authority or seceding from their society. The truth is that ideas are all-important. The massive and seemingly-solid institutions of any society--the economic institutions, the political institutions, the religious institutions--are always at the mercy of the ideas in the heads of the people who populate these institutions."

What, then, can be said of those who seek to challenge such institutions?

Daily News - Thu 13/03/08

Local News

Security thinking waits for big shift

Colleague argued against violence

PM lauds Israel, but urges peace

Ethnic background? Uncle Kevin wants you to join up now

Global News

Turkey invests to win hearts and minds of Kurds

Yudhoyono lauded in Tehran for stance on sanctions

Mercenary regrets leading role in African coup plot

A tale of two countries

Pakistan to negotiate with terrorists

Dawah News

Hundreds of HTI members urge govt to solve national problem

Hizb ut-Tahrir officially recognized as extremist in Tajikistan

A 'half-turn' to the West

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Shia and contemporary political thinking

Trying to rationalise the Shia position in Iraq and beyond?

Haider Ala Hamoudi offers his timely insight.

Ahmedinijad in Baghdad and Global Shi'ism

Daily News - Wed 12/03/08

Local News

Govt considers Muslim advisory body
Imams want role in recast Muslim body
Muslims support image makeover
Muslims back advisory body plan
Islamic Council in WA welcomes plan for national advisory body

Tough police powers outlive APEC
Counter-terrorism policing deserves support, scrutiny

Bipartisan support for state of Israel
Israel's far-flung friend

Global News

Cheney to spearhead Middle East talks

Pakistan blasts litter streets with dead

Dawah News

Salah Choudury`s trial begins on 12th March

Britain: A Central Front in the War Against Islamist Terrorism

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Q&A: Turkish military campaign in northern Iraq

The following is a translation from Arabic.

Question: There have been media reports that the Turkish government obtained approval of the United States which has occupied Iraq including the Kurd region for launching its armed offensive in northern Iraq (Kurdistan). Official Turkish and US government sources have confirmed this report. This is despite the fact that since the US occupies Iraq and its Kurd region, the security of these areas becomes the responsibility of the US, yet it permitted the Turkish government to launch attacks!

Does this mean that America has bartered the Kurd region of Iraq for its interests in Turkey which are far more vital to it than the Kurd region of Iraq?

Answer: It is true that America is in occupation of Iraq, and an external aggression on it is tantamount to an attack on the US in a sense, which requires America not to permit any state to wage war on Iraq so long as it is in occupation.

Similarly it is also true that Turkey is very important to America, but so are Iraq and its Kurdish region, though not quite so. But what is not correct is to say that America has sold Iraqi Kurd area for its interests in Turkey, because its interests in Turkey are safe under the AKP government just as its interests are safe in Iraq under America’s puppet Iraqi government.So far as permitting the Turkish government’s attack on northern Iraq are concerned, this permission reflects the US interests in the two countries and this does not amount to selling one at the cost of the other.

1. But, how to put these apparent inconsistencies into perspective?

Here is how:

Ever since the US abandoned Abdullah Öcalan and handed him over to the Turkish authorities under the famous hand-shake maneuvered by it with Turkey in order to protect Syria, then with the coming to power of the pro US Justice party in Turkey, it has become a strategic necessity for both the US as well as Turkey to deal with the Kurdish issue within a political framework…thereafter, the Turkish officials initiated visits and dialogues on the Kurd issue. These were followed with cultural discussions on Kurdish language programmes in the media...

2. On the hand, the senior leadership of the Turkish armed forces who are loyal to the British have persistedly dealt with the Kurd issue as a security problem and exploited it in their face-off with the AKP government whenever they felt the Erdogan government was becoming too powerful and consequently the US influence in Turkey was on the rise at the cost of pro-British secularists’ hold on the armed forces.

3. Before the AKP’s coming to power and the US influence strengthened in Turkey, the pro- British Kemalists in the Turkish armed forces were used to staging coups against any Turkish government that crossed the British-Kemalists’ line... the repeated coups that the Turkish armed forces staged in the latter part of the last century are well known.

4. The AKP government clearly and visibly treads the American path, and works to under cut the hold of the pro-British Kemalists in the Turkish armed forces by way of bringing in legislations as they did in the National Security Council, the Supreme Constitutional Court and the election of the republic’s president etc., yet despite these clear violations of the Kemalists line the armed forces could not stage coups against the government because of the prevailing atmosphere of the democratic civilian rule that America keenly fosters in Turkey and the AKP government shouts loudly about. Similarly, the attitude of the government towards the EU armed forces is aimed at easing the entry restrictions into the EU and is not in line with the Kemalists’ wishes. All these actions have pre empted any coup attempt by the armed forces, if not for ever, at least in the foreseeable future.

5. This is why the armed forces decided to exploit the military-security aspect in the Kurdish issue, especially the Kurdistan Workers Party wing whose bases are situated in northern Iraq. Unlike other PKK wing, this wing of the PKK is not content with political action alone, but embraces military action to solve the Kurdish people’s conflict in Turkey. This wing of the PKK which is based in northern Iraq is associated with Barazani who has been a British loyalist. Thus Barazani shares common ground with the secularists of the pro-British armed forces and they both believe in military action on the issue, though they have differing motives for the same. While Talibani and his party are pro-US and this is why the PKK wing is situated in the northern areas bordering the region of Barazani and not situated in the regions of Talibani.

The armed forces had hoped to use these attacks to embarrass the AKP government and the United States occupying Iraq. That was why it launched the attacks on the PKK in the Iraqi Kurd area in order to sour the relations of the AKP government with America. Thus whenever the extent of armed forces intervention increased, it proportionately reflected on the US-AKP government i.e. weakened & threatened the Turkish government.

6. So the pro-British secularist leadership of the armed forces prepeared the stage and despatched light armed un-mounted patrols with out sufficient protective covers (as occurred late last year) to the border area near the bases of the PKK in Iraq. This resulted in killing or taking prisoners of the Turkish army soldiers, and the armed forces then trumpeted such events as insulting to the army and called for wide spread & intensive military action against the PKK bases in northern Iraq. The armed forces also tacitly accused the justice party government of not respecting the blood of the soldiers killed or taken prisoners and this resulted in wide spread public opinion in favour of launching armed assaults on the PKK bases in northern Iraq and the families of the soldiers accused the government of inaction.

7. The Turkish government was caught off-guard on the issue... and then the calls for retaliatory military action grew louder and exaggerated the events, attributing to the fighters of the PKK in different areas, the government swung into action and moved a bill in the parliament which approved it thereby authorising the government to launch military action at an appropriate time deemed fit by the government.

This was somewhat of a respite for the government, but not a decisive one, because the parliament did not set a date for military assault leaving that to the discretion of the government.

8. The pro British secularists of the armed forces viewed the permission given by the government for extensive assault on PKK forces in US –occupied Iraq as a potentially severe crisis for the AKP government’s relations with the US. On the other hand if the government had failed to permit military action in order to protect its relations with the US, then the government would be embarrassed vies avis the prevailing public opinion that called for revenge for Turkish soldier’s blood! The pro British, who consider they to be the protectors of the Cembalist secularism in Turkey, saw both of these situations as a severe crisis for the AKP government.

9. However, Erdogan’s last visit to the US followed by political confabulations in Ankara and the US armed forces command center in Baghdad, it was agreed that America will allow the Turkish government to launch limited attacks at specified times and places. This was specially designed to project the government as unwilling to take the humiliation of the Turkish soldiers lying down, nor willing to allow spilling the soldiers’ blood. At the same time, this arrangement gave a respite to the armed forces commanders loyal to the British.

10. Thus, under the US, Talibani’s and Maliki’s permission, the offensive against the PKK was launched which embarrassed the Barazani’s government in northern Iraq and timidly condemned by Europe.

11. The following is expected:

From the armed forces’ side: The armed forces will try to expand the scope of collision with the Barazani government’s army and thereby confuse the issues and put the Turkish government’s relations with America at peril. This will prepare the ground for a European intervention and result in a severe crisis for the AKP government.

From the other side: The US will work with the AKP government and other cooperating sides in Iraq to keep the military offensive restricted in terms of timings and places. Then the Turkish government can claim to have achieved its aims and with draw, this will allow it to score points in its favour…

12. The probable decisive factors that will limit this assault and not allow it to go out of control are: the US, the Justice party government, other cooperating parties in Iraq and lastly another important factor will be the un-friendly conditions like, snowy weather will restrict the operation from expanding, then there is the rough terrain and mountainous landscape which will expose the Turkish army to suffer losses.

Considering these factors, it is likely that the military operation will remain restricted in terms of timings and place. The government of the Justice party is likely to score points in its favour except in two conditions:

The situation goes beyond control and the offensive is intensified in terms of time and areas.

Secondly, a substantial number of Turkish soldiers are killed.

These two conditions may spell doom for the Turkish government.

For these reasons, we say that such situations are only a possibility.

Conclusion:

In permitting the Turkish government to carry out the military offensive in Iraqi Kurdistan, the US government did not abandon either Kurdistan or Turkey; it allowed the offensive to protect its interest in Turkey, Iraq including Kurdistan.

19th Safar, 1429 A.H

25th February, 2008 C.E

Source

The West to the World: Accept Our Values or Die

By Abid Mustafa, Middle East Online. Posted February 21, 2008.

The forceful imposition of Western values is far more of a threat to world peace than Muslim nations gaining WMD.

Whenever western governments mention weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and Muslims in the same breath, the western media immediately breaks into a wild frenzy warning its people that a catastrophic event of epic proportions is about to unfold.

Old European fables of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword are reinvented to convey the impression that Muslims are extremely dangerous, highly irresponsible and pay scant regard to human life. Hence the mantra of disarming Muslim countries of WMD has become the rallying cry of the West directed against the Muslim world.

In some cases the arguments are extended to justify the West's ongoing policy of regime change in Syria, Iran and perhaps Pakistan. However, a close study of Islamic rule in the past contradicts the popular western myth that Muslims are bloodthirsty people anxious to wipe out the rest of mankind in the name of Islam.

The same however, cannot be said about the West. The West armed with its secular doctrine and materialistic world-view proceeded to exploit, plunder and colonize vast populations in order to control resources and maximize wealth.

In pursuit of these newfound riches the West succeeded in destroying civilizations such as the Incas, American Indians, Aztecs, and Aborigines. Those who survived colonization were forcibly converted to Christianity, stripped of their heritage and sold into bondage to western companies. For the indigenous people of Africa, India, Asia, the Middle East and others, the promises of freedom quickly evaporated and were replaced by colonial rule. Rather than show remorse towards such atrocities the West could only gloat at its achievements.

Technologies such as cannons, pistols, steam engines, machine guns, airplanes, mustard gas etc only hastened the acquisition of colonies and the exploitation of their people. Resistance offered by the natives towards their colonial masters was met by brute force -- often resulting in the destruction of entire communities. When the West was not destroying the natives they were too busy annihilating each other in a desperate bid to cling on to their precious colonies. World Wars I and II are prime examples of the destructive nature of western values.

This is a description of the Old World where countries like England, France, and Germany built empires and accumulated immense wealth on the death and destruction of millions of innocent people. Is the New World (America leading the West) any different today?

Take the example of the New World and its relationship with Afghanistan and Iraq. Liberation has become occupation; democracy has given way to colonial rule, devastation is termed precision bombing and the slaughter of innocent Muslims is described as collateral damage. Meanwhile, American and British oil companies are queuing up to exploit the oil wells of Iraq and transport the energy reserves of the Caspian Sea to Europe via Afghanistan.

The Islamic Khilafah in the past never treated mankind in such a barbaric fashion. Neither did the Khilafah spread Islam by force nor destroy civilizations. When Islam spread to Egypt, many Coptic Christians did not embrace Islam and today they still number approximately 7 million. Likewise, when India was opened up to Islam the inhabitants were not coerced into accepting Islam. India today has a population of more than 750 million Hindus.

Compare this to extermination of Muslim and Jews in the courts of the Spanish Inquisitors during the much-coveted European renaissance. Those Jews that survived this Spanish holocaust, were warmly welcomed by the Ottoman Caliphate. In Islamic Spain they flourished and became important members of Islamic society.
Today the world has more to fear from the destructive nature of western values than WMD. In the past these values were enforced upon nations either through direct colonial rule or through tyrannical regimes loyal to the West. Presently, the greatest danger facing mankind is the constant threat of the West imposing its values on the rest of the world through WMD.

Abid Mustafa is a political commentator who specializes in Muslim Affairs

Source