Palestine

Looking back on “Assadfall” and the future of Middle East

Posted on March 10, 2017. Filed under: Afghanistan, Arab, India, Iran, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Israel, Jew, Jihad, Left, Pakistan, Palestine, Politics, Russia, Shia, Sunni, Syria, Taleban, Turkey, UK, USA |

About six years ago, when the Syrian “civil war” started off, I had already been used to frequently writing and debating on an online forum. There was a poster apparently from India, but claiming intimate knowledge of the Gulf states and having access to “higher levels” of policy-making and decision makers in both Gulf Saudi allied regimes and in India. He often gave out timelines for fall of Assad, overthrow of the Syrian regime, or even sometimes how Saudi forces were preparing for the final assault that will annihilate Syrian government, and occasionally the imminent victorious or successful battle plans of Israel, USA and others against Assad. Sometimes it was about how in the following weeks the Russians were going to abandon Assad to his fate.

I had already clashed with him on his whitewashing of the history of Palestine in favour of Islamic occupation of the Levant following Byzantine withdrawal, or the legitimacy of the claims of the Jews on their current lands (leading to the series I wrote on this blog on Palestine and Islamo-Judaic relations). So when he declared that Assad was going to “fall” in the “next two weeks”, I thought I would have some fun by contradicting him on his “sure” predictions on Syria, (this led me to coin the term “Assadfall” – something that is promised to happen the next day or next week but never happens even in years) and proposed,

(1) If Assad could  hold onto the narrow ridge highland that separated coasts from the eastern trough before the vast eastern plateau he was not going to fall. Not in two weeks. Not in two years.

(2) Syria was going to be partitioned one way or the other and the Kurds were going to get their independent homeland.

(3) Russia was not going to abandon Assad, and Israel was not going to move against Syria.

I was of course laughed at just like the time when I had predicted that the US forces will be withdrawing from Afghanistan, that the British forces would make no headway against the Taleban, and that the Taleban were going to re-emerge as the main power in Afghanistan. My reasons for predicting the resurgence of the Taleban is perhaps material for another post, so skipping it now.

Returning to this six-year old issue, I can see that my reasons for predicting the outcome of the Syrian adventure by Sunni-Saudi-West have not really changed. But the fallout needs to be fleshed out in further predictions. So what will be the major trends for the future for the region?

(a) I find that there is a remarkable lack of awareness of the historical reality of the Kurds among western audiences and perhaps even so-called think-tanks. The Kurds, after Islamization, were at the vanguard of Islamic expansionism, with the most famous example perhaps being the forces around Salahuddin the expeller of crusaders. Kurdis were also implicated as the main forces used by the Ottomans to “manage” the Armenians which later came to be seen by non-Turkish scholarship as the Armenian genocide. Ironically, it was this cooperation with Ottoman regimes that helped coalesce military strength around family, clan and regional lines among the Kurds. The Kurds were not free of Islamist theological-political admixture with leadership held within pseudo-dynastic frameworks.

(b) With the break up of the Ottoman empire, this Kurdi nucleus of state formation around charismatic and pseudo-dynastic clan leadership in one particular remote terrain among all the regions inhabited by the Kurdis, began to pursue political independence more vigorously. Like with Saudis, western powers toyed with but dashed their hopes of political sovereignty. But Ottoman failure also led to soul-searching by new generation of Middle East’s muslims, and one section of Kurdis, like all over both Arabs and non-Arab population in the zone, began to explore “Left” approach. This tendency eventually led to the modern PKK.

(c) The current Kurdi assertion is split between the “Leftists” in PKK and its armed wings, which have fought alongside the more “mainstream” Peshmarga, the forces around the “clan”. The Peshmarga will compromise on independent state-formation as its leadership will be more interested in keeping their personal control over Kurds, which might be less assured at current stages if the dissenting factions come into a sovereign state where other national governments cannot be tasked with reducing this opposition.

(d) Given that Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and even Iran would not like an independent Kurdi nation being carved out as it would bite into each of their current territories, at this stage, its Turkey which stands to lose most and the other countries involved may concede a little just so that the major portion of the new Kurdi territory is taken out of Turkey.

(e) Since the forces around Peshmarga are likely to be softer on independent state formation, and the balance of forces would like to see Turkey being cut down a bit, it’s the PKK led faction and its forces which are likely to gain increasing political support from within Kurdi populations, and they will gradually replace the political predominance of the current clan based framework that Kurdis have.

(f) Turkey, Saudis and Qataris or Kuwaitis, who most likely supplied and deemed the ISIS as deniable assets of an army of expansion, will seek to carve out a territory for the ISIS assets. This Turkey, European powers, are going to try to do by overtly representing it as an autonomous or independent region of “Sunni” “moderate rebels” just south of Turkish borders. In fact this could also be a part of a deal in which both Kurdis and ISIS re-packaged as “moderate rebels”  have each their adjacent “independent states”. Turkey may accept this as a check against Kurdis and as temporary compromise to protect its jihadi assets. Saudi money might also work behind the scenes in western corridors of power to create pressure to accept this model.

However in the long run, this will just be an interim redrawing of Middle Easts borders. The main objective of Europe, and Saudis will be to transfer the jihadi assets developed in the plains of Iraq and Syria into two directions – east and north against Russia and Iran, and further east towards Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. We may already see the beginnings of this policy in increased activities of claimed ISIS operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan. However, even within that, its India’s north that is the target.

Enticing them into India is the thing to do. As I have been projecting for years, any such jihadi incursion will create the conditions for eventual erasure of Islam and jihadism.

 

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Taharrush, Cologne, EU – why Islamic Rights come before Women’s Rights

Posted on January 17, 2016. Filed under: Arab, Christians, Communist, Egypt, feminism, Gaza, Historians with political agenda, History, Hosni Mubarak, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Israel, Jew, Jihad, Left, Marxism, Muslims, neoimperialism, Palestine, Politics, rape, religion, Salafi, Saudi, slavery, Sunni, Syria, Taleban, terrorism, USA, Wahabi |

The new years eve assaults on women in Cologne,  Germany, came apparently as a shock to many [France24_report]. When the first allegations began to crop up on social media, the state bodies responded with pacifiers and reassurances. The standard state tactic of repeating “be calm, be happy, nothing is wrong, everything has been taken care of, everything is as it always has been” line whenever it deems acknowledging the reality can jeopardise its control and domination over the population [State_attempt_at_coverup]. The response to this was a flurry of accusations on social media where individual women came forward to complain of their experiences of that night.

The political authority’s response to this bypass of and challenge to the state attempt to manage social perceptions through the media, and state spokespersons, was typical. The mayor of Cologne, who happens to be a woman, urged women to keep away from men “at an arms length” in public, and not “provoke” cultural sentiments of men from “other” cultures [keep_men_at_arms_length]. State complicity in delaying, or trying to suppress news on assault was exposed in the German public broadcaster, ZDF, apologising for delays. “The news situation was clear enough. It was a mistake of the 7pm ‘heute’ show not to at least report the incidents,” wrote deputy chief editor Elmar Thevessen on the show’s Facebook page.

The common European state, party politics, position seems to be arguing that

  1. Assaults were one-off, localised, not necessarily by men from particular national and religious identities.
  2. Even if assaults took place, they were cover for theft – not sexual but economic motives.
  3. Even if sexual, it was the women’s responsibility not to “invite” such attacks, by not provoking religious cultures which saw European women’s public appearance in dress or styles as provocative and justification for such attacks.
  4. If assaults were acknowledged openly by state bodies, it would strengthen the political “far-right”. Hence they should not be acknowledged.
  5. Maximum effort to delink assaults to Islam’s core cultural attitudes towards women, and if impossible to do – then try to emphasise ethnic, or national, or country origins of assaulters, and make it country or region specific, hoping to suppress the Islamic connection.

Interestingly, each of these positions expose much more about what is really going on than their proponents would like to expose.

It seems that the assaults were reported by women specifically to be by men of particular ethnic, national identities. It seems, assaults were not one-off, with similar incidents reported from Hamburg and other German cities, as well as from Finland and Sweden and Austria [pan-European_sex_attacks] and the attacks were explicitly sexual. The testimony of women at the receiving end, shows explicitly the hostile, angry, sexual aggression [explicit_sexual_nature_of attacks]. That snatchings, lootings, muggings accompanied sexual assaults, only adds to a viewpoint that sees the woman in public as free “property” who has no right to be with any valuables of her own: that is she herself is a “property” and a possession and belongs to the strongest man or men who can possess her and everything that she carries with her.

The attempt to pass this off as just  strange new, one off, only first time this year, phenomenon – is also jeopardised by the revelations of an obvious attempt at suppression of reports of similar persistent events in Sweden in the past – actually in summer 2015 [Swedish_media_suppression_of_reports].

The Islamic connection should have been transparent even if one did not study Islamic social history in details. There were reports of women demonstrators and journalists being asexually assaulted in Tahrir square in Egypt in the heady days of “revolution”. At the time most of these reports were suppressed, and the women concerned, even if from the “west”, characteristically shut up their mouths. The majority of women in western media or women’s rights activism appear to be very outspoken and “brutally and unflinchingly honest” when reporting, or investigating sexual assaults, sex-slavery, alleged on non-Muslim cultures, but their eloquence dries up when reporting on Muslim atrocities on women. In the past the meme of Israel, “Zionism” being the bigger, badder enemy seems to have been a persistent excuse used by senior, or “powerful” female voices in the anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian lobby to suppress dissemination of incidents of sexual assault, torture or slavery practised by revolutionary and heroic Palestinian society under “siege” as pointed out by Phyllis Chessler [feminism_as_protector_of_jihadi_violence_on_women’s_rights]. The following news will be sought to be dismissed as “Zionist” propaganda [Israeli_Muslim_teen_trafficked_into_sex_slavery_in_Palestine]. As Shmuley points out, western “liberal” feminism itself is often becoming an instrument for eventual ideological subversion of western women to acceptance of the attitudes encoded in Islam where a whole lot of political ideologies converge towards submission to Islam by non-Muslim societies [Shmuley_vs_Naomi]. In the words of Phyllis, [Feminist_silence_on_Islamic_assault_on_women’s_rights],

Feminists are, typically, leftists who view “Amerika” and white Christian men as their most dangerous enemies, while remaining silent about Islamist barbarians such as ISIS.

Feminists strongly criticize Christianity and Judaism, but they’re strangely reluctant to oppose Islam — as if doing so would be “racist.” They fail to understand that a religion is a belief or an ideology, not a skin color.

The new pseudo-feminists are more concerned with racism than with sexism, and disproportionately focused on Western imperialism, colonialism and capitalism than on Islam’s long and ongoing history of imperialism, colonialism, anti-black racism, slavery, forced conversion and gender and religious apartheid.

“Taharrush”, the rape-gauntlet “game”  [Taharrush_Islamic_spatial_strategy_to_isolate_and_rape_in_public] that surfaced in Tahrir square was a direct product of Muslim attitudes towards women in public, especially those less strictly dressed as per Islamic expectations and who were somehow therefore deemed to be declaring themselves as publicly sexually available women. The source of these attitudes lies in Arab Muslim ancient Islamic penchant for taking sex-slaves of women in raids, publicly strip them, rape them before husbands and male relatives to emphasise Islamic superiority even reported to be happening under the founder of Islam [surviving edited and abridged biography originally by Ishaq], and the much later codified Hidaya which stipulates the woman’s entire body and its complete use-right to have been bought either by nikaah rites or “right hand possession” war booty, or simply the woman in “hand” or possession. What happened in Cologne, was the same “Tahharush”, and both women and police would have been better equipped mentally and physically to deal with the situation had “Tahharush” – the dark side of the reality of the majority in the so-called Arab Spring was allowed to be openly discussed and noted in western media – when it happened almost 3-4 years ago.

What emerged at Tahrir square should have told the west and the world clearly, that what was being portrayed as a “revolution”, was in reality an Islamist reaction, which retained and in some sense enhanced acutely all the attitudes in classical jihadi Islam nurtured carefully over the years by the mullahcracy with whom the west compromised during the Cold War and ensured their protected continuance in preaching and preserving the jihadi core memes of Islam as an useful ally and antidote against spread of Communist ideas in Muslim world. West intervened specifically against any regime in any Muslim majority country that seemed to be incorporating deemed socialist elements in governance or society and thus made common cause with the most reactionary of elements among the mullahcracy. Each “socialist” regime experiment, however brief, in the Islamist countries did somewhat try to combat the mullah’s imposition of sex-slavery like conditions on women, tried to liberalize access to education, health, professional and economic avenues and opportunities to women. But just as now, western “political” theory of suppressing everyone else’s rights, or all humanitarian rights to the cause of defeating and crushing the “biggest/baddest” enemy – the mullahcracy and its Islam was deemed a less dangerous and less important threat – even if it was crushing women future and preparing whole generations of men in the sex-slaver mindset.

All the above reports throws up some key common observations,

  1. not only men in authority – but women who would be considered professionally empowered, with recognised public voice, either try to shift the burden of being safe on the women. Sometimes this involves de-facto urging to submit to cultural religious norms of “outside” cultures which clash with the native one on perception of women’s rights. Sometimes this is combined and bolstered by the bogey of not strengthening the far-right.
  2. thus the underlying value system of modern Europe is exposed in its subconscious, perhaps unintended, acknowledgement that all its so-called humanitarian universalist values are subject to preference orderings. The preference orderings are unstated, to allow maximum possible flexibility in contextually and opportunistically applying the officially touted formal values.
  3. for those in power in Europe,  staying in power or preserving their peer group’s political dominance over the state and society comes above any other humanitarian values shouted about. Thus a domestic political power struggle with the “right” is justification enough to relegate women’s rights as below that of Islamic cultural rights.
  4. empowerment of women, professionally, economically, and in political ranks or positions or hierarchies has no relevance for women’s rights as a social segment. Female activists themselves have taken on the generic authority structure attitudes they lambast as patriarchal and male chauvinism, in urging women to submit to cultural values that denigrate and sexually humiliate women.
  5. Europe’s liberalism has actually protected and nurtured a submissive urge towards Islam, and protection of the image and covering up of the reality of Islam. [State_complicity_in_Islamization_in_Germany].

Making women’s rights an exclusive women-only preserve, refusing to face the reality of Islamic connection to attitudes towards women, may not only jeopardise the future liberties of women, but also subvert the wider civil liberties of the freer world. The ideological strategy in the pro-Islamic has to be fought by calling their bluff and exposing the underlying dishonesty and subversion covered up by tactical dissimulation.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

On academics and their open letters : neo-imperialism from afar

Posted on April 22, 2014. Filed under: Bangladesh, China, Christians, Communist, diaspora, economics, economy, Egypt, financial crisis, Gaza, Hindu, Historians with political agenda, History, India, Indian National Congress, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Israel, Jew, Jihad, Kashmiri Pundit, Left, Maoism, Marxism, Muslims, neoimperialism, Pakistan, Palestine, Politics, rape, religion, Salafi, Saudi, Shia, slavery, Sunni, Syria, Taleban, terrorism, Turkey, UK, USA, Wahabi |

 

A group of sixty odd academics in various UK institutions have decided to join the Indian electoral fray by posting an open letter to the “left” leaning Independent under the headline:

Letters: The idea of Modi in power fills us with dread

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/letters/letters-the-idea-of-modi-in-power-fills-us-with-dread-9273298.html

“As the people of India vote to elect their next government, we are deeply concerned at the implications of a Narendra Modi-led BJP government for democracy, pluralism and human rights in India.”

Concern is always nice. Concern about democracy, pluralism, and human rights are particularly nice to hear about. But when these concerns are raised by voice which are only selectively concerned, that troubles us. These academics are not concerned about continued Saudi rule and its impact on the middle East’s prospects for democracy, pluralism and human rights. They are completely silent about Palestinian ruling junta (that is what it is – because each one of them come solidly from military outfits, and once-dubbed-terrorist groups), or for China, or for Pakistan, or Afghanistan. But more of this at the end.

“Narendra Modi is embedded in the Hindu Nationalist movement, namely the RSS and other Sangh Parivar groups, with their history of inciting violence against minorities. Some of these groups stand accused in recent terrorist attacks against civilians.”

The slyness of academic evasiveness starts to reveal itself now. It is the same method by which so-called professional historians create new impressions of truth by weaving propositions into a narrative and creating a new narrative where propositions become blended into certainties. Note the smooth blending of “some” “stand accused”. At one smooth stroke, these academics of high integrity have made an “accusation” appear as “convicted”, and “some” is used to taint the “whole”.

By their logic, the Congress parivar (family) is embedded in a politics which has had very dubious roles, and sometimes outright bias in defacto protecting Muslim violence from Nehru’s time at power during the Partition, with selective targeting of alleged Hindu violence. Usually the Congress hides behind the legalistic excuse – again first used by Nehru to allow the Islamic violence in Noakhali, Bengal to continue while he personally and immediately intervened in Bihar where Muslims were at the receiving end – that when the Congress sees the victims as non-Muslim, non-Christians, it mumbles about law and order being a state prerogative. Whereas, when Muslims appear to be the target, Congress sees it as a union/federal/central issue. This was the cover under which Congress did not intervene in the genocide of Hindus of Jammu and Kashmir in the late 80’s because in this case it was the Muslims who were the perpetrators. The helplessness of the Hindu surviving refugees, was perhaps the root cause of the revival of the Hindutva” movement these academics so lambast – because many Hindus in the wider arena of India began to realize the selective bias of the Indian state under the Nehrus and the Congress in favour of whitewashing and allowing Islamist violence to thrive, especially if such violence was directed against Hindus.

The Congress is therefore imbedded in a movement, that has always protected Islamism and Islamist pretensions, and have at various times carried elements in its governments who are connected to or stand accused of rioting and communal hatred which amount to acts of terrorism.

“We recall the extreme violence by the Hindu Right in Gujarat in 2002 which resulted in the deaths of at least 1,000 people, mostly Muslims. This violence occurred under Modi’s rule, and senior government and police officials have provided testimony of his alleged role in encouraging or permitting it to occur.”

Recalling is a good thing, but if what happened before under a regime historically is proof of repeating the same then the Congress should be even more in the dock – for the Partition riots happened under the government of Jawaharlal Nehru, and ant-Sikh pogroms happened under Rajiv-Gandhi/Congress, and all the riots that happened before the BJP came first to power, with such spectacular ones as in Bhagalpur, were also under various Congress governments.

The academics think that by adding the word “extreme” to “violence” they can make a special case against Modi -as they perhaps feel, and rightly so, that “violence” has been the norm for anti-Hindu attacks by Islamists or Christianists too. Maybe for them those “other” violence are genuine expressions of grievances,

“Some of his close aides have been convicted for their involvement, and legal proceedings are ongoing in the Gujarat High Court which may result in Modi being indicted for his role. He has never apologised for hate speech or contemptuous comments about various groups – including Muslims, Christians, women and Dalits. His closest aide has been censured recently by India’s Election Commission for hate speech used in this election campaign.

“There is widespread agreement about the authoritarian nature of Modi’s rule in Gujarat, further evidenced by the recent sidelining of other senior figures within the BJP. This style of governance can only weaken Indian democracy. “

Different groups of people agree among themselves about different things. Concepts like “authoritarian” are so abstract, and inconcretizable, that tons of academic papers have tried to make academic careers out of hair-splitting over the very definition of “authoritarian”. Many communists are still dewy eyed over Stalin or Mao, and have “widespread agreement” among themselves over their most fortunate appearance on earth. Same goes for Hitler. Jews have “widespread agreement” in spite of a portion of Jewish origin academics hosted by various UK universities to the contrary – that existence of Israel is perfectly justified even at the cost of Palestinians. There is widespread agreement among large swathes of Muslims about the necessity and justifiability of historical violent genocidic jihad, and significant groups have “widespread agreement” among themselves about the benevolence of sex-slavery of the non-Muslim as part of jihad.

Typically when groups do not want to spell out the membership of the group, or are unsure about their numerical strength in proportion to the wider population – they turn to vagueness, or unpinnable conjectures -so that they can never be called out for lying or pretending, and claiming “widespread agreement” is one way of doing that.

The “widespread agreement” is among this tiny coterie of Indian origin academics – probably groomed and selected in the early days of their studenthood and careers by previous generations and peer groups of British interest serving academics, like the Marxist academics who desperately denied any role of triangular Atlantic slave trade in the kickstart of the British industrial revolution.

The curious bit is about somehow Modi being guilty of sidelining “senior” party members as proof of exceptional authoritarianism. All the Nehru-family members have sidelined senior party members to come to power. Does it not make them even more authoritarian already?

“Additionally, the Modi-BJP model of economic growth involves close linking of government with big business, generous transfer of public resources to the wealthy and powerful, and measures harmful to the poor.”

This is actually hilarious. For this is what actually has been happening since Margaret Thatcher in Britain, happened too even under Tony Blair, and has accelerated under Cameron. Do they want to say that all that has led UK down the drain? Or do they have not the courage to spell out those pearls of wisdom to the masters of their souls? It happens at even grander scale in China, where party-apparatchiks and their minions or progeny ruling over millions in their regional satrapys hog investments from a financial sector which is still centrally and nationally owned as well as managed. No, these academic’s can only open their mouth against the “Hindu” India, and the BJP and Narendra Modi. They have not open lettered even on the very entertaining case of Ukraine, where “right wing nationalists” have been on the rampage with alleged support of big biz and oligarchs who grew into tycoons with diversion of state investments. Naturally – since doing so is not in the current interests of the British ruling interests.

“A Modi victory would likely mean greater moral policing, especially of women, increased censorship and vigilantism, and more tensions with India’s neighbours.”

These academics never protested Muslim censorship, moral policing of women, vigilanteism in Indian Kerala, or Uttar Pradesh, or Bihar, or West Bengal, or Assam, or Christians doing exactly the same in Nagaland and Mizoram, and attempting to do the same in Manipur. They cannot mention anything about those other communities or religions or states, because they cannot afford to show these other ones in the same or worse light than the “Hindus” – then they lose the affection of the system.

Overall, then what does it show about such concerted concerns from such groups?

Let us go back to the very beginning again of their open letter. They are claiming that democracy, pluralism, human rights in a one specific distant nation, is going to be trumped if one man and his party or political alliance gets elected in a plural democracy which as yet respects human rights. One can see why they have been allowed to succeed as academics, because they can pretend an intellect which can be used to legitimize the complete lack of any logical capacity on issues that are of interest to a post-imperialist neo-imperialist state.

The west-European political dogma of the political class has now run into a fatal dilemma. They either have to accept that democracy and pluralism can be used, to subvert, overturn, or cover anti-democracy and non-pluralism – which makes themselves open to analysis as tow whether they had been doing and continue to do so themselves.

Or they have to find escape clauses that can be used selectively to target nations and regimes that they see as obstacles in the way of their agenda of global domination, within their dogma that still allows some mantle of legitimacy for their own systems.

The method being tried out in general for a couple of decades, is trying to enforce a so-called consensus or “widespread agreement”, on very vague and often duplicitous or contradictory criteria to judge if the “consensus” value system is being subverted or not. The west-European dogma thinks it has found an escape clause that can cover their selective neo-imperialist agenda – claim that a certain vague outline of democracy, pluralism and human rights exists – whose identification and verification lies solely in their own hands, which then justifies imperialist intervention in other nations, to overturn regimes, assassinate significant individuals, or economically and militarily destroy the fundamentals of that nation.

In order to find out in whose interests any self-proclaimed group of experts, academics, humanitarians, activists actually are acting for – we just need to check out what they remain silent on in contrast to what they choose to pick on. These open-letter academics do not criticize Hamas or Palestinian authority parts for their Jew-cleansing hate campaigns, torture, rape, murder, or that by the so-called freedom-fighters in Syria, or those in Kosovo and Croatia against Serbs in the 90’s, or the Bahraini state, or the Saudis, or Pakistan, or China, or western Ukraine, or Turkey, or Egypt, or even in their own backyard where the state ruthlessly cracks down with full state violence on peaceful protesters against economic destruction of the commoner.

Just compare their stances on these “other” stuff – and you can identify whom they work for, in whose interests.

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

Studying Priyamvada Gopal : how to promote imperialism under an anti-fascist mask.

Posted on April 21, 2014. Filed under: Antisemitism, Arab, Buddhists, Christians, Communist, diaspora, Gaza, Hindu, Historians with political agenda, History, India, Indian National Congress, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Israel, Jew, Jihad, Kashmir, Kashmiri Pundit, Left, Macaulay, Marxism, Muslims, neoimperialism, Pakistan, Palestine, Politics, rape, religion, Salafi, Saudi, slavery, Sunni, Syria, Taleban, terrorism, UK, Uncategorized, USA, Wahabi |

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/14/narendra-modi-extremism-india

Priymavada Gopal’s opening piece in Guardian runs as follows:

Imagine this. A pogrom takes place in a foreign country targeting a minority group, say Christians, with hundreds brutally killed by rampaging mobs, many mutilated and raped, and foetuses removed from pregnant women. Thousands flee destroyed homes. The provincial leader on whose watch these events take place is a politician with open links to extremist Islamist organisations. Three holidaying British citizens are among the massacred. Allegations emerge that this politician’s language helped foment the massacres. With one of his cabinet jailed for her role in the pogroms he becomes the frontrunner to lead this increasingly powerful country. Would you worry?

Yes, is the likely answer, and so you should. In reality, the country is India, the extremists are Hindus, the 2002 Gujarat pogroms targeted Muslims, and the leader in question is Narendra Modi.

It is highly revealing to see how Gopal’s use of English carefully transforms, transmutes and transfers guilt and horror from a widely obvious violent religious movement to another with which she would otherwise have failed to establish any comparative basis. The violent scenario becomes her equation between two religious communities by which she can serve her dual purpose of reducing Jihadi guilt and responsibility on one hand, and raise the other community to the same violent status. “Removing foetuses” is an allegation that is typically dismissed by Indian “Thaparite” historians when they appear historically, as being carried out by Islamist mobs – as in the Moplah rebellion of the 1920’s or thr Partition riots.

In her hypothetical Islamic scenario, she does not equate “muslim” with “extremist”. In her follow on comment she makes that jump, subtly, and glibly – casually bracketing “Hindu” with “extremist”. But the most insidious and devious part of her argument lies in noting that she paints the “victim” in her scenario – as “Christian minority”. She did not say just any minority – for example Buddhist minorities, Sikh minorities and Hindu minorities are – and continue to be targets of Islamist attacks. But Gopal must only mention “Christian minorities”. She knows she is actually appealing to the Christian majoritarian audience of UK, trying to tickle their own underlying religiosity and religious anger and transfer it against the “Hindu”.

“As the candidate of the far-right Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), in current elections he does not dispute his or its links to the extremist Hindu network known as the Sangh Parivar.”

It is interesting to note the casual application of adjectives, which do not need to be, and are never qualified. Gopal thinks that extremist is such a well-defined term, that mere slapping it on anyone from such a high and undisputed authority as herself – is enough. Extremist in one school, one religion, one nation – become moderates, average, centrist in another school, religion, nation. Again Gopal is very careful in disjuncting “Muslim” from “extremist” – she reserves such joining to Muslim only by adding an “ist”, creating the linguistic illusion of the two being separate. No such kindnesses for the “Hindu” though. In the eyes of enemies of the Hindu, any assertiveness or protest or attempt at defining itself independently of self-appointed experts form outside – who however carry their own hidden religious agenda by criticizing religions/cultures selectively – is a criminal offense.

“Modi was a leading activist for its secretive and militaristic arm, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) – whose founder expressed admiration for Hitler, ideologies of racial purity and the virtues of fascism. It is an organisation that, on a good day, looks like the British National party but can operate more like Nazi militias. Known for an authoritarian leadership style, Modi’s only expression of regret for the pogroms compared them to a car running over a puppy, while he labelled Muslim relief camps “baby-making factories”.”

Interestingly, the roots of the current Palestinian movement against Israel, and Jews – has its roots in a certain Grand Mufti of Palestine, who became a close associate, admirer of Hitler, and collaborator of the Nazis. This Grand Mufti had however been helped to get selected to his post by the dubious role of the then British administrator of Palestine. Does this make the British, Christians, current Palestinian movements, any better than the RSS? The Palestinian groups still express admiration for Hitler, for example  http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=655

“Hitler awaited me. I said, ‘You’re the one who killed the Jews?’
He [Hitler] said: ‘Yes. I killed them so you would all know that they are a nation which spreads destruction all over the world. And what I ask of you is to be resilient and patient, concerning the suffering that Palestine is experiencing at their hands.’
I said [to Hitler]: ‘Thanks for the advice.’ “ http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=655&doc_id=6029

“Had Hitler won, Nazism would be an honor that people would be competing to belong to, and not a disgrace punishable by law. Churchill and Roosevelt were alcoholics, and in their youth were questioned more than once about brawls they started in bars, while Hitler hated alcohol and was not addicted to it. He used to go to sleep early and wake up early, and was very organized. These facts have been turned upside down as well, and Satan has been dressed with angels’ wings…”

“Palestinians whose first name is “Hitler”: Hitler Salah [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Sept. 28, 2005], Hitler Abu-Alrab [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Jan. 27, 2005], Hitler Mahmud Abu-Libda [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Dec.18, 2000.] Articles reflecting admiration for Hitler have appeared in both Fatah and Hamas newspapers.”

Millions go as aid and funds diverted for Palestinian movements from UK. Does Gopal lambast them similarly? no. Why not? Because doing so would not be in the interests of the core of the British establishment thinking– which still has its pro-Sunni, Wahabi, anti-Semitic bent of the early 20th century.

“Hindu extremism is rooted in a macho 20th-century response to British colonialism which mocked Hindu “effeminacy”. It is rarely scrutinised in the west, partly because Hinduism is stereotyped as gentle and non-violent in the image of Gandhi – who, ironically, was assassinated by an RSS activist – and benefits from the disproportionate attention given to Islamist violence, which enables other pernicious extremisms to slip under the radar.”

Gopal obviosuly covers up her glee at supposed “hindu effiminacy” just as newly enslaved woman in Islamic hands were often reported to be over-zealous to show her devotion to new masters by sharing in the mocking or humiliation of her own kin. Actually, Gopal’s shoddy scholarship and very poor or rather dishonest understanding of colonial history shows in her lack of reference to studies of militancy within the Hindu long before the British arrived, as in Warrior Ascetics and Indian Empires By William R. Pinch published from within the very Cambridge that Gopal struts about.

“For all its anti-British rhetoric, Hindu nationalism played no significant role in either the freedom struggle or in creating the secular constitution of independent India. But over recent decades, the notion of Hindutva (Hindu-ness) has grown in force along with the unfettered capitalism it espouses: it is responsible for vicious attacks on Christians, murdering missionaries and calling for Muslims to choose between Pakistan and the graveyard. And any victory for a proponent of a nuclearised Hindu India where homosexuality remains criminalised will have consequences that will be felt well beyond the subcontinent, not least in multicultural Britain.”

As for pontificating on who played no significant role in freedom struggle : Gopal follows the cue of Congress favoured so-called professional historians who see political agenda in everyone else other than themselves. The latter served the dual purpose of reassuring the British that the threat of militancy or militancy itself among the Hindu having any role in the removal of the Brits – because the Brits have always been mortally scared of appearing to have been militarily or violently thrashed. It fed into their ancient paranoia of appearing weak before continental brothers. The other purpose was legitimizing the dynastic continuity of British Raj through the Nehruvian one, by projecting Nehru and Gandhi as the sole harbingers of Indian freedom – erasing and denigrating all other threads of Indian freedom struggle and its success. Such an agitprop and construction of the colonial-anti-colonial story served the purposes of all three players in that game – British imperialism, the north-Indian mullah-Hindu-elite collaborator class developing within the Sultanate-Mughal spectrum represented by Motilal and Jawaharlal, and the mercantile fledgling capitalists of India. Making Gandhi the sole victor, then was strategy of redefining the Hindu as passively accepting of all that is thrown against, tolerant of everything and everyone so that the extreme exclusivism, culture erasure memes of Christianity and Islam could continue unhindered even after their British patrons were gone from direct power. Gopal simply parrots the line.

Interestingly, and expectedly, Gopal shows her lack of integrity by not mentioning that the anti-homosexual laws were actually British laws imposed on Hindus – in deference to Islamic and Christian demands when the laws were being formalized for the Raj, and that the current strongest opposition against decriminalizing homosexuality comes from Muslim leadership in India. It is Hindus who have some traditional space for the third “gender”, not Muslims – some of whose voice have already promised alternatives under Islamic law for India. Gopal slyly makes an Islamic and Christian problem into a Hindu one, and then pitched it on her chosen target. When mentioning “vicious attacks” on Christian missionaries, she quietly avoids the role and effect of such missionaries on simple believing communities, the fraud and financial promises used to manipulate and win converts, and the attacks on and exclusion of Hindus by missionaries. When Hindu “missionaries” go for similar work – they are murdered too, and their activity is touted by the likes of Gopal as disruptive and therefore their murder somehow legitimate. Gopal has absorbed British ruling classes’ traditional duplicity rather well.

“The Gujarat pogroms took place after an unexplained fire on a train, which killed Hindu activists and was swiftly attributed by Modi to Islamic forces and Pakistan. Allegations remain that he deliberately prevented authorities from intervening. Contrary to claims, India’s supreme court has not issued him a “clean chit” but criticised him as a “modern-day Nero”.”

For Gopal – the “fire” is “unexplained”, not even unfortunate – or no commiseration expressed for those burned. Notwithstanding that the commission reports did not declare the fire “unexplained”, but rather suspicious. However, the suspicious reports were generated to make it appear that the burned passengers set fire to themselves – so that arson was so strongly suspected and secretly acknowledged by the anti-Hindu forces in the country and abroad – that they swung into action to pitch the blame on the “hindu” themselves. Gopal mentions allegations in a neat weave to create the impression that they were somehow not mere allegations but truths.

“Modi’s moral culpability was recognised by both Britain and the US in denying him a travel visa for several years. Britain has also been attempting, without success, to get justice for the three Britons – Saeed and Sakil Dawood, and Mohammed Aswat – who were chased, cornered and brutally killed, their bodies burned beyond recognition. Now, disgracefully, trumped by British corporate interests in India, many owned by British Indians, governmental links with Modi have been re-established. This rehabilitation is the result of hard lobbying by some Hindutva-friendly politicians and the many front organisations that operate in Britain. We are urged to focus on corporate-friendly Modi, the pogroms being a little mishap to be shrugged off.”

Gopal is at her ridiculous shamelessness best : the US/UK’s rejection of Modi somehow reinforces the guilt of Modi. Is she prepared to do the same for US/UK’s virtual rejection of Palestinian demands and accept that it proves Palestinian guilt? Or UK’s virtual clean chit to allow South American genocide criminals to move freely in UK shows their lack of guilt? Gopal claims to have been at the forefront of fighting fascism – but fails to recognize the reach, spread and power of fascism in the form of Islamism. She want to equate Islamism with Hindu reassertion – and this is where she reveals her secret agenda.

“We should note with concern that some charitable funds raised in Britain, including for the 2001 Gujarat earthquake, went to charities run by Hindu extremists who systematically foment hate. So too must we care about the “saffron pound” sent by long-distance Hindu “patriots” to fund extremism. But investigating Britain’s Hindu zealots doesn’t have the same political currency as pronouncements about getting “tough” on Islamic extremism.

A Modi victory will strengthen the arm of chauvinist forces in Britain, which have already had successes such as shutting down exhibitions, quashing caste discrimination laws, and withdrawing Royal Mail stamps. Under Modi there will be no progress on Kashmir, which will also have far-reaching violent consequences. In the face of a global resurgence of the right we must be alert to all its extremist forms. Britons committed to anti-fascism must not allow their country to abdicate morality.”

The weakest part of Gopals’ argument is however her failure to establish any strong connection between a Modi victory and negative consequences for UK home territories. Shutting down of exhibitions and withdrawal of stamps is far behind the political exigencies by which the London series bombings are related to the global fascist Islamist agenda. Hindu India has little to gain out of blackmailing a puny world player like the UK whose only influence can be exercised through its big-brother the USA. Islamists on the other hand have a lot depending on the UK and vice versa. Her most concrete argument is that of Modi will stall progress on “Kashmir”. Interestingly again, Gopal shows her real affiliations and commitments by dropping the word Jammu – and making one cause with the Islamist agenda of erasing the reality of Hindu and Buddhist Jammu and Ladakh. Since she thinks “Hindu” is against “Kashmir” she is already subscribed to the idea of an Islamist Kashmir – the dream of islamists, many of whom find a niche in her very UK – and against whom she has nothing to say. Not to speak of no Guardian article from her pen about the fascism unleashed by the valley Muslims on Hindu “Kashmiris”.

Gopals’ anti-fascism is very very selective – it only finds it in Hindu reassertion, not in Islamics, or christians, or in the actions of states in the west and its Islamist allies like the Saudis, around the globe and sometimes on their own home territories – which have amounted to and continue to be so – as fascist. So at the end of the day, her shrill cry of sky-is-falling and frantic appeal to the UK to intervene in Indian politics reveals her real motivations – serve the cause of imperialism under cover of anti-fascism – the same face used in Europe and the world since the end of WWII.

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

The Fascist Mullahcracy strikes in Bangladesh : blogger knifed and hacked to death for demanding justice for war-crimes.

Posted on February 16, 2013. Filed under: Arab, Bangladesh, Bengal, Delhi, Hindu, History, India, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Jihad, Muslims, neoimperialism, Pakistan, Palestine, Politics, religion, terrorism, UK |

Rajiv Haider, an activist young blogger from Bangladesh was stabbed and hacked with clovers, to death. His crime : his demand for justice for the war-crimes committed in 1971, by the so-called Razakars, Al-Bdrs, Al-shams, and various Islamist collaborators of the Pakistani occupation forces – running sex-slavery camps, torture chambers, and systematic genocide, massacres, forced conversion of Hindus.

While bloggers of the world seem to have come out in support of the “occupy Shahbag” movement and condemned the murder of Rajiv, Pakistani websites have been reported to have celebrated Rajiv’s murder.

The intolerance of any criticism is a common feature of all Islamists, and whenever a voice protesting any of the genocidic aspects of Islamism is cut off by the assassin’s hand, it is a call-sign of the mullah and his fascism. Pakistan was created by a fascist movement that used the tacit support of British intelligence and post-war demobilization policy of the British Indian army to employ Muslim ex-soldiers go out to train and lead armed Muslim gangs in preparation for jihad – which was given the spin of “direct action” by Jinnah and his Islamist advisors.

The then Congress leadership, in which Gandhiji had been sidelined, and Bose expelled [perhaps suitably “advised” to be lured into “escaping” so that the more amenable sections of the Congress leadership could be played into accepting a separatist Islamist homeland] – seems to have thought of the distant extremes of Punjab, North West Frontier Provinces, Balochs, and Bengalis as peripheral. Perhaps they also remembered that these were the regions which were the earliest militant dissenters against British imperialism – and hence likely to be rebellious against the Delhi/Uttar-Pradesh based “core” they were basing their new empire about. So it would be good riddance in a political sense, to allow these areas to be decimated by jihadis, and the non-Muslims/Hindus of these regions to be broken for generations so that they could not strike back politically against the new dynastic system fashioned along the British system.

In the process, they left the liberal and modernizing forces among the Muslims, decimated and cornered too – and left to the tender mercy of the mullah, who represent the darkest caverns of sadomasochistic evil in the human mind. Now, not only the Pakistanis or the Bangladeshis themselves, but the world suffers from the consequence of what happened in a power sharing game played by British imperialism, Sunni-Wahabi jihadism, and an immature and entirely devoid of statesmanship section of the Congress leadership keen for personal power.

We are facing a resurgent totalitarianism. This time its the totalitarianism of the mullahcracy.

Note: it is fascinating to see that the Bengali intelligentsia, and the Muslim rioting hordes that took over the streets of Kolkata – the supposed capital city of everything progressive, to hound Tasleema Nasreen out  – is not to be seen on the streets protesting Haider’s murder.  Tasleema was a Bangladeshi – so it was okay for  Indian Muslims and mullahcracy to come out into the streets against her. If she could be demonstrated against and rioted against even as a foreigner and for alleged insults she heaped on Islam by exposing the role of Islamists in raping or committing genocide on non-Muslims in Bangladesh – why is it so difficult to come out now similarly to condemn the murder of another Bangladeshi?

And, Indian intellectuals, especially of the Leftist variety from West Bengal – are nowhere to be found with their shrill cries of indignation. Isn’t that funny!

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Salute to the youth at Shahbag, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Posted on February 16, 2013. Filed under: Arab, Army, Bangladesh, Bengal, Christians, Communist, Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Left, Marxism, Muslims, neoimperialism, Pakistan, Palestine, Politics, religion, Taleban, terrorism |

I should have written this a long time ago, and only I am to blame for the lapse. The youth of Bangladesh, at least the significant portion of the youth of the country worth calling “the youth” at all – have “occupied” Shahbag, a spot of spring sunshine and resurgence and hope – in the country’s capital Dhaka.

They have been calling for the execution by hanging of the war-criminals, those Razakar or Jamaat-e-Islami or Islamists accused and convicted of war crimes, or crimes against humanity – of rape, genocide, murder, massacres, tortures during the nine month long direct struggle against Pakistani occupation in 1971.

Quite some time ago, on the eve of the Egyptian youth uprising – I had posted on this blog about the two stage and perhaps three stage struggle that the youth of Egypt would have to undertake. In Islamic societies at the level of Egypt, which had just come out of the phase of pseudo-secular dictatorships in cahoots with Islamist clergy under the carpet and a semi-religious alliance between the dictator, clergy, and western powers – the struggle is two phased.

In the first phase, leftists and liberals are unleashed to lead the overthrow of the autocrat. Underneath, the mullahcracy is prepared for action by their foreign handlers. Once popular anger is publicly poured out to justify withdrawal of support from the erstwhile “western” ally, the mullahcracy is unleashed as a legitimate alternative “government” to prevent “chaos” [whenever that word is unleashed on the public – it implies specific imperialist terminology perfected during European colonial enterprises], and the innate sadism latent in all mullahcracy can be used to eliminate the liberals as well as the radical portion of the youth. Peace of the graveyard then adorns both the religion of peace and the mullahcracy’s handlers in western capitals.

This was the pattern that emerged in Iraq of post WWII, in Shah’s Iran, in Nasser and Sadat’s Egypt, and even in Bangladesh.  The popular anger against the Pakistani sadism that started even as early as 1948 through the continued repression on peasant movements of the Tebhaga phase, was focused primarily by youth and student activists leaning towards the Left through the Language movement. It was this radical section of the youth that drew the politics of Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) towards complete independence and was also used by a section of the Awami League which had already started on a separate path from the old Muslim League.

The liberals and the leftists saw the Liberation struggle as militant revolutionary movement, and the west saw their opportunity in that if the military sadists in their pay in Pakistan failed to properly control the populace, the liberals could be allowed to overthrow the regional junta. Meanwhile the mullahcracy could be prepared for a helpful coup and back-to-Islamism new dictatorship. So Mujib’s entire family was wiped off, including kids (a sign that Islamists were set the task of assassination – typically modern Christian “western” thinking on assassinations go along more targeted individual elimination to serve as a lesson for the descendants) and a new dictatorship came under which the mullahcracy could come to power again . The process of elimination of the youth force and the liberals or left started even during Sk. Mujib’s tenure – indicating that the real militant force in the country, the coercive parts of the state and significant portions of the military – were connected to the mullahcracy and the latter’s supporters in foreign nations.

So as in Egypt, I would have expected at least one generation needing to go by – the youth that rose up in the first overthrow – to fail, to see their hopes dashed in the revival of the mullahcracy who revive all the older repressive forms and even roll back some of the modernizing windows provided by the old dictators. It would be their descendants – who would therefore rebel against the sop provided by the Islamist+western axis, against the mullahcracy itself.

This is what awaits Iran, Egypt or Bangladesh. It will be another cycle to even  the start of the process in Palestine or Saudi Arabia because the Islamist authoritarians that will be or are now in power are yet to reveal their inner sadism fully.

But Shabag in Dhaka is a flicker, a hope of eventual liberation, the first steps to the long walk to freedom from totalitarianism.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Islamo-Judaic Relations : politically correct mythology – 5: late-Medieval to the modern.

Posted on April 7, 2012. Filed under: Arab, Christians, diaspora, Egypt, exile, Gaza, Historians with political agenda, History, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Israel, Jew, Jihad, Muslims, Ottoman, Palestine, religion, Syria, terrorism, Turkey, UK |

Maimonides (1135-1204), was a famous Jewish philosopher and author who fled Spain from a murderous Muslim persecution and took up the job of a physician to Saladin. However over time his experiences come out in his “Letter to Yemen” [1]

“[as punishment] God has hurled us into the midst of this people, the Arabs, who have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us… Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they.”

Maimonides had correspondence with Jews over a large area (yes, including India), and was therefore in a position to compare.

The 9th century Muslim writer al-Jahiz (an Arab settled in Baghdad) wrote: “…the hearts of the Muslims are hardened toward the Jews but inclined toward the Christians.”[2] He pointed out that “in his time the Christians were both socially and economically better off than the Jews.”[3] He explained this by the political resistance of the Jews of Medina to Muhammad.

In this contemporary chronicle from Baghdad by Obadyah the Proselyte, in 1100 C.E.: [7: …the Caliph of Baghdad, al—Muqtadi [1075—1094], had given power to his vizier, Abu Shuja… [who] imposed that each male Jew should wear a yellow badge on his headgear. This was one distinctive sign on the head and the other was on the neck— a piece of lead of the weight of a silver dinar hanging round the neck of every Jew and inscribed with the word dhimmi to signify that the Jew had to pay poll—tax. Jews also had to wear girdles round their wastes. Abu Shuja further imposed two signs on Jewish women. They had to wear a black and a red shoe, and each woman had to have a small brass bell on her neck or shoe, which would tinkle and thus announce the separation of Jewish from Gentile [Muslim] women. He assigned cruel Muslim men to spy upon Jewish women, in order to oppress them with all kinds of curses, humiliation, and spite. The Gentile population used to mock all the Jews, and the mob and their children used to beat up the Jews in all the streets of Baghdad…When a Jew died, who had not paid up the poll—tax [jizya] to the full and was in debt for a small or large amount, the Gentiles did not permit burial until the poll—tax was paid. If the deceased left nothing of value, the Gentiles demanded that other Jews should, with their own money, meet the debt owed by the deceased in poll—tax; otherwise they [threatened] they would burn the body.”

Bernard Lewis refers to attempts at reform in the 19th century Ottoman empire by quoting a Turk “… whereas in former times, in the Ottoman state, the communities were ranked, with the Muslims first, then the Greeks [Greek Orthodox], then the Armenians, then the Jews, now all of them were put on the same level. Some Greeks objected to this, saying: “The government has put us together with the Jews. We were content with the supremacy of Islam.”[4] Most likely this refers to the reform decrees that resulted out of the power struggle between Muhammad Ali of Egypt and the Ottomans.

The British envoy, Dr John Bowring was in Lebanon and Syria in the 1830s, and he writes:

The Mussulmans. . . deeply deplore the loss of that sort of superiority which they all & individually exercised over and against the other sects. . . a Mussulman. . . believes and maintains that a Christian — and still more a Jew — is an inferior being to himself.[5] […] The condition of the Jews forms, perhaps, an exception [to the general improvement of non-Muslims] and cannot be said to have improved comparatively with that of the other Sects[6]

Towards the end of Mameluk rule (from the Mongol withdrawal in 1260 to the Ottoman conquest in 1517), a Franciscan monk named Francesco Suriano lived in the monastery in Jerusalem for about a quarter of a century. He served as Custos Terrae Sanctae or Guardian of the Holy Land for his order for some time and therefore the highest ranking Catholic official there, charged by the pope with overseeing Roman Catholic interests in the Christian holy places and Church affairs in the country. He writes about the Jews in Jerusalem:

“I wish you to know how these dogs of Jews are trampled upon, beaten and ill-treated, as they deserve, by every infidel nation, and this is the just decree of God. They live in this country in such subjection that words cannot describe it. . . there in Jerusalem, where they committed the sin for which they are dispersed throughout the world [i.e., the Crucifixion], they are by God more punished and afflicted than in any other part of the world. And over a long time I have witnessed that . . . No infidel [= Muslim] would touch with his hand a Jew lest he be contaminated but when they wish to beat them, they take off their shoes with which they strike them on the mustaches; the greatest wrong and insult to a man is to call him a Jew. And it is a right notable thing that the Moslems do not accept a Jew into their creed unless he first become a Christian. . . And if they were not subsidized by the Jews of Christendom, the Jews who live in Judea would die like dogs of hunger.”[7]

The Ottoman Empire needed the Jewish expertise in various fields including finances so initially after conquest they brought in some of the more outstanding into service. This was vehemently opposed by the local muslims. Therefore, “The Jewish community… paid the jizya at rates somewhat higher than the [Greek] Orthodox.”[8] Now, even under and after such “great” patronage by the Ottomans, Chateaubriand, (a famous French author), visited Jerusalem in 1806, and later wrote:

Special target of all contempt [i.e., of both Muslims and Christians], they lower their heads without complaint; they suffer all insults without demanding justice; they let themselves be crushed by blows… Penetrate the dwellings of these people, you will find them in frightful poverty…

Nothing can prevent them from turning their gaze towards Zion. When one sees the Jews dispersed throughout the world,… one is probably surprised, but, to be struck by supernatural astonishment, it is necessary to find them in Jerusalem.. . to see these legitimate owners of Judea, slaves and strangers in their own land. One must see them under all oppressions, awaiting a king who is to redeem them.[9]

Neophytos was a Greek Orthodox monk belonging to the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher, which governed Orthodox church affairs in Jerusalem. Around 1834, Neophytos writes:

“As we are on the question of repairs, we must say something about the Jewish Synagogue. One year ago only, seeing the liberal dispositions of Mehemet Ali Pasha [Muhammad Ali] and Ibrahim Pasha [his son, general, and deputy], they dared to speak about their Synagogue. They asked that their House of Prayer, being in a ruinous condition and in danger of falling in, might be repaired. So, those who did not even dare to change a tile on the roof of the Synagogue at one time, now received a permit and a decree to build.”[10]

Felix Bovet, a Swiss Protestant minister who visited Jerusalem in 1858, writes “the Jews are still, to this day, the most miserable part of the population of the Holy City.”[11] Bovet quotes a French convert to Islam, who wrote: “the Jerusalem Jew only half lives, scarcely daring to breathe.”[12]

References
1. Maimonides, “Epistle to Yemen,” in David Hartman, ed., Crisis and Leadership: Epistles of Maimonides (tr. A Halkin; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society 1985), p 126.

2. Quoted in Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam (Princeton 1984), pp 59-60.

3. Words of Moshe Sharon, op. cit., p 94; also see Carlo Panella, Il ‘Complotto Ebraico’ — L’antisemitismo islamico da Maometto a Bin Laden (Torino: Lindau 2005), p 89

4. Bernard Lewis, What Went Wrong? (London: Orion House 2002), p 104.

5. Quoted in William R Polk, The Opening of South Lebanon, 1788-1840 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1963), p 138. Other 19th century Western observers noted the same Arab-Muslim Judeophobia, as quoted by Saul S Friedman, Land of Dust (Washington, DC: University Press of America 1982), p 136.

6. William R Polk, The Opening of South Lebanon, 1788-1840 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1963), p 138.

7. Francesco Suriano, Treatise on the Holy Land (Jerusalem: Franciscan Press, 1949) [in original: Trattato di Terra Santa e dell’Oriente], pp 101-02. For a scholarly view of the Jews in Jerusalem in the late Mamluk period, when Suriano lived there, see Avraham David in “The Mamluk Period” in Israel: People, Land, State (Avigdor Shinan, ed.: Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, 2005).

8. Amnon Cohen, “On the Realities of the Millet System: Jerusalem in the 16th century,” in B Braude and B Lewis, Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire (New York: Holmes & Meier 1982), p 14.

9. Chateaubriand, Itinéraire de Paris à Jérusalem (Paris: Juilliard 1964), pp 426-427.

10. Neophytos, Extracts from Annals of Palestine 1821-1841 (Jerusalem, Ariel Publishing House, 1979; compiled by Eli Schiller), p 78. Originally published in Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society, vol. XVIII (1938; tr S N Spyridon).

11. Felix Bovet, Egypt, Palestine, and Phoenicia (Eng. trans; London: 1872), p 180

12. Ibid., p 181.

Discussion

The more one studies the history of Islamic repression on the Jews, the more one comes up with the stark reality that in many many ways, the Islamic treatment simply picked up and intensified the iconoclastic violence and genocidic tendencies latent within the Churches of east. In many many ways, the appearance of the Islamics provided a tool and a hope in the eastern churches to actually achieve what they had so far failed to do – the complete elimination of the Jews as a physical reality.

From this started a whole lot of processes :

(1) realizing that the Jews will remain strongly resistant to conversion in spite of certain disgruntled Jews switching allegiance and acting against their own origin community (not surprising for Hindus of India!). As long as the Jews remained adamant to conversion, Jews are a problem to the two other claimants of the sole rights to the Abrahamic legacy (which in turn in its proselytizing/converting form is a most effective tool for imperialism).

(2) try and blame all atrocities , or even invent genocide/exile/enslavement on a grand scale and assign it to “Romans” (not the Church primarily)

(3) suppress all references to non-genocidic/encouraging behaviour from “Roman” authorities

(4) when instigating “Roman” authorities as much as possible to eliminate the Jews was not achieving this goal, the Islamists were a “Godsend”. This is shown in the active collaboration of the Eastern Churches leadership with the Islamists and Jihadists to eliminate and repress Jews to an extent they could only rant about but not actually implement under “Roman” rule. The combined effort achieves the target to a much greater degree than ever achieved before in the pre-Islamic period.

(5) jihadis use this eagerness in Church leadership to intensify their dhimma policy – which is not toleration as represented by Islamists and their non-Muslim apologists, neither is it a purely “social discrimination” non-physical-violence non-Jihad thing. It is a double edged sword, by first enforcing a one-sided set of extremely harsh and almost impossible to meet conditions on the Jews, and then systematically and regularly claim that the “covenants” of the dhimma had been broken so jihad was now applicable to the captive population of dhimmis.

(6) gradually Jihadis tighten the noose on Levantine non-Muslims, especially Christians who are increasingly subjected to forced conversions, genocide and enslavement once the Islamists gain a foothold with their leaders’ initial weaknesses, and this in turn makes the Christian leadership more and more eager to please the Islamists. They start suppressing evidence of Jihadi violence on Christians (unfortunately even the most enlightened so-called paragons of tolerance Ottoman behaviour in this regard is also historically documented) and increase their collaboration in persecution of Jews in the hope of achieving their aims of cleansing of the land of the Jews.

(7) this leads to the western churches being ideologically cornered since eastern churches have to justify their collaboration with the Islamics on the “original sin” or so called responsibility of “deicide”. This concept of collective responsibility was taken to its extreme both by the christians as well as the muslim leadership, but finds its perfection under Islamic leadership of christianity. So the major “expulsions” and “genocides” have to be put at the door of the Roman empire BEFORE the acceptance of Christianity as a Roman imperial religion.

“Sado-masochism” – the almost sexual enjoyment of giving and receiving intense pain (mental as well as physical)- is perhaps a key to understand this modern (and not so modern) Christian reaction against the Jews which intensified under Islamic leadership over the greater part of Christian leadership’s mindset. Its intensity and naked expression in Jihadi Islam is simply the next stage of development from Christian attitudes towards the origin – perhaps a generalization of father-son antagonistic dynamic so insightfully discovered by a man of Jewish origins, Sigmund Freud. The Judaic being the father, and Christianity the elder born, and Islam the younger, with the sons having a raging sibling rivalry, a shared hatred of the father who stands between them and the mother – the legacy of the Abrahamic.

Now why should it find expression in some Indians who were born as Hindus? Perhaps the same mindset that led to a few Jewish converts into Islam or Christianity – an unconscious attraction for the possibilities of gratifying their sado-masochastic tendencies!

Each of the points (1)-(7) can be supported with documented sources. I have already mentioned once on the modern thinking in a large part “professional historians” on the so-called “greater role” of Romans in the “diaspora”. Apparently many like the one I mentioned have argued for the whole thing being a “myth”(!!) and that there was really no traumatic dispersal at the scales of hundreds of thousands or millions under the Romans [ there are detailed arguments about the 1.1 million being absurd based on actual estimates of food production, archaeological reconstructions of living conditions and settlement estimates, etc.] – according to these “experts”.

Maybe the pro-Islamics of all colours should unite against these very Jewish profs and academics as being part of a Zionist conspiracy with overt pro-Palestinian sympathies but actually undermining the whole Islamist cause!! Denying the key-pivot of Roman role in Diaspora combined with source narrative claims from Islamists themselves about atrocities and genocide perpetrated by Muslims on the Jews is problematic for the Islamist-line of Palestinian “movement”.

Part 4

To be continued.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Islamo-Judaic Relations : politically correct mythology – 4 : From departure of Muhammad to Islamist Conquest of Palestine and Syria

Posted on March 1, 2012. Filed under: Antisemitism, Arab, Christians, diaspora, Egypt, exile, Gaza, Historians with political agenda, History, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Israel, Jew, Jihad, Muslims, Palestine, religion, Roman, Syria, terrorism |

From the successful genocide at Khyber and land grab, in the late 620’s until his death, Muhammad tried to expand the reach of his army towards Syria and Palestine. His first attempt with an open declared campaign (for the first time in his life, because previously he had always relied on surprise and deception) against Heraclius was a disaster, and at this time we have reports of increasing dissent against his leadership. So Muhammad renewed his earlier strategy of covert and piecemeal targeting of isolated communities and tribes.

During this phase he was taken ill and passed away, according to the Hadiths, exactly at the time when a new and larger expedition was being planned against the then Byzantine held territories of Syria and Palestine. The expedition did take off, and similar expeditions were then subsequently organized until finally at the Battle of Yarmouk a large Byzantine army was defeated and Heraclius abandoned Syria and Palestine and went back to Constantinople. This is just within 10 years of Khyber. However many cities held out.

Some Bedouin nomadic tribes at this period did hover around in the frontierland between Byzantium and beyond (the southern desert of Palestine, west of the Euphrates (Hira) in the Syrian desert, Palmyra), where for a long time due to the competition with the persians, the Byzantines had come to an arrangement of benefits and payment to enlist the large nomadic Arab tribes as a bulwark against raids from beyond. The arable inner regions and the cities were populated by Aramaic speaking Jews and Christians. The contemporary writings of the Church Fathers and in Talmudic sources show that they had little or no identification/sympathy with the Bedouins (who spoke a different language) and actually were quite hostile because they faced constant raids. [1]

Moshe Gil, [1] quotes surviving sources from the defeated indigenous non-Muslim populations, to show that they

“reflect the attitude of the towns and villages in Palestine quite accurately; the attitude of a sedentary population, of farmers and craftsmen, toward nomads whose source of income is the camel and who frequently attack the towns, pillage and slaughter the inhabitants, and endanger the lives of the wayfarer. These sources completely contradict the argument to the effect that the villagers and townsmen in Palestine accepted the invasion of those tribes bearing the banner of Islam with open arms of their so-called racial affinity.” [This is a copyrighted book, so I cannot quote extensively. Those interested do look up]

The whole Gaza region up to Kaiseria [Caesarea] was sacked and devastated in the campaign of 634. Four thousand Jewish, Christian, and Samaritan peasants who defended their land were massacred. The villages of the Negev were looted. Cities such as Jerusalem, Gaza, Jaffa, Caesarea, Nablus, and Beth Shean were isolated and closed their gates. In his sermon on Christmas day 634 CE, the patriarch of Jerusalem, Sophronius, says “the Christians are being forcibly kept in Jerusalem…chained and nailed by fear of the Saracens, whose savage, barbarous and bloody sword kept them locked up in the town”. In 636, Sophronius, [Day of the Epiphany 636], writes of the destruction of the churches and monasteries, the sacked towns, the fields laid waste, the villages burned down by the “nomads” [generic name for Arabs including Islamics whom the Byzantine Christians were yet to recognize as any significant independent faith system] who were overrunning the country. In a letter the same year to Sergius, the patriarch of Constantinople, he mentions the ravages wrought by the Arabs. Thousands of people perished in 639, falling victim to the raids as well as the famine and plague that resulted from these destructions. [2] For Jerusalem, according to one version of the terms of the treaty with the Patriarch for surrender, “Jews” would not be allowed to remain within the city.

According to Baladhuri (d. 892 C.E. – his name also comes up in connection with records of campaigns in Sindh in India), 40,000 Jews [20,000 according to some translations] lived in Caesarea alone at the Arab conquest, after which all trace of them is lost. [3] Tabari further reports that 4000 survivors were taken prisoner and transported out of the region and given as slaves to Muslims in Al-Jurf. [4]

Gil further shows that the period of the conquest was also that of the destruction of the synagogues and churches of the Byzantine era, remnants of which have been turning up in archaeological discoveries. Towns in the western strip and the central strip (the region of the red sand hills and the swamps) in the Sharon, decreased from fifty-eight to seventeen. It is estimated that the erosion of the soil from the western slopes of the Judaean mountains reached as a result of the decultivation during the Muslim period to almost 2,000 to 4,000 cubic meters. The direct evidence of the destruction of agriculture and the desertion of the villages is shown by the fact that the papyri of Nessana are completely discontinued after the year 700. [1]

Similar conclusions have been reached in archaeological analysis with Negev being reduced to a wasteland. Gil has translated these observations by the 10th century Karaite [The rationalist movement within Judaism started by Maimonides] commentator Yefet b. Ali recording that there was great destruction in Palestine and that there were places which remained uninhabited, while there were other places to which people returned and settled:

“the places which were completely destroyed so that no memory of them remains, like Samaria…are the places which have been destroyed and ruined, but despite this there are guards and people living there, such as Hebron and others” [1]

There is no reason to expect, like some of us probably do – that just within 10 years the entire spirit of Badr, Khyber would be forgotten and abandoned by Islamism – all of a sudden when they overrun Palestine.

[1] Moshe Gil, A History of Palestine, 634-1099

[2] Bat Yeor, “Islam and the Dhimmis”, The Jerusalem Quarterly, 1987, Vol. 42,

[3] The origins of the Islamic state, being a translation from the Arabic, accompanied with annotations, geographic and historic notes of the Kitab futuh al-buldan of al-Imam abu-l Abbas Ahmad ibn-Jabir al-Baladhuri -p213 [4] Ibid p216-218

Part 3

Part 5

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Islamo-Judaic Relations : politically correct mythology – 2 (the strange case of no-Roman-trauma)

Posted on February 4, 2012. Filed under: Antisemitism, Babylon, diaspora, exile, Israel, Palestine, religion, Roman |

Who repressed the Jews or expelled them “more” -Babylonians, Romans or Muslims? The case of Babylonian versus Roman debate.

(the “Roman violence on the Jews and the resultant Jewish Diaspora” : )

The Myth : “In A.D. 70, and again in 135, the Roman Empire brutally put down Jewish revolts in Judea, destroying Jerusalem, killing hundreds of thousands of Jews and sending hundreds of thousands more into slavery and exile.

Hebrew University professor, Yisrael Yuval, dubs the above a “myth” in “The Myth of the Jewish Exile from the Land of Israel: A Demonstration of Irenic Scholarship” Common Knowledge – Volume 12, Issue 1, Winter 2006, pp. 16-33

“The first point to make is that well before the revolt against Rome in 66-70 c.e., there were Jewish communities outside Palestine, most notably in Babylonia and in Egypt, but elsewhere as well. References to the dispersal of the Jewish people throughout the civilized world are found in the book of Esther, Josephus, and Philo. There is no indication that these communities were small, satellite communities. There is no contemporary 1st and 2nd centuries c.e evidence that anything like an exile took place. The Romans crushed two Jewish revolts in 66-70 c.e. and in 132-135 c.e. As per Josephus, the rebels were killed, and many of the Jews starved to death.”

Some POW’s were sent to Rome, and others were sold in Libya. But nowhere does Josephus speak of Jews being taken into exile. Yuval claims that there is much evidence to the contrary and apparently there was always Jewish emigration from the Land of Israel.

The first known reference to the exile of the Jews occurs in remarks attributed to the third century Palestinian rabbi, R. Yohanan found in the Babylonian Talmud, a work that received its final formulation several centuries later (c. 500 c.e.): “Our House has been destroyed, our Temple burnt, and we ourselves exiled from our land” (Gittin). The editor/s of the Talmud apparently referred this statement to the Roman exile. Similar statements can be found elsewhere in the Babylonian Talmud attributing to rabbis living in the Land of Israel the view that the Romans were responsible for the destruction of the House, the burning of the temple, and the exile from the land. Yuval however says that on examining other Babylonian sources, and most sources from Israel, the statements “most likely” refer to the First Temple, and the exile by the Babylonians.

 Yuval summarizes the sources as:
“In other words, it seems that the triple expression—destruction of the House, burning of the Temple, exile from the land—originally (in the sources from the Land of Israel) referred to the First Temple and were applied to the Second Temple only in Babylonia.10 In the Tannaitic and early Amoraic sources, Rome is accused only of destroying the Temple, not of exiling the people from their land.11 A broad historical and national outlook, one that viewed the “Exile of Edom” (Rome being identified with the biblical Edom) as a political result of forced expulsion, did not survive from this period. Nor would such a view have been appropriate to the political reality and the conditions of Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel, which were certainly very well known to the members of that generation.”

Note that Yuval is here being cautious as academics are trained to be – he carefully phrases his conclusion in the typical modern professional historian’s style of weaving new narratives within the old by posing speculating questions hinting at alternatives, but he does not commit entirely to this alternative because he might not have the incontrovertible proof and therefore his claim remains a hypothesis.
Chaim Milikowsky, professor and past chairman of the Talmud department at Bar Ilan university, has argued that in 2nd and 3rd century tannaitic sources, the Hebrew term rendered as “exile” has the meaning of political subjugation rather than physically being driven from the land (cited in Yuval, p. 19, n.1)  Commentators propose that “Zionists” supposedly were somewhat at a loss to explain how Jewish rabbis could create the Mishnah and subsequently the Talmud of the Land of Israel if there was a mass exile. Of course here the assumption is that “mass exiles” are exiles of whole nations or countries with nothing left behind.

An interesting historical paradox is of course overlooked here : what made the Babylonian “exile” so qualitatively different from the Roman “one”? The impression of a massive exile and trauma under Babylon is based on the same Jewish scholarly voices that are derided for fraudulently claiming similar trauma at the hands of the Roman. So if the Jews in the Roman period deliberately, or out of ignorance, drew upon and confused with the trauma of a period much earlier – what makes their representation of the Babylonian trauma so reliable and truthful? What if the Jews were also “emigrating” “all the time” even under the heyday of Babylonian rule? What if they were making up or confusing the Babylonian interlude with earlier reconstructions of trauma – say from the Egyptian “experience”? Modern archeologists and historians like Prof Zahi Hawas, seem to strongly support the theory [and conclusion] that Pharaonic society was not a “slave” society, and therefore the accusations of slavery within the Mosaic tradition is similarly suspect? 

By challenging and denying the reliability of one historical reconstruction of trauma by the use of another assumed historical trauma, even the earlier justifying one becomes unreliable and suspect – thereby making the whole exercise a futile speculation.

However, for the comparative trauma debate – modern scholarship appears to go for the version that Roman “atrocities” were a myth invented by “Zionists”. I would rather not go into the problematic aspects that this raises: was it the need to absolve an European “iconic heritage” (the Roman) from responsibilities of anti-Semitism? Was this need based on a panicked over-reaction to trying to absolve the role of the early Church in anti-Semitism and hence by association the modern Church? Was the urge to delegitimize the “Zionist” an overkill? These are issues to be debated or explored in how subconscious hidden political inclinations might still be colouring historiography – but for our purposes, it seems then that the Romans were not the chief culprits and they were perhaps not the cause of Jewish trauma as per modern so-called professional historians.

Part 1

Part 3

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Islamo-Judaic Relations : politically correct mythology – 1

Posted on January 27, 2012. Filed under: Islam, Islamic propaganda, Israel, Palestine |

History of Islamo-Judaic Relations

Some propose that what the Islamist loss to European Colonial powers did was to bring back the worst of Islamism that had been suppressed during the march of time. As Islam conquered new areas, it is claimed to have lost most of its unsavory practices in order to retain the conquests and a moderation was underway. This moderation is in turn claimed to have got defeated along with loss of political power and the so-called reversal is really a reaction to this defeat.

I also thought so for a long time. Then I realized that a lot of the representations of “moderation” or “compromises” were actually a selection of narratives under the British and German fight over how to represent Islam. The British colonial planners hated the Ottomans and upped the Arabs. The Germans took up nosing around with the Ottomans and took up upping them. In the process, and especially post WWI – the contrarian researchers like Margoulis (the noted linguist and not another scholar currently active in a similar domain) are carefully allowed to slip out of the “public” academics.

Delving down, none of the horrors seemed to have decreases in any manner over the centuries. We find narratives being written down in the 13th to the 17th century that show no decrease at all. Suddenly in the era of European colonial success we begin to find selective “whitewashing” (simply not bringing forward the “horrible”) in the versions meant for public consumption. There are open acknowledgments from the European translators of Islamic texts that they find it impossible for their “tastes” to translate faithfully all the atrocities mentioned. Just like in India, the non-translation and editing out of the more “horrible” stuff creates the impression that the “horror” went down as time passed.

Preliminary considerations as to land-rights or occupation rights

Arabs choose a certain time-frame – that is the post Islamic conquest of Syria and Palestine – to push for dissolution of the Israeli state, or as it comes out in many of the narratives of aspirations by the major Islamist organizations supporting the current Palestinian self-determination movement – to put Jews back to their “original state under Islam”. These Arabs or Islamists fail to consider the previous time frame when the Jews were independent of Islamic subjugation, or Arab rule. But if selectivity of time-frame is used as justification, the opposite view that before the Arab conquest, Arabs were not present on Jewish lands and that they had simply come from Arabia to colonize, or that the Arabs lost out to Kurds and Turks afterwards, and it was the Ottoman Turks who ruled the area before 20th century and not the Arabs – must also be considered.

Now whether all Arabs have their original homeland in southern peninsula or not – is an interesting issue, and one can simply try raising this issue with any Arab one happens to know. The Yemenis still have some historical claims of culture [perhaps linked to Sabataens], but generally the coastal Arabs seem to have had a long-standing reputation of being pirates according to other cultures in the region- as claimed in Graeco-Roman records, and therefore their habitat and continuity of that “spirit of adventure” have been continuously studied [right up to the British period when British warships were used to “finish” off the piracy in the Gulf from “leading” Muslim tribes]. I would say most academics would still agree that the modern Arabs have been living in the peninsula for a long long time and they were usually not allowed to expand outside that perimeter by the other strong empires or historical powers. Even the

Jews were found to be useful as labour and skilled labour in later times [Egyptian historians like Zahi Hawas refuse to accept that slavery was widespread or that slave labour was the foundation of the Pharaonic economy, and therefore the presence of Jews as labour force in the Nile delta could only mean as paid skilled labour]- but Arabs are not mentioned except as harvesters or transporters of myrrh, and more of a nuisance (there are some critical Egyptian references to the Bedu).  So their cultural presence in Palestine is not provable before the Islamic Arab conquest.

The first narrative claims of exile/enforced migration was when Babylonians took part of them – mostly the elite – to Babylon. But there were sufficient numbers left behind because this gave rise to sectarian difference later on between those who had been allowed to stay behind and those who later on returned. Moreover Cyrus allowed those Babylonian Jews who wanted to, to return. Neither the internal difference nor the question of return would have arisen if the Jews had all been “cleaned up”! From there it did not go straight to Roman rule. It went through the Greek imperialism and then they had the Macabean uprising leading to an independent principality. Romans destroyed the temple built by Herod but complete expulsion of all Jews is hard to prove. Byzantines did not expel Jews in any significant numbers, and in fact Jews were persecuted by the Spanish Goths at the time of the first Arab raids on Spain – on suspicion of being collaborators of the Byzantines.

In the Persian(Parthian)-Byzantine conflict, a portion of the Jews did
side with the Byzantines. Did it lead to expulsion? Byzantium actually won in the end (Heraclius). It is sometimes claimed that the population dwindled under “taxation” thereby avoiding the discussion on any possible role of islamic states/regimes/armies. But why should taxation decrease population? Islamists, including the Hamas claimed that Jews had always been protected under Islam.

Okay, so those who could not  pay the taxes converted? Migrated out? If out-migration happened because of “taxation” then this is an acknowledgment that Jews were subjected to discriminatory taxation beyond their means – by the Muslims. For otherwise, all populations should have decreased under taxation and not just the Jews.

The Christian versus Islamic role debate

Christians are blamed for Jew-cide. Crusaders are definitely reported to have killed Jews. They are also reported to have killed Muslims, and even Christians. So this cannot be seen as part of war and general war-culture of those times? Such excuses are only applicable if they excuse Islamic war-“crimes” of historical periods?

For the sake of argument let us assume that Crusaders expelled all Jews and that  “kind” Muslims let them return [Which is not true but more of that later]. So the Jews were returning already from the time after the Crusades? And their “return” increased? In spite of constant protests and demands that Jews should not be allowed to settle? But then it is already being acknowledged that Jews were there for the previous five hundred years from 1948 since the fall of the Crusader kingdoms.

How can one “kick” a “nation” or whole community out repeatedly? Unless some were definitely not kicked out? Or why allow some one to “return” if they did not have a “homeland” to return to? The lead up to 1948 involved the antics of the so-called Grand Mufti of the region, the various conflicts and open declarations of intent to expel the Jews, agitating to stop Jewish immigration from the Muslim side. We even know that the Brits actually gave in to this Islamist demand and tried to restrict Jewish inflow. At that stage, Jews were buying land – they were not simply squatting or occupying land. The Grand Mufti, his political hobnobbing with both the Nazis and his appointment by the care-taker British authorities [over ana above more moderate Islamists and specific hints now available from old records as to how he might have been encouraged by some British officials to make it look tough for the Jews] is another lurid side of this story that is often not told and explored as to what effect it might have had on the fledgling Jewish state hopefuls.

Now if I see a hostile community who have openly declared intent to finish me off, if they get half a chance, I will treat the members of that community with suspicion, and every sign of hostile preparation as a preparation to wipe me out. I would definitely try to restrict the possibility. A common legalese on behalf of the Palestinians goes as follows:

I owned land, kicked out for whatever reason, house is sold on to numerous people over the years, after 80 years, I decide to come back(because of my personal circumstances) and say I used to live there, get out of my property. Is that fair to the guy who bought the house to be kicked out after many years and confined to one small room out of the house?

Apart from historical untruths as to how legally these properties were
“bought”, the legal argument itself is fallacious. Jews were in continuous
occupation of the land, maybe their numbers dwindled, and they lost out state power. “Kicked out for whatever reasons” is a highly callous attitude.

Those reasons are all-important. Who kicked whom for what. Those who
try to avoid the reasons do so because they perhaps have some thing to hide. In the case of “kicking Jews” – the Islamic reason is out and out ideological, racial and genocidic. The Islamic narratives themselves are absolutely honest about which Muslims kicked “Jews” for what motivation? The Badr wars, the genocide of Banu Quraizah, the battle of Khyber. It is not Judaic claim- it is all there in the most respected texts of Islam. From the legal viewpoint, suppose we say that the occupants were “kicked out” and new residents bought them from the “possessors”. Now if the initial act of “kicking out” was illegal then the subsequent occupation was illegal.

If you buy stolen goods or “illegally occupied” property/object then your rights are not legally acceptable. At least not in most modern legal thinking (only in Islamic thinking there is a justification for that in the context of property/women obtained through jihad/ghazwa and Islamic jurisprudential basis for this starts in Al Baqara of Quran and explicitly mentioned in the Hidaya).

continued in part 2

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

When Iran and Aarb League agree: revolutions are bad if they are not under their control

Posted on March 20, 2011. Filed under: Afghanistan, India, Iran, Islam, Israel, Left, Muslims, Palestine, Russia, UK, USA |

When do we hear the Arab League and Iran agreeing on something? Now both do not like the actions undertaken under the no-fly-zone agreement. One is trying to condemn “indiscriminate” bombing, and the other warning against allowing western dominance. Both groups want the popular uprisings (they are popular, by all indications) to serve their agenda, rise and fall and bark according to the sweet wills and paranoid ambitions of the ayatollahs and sheiks and emirs. They are as much scared of revolutions as Americans or the West are. This is the key to understand the statements being made and potential behaviour from the existing leaders of the Arab world and Iran over the Libyan action.

Americans should not have said that they were leading it but allow UK or France to do the honours. Moreover they have a short window in which to decimate Gaddafi’s forces, and restock the opposition.

As for Russia, India or anyone else mumbling and playing it safe, it is important to realize that historical turning points do not stay on forever. It is a tendency in Indian analysis of situations to be confounded by complex contradictions in political developments and get stuck in an overemphasis on “nothing is entirely black and white” which then becomes the excuse for decision paralysis. On the other hand it is this same “nothing is black and white” mindset to stick to paradigms and never update even with real experiences. Thus it appears that policy-makers of India have a rigid mindset to think that the Islamic regions do not have forces and dynamics of change within themselves that are not entirely mullahcratic.

It is critical to support the non-mullahcratic component against the mullahcratic component in the uprisings or movements that at the moment have converged on the point of common hatred against their ruling regimes. If we don’t support the more modernizing trends within these movements, the elite of Islamic systems will hijack this popular sentiment into their pet agenda – hatred of the “qufr”, wallowing in the Sharia, and erasure of the Jews as a first step towards erasure of all perceived obstacles to their absolute mullahcracy.

The West once made the blunder of encouraging Islamism and authoritarian dynastic or dictatorial regimes in their short-sighted strategy of tackling the so called Red-Menace. As a result the world suffers from the genocidal and totalitarian mindset of the mullahcracy.

The same blunder should not be repeated. It is important for the younger generations within the uprisings to be aware that both the Arab and Iranian leadership, the Islamic organizations, as well as the West, or even say China, (Russia and China are more scared of getting burnt unnecessarily and therefore non-intervention) are scared of independent popular uprisings. They want these revolutions to serve their own desires. Iran wants to paint these revolutions as anti-Israel and will rant and rail and turn against the revolution if that does not happen. Arab league wants to maintain their filthy rich lifestyles of their emirs and their sheikhs and the network of feudal patronage and arbitrary power. The west wants a pliable regime popular or not.

For the West or less-sectarian countries like India, it is crucial to realize that it is in their interest to encourage the modernizing sections within these revolutions. Next time around there will be little opportunity left to correct such errors as made in wiping out modernizers in Afghanistan, Iran or Iraq or even Saudi Arabia.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The geopolitics of the Gaza adventure

Posted on June 5, 2010. Filed under: Arab, Gaza, India, Iran, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Israel, Jihad, Kashmir, Left, Marxism, Muslims, Pakistan, Palestine, Politics, Russia, Syria, terrorism, Turkey, UK |

The recent fiasco in the “Gaza adventure” throws up in sharp light the current tomfoolery that is being played on Asia. Since the fall of USSR there was a temporary lull in pandering to Islamist violence from the west. Within that space, the Jihadis consolidated and turned their attention from Russia towards their real objectives in Asia – Israel and India. They intensified their campaign against India with Jammu and Kashmir, and their rocket/bombing campaigns against Israelis, from both within Lebanon and the Gaza strip.

Their real ambitions is for global domination, and the real long term targets for Islam – militant Jihad and Ghazwas to convert, loot, rape and take over non-Muslim majority nations. This became clear to the racially and colour blinded ideology of the west only when the Jihadis turned their attention directly to pricking the west, as part of their global strategy to tie down western forces away from any protective interest the west may develop for Israel and India.

The calculations were quite clear and as consistently seen in the tactics of Islamist groups ranged against their Asian targets.

(1) Carry out terrorist outrages against both military and civilians of Israel and India, so that the military of these nations are forced to react. Use the terror attacks to stimulate survivor instincts within the civilians in the hope that they will create political pressure on their governments not to retaliate. Use the internationally conformed limitations within which national armies have to work as a tactical field advantage.

(2) Pressurize Muslims living within the territory of these nations to take sides, which in the ultimate analysis has always been historically proved to be on the position that “jihad cannot or should not be opposed violently” by Muslims anywhere. In every situation of war or conflict where Islamism has taken up arms to subjugate non-Muslims among them or beside them, the Muslim population has never ever really taken any effective steps to resist such Jihadi outrages on non-Muslims. In Middle East, in now Pakistan occupied western India, or in then East Pakistan now Bangladesh in 1971, large Muslim populations which apparently showed all outward forms of communal amity did not do anything to stop Jihadi outrages on non-Muslims and in many instance took advantage of the situation to possess land, wealth and women of non-Muslims. This practice is consistent with the basic line of Islamist expansion as formulated in their core texts.

(3) Simultaneously carry out a publicity campaign among western nations – especially those in academia and media who for various reasons have had anti-establishment fantasies all the while being sustained by the establishment. There have always been a toying undercurrent with Marxist thinking in the west, especially in the British universities beginning in the post war radicalism phase of 60’s. Probably this was maintained out of two tactical considerations by the authorities – as a honey trap to confine radical intellectuals so that they did not go out to do more damage in the outer world, and at the same time work as a captive experiment where the Leftist thought process could be observed and manipulated. Problem with this game is that it basically creates a reward system for radicalism and anti-establishment sentiments which over time will draw more and more opportunist political activists who will use this legitimacy to carry out their personal political agendas.

The Islamists used this sympathetic base from within the western establishment. It was natural that with the fall of the USSR and an overtly nationalistic and dictatorial redefinition under Putin the western establishment radicals were without a cause to champion. This they now found in championing the cause of supposedly repressed Islamic communities under Israel and India.

(4) To drive home the Islamist representation of reality, Islamists selectively targeted western institutions with violence. Having placed a pro-Islamist radical western sympathy base among the very vocal academia, media, NGO’s, charities etc, such targeting could be used to pretend that all this was because the west was not doing enough to destroy Israel and India or dismember these countries so that the Jihadis could occupy the dismembered portions. The general risk avoidance of the civilian populations of prosperous economies would ensure that there would be a backlash against any government retaliation.

(5) Once the western core of governments or regimes realized the new trends, the policy formulated was perhaps two pronged : give the Jihadis a new target of shifting attention towards Russia in Chechnyia and adjoining Muslim dominated areas sensitive for Russian security, and towards Eastern Turkmenistan currently under Chinese occupation. Simultaneously, overt pressure would be put on both India and Israel to concede more towards Islamist demands. It is possible that the first hesitant and obviously confused (read secret intense debate and therefore indecision) implementation of this policy was in the Balkans with the ultimate creation of a Muslim homeland within Europe.

(6) The success of the Croatian case showed the Jihadis the way forward, and they now know almost all the manipulative strings that they can use to pressurize the west into conceding more and more Islamist homelands carved out of non-Muslim dominated areas, from where they will launch more and more Jihadi campaigns.

The western strategists are losing this game. It is crucial that Israel and Indian people do not get confused by the manipulative propaganda and representations of Islamists and their non-Muslim sympathizers, and see to it that regimes capable of resisting western pressures are put in government.

The national armies and even special intervention forces have to work under international forms and restrictions that will be stringently applied by Islamists and their sympathizers for their ulterior motives. In both countries there should be targeted erasure of the sources of support for Jihad, or all anti-state terror under forces that do not officially exist. Forces which also have strong ideological indoctrination to add that extra armour to manipulation. Forces which do not exist and therefore are free of formal restrictions of so-called one-sided humanitarianism.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...