Monday, July 13, 2015

WHY IS THE MUSLIM WORLD SILENT ABOUT YEMEN?





Why are we silent about the Saudi-led coalition of ‘Muslim’ Arab nations bombing and killing civilian Muslims in Yemen – yet outraged when Israel does the same in Gaza? Is this not a double standard?
The Saudi regime has led a bombing campaign against the Yemeni people for the last two months, in which at least 1,528 civilians have been killed, and 3,605 have been injured; 100’s of which are children – according to recent UN estimates. The Saudi-led airstrikes have also targeted and destroyed civilian infrastructure as well as historical heritage sites of great value according to UNESCO. It’s worth noting that Yemen is amongst the poorest of the the Arab nations.
Saudi airstrike explosion in Yemen
The Saudi regime has also blocked aid from being delivered to the increasingly desperate people in need and in a bid to prevent aid supplies being delivered, has even resorted to bombing runways to deter planes carrying aid from landing. On Friday, a UN-proposed ceasefire – to allow desperately needed aid to reach civilians – was violated by the Saudi-led coalition within hours.
The irony would be laughable, if it wasn’t so tragic.

The coalition of Arab nations, made up mostly of unelected and despotic rulers, have stated their reasoning behind the assault on the Yemen, to defend the democratic right of the elected government; whose president isconveniently seeking refuge in Riyadh. The irony would be laughable, if it wasn’t so tragic.
Yemen's President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi is welcome by Saudi Defence Minister Prince Mohammad bin Salman upon his arrival in Riyadh
They have also suggested their actions is to thwart the ‘growing’ influence of Iran in the region, although there is very little evidence of ties between the Houthis and Iran – other than perhaps sharing the same idealogy of Shia Islam. Cables leaked by Wikileaks show the paranoia Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations have with Iran’s growing influence and weary of a ‘Shia expansion’.
This narrative of Houthis (which make up at least 45% of the Yemeni population) being an Iranian proxy has been fuelled vastly by Arab and Western mainstream media who constantly refer to the Houthi fighters as ‘Iranian backed’ – with little evidence. This narrative also negates the fact that Houthi rebels are allied with other factions, such as the forces loyal to previous Yemeni president, Saleh – who are not Houthi.
Mideast Yemen
So far, the main beneficiary of the Saudi-led airstrikes on Yemen, has been Al Qaeda and ISIS – which have both escalated their attacks against Shia Muslims over the last two months. Many analysts have argued that Saudi Arabia, nor its allies, are concerned with this development.
Yet the Saudi regime is persisting with its attacks, whilst failing to meet any of its objectives that it set out at the beginning of this onslaught. Much like how Israel has failed on countless occasions to meet its objectives when carrying out airstrikes against the Palestinian resistance.
Why are we not equally outraged?
But why has the Muslim world been mostly silent on this issue? Where is the same outrage as was seen around the world when Israel attacked Gaza? Why are we not equally outraged, when the same aggression and tactics are being used to kill innocent civilians and cause so much carnage? Where are the social media campaigns and protests calling for the killings to be stopped?
Or is it because the aggressors in this conflict call themselves ‘Muslims’?
Mideast Yemen
As Muslims we must speak out against any and every form of oppression, not least when it is Muslims being killed and it is Muslim heritage sites that are being destroyed. We should not, and simply cannot ignore the crimes being committed against the poor people of Yemen by the Saudi regime and its Arab allies – because they call themselves ‘Muslims’. Nor should we buy into the sectarian narrative that Houthis are Shia Muslims, and that somehow makes it okay for them to be killed.
“O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest you swerve, and if you distort justice or decline to do justice, verily Allah is well-acquainted with all that you do.”
– The Holy Qur’an (4:135)
yemen al quds day protest
On a side-note, yet bearing great poignance – Yemenis marches in their thousands last Friday on Al Quds Day in solidarity with the Palestinian cause. This, whilst they themselves are under the same level of aggression albeit from a different oppressor.
Respect.

Wednesday, July 01, 2015

Saudi pumping millions to promote Wahhabism in India

India TV News Desk






The diplomatic documents released by WikiLeaks last week have revealed that Saudi Arabia is pumping in millions of rupees into India for opening of religious trusts and non-governmental organisations. WikiLeaks have disclosed an undated document that contains a list of Indian institutions and societies that have applied for financial assistance from the Arab nation.The document suggests that the government of Saudi Arabia itself pledged donations to nine such institutions located across different states, including Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Kerala and Maharashtra.

Saudi Arabia pledged 4.5 million Saudi Riyal (SR) to different institutions in Kerala only.Similarly, In Uttar Pradesh, 75,000 SR were pledged to two different societies for establishing a Madrasa building and a vocational centre for girls.

The documents also reveal that the Secretariat General of the Muslim World League in Mecca, a controversial organisation with alleged links to terror funding, had requested Saudi Arabia to establish the organisation’s Salafi or Wahhabi centres in India.Wikileaks that has published more than 60000 leaked cables from Saudi Arabia, also revealed that the country was concerned about Iran’s “growing influence” and outreach to the Shia community in India.It is worth a mention that, India's Shia population is the world's second-largest after Iran. 

Unlike the Arab countries, differences between Shias and Sunnis in India are doctrinal, and mainly in areas such as ritual law, theology and religious organisation.

Also Read: Islamic State's nightmare: Rival group uses ISIS's own tactics against them in new video“To counter the increasing Shia influence, a certain section in the Saudi establishment has been propagating Wahhabism in India," says an MHA official in an interview to Sunday Guardian.
In the last three-four years there has been a steady rise in Wahhabi preachers coming to India to conduct seminars."There is no doubt that Wahhabism is getting stronger in the country, especially in Kerala, mainly because of the radicalisation of a large number of local youth who are going to Saudi Arabia in search of employment. Kerala has been showing signs of sharp radicalisation. 

This was the only state where posters mourning the death of Osama Bin Laden had come up and a prayer for Ajmal Kasab was also held after he was hanged," warned the official.Donations from Saudi are pouring in and playing a key role in this process, which is being repeated across other parts of the country as well.

Thursday, June 18, 2015

JUDAISM INTO ZIONISM AND ISLAM INTO TERROR

By Daniel Mabsout





O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted
(يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنَّا خَلَقْنَاكُم مِّن ذَكَرٍ وَأُنثَى وَجَعَلْنَاكُمْ شُعُوباً وَقَبَائِلَ لِتَعَارَفُوا إِنَّ أَكْرَمَكُمْ عِندَ اللَّهِ أَتْقَاكُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ خَبِيرٌ) سورة الحجرات : الآية : 13
———————————————————————————————
There is no doubt that terrorism has been hosted in the Arab and Muslim world and has succeeded in finding an auspicious environment at the great surprise of all . Average people , average citizens and average Muslims , Syrians , Iraqis , Palestinians and Lebanese and others as well, have identified with terrorists , they have welcomed them and hosted them and cooperated and collaborated with them and this is something that cannot be denied and that is extremely dangerous at the same time .
It is not the religion that is to be blamed because there is nothing in the religion itself that is not opposed and totally alien to the practices of groups like al Qa’ida and its like . No doubt, money played a role as well as the spiritual , mental and social overall condition, as also the growing dissatisfaction of the people from the rule they are subject to . All this might justify this identification and collaboration of an important portion of the society with thugs that claim Islam .
But what cannot be explained is the use of mosques in order to promote terrorism and recruit people and send terrorists to Syria under the label of Jihad . The role played by mosques all over the Muslim and Arab world in calling for “ Jihad “ against Syria and rallying against its president and recruiting thousands of thugs for this purpose cannot be forgiven . These campaigns used thousands of Mosques as tribunes to poison the minds and hearts of believers .
Corrupt Sheikhs were thus ordained to rally against Syria while al Azhar never condemned these practices and most religious references instead of denouncing what was happening and label it as Kufr remained silently complacent when not supporting it fully and openly. Thus, true Muslims from all sects are facing a real challenge and would have to meet this challenge in one way or another and restitute to Islam its real dimension of mercy and tolerance and forgiveness .
This extremism attributed to the religion should not only be denounced as alien to it but should be totally uprooted. Islam is tolerance, but this superiority assumed by Muslims over adherents of other religions, should be taken care of . Approving of the two other religions that are Abrahamic is not significant in itself because these religions are considered part of Islam .We are talking here about other faiths like Hinduism and Buddhism and also the different faiths of the Natives of Africa and America , all these are shunned and discarded and despised by the Muslim.
The average Muslim does not seem to understand that these faiths are followed by billions and should be respected . No doubt that this arrogant attitude of unjustified superiority of the Muslim over others is source of evil . This same attitude was exploited by the colonialist who knew how to play on the superiority complex of the Muslims and resorted to partition India along the line of religious differences giving the Muslims a separate state and causing millions to die in a religious massacre whose repercussions are not over yet.
It is the same attitude that is behind the abnormal growth of terrorism sweeping the Arab and Muslim world nowadays killing hundreds of thousands of innocents, as it is behind the silent complacency of the majority of Muslims . It is ignorance that is behind this attitude and not Religion .
There is no merit for a Muslim over another except by devotion says the scripture. Such a verse of the Holy Koran should be extended to all .This superiority that a Muslim assumes de facto over others of different faiths is not beneficial to Islam in any way . As a matter of fact this is what distorted Judaism into Zionism and Islam into Terror .

Tuesday, June 09, 2015

Opportunist Erdogan backpedals on Yemen

By Ahmet Aslan
Before his visit, Turkish President Recep Tayip Erdogan lashed out at Iran for its alleged meddling in Yemen. Once in Tehran and having witnessed the trade opportunities, Erdogan’s tune changed showing his opportunistic side. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has yet again succumbed to his temper and made a preposterous remark regarding the illegal Saudi assault on Yemen. Instead of condemning the Saudi-led offensive he placed the blame on the Islamic Republic, “Iran is trying to dominate the region. This [attempt] has been annoying us, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries. It is not possible to cope with this. [Iran] must withdraw whatever forces it has, from Yemen, Syria and Iraq. We may provide logistical support to the operation [in Yemen].” The remarks understandably upset Tehran and led to strong reaction from several senior Iranian officials. Iran’s Foreign Minister Dr. Javad Zarif said Turkey was making a “strategic mistake.” Further, in an unusual move that perhaps more accurately reflected Tehran’s irritation, Iran summoned Turkey’s charge d’affaires to demand an explanation of Erdogan’s remarks. There are several reasons for Turkey to be prudent in dealing with the Islamic Republic. Iran with its independent technology, vast natural resources, large population and most importantly unwavering leadership has survived all kinds of plots, attacks and sanctions for almost four decades. Even the US could not handle the long struggle with Iran and realized that there was no option but to negotiate with Tehran. Thus, Turkish President Erdogan’s imprudent remarks confused many. In this regard veteran Turkish journalist Cengiz Candar in his Al-Monitor piece (April 8) stated that Erdogan’s statement “may be the most imprudent statement ever heard from a Turkish official on Iran… Irrespective of whoever holds office in Ankara and Tehran, they have generally refrained from making statements that could be seen as offensive to the other side.” Thanks to his unchallenged authority in Turkey, Erdogan has become intoxicated by power, making foolish and offensive remarks pertaining to domestic opponents. His undiplomatic comments may lead to undesirable consequences especially in politics and it will take time for Erdogan to learn his lesson. Iran’s unstoppable rise in world politics has been increasingly frustrating Erdogan and in turn in a moment of anger, he could not help himself but express his real feelings toward Iran. Nevertheless, Erdogan soon understood the gravity of the situation caused by his blunder and did not respond to the Iranian officials’ harsh rebukes. Yet, despite Erdogan’s non-reaction, before his visit to Tehran, pro-AKP media had reported that Erdogan would issue a warning against so-called “Shi‘i expansionism.” Further, the media speculated that Erdogan would pass the Saudis’ message to Tehran as he received Saudi Interior Minister Muhammad bin Nayef in his palace just a day before his visit to Iran on April 7. However, the alleged warning was not issued. During the visit, Erdogan appeared to reverse his position on the issue. There was no mention of “Iranian exit” from Yemen (Iran has no forces in Yemen!) or the Saudi message delivered to Tehran. Instead Erdogan tried hard to give a non-sectarian impression by stating, “I don’t care about Shi‘i or Sunni, I am concerned about the blood spilled in Iraq.” He further stated, “We should become united with each other and negotiate and prevent this bloodshed…” In the end the two countries reached an agreement to launch an initiative that would bring peace and stability to Yemen. It was obvious that Erdogan was worried that Turkey’s relations with Iran would be harmed due to his blunder. Fehim Tastekin, a respected columnist of the Turkish daily Radikal Newspaper explained why Erdogan is keen not to harm relations between the two countries. For him the reasons are purely economic, “Both parties in the meetings held in Tehran have mentioned the situations in Syria, Iraq and Yemen from their perspectives but these differences did not shadow inking eight different economic agreements, and it will never happen.” He further stated that Turkey is heavily dependent on Iranian natural gas and petrol imports and due to Turkey’s problems with Syria, Iraq and recently with Egypt, Iran presented itself to be an important alternative to transport Turkish goods to the Muslim East market. Especially considering the anticipated US-Iran nuclear agreement, Turkey will find a great opportunity to reach the Iranian market and export its goods. Therefore, Turkey cannot afford to upset Iran any further. Erdogan’s businessman-like agenda strongly supported Tastekin’s arguments. During his visit Erdogan proposed that the two countries should use national currencies in their trade instead of relying on dollars or euros. He also complained that the natural gas that Turkey purchases from Iran is the most expensive and pleaded with Tehran to consider reducing the price. He pledged increased gas imports if there was a price reduction. Cengiz Candar also emphasised the US-Iran nuclear agreement’s role in forcing Erdogan to retreat, “The nuclear framework deal reached might be a game changer in Turkey’s — meaning Erdogan’s — attitude toward Iran. It sent signals to Turks that Iran will escape its international isolation, with even greater weight in regional and international affairs. Turkey, which already has problems with its Western allies on Middle East issues, particularly Syria, cannot afford to be at loggerheads with Iran.” Further, Graham Fuller, former vice chairman, CIA’s National Intelligence Council and CIA’s Turkey station chief, pointed out that Turkey’s changing attitude toward Yemen is an indication of Iran’s rising influence in the Muslim East and the diminishing influence of the Saudis, “Perhaps Erdogan’s early decision was best understood as opportunism — an initial concern not to be left out of what might become a ‘new Arab force.’ Yet, during a relatively tense visit to Tehran in early April, Erdogan backed away from further criticism of Iran and from participation in the Saudi campaign against Yemen — a notable slap in the face to Riyadh. Iran is still the most important country to Turkey in the Middle East in economic, energy and geopolitical terms. And Ankara must be mindful of its own large Alevi (quasi-Shiite) minority. How much did Iran influence this sudden change of heart?” In terms of the Iranian position, Fehim Tastekin in the same article mentioned that in order to gain insight about Iran’s reaction to Erdogan’s remarks he spoke to sources in Tehran; one is a journalist and the other is a diplomat in the Foreign Ministry. Based on his discussions with the sources Tastekin wrote, “From Tehran front this is the picture: as it is known some Iranian MPs has confronted Erdogan to either apologise [for the remarks that he made against Iran] or not come to Iran and 65 MPs wrote a letter to Rouhani to demand that ‘he must pressure [Erdogan] for an apology.’ Despite this [tension], Erdogan’s visit to Tehran and his remarks in the joint press conference appeared to indicate that he ‘backpedalled’ on Yemen and this was perceived by Iranians as a tacit apology.” Erdogan has since been really trying hard to repair the damage caused by his remarks, especially the sectarian undertone that he used to support the Saudi-led offensive. According to Hurriyet Daily News columnist Verda Ozer who accompanied Erdogan on his visit, on his way back from Tehran Erdogan strongly emphasised that Turkey does not pursue a sectarian policy, “Erdogan repeated five times on the plane that Ankara stands at equal distance to all sects, through the use of very strong expressions. ‘My biggest fear is sectarianism. Some people might be Shiite. My country might be predominantly Sunni. However the main thing for us is neither Sunni, nor Shiite. It is Islam itself,’ he said.” Despite his effort to clear the mess, the episode is yet another indication of Erdogan’s opportunist foreign policy. While he tries to create the impression that under his leadership Turkey pursues a “moral” foreign policy, when it comes to choosing between “moral” and “interest,” Erdogan does not hesitate to choose what is in the interest of his political future (and not necessarily that of Turkey). In this ironic example, Erdogan and his sycophants have always boasted of pursuing a “moral” foreign policy when they defended Turkey’s support for the Egyptian Ikhwan and Turkey’s uncompromising stance against the rule of General Abdel Fatah el-Sisi. Yet they felt no embarrassment at Erdogan extending his unreserved support for the Saudi-led attack on Yemen. The Saudis singlehandedly plotted and funded el-Sisi’s military coup against President Mohamed Mursi but Erdogan has not uttered a word against Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the coup. More ironically, Erdogan has abstained from even appearing in the same frame with el-Sisi, let alone making peace with him, but he showed a strong interest in joining the anti-Yemini alliance alongside el-Sisi’s soldiers. Erdogan’s politics are strange indeed!

Wednesday, June 03, 2015

Pentagon game to divide Iranians and Arabs

Sharmine Narwani

Pentagon game to divide Iranians and Arabs
(Image by Robert Christine)
Sharmine Narwani says: “If you want to understand what’s going on in the Middle East today, go back to see what the US Military was doing 4 years ago, as the ‘Arab Spring’ kicked off, and US-backed dictators were falling like flies. Shia-vs-Sunni and Iran-vs-Arabs was the script being developed by the Pentagon. My article in 2011: “Pentagon game to divide Iranians and Arabs”
This secret exercise would not have been remarkable except for its timing in March 2011. Washington was losing stalwart allies – Tunisia’s Ben Ali, Egypt’s Mubarak – and at the time there was unrest brewing in Jordan, Bahrain and Yemen too. So why, of all things, was the Pentagon test-driving “Iran-vs-Arabs” narratives during the height of this crisis?
The introduction to the article follows with a link to see the full story, read on:
Analysts and pundits have spent the past two weeks puzzling over the alleged Iranian plot to assassinate a Saudi diplomat in Washington, in part because of a complete lack of either motive or benefit for the Islamic Republic. Iran, reputed to place much stock in cost-benefit analyses of its geopolitical calculations, clearly fails to gain materially or politically from any part of the allegations thus far. So what gives?
Instead of scrutinizing the “whys” of Iran’s involvement, it may be more illuminating to examine Washington’s motivation in advancing this bit of political theater.  The criminal charges were followed by high-profile statements and sanctioned leaks from the White House, the departments of State, Justice, Treasury, Defense, FBI and the CIA, well orchestrated for maximum impact. The U.S. government then sought to persuade the global community via the U.N. Security Council and “phone calls to many capitals” of the gravity of the charges.
Such fanfare went beyond the service of prosecuting a single crime.  More likely, the charges being leveled at Iran came in the service of “public diplomacy,” an attempt to establish a broad narrative that serves a policy decision. Pushing the narrative of the Iranian “boogeyman” is not unusual in U.S. policy circles. What may be new is the emphasis on this story in the aftermath of Arab uprisings throughout the Middle East.
Bring in the “Red Team”
Last March, as the Arab revolts swept through the Middle East and North Africa, the U.S. military’s Central Command for military operations in 20 countries — including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain and Jordan — held a “Red Team” exercise to examine a political narrative that perpetually pits Arabs and Iranians against each other, according to a source involved in the project.
CENTCOM’s Red Team was formed in 2006,  a spokesman told me last year, to “think outside the box, offer contrarian thinking [and] … sharpen the reasoning and force intellectual rigor” on critical issues for the benefit of senior military officials.
 Here are some of the premises and questions included in CENTCOM’s Arabs versus Iranians exercise. (Note: The Red Team refers to Iranians as “Persians.”)
  • Premise: “The Arab-Persian dynamic is a divide.  History, religion, language and culture simply pose too many obstacles to overcome.”
  • Premise: “A general Arab inferiority complex relative to Persians means that many Arabs are fearful of Persian expansion and hegemony throughout the Middle East.  In their minds, the Persian Empire has never gone away and it is more self-sufficient than most Arab states.”
  •  Premise: “Barring a “clash of civilizations” – i.e., a modern crusades, Islam vs Judeo-Christians, warfare between the West/Israel vs Arabs/Persians – there does not appear to be a scenario where Arabs and Persians will join forces against the US/West.”
  •  Question: “Is it appropriate to frame the discussion as Arab-Persian or is Sunni-Shia a more appropriate framework?”
  •  Question: “Assuming a schism, what could unite Arabs and Persians, even temporarily?”
These narratives assume two things: that the division between Iranians and Arabs is a fact and that the greater unity of the two groups in the wake of the Arab uprisings is a potential threat to U.S. interests. Hence the worried question:  What could unite them, even temporarily?
Does the goal then become to ensure a state of chronic hostility between Iranians and Arabs?
Read more:

Pentagon game to divide Iranians and Arabs

A military planning exercise illuminates the story driving Washington's response to the Arab Spring

OCTOBER 26, 2011

SHARMINE NARWANI

Analysts and pundits have spent the past two weeks puzzling over the alleged Iranian plot to assassinate a Saudi diplomat in Washington, in part because of a complete lack of either motive or benefit for the Islamic Republic. Iran, reputed to place much stock in cost-benefit analyses of its geopolitical calculations, clearly fails to gain materially or politically from any part of the allegations thus far. So what gives?
Instead of scrutinizing the “whys” of Iran’s involvement, it may be more illuminating to examine Washington’s motivation in advancing this bit of political theater.  The criminal charges were followed by high-profile statements and sanctioned leaks from the White House, the departments of State, Justice, Treasury, Defense, FBI and the CIA, well orchestrated for maximum impact. The U.S. government then sought to persuade the global community via the U.N. Security Council and “phone calls to many capitals” of the gravity of the charges.
Such fanfare went beyond the service of prosecuting a single crime.  More likely, the charges being leveled at Iran came in the service of “public diplomacy,” an attempt to establish a broad narrative that serves a policy decision. Pushing the narrative of the Iranian "boogeyman" is not unusual in U.S. policy circles. What may be new is the emphasis on this story in the aftermath of Arab uprisings throughout the Middle East.
Bring in the "Red Team"
Last March, as the Arab revolts swept through the Middle East and North Africa, the U.S. military’s Central Command for military operations in 20 countries -- including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain and Jordan -- held a “Red Team” exercise to examine a political narrative that perpetually pits Arabs and Iranians against each other, according to a source involved in the project.
CENTCOM’s Red Team was formed in 2006,  a spokesman told me last year, to “think outside the box, offer contrarian thinking [and] ... sharpen the reasoning and force intellectual rigor” on critical issues for the benefit of senior military officials.
 Here are some of the premises and questions included in CENTCOM’s Arabs versus Iranians exercise. (Note: The Red Team refers to Iranians as “Persians.”)
  • Premise: “The Arab-Persian dynamic is a divide.  History, religion, language and culture simply pose too many obstacles to overcome.”
  • Premise: “A general Arab inferiority complex relative to Persians means that many Arabs are fearful of Persian expansion and hegemony throughout the Middle East.  In their minds, the Persian Empire has never gone away and it is more self-sufficient than most Arab states.”
  •  Premise: “Barring a “clash of civilizations” - i.e., a modern crusades, Islam vs Judeo-Christians, warfare between the West/Israel vs Arabs/Persians - there does not appear to be a scenario where Arabs and Persians will join forces against the US/West.”
  •  Question: “Is it appropriate to frame the discussion as Arab-Persian or is Sunni-Shia a more appropriate framework?”
  •  Question: “Assuming a schism, what could unite Arabs and Persians, even temporarily?”
These narratives assume two things: that the division between Iranians and Arabs is a fact and that the greater unity of the two groups in the wake of the Arab uprisings is a potential threat to U.S. interests. Hence the worried question:  What could unite them, even temporarily?
Does the goal then become to ensure a state of chronic hostility between Iranians and Arabs?
Spokesman Maj. T.G. Taylor told Salon that CENTCOM planners "postulate multiple scenarios and potential outcomes to better anticipate and understand the nature of a complex and diverse region.  It is through this prudent military planning and cultural research that we are able to evaluate how to best protect U.S. and partner interests while reducing the risk of miscalculation stemming from ethnic and national differences."
There is no disputing the region is rife with fault lines that divide populations.  I call the three biggest the Stink Bombs of the Middle East: Sunni versus Shia, Arabs versus Iran, Islamists versus secularists.  While there may be some natural tension between these groups, since the 1979 Iranian revolution there has been a marked increase in narratives that create fear of Shiites, Iranians and Islamists for geopolitical advantage.  And U.S. allies in the region -- Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Bahrain, Yemen -- have been at the forefront of these efforts.
“... is Sunni-Shia a more appropriate framework? Arabs are afraid of Persian hegemony ...  Islam vs Judeo-Christians ...”
Such  themes have been embedded in superficial narratives of the Middle East that recur in our media.  The Red Team exercise was not particularly exceptional in many respects. But two things are highly unusual about this drill: the timing and its sponsor. The question baffles: Why did the U.S. militarydecide to shine a spotlight on the Arabs vs. Iran narrative three months into the uprisings sweeping through the Arab world?
Why not a broader, more urgent evaluation of how to realign U.S. interests with emerging democratic actors in the region?
The balance of power shifts
At the time of the Red Team exercise, peaceful, political protest had swept away pro-American regimes in Tunisia and Egypt and reached a critical mass in Bahrain and Yemen. The former is home to the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet. The latter is an operational center for al-Qaida and a recent proxy battleground for Saudi-Iranian tensions.
U.S policymakers had reason to worry. The de facto beneficiary of the uprisings was Iran, a country that for three decades has challenged the primacy of U.S. and Israeli interests in the Middle East.  The fall of pro-U.S. dictators all but guaranteed that, in the hands of new populist leaders, the region’s foreign policy outlook would likely shift toward Iran’s perspective, although not be steered by Iran.
According to the New York Times’ David Sanger, the U.S. administration never lost sight of this development. Last February, a month before the Red Team exercise, he wrote;
“Every decision — from Libya to Yemen to Bahrain to Syria — is being examined under the prism of how it will affect what was, until mid-January, the dominating calculus in the Obama administration’s regional strategy: how to slow Iran’s nuclear progress, and speed the arrival of opportunities for a successful uprising there.”
Viewing the Arab uprisings through an Iranian lens offered a possible advantage for the United States. Arab public polls consistently favor Iran when it is contrasted with the United States, but not nearly as much when it is compared to other Arab regimes, even unpopular ones.  This tendency has long provided opponents of Iran to sow discord in the Arab world– even before the 1979 Islamic Revolution, but especially afterward. Narratives about expansionist, aggressive aspirations of the Iranian Shia have been sown far and wide in the largely Saudi-controlled Arab media, even though there has not been a serious conflict between Iranians and Arabs since the Iran-Iraq war ended in 1988.
A testimony to the power of propaganda and the knowledge deficit it encourages, mistrust between Iran and many Arab nations has simmered on low boil ever since. As Washington seeks to manage its losses and assert some control over future developments in the region, this narrative tool becomes a cost-effective way to wrest back some of its primacy by defining a new Middle East and drawing others into those  assumptions.
The Pentagon and social media
 The Red Team exercise did not take place in a vacuum. The Arab revolts have, to a large degree, been driven by the existence of social media platforms, valuable communication assets in countries where public congregation is not encouraged, or is altogether banned.
The Pentagon is actively seeking to understand, influence and control these platforms and the messages they transmit. In July, the technology arm of the Department of Defense, DARPA, announced a $42 million program to enable the U.S. military to “detect, classify, measure and track the formation, development and spread of ideas and concepts (memes)” within social media.
Wired magazine calls the project the Pentagon’s “social media propaganda machine” because of its plans for “counter messaging of detected adversary influence operations.”
In order to “allow more agile use of information in support of [military] operations” and “defend” against “adverse outcomes,” the project will enable the automation of processes to “identify participants and intent, measure effects of persuasion campaigns,” and ultimately, infiltrate and redirect social media-based campaigns overseas, when deemed necessary.
With cyberspace now designated an “operational domain” for the armed forces, we don't know when and where these online tools will be mobilized. But we can be certain one of the most likely targets is Iran, which earlier this year announced plans to disconnect from the rest of the world and establish its own national Internet.
Manufacturing narratives
Promoting the narrative that casts Iran as a regional threat to Arab nations serves several urgent interests today: It justifies the upcoming sale of more than $120 billion in weapons to Arab governments, and works toward preventing Iran from gaining a further foothold in Iraq once U.S. troops complete their withdrawal in December.
But the Arab uprisings have interfered with Washington’s story. Saudi Arabia, Iran’s main rival and the U.S’s closest Arab ally, has sent troops into Bahrain to violently quell protests, has offered sanctuary to embattled dictators and is subsidizing many of the remaining autocratic Arab regimes throughout the region.
Counter-revolutionary Saudi Arabia's substantial treasury insures its perspective will be heard in Washington. The Saudis will pay for more than half -- $67 billion -- of the total value of the region's controversial arms purchases. The monarchy is also developing an elite 35,000-man force to “protect the kingdom’s oil riches and future nuclear sites,” to be overseen by none other than CENTCOM.
The Arab revolts pose a threat to such business. In recent months, the Obama administration has been hard-pressed to gain approval for even a mere $53 million slice of its weapons sale to Bahrain, which has been censured internationally for its suppression of peaceful protests.  Withstanding pressures from Congress and human rights groups, a State Department official last week finally announced the approval of the sale.
 “The deal is part of a move to defend Bahrain from aggression,” a spokesman told the Gulf News, a not so subtle reference to Iran.
As these Arab uprisings continue to dismantle the regional status quo – for better or for worse – it appears the United States is acting not in accordance with its declared values, but is instead allowing financial and hegemonic calculations to drive foreign policy. Narratives manufactured to support myopic interests over fundamental values cast a long shadow over our ability to play a leading role in global affairs.  We don’t reason, we spin.  And, in the case of this newly vulnerable Middle East, nobody is more proficient in the business of keeping conflict humming.

SHARMINE NARWANI

Friday, May 08, 2015

Tamil lunatic fringe anti-Muslim racism


Observations on Muslim-Tamil relations -3



by Izeth Hussain

I am going to write this concluding part of my article partly in notation form, for brevity because many newspaper readers are impatient with articles that extend into several parts. My focus in this part is on the reasons why the Tamil attacks on me should be regarded as racist. I will begin by setting out facts, most of which point unambiguously to racism. 1) They were concerted attacks, not random. They did not begin with my first article but after some weeks. After several weeks they subsided, to revive again with the old fury. In the present phase they have subsided again, but attacks are continued with the old fury by a lone straggler and a couple of newcomers. The lone straggler recently wrote, "Reading you, Sir, against our wishes so boringly often …..", which gives the impression that he has been acting under instructions. These Tamils have given the impression that they are expatriates who are devotees of the LTTE, which of course has been utterly racist.

2) Since people are nowadays deeply concerned about foreign meddling in our internal affairs, the question has arisen whether RAW has been behind the concerted attacks. I doubt it. But I must say that for some reason that is still beyond my comprehension the Tamil racists have always been grimly determined to project me as anti-Indian. It seems to be an obsession with them. I certainly have been critical of India when that has been necessary, but my stance on India has been far removed from that of the so-called Sinhala Buddhist chauvinists. 3) One point has emerged in the exchanges over my articles that points to an implicit racism. The point has been frequently made – not only by Tamils – that as a Muslim I should write on the IS, Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, and the horrifying spread of fundamentalism in parts of the Eastern Province: therefore It is not for me to pontificate to the Tamils on how their problems should be solved. I claim the right to deal with national problems just like any other Sri Lankan national. I am horrified, and disgusted, by the assumption that I should not deal with the Sinhalese-Tamil ethnic problem even though it led to the genocidal eviction of Muslims from the North and grim butchery in the EP.

4) One fact that in my view points very clearly to racism is the intensity of the Tamil hatred directed against me, not matched by anything from the Sinhalese. Soon after the attacks began I asked the question "Why such hatred?" because there was nothing in what I had said or written to justify it. I found myself using the phrase "a total annihilating hatred" but did not revise it because there did seem to be a genocidal rage behind the Tamil attacks. I am not being thin-skinned because there is nothing comparable in the attacks on other articles in the CT. For instance frequent articles by a well-known political analyst almost invariably attract flak, even when they are of the highest quality. But for the most part the flak consists of sneers, jeers, and imputations of ulterior motives with little or nothing of the hysterical hatred and mad dog rage inspired by my articles. It is legitimate to conclude that there is racism behind a hatred that cannot be explained on any other rational ground.

5) The most frequent allegation against me by the Tamil racists is that I am and have been for decades anti-Tamil. The only evidence cited by them to substantiate that allegation is that I had advocated the use of famine as a weapon to subdue the Tamil rebels. I protested that I had in fact advocated the opposite and they kept on repeating the charge. Recently I made it clear that I had the documentary evidence to support my position, and they have not repeated that charge. But one of the worst of the Tamil racists a few days ago referred to my "inhumane recommendations to GOSL during the war" without daring to specify what they were. It’s all nonsense. In an earlier article I have mentioned that sometime before the air-drop two lorry loads of rice were sent to Jaffna, the result of my persuading Foreign Minister Hameed to take such action. The Tamil racists have been reduced to blatantly concocting evidence to show that I am anti-Tamil.

6) They could try to distort the import of my article Rationale for 13A minus plus in the Island of April 18, about which I must make some clarifications. Some improvements and extensions may be possible on 13A, but a wide extension up to federalism and more is not a realistic expectation in the foreseeable future. Let the Tamils by all means continue to struggle for that extension. But let us at the same time try to implement 13A minus as thoroughly as possible, mounting a crash program like Dudley’s Green Revolution or the Mahaveli Accelerated Program. In addition let us establish a fully functioning democracy with special safeguards for the minorities such as Race Relations Boards etc. I can’t see anything anti-Tamil in any of that.

7)So far from being anti-Tami; I have in fact been regarded as pro-Tamil, even to the extent of endangering myself. A) I have consistently berated Sinhalese racism against the Tamils, and Muslim support for that racism. B) I have refused to regard the LTTE as a terrorist movement. I have written two articles arguing that it should be regarded as a nationalist movement. I have written many articles on the ethnic problem over the decades, but I don’t think I have used the term "terrorist" about the LTTE even once. C) I am probably the only non-Tamil who has acknowledged in writing that the genocidal eviction of the Muslims from the north was preceded by Muslim Homeguards getting together with the STF to drive out Tamils from allegedly sixteen villages in the EP. D) I have been in favour of a common commemoration of our dead soldiers and the dead LTTE fighters. In that connection I had the temerity to cite the inscription on the tombs built by the ancient Chinese to honor the bravery of their fallen enemies: "May you be born among us in your next birth".

8) It seems bizarre in the extreme that I of all people have come to be perceived as anti-Tamil, even though it is only by lunatic fringe Tamils. A clue to an explanation is provided by an episode in the world of cricket. Umpire Darrell Hair of Australia could see evidence of ball tampering where none else could. Cricketing legend Geoff Boycott provided the explanation: racism. Tamil racists perceive me as having been an anti-Tamil racist – and notoriously so – over many decades. No one else shares that perception. The Boycott explanation applies: racism. 9) I cannot go into theories of racism to set out the grounds on which that explanation applies. I will here provide a few pointers only. The racist perceives the Other in terms of stereotypes, which are seen in essentialist terms as virtually unchanging. The Other is also seen as inferior and/or threatening.

10) The stereotype of the Muslim is that he shines at trade, the gem business, and illicit trafficking in narcotics. He is a very poor performer in practically every other field. He is educationally backward and is seriously under-represented in the upper echelons of the State and the professions. Intellectually and culturally he is null and void. In politics he produces politicians who have been utterly self-seeking and devoid of principle. He holds himself apart, and has not much of a national sense. He is conservative, particularly in religion except that he is taking to fundamentalism in a big way in the Eastern Province 11) I am talking only of the stereotype about the Muslims, not of the changing realities that now make the stereotype largely irrelevant except in a few particulars. This factor of change is crucial in understanding Tamil anti-Muslim racism. The point is that the Muslims are getting more educated and could become competitive in practically every field. This is a time of socio-economic decline for the Tamils, which could make them apprehensive that the Muslims might gain ascendency over them, particularly in the Eastern Province. 12) Why have I in particular become the focus of so much Tamil hatred and rage? I am in most ways the diametrical opposite of the stereotypical Muslim drawn out above. I could be the forerunner of a new type of Muslim whom it would be impossible to hold in contempt as essentially inferior.

13) My purpose in this article is severely pragmatic. As I have stated earlier the Tamil lunatic fringe anti-Muslim racists are a tiny segment of the Tamil people, but we have to bear in mind that the lunatic fringe can easily slide into the center, and furthermore that it can serve as a catalyst to ignite a conflagration in the Eastern Province. On the other side, the Muslims there are increasingly falling prey to Wahabism and its clones, which means that they are among the most stupid and potentially violent of human beings on earth. In earlier articles I have several times referred to Islamic fundamentalism as Yanko Zionist Petro Islam. I rather doubt that a new Government will take effective action to prevent a conflagration in the EP. Since 1948 the basic policy of our Governments has been to allow ethnic problems to fester. Therefore action has to be taken by the TNA and the SLMC, and the civil society. I would like to end this article on a bright note by pointing out that it would not be over-sanguine to expect the civil society to play a significant role in the EP: it did play such a role in bringing about the revolutionary transformation of January 8. – Concluded.

Izethhussain@gmail.com

Saturday, May 02, 2015

Tamil Lunatic Fringe Anti-Muslim racism – Observation On Muslim-Tamil Relations – II

By Izeth Hussain 

Izeth Hussain
Izeth Hussain
A clarification is required about the title of this article. I refer only to a narrow segment, a very narrow segment, of the Tamils, not the totality of them, or the generality or the majority of them. Does that very narrow segment of Tamils merit a two or three part article? I believe they do for several reasons. By and large the relations between Muslims and Tamils are quite satisfactory. In fact, I am told, that there is better rapport between the Muslims and the Tamils – the Tamil-speaking peoples – than there is between either of them and the Sinhalese. It is only in the Eastern Province that Muslim-Tamil relations are troubled, already I suspect to a fairly serious extent. There the Tamil lunatic fringe anti-Muslim racists could come to play a catalytic role in creating yet another monstrous ethnic problem in Sri Lanka.
We must also bear in mind that what today seems to be the lunatic fringe can tomorrow become the center. The French Prime Minister forecast some weeks ago that the National Front – which for decades was regarded as belonging to the lunatic fringe – could come to power in a couple of years. In India the RSS was for decades regarded as belonging to the lunatic fringe but today its idiotic Hindutva ideology reigns in the state, mosques and churches are being destroyed, and moves are afoot to build temples in honor of Godse the assassin of Gandhi. The most distressing example of the commutation between the lunatic fringe and the center has been that of Sri Lanka. For here the lunatic fringe has always been at the center, on both sides of the ethnic divide. The result has been a quarter century of war with 100,000 dead. It would be very foolish of us to ignore the incendiary potential in the Tamil ant-Muslim lunatic fringe on the ground that they are numerically not very significant.
I come now to a relevant autobiographical detail. Sometime in the first half of the ‘nineties, I was one of the three speakers at a meeting organized by the Church of Sri Lanka, the other two being Sarachchandra and Dr.Devanesan Nesiah. The latter stated that as an official I had had a blameless record but thereafter I was somehow at the center of controversy. He added that he was in agreement with ninety percent of what I wrote. He clearly meant that my writings proving to be so controversial was difficult to understand and required explanation. I will not venture on an explanation at the moment. The point that I want to make is that my peculiar capacity for being at the center of controversy, spotted by Dr. Nesiah, has continued over the decades, so that I have plenty of experience enabling me to assess the peculiar character of Tamil attacks on me.
My weekly articles in the Island are published simultaneously in the Colombo Telegraph where, unlike in the print media, there is ample space for responses. I have received many encomiums directly through email, disproportionately from Tamils which I thought was easily understandable because for decades I have been outspokenly critical on Sinhalese racism against the Tamils. Quite suddenly my articles in the Colombo Telegraph started receiving extremely negative responses. I noticed after some time that all those extremely negative responses came from writers using nom de plumes, and invariably those nom de plumes declared a Tamil identity. When I pointed this out the reply was that I had been attacked also by several others whose non de plumes did not suggest a Tamil identity. Quite true, but those responses registered sober dissent and nothing of the rage and hatred that characterized the Tamil responses. For instance a writer with a Burgher name was very critical of me but he declared nonetheless that I had “much to contribute”. That would have been unthinkable from a Tamil racist. A Sinhalese, who I know hates my guts, declared that I am “well read and readable”. That too would have been unthinkable from a Tamil racist.
Some features struck me as rather curious about the Tamil attacks. They were invariably written in fluent English and obviously came from educated professionals. The emails I get – very infrequently -from Sinhalese racists are usually written in poor English. I had the impression that the Tamil attacks came from expatriates – I made the point and it was not denied. The most interesting feature to which I want to draw attention is that the Tamil attacks seemed to be organized, not just a random phenomenon. They did not start with my first article in the Colombo Telegraph, it took a little while for them to get going, after which for several weeks every article of mine provoked attacks by around seven to ten Tamils. Suddenly they subsided for some weeks, after which they erupted again with the old fury. In the present phase they have subsided again, but a couple of newcomers have entered the fray with the same fury as the old-timers. Recently one of the old-timers blurted out a detail that clearly indicated that he was attacking me under instructions. I leave it to others who may be better informed to make sense of all this.
I am afraid that this article will be excessively long if I go into details to substantiate my charge – made on the basis of the attacks on me in the Colombo Telegraph – of Tamil lunatic fringe anti-Muslim racism. The interested reader will have to access the relevant material through the internet. I can do no more here than provide just a few pointers. A consistent feature of my exchanges with the Tamil racists has been a total imperviousness to fact and reason and a total absence of moral scruple on their part. I will provide an instance. I wrote more than once that if not for India the Tamils would be treated like a conquered people – that is to say like dirt. A Tamil reader claimed that I showed disrespect for the Tamils in using the term “like dirt”. Another, one of the worst of the Tamil racists, declared that in using such language I showed up my very low upbringing, unlike that of my former colleague Bandu Silva. The racist hated was so strong that he failed to understand – although he is fluent in English – that I was deploring the ways of the conqueror, not of the conquered. In reply I cited the case of Somerset Maugham, a life-long Francophile, who fled France when the Nazis invaded that country. When asked what would be the fate of the French under Nazi occupation, he replied tersely “Eat shit”. I pointed out that Maugham was deploring the ways of the Nazi conqueror, not of the conquered French. In fact he was showing contempt for the Nazis. Instead of accepting that clarification, the Tamil racist burst out that my choice of an example using the word “shit” only showed what a low degraded fellow I am. He clearly displayed a total imperviousness to fact and reason, a total absence of moral scruple, and also a savage racist compulsion to view the Muslims as low degraded people.
I will provide one more example to illustrate the depth of the Tamil racist hatred. The ostensible reason for the attacks on me is supposed to be that I am anti-Tamil and that I am widely notorious for being anti-Tamil. I will show in the next part of this article that the truth is the very opposite. I have in fact been dangerously outspoken on Sinhalese racism against the Tamils and on Muslim support for that racism. It is a mystery why the Tamil racists feel under some sort of compulsion to project me as anti-Tamil. Anyway they are unable to provide any evidence to substantiate their charge. Therefore they picked on a charge made against me by a Tamil that I had advocated famine as a weapon to subdue the Tamil rebels. I showed in an article in the Island that in fact I had advocated the very opposite – that the Government should not use famine as a weapon. In recent months the Tamil racists have repeatedly made that charge. I challenged them to produce the documentary evidence but they were unable to do so. Actually the document can be easily accessed by clicking on my reply to Arvind in 2006. I believe that the Tamil racists were deliberately lying all along. It must take a terrible hatred to try to incriminate someone by imputing to him the very opposite of what he had advocated.