| |
| Join Our Newsletter |
 Please Select sub-criteria |  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Borders in the Muslim world: mere lines in the sand |
|
|
|
| |
11th February 2008
| |
| |
Lines in Middle Eastern sand, drawn by civil servants in Whitehall, can not wipe out Islam’s Golden Age. People who talk about uniting the Muslim Ummah are often derided as ideologues; impractical and unrealistic. However, all it took was a few sticks of dynamite to remove the ramshackle physical barrier – officially known as the border - between Palestinian Gaza and Egypt. The subsequent free flow of people and goods – only inhibited by the size of the gap in the broken boarder - exemplified how simple, realistic and natural the concept of one Muslim Ummah really is – if the political will exists!
In many parts of the Muslim world national border lines drawn by colonial masters, usually British, divided families, tribes, trade and commerce. Once the borders were drawn, ordinary people living simple lives were inhumanly and forcibly separated. Overnight, the borders physically divided communities who, for centuries, held the same identity; family names, belief, language and values. This abnormal separation, enforced by the creation of nation states, is actually what is unrealistic, impractical and consequently unsustainable – not natural unification.
The forced separation of people who have common interests and a single identity will always be transient. Their common interests will always encourage a tendency for merger; while the common identify will truly achieve serenity only through unification.
The unification of Germany in 1990 occurred in spite of nearly half a century of separation; the implementation of diametrically opposing ideologies in former east and west Germany; and massive economic and social inequalities. Greater integration in the European Union is actively being progressed despite the language and cultural differences in Europe; huge economic and welfare disparities between northern and eastern European countries; and vast differences in political maturity between European nations. In both these cases, political will is the driving force, which is able to overcome very real obstacles.
In contrast to Europe, the Muslim world, divided as it is into more than 50 nation states, shares a common belief , culture and ideology, many of these nations speak the same language, and they share a common and predominately successful history dating back over a 1000 years under the Caliphate. Most importantly, ordinary Muslims have an overwhelming desire for unity as evidenced by a 2006 University of Maryland survey and so vividly demonstrated by the personal accounts of those who crossed the border into Egypt. What is presently lacking though is the political will from Muslim leaders to demolish these contrived physical barriers.
| |
|
|
| |
| Turkey - Kemalism: Outdated and Irrelevant |
|
|
|
| |
06th September 2007
| |
| |
The July elections in Turkey have clearly demonstrated once again, Turkey’s sham political system which many western politicians and commentators continually promote as the ideal model for the Muslim world. The crisis in Turkey concerning the presidency and the role of Islam in politics represents the trend in the Muslim world as a whole. Some feel that the vociferous opposition expressed in the streets of Ankara, and in the military headquarters last May, seems to indicate that Mustafa Kemal’s secular legacy is safe for the time being. However, the real story is of a country in transition, slowly being transformed as part of a wider dynamic across the Muslim world.
The cause of this crisis was the decision of the ruling Justice and Development party (AKP) to put forward Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and then the foreign minister Abdullah Gul, as candidates for the post of president. The presidential office is the apex of the staunchly secular political system established by Mustafa Kemal in the aftermath of World War I. Turkey had been the seat of the Caliphate until Kemal banished the Ottoman Caliph and his relatives in 1924. Hence, there are unique sensitivities towards any hint of the return of Islamic politics. Due to this legacy, the green-tinged secularism of the AKP, who invoke religion less frequently than the Christian Democrats in Germany, is treated as the spearhead of an Islamic challenge to the Kemalist system. In a country where the majority of women wear the Islamic headscarf, the greatest indication of the ‘Islamist menace’ is the fact that Gul’s wife, Hayrünnisa Özyurt also wears the hijab.
The major demonstrations on April 14th and 29th drew crowds of three hundred thousand and then up to a million. Such numbers are usually associated with widespread mobilisation of the masses, when a regime is on its last legs. In recent times we have seen similar numbers in the ‘colour’ revolutions of Eastern Europe. In Turkey’s case however the dynamics of these demonstrations of ‘people power’ are vastly different. Rather than representing the coalescence of the masses facing down the state, the demonstrators had the full backing of the establishment. One of the main organisations behind the protests was the Ataturk Thought Association (ADD), which is closely linked to the army.
Sener Eruygur, president of the ADD, is the former head of the country’s paramilitary forces. He has been linked in recent months to a plan, allegedly formed by senior officers to launch a coup against the AKP government. Due to the international climate, it is clear that the Turkish military cannot overthrow the government without serious diplomatic consequences. However media-friendly rallies mask the mobilisation of elite power with an acceptable veneer of popular outrage.
In reality, the opposition to the AKP candidacy is much more about fear than anger. Sadly, it is a fear of the majority of the Turkish people and their Islamic sentiments that is motivating this opposition. As one protestor remarked of the religious Muslims moving into her wealthy area of Istanbul “They have started to look down on us…they are trying to be part of the ruling class.” It seems strange to such protestors that people who do not meet their standards of civilisation and refinement should have, in their view the temerity to influence political life in their country, just because they represent the sentiment of the majority.
In recent years, the largely ceremonial post of president has become akin to a gatekeeper engaged in a secular crusade, rejecting appointments to academic and civil service posts if the candidates are “excessively” religious. As the Islamic identity of Turkey’s people has become more pronounced, the state has become more active in vetoing such appointments; hundreds of officers are removed from the armed forces each year and particular attention is devoted to the upper echelons of the judiciary and central government.
The political crisis in Turkey is part of a broader picture being drawn out across the Islamic world. As the poll conducted by worldpublicopinion.org for the University of Maryland shows, a large majority of Muslims support the implementation of Shari’ah law within, and the unification of Muslim countries into one Caliphate. The elite in Turkey are facing a similar problem to their counterparts in other countries. Imbibing secular western values since their childhood, they are simply unable to relate to the values of the overwhelming majority of their countrymen. The predominant beliefs, values and traditions are so alien to them that they regard the broad mass of their population with a mix of fear and disgust. An inevitable result of this is that whenever the population have the chance to express their sentiments, the elite find themselves repelled by what they hear. Frustrated by their own illogical arguments and rejected by a Europe that has shown its anti Islamic credentials, the ruling elites lash out wildly at their own countrymen.
It is clear that liberal secularism increasingly shown as ineffective in western nations has no future in the Muslim world as the latter move towards an Islamic system more in tune with their religious beliefs, history and heritage. Within such a system, Muslims elect their ruler, there is accountability and the ability to criticise officials no matter their position, an independent judiciary, a rule of law, a strong obligation to eliminate poverty and the fruits of modern technology and science. In addition Islamic texts clearly reject eighteenth century western doctrines of liberal secularism (the detachment of religion from public legislation) or the privatisation of vital resources such as water and energy, as well as the failed laissez faire social model. Islam also comprehensively rejects the flawed basis of political unity being achieved through the destructive force of nationalism; an anachronistic throwback to the nineteenth century. As the Muslim world moves beyond the false bonds of race, the secular world retreats back to the dark ages of Westphalian nation state supremacy and patriotic concepts such as being proud to be Turkish.
Turkey was the capital of a superpower once, the centre of a flourishing civilisation with Islam at its centre. Today it begs European states such as Greece and Cyprus to pass it some crumbs from the ‘grown-ups’ table. No wonder an increasing number of people believe Kemalism belongs more to a museum than in a modern 21st century state.
| |
|
|
| |
| Maryland Poll and Changing Political Trends in the Muslim World |
|
|
|
| |
06th September 2007
| |
| |
A number of striking findings came in an underreported poll published in April 2007. The poll, commissioned by the University of Maryland confirms previous research on the subject http://www.css-jordan.org . The poll conducted across four majority Muslim countries (Egypt, Pakistan, Morocco, and Indonesia) showed overwhelming support for the following:
• Application of Shariah law in Muslim countries
• Unification with other countries in a Pan Islamic state ie. Caliphate
• Opposition to occupation and western foreign policy
• Opposition to the imposition of western values in Muslim lands
• Opposition to the use of violence against civilians
For some of these issues, the level of consensus is in excess of 75%.
WHAT CAN BE LEARNED FROM SUCH POLLS?
1. It indicates the real views on the Muslim street
2. It blows the false myths about the political ideas of Islam and violence
3. It shows that the ideas underpinning the global war on terror are dangerous for the whole world and are deceptive to Western audiences
4. It proves the need for a change in western foreign policy towards the Muslim world
5. It proves that the Caliphate resonates in the Muslim world and that there is a need for all to understand these ideas from their advocates
1. It indicates the real views on the Muslim street
Tony Blair stated in many speeches that the Muslim world does not have to choose between dictatorship and a ‘Taleban style theocracy’. Rather, he argued, that the shared universal values of western democracy and liberty should be the future for Muslims.
It is true people hate dictatorship, occupation and corruption. However, it is false to think that the Muslim world feels the only way this can end is to choose a system like the one Blair, Bush and others advocate.
Muslims see the Shariah in governance as a means of guaranteeing their authority in appointing the ruler, and giving the checks and balances of accountability. Islam, Shariah and the Caliphate are what Muslims see as their liberation from dictatorship, occupation and corruption. It is a system that comes from their beliefs and values and is in accordance with their history.
2. It blows the false myths about the political ideas of Islam and violence
Right wing and hawkish commentators in the west argue that there is an inherent link between the political ideas of Islam and violence as a means to see Islam established. This survey has proved this is a lie and is false. People in the Muslim world want Islam but do not see political violence as a means to achieve it. In reality the overwhelming activism for the return of Islam and the Caliphate in the Muslim world has been through a political method.
3. It shows that the ideas underpinning the War on Terror are dangerous and are deceive the people in the west.
Political leaders, such as Bush, Blair, Cheney, John Reid and others have all attacked the principle of anyone working for a Caliphate and Shariah in the Muslim world.
President Bush stated, when referring to people that share the ideology of Al Qaeda "They hope to establish a violent political utopia across the Middle East, which they call caliphate, where all would be ruled according to their hateful ideology."
Tony Blair also weighed in, when after the 7/7 attacks on London he stated that Britain must confront - “an evil ideology”, defining this as “their barbaric ideas.” These included: “the establishment of effectively Taliban States and Shari’ah law in the Arab world en route to one Caliphate of all Muslim nations.”
Charles Clarke when Home Secretary in 2005 made a speech to the right wing neo-conservative US think tank the Heritage Foundation stating in regards to the Muslim world: “What drives these people on is ideas. And, unlike the liberation movements of the post-World War II era, these are not political ideas like national independence from colonial rule, or equality for all citizens without regard for race or creed, or freedom of expression without totalitarian repression. Such ambitions are, at least in principle, negotiable and in many cases have actually been negotiated. However, there can be no negotiation about the re-creation of the Caliphate; there can be no negotiation about the imposition of Sharia law”.
They have led people in their own population to believe these are ideas of a fringe group of Muslims and most Muslims disagree with the idea of Shariah, Caliphate and any political manifestation of Islam. It is this thinking that deludes people into believing that they can ‘solve’ the problems of the Muslim world by bombing some groups, banning others and changing a couple of regimes.
The reality is that Islam, Shariah and Caliphate are the political ideas of the majority. Therefore, the war that these politicians launched is one that is against the ideas that are the majority mainstream ideas of the Muslim world – the ideas that people see as their liberation from tyrannical oppression, economic dependency and political slavery. They are fooling their own population into a false idea that is a war that can be won. They say it is to be a ‘long’ war. If they are trying to fight the ideas of approximately 1 billion people this is to be a never ending war.
4. It proves the need for a change in western foreign policy towards the Muslim world
The late Robin Cook said, after the Iraq war was over, that the challenge for the west is to reform its foreign policy with the Muslim world – meaning that he recognised that a colonial relationship was no longer tenable. The sad reality is that Bush and Blair interpreted the alternative to ruling through proxy dictators as direct rule via occupation. The unfortunate reality is that the likes of David Cameron and his small circle of neocon advisors agree with this analysis. The Gordon Brown analysis is like that of the Iraq Study group in the USA – that is that the policy of intervention to suppress the expression of these political ideas of Islam is essential, but that the military option is a last resort.
The hopeful sign is that the mainstream populations in Britain, Europe and America were against the Iraq war, and do not support these politicians in their desire to intervene, interfere and invade. They are sceptical about the arguments about liberal interventionism – seeing it as a hypocritical excuse to intervene for material gain. They are sceptical about the scare mongering about terrorist threats. Even where they see the need to take security measures at home they see this foreign policy as worsening the problem. They recognise that heightening anger in the Muslim world and destroying civil society does not make the world a safer place.
5. It proves that the Caliphate today resonates in the Muslim world and that there is a need for all to understand these ideas from their advocates
Above all this survey reflects the emergence of the return of the Caliphate as a majority desire. It proves that the Muslim masses want to live by the Shari’ah. It proves that the west has lost the battle of ideas. And it proves that Islam has won the battle for hearts and minds.
Given that this is the case, this shows that there is an urgent need for people to understand these ideas from those who carry them and believe in them. Many ordinary people in western countries see past the lies and spin of politicians. There is currently no effective voice that is countering these government inspired lies with the real facts about what Muslims the world over want. There is a huge burden on the Muslim community to advocate Islam as an alternative for the Muslim world.
| |
|
|
| |
| Are Muslims becoming more ‘radical’? |
|
|
|
| |
Akmal Asghar
12th February 2007
| |
| |
Scrutiny of the Muslim community, these days, is unrelenting. From bringing the Met into disrepute by discouraging female officers from shaking hands with male colleagues, teaching firebrand radicalism to five year olds, destroying Britain’s social harmony to refusing dogs in their taxis, Muslims now routinely find themselves in the firing line of the country’s media machine and most prominent politicians.
Tony Blair, John Reid, Charles Clarke, Jack Straw and David Cameron, amongst numerous others, have all made alarmist comments on issues from the veil to the Shariah. The temperature has steadily risen to fever pitch since 7/7 and shows no sign of abating or of consulting sanity any time soon.
In the barrage, some of the most basic and widely accepted Islamic beliefs and notions have become targets. The Shariah, Dawah, Islamic education, Islamic politics, the concept of an Islamic state and even the desire to remove western occupation from the Muslim world have all been declared part of the ideology of extremism.
Academics and think-tanks are wheeled out periodically to provide some intellectual credibility to the sensationalism. Take the recently published report by the Policy Exchange ‘Living Apart Together’. To clarify its use of ‘terminology’, it recycles the oft-repeated western distinction between Islam and political Islam ('Islamism' ), describing the latter as supporting a ‘strict’ Islamic state and largely rejected by ‘devout’ Muslims. Amongst its many statistics, it provides no evidence to support this distinction nor is able to demonstrate it has any credibility in Islamic thought. Instead, it makes a self-fulfilling assumption - that Islamic politics is an aberration of Islam – to demonstrate increasing ‘radicalisation’ amongst Muslims.
This highlights the real problem with the current language and its impact on assessing the Muslim community. The growing ‘politicisation’ of the Muslim community is equated with ‘radicalisation’. As Muslims increasingly employ Islam in their politics, they move from ‘Islam’ to ‘Islamism’. The same report shows increasingly Islamic attitudes amongst the younger generation on issues such as, for example, Shariah, the veil and Islamic schools, describing this interest in religion as more ‘politicised’.
The unspoken assumption amongst many-a politician and commentator therefore is that more Islam, particularly Islamic politics, means more radical. Increasing levels of Islamic practice is a problem; it increases the likelihood of radicalisation, extremism and possibly even flirtations with terrorism.
Such sensationalism could only ever find believers in the current climate. The narrative is simply used to put pressure on Muslims, declaring that by using Islam as the rallying point of their political activity they tend towards ‘extremism’, their criticism of the west is unthankful for the refuge it afforded earlier generations of Muslim, challenging western values is a sign of dangerous separatism and that outspoken criticism of the west’s foreign policy hints at religious radicalism and provides succour to terrorism. It is an attempt to silence any criticism of the west or its policies in the Muslim world.
Contrary to this assessment, mounting evidence shows that practicing Muslims – particularly the youth - are less likely to be involved in crime and drugs, more likely to be educated, morally responsible and socially upright; and overcome greater social obstacles in achieving success, than those who do not. Islam has a key role to play in uplifting the Muslim community - the Muslim community needs more, not less, Islam.
It is hard to understand how the current language from politicians and commentators is designed to make things better. Muslims, bruised by the language of such preachers of fear, are scuttling away, intimidated into staying silent, whilst the growing paranoia about Islam goes unchallenged. By playing on peoples’ heightened security fears and focussing on one community exclusively and branding its mainstream and orthodox beliefs (such as the Shariah) ‘extremist’, the prospect before us is one of increasing polarisation, a growing distance and misunderstanding between Muslims and non-Muslim in this country.
| |
|
|
| |
| Saddam’s humiliating end: A wake-up call to Muslim leaders |
|
|
|
| |
12th January 2007
| |
| |
Arif Samad, 12 January 2007
The military occupation of the Muslim world continues unabated with the US’s aerial bombardment of alleged Al-Qadea operatives in southern Somalia. The order to bomb had apparently been given by the new Somalian leadership imposed upon the Somalian people by an Ethiopian invasion force, supported by the US, which routed Islamists from the Union of Islamic Courts who had brought order, security and stability to the war-torn country. The new Somalian leadership puts back in power the warlords that had plagued the strategically important country for decades.
This is the latest episode in current Western foreign policy towards the Muslim World and comes fresh on the heals of new news that there will be a ‘surge’ in US military deployment in Iraq, where, for nearly four years, the world’s most powerful military has been bogged down in a bloody insurgency/resistance battle after invading the country in 2003. Sanctioned and decapitated Iraq was invaded a year after the US sought military revenge on poverty stricken Afghanistan for the attacks of 11 September 2001. In between these, there’s been time to thoroughly flatten apartment blocs, bridges, roads and power stations in Lebanon by Israel in a widely recognised proxy war between the US and Hizballah.
It is argued that Al-Qaeda, Jahadists or Islamists are the problem so nobody should be too sorry or worried about the blatant contravention of international law or human rights or the fact that the world’s biggest military power is directly or indirectly beating up on among the poorest countries of the third world. How about morally unjust? No, because morals are expendable in the new asymmetric warfare we’re dealing with, that is the non-negotiable mentality of the terrorist / suicide bomber, comes the retort. Surely, the right to life, a fair trial and rule of law can not be so readily dispensable? If so, then what are the fundamental ‘values’ that Western leaders so keen to establish in the Muslim world?
After helping to apparently release the Arab and Muslim world from the clutches of British colonialism America is showing its true colours. The tireless American diplomatic effort for an independent Middle East during Britain’s empire was rooted less in altruistic intentions than it appeared. The Arab dictators and despots that replaced British colonialism in the Middle East served their new Western master well but betrayed the interests and wellbeing of their citizens - none more so than Saddam Hussein, who once dined with President Chirac of France and in the 1980s was courted by Donald Rumsfeld of the USA as a potential regional leader. The master than disgraced the servant culminating in a truly humiliating end for Saddam Hussein – shamefully degraded upon capture; tried in a kangaroo court show trial; heckled and humiliated moments before hanging; and precariously hauled to a final resting place on the back of a ‘fruit & veg.’ pick-up truck.
Saddam’s end should be a wake-up call to rulers in the Muslim world – serve the interests and look after the wellbeing of your citizens for when the enemy comes calling they are your best hope for survival. Saddam, a one-man army, upon his capture was abandoned even by his own highly paid personal republican guard. For in the end, ruling his nation by the fear of torture, imprisonment and murder from the secret police (muhabarat), while calling upon Allah in prison failed to convince but a few.
| |
|
|
| |
| Stern warning – let’s get real |
|
|
|
| |
03rd November 2006
| |
| |
Reducing carbon emission is about a lifestyle change in the west but in the developing world it is a matter of life and death. The climate change debate is incredibly western centric. Using growing fears in the west over carbon emissions to take a pot-shot at the relatively recent economic growth in China and India is profoundly disingenuous given that since the industrial revolution the west has been solely responsible for most of the carbon dioxide emissions in the world today.
The members of the Group of Eight (G-8) - Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States – make up the industrialised world and together account for about two-thirds of the world's economic output. Not coincidently, since 1850 North America and Europe have produced 70% of all carbon dioxide emissions, according to the Stern economic climate change review. Industry, power generation and transport are among the biggest generators of carbon emissions world wide – accounting for 70% of green house gases in the EU. Meanwhile, the US with 5% of the world’s population is the world’s single largest polluter in absolute terms and per capita.
What are the ‘fruits’ of the industrialised western world: power literally at the flick of a switch; seemingly limitless selection and variety of household goods and appliances from all corners of the earth; unseasonal exotic foods all year round; the most elaborate disposable packaging to entice sale; decadently cheap flights for short-haul weekend breaks; and the ultimate freedom to drive a gas-guzzler a mere two blocks on the daily school run.
In stark contrast, the lot of the mainly poverty stricken developing world including India and China is: for the fortunate few that are connected to power, daily outages; no hot water let alone running clean water; death by every-day aliments eradicated in the west half a century ago; managing the whole family budget (food, housing, transport, education and heath) on less than $2 a day; no safety-net of a welfare state; and no passport to trouble the expanding market for air travel.
Morally it is highly questionable to look to India and China to curtail carbon emissions when they have only recently begun to lift some of their citizens out of abject poverty. Also, it sends the wrong message to other poor developing countries which need to grow, industrialise and reduce poverty. It is also opportunist as the world is paying the price for mainly past emissions which have hung-around in the earth’s atmosphere for several decades – as the report highlights.
Also, it is questionable whether the west is taking the problem of potentially cataclysmic proportions seriously. Aside from the growing selection of reports on the subject, what has practically been done to reduce carbon emissions? The most notable example is the emission trading scheme, a voluntary, hands-off, free market approach to the problem which excludes key polluting sectors such as air lines, and big polluting countries such as the USA. Indeed since the scheme was launched in January 2005 the value of carbon permits or the cost of polluting has fallen in real terms. With the tool most favoured by Sir Stern to reduce carbon pollution widely said to be in disarray it is difficult to see the west matching deeds to laudable words.
Given the lethal cocktail of capitalist industrial policy of the last 150 years mixed with the western culture of unbridled consumerism, the depletion of the very air that we breathe was predictable. The fall-out will be mostly in the developing world – floods in Bangladesh, migration and food shortages in sub-Saharan Africa. While London and New York can afford to pay to fortify themselves against the impending rising tide, Chittagong and Madagascar can barely afford food for their citizens. A creditable and genuine western stance would be take the lead and consistently reduce carbon emissions over a decade - then western leaders would be taken more seriously in a very serious debate about the future of our planet.
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Mohammed Zahid
26th October 2006
Mohammed.zahid@newcivilisation.com
03rd November 2006
| |
| |
The US involvement in building a new political setup in Iraq has been a failure from day one. The governments led by Ibrahim al Jafar or Nour al Maliki have failed in governing or providing much needed security to the Iraqi people. Nour al Maliki has failed to deal with the security situation in Baghdad - the situation has deteriorated even more under his short tenure than what one saw under Ibrahim al Jafar, regarded as a failure by many Iraqis.
Nour al Maliki has been at the centre of much criticism from the US administration and the neoconservatives, who are clearly unhappy with how things are unfolding in Iraq. The level of insecurity is threatening US economic and strategic interests in Iraq and the wider Persian Gulf. In addition, the Iraqi quagmire is preventing the US dealing with other regional security concerns such as Iran and Syria. The US has therefore much to lose if the situation in Iraq persists. In response to the need to rectify the terrible situation in Iraq, it has been reported that the US has been holding secret meetings with senior officials from the Iraqi military behind the Iraqi government’s back, with the hope of engineering an internal coup to bring about governmental change in Iraq. This would remove Nour al Maliki and bring forward someone else who the US believes would be better able to deal with the chaos in Iraq. No one knows who this person is but the US has a history of pulling someone out of the hat to do its work, Hamid Karazai in Afghanistan is a case in point.
This backdoor planning by the US makes it clear that the US is not really interested and will not be interested in allowing the Iraqi government to function of its own accord. This destroys the myth that the Iraqi state has political sovereignty, a line constantly pushed by the US administration post Saddam and post the December 2005 elections. It is also valid to emphasise that blaming of Nour al Maliki for the lawlessness and chaos in Iraq conveniently deflects attention from the role the US has played in the bloodshed we witness in Iraq. Sir Richard Dannatt from the British military recently linked foreign military presence in Iraq to the escalating level of violence in Iraq but such comments are brushed aside and the US and British government, who continue to direct criticism at the Iraqi government.
The outlook for Iraq appears dismal. Even if a new government is put in place by the US, the root cause of the crisis - the military occupation - needs to end, allowing an opportunity for the Iraqi people to determine their own political future. The gathering of Iraqi Islamic scholars and political leaders recently in Mecca, Saudi Arabia indicates their desire to resolve the problems facing Iraq but are disabled while the occupation continues. The end of the occupation will no doubt act as a source of Iraqi political empowerment allowing a path of political self determination to be constructed, providing a platform to lead Iraq out of the mess it is in at the moment.
| |
|
|
| |
| Why the Veil Debate is so Important |
|
|
|
| |
Sajjad Khan
19th October 2006
| |
| |
It is one of the myths of modern day discourse that Muslims are the ones afraid of debate; overly sensitive, frequently inflexible and of course always wrong. With every new criticism aimed at Muslims, the movie becomes so predictable just like a good old fashioned James Bond movie where 007 kills the baddies, saves the world and ends up with the girl. The Muslim movie is just as predictable and it goes something like this. Prominent Non Muslim indulges in a strong criticism of Muslims or Islam, this is then magnified by the media out of all proportion, and the issue is then repeated ubiquitously in newspaper editorials. In response some Muslims react defensively or violently, which is in turn attacked as Muslims being either too sensitive to criticism or at worst philistines who don’t understand the values of the Enlightenment. And before Muslims can catch their breath, another distinct attack raises itself from the ether.
The veil issue currently being debated in the UK epitomises exactly what is wrong with the current ‘debate’ surrounding Islam and the West. Jack Straw a member of the British Cabinet claimed that he wanted to open a debate surrounding the veil. Of course no such thing has actually happened, for a real debate to occur as anyone familiar with any debating society rules knows, are that both sides receive equal time and an equal opportunity to articulate their views. While Jack Straw enjoys the bully pit of the Cabinet, the ability to write columns in national newspapers, extensive opportunities to give live interviews his numerous opponents have to do with scraps via letters pages, brief appearances on twenty four hour news stations and radio phone-ins. What therefore has actually happened is more equivalent to a glorified monologue with Muslims playing the part of optional extras.
The issue around the veil is not as has been articulated a clash between the West and Islam. Rather the deeper insight is that this is another of many incidents that epitomises a clash within Western civilization itself. For Muslims the issue of the veil has long been settled, most Muslims believe that the veil is not a compulsion for women to wear, but recognise that for some the covering of the face does constitute an obligation. A small minority of women wear the veil for purely pragmatic reasons, a vehicle to protect themselves from the challenges of a highly sexualised society. Regardless of the position, the issue of the veil is not a lightning rod that it has become within Western society.
The veil however does create yet another ideological chasm within Western society. Liberalism has been sorely tested since 9-11, and the veil issue demonstrates once again that there are fundamental contradictions between liberal values on the one hand and the challenges of running a modern state. Prior to a post 9-11 world, the veil would never have become an issue, the concepts of freedom of expression and tolerance would have been too strong and too ingrained in western society. Yet as a result of a myriad of distinct reasons, elements of western society are now heading down the road of intolerance and muscular integration. Many Non Muslims accuse Muslims of not respecting western society’s cherished ideals of freedom and tolerance. Yet it isn’t Muslims that have delivered blows to these values, these same Non Muslims have done a pretty good job themselves since 9-11. It wasn’t Muslims that have passed with alacrity draconian anti-terror legislation, it wasn’t Muslims who extended pre-charge detention periods for suspects, it wasn’t Muslims who have criminalised legitimate dissent in the name of preventing the glorification of terrorism, it isn’t Muslims who preside over the abuse of human rights at Guantanomo Bay, it isn’t Muslims who want ID cards, it isn’t Muslims who have introduced mass surveillance and wiretaps. These same Non Muslims argue that Muslims have failed to integrate; indeed only recently one senior Conservative politician accused Muslims of seeking voluntary apartheid. Yet what values do they want Muslims to integrate with, the values that existed a hundred years ago, the ones that existed pre 9-11, the ones in vogue now or the new ones that are inevitably just around the corner . And when did such values become sacrosanct and above criticism. Western societies may claim a superior set of principles but they also promote excessive individualism, an unhealthy materialism, a hedonistic trend which embraces alcohol and sex and which systematically removes any kind of moral or spiritual dimension. These values are not just opposed by the large majority of Muslims but millions of other people in western society. Surely instead of continually demanding in a robotic fashion that Muslims should integrate into a set of values that continually evolve, we should start having an adult debate on what values are fit for purpose for the 21st century. What values can protect our elderly, what values can help to alleviate third world poverty and disease, what values can address the deep problems of social inequality, drugs and chronic racism.
One of the rationales given on why Britain and America went to war in Afghanistan was the need to liberate women who lived in Afghan society. The British Foreign Secretary at the time of the Afghan invasion was especially keen to accentuate the point that the Taliban were oppressing women through dictating to them what they could and could not wear. Who was the then British Foreign Secretary, yes you guessed it, the Rt Hon Jack Straw. You couldn’t make it up.
sajjad.khan@newcivilisation.com
| |
|
|
| |
| Londonistan, Britain – Political Spin and Media Manipulation |
|
|
|
| |
Arif Samad
10th October 2006
| |
| |
The anger of Muslims over the revelation that Jack Straw, the leader of the House of Commons, requests’ Muslim women constituents to remove their nikab (face veil) in face-to-face interviews, the report that a Muslim police officer, with family ties in Lebanon, refused to guard the Israeli embassy during the recent Israeli/Lebanon war, and the judgment against a Muslim taxi driver who refused to take a (guide) dog into his cab – all headline news within the space of a few days - brilliantly enforces the notion of Londonistan, Britain. A notion of a minority intolerant Muslim community imposing its foreign values and culture on the host liberal society, and abusing the hospitality afforded them.
The backdrop to these high profile media incidents has been a deliberate and seemingly coordinated political campaign to focus on the apparent inadequacies of Muslim community in Britain. On 24 August, Ruth Kelly, MP, launched the new Commission on Integration and Cohesion specifically targeting Muslims communities and their apparent lack of integration. On 20 September, John Reid, the Home Secretary, travelled to East London, near the bungled police raid in Forrest Gate, to warn Muslim parents to watch over their children for signs of extremism. The opposition also got in on the act with the leader of the Conservative party, Dave Cameron, threatening, at the party conference on 4th of October, to dismantle Muslim dominated communities (ghettoes). Lastly amid the media frenzy and the ensuing debate on the 6th of October, the Office of National Statistics (ONS), the UK’s Official Statistics Institute, published a race and diversity map of Britain highlighting that in some towns of the UK there was a up to 85% chance that any two people chosen at random from a particular area would be from different ethnic groups, even if neither of them are white.
It appears the Government and its agencies orchestrate the loaded political debate and feed the ever eager and sensationalist media to create a caricature of fanatical Muslims. After repeated conditioning by the partial media, which is dominated by a handful of moguls, the media conducts or sponsors opinion polls. As an example, the Daily Express conducted an opinion poll on the weekend after Jack Straw’s revelations on whether the nikab should be banned, generating a ‘yes’ vote of 97%. These polls are then highlighted to show public opinion hostile to Muslims and their perceived values and culture - unsurprisingly. The opinion polls are then jumped on by agenda-driven politicians to justify draconian policies against the fragmented Muslim community that seriously lacks the media outlets to be able to dent the negative perception generated by Government and scandalously propagated by the media.
This chain of events is becoming ever more common on a host of important issues: the argument for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; the debate on Sarah’s Law; and the discourse around detaining suspects for up to 30-days without charge. It raises serious questions about the politicisation of independent institutions (the security services, the police and the judiciary), of the impartiality of debate, the manipulative role of the media and ultimately about the strength and health of British democracy.
| |
|
|
| |
| Immigration - the fruit of global inequality |
|
|
|
| |
Arif Samad
10th October 2006
| |
| |
The World Trade Organisation (WTO), which is working to resuscitate the Doha trade talks, purports the benefits of free trade estimating that millions of people in the developing world will be lifted out of poverty. Given free trade, countries will naturally maximise output by specialising in producing those goods and services in which they possess a comparative advantage; and buy in those goods and services in which they don’t. Barriers to trade inhibit countries from specialising and therefore reaping the benefits of free trade. As an example, the elimination of US cotton subsidies to its farmers in the developed world would result in higher cotton prices accruing to developing worlds’ farmers hence lifting them out of poverty.
By analogy, the free movement of human capital can yield similar benefits. Immigration increases the pool of labour and eases supply shortages thereby lowering wages, increasing profits, and if lower costs are passed on to consumers, reducing prices of goods and services provided by immigrants. Labour supply and demand reaches equilibrium as immigrants do the jobs domestic workers are not prepared to do for the wage offered. Immigrants, while normally receiving low wages, have income they otherwise would not. A high proportion of this income is remitted back home to support poorer families and communities with housing, education and health care. Moreover, back home wage levels rise as employers try to hold on to workers attracted to a better-paid life abroad.
However, the West and its institutions view unhindered immigration with distinctly less enthusiasm than free trade. As the gap between the have and have-nots grows ever wider, increasing numbers of economic migrants land at Western borders and are having the doors slammed shut to them. The USA is erecting a 15-foot wall on its Mexican border to stem the flow of poor Mexicans venturing to the land of the free to make their fortune. The EU has laid on stricter conditionality on Romania and Bulgaria because many in Europe, even among the business community, feel it unwise to continue with the unrestricted open door policy following the recent accession into the EU of eight former communist states. Risking life and limb, hordes of poverty stricken young North African men illegally land on the shores of Europe daily only to be deported shortly thereafter. Australia has been deluged with so many unwanted immigrants that it has resorted to detaining them in camps in the country’s Outback.
Why the contradiction in the application of capitalist economic theory? After all, there are plenty of economic migrants (more pleasantly known as expatriates) from the West in very lucrative employment in the Gulf. Still many more work in very poor developing countries as consultants/ specialists/ economists reportedly earning as much as a £1000 per day. Some have argued that the level of immigration in the West has reached unsustainable levels. Among the countries where this debate has been fiercest is the UK, where ethnic minorities account for about 10% of the overall population, although in some cities that proportion is greater. However, this argument is less convincing when looking at the level of economic migration, for example, the Gulf, where over one hundred thousand Western expatriates work. According to the latest data there are 3.5 foreigners for every national in the United Arab Emirates, with expatriates accounting for more than 90% of the 2.7m workforce.
It appears that the reason why increased immigration to the West is being staunchly resisted is the same as the reason the US and EU are unwilling to reduce farm subsidies despite the stark contradiction with free market theory. Western self-interest is the biggest obstacle to the clear benefits for the worlds’ poorest from free trade and less restricted migration. Trade and work are ways in which the poorest could help themselves rather then relying on handouts. Western aid and loans to the developing world on the other hand ingrain dependence, which in turn forces compliance.
Globalisation generally favours the wealthiest resulting in ever-greater concentration of wealth in the West. This increases global inequality with growing numbers of desperate people unable to fulfil their basic needs. Thus, is the Western policy of keeping people out sustainable?
| |
|
|
| |
| Impact of 9/11 Five Years On |
|
|
|
| |
Salman Ahmed
19th September 2006
| |
| |
Re-watching the recorded images and sounds of the September the 11th attack on the World Trade Centre, as a Muslim I am faced with the question as to how the perpetrators justified their mass slaughter of thousands of innocent people on the basis of Islam. In New York five years ago, people were going about their daily lives on what should have been a normal working day; they were unaware that they were combatants on a battle field or that they were engaged in a war and that the building where they worked was the main target. Most Muslims like myself can find no justification for the killing of such innocent people under Islam, irrespective of whether they believe there may or may not have been any merit to the political grievances that Al Qaeda point to for justification of such attacks. There is near unanimity amongst the scholars and intelligensia of the Muslim world that Muslims need to address the thinking, which a very small minority of Muslims carry, that the killing of innocent people can be justified such as that of September the 11th. The thinking of such “Jihadists” if left unchecked has such serious consequences that the Muslim majority cannot afford to take the position that this is just a matter of a difference of interpretation of Islam: that we can agree to differ on the killings of civilians, and leave such “Jihadists” to operate freely.
In the Muslim world, everyday brings news from Iraq and Afghanistan about car bombs, suicide attacks, kidnappings, torture and fatalities that run into the dozens or sometimes hundreds. Pictures of tortured bodies regularly appear on Arab satellite channels, and by all accounts a very high percentage if not the majority of people killed are civilians; people who were not interested in fighting anyone but happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The minimum estimates for non-Allied casualties incurred in Iraq and Afghanistan is of the order of approximately thirty to forty thousand people. Whilst many of the casualties can be attributed to collateral damage that results from military actions undertaken by the allied forces, some of them can be attributed to sectarian killings, others to criminal elements, some to cross-fire and so on. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, there seems to be no end in sight to the killings that are taking place, and Western military commentators talk about the need to keep on fighting for the next five to ten years in both countries.
Although Western military forces cannot be held accountable for all the civilian deaths that have occurred, all of these deaths can be attributed to the failure of Western allies to stabilize the societies of the countries that were invaded. And it is now widely accepted that very limited planning was done to deal with the post-conflict situation in both countries and many leading politicians were very naïve in what they thought would happen in both Iraq and Afghanistan once the old regimes were removed. It is this incompetence, naivety, mistaken thinking amongst leading Western politicians that has lead to the situation where hundreds of civilians are dying every week. The potential for fighting between Shia and Sunni was entirely predictable in Iraq, and so was the support for the Taliban in Southern Afghanistan amongst the Pushto speaking tribes.
There is an Islamic tradition that goes back to the Prophet that each generation of Muslims is taught. “If you see something wrong (munkar) don’t try to fix it if you don’t have the capability especially if what you do will cause anarchy and discord (fitnah) in the society”.
Today we see that neither the US or Britain or their remaining allies have a credible plan for stabilizing Iraq or Afghanistan. Nor are they prepared to pay the necessary price – money and people – for stopping the anarchy that has spread throughout these countries. There is no real Marshall plan for Afghanistan or Iraq and there seems to be no interest amongst Western taxpayers to make the necessary sacrifices to sort these countries out. What we are witnessing in Iraq and Afghanistan is an experiment that a small number of Western politicians have come up with; a plan to re-engineer societies whose culture and history they have very limited understanding of. These “experiments” are clearly not working and it is time to acknowledge this and look for a way out even if it means making a deal with our enemies. As we remember September the 11th we should also reflect upon all the causalities that have happened during the War on Terror. Is it not time for Western intellectuals and the public to hold their leaders to account for all the deaths that they have caused and for the anarchy they have created, and ask them for the way out?
Salman.ahmed@newcivilisation.com
| |
|
|
| |
| Darfur - Why UN Troops are not the Solution! |
|
|
|
| |
Sajjad khan
Editor- New Civilisation
19th September 2006
| |
| |
Thomas Jefferson once said ‘The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.” The sanctity of life however took a huge knock in the twentieth century and we are still feeling the consequences in the new millennium. Mankind lost millions in WW1 in European trenches, we lost tens of millions in WW2 including 6 million Jews, 20 million Russians and tens of thousands in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In the Korean peninsula 3-4 million civilians were killed as a result of the conflict, in Vietnam 58,000 US soldiers were killed as well as 2 million Vietnamese over a ten-year period. After Vietnam we have witnessed unspeakable massacres in Cambodia and in the 1990’s Rwanda lost millions as a result of an intra tribal genocide. In the 21st century the momentum goes on, three thousand dead in America, tens of thousands dead in Iraq and Afghanistan and since 2003 the deaths of tens of thousands in Darfur in Western Sudan.
As is inevitable and right, one looks for a cause to blame for the suffering, a scapegoat, someone we can easily punish and account for these unspeakable atrocities. For some in the West the narrative is straightforward, the deaths in Darfur are a direct result of the Sudanese Government and their allies in the Janjaweed militia. Yet even if this political narrative is correct, putting in UN troops is not the answer. The UN’s track record on protecting civilians is patchy to say the least. In 1995 UN peacekeepers failed to protect the massacre of 8,000 people in Srebenicia. In Rwanda, the UN failed to protect the Tutsis from being massacred, in the 1990’s it was UN sanctions that were responsible for the deaths of 500,000 children in Iraq which according to the then US Secretary of State Madeline Albright was a price well worth paying. And the Sudanese Government is not paranoid when it comes to being suspicious about the real agenda of some member states that may wish to contribute to a UN force.
Of course the Sudanese regime has the primary culpability in the current Darfur conflict. The duty of any state is to protect its citizens and to ensure that the lives of its entire people are protected regardless of colour, creed or tribe. In trying to address rebellions in the west of its country, the Sudanese Government should be able to distinguish between those intent on destroying the unity of the state and those who are innocent bystanders. Collective punishment whether practiced in Palestine or Sudan can never be justified. If they continue to kill their citizens, then other Muslim countries should do what is necessary to resolve the situation. Yet it is not only the Sudanese Government who needs to rediscover the sanctity of human life, we all do. Many in the West who believe in the Bush doctrine often accuse Muslims of having double standards when it comes to the death of their co-religionists, criticising America and Israel when it comes to Iraq and Lebanon but turning a blind eye when it comes to atrocities in Darfur. However hypocrisy is not unique to these Muslims, these same critics who highlight Darfur stay largely silent when it comes to the record of Western states in the 19th and 20th centuries where literally millions have died at the behest of Western policy. Not to mention the hypocrisy that they have shown over the UN, an entity that they collectively rubbished in the Iraq conflict and which they now embrace as the mechanism to deal with Sudan.
And here lies the rub of the issue, the sanctity of human life cannot be simply protected by military means or UN resolutions, it requires a transformational change in our collective values and our political actions. Too much of today’s society is now built on materialism, hedonism and national pride and too little built on caring for the dignity of human life. Too much foreign and security policy now prioritises resources over people, markets over ideals and expediency over principle. A life lost in the twin towers should not count more than one who dies in Kandahar, nor is a civilian life taken in the name of God, any more justified than those taken in the name of defending national security, corporate capitalism or tribal superiority. The life of a Red Indian chief, the life of a black slave from Sierra Leone, the life of a Vietnamese mother, the life of an American cabin attendant, the life of an Iraqi trader and the life of a child in Darfur should be equally viewed as sacred. Mankind in the 21st century has advanced technologically in a way in which our ancestors would have only dreamed of, yet our attitude towards the sanctity of human life remains stuck in the dark ages.
Sajjad.khan@newcivilisation.com
| |
|
|
| |
| A Nuclear Iran whose problem is it? |
|
|
|
| |
Salman ahmed
11th September 2006
| |
| |
Reading most foreign policy commentators, you would think that we are facing a nightmare situation with Iran about to start the manufacture of nuclear weapons unless the international community takes significant and immediate action. If the "mad mullahs" of Iran, who are apparently unrestrained by civilised Western values, are not stopped then they could start to threaten the stability of the world by coupling their fanaticism and religious fervour with nuclear weapons. Some question why they need to develop nuclear power when they are sitting on some of the world's largest reserves of oil. Others point out, that given the Iranian President’s statements calling for the destruction of Israel, surely this would be a recipe for nuclear Armageddon if Iran were not stopped.
But for many people, and you don't necessarily have to be an Iranian Mullah or a member of Hezbollah to see it, there seems to be a common premise to most of the
arguments made against Iran. This premise being that those dark skinned peoples who live far away, with their foreign culture and religion, can't be trusted; they are not
civilised like us; rather they are belligerent barbarians; and can't be accepted at their word. This perception of the people of the Orient was discussed in detail by the late Edward Said in his book "Orientalism" and is not a recent phenomenon or the result of recent neo-con propaganda or policies. By all accounts, most Iranians, both religious and secular, see the issue of the development of nuclear technology as being a sign of progress for their nation. And since they don't see themselves as being culturally or racially inferior; they can't comprehend why the West wants to prevent them from developing nuclear technologies that others have.
Though today the Iranians are not proposing to develop nuclear weapons, it is conceivable that once they are able to master the uranium enrichment process they would be able to generate sufficiently enriched uranium to use in nuclear weapons. The latest intelligence estimates by the CIA indicate that Iran is a decade away from being able to produce a nuclear weapon. And even if the Iranian government does decide ultimately to develop nuclear weapons this should be seen in the context of Iran's legitimate security concerns. From their perspective, they have seen the invasion and occupation of two of their neighbours by the United States: Afghanistan and Iraq. And they continually hear calls for regime change in Iran by many US politicians. Furthermore the lesson they have learned from the United States dealings with North Korea, is that no serious US politician calls for forced regime change in North Korea, where nuclear weapons act as a deterrent to the world's superpower.
There is little or no evidence to indicate that the Iranian regime develops foreign policy differently to other states. Nor is there any evidence that the Iranian leadership wants to sacrifice millions of its citizens in a potential nuclear exchange with Israel for the sake of liberating Jerusalem or the coming of the Mahdi (Messiah). When the Iranian President in his speeches calls into question the existence of the Israel state, he articulates an opinion shared by many in the Muslim world. Such speeches may enhance Ahmadinejad's standing in the Muslim world but Iran, which does not even border Israel, is not in a position to threaten the Israel state.
Thus the major losers if Iran or another Middle Eastern state acquires nuclear technologies and possible weapons, will be the United States and Israel who will have to think twice before they launch attacks against that country or want to initiate forced regime change. For us in Britain lets recognise the issue as what it is - not our problem. If the Israeli and
United States governments want to start a new war in Iran, this time lets make sure Britain keeps out of it.
Salman.ahmed@newcivilisation.com
| |
|
|
| |
| Pakistan- Time for New Political Vision |
|
|
|
| |
Mohammed Zahid
Mohammed.zahid@newcivilisation.com
06th September 2006
| |
| |
The Pakistani government post 9/11 has faced mounting pressure as a result of its compliance in the War on Terror and its close alliance with the US. The launching of raids in the North West and the Waziristan province under US directives has created an unstable situation in Pakistan. The problem has been complicated by the on going troubles it has faced in the oil rich province of Baluchistan. The assassination of the Baluchi leader Nawab Akbar Bugti last week heightened this conflict which has been going on for decades and at the same time raised questions surrounding the root cause of this conflict and the way to bring stability in Pakistan.
The Pakistani government has consistently blamed greedy tribal chiefs to external interference from India to provide an explanation as to why it has faced problems in Baluchistan. However, this laying of the blame at the feet of others seems to be a rather convenient policy for the Pakistani government, which has failed to look at its own role in the problem which have emerged from the Baluchistan region. This region has been highly neglected by central government for decades; the level of investment has been marginal compared to other regions. The number of social and economic problems in the region have, been mounting over the years. Therefore, from a brief understanding of the social and economic context, it can be seen that underlying grievances have been simmering for some time and it would be only a matter of time, before people in the region began demanding a greater share of oil revenues and autonomy to look after their own affairs.
The Pakistani government has consistently denied such reasoning for the problems it has faced in Baluchistan and continued with burying it head in the sand. This approach has not surprised many as the Pakistani government, whether under a military or a civilian dictatorship has failed to effectively extend its sphere of representation beyond an elite strata in Pakistan. This elite has been formed from the landowners, industrialists and business class which have since the creation of Pakistan been highly interwoven with successive Pakistani governments. Therefore the policies of the government have acted in the interest of this elite rather than the whole population of Pakistan- leading to an ultimate division between state and society, with ensuing tensions and conflicts between the two.
The Pakistani government can continue to blame others but the root cause of the problems it faces in Baluchistan and other regions are its own doing, with the existence of a highly unrepresentative socio-economic and political system. If this continues, the problems are unlikely to abate and there would be without doubt others in Pakistan waiting to fight the government for its right and appropriate distribution of resources. Pakistan is at a critical juncture and a new political vision needs to be adopted, one which will galvanise the Pakistani populace under it and create a stable political medium. The political vision, which is gaining momentum in Pakistan and other places in the Muslim world, is one of Political Islam, which is rising to the forefront of domestic, regional and international discussions and agendas. Therefore it is ever more important for an acknowledgment to be made of the future role of Political Islam in Pakistan and a debate to begin upon how it can deal with the problems, which the Pakistani government has failed to deal with over the last 50 years.
| |
|
|
| |
| Hamas- Flexibility and more Flexibility |
|
|
|
| |
Mohammed Zahid
Mohammed.zahid@newcivilisation.com
06th September 2006
| |
| |
The Hamas led government has faced international pressure from day one, resulting in an international boycott in particular the refusal of international donors to supply much needed capital and the Israeli refusal to hand over Palestinian tax revenues collected from Eastern Jerusalem. This predicament has led to political infighting in the Palestinian Territories and numerous strikes being staged by workers demanding their wages. This pressure, in addition to the Gaza siege being imposed by the Israeli’s has led the Hamas government to yield to the pressure and move to accept a unity government with Fatah. Mahmoud Abbas has declared that a unity government should be formed within a period of 10 days, allowing governance to proceed in the Palestinian Territories. This level of flexibility from Hamas was expected for a number of reasons.
First, Hamas has a history of demonstrating flexibility; it’s change in policy from calling for the end of total occupation to the creation of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders.
Second, Hamas had previously stated that it would not participate in elections enshrined by the Oslo Accords of 1993, but changed its policy and participated in municipal elections, leading to its participation in national elections.
Third, Hamas had refused to acknowledge the Oslo agreement but its participation in the national elections and its taking over of the Palestinian Authorities (PA) was a clear change in policy as the PA was a product of the Oslo Agreement.
Fourth, Hamas, had previously stated its desire not to negotiate and discuss with the Israeli government but clearly by leading the PA it must negotiate with Israel, thus implicit recognition of the State of Israel.
Therefore from the above, flexibility is obvious in the policy of Hamas and it is this flexibility, which has been understood fully by the US, Israel and Fatah. Therefore, it was only a matter of time before Hamas would yield to pressure and accept what was demanded from them. The ‘Prisoners Document’ including articles acknowledging the State of Israel and accepting a 2 state solution- if accepted would be another clear example of Hamas flexibility. There have been signs of acceptance of the document, although the Hamas spokesman Abu Zuhri has dismissed this and Mahmoud Abbas has given Hamas a week to make its views clear on the document. With the internal situation deteriorating and more pressure being imposed on Hamas, there is no doubt that flexibility will be shown by Hamas. Therefore Hamas, would be following the path trodden by the PLO, one of compromises. This is a very dangerous predicament for Hamas as it could lose face in Palestine and the wider Muslim world, but may be it will be able to sell any acceptance of the prisoner’s document to the Palestinian people on the back of removing its international boycott and improving the economic situation. However, the experience of Hamas has indicated once again, that anyone who takes the hot seat in Palestine is bound to be flexible or made to be flexible as Palestine is under occupation and the occupiers and those connected (i.e. the US) pull the strings of the political happenings and agenda in terms of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
| |
|
