Our Announcements

Not Found

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.

Archive for category ISLAMOPHOBIA

Pakistan’s subservience to lukewarm defiance   Brig Gen (Retd) Asif Haroon Raja

Pakistan’s subservience to lukewarm defiance

 

Asif Haroon Raja

9/11 changed the global dynamics

On the morning of 9/11/2001, unknown hijackers flying two passenger planes struck the twin towers in New York with short intervals, the third plane headed for Washington and struck part of Pentagon building and the 4th plane on its way to Pennsylvania was shot down. The flummoxed US security watched the gory drama for hours helplessly.

The US media blared earth shaking news and cried hoarse over the air terrorism which took the lives of little over 2700 Americans. The world was shocked and the world leaders shed tears of anguish and sympathy over the great tragedy, while the Zionists drew satisfaction that they were successful in hoodwinking the world. 9/11 changed the global dynamics and from that time onwards the world moved differently.

All the three successive regimes of the USA led by George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump played into the hands of the Zionists, American Jewish lobby and Israel, and used excessive military force to destroy the targeted Muslims countries, and to kill, maim and displace the Muslims ruthlessly under a pre-planned agenda.

Each year, wreaths were laid on the graves of the innocent Americans who died in New York, but no tear was shed for the millions of Muslims who were killed by the revengeful Americans for no fault of theirs.

Al-Qaeda blamed without evidence

Since Osama bin Laden (OBL) hailed from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and most of the 19 hijackers were from KSA, it was assumed that OBL based in Afghanistan and heading Al-Qaeda had master-minded the attacks. Al-Qaeda was squarely blamed on the basis of assumptions that it had been involved in attacks against American targets since 1997 and had carried out attacks on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1999.

Crusade against the Muslims

Fuming George W. Bush declared that the US was at war and pledged to avenge. He avowed the Global War on Terror (GWoT) as a ‘crusade’ against the perpetrators without collecting a shred of evidence. The Americans sitting in the hall stood up from their seats and cheered him thunderously, while the world leaders extended their support to bludgeon the ones who had dared to attack the mighty sole super. Not a single country spoke in support of the Taliban regime which had no role to play in the attacks. Their only fault was that they had refused to hand over OBL without providing them proof of his involvement.        

The overall agenda was to demean Islam, which after the demise of communism in Russia was viewed as a major threat to the capitalism, the arms, drugs and pharmaceutical barons and the unjust global international order run by the sole super power.

Israel and India, the two strategic partners of the US, didn’t take part in the GWoT initiated by the US in Oct 2001, but drew maximum benefits from the war.

The UN-recognized freedom movements of the Palestinians and the Kashmiris to free their lands from illegal occupation of Israel and India were categorized as terrorism, thereby giving a free hand to the two fascist and racist countries, Israel and India, to brutalize the Palestinians and the Kashmiris unpityingly.

Denuclearization of Pakistan

In order to disable the nuclear program of Pakistan covertly, Pakistan was deceitfully made an ally and Pakistan readily fell into the honeycombed trap.

India was assigned the responsibility to plan and execute the biggest covert war against Pakistan from Afghan soil, and make it politically unstable, economically and militarily weak and socially divided; subsequently, launch a limited war under Cold Start Doctrine and the nuclear overhang to destroy Pak armed forces. 

RAW along with 14 intelligence units, seven Pakistan specific Indian Consulates and Indian Embassy in Kabul set up a huge terror infrastructure in Afghanistan with 70 training camps and centres in 2002 and were given full support by the CIA, Mossad, MI-6, BND and NDS.

Proxy war against Pakistan

 

 

 

Initial objectives of destabilization were FATA in the northwest and Baluchistan in the southwest of Pakistan. This was done through proxies hired from Pakistan. In FATA, Pakistani Taliban were used as mercenaries. In Baluchistan, the Balochi tribes of Bugtis, Marris and Mengals were brought in line and proxies like BLA, BRA and BLF were created.

The proxies were funded, trained and equipped to carry out acts of sabotage and subversion in the two combat zones. The flames of terrorism were to be subsequently spread to all parts of Pakistan. The MQM was also roped in to destabilize Karachi, the hub of Pakistan’s economy.

 

Pakistan coerced to join Global War Against Terrorism (GWoT)

Pakistan under Gen Musharraf who had been bullied to ditch the ruling Taliban regime of Mullah Omar and to extend full support to the US to capture Afghanistan was later on coerced to send regular troops into South Waziristan (SW) in 2003 to flush out the Al-Qaeda and the ones harboring them. This was in violation of the agreement signed in 1948 by Quaid-e-Azam and the elders of FATA to keep the tribal belt outside the ambit of Pakistan’s penal laws and parliamentary system and to let them be governed by the British enacted Political Agent system and the Frontier Constabulary Rules. The Frontier Corps could only operate in FATA.  

Intrusion of regular troops into SW fueled Talibanization and by Dec 2006, with the active support of the CIA and FBI, Tehreek-Taliban-Pakistan (TTP) was born. Well over 600 pro-Pakistan Maliks, elders and religious leaders were killed to create space for the TTP under Baitullah Mehsud. After the death of Akbar Bugti in a mountain cave in 2006 because of a mysterious blast at a time when the Army’s delegation approached him to sign a peace agreement, the insurgency in Baluchistan morphed into a separatist movement and several Baloch Sardars fled abroad who are being patronized by their western hosts and India. Insurgencies in the two regions were well-synchronized by the master planners.   

Pakistan’s hands tied

When armed insurgency suddenly erupted in Indian Occupied Kashmir in Oct 1989 and gave a chance to Pakistan to even up the score of 1971 with India, the US threatened Pakistan to stay out of it or else it will be declared a terrorist state. Pakistan under Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif (NS) complied meekly and quietly watched the massacre and torture of Kashmiris by the occupying 700, 000 Indian forces.

Pakistan once again became powerless to initiate a proxy war to counter the RAW-NDS covert war after 9/11 that had become an existential threat to its security by 2009, because its hands were tied by the new laws on terrorism framed by the US. Those abetting terrorists were to be held equally responsible for terrorism. India and Kabul regime were given a free hand and have still not been held accountable since the framers of anti-terrorism laws are themselves involved in this game.   

Pakistan’s fault lines attacked

The band of conspirators in Kabul hatched a series of conspiracies and kept funding and arming the paid proxies to bleed the Pak security forces and to create instability and insecurity in the country. To boost the covert war, the propaganda war was upgraded to hybrid war and the moles of foreign agencies deployed in Pakistan aided by purchased Pakistani media started accentuating ethnic, sectarian, religious and political fault lines of Pakistan in order to foment intolerance, extremism and hatred among various sects and political parties.

Keeping the model of East Pakistan where the Bengalis were successfully brainwashed, the minds of the people of smaller provinces were poisoned to fill their hearts with hatred against the ruling government, Punjab and Pak Army/intelligence agencies. Focus has mainly been on weakening the trunk of the army and the ISI which have blunted all the conspiracies and dangerous plans of the adversaries.

Pakistan’s subservience

 

Pakistan’s successive regimes have pursued a policy of appeasement due to which its adversaries have been taking full advantage. Subservience to the US dictates touched new heights during the tenure of Gen Musharraf. Each and every demand of Washington was obsequiously obeyed and no eyebrow was raised on the never ending mantra of ‘Do More’ or the insults and accusations hurled by the US leaders. It was incomprehensible for every Pakistani as to what compelled nuclear Pakistan to mollify the two US installed Kabul regimes which took dictations from the US and India. Hamid Karzai and the unity regime of Ashraf Ghani (AG)-Dr. Abdullah never spared any opportunity to bad mouth Pakistan. Till as late as 2017, Pakistan kept appeasing India as well. Pakistan’s 80,000 human and 150 billion dollars financial losses were the doings of RAW and NDS.

Pakistan’s successive regimes from the time of Gen Musharraf to Zardari and Nawaz Sharif ignored the hard fact that RAW and NDS couldn’t have carried out massive covert and propaganda wars from Afghan soil without full support of the CIA and approval of the US. The trio as well as Israel and the West are on one page. The Quad apart from achieving their global ambitions, they are continuing to demean Islam as a policy.

So what could be the compulsion of Pakistani leadership was a million dollar question asked? The only obligation is that our leaders are too infatuated with the USA and cannot get out of its magic spell irrespective of whatever cost the nation has to pay.

The devastating impact of this one-sided appeasement was that Pakistan lost its nuclear deterrence, its honor and dignity, and anyone could insult or slap Pakistan and get away with it. Pakistan was blamed for all the sins of Indo-US-Afghanistan nexus and was declared ‘nursery of terrorism’, ‘most dangerous country’ and a ‘failing state’. Pakistan took the barbs without a whimper and kept promising to do more to please the double-dealing USA, which never wanted Pakistan to become a self-reliant country. 

 

Pak-China Equation and CPEC

 

Apart from Pakistan’s nuclear program, other eyesores that were unacceptable to the Indo-US-Israel nexus were Pak-China closeness and the CPEC. Terrorism was stepped up by RAW-NDS to scuttle CPEC. Pakistan was lured by KSA and UAE by granting heavy loans and promising establishment of oil refinery at Gwadar, and the US promising activation of ROZs in former FATA and an economic zone at Karachi as an alternative to the CPEC.

A sustained media warfare was launched against China. Major themes played up were: CPEC passes through disputed territory of Gilgit Baltistan; China is a replica of East India Company; Pak-China trade is heavily tilted towards the latter; 90% of the benefits of CPEC are taken by China; China is buying properties in Pakistan at a vast scale and weighing down Pakistan under its loans; Chinese are luring Pakistani girls to marry them, and after taking them to China are being tortured and sexually exploited; Chinese are inhumanly torturing the Muslim Uighurs in Xingjian province.

While Pakistan military made no compromise on the nuclear program, cracks appeared in Pak-China friendship in 2018/19 over CPEC due to irresponsible statements made by Razaq Dawood and some other PTI ministers saying that all the CPEC agreements will be revised. Resultantly CPEC which had galloped fast in the first phase came to a halt for almost a year.

    

Pakistan’s defiance

The first brick of defiance was laid by PM Liaqat Ali Khan by refusing the USA to convince/pressurize Iran not to nationalize its oil. The second brick was laid by the PM ZA Bhutto when he refused Henry Kissinger to close Pakistan’s nuclear program. Both had to pay a big price; Liaqat was murdered and Bhutto was hanged. Nawaz Sharif in May 1998 rejected pressures from Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, turned down the inducement of $ 5 billion and went ahead in carrying out six nuclear tests in response to five conducted by India. In 1999, he was unseated. Gen Ashfaq Pervez Kayani as army chief lost his cool after the NATO’s Apache gunship helicopters attacked Pakistan army posts in Salala (Mehmand Agency) on Nov 26, 2011 killing several officers and men. This offensive act was a follow up of incidents of Raymond Davis in January 2011 followed by stealth helicopters attack in Abbottabad to get OBL on May 2, and the Memogate scandal in Oct. In reaction, Pakistan Army discontinued military cooperation, intelligence sharing and training of Frontier Corps by the US trainers, and cancelled all visits and courses. The two supply routes used by the NATO containers were blocked and the Shamsi airbase in use by the CIA since 2003 was closed. Situation was normalized in July 2012 after Washington tendered an apology with an assurance that such an act will not be repeated.  

In 2017, Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa took a bold stand by stating that ‘We will not do more’, and ‘it is time for others to do more’. The next was his perseverance to erect a fence along the border with Afghanistan and Iran. Both the Kabul regime and the US exerted extensive pressure to stop the erection of a fence along the western border. 92% fencing of western border and 47% of southwestern border has been completed and both will be completed by Aug 2021 and end of this year respectively. Radical improvement of border management was another feat that has been accomplished. Next will be the fake national identity cards issued by NADRA in millions to foreigners, mostly the Afghans including the one held by AG.    

PM Imran Khan (IK) showed mirror to the arrogant West for the first time in his maiden address to the UN in 2019 reminding them that no money laundering was possible from the third world without the tax havens in the European capitals. He also exposed the ugly face of India comparing RSS with Nazis and Modi with Hitler and this has been his consistent theme. Standing up to India’s belligerence in February 2019 and giving a befitting response goes to his credit.

Extreme American pressure on Pakistan by the US to detach itself from the CPEC was resisted. Thankfully, dormant CPEC has been fully reactivated and now the lost time is being recouped with full vigor.

Pak-China friendship has blossomed into a strategic partnership, which is analogous to the US-Israel and the US-India partnership. 

The biggest jolt given to the US by Pakistan was IK’s refusal to meet the CIA Director and Foreign Secretary and then refused to give it a military base for so-called counter-terrorism operations against the Al-Qaeda, Daesh and Taliban. IK’s ‘Absolutely Not’ became a buzzword in Pakistan. Such acts of defiance from the compliant state were stupefying for the totalitarian USA.    

Drop scene for the USA and India

The arrogance and prestige of the USA boasting to be the mightiest and invincible military power has been rolled in the dust by the rag tag, ill-equipped, ill-dressed and ill-fed Taliban after they forced the US-NATO forces to exit from Afghanistan. The Taliban outwitted the occupation forces and the collaborating forces, and the way they overpowered the country was a textbook example of military brilliance. They also displayed diplomatic finesse by engaging with all the neighbors to set aside their fears. Politically they played their cards shrewdly by keeping their Doha political office active, treated the surrendering troops and the people of the captured cities with compassion, and won the confidence of all segments of the society.   

The pugnaciousness of six-times bigger India and constant machinations of five intelligence agencies in collusion with RAW to break Pakistan into four parts spread over 16 years have been foiled by Pakistan armed forces and the ISI, which is a big achievement and an embarrassment for India.

Having spread its tentacles in all the departments of Afghanistan and spent $ 3.5 billion in various projects including a dam in Herat, India is today in a fix. After the hurricane-like advance of the Taliban capturing one city after another, India winded up all its Consulates and RAW operatives have fled away. They have destroyed or shifted all the incriminating documents showing their dirty works against Pakistan.            

Ramifications for the USA

The ignominious departure of the occupying forces and ending of the 20-year war in Afghanistan will have grave ramifications for the USA, as was the case with the former USSR in 1989. It had taken only two years for the USSR to fragment and be reduced to the Russian Federation in 1991. The US not only lost the war in Afghanistan, but it is also withdrawing its troops from Iraq by the end of this year as demanded by the Iraqi PM Mustafa al-Khademi. It has withdrawn its support to the Saudi coalition against Yemen, and is likely to exit from Syria where Bashar al-Assad has been re-elected. China is on the rise and Russia under Putin is resurging. Joe Biden is facing criticism on account of the hasty exit of the US troops from Afghanistan, which in view of the critics emboldened the Taliban to race to Kabul. He and his predecessors are likely to face the music of the Americans as to why they fought the longest war, what objectives they achieved and at what cost and why they consistently lied to them.

The spoilers still in action

The spoilers of peace with India in the lead wanted to keep Afghanistan unstable. While the Taliban kept gaining ground, RAW and NDS continued with their proxy war in Pakistan, demeaned the Taliban and resorted to disinformation campaigns.

Lahore blast, followed by spate of terrorist attacks in Waziristan and Baluchistan, the Dassu attack in which 9 Chinese and 3 locals lost their lives, and the engineered drama of abduction of daughter of ambassador of Afghanistan in Islamabad were masterminded by RAW-NDS. There are indications that the CIA was also involved in the Dassu incident.  

In July, India’s transport planes flew over Iran’s airspace four times to deliver 80 tons of war munitions to Kandahar military base and the same quantity to Kabul for the ANA. The US jets flew from the UAE airbase over Tajikistan’s airspace to attack the Taliban in Kandahar. Indian pilots flew gunship helicopters in support of the besieged ANA troops.

The eight warlords were asked by the Kabul regime to reactivate their militias and to confront the Taliban but the prominent warlords fled abroad and Ismail Khan in Herat is in the custody of the Taliban.

Current situation in Afghanistan

All the efforts of the spoilers misfired and the Taliban have taken full control over the whole of the country without much fighting. Their 6000 prisoners locked up in provincial capitals and Bagram air base which the Kabul regime were not releasing were freed by the Taliban themselves.

After moving closer to Kabul and tightening the noose around it, their fighters entered Kabul on August 15, forcing AG to flee to Tajikistan with his whole team on the afternoon of 15 August without tendering resignation. The same evening the Taliban fighters captured the presidential palace, but the Taliban leadership announced general amnesty to all and announced that Kabul will not be captured forcibly.

The Taliban leadership rejected the proposal of an interim setup for which Dr. Abdullah, Hamid Karzai and Gulbadin Hikmatyar as members of Afghan Rabita Council are working, and want power to be directly handed over to them. The Taliban are in a commanding position to arrive at a political settlement of their choice, but they are likely to share power with others as well.  

In case AG doesn’t tender his resignation in the next 1-2 days, he may possibly establish a government in exile on the advice of his patrons. The Northern Alliance might be once again activated duly patronized by the West and India to brew instability in Afghanistan.

Russia and China are likely to provide full support to the Taliban.

Pakistan is in two minds, whether to go along with the international community influenced by the USA, or to support the Taliban.  

UK’s PM Boris Johnson who had termed the Doha Agreement as ‘a rotten deal’, and had also declared Biden’s decision to pullout ‘a big mistake’, has called for an emergency meeting of the UNSC to discuss the situation in Afghanistan. He has advised all not to recognize the Taliban regime if they take over power by force.    

   

Lessons for Pakistan

Learning lessons from the repeated betrayal and double game of the US, unrelenting hostility of the US installed regime in Kabul, and not so trustworthy relations with Iran which is still aligned with India, Pakistan’s leadership seem to have started differentiating between friend and foe. Most problems have occurred from Pakistan’s enchantment of the USA due to which it had to appease India and Afghanistan.  

The first bold action taken by Pakistan was to give a clear message that the days of fighting someone else’s war and provision of bases are over and Pakistan would only extend cooperation for peace and not for war and conflict.  

China is the only neighbor which has never let down Pakistan and has gone out of the way to help Pakistan during its testing times. Strong bondage between the two iron brothers would help in keeping the enemies at bay.

Pakistan’s growth of understanding with China, Russia as well as with Central Asian Republics are a good omen. If Afghanistan under the Taliban and Iran join this grouping, it can keep the spoilers of peace checkmated, but Iran has its own ambitions.  

The Taliban couldn’t have achieved successes with such a lightning speed without the support of the people. Irrespective of the outsiders advocating a broad based and inclusive government in Kabul, the Taliban’s return to power and re-establishment of an Islamic Emirate is irreversible.    

Future government in Kabul with the Taliban in the driving seat will be in the interest of Pakistan since it would radically diminish India’s perverse influence in Afghanistan, and Pakistan will get rid of the RAW-NDS cross border terrorism. However, in case the insensitive and biased international community dominated by the US decides to ostracize the would-be Taliban regime, Pakistan in its bid to remain in good books of the US, might mellow-down its defiance and refuse to recognize the Taliban regime, thereby once again putting the country in jeopardy.

It must not be forgotten that while Pakistan is good at losing friends, India is good at befriending its enemy’s friends. Twice betrayed by Pakistan, the Taliban could be swayed by India.

The writer is retired Brig Gen, war veteran, defence & security analyst, international columnist, author of five books, Chairman Thinkers Forum Pakistan, Director Measac Research Centre, Member CWC PESS & Think Tank. [email protected]    

,

No Comments

Opinion: Pete King Whipped Up Anti-Muslim Bigotry. Why Is Chuck Schumer Celebrating Him?

Opinion: Pete King Whipped Up Anti-Muslim Bigotry. Why Is Chuck Schumer Celebrating Him?

The Long Island Republican will leave a legacy of division and demonization. Schumer is wrong to celebrate it.

Alex Brandon / ASSOCIATED PRESS

Rep. Pete King, then-chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, during one of his 2011 hearings on Islamist extremism in the United States.

It took a quarter of a century, but Rep. Pete King, a Long Island Republican, is finally retiring. King built a durable following among the Fox News coterie thanks in part to his unflinching efforts to demonize Muslims, racial justice activists, critics of torture, and victims of police violence.

King’s legacy of division makes it all the more inexplicable that Sen. Chuck Schumer — a fellow New Yorker who’s well versed in King’s abuses — would spend Monday morning praising King as standing “head and shoulders above everyone else.”

“He’s been principled and never let others push him away from his principles,” Schumer added. Given that King’s principles included slandering almost any community that didn’t look like him, it’s reasonable to ask what the leader of the Senate Democrats was thinking when he decided to celebrate King’s extremism.

Let’s take a look at a few of the “principles” King held so dearly.

To most Americans, King is best known as the representative who saw Muslim threats around every corner. In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, he became a staunch advocate for expanding the national security and surveillance state into the unaccountable behemoth we know today.

King has urged police to focus on Muslim communities for potential terrorist activity. He whined that there were too many mosques in the country. And he didn’t stop there. In 2011, he led a series of hugely wasteful, McCarthy-esque trials popularly known as the “radicalization hearings.” Those congressional sideshows became fountains of anti-Muslim disinformation, where King made the risible claim that “80% of the mosques in this country are controlled by radical imams.”

The hearings never produced an iota of evidence to support King’s claims.

Henny Ray Abrams / AP

A protester supports Rep. Pete King’s congressional hearings on the role of Muslims in homegrown terrorism in New York, March 2011.

There is nothing praiseworthy in King’s tireless effort to establish himself as the United States’ leading anti-Muslim fearmonger. Schumer should explain what, precisely, he found to admire in any of King’s hatred.

Not content with only marginalizing American Muslims, King has also shown contempt for those protesting police brutality. After a New York police officer killed Eric Garner with a prohibited chokehold in 2014, King took to the media to blame not the officer but Garner’s obesity. His statement was so outrageous that even fellow Republicans criticized it.

And it wasn’t just the Garner case. Just last year, King questioned the patriotism of NFL players who chose to kneel for the national anthem, comparing their kneeling to a Nazi salute. In a tweet criticizing the New York Jets, King claimed systemic police violence was a “false narrative” created by liberal elites to sow racial distrust between communities of color and white Americans.

None of this is new information to Schumer, whose own tenure in politics overlaps every single one of King’s racist and anti-Muslim outbursts. Such divisive, hateful rhetoric runs in opposition to the culture of inclusivity and tolerance that Democrats aim to strengthen.

King’s tenure in Congress was not a noble one. His repeated attempts to strip health care from millions of Americans should not be celebrated as “sticking to principles.” It should be viewed as it is — a nakedly partisan act against the wishes of King’s own voters. Not that you’d know: King’s social media profiles censored criticism of his votes to kill Obamacare.

There is always the possibility Schumer was merely being civil. After all, politicians tend to speak well of their departing colleagues no matter how odious their records. But this is a perfect example of how the veneer of political civility minimizes the true damage caused by extremists like King. It is certainly not a courtesy King ever extended to the communities he terrorized with bogus hearings and incendiary attacks.

It is tragic that a politician whose career focused so completely on sowing distrust and enmity between fellow Americans can still be described as a fairly “moderate” Republican. By enabling King’s antics, Republicans allowed their party to swing to its current extremes. Democrats, and especially Democratic leaders like Schumer, should have no part in legitimizing this Republican march into madness.

The only silver lining of King’s tenure is that a Democrat could win his Long Island seat and begin the long process of repairing the damage King wrought. Schumer can start by apologizing to those communities revictimized by his thoughtless praise of King’s poisonous legacy.


Max Burns is a Democratic strategist, political commentator, and former director of communications for Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights,an international nonprofit organization.

Reference-Courtesy = BUZZFEED

No Comments

ALERT TO MUSLIMS: Far-right Israelis vow to change status quo at Jerusalem holy sites – Middle East Eye.

Far-right Israelis vow to change status quo at Jerusalem holy sites

 

#Occupation

Many see the Israeli government’s volte face on metal detectors as a surrender

A Jewish worshipper sleeps next to his weapon near the Western Wall on Tisha B’Av in Jerusalem’s Old City, 1 August (Reuters)
Jacob Burns's picture
Last update: 
Wednesday 2 August 2017 9:22 UTC
Topics: 

JERUSALEM – Where days before thousands of Palestinians had prayed in the streets around Jerusalem’s Old City in protests aimed at “defending” Al-Aqsa, last night Israeli flags flew and Israel’s deputy defence minister gave a speech calling for Israel to impose its “full authority” on the Temple Mount so that the temple could be rebuilt.

Police closed off the march’s route to Palestinians as around 300 people paraded through East Jerusalem. The march, organised annually for the past 23 years by Women in Green, a settler organisation, takes place on the eve of the Jewish Tisha B’Av festival, when Jews mourn the ancient destruction of the two temples.

Only when the temple is built will Jews be able to pray every hour and every day. No power in the world can stop the Jewish people, and we have to work to fulfil this vision

– Deputy Defence Minister Eli Ben Dahan

“This year the march has special significance because for the last weeks we have unfortunately undergone such humiliation by the enemy,” Nadia Matar, co-chair of Women in Green, told Middle East Eye.

“The entire saga of those metal detectors was a horrendous feeling of victory for the enemy against our own government and we are very disappointed,” she said.

The depth of hurt and anger that Israel’s religious right feels after the events of the last few weeks were on full display.

“This year we got a reminder, after the terrible things that happened with the Arabs, that not everything yet is ours… and all of a sudden we understood how important it is to walk here,” Matar later told the marchers.

Read more ►

Palestinians stand alone in al-Aqsa battle

“Every place we walk is yours, we are walking, and we are going to save Jerusalem.”  

The Israeli government installed metal detectors at the entrance to Jerusalem’s most sensitive religious site after three Palestinian citizens of Israel shot and killed two Israeli police officers on 14 July at the site.

The move was seen as a violation of the status quo by the city’s Palestinians, and two weeks of street protests followed. The metal detectors were removed on 27 July.

Metal detector removal seen as ‘surrender’

A Channel 2 poll broadcast on 25 July showed that 77 percent of Israelis characterised the removal of the metal detectors as a “surrender”.

It was a view echoed in a speech given by Likud politician Yehuda Glick, a prominent temple advocate, who called on the government to stand by the “values of the people”.

“The war against us is behind those walls,” Glick said, referring to the Old City of Jerusalem. “The establishment of the state of Israel and the capture of Judea and Samaria was achieved by people who decided to go against logic and political considerations. Now we have to make our control over the Temple Mount a fact.”

Far-right Israelis and foreigners gather to listen to speeches at Lion’s Gate on Monday evening (MEE/Lubna Masarwa)

Eli Ben Dahan, deputy minister for defence, called for the temple to be rebuilt. Citing a portion of the Torah that talked about the renewal of the Jewish people, he said, “This will only happen if we have full authority on the Temple Mount.”

“Only when the temple is built will Jews be able to pray every hour and every day. No power in the world can stop the Jewish people, and we have to work to fulfil this vision.” 

“It’s not only enough to have sovereignty on paper, we demand from our government to implement its sovereignty and to show who’s boss,” Matar said.

As far as I’m concerned, the Palestinian people are a myth

– Ari Gold, Canadian Jew

Attendees at the march that Middle East Eye spoke to did not have any sympathy for the Palestinian refusal to accept the metal detectors.

“The metal detectors were just an excuse for unrest, the Palestinians should have walked through them like I do when I go to the Kotel,” said Yechiel Goldstein, referring to the Western Wall.

“If the Palestinians can play nice, they’re welcome to stay, but otherwise they should go.”

“As far as I’m concerned, the Palestinian people are a myth,” said Ari Gold, a Canadian. “They’re very good at PR, and they made a lot of fuss over the metal detectors, but it’s all a nonsense.”

The status quo

When asked if the violence that had ensued made him nervous about what could happen if the “status quo” at the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif compound was changed, he said the status quo was to blame.

“The status quo allowed them to bring a pistol and kill two people. Why are they arguing about metal detectors, because they want to bring more weapons up there?”

The status quo is the delicate agreement that has governed the religious site since Ottoman times, but firmed up after Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan in 1967.

Right-wing lawmaker Yehuda Glick (L) with Deputy Defence Minister Eli Ben-Dahan (MEE/Lubna Masarwa)

While Israel retains control over access to the site, the site itself is under the control of the Waqf, a Jordanian religious trust.

Palestinian fears that Israel is attempting to change the status quo at the site have driven previous outbreaks of violence, such as riots in 2014, and the unrest that spiralled into a round of widespread attacks on Israelis in 2015.

The Second Intifada started in 2000 when then opposition leader Ariel Sharon visited the site.

God brought us to the land of Israel, we are strong, and we will overcome all the difficulties in our path

– Yehuda Glick, Likud politician

These fears have grown worse recently against the background of rising popularity of temple activism amongst some Jews. Traditional orthodoxy held that Jews were forbidden from visiting the Temple Mount, but increasing numbers have ascended in recent years.

On Tuesday morning alone, 1,042 Jews visited the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif compound, a single-day record, according to the Jerusalem Post. Another visiting period will be take place this afternoon.

Numbers have increased from 14,000 visitors in the last Hebrew year, to more than 17,500 this year, with six weeks still remaining, according to the Jerusalem Post.

So, while the crisis at Jerusalem’s most sensitive site looks over for now, the dynamics that produced it are still in place, and growing in magnitude. 

The speakers at the march last night were certainly not backing down.

“The locals have a feeling of victory,” Glick, the Likud MK, said, referring to the Palestinians. “But it is temporary. God brought us to the land of Israel, we are strong, and we will overcome all the difficulties in our path.”

This article is available in French on Middle East Eye French edition.

Reference

, , ,

No Comments

Al-Saud’s Only Gamble Option by Ghassan Kadi

Al-Saud’s Only Gamble Option

                                   

by Ghassan Kadi

 

 

A lot has been said and speculated on about the “real” objectives of Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia. Seasoned veteran British journalist/analyst and Middle East expert Robert Fisk sees it as an attempt to create a Sunni-style NATO to curb the Iranian expansion, and his speculation is on the money, but in realistic terms, what can this visit and its “aftermath” achieve?

Despite the slump on crude oil prices over the last 2-3 years, the Saudis are not short on cash, despite the huge and growing deficit they are running. Their reserve cash is estimated to be a whopping three quarters of a trillion American dollars, and the unit “trillion” has been chosen here because it is the millions of the 21st Century and billions have become too small to consider.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That said, the Saudis have recently pledged nearly a third of their stash on “investments” with the USA. The first allotment came in the form of an undertaking to invest over 100 billion dollars in the American housing sector less than a fortnight ago, and upon Trump’s historic Riyadh visit, the Saudis signed an excess of 100 billion dollar arms deal contract. This is a total of an excess of 200 billion American dollars to be injected into the American economy. But on the scale of trillions again, this huge figure amounts to only a mere 1% of America’s staggering official 20 trillion dollar debt.

A drop in the ocean perhaps if taken into the context of the American economy and debt, but there is little doubt that this Saudi money will create jobs in the USA, and if President Trump is still sticking by the promise of creating jobs, he’s on the money with this one too.

Thus far, and nearly four months after his inauguration, it can safely be said that the most predictable thing about President Trump thus far has been his unpredictability. But with all of his eccentricities and swings, what was it that made him swing in favour of Al-Saud? It may not be very difficult to solve this puzzle if we look at the chain of events.

Surely, the USA has a lot of strategic interests in the area, and these interests are multi-faceted. Among other things, the USA wants to protect the long-term well being of Israel, curb the influence of Russia and Iran in the region, have a share in the decision making of the “War on Syria”, and last be not least, keep a tight control on Saudi oil and cash wealth.

One of Trump’s election promises was to get America’s allies to pay their way, and he was very vocal about the Saudis saying on a number of occasions that protecting Saudi Arabia was costing the USA more than it should be paying for. Those subtle “threats” sent a wave of shivers down the spines of Saudi royals, especially that they were already in deep trouble financially and also bogged down in a protracted and highly expensive war in Yemen that seems unwinnable.

Given that the Saudis believed that former President Obama has let them down and did not invade Syria after the alleged East Ghouta chemical attack of August 2013, the unknown and rather unstable Trump looked like a wild card and they braced for the worst.

Knowing that they are in deep trouble and need America more than ever, feeling extremely nervous about the Iran nuclear deal, the Saudis realized that the only option they have with Trump was to appease him; “but how?”, they wondered. But when they put two and two together, and listened to Trump’s statements about Saudi Arabia, the Saudis realized that they can and will appease him with money; a quarter of a trillion dollars and counting.

Taking the big fat cheque book out is not a modus operandi that is alien to the Saudi psyche, because the Saudis have learned to solve their problems with money. And now, they believe that they are forging a new era of military and strategic alliance with the United States, and paying for this privilege with hard cash.

What they do not know is that whilst they were dreaming big, thinking that they are on the verge of becoming a regional superpower to be reckoned with signing an alliance with America, Donald Trump was signing a business deal, a sales contract; nothing more and nothing less.

The way Trump sees this is a win-win situation. If the Saudis do manage to get the upper military hand and curb the Iranians, he would have reached this zenith not only without having to fight Iran, but also whilst being paid for it. On the other hand, if the Saudis take a gamble to go to war with Iran and lose, he would have received his quarter trillion in advance. So for Saudi Arabia to win or lose, the deal makes America a quarter of a trillion dollar richer; or rather a quarter of a trillion less in debt.

In reality however, what are the odds of Saudi Arabia winning an open war with Iran? Or will this war eventuate in the first place? Back to this question later on.

In a part of the world that is highly volatile, supplying a huge arsenal of highly lethal weapons to a regime that is known for its atrocities, war crimes, inciting regional tension and creating conflict is pouring oil on an already raging fire. Trump’s arms deal with the Saudis probably marks one of the lowest points in America’s history. If anything, after the historic American-Iranian nuclear deal, America was in a position to play the role of an arbitrator and try to get the Saudis and the Iranians to reconcile; coerce them if needed. Instead, Trump turned his attack on Jihadi terrorism by supplying more support to the core and centre of terrorism (Saudi Arabia) and signed a huge arms deal that will only lead to further and much deadlier escalations.

With seemingly very powerful Sunni/Shiite animosities resurfacing after many centuries of dormancy, the pro-American axis happens to be predominantly Sunni and the pro-Russian resistance axis is seen to be Shiite; though it is not as such in reality. That said, the strongest Sunni army in the region is undoubtedly Turkey’s, and Turkey could potentially play a key role in bolstering Fisk’s Sunni-”NATO”. However, the Kurdish issue is a bigger threat to Turkey than Iran has ever been, and Turkey will walk away from its Sunni brothers and “NATO” allies if they were to support Kurdish separatists and arm them; and the irony is that they are.

 

 

 

Without Turkey, a Sunni-”NATO” will be a toothless tiger, unless perhaps it receives enough support from Israel; a support America will not be prepared to offer. But apart from some possible airstrikes and intelligence sharing, how much support will Israel give if any at all? And how much will Putin will be able to weigh in with his clout to keep Netanyahu’s nose out of it? Last but not least, how will the leaders of a so-called Sunni-”NATO” be able to “sell” the idea of getting into an alliance with Israel with its Sunni populace base?

There is little doubt that the Saudis now feel that Trump has given them a carte blanche to attack Iran, and if they swallow the bait fully, they may be foolish enough to take the gamble. But first, they have to finish off Yemen, and then look back and think how they miscalculated when they planned the so-called “Operation Decisive Storm”, and which was meant to be a swift and successful operation. More than two years later, victory seems further than ever predicted all the while the Yemenis have been improving their missile manufacturing capabilities and have been able to hit targets in the capital Riyadh.

Whilst the Saudis were begging the Americans to sell them more advanced weapons to win the war in Yemen, the Yemenis were developing their own. But given that Saudis believe that all problems can be solved provided one is prepared to spend as much as needed, the bottom line for them will always be, “how much?”

The Saudis will not only have to re-evaluate the short-sighted military gamble they took in Yemen, but also the financial one. No one knows for certain what has thus far been the dollar cost that the Saudis had to cough up, but it is in the tens of billions of dollars. With a country that is currently running a near 90 billion dollar budget deficit and diminishing returns, to gamble one third of the national savings on a new war aimed at Iran is tantamount to both, military and financial suicide.

If a war against Iran is at all winnable by the Saudis, what will be the dollar cost?

If the budget ceiling was broken, just like that of Operation Decisive Storm, and if the Saudis realize that the over 100 billion odd dollars they “invested” to buy state-of-the-art weaponry from the USA was not enough, by how much will they be prepared to lift the cost ceiling? They will only need to break the ceiling 3-4 fold before they actually run out of cash reserves. Such a budget overblow is not unusual in wars, and Yemen and Syria are living proof for the Saudis to learn from; if they are capable of learning.

A war against Iran will perhaps be Al-Saud’s final gamble option, but unless the Saudi royals change their rhetoric and seek reconciliation with their Shiite neighbours, this war could well be Al-Saud’s only gamble option.

But the bottom line to any military action is military pragmatism. How can the Saudis think that they can invade and subdue Iran when they haven’t been able to subdue a starved and besieged Yemen? In the unlikely event that they will be able to serve Iran with a swift “shock-and-awe” strike and achieve prompt victory, what will add to their woes is Iran’s ability to close the Strait of Hormuz and to also hit oil production areas and ports. In simple terms, the Saudi war on Yemen is expensive enough, but a war with Iran will be much more expensive, and one that will cut off Saudi life-line; its income.

Do the Saudis believe that expensive imported hardware is going to give the military edge they need? “Knowing” Trump, he will likely wait till the Saudis are down on their knees begging and then extort them by hiking the price of an elusive “super weapon”, perhaps even an A-Bomb, that will tip the war in Saudi favour. But “knowing” the Saudis and Iranians, if the Saudis attack and start an all-out war on Iran, then this may indeed earn the name of decisive storm, but not on Saudi terms. Will Iran virtually walk into Saudi Arabia? Such a scenario cannot be overruled. More than likely however, America will continue to feed the fire for as long as the Saudi cow (female camel in this instance) can be milked and for as long as there is money to be had. For as long as the infamous Al-Saud are on the throne, the kingdom will continue to be run by the same old rules of arrogance that will not stop until that evil legacy is down and vanquished.

Reference

, , , ,

No Comments

France: Macron’s Election Victory, Will Discrimination against the Muslims Continue? By Sajjad Shaukat

    France: Macron’s Election Victory, Will Discrimination against the Muslims Continue?

 

By Sajjad Shaukat

The centrist Emmanuel Macron was elected French president by defeating the ultra-nationalist and far-right candidate Marine Le Pen in the second round of the French presidential election, held on Sunday (May 7, 2017). Macron of the independent En Marche party won 23.75 percent votes and Le Pen of France’s National Front party won 21.53 percent votes.

 

The election victory of Macron has been hailed by his supporters and the ongoing President of France François Hollande, including various leaders and politicians of the Western World, especially Europe. The US President Donald Trump also congratulated the president-elect Emmanuel Macron and said, “I look very much forward to working with him” 

 

His emphatic victory has brought huge relief to European allies who had feared another populist upheaval to follow Britain’s vote to quit the EU and Donald Trump’s election as US president.

 

In his victory speech, the president-elect Macron said that he would unite a divided and fractured France. He stated, “I will work to recreate the link between Europe and its peoples, between Europe and citizens.”  Macron added that the world was watching and “waiting for us to defend the spirit of the Enlightenment, threatened in so many places”.

 

While, Macron who favours globalization, sees France’s way forward in boosting the competitiveness of an open economy.

 

The far-right candidate Le Pen had vowed to defend France against the forces of globalization and declared that now was the time to free the French population from arrogant elite. On April 24, this year, Le Pen had continued to emphasize the anti-immigrant and anti-globalization views and she denounced the efforts of the mainstream parties to keep her out of the presidency. She continued hostility to the European Union, NATO and wanted to shield French workers by closing borders, quitting the EU’s common currency, the euro, radically loosening the bloc and scrapping trade deals.

 

It is notable that three days before the first round of France’s presidential elections, held on Sunday (April 23, 2017), a French policeman was shot dead and two others were wounded in central Paris on April 20, 2017 when a gunman wielding a machine gun leapt out of a car and opened fire on the Champs-Elysees, Paris’s most famous boulevard. Via its Amaq news agency, the Islamic State group (Also known as Daesh, ISIS, ISIL) claimed that the attack was carried out by “Abu Yousuf al-Baljiki (the Belgian) and he is one of the Islamic State’s fighters.”

 

French President Francois Hollande said that he was convinced the “cowardly killing” on the Champs Elysees boulevard was an act of terrorism.

 

Karim Cheurfi, a 39-year-old French national who was shot dead by the police was identified as the attacker. Prosecutors said that a note defending ISIS fell out of his pocket, although there was no previous evidence of radicalization. 

After the shooting, the three main candidates canceled campaign events and instead made televised statements in which they competed to talk tough on security and vowed a crackdown on ISIS.

 

The incident brought issues of terrorism, the French Muslims, security, and immigration back to the forefront of the campaign. Marine Le Pen demanded the closure of all Islamist mosques, repeating her call for Europe’s partly open borders to be closed. Le Pen also called Macron “weak” on terrorism and ISIS, as terror incident of Champs-Élysées had drawn renewed attention.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fact of the matter is that the French president-elect Emmanuel Macron will maintain the US-led status quo in the world and will further advance the Israeli agenda against Russia, China, Syria, Pakistan etc, and the Muslims, while further advancing the international forces of globalization, controlled by the wealthy Jews and the elite class at the cost of small countries and the poor class.

 

In this regard, Gil Hoffman, under the Caption “Emmanuel Macron’s Israeli Ties”, Gil Hoffman and Michael Wilner, under the title Macron Fights for France’s Jewish Vote had already pointed out Macron’s connections with Israel by writing in Jerusalem Post.

 

In this respect, Haaretz an Israeli newspaper (www.haaretz.com) reported on April, 23 and 24, 2017, “In a race…Macron, a pro-European Union ex-banker, and economy minister…received slightly more votes than Le Pen…Speaking on Holocaust Remembrance Day, Moshe Kantor described Le Pen as “dangerous” and added that “the 48-year-old National Front leader recently made comments against the historic record of the Holocaust which makes her no less dangerous than her Holocaust-denying father who she has tried to hide…Le Pen recently called for banning the wearing of the kippah in public and for making it illegal for French nationals to also have an Israeli passport.”

 

Therefore, three days before France’s presidential elections, shooting at Champs-Elysees-Paris-famous Boulevard was conducted by the Israeli secret agency Mossad through ISIS to ensure the victory of the pro-Israeli Emmanuel Macron in the first round of the election.

 

It is mentionable that Macron did not mention, as to how he will eliminate ISIS, while all other candidates have vowed to destroy the ISIS. It further creates doubt about her Israeli links.

 

Unlike several of his opponents on the left and right, Macron has avoided making pronouncements against Muslim dress codes and discriminatory laws which are, in fact, being applied against the Muslims in France.

 

Regarding France’s Presidential election and the French Muslims, The Washington Post, under the caption, “Anti-Muslim rhetoric permeates French presidential election campaign”, wrote on April 18, 2017, “For some, the French presidential election will alter the course of a troubled nation steeped in economic and social turmoil…In a country that remains under an official “state of emergency” following an unprecedented spate of terrorist violence in the past two years, the election also has become a referendum on Muslims and their place in what is probably Europe’s most anxious multicultural society. Before the election’s first round of voting Sunday, each of the five leading contenders—from across the ideological spectrum—has felt compelled to address an apparently pressing “Muslim question” about what to do with the country’s largest religious minority. Marine Le Pen…has made her answer crystal clear. In February, in the same speech, she decried “Islamist globalization,” which she called an “ideology that wants to bring France to its knees…While Le Pen’s diverse array of opponents do not all share her extremity…each seems to agree that, when it comes to Muslims, something needs to be done…“I want strict administrative control of the Muslim faith,” announced François Fillon, the now-disgraced mainstream conservative candidate, in a January campaign speech. By contrast, Emmanuel Macron, the popular independent candidate, has spoken frequently of what he considers the urgent need to “help Muslims restructure the Islam of France.” The far-left Jean-Luc Melenchon, who has condemned Islamophobia, ultimately wants to stamp out “all communitarianism and has reiterated what he calls the “urgent” need to “put an end to the misappropriation of public funds attributed to private denominational education…With many of the devastating terrorist attacks perpetrated by French or European passport-holding militants affiliated with or inspired by the Islamic State, public opinion has grown increasingly suspicious of the Muslim population that has existed in this country for centuries… Despite the intricate diversity of that population, there is widespread anxiety that if either Le Pen or Fillon is elected, things could get significantly worse. Both candidates probably would move quickly to advance crackdowns on veils, mosques and Muslim community organizations in the name of state secularism… Few French Muslims see a candidate in the running who would change a status quo that many views as unsustainable… Hakim El Karoui, the author of a widely circulated 2016 report on Islam in France…a Paris-based think tank said, said, “the strict anti-terrorist stance adopted by the Socialist administration of President François Hollande—who famously persecuted the “burkini” last summer has undercut the desire among French Muslims to support the left in the 2017 election…The right has always been against Muslims and immigrants….Chief among the concerns many Muslims harbor is from the so-called state of emergency…Since its imposition, French authorities have been permitted to carry out upward of 4,000 warrantless searches on French homes, and likewise, have placed more than 700 people under house arrest. But many Muslims say they have been targeted unlawfully. According to France’s Collective Against Islamophobia (in French, CCIF), an advocacy organization committed to fighting discrimination, more than 400 French Muslims reported having their homes searched for no clear reason in 2016. Approximately 100 of those also were placed under house arrest, while nearly 30 were asked to leave the country.”

 

Nevertheless, a majority of the Muslims in France and other Islamic country have shown pleasure over Macron’s election triumph, because, they considered him better for the French Muslims than the fanatic Le Pen. However, it is wishful thinking of the Muslims who do not know the secret strategy of the US and Israel and their anti-Muslim war.

 

Remember that when Barack Obama won the presidential election on November 4, 2008; a wave of wishful thinking prevailed over the Muslims, including the Islamic countries that he is Muslim and would protect the interests of the Muslims. Since his campaign for the US Senate in 2004 and during the presidential election, his political opponents raised questions about his citizenship. Some said that Obama secretly practices Islam. 

These claims in the public expanded during Obama’s pre-presidency and according to the Pew Research Center, 17% of Americans believed him to be a Muslim in a 2012 poll. 

 

A wave of jubilation had been noted all over the world on January 20, 2009, when American President Barack Obama took the oath. His first address had indicated a positive change in the US foreign policy. In this respect, most of the political experts had hoped that he would rectify the blunders, committed by his predecessor in the name of the phony war on terror.

 

Addressing a crowd at Cairo University on June 9, 2009, while speaking optimistically in relation to the issues of Muslims like the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, President Obama had said, “To the Muslim World, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect”, and “based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition.” Several times during the hour-long speech, members of the audience shouted, “We love you.”

 

A majority of the Muslims hoped that President Obama would resolve the issues which were affecting the Islamic World.

 

Similarly, while accusing President Bush’s policies in South Asia and recognizing interrelationship between war on terror in Afghanistan and dispute of Kashmir, Obama had stated on September 25, 2008, that if elected, he would encourage India and Pakistan to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and resolve the Kashmir problem to reduce nuclear dangers in South Asia—so that Islamabad could fully concentrate on fighting terrorism.

 

Quite contrary to his commitments, Obama not only set aside the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, but also the Kashmir issue. Instead, during his first visit to New Delhi, on November 6, 2010 President Obama announced the measures, America would take regarding removal of Indian space and defence companies from a restricted “entities list”, and supported Indian demand for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, including membership of four key global nuclear nonproliferation regimes.

 

Ignoring the solution of Kashmir dispute which like Syria, remains a nuclear flashpoint between Pakistan and India, America started backing Indian hegemony in Asia to counterbalance the presumed threat of China.

 

And as part of the double standards, while preferring New Delhi at the cost of Pakistan—despite, Indian violations of various international agreements and its refusal to sign Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), CTBT and Additional Protocol with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Washington signed a pact of nuclear civil technology with New Delhi in 2008. During President Obama’s visit to India, on January 25, 2016, the US and India announced a breakthrough on the pact which would allow American companies to supply New Delhi with civilian nuclear technology.

 

Following his predecessor’s fake global war on terror and his anti-Muslim policies in its worst form, President Obama who created ISIL used it and Al-Qaeda, including their affiliated outfits through CIA and Israeli Mossad to secure the illegitimate interests of Israel. If the double game of President Bush (The Senior) and George W. Bush franchised Al-Qaeda on a global level, President Obama’s dual policy franchised both Al-Qaeda and ISIS as part of the anti-Muslim campaign and left no stone unturned in advancing the agenda of the Zionists, Israeli lobbies, and the neoconservatives.

 

However, the September 11 tragedy was fully manipulated by Israel who had joined the Bush’s anti-war terrorism enterprise so as to target Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan in particular and other Muslim countries in general. For this purpose, extremist Jews also got the services of some radical Hindus to continue their anti-Muslim campaign. In this connection, by availing the international phenomena of terrorism, Indo-Israeli lobbies which are collectively working in America and other European countries have been exploiting the double standards of the US-led West regarding terrorism and human rights vis-à-vis China, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Libya, Yemen etc.

 

Overtly, like Bush, President Obama had repeatedly stated that Muslims are moderate and Islam is a religion of peace, but covertly, he followed the agenda of the Bush to secure the Zionist-shaped policies.

 

Learning no lesson from the US and NATO’s longest war in Afghanistan, facing defeatism in that country, Obama continued state terrorism and extrajudicial killings of the Muslims through illegitimate drone attacks, CIA-torture cells, sectarian divide and violence on the basis of Shia and Sunni—assisting undemocratic forces such as the return of a military strongman in Egypt by toppling the elected government, and like Iraq, his policies created more collapsed states such as Libya, Syria, Yemen etc., which opened the door for Al-Qaeda and ISIL activists, coupled with total failure to convince Tel Aviv to abandon “settlements,” or to end delaying tactics in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the perennial humiliations of the Palestinians.

 

Since September 30, 2015, various unexpected developments had frustrated Israel and America. In this respect, Russian successful airstrikes on the ISIS targets in the northern Syria and Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, its coalition with Iran, Iraq, the Syrian army, the National Defense Forces (NDF) and Lebanon-based Hezbollah in support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, retreat of the CIA-supported rebels and mercenaries after their failure to topple the Assad government, proving links of Al-Qaeda’s Al-Nusra Front and ISIS with America and Israel, Putin’s clear-cut statement, indicating the Zionist regime in the US and  Israel for their “phony war on ISIS” surprised the Israel-led America and some European countries who wanted to oust the Assad regime.

 

As a matter of fact,  the agents of Mossad who are in collaboration with the CIA sympathizers, Syrian rebel groups and the ISIL militants arranged terror attacks in Paris, Brussels, Orlando, San Bernardino, Nice, Munich, London, St. Petersburg (Metro train) and in Stockholm. While, a gunman who went by the nickname Black Jesus was identied—39-year-old Kori Ali Muhammad, making militant comments on social media killed three white men in downtown Fresno, California, on April 18, 2017, and fired at another before he was taken into custody while shouting “Allahu Akhbar,” as the Fresno police stated.

 

All these were false flag terror attacks, as the US and Israel wanted to obtain their covert aims against Russia and the Muslims. Mossad had also provided the US President Donald Trump with an opportunity to exploit various terror assaults to win the US presidential election and to reunite America and Europe, as a rift was created between America and its Western allies, especially Europe on a number of issues, including NATO.

 

And, President Donald Trump had left no stone unturned in implementing anti-Muslim policies, while speaking openly against the Muslims and Syrian immigrants. 

 

Earlier, taking note of various developments and some other ones such as reluctance of NATO countries to support America’s fake global war on terror, acceptance of Syrian refugees by the European countries, especially Germany and the EU rule to boycott goods produced in Israeli settlements on the West Bank, Israeli Mossad which was in collaboration with the vulnerable CIA operatives arranged terror attacks in Paris on the night of November 13, 2016. As part of the double game, these terror assaults were conducted by these secret agencies, particularly Mossad which was in connivance with the ISIS terrorists who used the home-grown terrorists of France.

 

French President Francois Hollande who declared an emergency in the country had said, “It is an act of war that was committed by a terrorist army, a jihadist army, Daesh against France…France would act with “all the necessary means, and on all terrains, inside and outside, in coordination with our allies, who are, themselves, targeted by this terrorist threat.”

 

Israel succeeded in its sinister designs, Europe was put on high alert and Paris attacks were being taken as assaults on the whole continent. Afterward, France started airstrikes on the ISIS targets in Syria.

 

ISIS which is being driven out of its areas of territorial control in Iraq and Syria by the Russian-led coalition and the so-called Western-assisted alliance has hundreds of French-speaking fighters, which have claimed responsibility for several terrorism-related assaults.

 

France which has lived under a state of emergency since 2015 and has suffered a spate of Islamist militant attacks mostly perpetrated by young men who grew up in France have killed more than 230 people in the past two years.

 

In France, around five million Muslims are living—roughly 7.5 percent of the population—the largest share of any country in Europe.

 

At least two million Muslims have French citizenship. The Muslim community is made up of immigrants from Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria and a small population from South Asia

 

Historically, the immigration started in 1960-70s and consisted mainly of “economic migrants,” who filled the blue collared jobs which the native French did not want. However, their second and third generation is educated but ostracized from the mainstream French society.

 

Muslims came to France following France’s colonization of North Africa. The current relationship between the French state and its Muslim population is based upon discrimination, because Muslims are being considered as an underclass—was conditioned by the twin legacies of imperial history and economic exploitation.

 

Unlike other colonies, Algeria was officially considered a part of France, meaning that Algerian Muslims could come freely to France to live. Once there, however, they faced systematic and often brutal repression.

 

Antagonism with a subject Muslim population is written into France’s political structure: the current constitution—which established the Fifth Republic — was designed to resolve the state crisis provoked by Muslim resistance to colonialism.

 

When General De Gaulle called for constitutional reform in 1958, he did so precisely in order to shore up presidential authority, weakened by the upheavals of the Algerian war of independence.

 

There are also some other purposes behind the creation of xenophobia against the Muslims in France.

 

Firms sometimes made prayer rooms available to their employees, a startling difference from today, when the private sector is collaborating with the state to eradicate manifestations of Islam in every sphere outside the home.

 

French perceptions of Muslims and Islam changed significantly over the past decade. Since 9/11, a number of terrorist attacks in Europe and in France, in particular, led to an increase in debates, such as “Clash of Civilizations”, “Islamisation of Europe” and the “Islam problem.” It has thus resulted in dividing the French society between “us” and “them.”

 

In the pretext of the fear of Muslims and Islam, growing in Europe, France has enacted a number of laws to maintain the so-called “secularism” of the French society. In this context, the controversial ban on the traditional veil, worn by Muslim women is notable. France has banned the traditional veil in public areas, considering it to be a symbol of “oppression” against women. Consequently, women, wearing veils cannot enter universities, banks, hospitals, offices etc., thus making it difficult for Muslim women to avail public facilities.

 

Headscarves and other religious traditional dresses have been banned in schools. This has, mainly, affected Muslim children, while, proposals for discontinuation of substitute for pork and “Halal” (Permitted in Islam) food in school cafeterias are also being voiced.

 

Many Muslims, however, find these laws part of discrimination, which has further broadened the divide between the Muslim community and the Christians.

 

Besides, the Muslim youth is facing discrimination in employment opportunities. In this regard, “Muslim Diaspora” is twice more likely to work in factories than the rest of French force. They are also underrepresented in executive positions.

 

It is noteworthy that another false flag terror operation-the Charlie Hebdo incident has also put Muslim population under greater scrutiny. Violence against Muslims increased twofold after the incident. As regards the incident, on January 7, 2015, two Islamic militants attacked the office of French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris, and killed 13 people on January 9, 2015, two brothers namely Said and Cherif Kouachi suspected for the incident were killed in a shootout with Police—in a hostage-taking situation, at a signage company in Dammartinen-Goele where some people were also targeted. Thus, the gunmen killed total 17 persons. Mossad manipulated the anti-Muslim approach of France and indirectly used these Algerian Muslims for the terror attack through ISIS. Afterward, Mossad’s connections with Charlie Hebdo episode had been proved by many senior writers, analysts and social media bloggers—a video titled “Did Mossad Do Charlie Hebdo” prepared/uploaded by www.brothernathanaelchanne.com is worth watching. In fact, besides creating differences between Christians and Muslims, Zionist groups and Mossad used the episode to punish France on recognizing a Palestinian state and to desist other EU countries to avoid such approach on Palestinians. However, the magazine had continued to print anti-Muslim publications, under the pretext of freedom of speech, thus creating resentment in the Muslim community. Similarly, one of the most confrontational debated books of 2015 has been, “Submission” by Michel Houellebecq, which portrays France being ruled under Islamic law by 2022. The book thrives on the paranoia of the European society towards Islam and Muslims.

 

As part of discrimination, radicalized Muslim inmates are detained separately from the rest of the inmates. The second and third generation Muslim youth which has been brought up and educated in France is faced with an “identity crisis,” despite being a French Muslim in a society which is unwilling to accept them as truly French. This lack of identity which has been exploited by the Mossad and some CIA agents forced a number of the French citizens (Muslims) to fight in Syria against the Assad regime.

 

As regards the discriminatory treatment with the Muslims,  Under the title, “French police abuse Muslims under emergency laws-Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International report physical and psychological abuse as raids target Muslim minority”, Aljazeera multimedia network wrote on February 4, 2016,  “France has carried out abusive and discriminatory raids and house arrests against Muslims under its current state of emergency…stigmatizing those targeted, including children and the elderly…Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International published separate research…pointing to cases where excessive force had been used, leading to human rights violations including violence…Those targeted said the police burst into homes, restaurants, or mosques; broke people’s belongings; threw Qurans on the floor; terrified children; and placed restrictions on people’s movements so severely that they lost jobs and income, or suffered physically…ISIL’s claim[For terror attacks] triggered a backlash not just in France, but across Europe and elsewhere- as Muslim communities were collectively punished…France has a responsibility to ensure public safety and try to prevent further attacks, but the police have used their new emergency powers in abusive, discriminatory, and unjustified ways, said Izza Leghtas, Western Europe researcher at HRW, calling for an immediate end to warrantless searches and house arrests…This abuse has traumatized [Muslims] families and tarnished reputations, leaving targets feeling like second-class citizens…In one house raid, HRW said, police broke four of a disabled man’s teeth before they realized he was not the person they were looking for…In another case, a single mother’s children were transferred to foster care following a raid…Freedom, equality and fraternity have been badly damaged in the weeks since the November attacks.”

On August 29, 2016, Nick Riemer, under the caption, “The Roots of Islamophobia in France” wrote on the website https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/08/burkini-ban-islamophobia-valls-france-secularism-islam/, “Children have watched as their parents are dragged from their beds by heavily armed police…Mosques have been violently ransacked by the police. Worshippers are humiliated and degraded, including through the use of police dogs. Around twenty mosques have simply been closed, and more will soon be shuttered. Political organizations with Muslim links have also been threatened with closure; demonstrations, including, including pro-Palestinian ones…Muslims appealing for asylum find themselves even more vulnerable than residents. The government delivers anti-Islamic broadsides while destroying refugee camps in Calais and elsewhere. Meanwhile, the French have blessed the European Union’s deal with Turkey on refugees, under which Syrian refugees arriving by boat on Greek islands are deported to Turkey. In pursuing these policies, French politicians have knowingly ignored the fact that long-standing and state-sponsored Islamophobia, combined with military activity in Muslim countries, has only encouraged extremism. The political classes have refused to recognize how their economic and social policies fuel the alienation that drives people to join groups like ISIS. A ferocious escalation of Islamophobic propaganda from all quarters of French culture and politics accompanies these measures. According to Abdellali Hajjat and Marwan Mohammed, the construction of the ‘Muslim problem’ over recent years constitutes one of the main vectors for French and even European elites’ unification” across the political spectrum.”

 

A website http://www.middleeasteye.net/essays/muslim-and-french-2084594508 pointed out on August 8, 2016 “Laïcité went from being a constitutional principle to becoming an ideological weapon used to justify the social death sentence against Muslims in France…Several primary school children were either physically assaulted by their teachers or school principal…such a story did not move the minister of education, Mrs. Najat Vallaud Belkacem, who not only refused to condemn the school personnel’s violence against a child but further stated that they had acted according to the procedures in place. This cynical position was confirmed a few weeks later when the international media turned its attention to a new witch hunt against Muslim students…Western Muslims, and particularly French Muslims whose country has become the laboratory of Islamophobia…are the clear indicator of how well our democracies are doing. The recent drift toward authoritarian regimes, the rise of fascist discourse in not only US politics but also in most of Europe, the acceptance of regimes of exception like the current state of emergency in France, pre-emptive prosecution in the US or the capacity for the UK government to deport a person or stripping citizenships while people are abroad should worry us; not because they are applied against people we may disagree with but because we leave it to the state to decide alone without any accountability and look away when minorities are being put under increasing pressure. But once you create a precedent, you seldom go back. In the case of France, a concept keeps steering violent debate about Muslims.Laïcité is a constitutional principle granting the French state’s religious neutrality and that there is no official religion in France. Proclaimed in 1905, it put a clear separation between the state and the church. Laïcité was seldom debated until Muslim immigrants who were once invisible sociological subjects reduced to mere statistics became a visible part of French society.”

 

Recall, just after the September 11 tragedy inside the United States, chauvinism and extremism were deliberately developed among the Americans through media and statements of high officials of the Bush Administration. President Bush used the words, “crusade against the evil-doers”, adding to the perception that the ongoing ‘different war’ against terrorism is actually a war against the Muslim countries. Inside the US, suddenly, every Muslim found himself divested of his nationality. Arrests, detentions, and harassment of the Muslims by the CIA and the FBI were other steps which still continue. Israeli atrocities on the Palestinians were brushed aside.

 

Learning no lesson from the drastic aftermath and the implications of the post-9/11 tragedy, some irresponsible politicians, rulers, writers and think-tanks of the Western countries, especially Europe, including their media are repeating similar anti-Muslim chauvinism which has, particularly, been accelerated in France after the Paris attacks of November 13, 2016, and those occurred afterwards. They have been misguiding their general public by creating prejudice against the Muslims.

 

They are propagating the so-called threat of Islamophobia. In one way or the other, the Muslims are being persecuted in the US and other Western countries, particularly in Europe. Especially, France shows the anti-Muslim phenomenon of the post 9/11 tragedy in its worst form.

 

In this regard, scholars of international affairs agree that “foreign affairs are too foreign” to the citizens of a country. Renowned scholar Prof. Hoslti opines that “issues and situations” have “influence on public opinion” which in turn “influences the objectives and actions.”

 

So, the fault cannot be laid on the general masses, a majority of whom does not have much time to go in-depth. Hence, they are swayed by emotions, stereotypes, and prejudices created by the political leaders who keep on manipulating any crisis for their own self-interests with the sole aim of getting their sympathies to increase their vote bank. There are equal strong pressures from religious and nationalist forces in wake of global war on terror which is dividing the world along religious lines.

 

Nonetheless, owing to the irresponsible approach of the Western leaders, far right-wing parties and “Stop Islam” movement in the West, especially in Europe are becoming popular by largely attracting their people. Amid a migrant crisis, sluggish economic growth and growing disillusionment with the European Union, right-wing parties in a growing number of European countries have made electoral gains. The right-wing parties range across a wide policy spectrum, from populist and nationalist to far-right neofascist.

 

But, some other developments such as criticism of the controversial Turkish-EU refugee deal by a number of human rights groups, Britain’s decision to leave the European Union (EU), after the referendum (Brexit) on June 24, 2016, prospects of Scotland and some other countries for separation from the EU, and the divide between the elite class which run multinational companies with the direct or indirect control of the Jews and the general masses who are suffering from multiple problems in wake of differences on the refugee crisis, Syrian war, Greece’s weak economy, violent protests and strikes against the labour laws in France in 2016 in favour of the employers at the cost of the employs etc.—the chances of European Union’s disintegration which will give a greater blow to the US-Europe alliance against Russia the “Stop NATO protests” in Europe were quite opposite to the Israeli secret interests.

 

Besides revival of the fake global war on terror, Israeli-led America also got the support of its Western allies (NATO) against Russia in relation to Syrian civil war, and as part of the double game and secret strategy, American jet fighters and those of its Western coalition started targeting the ISIS terrorists in Iraq and Syria.

 

Notably, backing out from his earlier statements, American President Trump has changed his policy regarding Europe and NATO. In this connection, he stated on April 13, 2017, that US relations with Russia may be at “an all-time low” and declared a new-found faith in NATO, suggesting the alliance was “no longer obsolete”. Besides, the White House said on May 21, this year, that US President Donald Trump will attend a summit of leaders of NATO nations on May 25 in Brussels.

 

Undoubtedly, international terrorism is the by-product of the US-led Western intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and the proxy war being waged in Syria.

 

We may conclude that despite the victory of Emmanuel Macron in the presidential election of France, discrimination against the Muslim will continue in France in particular and other Western countries in general.

 

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

 

Email: [email protected]

 

Courtesy Veterans Today

, , ,

No Comments