19th Century Conditions in Palestine

by Irfan Ahmed

The long running conflict between Israel and Palestine has undoubtedly created conditions almost similar to the proletariat classes of 19^th century America and Europe. It is almost as if the clocks of economic progress are moving clockwise in favor of currently developed nations, while the developing ones are moving just the opposite. Palestine is one prominent and glaring example. Critics of both Islam and Palestine would be indefatigably quick to point the finger at the Palestinians for the root cause of the conflict, while giving unequivocal support for Israel’s regime. Nonetheless, this case of brandishing all Palestinians as the root cause of violence only makes the distribution of international aid scarcer, and hence, the poor conditions become a harsher restrain on the quality of life.

According to the Declaration on the Right to Development, “The right to development is an inalienable human right by virtue of which every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized.” [1] This fundamental right, at the behest of Israel, is completely rejected for the indigenous people of Palestine, but it is completely accepted as the fundamental right of Israel. Take for example a news article by Haaretz, a daily news source for Israel, where they reported on January 6^th, 2008: “Israel announced plans on Sunday to build more than 800 hundred new homes in eastern parts of the Jerusalem municipality, despite U.S. and Palestinian calls to halt settlement expansion.” [2] Israel considers “all of Jerusalem as its capital.”, it is however the abruptness of the development of new settlements which completely undermines the American initiative to reconcile the differences between the two states at the Annapolis Conference. But many saw the conference as a method to remove the already tarnished image of America in the Middle East by serving as a mediator. But the mediator (United States) failed to repel Israel from their settlement activity and as of July 8^th, 2008, “Israel issued on Thursday a tender for the construction of 447 housing units in settlements in the Jerusalem area” [3]

The siege of the Palestinians and the onslaught of settlement activity is seen to obstruct Palestinian freedom of movement and further their inclusion, which leads inexorably to lack of facility development, poor health conditions and of course, violent resistance. On Tuesday July 4^th, 2006, the United States were celebrating their Independence Day, while the Gazans were trying to cope with their wretched conditions induced by occupation. Take Mahmoud Mughari for example, he says “I normally wash and shower twice a day. Now I can only do it every four or five days. The children smell. We all smell. We are worried that this will cause diseases.” [4] This ensued after “the Israeli Air Force attacked the only electrical power plant operating in the Gaza Strip. Six missiles were fired at the power plant’s six transformers… The effects of the attack are apparent in all areas of life. As a result of the lack of electricity, the level of medical services provided by clinics and hospitals has declined significantly; most of the urban population receive only two or three hours of water a day; the sewage system is on the verge of collapse; many inhabitants’ mobility has been severely restricted as a result of non-functioning elevators; and the lack of refrigeration has exposed many to the danger of food-poisoning.” [5]

Currently in the Gaza strip, the impoverished conditions continue as “Israeli ban on fuel supplies required for civilian life in the Gaza Strip has led to the paralysis of the educational sector. In addition, the health sector is on the verge of collapse due to the stoppage of many ambulances from operating for lack of fuel. Healthcare facilities have registered a 25% drop in clients due to the transport crisis, and hundreds of healthcare professionals have been unable to reach their work places.” [6]

Frederick Engels stated: “Poverty often dwells in hidden alleys close to the palaces of the rich; but, in general, a separate territory has been assigned to it, where, removed from the sight of the happier classes, it may struggle along as it can.” [7] Although the basis of his statement was on the proletariat class struggle within England, it is however the sheer idea of dire poverty existing on the outer skirts of a richer and more affluent society, which in the Palestinian case, are separated by walls. When Bush decided to visit the Middle East, which really meant Israel and a few other allied Arab nations, Abdel Salam, a Palestinian from the West Bank said: “I want Bush to come and visit the camp and see how we live, what the conditions here are…he pointed to sewage in the streets, broken roads and cramped living areas.” And asked “Would he like to live like this? He would be shocked by what he would see here.” [8] Bush would have been shocked if that statement was made open to the world, but what is equally shocking is the Gazan implosion in early March 2008, where “the CMWU estimates that between 25-30% of the Gaza Strip population does not receive running water in their homes. Before the blockade, CMWU was able to distribute water 100% of its beneficiaries in the Gaza Strip… Sewage pumping stations also cease to pump sewage to the treatment plants. Consequently, some 30-40 million litres of sewage goes into the sea everyday because of the lack of fuel to pump or treat human waste.” [9]

The description of the conditions in Palestine has strikingly reminiscent of the cellar dwellings in the Lower East Side tenements during the 19^th century. For example, poor families were prone to “Overcrowded and unsanitary” conditions and the “introduction of pure Croton Water vastly enhanced sanitation for the middle and upper classes, conditions worsened for poor families living in cellar dwellings”, which left them also vulnerable to sewage and water related diseases. Another striking similarity between contemporary Palestine and 19^th century Europe and America is child labor. In England for example, “thousands of children in England were employed in textile factories, workshops, and mines, usually working long hours for very low wages… In America, just as in England, minimum age laws were routinely ignored.” [10] As for Palestine, “Statistics show that seven per cent of children in Palestine, where 52 per cent of the population are under the age of 18, are now working.” [11] Regrettably, the parents in these circumstances have no choice but to get their youngest children employed. Especially with the “the number of households in Gaza below the poverty line has reached an historic high of nearly 52 percent, according to a new report by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA)” [12]. Bereft families have taken extreme choices that they themselves aren’t proud of. One example of this unfortunate outcome is Rasha, who at the behest of her own willpower, is trying to help her struggling family. She said: “I sell biscuits or gum or anything else … that’s why we don’t go to school … we don’t have anything. We want to buy vegetables for the house and medicine for my mother … my sister has asthma so we have to buy her the breathing enhancer… I would like to go to school … and wear a uniform like other girls.” [13]

Editing the sad parts of the Palestinian plight would inevitably mean the end of Israeli occupation. But it isn’t that simple. The Palestinian problem is a big problem within a much bigger circle of problems the Muslim and Arab are in. These problems range from the conflict in Darfur, lack of medical supplies in Somalia, internal conflict in Lebanon, to the indefatigable presence of poverty in Afghanistan and throughout the Arab and African world. These sorts of problems are equally as prominent as the Palestinian plight. But, if the Muslim world acts to relinquish these problems as well as countless others, and reunite in order to have the power to restrain oppression wherever it occurs, the Palestinians may have their own state and a voice. As for now, nothing can really stop Israeli aggression, but the dwindling Palestinian population.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

References:

[1] http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/74.htm

[2] http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/989016.html

[3] http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1009560.html

[4] http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10389594

[5] http://www.btselem.org/english/Publications/Summaries/200609_Act_of_Vengeance.asp

[6] http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/W_report/English/2008/14-08-2008.htm

[7] http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/ch04.htm

[8] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2008/01/mil-080114-irin02.htm

[9] http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/policy/conflict_disasters/downloads/gaza_implosion.pdf

[10] http://www.enotes.com/nineteenth-century-criticism/child-labor-nineteenth-century-literature

[11] http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2007/12/200852513738767946.html

[12] http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43318

[13] http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2007/12/200852513738767946.html

Islamic Decorum

by Irfan Ahmed

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘The strong is not the one who overcomes the people by his strength, but the strong is the one who controls himself while in anger.’ “[Volume 8, Book 73, Number 135]

One does not have to venture too far to easily come across much putrid hatred being direct at Islam. In fact, it has become a massive industry, where reformist Muslims and ex-Muslims have taken the steps to ensure Islam and it’s followers are undermined through universal freedoms such as freedom of expression and speech. Sadly, this form of activism and dissent is not quite productive in terms of building mutual understanding between religions and possibly, tolerance. It’s actually, quite subversive. Nonetheless, the fingers are always pointed towards Islam and how it is a form of “totalitarianism”; “Nazism”; etc. and therefore the ideology itself is the problem. This places much pressure and fear on everyday orthodox Muslims living in the West, who don’t believe they are in anyway like Nazi’s or, the equivalent of a Nazi, a Jihadist; whatever that means. Taking in consideration the numerous aspects of Islam, including the enormous Sunnah collections, which need much verification on it’s authenticity; the several different exegesis of the Qur’an, and the numerous interpretations of Islamic law; it would be almost impossible to say Islam is somehow juxtaposed to Nazism. Unfortunately, many have already created this conjecture and are now lavishing in the media spotlight. Take for example the Danish Cartoons, which was published in 2005 in a Danish Newspaper, which intentionally stirred up the Muslim world under the banner of freedom of speech. It was successful. Many people were killed and injured; and the danish newspaper responded by celebrating the anniversary of the cartoons by reproducing it in February of 2008 [1]. Many people who believe in this method of exposing Islam, have already abused their freedom’s. Couldn’t there have been a more productive way to address the problem of the Muslim world, rather than to characterize the Prophet in the most defamatory way? or Wasn’t there a way to set up a symposium where the cartoonist; before he decided to draw the cartoon, could have consulted Muslims about Islam pro-actively? Apparently amidst the current crisis between Islam and the West, these are questions which weren’t dared contemplated.

Nevertheless, to many Muslims, the massive onslaught to critique Islam by means of defamation and outright mis-characterization of Islam and the Prophet, is a method that is not new today. Through a thorough analysis of Islamic history, individuals, mainly from Western Europe, have been propagating this view of Islam as “oppressive, violent, obscure, etc”. A Phrase we commonly hear, regurgitated today. For Instance, Western Europe, had absolutely no knowledge concerning Islam until “Peter the Venerable, who was convinced that Islam could be conquered only with the power of the word, visited Spain in 1142 following the problematic consequences of the First Crusade, did more precise studies of the sources of Islam”. [2] But, it wasn’t until 1143 where “The first (Latin) translation of the Qur’an was made by an Englishman, Robert of Ketton” [3] But, we must take note, that the atmosphere at which this rare knowledge of Islam was developing, was not quite in favor of Islam, but rather,against it. It could be conceived that Islam was being analyzed like today, to understand the “enemy”. A question should be posed in light of Islam in Western Europe, such as if Western European layman had the ability to digest the new found religion, and concluded for themselves what Islam means to them despite the anti-Islamic propaganda, could there have been a different perception of it? As thought-provoking as that question sounds, it was however, answered for most Europeans as the anti-Islamic onslaught continued throughout the lands of Christian Europe, hence undermining the possibility of religious reconciliation between the Abrahamic faiths. A few centuries later, in the mid 1400’s. “Enea Silibio Piccolomini…grappled with the problem of Islam in a new, more peaceful perspective.” [4] Still Islam was problematic, but it was finally being dealt with in a more humane and productive manner. But this was not to last, “In 1530, the year of the Lutheran Augsburg Confession, because of the steadliy increasing threat to Christianity from the Turks, Pope Clement VII had the Arabic text of the Qur’an burnt immediately after publication. It had been published in Venice at the time called ‘the Turkish whore’ because it had long collaborated in the Eastern Mediterranean with the Ottoman empire.” [5] Martin Luther, who famously inspired the protestant reformation, expressed great indignation towards Islam. “Luther had spoken out for the translation and publication of the Qur’an, but only so that everyone could see what-to use his own words-an accursed shameful, desperate book it is, full of lies, fables and every kind of abomination.” [6]. Of-course he wasn’t only against Islam in his polemics, but also very anti-semitic. This is quite evident from the title of his book, “On the Jews and Their Lies (1543)” [7]

The demonization further continued, but this time, it was by a marginal group of radical Christian’s who perverted their own text’s in order to describe Muslims. For example, a part of Paul’s letter to the Galatians 1:9 read: “As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” [8] Of course, this places Islam in a very tough position as to disseminating it’s message or even trying to live amongst their Christian brethren. Although, a complete antithesis to the way most Christians conceive their religion, still today, this view is advocated and common amongst the very few radical adherents of Christianity. This of-course, can also be applied to so-called Muslims who preach Islam on the one hand, and purposefully distort passages in order to build enmity against the non-believers. Those so-called Muslims have been enormously helpful for those who wish to distort Islam by the means of placing the terrorist interpretation in the spotlight. Nonetheless, Islam was dissolute in the eyes of many religious European’s, but that was soon to change as “De Religione Mohammedica (1705)” made it’s way into theological libraries of Europe. It was the “first approximately objective account of Islam and the Prophet and corrected some of the erroneous insights” [9] To further enlighten the European’s view on Islam, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, who was quite the latitudinarian, created a play called “Nathan the Wise (1779)” [10], in which the “play takes place in Jerusalem and contains a message of reconciliation, tolerance and understanding between three religions: Christianity, Judaism and Islam.” [11] Another great venture was taken by Thomas Carlyle, who “depicted Muhammed as an honest prophet” [12] in his work “‘The Hero as Prophet’ (1840)” [13] By 1960, “people in the west had a completely distorted picture of Islam, as is abundantly demonstrated by Norman Daniel’s study Islam and the West: The Making of an Image (1960).” [14] Although this may not be enough to cover all that has occurred throughout history, it surely would be enough to provide some idea of how Islam was being perceived in Europe. Moreover, viewpoints about Islam was not limited to only Europe, but to all regions which have been in contact with Islam throughout history. Those viewpoints will be later discussed in future articles.

Since all of this occurred after Prophet Muhammae’s (PBUH) passing, what would be the ideal way of dealing with this regrettably obscure attitude towards Islam? We need to simply look at the Qur’an; the Prophet’s Sirat and Sunnah for our answers. No doubt, during the time of Prophet Muhammed(PBUH), many individuals flouted him and worse, even physically harassed him after he claimed Prophet-hood. One self-explanatory example was Umayyah ibn Khalaf’s brother, Ubayy, “who one day took a decayed bone to the Prophet and said: “Claimest though, Muhammed, that God can bring this to life?’ Then with a disdainful smile he crumbled the bone in his hand and blew the fragments into the face of the Messenger, who said: ‘Even so, that I do claim: He will raise it, and the too when thou are as that now is; then will he enter thee into the fire’”[15]. Some questions should be considered. Did the Prophet reach for his sword as many anti-Islamic writers would have you believe? Did the Prophet order for his beheading? Nope. This was a direct insult to the Prophet of Islam, and he handled it with patience and virtue. Another incident was before the Hijrah, when “the Prophet was alone at this hallowed place when Abu Jahl came past. Here was an opportunity for the Makhzumite to show that he at least was not overawed; and standing in front of the Prophet he proceeded to revile him with all the abuse he could muster. The Prophet merely looked at him, but spoke no word; and finally having heaped upon him the worst insults he could think of, Abu Jahl entered the Mosque to join those of Quraysh who were assembled in the Hijr. The Prophet sadly rose to his feet and returned to his home”[16]. Patience is a concept that emboldens Islam and it is expounded explicitly in the sole source of Islam, the Qur’an. Surah’s such as 16, Verse 42 state: “(They are) those who persevere in patience, and put their trust on their Lord.” [17] ;

or Surah 28, Verse 54: “Twice will they be given their reward, for that they have persevered, that they avert Evil with Good, and that they spend (in charity) out of what We have given them.” [18];

What completely furthers the Islamic approach to deal with scoffer’s is the following consecutive Verse 55, “And when they hear vain talk, they turn away therefrom and say: “To us our deeds, and to you yours; peace be to you: we seek not the ignorant.” [ 19]

These are few verses which clearly establish patience as an attribute of a believer during times of calamity, trials and tribulations. No doubt, if the so-called Muslim’s who rioted over the cartoons because of it’s outright abomination, instead decided to study the mannerism of Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) or reflected on the Qur’an, surely this disaster could have been averted as well as the fuel which many Islamic polemicists use to mock Islam. The acts of a few who were offended, automatically become the spokesmen for Islam, while the massive majority that decided not to engage in violent acts, went ignored. Muslims today will have much greater trials to overcome, and the methods currently employed by the minuscule minority is definitely not the way. Symposiums, intellectual Islamic debates and interfaith dialogues can definitely bring the issues facing Islam to a myriad of solutions. Needless to say, many will try and blow down the bridge of tolerance between the different religions or completely undermine the efforts through more hate campaigns. But the challenge for Muslims today is definitely set, and it’s not quite on the battlefield, but on the intellectual plain. Surely, in patience and virtue, Muslims will respond appropriately for the coming trials.

————————————————————————————————

References

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7242258.stm

[2] Küng, Hans. Islam: Past, Present and Future. Oneworld Publications, 2007. 1-1024, pg. 2

[3] Ibid, pg. 9

[4] Ibid, pg. 10

[5] Ibid

[6] Ibid

[7] http://www.luthersem.edu/word&world/Archives/3-4_Luther/3-4_Hendrix.pdf

[8] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=1&version=9

[9] Küng, Hans. Islam: Past, Present and Future. Oneworld Publications, 2007. 1-1024, pg. 11

[10] Ibid, pg. 11

[11] http://www.jewish-theatre.com/visitor/article_display.aspx?articleID=586

[12] Ibid, pg. 12

[13] Ibid, pg. 12

[14] ibid, pg. 14

[15] Lings, Martin. Muhammad; His Life Based on the Earliest Sources. Inner Traditions International, Ltd., 1983. 1-359, pg. 74

[16] Ibid, pg. 59

[17] http://www.isna.net/library/quran/quran_e/16.html

[18] http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/016.qmt.html

[19] http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/028.qmt.html

The Cliche of “Change”

by Irfan Ahmed

“One of the many things that I admire about AIPAC is that you fight for this common cause from the bottom up. The lifeblood of AIPAC is here in this room – grassroots activists of all ages, from all parts of the country, who come to Washington year after year to make your voices heard. Nothing reflects the face of AIPAC more than the 1,200 students who have travelled here to make it clear to the world that the bond between Israel and the United States is rooted in more than our shared national interests – it’s rooted in the shared values and shared stories of our people. And as President, I will work with you to ensure that it this bond strengthened.” Barack Obama’s speech to AIPAC, June 4, 2008

The vision of the upcoming presidential candidate of “Change”, Barack Obama, needs a closer look. After his win in the long and exhausting bid for the democratic nomination, he was quick to storm the headquarters of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee(AIPAC) and delivered a phenomenally ugly speech, which totally disregarded the plight of the Palestinian and he concluded that it was the fault of Hamas and continued to beat the drums of war for Iran as he adamantly stated: “There is no greater threat to Israel – or to the peace and stability of the region – than Iran. Now this audience is made up of both Republicans and Democrats, and the enemies of Israel should have no doubt that, regardless of party, Americans stand shoulder-to-shoulder in our commitment to Israel’s security.” [1] If we are to assume he was backed into a corner and had no choice but “to speak in the manner of a hawkish neo-conservative.” [2], than he has already violated his campaign’s fundamental principle and slogan, “Change”. What exactly does he mean by “Change”, if he is giving into the war-hawks in Washington? But certainly, it has worked. People believe in him because of his stance on Iraq, and of his raconteur personality, which is all the more comforting for AIPAC:

“My father was black, he was from Kenya, and he left us when I was two. My mother was white, she was from Kansas, and I’d moved with her to Indonesia and then back to Hawaii. In many ways, I didn’t know where I came from. So I was drawn to the belief that you could sustain a spiritual, emotional and cultural identity. And I deeply understood the Zionist idea – that there is always a homeland at the center of our story.” [3] It leaves many skeptical on his stance of “change”, especially when he conforms to the Zionist beliefs and continues the drum beats of war towards a rather economically weak nation, Iran: “The decision by the World Bank to suspend a 5.4 million dollars fund to Tehran has also had a devastating effect on the economy of the country, where inflation and employment are continuing to rise…According to the Bank Markazi’s estimates, the money in circulation has risen 48.8 percent the past year, pushing inflation to 18.4 percent. Unofficial sources claim the true figure is more than 26 percent.” [4]

(Children in Iran)

Barack Obama’s support for Israel is not at all a surprise, however, it is expected. On Tuesday, June 3rd, Barack Obama “sealed the Democratic presidential nomination…a historic step toward his once-improbable goal of becoming the nation’s first black president.”[5] Only a day later, we see the abruptness and headstrong aim of Obama’s campaign to stand beside the nefarious AIPAC: “Following last night’s primaries in South Dakota and Montana, Obama has enough delegates to secure the party’s nomination, according to the Associated Press’ delegate count. New York Sen. Hillary Clinton also spoke at AIPAC this morning, following Obama by just a few minutes.” [6] To wonder why Barack Obama is so quick to discuss Israel’s issues, rather than confront the issues facing America such as the economic instability, rising food prices, rising gas prices, etc, only goes to show how Israeli issues take precedence over American ones. Currently, there seems to be no dichotomy between the two nation’s foreign policies when discussing matters with so called “terrorist groups”, which makes it all the more difficult for Palestinians to get their voices heard, especially when it comes to peace agreements. On the contrary, Barack Obama has posed a humble and constructive renewal to American foreign policy in regards to friends & foes: “The United States is trapped by the Bush-Cheney approach to diplomacy that refuses to talk to leaders we don’t like. Not talking doesn’t make us look tough – it makes us look arrogant, it denies us opportunities to make progress, and it makes it harder for America to rally international support for our leadership. On challenges ranging from terrorism to disease, nuclear weapons to climate change, we cannot make progress unless we can draw on strong international support.” [7]

However, this policy does not go for the democratically elected Hamas [8], who have been denied a symposium prematurely by Obama because “they are not heads of state” [9] and further clarified his point by stating “It is not a state and until Hamas clearly recognizes Israel, renounces terrorism and abides by, or believes that the Palestinians should abide by previous agreements … I don’t think conversations with them would be fruitful,” [10] Evidently enough, Obama is completely malleable to Zionist influence. On the contrary, Jimmy Carter, former president of the United States, isn’t. Carter went ahead and met with Hamas, in which he “pushed Hamas to announce a ceasefire.” [11], something completely surprising from a “terrorist” group. Israel on the other hand, openly “dismissed an offer of a six-month truce…saying the group merely wanted time to rearm.” [12] In terms of the United States foreign policy, Carter defied them and created a “change” of his own, which consequently led him to be vehemently reprimanded by the very courier of that slogan, Obama: “ ‘We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction,’ ” [13]

But, in light of all the smear campaigns posed against Obama, especially the allegation about him being a secret Muslim, does he really have a chance at presidency if he doesn’t side with AIPAC ? In regards to the statements expressed by John McCain, to empathize with Obama is certainly reasonable, however, it does prove how much power actually lays with AIPAC and the neo-con warhawks in Washington, rather than the people of the United States. Nonetheless, In the hopes that Barack Obama will some day receive a much needed revelation and solution for Palestine, may it be one that is both beneficial to the Palestinians and Israeli’s, for they are both cousins and believers in the one true god.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

References:

[1]http://elections.jta.org/2008/06/04/379/obamas-speech-the-text/

[2]http://www.payvand.com/news/08/jun/1107.html)

[3]http://elections.jta.org/2008/06/04/379/obamas-speech-the-text/

[4]http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Business/?id=1.0.2062652585

[5]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/03/Obama-seals-Democratic-nomination/

[6]Ibid

[7]http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#diplomacy

[8]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4726494.stm

[9]http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/05/18/post_5.php

[10]http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/080411/us/politics_palestinians_hamas_carter_obama_dc

[11]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/26/israelandthepalestinians

[12]Ibid

[13]http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/975667.html

The Legacy of Cuba

by Irfan Ahmed

“Every human being has within him an ideal man, just as every piece of marble contains in a rough state a statue as beautiful as the one that Praxiteles the Greek made of the god Apollo.” - Jose Marti

An island, right off the coast of Florida, with a total area of “110,860 sq km” [1], has been battling the behemoth to the north, the United States. This small, resilient and brave island is known as Cuba. Cuban history, if well researched, would sound like a fictional story, however, that is far from the truth. Fidel Castro, the recently resigned president of Cuba, is the revolutionist that Cuba and Latin America so desperately needed during the United States imperialistic siege. But, to cut midway into the history of Cuba without acknowledging the previous injustices they had to face, would surely be unfair. The Spanish- Cuban American War would certainly play the largest role in America’s involvement in the small island off the coast of Florida. It was late in the nineteenth century when Spain decided to occupy Cuba, but that would not last long as “Cuban forces mounted a determined drive for independence from Spain” [2] But, not before long, the United States would jump aboard the fight against Spain, for it’s own interest of course. “Cuba’s independence from Spain did not mean the independence from the United States. As the hostilities faded, Cuba fell under the direct administration of the U.S War Department” [3]. It was better reiterated by Secretary of State John Quincy Adams who said: “There are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple, severed by the tempest from its native tree, cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its unnatural connection with Spain and incapable of self-support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union.” [4] Here, John Quincy Adams clearly presented the Caribbean backyard of America.

After freeing itself from the clutches of the Spaniards, Cuba was now to face an even larger foe within it’s proximity, the United States. By 1901, the United States was already a denizen in Cuban politics, issuing “a set of articles as guidelines for future United State Cuban relations. This set of articles became known as the Platt Amendment”. [5] Some of the articles stipulated in the Platt Amendment are completely inconsistent with the virtues and principles of the United States constitution. For example, Article III brought severe damage to the sovereignty of Cuba: “That the government of Cuba consents that the United States may exercise the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty, and for discharging the obligations with respect to Cuba imposed by the treaty of Paris on the United States, now to be assumed and undertaken by the government of Cuba.” [6] Furthering the damage to Cuba’s sovereignty is Article VII: “That to enable the United States to maintain the independence of Cuba, and to protect the people thereof, as well as for its own defense, the government of Cuba will sell or lease to the United States lands necessary for coaling or naval stations at certain specified points to be agreed upon with the President of the United States.” [7]. Cuba became a haven for the United States: “vast tracks of ruined land were gobbled up by U.S investors-so that the United States came to control about three quarters of the Cuban sugar industry, the heart of the economy…Downtown Havana became a high rise outpost of America, and it’s luxury hotels housed vast gambling casino’s. They were run by professional gamblers and gangsters from the United States who operated hand in glove with corrupt Cuban authorities…Havana and Varadero developed into glitzy tourist resorts, awash with casinos, bars, strip clubs, and incessant gangland infighting.” [8]. Clearly imperialism, although seemingly subsided when Spain relieved it’s duty as an occupier, would make it’s mark once again, this time in a more furtive manner.

But nevertheless, Cuba was soon to be endangered as Gerardo Machado y Morales came into power. “In 1931 Machado suspended constitutional guarantees, also shutting down the University of Havanna” [9] But ironically enough, the United States did not fulfill it’s role in the “protection of life, property, and individual liberty” as stipulated in Article III of the Platt Amendment for the Cuban people. In actuality, “protection of life, property, and individual liberty” is “of foreigners only, especially Americans, and not of Anti-Machado Cuban Nationals” [10] Eventually, “in 1933 the US ambassador to Cuba, Sumner Welles, overthrew President Machado, Cuba’s first dictator, with the threat, but not the use, of US force.” [11] However, it was not only his efforts that ended the quandary of the Cuban people under the reign of Machado, but the strikes and the rebellious upheaval by the Cubans themselves.

(Fulgencio Batista)

This was a commendable effort by the United States, but soon enough another brutal tyrant named “Fulgencio Batista, eventually seized the presidency and was recognized by the United States.” [12] The United States always seems to fill in the void of an absent dictator with a fresh new one. But because of this dramatic shift in power, it brought a very unlikely hero to the scene, Fidel Castro. “Until 1940, Batista ruled Cuba through various puppet presidents, including Carlos Mendieta, José A. Barnet, Miguel Mariano Gómez, and Federuco Laredo Brú. Batista had started a ‘thirty-year tradition of corruption.’ ” [13] During his reign Fidel Castro witnessed the pain and suffering of all the poor around him. His empathy towards them was overwhelming and sure enough, he began to take action. 12 years later, “On March 10, 1952 Batista came out of the shadows and engineered a coup.” [14] Fidel had already developed his much needed lawyer skills. Soon enough, Fidel would prove to be quite the savoir faire during the next half of the century. But as corruption and violence began to ravage Cuba, Fidel decided “to appeal to the constitutional court to rule against the seizure of power and called for Batista to be thrown in prison. The court rejected the appeal, perhaps injudiciously declaring that “revolution is the source of law” [15] Hence, the revolutionist was born.

One year later, on July 26th, the day which inevitably provided the name for his revolutionary group, “M-26-7″, Fidel was to dissemble the Potemkin village created by the United States. “Fidel’s small band, divided into three units, approached the barracks in the center of Santiago de Cuba” [16] and the assault began. Just before it, Fidel, with his utmost sense of morality, stated: “Treat them humanely. Don’t insult them. And remember that the life of an unarmed man has to be sacred” [17], this certainly was not the rules of engagement Batista followed when his army captured Fidel and his comrades. The entire assault turned into a bloodbath, where “Ninety guerrillas were killed. Of those captured, 30 were executed on the first night. On the outskirts of the city of Santiago, 21 prisoners were murdered, many forced to dig their own graves.” [18]. Fidel had been dealt a terrible blow to his revolution.

Several months after Fidel and his comrades were captured, a trial was opened, and Fidel delivered probably the most riveting speeches of the 20th century, “History will absolve me”. In his revolutionary elongated speech, he began to unravel the injustices facing Cuba and his reasons for fighting against the Batista regime: “in the very presence of the Court, during the first and second hearings, a praetorian guard was stationed beside me to totally prevent me from speaking to anyone, even among the brief recesses. In other words, not only in prison, but also in the courtroom and in your presence, they ignored your decrees…. ‘Yes, we set out to fight for Cuba’s freedom and we are not ashamed of having done so,’” [19] He went on further with more intense and riveting remarks: “I warn you, I am just beginning! If there is in your hearts a vestige of love for your country, love for humanity, love for justice, listen carefully. I know that I will be silenced for many years; I know that the regime will try to suppress the truth by all possible means; I know that there will be a conspiracy to bury me in oblivion. But my voice will not be stifled – it will rise from my breast even when I feel most alone, and my heart will give it all the fire that callous cowards deny it.” [20]. Fidel also described the scene of his comrades’ inhumane punishment under the “democratic regime” of Cuba:”They crushed their testicles and they tore out their eyes. But no one yielded. No complaint was heard nor a favor asked. Even when they had been deprived of their vital organs, our men were still a thousand times more men than all their tormentors together. Photographs, which do not lie, show the bodies torn to pieces, Other methods were used. Frustrated by the valor of the men, they tried to break the spirit of our women. With a bleeding eye in their hands, a sergeant and several other men went to the cell where our comrades Melba Hernández and Haydée Santamaría were held.” [21] The punishment his fellow compatriots endured would ultimately deter Fidel from ever using torture. He finally ended with an awe-inspiring grandiose touch to his epic and memorable speech: “I know that imprisonment will be harder for me than it has ever been for anyone, filled with cowardly threats and hideous cruelty. But I do not fear prison, as I do not fear the fury of the miserable tyrant who took the lives of 70 of my comrades. Condemn me. It does not matter. History will absolve me.” [22]

It was on “May 15th Fidel and his comrades were released.” [23] . Fidel then headed off to Mexico and began another revolutionary movement, this time, it would be far more supererogatory than all his attempts. By “July 1957 Castro released his “Sierra Maestra Manifesto”. Focusing largely on questions of political reform, his movement steadily gained popular support. Through 1958 the Batista government came apart at the seams; on January 1, 1959 Fidel Castro and his M-26 took the reins of power.” [24]

Immediately after Fidel took power, he assured his people economic reforms would be delivered: “economic reforms brought a fall in unemployment, a rise on living standards and a consumer boom” [25] Such examples of reform was the “National Agrarian Reform Institute (INRA), which from May oversaw implementation of the land redistribution.” [26] Fidel was trying to ensure the removal of the capitalistic system by draining the power of rich, upper-class elites, who had private ownership of most agricultural land throughout Cuba. Clearly, Fidel’s vision of Cuba was to ensure that the poor had equal and fair involvement in the economical system of Cuba, despite their misfortunes. A striking similarity of Fidel’s animosity towards rich totalitarian control of the economy, was the belief’s of Adam Smith, who wrote in the 1776 Wealth of Nations: ” Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality, instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.” [27] This is exactly what Fidel wanted to prevent. Nevertheless, as the years progressed, the United States saw the Cubans becoming a city upon a hill for Latin America, something which was completely blasphemous in their eyes. They had to act. “On April 14th they embarked on ships for Cuba…Throughout this operation, the United States was not only undertaking an intervention against a revolutionary regime in the Caribbean; it was also tightening links to right-wing dictatorships in Central America” [28] The Bay of Pigs Invasion would begin. “ On April 17, 1961, about 1,400 exiles invaded southern Cuba at the Bahia de los Cochinos (Bay of Pigs), but were totally defeated by the Cuban army by April 20; most of the invaders were killed or taken prisoner.” [29] The Cuban revolution was certainly not going be undermined.

(Bay of Pigs speech)

The humiliating defeat of the United States by Cuba was certainly going to irritate the war hawks in Washington. But needless to say, the United States would certainly answer back. Cuba’s alignment with Soviet Union and the United States contempt for Communists sparked the fears of a nuclear holocaust as nuclear weapons were piling up. As a response to Cuba’s drastic move, the United States initiated their first embargo against them: “the embargo was first imposed in 1960 at the height of the Cold War after the young newly formed Cuban government expropriated US corporate assets and established ties with the Soviet Union.” [30] Such examples was the Foreign Assistance Act, which “reorganized the U.S. foreign assistance programs including separating military and non-military aid. The Act mandated the creation of an agency to administer economic assistance programs.” [31] Unfortunately, this idea was not meant for Cuba, it was however, a cessation of all economic assistance against other nation if they did not “enforce the blockade on Cuba.” [32] President Johnson ensured that Cuba would suffer by not only their hands, but from the hands of nations all around the world. Furthermore, the United States “prohibits most Cubans from visiting the US and restricts diplomats from Cuba to only visiting New York City and Washington DC. Along with the ban on American citizens traveling to Cuba, the imposed embargo seeks to cut off communication between Americans and Cuba. A good number of websites from Cuba are blocked on the Internet. This economic, trade and financial embargo imposed on Cuba by the US is the longest in recorded history.” [33] At the United Nations, “In 2000, 166 out of 189 member-states voted alongside Cuba and against the embargo. The only one states to vote with the U.S in positively upholding it were Israel and the ever dependable, and dependent, Marshall Islands.” [34]

Yet, Cuba strived on with the El Comandante in power. There is no doubt throughout entire time Fidel Castro was in power, many assassination attempts were carried out on Castro’s life, but they completely failed. Cuba has managed to undergo the most difficult process in relieving itself from the imperialistic beast, but sadly, with it, came an economic cost. On the contrary, Cuba has managed to have “provided Cubans with free housing, health care and education and a small, but guaranteed, income. Using these measuring sticks, Cubans fare better than many of their Latin American neighbors. The island is among the 20 nations in the world with the lowest infant mortality, and among Third World nations it has the highest literacy rate, the highest doctor-patient ratio and the longest life expectancy.” [35] This is an accomplishment which is yet to be seen in most third world countries, however, Cuba remains a city on a hill for all of Latin America and possibly all other imperial-preyed nations, despite Fidel’s resignation. The legacy of Cuba which is stitched in the hearts of every proud Cuban, will serve as the perfect contemporary example of David vs Goliath.

—————————————————————————————————————————

References:

[1] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cu.html

[2] Smith, Peter H. Talons of the Eagle. New York: Oxford UP, 1999. 3-377. pg. 34

[3] Ibid, pg. 36

[4] http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/isr/vol24/no1/guantanamo.htm

[5] http://www.classbrain.com/artteenst/publish/article_64.shtml

[6] Ibid

[7] Ibid

[8] Galloway, George. Fidel Castro Handbook. New York City: MQ Publications, 2006. 1-432. pg. 65

[9] Smith, Peter H. Talons of the Eagle. New York: Oxford UP, 1999. 3-377. pg. 69

[10] Ibid

[11] http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=109367

[12] Ibid

[13] http://www.historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=421

[14] Galloway, George. Fidel Castro Handbook. New York City: MQ Publications, 2006. 1-432. pg. 65

[15] Ibid

[16] Ibid, pg. 80

[17] Ibid, pg. 87

[18] Ibid

[19] http://www.marxists.org/history/cuba/archive/castro/1953/10/16.htm

[20] Ibid

[21] Ibid

[22] Ibid

[23] Galloway, George. Fidel Castro Handbook. New York City: MQ Publications, 2006. 1-432. pg. 105

[24] Smith, Peter H. Talons of the Eagle. New York: Oxford UP, 1999. 3-377. pg. 164

[25] Smith, Peter H. Talons of the Eagle. New York: Oxford UP, 1999. 3-377. pg. 192

[26] Ibid

[27] http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/25/035.html

[28] Smith, Peter H. Talons of the Eagle. New York: Oxford UP, 1999. 3-377. pg. 166

[29] http://onwar.com/aced/chrono/c1900s/yr60/fcuba1961.html

[30] http://newsfromrussia.com/opinion/columnists/105407-0/

[31] http://www.usaid.gov/about_usaid/usaidhist.html

[32] Galloway, George. Fidel Castro Handbook. New York City: MQ Publications, 2006. 1-432. pg. 267

[33] http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/105407-blockadecubaend-0

[34] Galloway, George. Fidel Castro Handbook. New York City: MQ Publications, 2006. 1-432. pg. 366

[35] Griffin, R. D. (1991, November 29). Cuba in crisis. CQ Researcher, 1, 897-920. Retrieved June 2, 2008, from CQ Researcher Online, http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre1991112900.)

America’s Backyard

by Irfan Ahmed

“For we must consider that we shall be a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us, so that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword through the world.” – John Winthrop

Surely, this “city upon a hill” was the example to the world, but, on the contrary, the United States would rule like a city a on a hill, placing everyone else beneath them, while pursuing their own interests. But, it didn’t quite start with the Winthrop’s statement, but very early on, during the fetus stage of the United States. The overwhelming white supremacist ideology was pervasive throughout the most of United States history. The Monroe Doctrine, which was authored by none other than James Monroe, asserted that “The American continents … are henceforth not to be considered as subject for future colonization by any European power” [1] . On the contrary, “It did not condemn colonization as a matter of principle; it inveighed only against colonization by European powers in the Americas.” [2] Moreover, this toothsome offer undoubtedly pleased the imperialists in Washington and later Theodore Roosevelt.

But this doctrine of course did not appear out of thin air, but rather from another imperialistic notion called Manifest Destiny. This belief was religiously inspired just for the United States as “God in heaven, not just earthly mortals, who endowed American society with its virtues and its purposes…It was sacred obligation” [3] . This would result in destitution and disparity of all nations within the grasp of the divinely inspired United States. Could such a commandment be from God? or from ruthless imperialists ensuring their wealth and interests around the world by being the epigone of God?

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:American_progress.JPG)

The latter would seem more appropriate. Arrogance and thirst for territory consumed Washington, and they were certainly on their way to establish the backyard of America with the spiritual confidence of “divine inspiration”.

The White Man burden’s concept of civilizing the uncivilized was akin to the manifest destiny notion. Both played a massive role in American foreign policy. It was best reiterated by John W. Burgess: “there are vast differences in political capacity between the races, that it is the white man’s mission, his duty, and his right to hold the reins of political power in his own hands for the civilization of the world and the welfare of mankind” [4] Behind this burden lays the vision to educate, civilize, and convert individuals who weren’t white or were in some way culturally different from Anglo- Saxons, in to civilized individuals. This point was adopted by Theodore Roosevelt, the twenty-sixth president of the United States, and vividly portrayed it in his State of The Union Address on December 6th, 1904: “The problem presented to us in the Philippine Islands is akin to, but not exactly like, the problems presented to the other great civilized powers which have possessions in the Orient. There are points of resemblance in our work to the work which is being done by the British in India and Egypt, by the French in Algiers, by the Dutch in Java, by the Russians in Turkestan, by the Japanese in Formosa; but more distinctly than any of these powers we are endeavoring to develop the natives themselves so that they shall take an ever-increasing share in their own government”. [5] Teddy Roosevelt, in his sublime ideology, would continue to justify the United States interventionist role throughout Latin America with his Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine:” Any country whose people conduct themselves well can count upon our hearty friendship. If a nation shows that it knows how to act with reasonable efficiency and decency in social and political matters, if it keeps order and pays its obligations, it need fear no interference from the United States. Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an international police power. If every country washed by the Caribbean Sea would show the progress in stable and just civilization which with the aid of the Platt Amendment Cuba has shown since our troops left the island, and which so many of the republics in both Americas are constantly and brilliantly showing, all question of interference by this Nation with their affairs would be at an end.” [6] The white man’s burden was equivocal, and hence, reasons to invade, intervene, and subvert countries who may seem “uncivilized” was easily justified.

(The White Man’s Burden to educate the “uncivilized”)

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo is one of the many examples of the notion of manifest destiny working hand-in-hand with the white man’s burden mentality in the United States: “The Mexican’s are Indians-Aboriginal Indians. Such Indians as Cortez conquered three thousand years ago, only rendered a little more mischievous by a bastard civilization…They do not possess the elements of an independent national existence…The Mexicans are Aboriginal Indians, and they must share the destiny of their race” [7] This racially charged statement may have been used to motivate the United States, but nonetheless, the United States were motivated enough to win what they were so thirsty for, the territory of Mexico. In the treaty, “the United States acquired more than 500,000 square miles of valuable territory and emerged as a world power in the late nineteenth century.” [8] But, Before this whole clash and dispute was settled, a racial opposition was presented by John C. Calhoun, a southern politician, who stated: “I know further, sir, that we have never dream’t of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race—the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that!” [9] Who knew a racial stance such as his, chiefly based on disparaging remarks, would inadvertently support the sovereignty of Mexico. However, that oration, was a complete failure. And “The signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo marked the end of a war and the beginning of a lengthy U.S. political debate over slavery in the acquired territories, as well as continued conflict with Mexico over boundaries.” [10]

This is event marked a significant triumph for the United States, and they continued to move onward with their expansionist’s mindset, completely disregarding the homes of the indigenous people of America. To quench the hunger of imperialism, everything must be ceded under it’s control with no resistance or debate. It is the epitome of disgrace in regards to the virtue and principles of democracy. There is no doubt, a city on a hill can be built above all else, after it can reign above all else.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

References:

[1] http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/jd/16321.htm

[2] Smith, Peter H. Talons of the Eagle. New York: Oxford UP, 1999. 3-377. pg. 30

[3] Ibid, pg. 42

[4] Ibid, pg. 49

[5] http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/tr26/speeches/tr_1904.htm

[6] http://www.historicaldocuments.com/TheodoreRooseveltscorollarytotheMonroeDoctrine.htm

[7] Smith, Peter H. Talons of the Eagle. New York: Oxford UP, 1999. 3-377. pg. 49

[8] http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/war/wars_end_guadalupe.html

[9] http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=478

[10] http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/war/wars_end_guadalupe.html

The Hero of Venezuela

by Irfan Ahmed

Revolutionists of the twenty first century are not ubiquitous , however they are truly quintessential to a countries growth. Without them, foundations weaken, power remains unchallenged and nationalism is buried alongside the dead of the past. However, in Latin America, this is certainly not the case. Power struggle and nationalism has been of key importance and the history behind it, is a staunch reminder of it’s uniqueness. Many figures have made their mark in the Latin America, such as Simon Bolivar, Fidel Castro, Ernesto “Che” Guverra and Josi Marti, to name a few. But, today, the most important and iconic figure of our time when discussing Latin America, is not only Fidel Castro (save him for a future article), but his main compatriot, the voice of the barrios, the great Hugo Chavez.

This is a man detested by the behemoth to the North, the United States, and has been the torch carrier for the Bolivarian Revolution, which would reunite Latin America as Simon Bolivar once did. But, sadly, this remarkable idea of Latin American solidarity has been flailing, and the visionary behind this, Hugo Chavez, has been become the victim of harassment, illegal military coup’s, and war mongering’ propaganda. A quick look into the history can literally show us how the hegemonic power had tried to overthrow such a great man, and failed to do so.

In 2002, Venezuela was on its way into the twenty-first century, led by their Bolivarian revolutionist, Hugo Chavez. But soon enough, 2002 was to be monumental for Venezuela, and remembered by all of Latin America and the neo-conservative hawks in Washington. It all begin with the creation of the National Endowment of Democracy (NED), whose mission is to “serve as the perfect conduit for U.S government funds to provide international political aid that would support it’s interests abroad and influence foreign and domestic policy in nations of strategic importance.” [1] ( Golinger 18 ) It was also considered to be a reflection of “the neo-conservative agenda the prioritized its global struggle against communism over democratic notions of sovereignty and self-determination.” [2] ( Golinger 18 ) . Soon enough, the NED was going become the antithesis of what they stand for. However, Venezuela allowed such a program to exist, even under the control of congress: “NED was established by congressional legislation, the National Endowment for Democracy Act (P.L 98-104), and congress authorized funding to ensure success.” [3] ( Golinger 18 ) This is becuase the Venezuelan government did not consider such a noble organization to be a threat and believed their purpose was essential. The United States and NED’s role in the coup d’état would soon be more transparent as the years climbed towards the initial subversion date of Chavez’s government. Nevertheless, “NED was pumping funds to key members of the opposition coalition” [4] ( Golinger 26 ), which had high ranking officers, and the illegal president who would temporarily relieve Chavez of presidency, Pedro Carmona.

General Gonzales of Venezuela, who was a clear dissident of the Chavez government, adamantly stated ”If the high command has to say to the president, ‘Mr. President, the cause of all of this is you, now leave,’ then the high command has to take that position,” [5] Chavez was soon to be blamed for everything, as the “exports of oil sagged” [6]. But, the general’s dream, as well as many others for the illegal take over, would come true on April 11th. “CTV, Fedecamaras, and NED-supported opposition parties held one of the largest rallies and marches Venezuela had ever seen” [7] ( Golinger 27 ) The opposition march began and it was thought to be a peaceful one. But that clearly became an overstatement as “midday on April 11, the opposition march unlawfully altered it’s authorized route and millions began storming toward the presidential palace, Miraflores.” [8] ( Golinger 27 ), where many pro-Chavez supporters were legally gathered. This altered route would clearly show the intentions of the protesters and those leading it. They wanted unrest, and thats exactly what they got. As clashes were occurring on the streets of Venezuela, “the military officers, who had already declared rebellion, together with opposition leaders stormed Miraflores and attempted to force President Chavez’s resignation. ” [9] ( Golinger 28 ) Since Chavez showed nothing but defiance in the face of adversity, he did not resign, but instead allowed himself to be “kidnapped and imprisoned ina nearby military base” [10] ( Golinger 28 ) The sub rosa plans of the opposition became quite clear to the people of Venezuela, and they weren’t going to stand for this.

Venezuela saw their democracy shredded apart, as Pedro Carmona “was sworn in as interim president, and in a sweeping first act, he issued a decree dissolving all of Venezuela’s democratic institutions.” [11] ( Golinger 28 ) This act vividly portrayed their underestimation of the people’s will, which would surely bring an unmitigated disturbance to their revamped “halcyonian” society: “in the streets of Caracas, thousands of demonstrators supporting Mr Chavez – or opposed to the way he was ousted – took over state TV to demand his return. Police fired water cannon and teargas. Agency reports claimed that dozens died in the violence.” [12] But that still didn’t stop the loyal supporters of democracy and Chavez, as they continued onward in a campaign to remove the true dictator, Pedro Carmona, and his camarilla’s. The protesters reached Miraflores palace, which was occupied by the dissenter’s of democracy, and declared that Chavez be returned to his rightful place, the seat of presidency and to the people of Venezuela. “The Presidential Guard, along with other fractions of the military that had remained loyal to Chavez, swiftly forced Carmona and his advisor’s into detention and returned the palace grounds to the Chavez cabinet, who then initiated the rescue of the constitutional president, Hugo Chavez.” [13] ( Golinger 29 ) The short-lived coup attempt brought a new sense of nationalism to the Venezuelan people and confidence in their true president. As Hugo Chavez triumphantly returned, he was greeted with cheers, songs and applause. People sung from afar, “He’s Back”, in the same fashion as the soccer tune of celebration, “Ole Ole Ole”. [14]

The miasma created by the NED and the United States was completely disintegrated, and Chavez humbly stated: ”I am here and I am prepared to rectify wherever I have to rectify,” Mr. Chávez went on, ”but I ask others to rectify, too.” [15] As Venezuela begins to convalesce itself, a new wave of propaganda is now being spread about Chavez. Currently, Chavez is being linked to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC), who engages in “Bombings, murder, mortar attacks, kidnapping, extortion, hijacking, as well as guerrilla and conventional military action against Colombian political, military, and economic targets.” [16] Since these are the attributes that have placed FARC on the US terrorist list [17], I wonder if these attributes also apply to United States, who in 2002 supported several anti-Chavez organizations in the illegal overthrow. But, apparently not. To Venezuela, this form of propaganda of linking Chavez and his government to terrorists groups is nothing new: “The problem is that Chávez is supporting Hezbollah in the Middle East and will most probably support their criminal work in Venezuela.” [18]. But apparently, there is no evidence of this at all. Moreover, Roger Noriega, “the former assistant secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs and longtime proponent of hardline U.S. policies in Latin America,” [19] had stated that : “Chavez is authoritarian/dictatorial; Chavez is a destablizing force in the region; and Chavez has links with terrorism.” [20] ( Golinger 53 )

If he only knew how wrong he really was. If you were to check the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela’s constitution, that was enacted in 1999, after Chavez replaced the Venezuelan dictator, you would know that it “is one of the most expansive documents on human rights known by international law” [21] ( Golinger 54 ). But to further refute this claim that Chavez is a dictator, you would just have to simply turn to the first two articles of the constitution, which states: “Article 1: The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is irrevocably free and independent, basing its moral property and values of freedom, equality, justice and international peace” and “Article 2: Venezuela constitutes itself as a Democratic and Social State of Law and Justice, which holds as superior values of its legal order and actions those of life, liberty, justice, equality, solidarity, democracy, social responsibility and, in general, the preeminence of human rights, ethics and political pluralism”. [22]

It is clear, that a democracy can exist in other parts of the world, only if it befits the interest of the United States. The legendary return of Hugo Chavez to power, through the will of his people as they marched from the barrios to the Miraflores palace, is a great example of democracy. Since Venezuela’s oil has been lionized by the United States, Hugo Chavez must do everything in his power to prevent the spread of corruption amongst the wealthy of Venezuela, and at the same time battle the hegemony to the north who believes “Latin America is it’s backyard”. Surely, the people of Venezuela will never stand for this and neither would Hugo Chavez. But as time progresses and we see changes in U.S and Venezuelan foreign policy, much more interesting times lye ahead. Chavez is the revolution, who the U.S foolishly tried to undermine, but democracy, in it’s truest sense prevailed, and the hero continues to reign.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

References:

[1] Golinger, Eva. Bush Vs Chavez: Washington’s War on Venezuela. New York: Monthly Review P, 2008. 9-175.
[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid

[4] Ibid
[5]http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9402EED61F3DF932A25757C0A9649C8B63&scp=57&sq=Venezuela+2002&st=nyt

[6] Ibid

[7] Golinger, Eva. Bush Vs Chavez: Washington’s War on Venezuela. New York: Monthly Review P, 2008. 9-175.

[8] Ibid

[9] Ibid

[10] Ibid

[11] Ibid

[12] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/15/venezuela.alexbellos

[13] Golinger, Eva. Bush Vs Chavez: Washington’s War on Venezuela. New York: Monthly Review P, 2008. 9-175.

[14] http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=97

[15]http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E07E4D9103CF936A25757C0A9649C8B63&scp=10&sq=Venezuela+2002&st=nyt

[16] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/farc.htm

[17] http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/2001/6531.htm

[18] http://vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200609010809

[19] http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1308.html

[20] Golinger, Eva. Bush Vs Chavez: Washington’s War on Venezuela. New York: Monthly Review P, 2008. 9-175.

[21] Ibid

[22] http://www.analitica.com/bitblioteca/venezuela/constitucion_ingles.pdf

An Appeal to the Conscious

by Irfan Ahmed

“Poverty often deprives a man of all spirit and virtue; it is hard for an empty bag to stand upright.” – Benjamin Franklin

However, for the children of Gaza, this quote bears no importance

(Courtesy of The New York times)

Their incandescent faces, reaping with joy and blissfulness, tears through the conscious of anyone with humility. Tragically, many around the world have numbed their conscious by ignoring this disparity. These are the children of Gaza, and they have formed a coalition: “We’re from the party of bread.” [1] Their intellect and aduacious will in adversity is to some degree warming and heartbreaking. They managed to invoke an emotional paradox, but it falls deaf to many: “No one from the authority comes to check on us; no one really cares,” [2].  Any attempt to empathize with them would be a bold, but worthless effort. These conditions are inspired by Israel’s “right to defend themselves”, even though “a Humanitarian Implosion, says the blockade has dramatically worsened levels of poverty and unemployment, and has led to deterioration in education and health services.” [3] and this courageous motto has permitted Israel’s military to conduct ruthless attacks, where recently, they “killed more than 120 Palestinians, many of them civilians.” [4] in the so called “Hamas-controlled Gaza strip”. I wonder how many military personnel were exterminated in this recent bombardment?

Because of this tit for tat method being employed, 8 Isrealis were shot to death. But Olmert amazingly cannot comprehend this situation and “will continue to build its settlements in annexed east Jerusalem”. [5] It’s obvious, Olmert has gone moonstruck.

(Courtesy of The New York Times)

But maybe the 250 people, most of which are “younger than 16″[6], may repress their feelings of vengeance and retribution after they “scramble over fetid hills of other people’s trash to eke out a living for their families and themselves.”[7]? Nope, not quite. But they attain the very virtues most individuals lack, patience and perseverance.

(Courtesy of The New York Times)

As Muslim dissident’s grow and the Ummah weakens, the victims will inevitably be these children. This is a call to the Muslim conscious. A conscious that is shaped and nurtured by the Qur’an and Sunnah. The Qur’an is explicit on this matter: “It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces Towards east or West; but it is righteousness- to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the Allah.fearing.”(Qur’an, 2:177) [8] Furthermore the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH), stated: “The one who looks after a widow or a poor person is like a Mujahid (warrior) who fights for Allah’s Cause, or like him who performs prayers all the night and fasts all the day.”( Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 64, Number 265) [9]

Remember Muslims, they are your responsibilities, what is urgently needed is monetary support through charities:

http://www.pcrf.net/who/who.html

http://www.palestinercs.org/

http://www.map-uk.org/

and more can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Palestinian_charities

(Courtesy of The New York Times)

To the world , a dramatic leap of conscious is desperately needed. To see these photo’s and feel nothing, is a call for psychological help. But to feel some form a guilt, is a confirmation of the existence of a conscious and this confirmation must turn into action. Thereby, calling upon the masses to donate as much as one can possibly donate, would be the first step towards ending this apartheid. This would allow the Palestinian economy to once again flourish, a concept which would be as rare as sighting a shooting star. However, in these children, their is hope. That hope lies in the very treasure hunt their currently involved in and maybe for a while. Apparently, the New York Times has failed to document this story further and hasn’t informed us of any new updates about our little protagonist’s. It seems they were just hungry for another news story, leaving behind the tragic image of Gazan life. For them it may have been just any other news story, but for us, the reader’s , it causes the conscious to numb the entire body for a moment, then releases it so it can awake from it’s slumber.

(Courtesy of New York Times)

As long as there is no leading proletariat class ready to improve the economy or a Muslim Ummah ready to protect their bothers and sisters, this struggle will intensify. But the brave children of Gaza push on in their every day perseverance to extinguish their grief and injustice. Their lives are stitched onto the hearts of their fellow brothers and sisters around the world, who cannot share their pain, but attempt to feel it. These are the angels of Gaza.

(Courtesy of New York Times)

References:

Note: If you wish to view all the photo’s, here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2007/09/01/world/20070902_WESTBANK_SLIDESHOW_index.html

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/world/middleeast/02westbank.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

[2] Ibid

[3] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7280026.stm

[4] http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=207842&version=1&template_id=37&parent_id=17

[5] http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2008/March/middleeast_March263.xml&section=middleeast

[6] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/world/middleeast/02westbank.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

[7] Ibid

[8] http://www.islam101.com/quran/yusufAli/QURAN/2.htm

[9] http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/064.sbt.html#007.064.265

Afghanistan: a few steps into the right direction

by Irfan Ahmed

Afghanistan, a country which has entangled itself in many controversies, ranging from the rise of a political stronghold known as the Taliban to being the breeding ground for famous terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden and Ayman Zawari. It is currently situated with a great task, which would drastically change the fates of it’s inhabitants as they encroach upon the new millennium. Most of us are familiar with the Taliban as they are presented through the media, as misogynistic, violent, irrational, war-mongering tribesmen: “several instances reported in which Taliban fighters stopped women on Kabul streets and beat them, in one instance with a radio antenna ripped from a car, accusing them of not covering their entire bodies.” [1] and seeing them is both vile and repugnant to the eyes of faithful Muslim, for the Taliban represented the opposite of the revered Islamic code, which pertains to modesty, non-violence, and understanding . But ever since the U.S led invasion for the perpetrators of the terrorists attacks, came the issue of whether pushing Afghanistan to a Democracy or allowing it to thrive in a new constitution upheld by Islamic doctrine. By introducing a few steps forward using the Islamic doctrine, we can create a general direction.

Under such an Islamic doctrine, a Western would view it as a backwards approach, especially if it’s initial purpose is to liberate the Afghani people, although such an assumption is ubiquitous, it is however far from it. Women in particular, have been the most victimized by the Taliban:”Girls’ schools have been closed while the clerics, known as mullahs, study the ”issue” of education for females…ordered when venturing out to wear a full chaderi, a gown that covers a woman from head to toe, allowing her to see only through a tightly woven face mask.” [2]. These laws the Mullahs have enjoined upon to encumber on to their fellow sisters is Un-Islamic. In the Sunnah, the sayings and ways of Prophet Muhammed (PBUH), he advocated that women should adhere not to the days of ignorance, which was during the Pre-Islamic era, but rather do the exact opposite: “I heard the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) say: If anyone travels on a road in search of knowledge, Allah will cause him to travel on one of the roads of Paradise. The angels will lower their wings in their great pleasure with one who seeks knowledge, the inhabitants of the heavens and the Earth and the fish in the deep waters will ask forgiveness for the learned man.” [Abu Dawud, Book 25, Number 3634] [3]. In light of the Qu’ran it is clear that both gender’s duties are to seek knowledge, so therefore ignorance doesn’t lead them astray: “They will further say: “Had we but listened or used our intelligence, we should not (now) be among the Companions of the Blazing Fire!”[67:10] [4]. Therefore, both male and female must be erudite, in order to eschew from anything that may denote them as pious Muslims. Another great Hadith that explains how to utilize knowledge for the sake of humanitarian purposes goes: “The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: If anyone acquires knowledge of things by which Allah’s good pleasure is sought, but acquires it only to get some worldly advantage, he will not experience the arf, i.e. the odour, of Paradise.”[Abu Dawud, Book 25, Number 3656] [5]. With these clauses established we see that the Taliban fall short of such interpretations and do the exact opposite of which was desired by Allah and his prophet, thus it leads the Afghani people back to the time of “Jahiliyyah” [6], or otherwise known as the time of ignorance.

The woman in Afghanistan, whom are forced to sport the burqa, usually creates uneasiness amongst feminists, for it display’s an oppression which is institutionalized not by the verbatim of God, but by the insecurity of man. The Islamic verdict on this is far liberal than what the Taliban has decided on: “The code’s first article says that if a woman leaves home with her face unveiled, ‘her home will be marked, and her husband punished.”[7]. From the Qu’ran it states clearly: “ O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft- Forgiving, Most Merciful.” [33:59] [8]. However, one must be meticulous in finding the actual meaning of the verse, rather than just sticking to the interpretation. Therefore in order to truly understand the meaning of this verse, especially the part about the garments, we must confine our thinking and judging on the language ordained in the Qur;an, Arabic: “ Ya ayyuha alnnabiyyu qul li-azwajika wabanatika wanisa-i almu/mineena yudneena AAalayhinna min jalabeebihinna thalika adna an yuAArafna fala yu/thayna wakana Allahu ghafooran raheeman” [9] The word “Jalbab“, the loose garment Muslim women wear to cover their entire body except their faces, is derived from the word “jalabeebihinna”. But wait, how is that different from the oppressive burqa? Well thats where our noble and humble Prophet (PBUH) arrives where he explains: “Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin: Asma, daughter of AbuBakr, entered upon the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) wearing thin clothes. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) turned his attention from her. He said: O Asma’, when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this, and he pointed to her face and hands.” [ Abu Dawud, Book 32, Number 4092,] [10]. It is clear that the transmission of such a hadith is congruent with the above Quranic sura, making both compatible and just.

To rebuild such a country, it must be done at the hands of fellow Muslims. Whether it be from teachers, engineers, environmentalists, lawyers, theologians, etc. they are inevitably the ones who can help the Afghani life thrive once again. First objective in rebuilding such an eroded community, must be a strict adherence to patience, as stated in the Qur’an: “O ye who believe! seek help with patient perseverance and prayer; for Allah is with those who patiently persevere.” [ 2:153] [11]. Next, Muslims should begin to donating on a larger scale for the victims under Taliban rule and post U.S led invasion, for it is suggested in the Qur’an: “It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces Towards east or West; but it is righteousness- to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the Allah.fearing.” [2:177] [12]. Next Muslims should enshrine the law of protecting woman’s right’s by assuring that they are not inherited against their will: “O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may Take away part of the dower ye have given them,-except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and Allah brings about through it a great deal of good.”[4:19] [13]. A woman shall also have the right to ensure that she chooses her spouse because it is exactly the rules that the Prophet had laid out: ” The Prophet said, “A matron should not be given in marriage except after consulting her; and a virgin should not be given in marriage except after her permission.” The people asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! How can we know her permission?” He said, “Her silence (indicates her permission).”[ Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 67] [14]. Another Hadith suggest that even if the parents choose a spouse for their child it can be invalid if the child is against it: ” that her father gave her in marriage when she was a matron and she disliked that marriage. So she went to Allah’s Apostle and he declared that marriage invalid.” [ Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 85, Number 78,] [15]. These are small examples of how Muslim values and traditions can create a better society if they are to be followed thoroughly. Muslim’s should seek to expostulate more on matters such as the interpretations of certain verses as well as having an open forum for any differences that may arise. It would be an involution to allow non-Muslims to decide on matters Muslims feel culturally sensitive about, therefore non-Muslims should play the role of extolling such inwardness by Muslims as long as positive outcomes are being produced. In other word’s, leave the business of rebuilding and reestablishing the community to the Muslims.

The Taliban, in their malign and utterly dispicable treatment of women are inconsistent with the teachings of the Qu’ran and Sunnah, thus their attempt to combine church and state was a complete failure. However our outlook on the issue of whether Islam and politics can be combined, should not be judged according to the events in Afghanistan. A Muslim’s soul duty is to provide aid for the people of Afghanistan, either by donations or volunteer work, an action which is congruent with the pillars of Islam. Muslims must remember that their lineage lies with their brothers and sisters, whether it be in Africa or in Alaska, whenever danger is afoot, they must be the first to respond. The prophet outlined it best in one of his hadith: ” Allah’s Apostle said, “Help your brother, whether he is an oppressor or he is an oppressed one. People asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! It is all right to help him if he is oppressed, but how should we help him if he is an oppressor?” The Prophet said, “By preventing him from oppressing others.” [Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 43, Number 624] [16]. It is in the hands of Muslims to change the abhorrent behaviors of other so-called Muslims by showing them the path of wisdom, understanding, modesty and by eschewing any false notions by seeking truth through a thorough analysis of the Qur’an and Hadiths. ” The Prophet said, “A believer to another believer is like a building whose different parts enforce each other.” The Prophet then clasped his hands with the fingers interlaced (while saying that).” [Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 43, Number 626] [17].

References:

[1] http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9807E2D81E3CF932A35753C1A960958260&scp=7&sq=taliban+afghanistan+law

[2] Ibid

[3] http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/025.sat.html#025.3634

[4] http://www.islam101.com/quran/yusufAli/QURAN/67.htm

[5] http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/025.sat.html

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahiliyyah

[7] http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9501E5DE143AF931A15752C1A9679C8B63&scp=15&sq=woman+afghanistan+law

[8] http://www.islam101.com/quran/yusufAli/QURAN/33.htm

[9] http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/quran/03308.htm

[10] http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/032.sat.html#032.4092

[11] http://www.islam101.com/quran/yusufAli/QURAN/2.htm

[12] Ibid

[13] http://www.islam101.com/quran/yusufAli/QURAN/4.htm

[14] http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html

[15] http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/085.sbt.html

[16] http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/043.sbt.html#003.043.623

[17] http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/043.sbt.html#003.043.626

The incompetence of the media and their pathological motives

by Irfan Ahmed

I can’t seem to grasp how the full speech of Iranian President Ahmadinejad on “The World Without Zionism” [1] has led to a complete uproar, declaring Iran a “”the world’s leading sponsor of state terror” [2] by President Bush during his visit to the Middle East. But one must question how such a notion came about. If you guessed the reverberating phrase “wipe Israel off the map” [3] played a significant role as to condemning Iran as a nuclear threat to the harmony of the world, you’d be totally correct. But what’s interesting about this article is that within it, Ahmadinejad is willing to move towards peaceful measures stating ” We do not need a bomb. We are against bombs, actually. There are many reasons we are against it” [4]. To the right winger’s they smell a demagogue or a heretic, but to the leftists, a harmonious leader standing for stabilization in a region henpecked by the western forces. I would side with the leftists on this one.

From the very speech he made at the Islamic Student Association conference, he stated the most controversial rumor: ” Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine” [5] But just before this little tidbit, which the right wing neo-cons manage to exploit, came a piece which was deafening to most at the start of the speech, where he clearly stated: “We need to examine the true origins of the issue of Palestine: is it a fight between a group of Muslims and non-Jews? Is it a fight between Judaism and other religions? Is it the fight of one country with another country? Is it the fight of one country with the Arab world? Is it a fight over the land of Palestine? I guess the answer to all these questions is ‘no.’” [6] With that said, the speech was geared to confront a problem, which even Jews do not agree with, Zionism. Zionism means “The belief that Jews should have their own nation” [7]. Although there has been many attempts to have peace agreements with Palestine, in order to declare Israel a right to exist and a possible formation of a Palestinian state, many non-state actors such as Hamas disagree with the this and fear Israel may become a whole nation, hence the end of Palestinians right to exist on a land where contumacy prevails. And this is an issue Ahmadinejad is trying to converge upon, but scrutiny tends to blind personnel judgment in the western media and contrive in false misconceptions, in another words he was maliciously portrayed for right-wing agendas. But what did Ahmadinejad mean when he stated “occupying regime must be wiped off the map”?

Well it seems we must refer to the Farsi written version of it, since it was delivered in such fashion. To begin with lets take a look at the farsi version which goes like this ”Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.” [8]. I take a look at an article written by Jonathan Steele, a columnist of the Guardian, where he delivered this very important piece of information from his article called “Lost In Translation”, in which he states: “Khomeini’s words were abstract: ‘Sahneh roozgar.’ Sahneh means scene or stage, and roozgar means time. The phrase was widely interpreted as ‘map’” [9]. Steele continues to state: “If the Iranian president made a mistake and used “safheh” rather than “sahneh”, that is of little moment. A native English speaker could equally confuse “stage of history” with “page of history”. The significant issue is that both phrases refer to time rather than place. As I wrote in my original post, the Iranian president was expressing a vague wish for the future. He was not threatening an Iranian-initiated war to remove Israeli control over Jerusalem.” [10]. So in other words the actual speech, translated into English should look something like this: “Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).” [11]

Could it be that the Iranian President used the Ayatollah’s speech to signify the meaning of occupations in general ranging from the installation of the Shah in Iran to the threatening military dictator of Iraq, Saddam? In some ways yes, when comparing it to the Palestinians. Any historian knows the countless occupations which have occurred in the Muslim world when they have interacted with the West. One shouldn’t cast Iran as a supporter of terrorism, or at the least a threat to any nation, without reviewing it’s intentions and beliefs. Furthermore, we should seek to correct the mistakes made by the media before they plunge into more provocative propaganda and encroach upon the consciences of war-mongering individuals. As human beings our job is to stop error and prevent it from encompassing over truth, for if that happens, be prepared for more troubling news.

References:

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/weekinreview/30iran.html?_r=1&ex=1161230400&en=26f07fc5b7543417&ei=5070&oref=slogin

[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2240252,00.html

[3] http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/12/ahmadinejad.itn/index.html?iref=newssearch

[4] Ibid

[5] http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/weekinreview/30iran.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ei=5070&en=26f07fc5b7543417&ex=1161230400

[6] Ibid

[7] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Zionism

[8] http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/rumor-of-the-century/

[9] http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_steele/2006/06/post_155.html

[10] Ibid

[11] http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/rumor-of-the-century/

Iran’s so called threat to Israel

By Irfan Ahmed

Is it too difficult to see that Bush and his foreign policy advisor’s have subsequently failed the American people after they have elected him twice to win a war that has culminated into a complete and utter disaster? No. For some lobbyist like AIPAC, Iran is still a threat. Who is AIPAC? Well they describe themselves as “As America’s leading pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC works with both Democratic and Republican political leaders to enact public policy that strengthens the vital U.S.-Israel relationship” [1]. They work to “securing foreign aid to Israel which totals $2.42 billion in 2008 and provides military aid and refugee assistance.” [2]. This alliance leads to a growing enmity amongst Arab countries, which may take many years to resolve.

However, this issue of Iran being a threat to the United States and Israel, is a furtive argument they both gallingly fulminate about. But the United States manage to contradict itself and proved to show how much of a buffoon their leaders really are when this info was released: “Iran halted work toward a nuclear weapon under international scrutiny in 2003 and is unlikely to be able to produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb until 2010 to 2015″ by their own intelligence committee [3] So what made United States consider Iran a threat? Well of course Iran. amidst it’s lack of nuclear energy and weapons, is certainly not a threat to the United States, but it is supposedly an enemy to one of the key U.S allies in the war on terror: Israel. This functionary and extensive relationship is similar to the Monica and Bill affair, except in a more formal and acceptable manner. This relationship is both frugal and endemically positive for the people of Israel, especially with their AIPAC cronies contriving their agendas on many congressman, such as Obama, who insisted that Iran is a threat to the United States as well: “And we can, then, more effectively deal with one of the greatest threats to the United States, Israel and world peace: Iran.” [4] Both pathetic and unreasonable from someone who has been expressive on his notion of “Change”, but he falls short of his benign character by embracing the same rhetoric Bush has succumb too “In the 21st century, it is unacceptable that a member state of the United Nations would openly call for the elimination of another member state. But that is exactly what he has done.” [5], in other words, he fell for the same false propaganda the bush Administration has endorsed in when they stated Ahmadinejad wants to “wipe Israel off the map” [6] as stated by Rice. This speech was as extemporaneous as all speeches made to neo-con supporters, just for those extra votes.

Is it true that Iran is a threat to Israel? or was it a way for both Israel and America to be on offense in order to extenuate the options for convening to expostulate differences? This is yet to be known as America brands Iran as “the world’s leading state-sponsor of terror.” [7]

On my next article, I will explain how Ahmadinejad did not say “wipe Israel off the map” and how he was purposefully demonized by the media as well as the bush administration and their right wing cronies in order to encumber the middle east as it is beginning convalescence itself.

References:

[1] http://www.aipac.org/about_AIPAC/default.asp

[2[ Ibid

[3] http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/03/iran.nuclear/index.html

[4] http://obama.senate.gov/speech/070302-aipac_policy_fo/

[5] Ibid

[6] http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2199515,00.html

[7] http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080113/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_mideast