Zionists’ latest Hoax: The “Stolen Election”

Historically, the entire Zionist dogma is based on hoax and myths. French philosopher, Roger Garaudy, in his controversial book The Founding Myths of Israeli Politics, for which he was fined US$40,000 by a Paris court on Jewish Lobby’s charges of him being an “Holocaust denier”!

The Zionist-controlled western world’s too believes in ‘political myths’, based on ‘Islamophobia’ or the fear that the particular government may rebel against western domination. In the Muslim world, we have seen this Zionist-projected hysteria during the 1992 land-slide victory of Algerian Islamic Party (FIS), the victory of Turkey’s Islamic party Fazilat (Virtue), the 2000 victory of current Turkish ruling party AKP, the 2006 victory of Palestinian Islamic Resistance (Hamas), the so-called “defeat” of Lebanese Islamic Party (Hizb’Allah) in the recent elections (even though Hizb’Allah lead opposition parties received over 53% votes), and elections of anti-US governments in Venezuela and Bolivia. However, the last week’s election victory by receiving 63% of total votes cast – generated the biggest circus of Zionist Islamophobia.
Hundreds of Jewish think tanks, the West’s so-called “intellectuals” on Jewish Lobby’s payroll, and even the former MOSSAD agent, French President Sarkozy – are calling the Iranian election as “the dirty side of Islamic Revolution”, “Mullah Fascism”, “the Fraud”, “Stolen Election”, and some Zionist idiots even predicted the begining of a “Civil War” !

While the Zionists are bending backwards to cover their latest political humiliation – Professor James Petras, the scholar who exposed Israeli hands behind the blasphemy – Danish Cartoons, has exposed the the latest Zionist Hoax in his June 18, 2009 article Iranian Elections: The \”Stolen Elections\” Hoax:

“The western leaders rejected the results because the ‘knew’ that their reformist candidate could not lose. For months they published daily interviews, editorials and news from the field ‘detailing’ the failure of Ahmadinejad’s administration, they cited the support from clerics, former officials, merchants in the bazaar, and above all women and young urbanites fluent in English, to prove that Moussavi was headed for a lanslide victory. A victory for Moussavi was described as the victory for the ‘voices of moderation’, at least the White House version of that vacuous cliche’. Prominent liberal academics deduced the vote count was fraudulent because the opposition candidate, Moussavi,  lost in his own ethnic enclave among the Azeris. Other academics claimed that the ‘youth vote’ – based on their upper and middle-class University students from the neighbourhood of Northern Tehran were overwhelmingly for the ‘reformist’ candidate.

The careless and distorted emphasis on ‘ethnic voting’ cited by writers from the Financial Times (a pro-Israel propaganda outlet) and New York Times (a Jewish owned newspaper) to justify calling Ahmadinejad’s victory ‘a stolen vote’ is matched by the media’s willful and deliberate refusal to acknowledge a rigorous nationwide public opinion poll conducted by two US experts just three weeks before the vote, which showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin – even larger than his victory on June 12…..

The great majority of voters for the incumbent probably felt that national security interests, the integrity of the country and the social welfare system, with all its faults and excesses, could be better defended and improved with Ahmadinejad than with upper-class technocrates supported by western-oriented privileged youth who prize individual life style over community values and solidarity……

The wild card in the aftermath of the elections is Israeli response: Netnayahu has signaled to his American Zionist followers that they should use the hoax of ‘electoral fraud’ to exert maximum pressure on the Obama regime to end all plans to meet with the newly re-elected Ahmadinejad regime….”

Bookmark and Share

The Case of Netanyahu and the Curious Incident

“You must be celebrating,” the interviewer from a popular radio station told me after Netanyahu’s speech. “After all, he is accepting the plan which you proposed 42 years ago!” (Actually it was 60 years ago, but who is counting?)

The front page of Haaretz carried an article by Gideon Levy, in which he wrote that “the courageous call of Uri Avnery and his friends four decades ago is now being echoed, though feebly, from end to end (of the Israeli political spectrum).”

I would be lying if I denied feeling a brief glow of satisfaction, but it faded quickly. This was no “historic” speech, not even a “great” speech. It was a clever speech.

It contained some sanctimonious verbiage to appease Barack Obama, followed right away by the opposite, to pacify the Israeli extreme right. Not much more.

  • * *

NETANYAHU DECLARED that “our hand is extended for peace.”

In my ears, that rang a bell: in the 1956 Sinai war, a member of my editorial staff was attached to the brigade that conquered Sharm-al-Sheikh. Since he had grown up in Egypt, he interviewed the senior captured Egyptian officer, a colonel. “Every time David Ben-Gurion announced that his hand was stretched out for peace,” the Egyptian told him, “we were put on high alert.”

And indeed, that was Ben-Gurion’s method. Before every provocation he would declare that “our hands are extended for peace”, adding conditions that he knew were totally unacceptable to the other side. Thus an ideal situation (for him) was created: The world saw Israel as a peace-loving country, while the Arabs looked like serial peace-killers. Our secret weapon is the Arab refusal, it used to be joked in Jerusalem at the time.

This week, Netanyahu wheeled out the same old trick.

  • * *

I DO NOT underrate, of course, the significance of the chief of the Likud uttering the two words: “Palestinian state”.

Words carry political weight. Once released into the world, they have a life of their own. Unlike dogs, they cannot be called back.

In a popular Israeli love song, the boy asks the girl: “When you say no, what do you mean?” One could well ask: When Netanyahu says yes, what does he mean?

But even if the words “Palestinian state” passed his lips only under duress, and when Netanyahu has no intention at all of turning them into reality, it is still important that the head of the government and the chief of the Likud was compelled to utter them. The idea of the Palestinian state has now become a part of the national consensus, and only a handful of ultra-rightists reject it directly. But this is only the beginning. The main struggle will be about turning the idea into reality.

  • * *

THE ENTIRE speech was addressed to one single person: Barack Obama. It was not designed to appeal to the Palestinians. It was quite clear that the Palestinians are only the passive object of a discussion between the President of the USA and the Prime Minister of Israel. Except in some tired old clichés, Netanyahu spoke about them, not to them.

He is ready, so he says, to conduct negotiations with the “Palestinian community”, and that, of course, “without preconditions”. Meaning: without Palestinian preconditions. On Netanyahu’s part, there are plenty of preconditions, every one of which is designed to make certain that no Palestinian, no Arab and indeed no Muslim will agree to enter negotiations.

Condition 1: The Arabs have to recognize Israel as “the nation-state of the Jewish people” (and not just “a Jewish state”, as many in the media erroneously reported.) As Hosny Mubarak has already answered: No Arab will accept this, because it would mean that 1.5 million Arab citizens of Israel are cut off from the state, and because it would deny in advance the Right of Return of the Palestinian refugees – the main bargaining chip of the Arab side.

It should be remembered that when the United Nations resolved in 1947 to partition Palestine between a “Jewish state” and an “Arab state”, they did not mean to define the character of the states. They were just stating facts: there are two mutually hostile populations in the country, and therefore the country has to be divided between them. (Anyhow, 40% of the population of the “Jewish” state was to consist of Arabs.)

Condition 2: The Palestinian Authority must first of all establish its rule over the Gaza Strip. How? After all, the Israeli government prevents travel between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and no Palestinian force can pass from one to the other. And the solution of the problem by establishing a Palestinian unity government is also ruled out: Netanyahu flatly declared that there would be no negotiations with a Palestinian leadership that includes “terrorists who want to annihilate us” – his way of referring to Hamas.

Condition 3: The Palestinian state will be demilitarized. This is not a new idea. All peace plans that have been put forward up to now speak about security arrangements that would protect Israel from Palestinian attacks and Palestine from Israeli attacks. But that is not what Netanyahu has in mind: he did not speak about mutuality, but about domination. Israel would control the air space and the border crossings of the Palestinian state, turning it into a kind of giant Gaza Strip. Also, Netanyahu’s style was deliberately overbearing and humiliating: he obviously hopes that the word ‘demilitarized” would be enough to get the Palestinians to say “no”.

Condition 4: Undivided Jerusalem will remain under Israeli rule. This was not proposed as an opening gambit for negotiations but presented as a final decision. That by itself ensures that no Palestinian, nor any Arab or even any Muslim, could accept the proposal.

In the Oslo Agreement, Israel undertook to negotiate about the future of Jerusalem. It is an accepted legal rule that if one undertakes to negotiate, one accepts to do so bona fide, on the basis of give and take. Therefore, all peace plans provide that East Jerusalem – wholly or partly – will be returned to Arab rule.

Condition 5: Between Israel and the Palestinian state there will be “defensible borders”. These are code-words for extensive annexations by Israel. Their meaning: no return to the 1967 borders, not even with a swap of territory that would allow for some of the large settlements to be joined to Israel. In order to create “defensible borders”, a major part of the occupied Palestinian territories (which altogether make up just 22% of pre-1948 Palestine) will be absorbed into Israel.

Condition 6: The refugee problem will be solved “outside the territory of Israel”. Meaning: not a single refugee will be allowed to return. True, all realistic people agree that there can be no return of millions of refugees. According to the Arab peace initiative, the solution must be “mutually agreed” – which means that Israel has to agree to any solution. The assumption is that the two parties will agree on the return of a symbolic number. This is a highly charged and sensitive matter, which must be treated with prudence and the utmost sensitivity. Netanyahu does the opposite: his provocative statement, devoid of all empathy, is clearly designed to bring about an automatic refusal.

Condition 7: No settlement freeze. The “normal life” of the settlers will continue. Meaning: the building activity for the “natural increase” will go on. This illustrates the saying of Michael Tarazy, a legal advisor to the PLO: “We are negotiating about sharing a pizza, and in the meantime Israel is eating it.”

All this was in the speech. No less interesting is what was not in it. For example, the words: Road Map. Annapolis. Palestine. The Arab peace plan. Occupation. Palestinian Sovereignty. Opening of the Gaza Strip border crossings. Golan Heights. And, even more important: there was not a hint of respect for the enemy who must be turned into a friend, in the words of the ancient Jewish saying.

  • * *

SO WHAT is more important? The verbal recognition of “a Palestinian state” or the conditions which empty these words of all content?

The public response is interesting. In an opinion poll taken immediately after the speech, 71% supported it, but 55% believed that Netanyahu just “gave in to American pressure”, and 70% did not believe that a Palestinian state would really come about during the next few years.

What exactly do the 71% support? The “Palestinian state” solution or the conditions which obstruct its implementation – or both?

There is, of course, an extreme right-wing minority which prefers a head-on collision with the United States to giving up any territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. Along the road to Jerusalem one can see large posters showing a manipulated photo of Obama wearing an Arab headdress. (It sends a shiver down the spine, because it reminds us of seeing exactly the same poster with Yitzhak Rabin under the keffiyeh.) But the great majority of the people understand that a break with the US must be avoided at all costs.

Netanyahu and the right-wing hoped that the Palestinians would reject his words outright, thus painting themselves as serial peace refusers, while the Israeli government would be seen as taking the first small but significant step towards peace. They are sure that this could be achieved for nothing: the Palestinian state will not be set up, the Israeli government will not give up anything, the occupation will remain, settlement activity will go on and Obama will accept all this.

  • * *

SO THE main question is: how will Obama react?

The first reaction was minor. A politely positive response.

Obama is not seeking a frontal collision with the Israeli government. It seems that he wants to exert “soft” pressure, vigorously but quietly. To my mind, that is a wise approach.

A few hours before the speech, I met with ex-President Jimmy Carter. The meeting took place at the American Colony hotel in East Jerusalem. It was organized by Gush Shalom, with several other Israeli peace organizations taking part. In my opening remarks, I pointed out that we were in exactly the same room where 16 years ago, while the Oslo agreement was being signed in Washington, Israeli peace activists and the leaders of the Palestinian population in Jerusalem met and opened bottles of champagne. The euphoria of those moments has disappeared without leaving a trace.

Israelis and Palestinians have lost hope. On both sides, the overwhelming majority wants an end to the conflict but do not believe that peace is possible – and each side blames the other. Our task is to rekindle the belief that it is indeed possible.

For this there is a need for a dramatic event, a kind of invigorating electric shock – like the historic visit of Anwar Sadat to Jerusalem in 1977. I suggested that Obama should come to Jerusalem and speak directly to the Israeli public, perhaps even from the Knesset rostrum, like Sadat.

After listening intently to the participants, the former President encouraged us in our activities and put forward some proposals of his own.

  • * *

THE DECISIVE point at this moment is, of course, the matter of the settlements. Will Obama insist on a total freeze of all building activity or not?

Netanyahu hopes to wriggle out of it. He has now found a new gimmick: projects that have already started must be allowed to be finished. One cannot stop them in the middle. The plans have already been approved. The tenants are waiting for their apartments, and they must not be made to suffer. The Supreme Court will not allow a freeze. (A particularly ridiculous argument, like the court allowing a thief to spend some more of the money he has stolen before passing sentence.)

If Obama falls for this, he should not be surprised to find out belatedly that these projects include 100,000 new housing units.

This brings us to the most important fact of this week: the settlers did not raise hell after Netanyahu’s speech. On the contrary. Here and there some feeble criticism could be heard, but the large and armed settler population kept remarkably quiet.

Which brings us back to the unforgettable Sherlock Holmes, who explained how he solved one of his mysteries by drawing attention to “the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”

“But the dog did nothing in the night-time!” someone objected.

“That was the curious incident,” remarked Holmes. Uri Avney

Bookmark and Share

Pakistan Through To Cricket World Twenty20 Final

Shahid Afridi celebrates a wicket

Shahid Afridi celebrates a wicket

Pakistan 149-4 (Shahid Afridi 51, Shoiab Malik 34) beat
South Africa 142-5 (Jacques Kallis 64, Afridi 2-16) by 7 runs

Pakistan all-rounder Shahid Afridi could not have picked a better time to return to form as a half-century and two wickets from him helped his side beat South Africa by seven runs to seal a spot in the ICC World Twenty20 final.

Afridi smashed 51 in 34 balls to propel Pakistan to 149 for four and then took two wickets, bowling his four overs for just 16 runs as South Africa closed on 142 for five as they wrote another unwanted chapter in their history of semi-final losses.

Afridi was simply brilliant, promoted to bat at number three after Shahzaib Hasan fell for a two-ball duck, hitting eight fours, including hitting Johan Botha out of the attack with three in three balls as he built on a superb start given to Pakistan after first Younus Khan had won the toss and chosen to bat and Kamran Akmal crashed 23 in 12 balls.

Steyn had Akmal caught in the third over before Afridi and Shoiab Malik (34) added 67 for the third wicket and it was a relieved South Africa when he departed, caught by AB de Villiers as he tried to hit JP Duminy’s first ball out of the park.

Younus Khan scored an unbeaten 24 in 18 balls while Abdul Razzaq was unbeaten on 12 at the end of the innings.

South Africa set off at a good pace, Jacques Kallis (64) dominating an opening stand of 40 before Graeme Smith was well held by 17-year-old Mohammad Aamer off his own bowling. Having watched Umar Gul miss a chance earlier on, Aamer was in no mood to let anyone else near it and that set up the Afridi show, part two.

He bowled Herschelle Gibbs (5) and de Villiers (1) to leave the match in the balance with South Africa at 50 for three but a half-century stand between Kallis and Duminy, who was unbeaten on 44, kept the Proteas in the game. To a certain degree, it also kept Pakistan in contention, because the runs weren’t coming quickly enough, despite the pair sharing ten fours and two sixes.

Umar Gul played his part, spearing his yorkers in to keep the runs down and it was Saeed Ajmal who grabbed the breakthrough when Kallis, who had just helped smash Fawad Alam for 15 runs in his one over, offered a high catch which was gratefully and skilfully held by Shoaib Malik.

That brought Albie Morkel to the crease, but the task was too much even for him and although Duminy hit Aamer, a bold choice to bowl the final over, for a six over midwicket, the left-armer bounced back and when Morkel was run out by Alam with a direct hit from long-off, it was effectively game over.

All Aamer had to do was hold his nerve; he did, Pakistan held on to win a thriller and now they have a shot at redemption after they lost to rivals India by just five runs in South Africa in 2007.

Bookmark and Share

CIA, Iran and the Election Riots

Aussies, Why Hate The Good Indians?

indiansSydney is full of foreigners, entire neighborhoods of Lebanese, Iraqis, Chinese and others. But it’s the Indians who are getting beaten on roads, parks and trams everyday in Australia.

For some reason, young Aussies don’t like to see Indians. If one is spotted, they beat the living daylights out of him. CNN reports that “the most severe case left an Indian student in a coma, another student was stabbed in the stomach, and a third left with a nasty black eye. So far more than a dozen arrests have been made.”

This is strange. I mean, if anything, the Indians should be the most loveable people by now.

The Am-Brit TV networks, from CNN to BBC to Fox, are stuffed with Indian faces. Hollywood movies are increasingly adding Indians in their scripts in good roles in the same way they used to give Israelis the good characters, and in the same way that Hollywood used to place Arabs or Turks in bad roles.

The ‘good Indian’ is pretty much established now. So much so that when an Indian nucler scientist disappears in mysterious circumstances, it doesn’t even get as much as a mention on the Am-Brit media. So much for proteting India’s good image.

Who wouldn’t kill to get this kind of preferential treatment from the Am-Brits, and Australia is part of that pack?

The process of beautifying the Indian face doesn’t stop there. Multimillion dollar ‘Incredible India’ TV ads jam the airwaves. The Indian government has done everything it could to help turn Indian cricket into American baseball complete with cheerleaders in skimpy dresses. The government also helped transform Indian films into another version of Hollywood, copying the style, the glamor and even ripping off entire scripts and storylines and turn them into Hindi movies. Gone are the classic bizarre Indian storylines where the lead character jumped from the rooftop of a 5-storey buildings and landed on two as if that was part of a normal Indian day.

Also gone is the funny Indian look. You know, the funny retro hairstyle with wide-collared colorful shirts unbuttoned at the top and the sticky bell-bottomed pants. Thanks to the Indian film industry. It quickly picked up style from Hollywood and helped the Indians discover they needed a makeover. Indian male movie stars that used to part hair from the middle a decade ago now have cool Marine cuts and dress more along the lines of ‘international cool’ [Damn those Clinton and Bush people. They messed up the Indian mind and set it on the path of delusional greatness. But that’s another story].

So what’s the problem then?

My guess is that nobody likes a smart ass.

The Indians have taken their newfound obsession with internationalism to new heights. It is almost vulgar. In a world that has seen man land on the moon in 1969 and witnessed the magnificent happen in mega films such as Titanic and Armageddon, who cares if India is the biggest democracy or whether New Delhi is a clean city or not?

Indians need to relax. Take it easy. If they’re great, let it speak for itself. Japan is really a great country and yet I don’t see them blowing their own horns the way Indians do everywhere they go.

Try this and you will nip this new trend that has started in Australia in the bud.

Bookmark and Share

India Wants To Fight In Afghanistan Until The Last American

After months of arrogant behavior, the United States is conceding to some of Pakistan’s demands, like unconditional aid and a check on Indian terrorist activities against Pakistan using Afghan soil. But does Washington know that India wants a war in Afghanistan until the last American soldier?

It sounds strange but the fact is that the United States is now under pressure from Pakistani armed forces, it is pretty clear now. The US dependence upon Pakistan for war in Afghanistan and the passage of NATO supplies through Khyber and Chaman means that US has to remain sensitive to the demands of Pakistani armed forces. We are not saying Pakistani government here, as the government does not exist. Every decision the PPP government takes is either under US dictation or under pressure from Pakistan army. It has no direction, mind or vision of its own.

As far as India is concerned, Pakistan army has its own serious sensitivities despite US desire to change the strategic direction of Pakistan’s security establishment. US desire that instead of India, Pakistan should consider Afghan Taliban as the greater enemy and allocate resources to their elimination. But the Indians presence in Afghanistan, their support to TTP terrorism and Baluchistan separatist forces and their persecution of Kashmiri Muslims in IHK continue to convince Pakistani nation and GHQ that India remains the greater threat than Afghan Taliban. This is highly frustrating for US and this week we saw some really irritated statements from Washington and even western media asking India to behave. This is interesting to observe. Indians are highly offended when US or western media advice them on Kashmir.

—————————————————————-
US wants India to trim mission in Jalalabad, act on Kashmir

—————————————————————-
NEW DELHI, June 11: Senior US diplomat William Burns gave Indian officials a wish-list on Thursday that aims to revive India-Pakistan peace talks, assures New Delhi of its vital role in Washington’s strategy in the region, and retrieves the hope for Kashmiri people to shape their own destiny. Local reports quoted unnamed sources as saying that the visiting US Under-Secretary of State also asked his interlocutors to trim India’s consulate in Jalalabad, which Pakistan sees as a distraction in the military campaign against Muslim extremists on the Afghan border…..

—————————————————————-
India urged to look beyond LoC formula
—————————————————————-
LONDON, June 13: India needs to consider a Kashmir solution based on ‘something more than the LoC’ if it is sincere in wanting to establish lasting peace in the subcontinent, said Mark Tully, the BBC fame journalist while speaking at a talk-show organized by the Commonwealth Journalists Association here on Friday. Accompanied by Soli Sorabjee, the former attorney general of India who was the other speaker at the talk show, he presented an analysis of recent Indian poll…….

Last week, we had given following assessment of the Indian thought process.

“Indians are extremely upset with developments in Pakistan and in their neighboring territories with Pakistan – Kashmir and Punjab. Following major developments are seriously irritating the Indians.

  1. Pakistani High Court released JuD chief Hafiz Saeed on account of no proof against him on charges of terrorism. Indians wanted him for Mumbai terror attacks.
  1. Kashmir civil disobedience and unrest if once again flaring up.
  1. Sikhs in the Indian State of East Punjab have rallied once again to demand a separate homeland and freedom from India.
  1. The Indian assets of TTP operating in Swat and FATA are being badly burnt by Pakistan army’s operation in the region, undoing years of Indian efforts to sponsor insurgency in Pakistani regions.

The unrest in Kashmir is gaining momentum and Indians fear is that any external support by militants or Pakistan can turn this unrest into an inferno. With massive Indian support to TTP terrorists, the idea must be bubbling in Pakistani mind to get even in Kashmir and Indian Punjab.

Despite best US efforts to reduce tensions between India and Pakistan and to initiate a “peace process” between the two especially over Kashmir, this is not happening in any time in near future. Even a pro-Indian Zardari government cannot do much about it against public and military sentiments which see Indians as prime enemies. For now, both countries would remain engaged in diplomatic and proxy wars where Indians definitely have an upper hand as Pakistan is forced to fight a high intensity war within its own borders, courtesy massive Indians covert support to TTP terrorists”

In fact, Indian frustration on the LoC is growing as Kashmir protests continue to gain momentum.

—————————————————————-
Indian troops violate LoC, kidnap man

—————————————————————-

MUZAFFARABAD, June 11: Indian forces violated the Line of Control four days ago and abducted a Neelum valley resident, an official said on Thursday.  Manzoor Ahmed was collecting firewood from the jungle along the Line of Control when he was picked up and taken across by Indian troops, deputy commissioner of Neelum district Attaullah Atta told Dawn…..

—————————————————————-
Asiya held amid fresh Kashmir protests
—————————————————————-
SRINAGAR, June 10: Police have detained a leading female Kashmiri leader for participating in protests in occupied Kashmir over the rape and murder of two Muslim women, officials said.

Asiya Andrabi, who heads Daughters of Faith, was pulled in during a raid late on Tuesday in Srinagar, a police official said….

Understandably, Pakistan would continue to treat India as the most serious threat, despite best US and Indian efforts. Indians too want to present a soft face to Pakistan, trying to take full advantage of the pliant PPP government and Mr. Zardari, who feels “that there is an Indian in every Pakistani”.  But here, both Indians and US are facing serious obstacles as Pakistani forces continue to treat India with the contempt it deserves.

—————————————————————
No change in India-specific defense spending likely
—————————————————————
ISLAMABAD, June 7: Where counter-insurgency operations require a lot of finances, the army says it cannot afford to have India-specific defence budget curtailed.

“If you are suggesting that we should take something out of here and put it in another box that would not be a wise strategy. War on terror does require resources, but it should not be at the cost of something else,” military spokesman Maj Gen Athar Abbas told DawnNews…

While, Indians are disappointed, they will not give up, but without compromising on their defined stance that Kashmir remains non-negotiable and Pakistan should do more to check militancy into Kashmir. This harsh stand is basically destroying all US hopes and attempts to initiate any kind of peace talks between two countries. Pakistan is welcoming US pressure on India.

—————————————————————-
Singh sees ‘vital interest’ in peace with Pakistan
—————————————————————
By Jawed Naqvi
NEW DELHI, June 9: Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told parliament on Tuesday that it was in his country’s vital interest to retry to build peace with Pakistan and said New Delhi was prepared to walk more than half way if Islamabad would accept its share of the responsibility in the partnership.

Dr Singh’s unequivocal support for a resumption of stalled talks with Pakistan came in his reply to the customary vote of thanks to the address by President Pratibha Patil…

—————————————————————-
US presses India to resume dialogue
—————————————————————-
NEW DELHI, June 10: A senior US official on Wednesday pressed India to resume talks with Pakistan but was told that Islamabad should do more first to prosecute the Mumbai terror suspects that New Delhi says are sheltered across the border.  According to local reports, Indian Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon and US Under-Secretary of State William Burns met here, and the Indian side is believed to have pointed out that Pakistan had not done enough to curb terror directed against India or to bring to justice the perpetrators of Mumbai attacks….

—————————————————————-
Renewed US push for Pakistan-India talks welcomed

—————————————————————-
ISLAMABAD, June 11: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will visit India and Pakistan next month and the Foreign Office here sees the renewed American interest in resumption of Pakistan-India dialogue as a positive sign.  “We find it encouraging if a country that is friend to both Pakistan and India is helping in the process,” Foreign office spokesman Abdul Basit said at the weekly media briefing…..

Another signal that Americans are now becoming more sensitive to a hard line being taken by Pakistani armed forces is the fact that their aid conditions are being softened up now without any strings being attached to nuke program or pleasing India. This is irritating for both hawks in Washington in Delhi but shows the growing confidence in Pakistani armed forces to dictate their own terms to US.

—————————————————————
US House drops A.Q. Khan, India from aid bill
—————————————————————-
WASHINGTON, June 13: The US House of Representatives has dropped an explicit demand for access to Dr A.Q. Khan and another for preventing terrorist attacks against India as conditions in a legislation that triples US aid to Pakistan.  In Washington’s diplomatic circles, the gesture is seen as a major concession from a house that has placed other severe conditions in the aid to Pakistan act approved on Thursday…..

But, there is other bad news in the making for Pakistan as the Hawks have not given up as yet, nor would they ever. It is a constant struggle for Pakistan to protect its interests whenever they get into an “alliance” with US. More trouble on the way as new bill is being formulated.

—————————————————————-
US amendment seeks reforms in Pakistan to curb extremism
—————————————————————-
WASHINGTON, June 10: The objectives of US policy towards Pakistan are to empower and enable Pakistan to develop into a prosperous and democratic state that is at peace with itself and with its neighbours, says an amendment moved in Congress.  The amendment, which is likely to be adopted, also requires Pakistan to actively confront, and deny safe haven to Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other extremists….

Indians want to fight to the last Americans when it comes to defeating Pakistan. While US would also like to see a very contained and docile Pakistan, the fact that US still does not have enough control over Pakistani nukes and NATO supplies pass through Pakistan make them very vulnerable and cautious towards Pakistan’s security demands through the armed forces. Pakistani armed forces are the only wild card for the US and India who remain fiercely patriotic and loyal to the country, making it impossible for the US or the Indians to have it their way despite installing a corrupt and compromised government.

Bookmark and Share

Zionist déjà vu over Iranian Election 09

Bombardment of Zionist Jingoism – publishing column after column by the so-called ”Iran affair experts” and their “emded reporter” telling the duped westerners that Ahmadinejad’s land-slide victory in yesterday’s presidential election was due to rigged voting and that tens of thousands of Iranian supporters of the defeated “reformist (moderate)” Moussavi protested in the streets – calling the election as “fraud”. We would have been facing a similar West’s ‘free press Jingoism’ – had Hizb’Allah and its Christian allies had won majority in last week’s election. We read similar ‘reporting’ when Hamas won majority in 2006 election and how Iraqi WMDs were smuggled into Syria on mules!!

The Zionist propagandists expect that shallow reports on the election results and a sense of déjà vu with images of tyres and garbage being burnt on Tehran’s streets by followers of the “reformist” candidate would have the world believe that an electoral fraud of gigantic proportion has been committed by Ahmadinejad to “steal” victory.

It’s interesting to note how short memory these Zionist propagandist idiots have. When Mir-Hossein Moussavi was prime minister of Islamic Republic of Iran (1981-89) – these idiots used to call him “a radical Islamist”. Now, they insulted his intelligence by reporting that he “claimed victory” while only 50% of the vote counting was completed (IRI Constitution requires 50% of the total votes cast – for a candidate to be declared a winner). Now, since Moussavi has lost to provide USrael’s desired “regime change’” in Tehran – we would be hearing a lot of the so-called “Contra Connection” and his involvement as a Mossad operative! Iran-Contra, like 9/11 – was a Zionist false-flag operation to discredit the Islamic regime in the eyes of the Muslim world. Riyadh paid US$10 million to fund this operation – using Israel as stop-over for the shipment of military spare parts which were long paid for by the Reza Shah regime.

Personally, I feel the best joke came from Zionist entity itself. Daily Ha’aretz pundits called Ahmadinejad’s victory: actually preferable for Israel – claiming that it’s not his last four years good governance but his being a “holocaust denier” – which has endeared him among the Iranian majority.

However, I must say I was disappointed to see Abu Muqawama (a pen name for some Islamophobe), who runs a blog on Zionist think tank Center for New American Security (CNAS) and has just this to say on June 13 about Ahmadinejad’s re-election: “Abu Muqawama Has Nothing to Say About Iranian Elections” – which is then plastered with 14 comments supporting Zionist agenda towards Islamic regime in Tehran. Usually, his blog is full of crap about Iraq, Afghanistan, occupied Palestine, Pakistan, Islamic Iran and other parts of the Muslim world. established in February 2007 with grant from Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Justin Raimondo exposed CNAS in his May 13, 2009 column, The New Neocons, at AntiWar.

Iqbal Jassat, Chairperson of Pretoria-based advocacy group, Media Review Network (MRN) wrote in June 14 column titled Iran\’s popular choice not favoured in the West :

Has Ahmadinejad’s re-election by an overwhelming majority of Iran’s 40-odd million voters jeopardized the Islamic Revolution?

This seems to be the assessment of sectors of the western media intent on sowing confusion and doubt on the legitimacy of the recent presidential elections. For instance, Bill Schneider, CNN’s senior political analyst didn’t even stop there. He went as far as questioning the legitimacy of the entire Iranian government!

It appears that the collective shameful conduct by the European Union and the United States to reject Hamas’ legitimacy following its victory at the 2006 polls in the Occupied Territories is likely to be repeated in Iran.

A superficial media focus on Iran without any substantial insight into it’s history, culture and religious philosophy will not only distort and detract from the complexities of its political makeup; more particularly it will result in faulty analysis.

Mousavi during his tenure as Prime Minister in the eighties shows that his revolutionary credentials are solid and intact. His so-called “reformist” agenda thus does not imply that under his watch, Iran would abandon its nuclear programme or establish ties with Israel. It’s more to do with internal dynamics related to the economy rather than a reversal of the huge gains made following the ouster of the US-backed Shah during Iran’s Islamic Revolution thirty years ago.

In the politics of language, terms such as “reformer” give rise to romantic notions of change for a state regularly demonised as “medieval” or “conservative”. In Iran’s case especially since it is targeted by the Zionist regime as posing an “existential” threat and against the backdrop of hostility generated against it by former president George Bush as an “axis of evil” it is clear that people’s imagination in the west may run riot.

Iran’s democratic credentials have been tested many times over during the last three decades. Presidential and parliamentary elections are regularly held with huge turnouts and the expected disgruntlement of supporters of losing candidates. What is disconcerting this time around is the fact that pro-Mousavi supporters have embarked on a rampage and in doing so as acts of dissatisfaction with the electoral result have ignored Mousavi’s call for calm.

President Ahmadinejad has an inspiring corruption-free record in his first term and before when he was an effective mayor of Teheran. In addition, his modest lifestyle has endeared him to the ordinary people who in large numbers have given him an additional four years to build on his first term.

Iran’s traditional antagonists in the West cannot be so dumb as not to realize that the more they seek to undermine Ahmadinejad, they unfortunately, sabotage Mousavi’s reputation by unfairly casting him as their favoured puppet.

Causes of conflict between Islam and the West

In the speeches he delivered in Ankara and Cairo, US President Barack Obama talked about making a new start between the US and the Muslim world. Naturally, all calls for peace, stability and peaceful coexistence should be taken into consideration as these are respectable calls.

I am from the group of people who believe that Obama has learned some lessons from the Bush era and is really sincere in his intention to make a fresh start. However, there should be concrete grounds for such a start. Now, let us see whether this is the case:

Robert Fisk of The Independent wrote that he sometimes asks why Islam has not undergone culture reform. His answer: Muslims have been on the defensive for hundreds of years, their enemies continually threaten them and Westerners have never given Muslims an opportunity to think. They have always bombarded the Muslim world with their industrial power, scientific and technological capabilities and with their capacity to rule and dominate the world. They have never let it develop and examine itself.

Fisk argued the US policy on Islam is based on enmity, asking: Why is the US in Iraq, the Middle East, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Germany, Turkey and Greece? Why are there US soldiers all around the world, beyond the US boundaries? What do they intend to do there? He made a comparison between the number of soldiers involved in the Crusades in the 12th century and the number of US soldiers currently deployed in the Middle East. The result is unbelievable: currently, the number of the US soldiers in the Middle East is twice the number of the soldiers involved in the Crusades. (Vatan newspaper, May 16, 2007).

Whether you like it or not, there are serious conflicts between Islam and the West. Without delving into the real causes of these conflicts, a fresh start does not seem likely:

(1) The West is exerting control over the Muslim territories where one-third of the world’s energy resources are located, as well as exerting control over energy transfer routes. Muslims are denied ownership of their own natural resources.

(2) The primary obstacle to change in the Muslim world is the existence of oppressive regimes. The great majority of the population is young, desperate and unemployed and millions are seeking better education and health services, fair income distribution, freedom of expression and the right for a free opposition, in short, more humane conditions. However, these oppressive regimes are supported by the US and Europe. Yet, Western regimes and the media tend to portray the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), Hamas, Hezbullah and the Muslim Brotherhood, all of which advocate free elections, democratic participation and parliamentary regimes as “extremists” and the autocracies, dictatorships and kingdoms as “moderates”. Thus, one can conclude that for Westerners, “moderates” are those who do not raise objections to the Western presence in the region while “extremists” are those who do.

(3) Israel, which was mounted in the heart of the region, has been occupying lands for 60 years and raining hell on the lives of Palestinians, but despite all the atrocities it commits, it gets unconditional support from all Western countries. The Palestinian issue is the ‘mother of all issues’. This issue will not be settled unless the Israeli occupation ends, Palestinian refugees return to their own lands, Israeli settlers are stopped and the destruction of the Masjid al-Aqsa is stopped.

(4) Islam and its practitioners are being ÒotheredÓ in a planned and intentional manner, and they are demonized through exclusion from the global system. Every day we face a new definition and another campaign for defamation: fanaticism, fundamentalism, political Islam, integrism, radicalism, Islamophobia, Islamofascism, reactionaryism, conservatism, extremism, Islamic terror, etc.

(5) The West imposes its culture and its lifestyle; it urges governments in Muslim countries to implement policies to ensure this, and it does not enter into dialogue on a paradigmatic level. It manipulates the social and cultural textures of Muslims without allowing them to change in their natural courses.

These are real conflicts. These are at the heart of the conflicts. On one side of the cleavage caused by these issues is the West, and on the other side is the Muslim world. Russia, China and India intervene in the Muslim world only from a political and strategic perspective. On the other hand, the West meddles with the Muslim world in every aspect. If the West really wants to make peace and coexist with Islam, it must pull out its occupation forces, it must stop supporting oppressive regimes, it has to make sure that Israel withdraws to pre-1967 borders and it must respect Islam and the lifestyles of Muslims.

Bookmark and Share

Ancient Egypt

Ancient Egypt

For many, the scope of Egypt’s history is difficult to comprehend. Its history covers some five thousand years, and encompasses the origin of civilization, the rise of the Greeks and Romans, the establishment of the Jewish, Christian and Islamic religions, the colonial era when first France and then the English ruled the country, and finally, a return to independence. Egypt has played an important role through all of these eras, and today one can find monuments that evidence Egypt’s role in most of the world’s historic events, from the beginning of mankind until the present. More and more, we are not only learning about the history of mankind in Egypt, but also about his prehistory, the way that he migrated and finally began to organize communities that eventually lead to a civilized world.

In Egypt, we find the earliest detailed records of warfare recorded thousands of years ago, but we also find the cemeteries and monuments of the world’s last global war, World War II. In Egypt, we find some of the first written words of civilization, but we also find great thinkers and writers through the Greek period, into the Christian era, the archaic Islamic period and even modern Nobel Literates. In Egypt, we find ancient pyramids and giant columns supporting massive temples, but we can now find these architectural elements spread throughout the world. Here, along with the first monumental buildings made of stone, we also find the first paved roads, the first wines and beer and even the first peace treaties between organized governments. However, we also find the world’s first scientists, doctors, architects and mathematicians.

Egypt is our window to humanity’s distant past and in understanding its history, we find both mankind’s greatest glories and achievements, as well as his often repeated mistakes. We may follow along with the building of empires, only to see them collapse again and again. We find great men and rulers of renowned, but we often also see their ultimate demise.

And here, we learn about religion, its evolution and, as the world grows older, its replacement with newer religions. Yet, the ancient Egyptian religion has never really completely died out. Even today, many Egyptians continue customs, including some aspects of religion, held over from thousands of years ago. In fact, throughout the world, aspects of the ancient Egyptian religion, particularly funerary, continue to effect our modern lives.

The following link is very useful if you want to know more about the ancient Egypt.

http://www.ancientegypt.co.uk/


Bookmark and Share

Mongol invasions of the Punjab

Changez KhanWith the establishment of Muslim Sultanate in Delhi in 1206 AD a new power had sprung up beyond Central Asia. Changez Khan had been crowned head of the united Mongol tribes the same year. A few years later began the misfortunes of the Muslim world which had a profound effect on every facet of Muslim life in the subcontinent, particularly the Punjab.

Having smashed the power of Muhammad Khwarizm Shah who was the
greatest Muslim monarch of the time, Changez Khan began to chase his nephew, Jalaluddin Khwarizm Shah.
This young and valiant monarch gave fight to the ‘Scourge of God’ and had several encounters with him all along Khorasan and Afghanistan– the last on the banks of River Indus. With his forces depleted and unable to stand the vast numerical superiority of the Mongols, Jalaluddin Khwarizm Shah, while fighting the enemy and inflicting heavy casualties on him, plunged into the Indus at Kalabagh and wavingf his flag swam accross into the Punjab along with his retinue. From a rock jetting over the river near Kalabagh, Changez Khan watched this singular act of daring with deep admiration and profound respect. Turning to his sons Changez advised them to imbibe the invincible spirit, indomitable courage and implacable determination demonstrated
by his youthful adversary. “Such a son must a father have”, he exclaimed.

Perhaps exhausted, perhaps overawed by the bleak prospects of chasing such a formidable enemy, Changez returned home leaving in peace the newly born Delhi Sultanate. If Changez had crossed the Indus, history of this subcontinent would probably have been different. “Jalaluddin Khwarizm Shah fought bravely and desperately against the Mongols at the bank of the Indus and atlast seated on his charger, leapt from the top of a 60 ft cliff near Kalabagh into the river bearing the banner in his hand. Changez admired his bravery but it did not prevent him sending an army across the Indus in pursuit. It ravaged the districts of Peshawar, Lahore and Multan but did not find the Shah”.

However, peace was not to last long. Changez Khan’s successors took up the cutgels within a decade and for the next hundred years kept the Delhi Sultanate on it’s tenterhooks. From the days of Shamsuddin Altamash
to the early days of Tughlaq dynasty, Mongol raids and ravages were a regular and constant feature. And who bore the brunt of these ferocious Mongol attacks? The Punjab!!

It was on the rivers Indus, Jhelum and Chenab that India was defended; it was on the plains of the Punjab that the enemy forces were so often defeated and beaten; it was in the ‘doabas’ of the Punjab that the Mongols practised their fiendish scorched earth policy. Thrice Lahore was captured, sacked and burnt. But the people of the Punjab bore these calamities with perfect equanimity and exemplary fortitude.

The extent to which the Punjab suffered as a result of Mongol attacks from 13th century onward can be reckoned from the following events:

1. In 1221 AD some of Changez Khan’s forces crossed the Indus in pursuit of Jalaluddin Khwarizm Shah, ravaged vast tracts of the punjab and sacked Multan and Lahore. (At this time Naseeruddin Qabacha was the independent ruler of Pakistan and Shamsuddin Altamash of India).

2. In 1241 AD during the reign of Altamash’s daughter, Razia Sultana, Mongols attacked the Punjab, sacked and burnt Lahore.

3. In 1246 AD Mongols attacked the Punjab and invested Multan.

4. In 1260 and in subsequent years during the time of Balban, Mongols attacked the Punjab and ravaged the countryside several times. In one of the encounters near Multan, Balban’s eldest son Prince Mohammad was killed.

5. Next big attack came in 1285 AD.

6. In 1291 AD a grandson of Hulagu invaded Punjab and was defeated by Alauddin Khilji.

7. In 1298 AD Mongols again invaded the Punjab with a force of 100,000 and advanced as far as Delhi butwere decisively defeated by Alauddin Khilji.

8. In 1304 and 1305 AD Mongols attacked the punjab and ravaged Multan, but were defeated by the Governor of the Punjab, Ghiyazuddin Tughlaq.

9. In 1327 AD the punjab was attacked and Multan ravaged.

10. In 1358 AD Mongols again attacked the Punjab.

These were only the major attacks, in between there were innumerable raids with what consequences one can only visualize. Ghiasuddin Tughlaq who was Governor of Lahore before he became ruler of Delhi in 1320 AD is said to have fought 29 battles against the Mongols during Alauddin Khilji’s reign.

Since to save the Delhi Sultanate, it was vital to make defence on one of the five rivers of the Punjab, whoever defended it successfully was considered a national hero and tipped for rulership at Delhi. When the Khilji dynasty declined, the court nobles invited Ghiasuddin Tughlaq, Governor of Lahore to take over. The Tughlaq dynasty he established lasted from 1320 to 1398 AD. It collapsed when Delhi was attacked by Taimur Lung.

From the establishment of Delhi Sultanate in 1206 AD for over 300 years, the Punjab bore the brunt of foreign attacks and saved the Muslim state from extinction. In this painful process, Punjab’s population and prosperity
diminished and its entire life was crippled. After this period, the Punjab was almost an uninhabitable waste, except for a few walled cities. Because of constant Mongol raids, it remained depopulated and very little agriculture was carried on.

%d bloggers like this: