Tuesday, December 10, 2013

¿QUÉ PASÓ CON NELSON MANDELA?

¿QUÉ PASÓ CON NELSON MANDELA?
http://islammdp.blogspot.com/2013/12/que-paso-con-nelson-mandela.html
09/12/13
Etiquetas: africa, nelson mandela, sudafrica


No es mi intención menospreciar o desfigurar el legado de Nelson Mandela, pero considero que ningún político puede sustraerse a un juicio histórico objetivo. Los mitos suelen ocultar la realidad e inducir a la confusión. Madiba pasó 27 años en prisión. Su número de prisionero 466/64 se convirtió en un símbolo de la opresión blanca sobre la población negra de Sudáfrica. Sus casi dos décadas en el durísimo penal de Robben Island acreditan su coraje y la sinceridad de sus convicciones. Su único mandato como presidente está libre de cualquier sombra de corrupción. Sus gestos a favor de la paz y la reconciliación tal vez evitaron que el país se desangrara en una espantosa guerra civil. Sin embargo, el historiador Niall Ferguson, famoso por sus tesis revisionistas a favor del colonialismo y el imperialismo, afirma que Mandela puso fin al apartheid de forma incruenta, pero no a las profundas desigualdades sociales. Salvo una nueva clase media negra, mayoritariamente vinculada al Congreso Nacional Africano, la clase trabajadora no ha mejorado sus condiciones de vida. Ferguson opina que “el lenguaje de paz y reconciliación es seductor, pero debe ser combinado con políticas significativas”.

LA LUCHA ARMADA CONTRA EL APARTHEID

Se tiende a mencionar en voz baja que Amnistía Internacional nunca reconoció a Mandela como preso de conciencia y que Estados Unidos no le borró de su lista de terroristas hasta 2008. Margaret Thatcher nunca ocultó su desprecio por el Congreso Nacional Africano, “una típica organización terrorista”. Amnistía Internacional justificó su postura, destacando el papel de Madiba en la lucha armada: “Nelson Mandela participó en la planificación de actos de sabotaje y de incitación a la violencia, de modo que no cumple con los criterios para calificarle como un prisionero político. No es el delito de su opinión lo que le llevó a la cárcel, sino, como el auto en su contra, la preparación, manufactura y uso de explosivos, lo que incluye 210.000 granadas de mano, 48.000 minas antipersonales, 1.500 temporizadores, 144 toneladas de nitrato de amonio, 21,6 toneladas de pólvora de aluminio, y una tonelada de pólvora negra. 193 actos de terrorismo cometidos por su organización entre 1961 y 1963”. No se puede decir que Amnistía Internacional mintiera, pues después de la matanza de Sharpeville el 21 de marzo de 1960, Mandela creó el brazo militar del ANC, que adoptó el nombre de Lanza de la Nación (Umkhonto we Sizwe) y lanzó una ofensiva contra el gobierno racista de Pretoria, asumiendo “las inevitables bajas que se producirán en el calor de la batalla”. En Sharpeville, la policía disparó contra los manifestantes. Murieron 69 personas, incluidos mujeres y niños. Otras 180 resultaron heridas, muchas de gravedad. El ANC respondió con una campaña de atentados con coches bomba. El 21 de mayo de 1987 estallaron dos bombas en la fachada trasera del Tribunal de Justicia de Johannesburgo. Murieron tres policías, otros cuatro quedaron malheridos y seis transeúntes sufrieron en sus carnes el impacto de la metralla. Las bombas apenas consiguieron su objetivo, pues la explosión había sido programada para el mediodía, cuando los funcionarios del Tribunal de Justicia salían masivamente al exterior para el almuerzo. El ANC, que reivindicó el atentado, eligió la fecha con premeditación, pues se cumplía el cuarto aniversario de otro atentado en Pretoria que mató a 19 personas e hirió a 239. Solo en 1987, el ANC llevó a cabo 25 atentados con coche bomba. El ANC colocó bombas en comisarías, cuarteles, bancos, edificios de la Administración, una central nuclear e incluso unos grandes almacenes. No sólo eliminó a policías, militares, políticos, jueces y empleados públicos. También acabó con los chivatos que informaban a las autoridades, a veces con el terrible necklacing, que consiste en colocar un neumático alrededor del cuello y prenderle fuego. La lucha contra el apartheid costó unas 18.000 vidas en casi medio siglo de manifestaciones, atentados y represión policial. Se calcula que entre 1960 y 1990, 200.000 personas fueron torturadas por la policía y el ejército. Muchas murieron durante los interrogatorios, como es el caso de Steve Biko, líder carismático que no logró sobrevivir a una brutal paliza en la tristemente famosa sala 619 de Port Elizabeth. Su vida se extinguió mientras le trasladaban a Pretoria en un Land Rover, desnudo y horriblemente desfigurado.


DISCURSO DE MANDELA ANTE EL TRIBUNAL SUPREMO DE PRETORIA

En el famoso alegato del 20 de abril de 1964 ante el Tribunal Supremo de Pretoria, Nelson Mandela afirmó: “No niego que planeé sabotajes. […] No lo hice movido por la imprudencia ni porque sienta ningún amor por la violencia. Lo planeé como consecuencia de una evaluación tranquila y racional de la situación política a la que se había llegado tras muchos años de tiranía, explotación y opresión de mi pueblo por parte de los blancos. Admito de inmediato que yo fui una de las personas que ayudó a crear Umkhonto we Sizwe [brazo armado del Congreso Nacional Africano]. […] Yo y las demás personas que fundaron la organización pensamos que sin violencia no se abriría ninguna vía para que el pueblo africano pudiera vencer en su lucha contra el principio de la supremacía blanca. Todas las formas legales de expresar la oposición a este principio habían sido proscritas por ley y nos veíamos en una situación en la que teníamos que elegir entre aceptar un estado permanente de inferioridad o desafiar al Gobierno. Optamos por desafiar la ley. Primero infringimos la ley de un modo que eludía todo recurso a la violencia; cuando se legisló contra esta vía, y a continuación el Gobierno recurrió a una demostración de fuerza para aplastar la oposición a sus políticas, solo entonces decidimos responder a la violencia con violencia. […] El Gobierno había decidido gobernar exclusivamente por la fuerza y esta decisión marcó un punto de inflexión en el camino hacia Umkhonto. ¿Qué debíamos hacer nosotros, los líderes de nuestro pueblo? No teníamos la menor duda de que teníamos que proseguir la lucha. Cualquier otra decisión habría sido una vil rendición. Nuestra duda no era si debíamos luchar, sino la manera de continuar la lucha. Los miembros del ANC siempre hemos defendido una democracia no racista y nos alejábamos de cualquier acción que pudiese distanciar aún más las razas. Pero la dura realidad era que lo único que había conseguido el pueblo africano tras 50 años de no violencia era una legislación cada vez más represiva y unos derechos cada vez más mermados. Por entonces, la violencia ya se había convertido, de hecho, en un elemento característico de la escena política sudafricana. […] Cada altercado apuntaba a la inevitable intensificación entre los africanos de la creencia de que la violencia era la única salida; mostraba que un Gobierno que emplea la fuerza para imponer su dominio enseña a los oprimidos a usar la fuerza para oponerse a él. Llegué a la conclusión de que, puesto que la violencia en este país era inevitable, sería poco realista seguir predicando la paz y la no violencia. No me fue fácil llegar a esta conclusión. Solo cuando todo lo demás había fracasado, cuando todas las vías de protesta pacífica se nos habían cerrado, tomamos la decisión de recurrir a formas violentas de lucha política. Lo único que puedo decir es que me sentía moralmente obligado a hacer lo que hice. […] Empecé a estudiar el arte de la guerra y la revolución y, mientras estaba en el extranjero, realicé un curso de entrenamiento militar. Si iba a haber una guerra de guerrillas, quería ser capaz de apoyar a mi pueblo y combatir junto a él, y de compartir los peligros de la guerra con ellos”.


En su alegato, Mandela se distancia de los comunistas, pero agradece su solidaridad con el pueblo africano: “El nacionalismo africano que defiende el ANC es el concepto de libertad y plenitud para el pueblo africano en su propia tierra. El documento político más importante que ha adoptado el ANC en toda su historia es la Carta de la libertad. No es en ningún modo un plan para un Estado socialista. Exige la redistribución, pero no la nacionalización de la tierra; contempla la nacionalización de las minas, los bancos y los sectores monopolistas, porque los grandes monopolios están en manos de una de las razas solamente y, sin esa nacionalización, la dominación racial se perpetuaría aunque se repartiese el poder político. Conforme a la Carta de la libertad, la nacionalización se llevaría a cabo en el contexto de una economía basada en la empresa privada. […] Es más, durante muchas décadas los comunistas fueron el único grupo político en Sudáfrica dispuesto a tratar a los africanos como seres humanos y como sus iguales; el único que estaba dispuesto a comer con nosotros; a hablar con nosotros, a vivir con nosotros y a trabajar con nosotros. Eran el único grupo que estaba dispuesto a trabajar con los africanos para lograr derechos políticos y ocupar un lugar en la sociedad. Debido a esto, hay muchos africanos que, hoy en día, tienden a equiparar la libertad con el comunismo. Esta opinión está respaldada por un poder legislativo que tacha de comunistas a todos los exponentes de un Gobierno democrático y de la libertad africana y proscribe a muchos de ellos (que no son comunistas) en virtud de la Ley de Supresión del Comunismo. Aunque nunca he sido miembro del Partido Comunista, he sido encarcelado conforme a esa ley. Siempre me he considerado, en primer lugar, un patriota africano. Hoy día me siento atraído por la idea de una sociedad sin clases, y es una atracción que proviene en parte de las lecturas marxistas y, en parte, de mi admiración por la estructura de las primeras sociedades africanas. La tierra pertenecía a la tribu. No había ricos ni pobres y no había explotación. Todos aceptamos la necesidad de que exista una cierta forma de socialismo para permitir que nuestro pueblo alcance a los países avanzados de este mundo y supere su legado de extrema pobreza. Pero esto no significa que seamos marxistas”. A pesar de estas palabras, Nelson Mandela había escrito en 1961 un breve texto titulado Cómo ser un buen comunista, donde afirmaba: “La del comunismo es la mayor causa en la historia de la humanidad. Gracias al genio de Marx, Lenin y Stalin, un mundo comunista está a nuestro alcance, en el que no habrá explotadores y explotados, opresores y oprimidos, ricos y pobres. El movimiento comunista todavía se enfrenta a poderosos enemigos, que han de ser aplastados y eliminados de la faz de la tierra, antes de que podamos lograr un mundo comunista. Sin una lucha dura, amarga y larga contra el capitalismo y la explotación, no puede haber un mundo comunista”.


Mandela era consciente de que el fin del apartheid sería inútil sin una política eficaz contra la desigualdad y la pobreza. Por eso, sostiene en su alegato: “Sudáfrica es el país más rico de África, y podría ser uno de los países más ricos del mundo. Pero es una tierra de extraordinarios contrastes. Los blancos disfrutan del que posiblemente sea el nivel de vida más alto del mundo, mientras que los africanos viven en la pobreza y la miseria. La pobreza lleva aparejada la desnutrición y la enfermedad. La tuberculosis, la pelagra y el escorbuto provocan la muerte y la destrucción de la salud. […] La falta de dignidad humana experimentada por los africanos es una consecuencia directa de la política de la supremacía blanca. La supremacía blanca implica la inferioridad de los negros. La legislación diseñada para mantener la supremacía de los blancos refuerza esta idea. Las labores de baja categoría son siempre realizadas por africanos. […] Los niños deambulan por las calles porque no tienen escuelas a las que ir, ni dinero para poder ir, ni padres en casa para ver que van, porque ambos progenitores (si es que hay dos) tienen que trabajar para mantener viva a la familia. Esto conduce a una ruptura de las normas morales, a un incremento alarmante de la ilegitimidad y a la violencia, que surge no solo en el ámbito político, sino en todas partes. La vida en los municipios segregados es peligrosa. No hay un día en el que no apuñalen o ataquen a alguien. Y la violencia se traslada fuera de los barrios segregados [hasta] las zonas donde viven los blancos. La gente tiene miedo de andar por las calles cuando anochece. Los allanamientos de morada y los robos están aumentando, a pesar del hecho de que ahora se puede imponer la pena de muerte por estos delitos. Las penas de muerte no pueden curar el resentimiento enconado”.


Mandela finaliza su alegato, exponiendo los fundamentos de su proyecto político y aceptando las consecuencias de su compromiso con la emancipación de su pueblo: “Por encima de todo, queremos los mismos derechos políticos, porque sin ellos nuestras desventajas serán permanentes. Sé que esto les parece revolucionario a los blancos de este país porque la mayoría de los votantes serán africanos. Esto hace que el hombre blanco tema a la democracia. Pero no se puede permitir que este temor se interponga en el camino de la única solución que garantizará la armonía racial y la libertad para todos. No es cierto que la concesión del derecho al voto a todo el mundo provocará una dominación racial. La división política, basada en el color, es totalmente artificial y, cuando desaparezca, también lo hará el dominio de un grupo de color sobre otro. El ANC se ha pasado medio siglo luchando contra el racismo. Cuando triunfe, no cambiará esa política. Esto, por tanto, es contra lo que lucha el ANC. Su lucha es una auténtica lucha nacional. Es una lucha de los africanos, movidos por su propio sufrimiento y su propia experiencia. Es una lucha por el derecho a vivir. Durante toda mi vida me he dedicado a esta lucha de los africanos. He luchado contra la dominación de los blancos, y he luchado contra la dominación de los negros. He anhelado el ideal de una sociedad libre y democrática en la que todas las personas vivan juntas en armonía y con igualdad de oportunidades. Es un ideal por el que espero vivir y que espero lograr. Pero si es necesario, es un ideal por el que estoy dispuesto a morir”.


EL PRECIO DEL PRAGAMATISMO

En Robben Island, Mandela sufrió unas durísimas condiciones de encarcelamiento: trabajos forzados en una cantera de cal doce horas al día, una esterilla en el suelo y una áspera manta como único lecho, una carta y una visita cada seis meses, una ración de comida inferior a las de los presos de otras etnias. Nunca condenó los atentados que cometió el ANC durante sus años de confinamiento ni después, pues estimó que eran el precio necesario para conseguir la liberación de su pueblo. En 1985, el Presidente Botha le ofrece la excarcelación, si renuncia públicamente a la lucha armada. Mandela responde que “un hombre privado de libertad no puede negociar ni aceptar tratos”, particularmente cuando su pueblo soporta un régimen de terror, con torturas, desapariciones forzosas, ejecuciones y una odiosa segregación racial. Cuando abandonó la prisión en 1990, Nelson Mandela levantó el puño antes las cámaras y declaró: “Aún existen razones para la lucha armada en Sudáfrica”.


Se ha hablado mucho de los acuerdos secretos entre Nelson Mandela, el gobierno racista de Pretoria, Gran Bretaña y Estados Unidos. Lo cierto es que, lejos de sus simpatías iniciales por el comunismo, Madiba se limitó a aplicar la política neoliberal imperante. Actualmente, Sudáfrica es uno de los países más desiguales del planeta, donde el 20% más rico –mayoritariamente blanco- acumula el 80% de la riqueza. Sólo el 3% de las tierras cultivables están en manos de agricultores negros. Los blancos conservan la propiedad del 97% restante, si bien hay blancos pobres, peones de origen holandés (afrikaanders), que viven en miserables campamentos sin agua ni electricidad. Los trabajadores negros ganan seis veces menos que los blancos. En torno al 23% de los hogares carecen de agua y electricidad. Uno de cada cinco adultos está infectado de SIDA, la mitad de los jóvenes carecen de empleo y se produce una violación cada 26 segundos. Según un reportaje realizado el 31 de marzo de 2011: “Las estadísticas en Sudáfrica sobre violencia contra mujeres y niños marean por su magnitud: se habla de una mujer violada cada 26 segundos, una mujer asesinada cada seis horas, seis veces más que la media global. Aún así, nadie tiene claras las estadísticas. Lo que sí es evidente es que desde el final del apartheid, en 1994, las agresiones sexuales denunciadas se han disparado hasta revelar una epidemia. En 1994, se denunciaron a la policía 44.571 violaciones. En 2006, la figura llegó a 53.000. Las últimas figuras facilitadas por la policía, -criticadas porque bajo el epígrafe de “delitos sexuales” se mezclan agresiones sexuales y, por ejemplo, desmantelamientos de burdeles-,ascienden a 68.000” (Lali Cambra, El País, Blog Mujeres). En cuanto a la violencia asociada a la delincuencia común, que tanto preocupaba a Nelson Mandela, cada año mueren cerca de 25.000 personas, lo cual significa una media de unos 70 asesinatos diarios. Es decir, un caso cada 20 minutos. Una pequeña minoría negra se ha aliado a la gran burguesía blanca y no duda en recurrir a la violencia para reprimir a los trabajadores descontentos, como sucedió en Markina, cuando 34 mineros murieron bajo las balas de la policía. Sería injusto responsabilizar a Madiba de este crimen, pero al contribuir a crear (o mantener) unas estructuras económicas que no promovían la igualdad ni la redistribución de la riqueza, preparó un escenario que sólo invita al desánimo y la desesperanza, facilitando los abusos de las autoridades y las explosiones de rabia e impotencia de los más débiles y desfavorecidos. De hecho, la corrupción crece imparable, las desigualdades se acentúan, la represión policial continúa y la violencia callejera experimenta una espiral incontenible.

MEJOR DAR UN PASO CON EL PUEBLO QUE DIEZ SIN EL PUEBLO

¿Qué paso con Nelson Mandela? Era un admirador de la Revolución cubana y ahora es elogiado por la prensa conservadora, Wall Street le dedica un minuto de silencio y los jefes de Estado de los países más influyentes y poderosos honran su memoria. Es particularmente indignante que Mariano Rajoy, presidente de España, manifieste que “Mandela hizo de la concordia la fuerza de su mandato”, después de ordenar la instalación de cuchillas en las vallas fronterizas de Ceuta y Melilla. No es menos desolador escuchar a Barack Obama, presidente de Estados Unidos, declarando “no puedo imaginar mi vida sin el ejemplo de Mandela”, cuando su mandato se ha caracterizado por los asesinatos selectivos con aviones no tripulados (drones) y ha incumplido su promesa electoral de cerrar la inhumana e ilegal prisión de Guantánamo, donde la tortura física y psíquica son pura rutina. Todo esto me recuerda el circo organizado con Teresa de Calcuta, con la diferencia de que la monja de origen albanés no hizo nada verdaderamente meritorio, pues como denunció Christopher Hitchens su obra está llena de sombras y posibles fraudes. Mandela nunca habría afirmado que “el sufrimiento de los pobres es muy hermoso”. Sin embargo, coincide con ella en concitar el aplauso de los ricos y poderosos, que le han convertido en un santo laico. Es cierto que Mandela dignificó la lucha de los pueblos africanos y prefirió la prisión a la rendición, pero cuando se hizo con el poder renunció a cualquier pretensión revolucionaria. ¿No pudo hacer otra cosa? Si es así, ¿no dilapidó sus 27 años de confinamiento y su enorme prestigio entre sus partidarios? No puedo evitar sentir más aprecio por Thomas Sankara, presidente de Burkina Faso (“el país de los hombres íntegros”) entre 1983 y 1987 y auténtico revolucionario.


Sankara nacionalizó los recursos naturales, se negó a pagar la “deuda odiosa” al FMI y el Banco Mundial, acabó con el latifundismo, distribuyendo la tierra entre los campesinos; luchó contra el hambre con un notable incremento de la producción agraria (la producción de trigo aumentó en tan sólo tres años de 1.700 kg por hectárea a 3.800, logrando la autosuficiencia alimentaria); promovió la educación y la sanidad públicas con grandes partidas presupuestarias; construyó carreteras y ferrocarriles al tiempo que plantaba millones de árboles para frenar la desertificación; defendió los derechos de las mujeres, incorporándolas a puestos de responsabilidad en el gobierno y el ejército, y prohibiendo la mutilación genital femenina, los matrimonios forzosos y la poligamia; advirtió repetidas veces sobre los riesgos de la penetración neocolonialista a través del comercio y las finanzas e incitó a los países africanos a no pagar su deuda externa. Austero y enemigo del culto a la personalidad, vendió la flota de Mercedes-Benz del gobierno y convirtió el Renault 5 en el coche oficial de los ministros. Se negó a instalar aire acondicionado en su despacho por considerarlo un lujo injustificable y se bajó el sueldo a 450 dólares. Su patrimonio personal se limitaba a un automóvil, cuatro bicicletas, tres guitarras, un frigorífico convencional, un congelador roto y una modesta casa familiar. El 15 de octubre de 1987 fue asesinado con doce oficiales. Blaise Compaoré, su antiguo colaborador y sucesor, actuó bajo el asesoramiento de la CIA y con el visto bueno de Francia. El cuerpo de Sankara fue descuartizado y enterrado en un lugar desconocido. De inmediato, se revocaron las nacionalizaciones y se acató las directrices del FMI y las grandes multinacionales. Sankara nos dejó varias frases memorables: “Mejor dar un paso con el pueblo que diez sin el pueblo”, “El objetivo de la revolución es que el pueblo ejerza el poder”. Me temo que otros líderes africanos (como Amílcar Cabral o Patrice Lumumba, también asesinados) se mantuvieron fieles a estas consignas, pero no Nelson Mandela, que acabó paseando en carroza con la reina de Inglaterra.


RAFAEL NARBONA

http://rafaelnarbona.es/?p=6094

Saturday, December 7, 2013

President’s Condolences Message on Mandelaˈs demise

President’s Condolences Message on Mandelaˈs demise
http://www.president.ir/en/73214
In a message addressed to the South African president, President Hassan Rouhani condoled with him and his nation on sad demise of the late iconic leader, Nelson Mandela.
news id: 73214 - Friday 06 December 2013 - 09:23


ˈI was informed about the demise of the former president of the friend country, South Africa, his eminence Nelson Mandela to my great sorrow and deep grief,ˈ president wrote in the message to President Jacob Zuma.

ˈNelson Mandela doubtlessly believed in freedom and equality of the human beings, not only in his country, but around the globe and never hesitated in this firm belief,ˈ added Dr.Rouhani.

ˈIn this road that was abundant with ups and downs and filled with pain all along, including suffering homelessness, being away from home and family, and long periods of imprisonment, he gave meaning and spirit to the long road towards liberty gloriously,ˈ He said.

ˈHe was doubtlessly a unique personality who after achieving victory and bearing fruit of the campaign merged ethics with politics and tasted the sweet taste of forgiving, while not forgetting, and permitted even his prison keepers and those who had kept him behind bars to taste it,ˈ added the president.

Dr.Rouhani said that Mandela left a rarely precedence memory for the human beings around the globe and the miracle of his life was that he knew how he was engineering it.

ˈWe are not only witnesses to the results of his wise policies in harmony among the races and their unity in efforts aimed at constructing the South Africa, but also to the precious results of that fully hopeful and joyous life that are sensed throughout the African continent in terms of achieving liberty and equality and uprooting the malicious traces which had remained from the colonialist and hegemonic eras, blowing wisdom and vivaciousness into the lives of the people,ˈ he said.

The president in is message grievingly condoled with the South African president Mandelaˈs bereaved family members, and the great South African nation, praying for the eternal peace of soul of that revered personality.

Jihad calls for eradication of Shiah that permits sodomy, Muslims told

Jihad calls for eradication of Shiah that permits sodomy, Muslims told
http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/jihad-calls-for-eradication-of-shiah-that-permits-sodomy-muslims-told
By Zurairi AR November 29, 2013

JAKIM’s call goes out in its Friday sermon. — File pic by Choo Choy May

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 29 — Malaysia’s Sunni Muslims were today told that the Shiah school of Islam permited sodomy and were called to stop its teachings from spreading as part of their “jihad”, the Arabic word for “holy struggle”.

In its weekly Friday sermon, Malaysia’s foremost Islamic authority issued a reminder that the world’s second-largest school of Islam had no historical links in the Southeast Asian country.

The Malaysian Islamic Development Department (JAKIM) warned its faithful here that departing from Sunni teachings would cause disunity and fighting among Muslims, which would destroy the bonds of the ummah and end in adherents being conquered by the “enemies of Islam”.

“Remember that any efforts towards halting these teachings is in a sense included in the ‘jihad’ because it counts as defending the sanctity of the religious teachings inherited from our Prophet Muhammad,” JAKIM said in its sermon, which is issued to mosques nationwide.

“Meanwhile, any efforts to breathe life to slander by spreading the Syiah teachings is among the practices which are not only misguided, but also misguiding.”

Shiah is often spelled as Syiah in Malaysia; its followers have been grouped with lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders (LGBT) whom JAKIM has previously branded religious deviants and a threat to orthodox Islam here.

The sermon noted that Malaysian Muslims were able to enjoy peace and prosperity all this while due to the strict adherence to Sunni teaching.

In its sermon, JAKIM described local Shiah adherents to be largely followers of the Twelver school of thought, which it claimed to be the largest branch of the sect, making up some 85 per cent of members.

JAKIM also listed 10 beliefs local Shiah adherents held, which it said included sodomy and praying for the destruction of detractors.

The federal Islamic body and state religious authorities have been redoubling their efforts to flush out Shiah followers, a minority here.

Putrajaya has also refused to recognise the rights of Shiah followers in the recent United Nations human rights peer review, the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), citing respect for local norms and beliefs.

The federal government had even set up a special laboratory to tackle and prevent Shiah teachings from spreading and roped in the Education Ministry, the Home Ministry, which oversees the police force, in addition to JAKIM and the Islamic religious departments of the 13 different states.

In Malaysia, each state Ruler has full authority over Islamic religious matters, except in Penang, Malacca, Sabah, Sarawak and the three Federal Territories, which are held under the purview of the country’s King.

After Sunni, Shiah has around 10-20 per cent of Muslims worldwide identifying themselves as adherents, mostly in Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan and Bahrain.

Malaysia only recognises the Sunni school of Islam as the official practice, with other denominations deemed deviant sects.

The Other Arab Awakening

The Other Arab Awakening
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/01/opinion/sunday/friedman-the-other-arab-awakening.html
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: November 30, 2013 174 Comments

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — AND so it turns out that there were actually two Arab awakenings.

Thomas L. Friedman - Josh Haner/The New York Times

There are the radical revolutions you’ve read about in Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Yemen and Libya, none of which yet have built stable, inclusive democracies. But then there are the radical evolutions that you’ve not read about, playing out in Saudi Arabia and other Arab Gulf monarchies. The evolutions involve a subtle but real shift in relations between leaders and their people, and you can detect it from even a brief visit to Saudi Arabia, Dubai and Abu Dhabi. The Gulf leaders still have no time for one-man, one-vote democracy. But, in the wake of the Arab Spring, they’re deeply concerned with their legitimacy, which they are discovering can no longer just be bought with more subsidies — or passed from father to son. So more and more leaders are inviting their people to judge them by how well they perform — how well they improve schools, create jobs and fix sewers — not just resist Israel or Iran or impose Islam.

And, thanks in large part to the Internet, more people are doing just that. The role of the Internet was overrated in Egypt and Tunisia. But it is underrated in the Gulf, where, in these more closed societies, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are providing vast uncontrolled spaces for men and women to talk to each other — and back at their leaders. “I don’t read any local newspapers anymore,” a young Saudi techie told me. “I get all my news from Twitter.” So much for government-controlled newspapers.

Saudi Arabia alone produces almost half of all tweets in the Arab world and is among the most Twitter- and YouTube-active nations in the world. By far, those Saudis with the most Twitter and YouTube followers tend to be Wahhabi fundamentalist preachers, but gaining on them are satirists, comedians and commentators, who poke fun at all aspects of Saudi society, including — usually indirectly — the religious establishment, which is no longer off limits.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who in Gulf Arab terms is a real progressive, remains widely popular, but his government bureaucracy is seen as unresponsive and too often corrupt. That’s why Saudi Twitter users have recently created these Arabic hashtags: “#If I met the King, I would tell him”; “#From the people to the King: education is at risk” and “#What Would You Like to Say to the Minister of Health?” (after repeated hospital mishaps).

There were torrential rainstorms when I was in Saudi Arabia 10 days ago and the Saudi newspaper, Al-Sharq, published a cartoon with three men answering this question: Why did all the streets of Riyadh flood? The government official answers: “The streets didn’t flood. That’s just a vicious rumor.” The sheikh answers: “It’s all because of the sins of the girls at Princess Nora University.” The citizen says: “It’s because of corruption” — but then the cartoon shows an arm labeled “censorship” coming from off the page to snip off this comment. That is in a Saudi paper!

In the United Arab Emirates, a government official was recently embarrassed when he was captured on a cellphone video, after a traffic accident, beating the other driver, an Asian worker, with the rope from his headdress. The video went viral across the Gulf.

People are losing their fear — not to revolt, but to demand clean accountable governance. Last week, a Saudi friend shared with me a video that went viral there on What’sApp that was posted by a poor man whose roof leaked during the rainstorms, even into his baby’s bassinet. He can be seen stalking around his rain-soaked house, saying: “I am Saudi. This is how I live. ... Where is the minister of housing? Where are the billions the king has given for housing? ... Where are my rights? ... I feel like being in my home and being in the street are the same.”

I heard many of these stories during group conversations with young Saudis and Emeratis, who I found to be as impressive, connected and high-aspiring to reform their countries as any of their revolutionary cohorts in Egypt. But they want evolution not revolution. They’ve seen the footage from Cairo and Damascus. You can feel their energy — from the grass-roots movement to let women drive to the young Saudi who whispers that he’s so fed up with the puritanical Islam that dominates his country he’s become an atheist, and he is not alone. Saudi atheists? Who knew?

Talk about reform — in Dubai, the government has set a strategy for 2021, and each of the 46 ministries and regulatory agencies has three-year Key Performance Indicators, or K.P.I.’s, they have to fulfill to get there, ranging from improving the success of Dubai 15-year-olds in global science, math and reading exams to making it even easier to start a new business. All 3,600 K.P.I.’s are loaded on an iPad dashboard that the ruler, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid, follows each week. Maryam al-Hammadi, 48, the director of government performance, strikes fear in the heart of every minister in Dubai because each month she ranks them by who is making the most progress toward achieving their K.P.I.’s, and Sheikh Mohammed gets the list. You don’t want to be at the bottom. Hammadi showed me the dashboard and explained that Sheikh Mohammed is demanding that “every government agency perform as well as the private sector in customer satisfaction and service.” The public will get an annual report.

Again, this is not about democracy. It’s about leaders feeling the need to earn their legitimacy. But when one leader does it, others feel the pressure to copy. And that leads to more transparency and more accountability. And that, and more Twitter, leads to who knows what.

A version of this op-ed appears in print on December 1, 2013, on page SR11 of the New York edition with the headline: The Other Arab Awakening.

Nelson Mandela: Philanthropist & Humanitarian

Nelson Mandela: Philanthropist & Humanitarian
http://www.umaamerica.net/content/nelson-mandela-philanthropist-humanitarian
Submitted by admin on Fri, 12/06/2013 - 10:53

Friday, December 6, 2013
Tags: Nelson Mandela UMAA

In the Name of God

NELSON MANDELA
Philanthropist | Revolutionary | Humanitarian


The Universal Muslim Association of America offers its condolences to the worldwide community regarding the death of Nelson Mandela.

Nelson Mandela was a South African anti-apartheid revolutionary who was imprisoned as well as a politician and philanthropist who served as President of South Africa from 1994 to 1999. He was the first black South African to hold the office, and the first elected in a fully representative election. His government focused on dismantling the legacy of apartheid through tackling institutionalized racism, poverty and inequality, and fostering racial reconciliation.

UMAA views the efforts of Nelson Mandela to reduce racism, foster cultural unity, and creating a representative government as noble and praiseworthy. Muslim countries around the world have spoken out in praise of Nelson Mandela.

THE UNIVERSAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

Nelson Mandela

Nelson Mandela
http://www.cpim.org/content/nelson-mandela
Friday, December 6, 2013

The Central Committee of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) mourns the demise of Nelson Mandela, the iconic freedom fighter of South Africa, who passed away on 5 December 2013. Mandela is a lofty symbol of not only the people of South Africa, whom he lead in a long, arduous and bloody struggle for freedom against one of the most brutal, blatantly fascist regimes in the world, dyed in rabidly racist ideology of white supremacy, which perfected the system of racial segregation and oppression – apartheid. He is a symbol of all the people of the world struggling for freedom, democracy and human dignity.

Nelson Mandela, born in 1918, joined the African National Congress at the age of 25 in 1942 and was instrumental in the establishment of the ANC Youth League. He played a crucial role in the drafting of the 'Freedom Charter', the guiding force of the freedom and anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa. In his lifetime of struggle through the African National Congress, he was assigned various leadership positions, which he served with distinction. He was the Commander-in-Chief of the Umkhonto We Sizwe, the underground military wing of the ANC. He was also a member of the South African Communist Party, where he served in the Central Committee.

Mandela was confined to rigorous, solitary imprisonment for 27 years in the dreaded Palesmoor Highest Security Prison in Robben Island, off the coast of South Africa, where he was denied even basic medical treatment and subjected to penal labour. All of this, could not break his indomitable spirit or make him bow his head before the authoritarian apartheid regime. The apartheid government and its imperialist supporters were forced to release Mandela by the popular pressure exerted by people world over.

After his release from prison, Mandela became the President of ANC and subsequently won the elections of free South Africa and became its first black President. Unlike many leaders who cling to power, Mandela voluntarily retired after serving one term as the President of South Africa. He remained active in public life working for the betterment of the living conditions of the people of Africa till his last breath.

Mandela visited India immediately after his release and was accorded tremendous reception by the people of India, who saw in him a fellow fighter against the unjust world order. Mandela himself was moved by the popular warmth and affection showered upon him, particularly the people of Calcutta, where he was received by Chief Minister Comrade Jyoti Basu and accorded an unprecedented huge public reception. The entire city of Calcutta rose in celebration to witness Mandela.

In Mandela's demise, the world has lost one of its finest sons who fought lifelong for the betterment of the peoples' living conditions. He was a true champion of the people of Third World countries and all those who are oppressed and exploited. In his death, all the people fighting for freedom and against injustice have lost a valuable ally and a comrade-in-arms. His death is a great loss to humanity. At the same time his life and work remain a source of celebration in the onward march of humanity for freedom and liberty.

The CPI (M) expresses its profound grief at the demise of this legendary leader and extends its heartfelt condolences to the family of Mandela, the ANC, the SACP, COSATU and the people of South Africa. The CPI (M) believes that the real homage to Mandela is reiterating our vow to continue in the path of struggle for a world free from injustice, discrimination and inequality.

Long Live Nelson Mandela.

Kurds Forge a Risky Oil Deal With Turkey

Kurds Forge a Risky Oil Deal With Turkey
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304854804579234293171045128
Baghdad Refuses to Sign Off on Ankara's Pipeline Accord With Autonomous Iraqi Region, Leading Partners to Delay Shipments
By Emre Peker
Updated Dec. 2, 2013 7:52 p.m. ET

Kurdish President Massoud Barzani, center left, and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan discussed the pipeline in Turkey last month. Associated Press

ERBIL, Iraq—The autonomous Iraqi region of Kurdistan said it agreed to supply Turkey with oil through a pipeline in a landmark deal that raised tensions with Baghdad, which fears the move could spark independence drives by other Iraqi governorates.

But the Monday announcement here, in the region's capital, was tempered by Baghdad's refusal to approve the deal, which it considers illegal.

As a result, Kurdish officials didn't begin shipping pipeline oil, as observers had expected, and Turkey pledged to organize trilateral talks between Erbil, Baghdad and Ankara to resolve the issue.

The tensions go to the heart of the disagreement between Kurdistan, a relatively prosperous and stable province, and Baghdad, where sectarian violence has soared in recent months as the central government strives to maintain control over restless regions. Iraq's ties with Turkey have also frayed, as Shiite Muslim-led Baghdad accused Ankara of meddling in its internal affairs by courting Sunni and Kurdish leaders.

The deal follows more than a year of negotiations between Turkey and Kurdistan over the contested $350 million, 125-mile-long pipeline, whose 300,000-barrel per day capacity stands to let Erbil export far larger amounts of crude to Turkey than it now can do by truck.

The approach by Turkey and Kurdistan, officials say, is aimed at coaxing Baghdad into agreeing to a deal they say will benefit everyone: Turkey gets much-needed oil, Kurdistan gets revenue and a greater measure of control over its economic and political destiny, and Baghdad gets to share the revenue.

"Through this landmark energy cooperation deal with Turkey, we are showing the new face of Iraq to everyone, we are showing that this is not a threat," Nechirvan Barzani, prime minister of the Kurdistan Regional Government, said at a Kurdistan-Iraq oil and gas conference in Erbil on Monday. "This is in the interest of Iraq, and history will prove this fact."

Mr. Barzani's bid is a risky one. Baghdad has repeatedly warned that it will act against any unilateral Kurdish push to market the oil in its territory, which Baghdad says is national patrimony. In retaliation, Baghdad could move to cut off the pipeline, which connects to Turkey through an Iraqi-Turkish pipeline, and it could confront Turkey in an international court, lawyers say. Baghdad, in a last resort, could intervene militarily, though many observers see that as less likely.

"The risk to Turkey of selling this crude without Iraqi approval is incredibly high," said Crispin Hawes, managing director for the Middle East at Teneo Intelligence, a global risk consultancy.

In a bid to assuage Iraqi concerns, Turkish Energy Minister Taner Yildiz traveled on Sunday to Baghdad to convince his Iraqi counterpart, Hussein al-Shahristani, to agree to the exports.

Sunday's meeting follows a breakthrough in talks in mid-October, after years of enmity over the issue. Last year, Iraq prevented Mr. Yildiz from flying to Erbil for the annual energy conference, forcing the minister to cancel his trip in midair.

Since then, Turkey and Iraq have moderated their tones amid diplomatic efforts that are expected to lead to a meeting between the two countries' once-hostile leaders.

"We also would like to have the consent of the central government of Iraq for the commercial export of oil from [Kurdistan] to Turkey and start a trilateral cooperation scheme that will be beneficial to all," Mr. Yildiz said Monday at the conference. He said talks with Mr. Shahristani were "positive" but didn't elaborate.

Mr. Shahristani said Turkey would seek Iraq's approval before accepting Kurdish pipeline oil.

Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Rowsch Shaways struck a more conciliatory tone Monday. "Once we can pass a revenue-sharing law, our troubles will ease," he said. "One of the first steps that need to be taken is sit at the negotiating table with the Kurdistan Regional Government. We need to solve our problems peacefully through the constitution."

The Kurdish north of Iraq has enjoyed autonomy since the 1990-91 Gulf War when a U.S.-led coalition drove Iraqi occupying troops out of Kuwait. Since the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein in a second war in 2003, that autonomy has grown.

With an estimated 45 billion barrels of reserves, the region's promise of riches has attracted energy giants, including Exxon Mobil Corp. XOM +1.61% and Chevron Corp. CVX +0.98%

Their presence has done little to quell Iraqi and U.S. concerns that Kurdistan's growing autonomy could create an independent Kurdish state and trigger a Balkanization of Iraq as more governorates vie for autonomy.

"Baghdad is worried that if it OKs the agreement with [Kurdistan] it will lose its grip and become incapable of preventing other governorates from becoming more autonomous," said Sinan Ulgen, a former Turkish diplomat now with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

The U.S., which itself has a strong stake in the region, supports the trilateral talks.

In recent weeks, Turkey has taken a new tack in trying to convince Iraq to support the deal, arguing that new oil revenue can help ease Iraq's domestic tensions, said energy executives and former Turkish officials close to the government. It has sought to enlist Washington in its effort to convince Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to agree, these people said.

But in a sign of the continuing diplomatic complexities, Kurdistan's Natural Resources Minister Ashti Hawrami on Monday declined to say when the pipeline would start operations after announcing last month that it could happen within weeks.

Write to Emre Peker at emre.peker@wsj.com

Corrections & Amplifications

This article has been corrected to change global risk consultancy's name to Teneo Intelligence. An earlier version of the story incorrectly called the firm Telio Intelligence.

Toward a Powerful Living Legacy for Nelson Mandela Now

Toward a Powerful Living Legacy for Nelson Mandela Now
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ralph-nader/nelson-mandela-legacy_b_4394490.html
Posted: 12/05/2013 6:34 pm
Ralph Nader
Consumer advocate, lawyer and author


Nelson Mandela's exceptional and exemplary life will produce worldwide celebrations of his extremely unique blend of character, personality and resolve for broad-gauged justice for generations to come. To truly memorialize his contributions, however, requires grand actions.

As leaders of governments and human rights groups from all over the world prepare to attend the funeral of Nelson Mandela in South Africa next week, here is a proposal that would pay worthy tribute to his memory.

Taking immediate recognition of the deep wellsprings of respect, affection and sorrow over the loss of his leadership to the people of South Africa and the world, leaders from various nations can come together to establish the Nelson Mandela Institute for Global Human Rights with an endowment of one billion dollars. The founders must be possessed of a vision that includes posterity's rights to peace and justice, to freedom and opportunity compatible with the survival of the planet.

To be perceived as impeccable for this specific noble mission, the founders must select themselves so as to define a unanimity of purpose, a resolve and expeditiousness. To turn the powerful spirit of Nelson Mandela into a powerful vision and proliferate his ideals and actions, his courage and humanity, his uncanny sense of what it takes to move the immovable and inspire the shameless to higher levels of human possibilities, a combination of seasoned knowledge and material resources will be required.

The founders need not be angels, need not be pure in background or without "baggage." They need only be lawful and capable in creating a well-funded institute and engaging with substantive experienced and innovative people in human rights, research, communication and advocacy to carry forward Mandela's work. Most immediately, the founders need to come together with all deliberate speed. At the outset they need not be representative of the world. That will come later. The immediate need is for a critical mass of individuals with foresight who can create the Mandela Institute.

By way of non-exclusive suggestion, suppose a quartet of Bishop Desmond Tutu, Congressman John Lewis, Warren Buffett and former President Bill Clinton initiated a conversation among themselves. Here is what could happen forthwith:

Bishop Tutu brings his friendship and alliance with Nelson Mandela, together with the respect of his country's people and human rights advocates around the world with whom he has worked tirelessly.

Congressman John Lewis brings his ground-level valor in the U.S. civil rights movement of the 60s and the widespread, nonpartisan high regard for his undeterred principles and moral values.

Warren Buffett brings a core of multi-billionaires who have pledged to give at least half of their estates to good works (see The Giving Pledge). They are looking for good, collaborative ideas.

Bill Clinton brings his unrivaled rolodex of establishment achievers and leaders, who come to his annual conference, to discuss commercial and charitable ways to improve the world.

Beside the memorial vision, nothing gathers attentive support more than the availability of material resources. Mr. Buffett (who modestly tells friends that at least he gets his calls returned) can draw on more than 100 (and growing) pledgers from the U.S. and other countries. Their combined reported net worth is $504 billion. An average of $10 million from each pledger for this grand institution would take the fundraising over the one billion dollar level. This can occur before major foundations decide on significant founding contributions. As the proposal moves into organization and substantive phases, the organizers of the institute do have to be impeccable, pure of heart and results-oriented, without the conflicting or distracting personal ambition that self-censors their worthiest traits and ideals.

The fine details of the institute's leadership and activities, so as to maximize its great potential, are of course, important. But they are not immediate. For now it is the guiding light, work and principles of Nelson Mandela that can assure that he lives on through the coming generations in both deeds and grassroots leaders who reflect his courage and humanity.

Malas Noticias: Francisco recibió a Netanyahu

Malas Noticias: Francisco recibió a Netanyahu
http://islammdp.blogspot.com/2013/12/malas-noticias-francisco-recibio.html
02/12/13
Etiquetas: cristianismo, israel, sionismo

Una imagen que duele: Francisco con Netanyahu

Visita de 25 minutos del primer ministro israelí al Pontífice en El Vaticano.

El primer ministro israelí, Benjamin Netanyahu, ha evocado este lunes la "herencia común" entre judíos y cristianos y ha ofrecido al Papa Francisco un libro de su padre, en el que se sostiene que los católicos defendieron a los judíos durante la Inquisición en España.

Durante su primer encuentro con el Pontífice argentino, que duró 25 minutos, el dirigente israelí ofreció la traducción en español del libro de su padre -Benzion Netanyahu, un historiador que falleció el año pasado- titulado 'Los orígenes de la Inquisición en España del siglo XV'.

La obra iba acompañada de una dedicatoria del primer ministro israelí: "A su Santidad el Papa Francisco, gran pastor de nuestra herencia común".

Según los periodistas israelíes, el jefe del Gobierno les explicó en el avión que les llevó juntos a Roma que su padre había defendido en el mencionado libro, publicado en 1995, la tesis de que los católicos defendieron a los judíos durante la Inquisición española.

Netanyahu acudió a El Vaticano en compañía de su esposa, Sara, sobriamente vestida de negro, y una delegación de una decena de personas, varias de ellas de alto rango del ejército israelí.

El encuentro entre Francisco y Netanyahu, según los periodistas presentes, se desarrolló en un ambiente serio.

En relación a la visita del Papa a Tierra Santa, Sara Netanyahu se despidió del Pontífice con un "le esperamos".

El Primer Ministro, Binyamin Netanyahu le pidió al Papa que actúe contra la bomba nuclear de Irán.

En su opinión, “La bomba amenaza con la aniquilación del pueblo judío en su tierra”.

Anoche, Netanyahu encendió las velas de Januca en la Gran Sinagoga del barrio judío de Roma, en el marco de su visita a Italia. Netanyahu llamó al Primer Ministro de Italia, Enrico Letta, un verdadero amigo de Israel, al decir: “Su compromiso con el bienestar y la seguridad de Israel son claros”.

El Primer Ministro agregó: “Existe una especial relación entre Jerusalén y Roma. No hay otras dos ciudades que tengan un significado tan profundo en la historia de nuestro pueblo y en nuestra cultura compartida. En esta noche, en esta festividad de Januca, tiene sentido nuestra visita a Roma. Aquí, en la Puerta de Tito, en la que se halla grabada la imagen del candelabro que fuera saqueada del Templo destruido, y llegara en la marcha de la victoria a Roma. Miles de años pasaron desde la destrucción del Templo en Jerusalén. El pueblo de Israel vive. El Estado de Israel es fuerte y efervescente. Y su símbolo es exactamente ese candelabro grabado en la Puerta de Tito. El candelabro y también la janukia, expresan el gran espíritu que une a nuestro pueblo”.

El Primer Ministro italiano afirmó que la comunidad judía, es la conciencia moral en nuestra tierra.

Fuente: Israel Today y El Mundo.es/islam en mar del plata

Israel's Iran Dilemma

Israel's Iran Dilemma
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/opinion/cohen-israels-iran-dilemma.html
By ROGER COHEN
Published: November 25, 2013

The era of traumatized alienation is over. The United States and Iran have embarked on a new phase in their relationship. It is marked by bilateral negotiations, handshakes, smiles, side-by-side flags and significant compromise, including United States acquiescence to a “mutually defined enrichment program” for Iran in any long-term agreement and an Iranian commitment that “under no circumstances” will it “ever seek or develop any nuclear weapons.”

Roger Cohen - Damon Winter/The New York Times

The six-month interim deal between major powers and Iran, renewable for a further six months pending a full accord (for a period to be defined), freezes Iran’s nuclear program about where it is — at a technologically advanced point short of militarization. But it fast-forwards American-Iranian relations and may thereby redraw the strategic map of the Middle East.

This explains Israel’s over-the-top “nyet,” its insistence that a deal heading off escalation makes the region more dangerous. Israel is the status-quo Middle Eastern power par excellence because the status quo cements its nuclear-armed domination. Any change is suspect, including popular Arab uprisings against despotism. As changes go, this U.S.-Iranian breakthrough is big, almost as big as an Israeli-Palestinian peace would be.

Just as the United States has had to adapt to a world where its power is unmatched but no longer determinant, Israel will have to do the same. With enlightened leadership this adaptation could strengthen the Jewish state, securing the nation through integration in its region rather than domination of it. For now Israel is some way from this mind-set. Its overriding prism is military. It was important that President Obama set down a marker, as he has through this deal, one that may spur new strategic reflection in Israel. (An Israel already alarmed by isolation is not about to embark on a Samson-like military strike against Iran.)

Let us be clear. This is the best deal that could be had. Nothing, not even sustained Israeli bombardment, can reverse the nuclear know-how Iran possesses. The objective must be to ring-fence the acquired capability so its use can only be peaceful.

This aim has been advanced through holding Iran’s low-grade uranium at current levels, eliminating or diluting 20-percent enriched uranium, stopping installation of new centrifuges, halting construction at the Arak heavy-water reactor and intensifying international inspection. In return, Iran gets sanctions relief worth about $6 billion to $7 billion. It gets to inch back toward the world, which is where the vast majority of its young population wants it to be and where the West has an interest in seeing it, because contact fosters moderation and isolation spurs extremism. As Obama said, “Ultimately, only diplomacy can bring about a durable solution to the challenge posed by Iran’s nuclear program.”

The strategic divergence between the United States and Israel is not merely tactical. The admirable John Kerry, whose commitment to this diplomatic endeavor has been exemplary, was not altogether frank on this point.

The United States has acknowledged that any lasting accord must concede a limited enrichment program to Iran. The agreement speaks, under an eventual long-term agreement, of an Iranian nuclear program that “will be treated in the same manner as that of any non-nuclear weapon state party to the NPT” — so putatively placing Iran in the same category as Japan or Germany, other signatories of the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty with enrichment programs. Israel, to the contrary, wants zero Iranian enrichment and Libyan-style nuclear dismantlement.

The United States is prepared to conceive of an Islamic Republic fully reintegrated in the community of nations, with equal rights. That state of affairs is a very long way off. Iran will not swiftly shake off the suspicions its actions and (sometimes vile) words have aroused. Nor should it be allowed to. But Obama and Kerry are ready to entertain Iran’s rehabilitation.

Not Israel under Benjamin Netanyahu, who wants to keep Iran down. “Push us down, that is all I hear when I listen to Netanyahu,” one Stanford and Harvard-educated Iranian businessman told me. He has a strong belief that drawing Iran closer to the world is essential, a strong dislike of the Iranian regime, and a strong sense of outrage at Israel’s contempt for Iran’s national aspirations.

Diplomacy involves compromise; risk is inherent to it. Iran is to be tested. Nobody can know the outcome. Things may unravel but at least there is hope. Perhaps this is what is most threatening to Netanyahu. He has never been willing to test the Palestinians in a serious way — test their good faith, test ending the humiliations of the occupation, test from strength the power of justice and peace. He has preferred domination, preferred the Palestinians down and under pressure.

Obama and Kerry have invited Netanyahu to think again — and not just about Iran. Nothing, to judge by the hyperventilating Israeli rhetoric, could be more disconcerting. Nothing is more needed. Cheap allusions to 1938 are a poor template for Israel in the 21st century.

A version of this op-ed appears in print on November 26, 2013, on page A25 of the New York edition with the headline: Israel's Iran Dilemma.

Sunday, December 1, 2013

Disillusionment Grows Among Syrian Opposition as Fighting Drags On

Disillusionment Grows Among Syrian Opposition as Fighting Drags On
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/29/world/middleeast/syria-war.html
By ANNE BARNARD, MOHAMMAD GHANNAM and HWAIDA SAAD
Published: November 28, 2013

A damaged street in Deir al-Zour, Syria. The government of President Bashar al-Assad continues to rack up modest victories. - Khalil Ashawi/Reuters

DAMASCUS, Syria — In a terrace cafe within earshot of army artillery, a 28-year-old graduate student wept as she confessed that she had stopped planning antigovernment protests and delivering medical supplies to rebel-held towns.

Khaled, 33, a former protester who fled Damascus after being tortured and fired from his bank post, quit his job in Turkey with the exile opposition, disillusioned and saying that he wished the uprising “had never happened.”

In the Syrian city of Homs, a rebel fighter, Abu Firas, 30, recently put down the gun his wife had sold her jewelry to buy, disgusted with his commanders, who, he said, focus on enriching themselves. Now he finds himself trapped under government shelling, broke and hopeless.

“The ones who fight now are from the side of the regime or the side of the thieves,” he said in a recent interview via Skype. “I was stupid and naïve,” he added. “We were all stupid.”

Even as President Bashar al-Assad of Syria racks up modest battlefield victories, this may well be his greatest success to date: wearing down the resolve of some who were committed to his downfall. People have turned their backs on the opposition for many different reasons after two and a half years of fighting, some disillusioned with the growing power of Islamists among rebels, some complaining of corruption, others just exhausted with a conflict that shows no signs of abating.

But the net effect is the same, as some of the Syrians who risked their lives for the fight are effectively giving up, finding themselves in a kind of checkmate born of Mr. Assad’s shrewdness and their own failures — though none interviewed say they are willing to return to his fold.

Their numbers are impossible to measure, and there remain many who vow to keep struggling. Yet a range of Mr. Assad’s opponents, armed and unarmed, inside and outside Syria, tell of a common experience: When protests began, they thought they were witnessing the chance for a new life. They took risks they had never dreamed of taking. They lost jobs, houses, friends and relatives, suffered torture and hunger, saw their neighborhoods destroyed. It was all they could do, yet it was not enough.

What finally forced them to the sidelines, they say, were the disarray and division on their side, the government’s deft exploitation of their mistakes, and a growing sense that there is no happy ending in sight. Some said they came to believe that the war could be won only by those as violent and oppressive as Mr. Assad, or worse.

Such conclusions have been expressed by more and more people in recent months, in interviews in Damascus, the Syrian capital; Lebanon; and Turkey and via Skype across rebel-held areas in Syria. Many more fighters say they continue mainly because quitting would leave them feeling guilty toward other fighters.

“It’s undeniable that a lot of your early activists are disillusioned,” said Emile Hokayem, a Syria analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, adding that in revolutions, it is often “your most constructive, positive people who are engaged early on who find themselves sidelined.”

Because such groups tend to be more vocal, he said, their changed views may be magnified beyond their numbers. Most are urbanites who had little understanding of the conservative poor whose mobilization is the backbone of the insurgency, he said. But their backing off has real impact, he said, especially on local governance, where they tended to be active.

Disillusioned activists say that early on, euphoric at being able to protest at all, they neglected to build bridges to fence-sitters, or did not know how. Homegrown fighters desperate for help welcomed foreign jihadists, and many grew more religious or sectarian in tone, alarming Mr. Assad’s supporters, dividing his opponents and frightening the West out of substantially supporting them.

With a ruthless foresight, following the playbook of his father and predecessor, Hafez al-Assad, Mr. Assad’s forces cracked down early and hard on the civilian, educated opposition, erasing the space where a middle ground could have emerged. They used heavy weaponry on rebel supporters to an extent that shocked even their foes, while pursuing a deliberate and increasingly successful strategy of persuading Syrians and the world that their opponents were a greater danger.

With the help of staunch allies, Mr. Assad’s government hung on through a war that has destroyed much of Syria and its economy, leaving millions hungry and homeless, and even critics wistful for better days.

“They changed the battle,” said the 28-year-old former activist in the Damascus cafe. “Now people are trying to survive more than they are fighting for their rights.”

She and her friends, she said, sometimes think “they are geniuses, this regime.”

She continued: “They worked from Day 1 to make it like this, and they succeeded. We were just fooled — going in the same direction they drew for us.”

Those still active say that as others drop out, their work becomes harder. One activist who still tries to deliver humanitarian supplies from Damascus to blockaded rebel-held areas expressed frustration that pharmacists and others who once helped her obtain baby formula now refuse, out of fear and despair. Another says that as young, motivated people flee the country, there are few to help with political organizing.

Mr. Assad has moved to capitalize on opponents’ despair, offering amnesties to rebels who lay down arms, even calling for army defectors to return to the government forces. But Abu Firas, the former fighter in Homs, laughed out loud at the idea of surrender.

“O.K., I will be on Addounia TV as a hero for the pro-regime people,” he said sarcastically, referring to state television, “while my people spit on the TV, calling me traitor and coward.”

“And the day after,” he added, “I will find myself in Saidnaya prison” — a government facility — “spending 31 years in the rule of a military court or court of terrorism.”

The 28-year-old Damascus activist said that if the government prevails, she will leave the country or face arrest. She believes the authorities know about her activities but have not arrested her “because I’m not doing anything that hurts them now.” But later, “they will remember,” she said. “They will take everybody.”

Each of the disaffected has a story of personal betrayal or disappointment. For the activist, it came when she realized there was “a difference in values” between her and some of the fellow protesters she had trusted, especially some who took up arms.

“They think that they are in the right and they have the authority to do anything they want,” she said. “They are fighting for Islam or their beliefs, maybe not any more to bring down Assad.”

Abu Firas, in Homs, said that at first he felt proud to carry his gun, even forgoing food or cigarettes during a government blockade. But things “went ugly,” he said, when some commanders made profitable deals with government soldiers, endangering fellow rebels.

“Selfishness and greed just came to the surface,” he said, adding that he tried to smooth out the problems, “but it didn’t work because you can’t think right when you are hungry.”

“I think these corrupted commanders do not want this war to end,” he said. “Did I say war, not revolution? Yes, unfortunately I did.”

Ammar, 21, stayed in his hometown, Qusayr, recording videos for the rebels through a blistering defeat, living on little food, fantasizing about chocolate. He had given up a comfortable life; he studied English literature and his family owned apricot orchards. When they fled to another rebel-held area, despite their sacrifices, they were kicked out of mosques and forced to sleep on streets.

“I reached a stage where I hated the revolution,” he said, visiting Beirut, where he obtained a visa to emigrate to Sweden. “I don’t want to be an activist any more. I want to be a football player. I want to eat a lot of chocolate.”

Anne Barnard reported from Damascus and Beirut, Lebanon, and Mohammad Ghannam and Hwaida Saad from Beirut.

A version of this article appears in print on November 29, 2013, on page A10 of the New York edition with the headline: Resolve Ebbs Among Syria’s Opposition After More Than 2 Years of Fighting.

The Second Edition of "Guide to Ziyarat: Selected Supplications"

The Second Edition of "Guide to Ziyarat: Selected Supplications"
Friday, November 29, 2013

Assalamun Alaykum:

The second edition of "Guide to Ziyarat: Selected Supplications" has now been published.

This pocket-size book is an essential piece of document for all those fortunate enough to be able to perform the most sacred journey of Ziyarat. This Booklet consists of all the Ziyarat in Iraq, Iran, and Syria. In addition to the illustrations of Ziyarat (Arabic with English translation) of the infallible ones, this booklet also outlines the historical lives of numerous notable companions of the Prophet and the Imams (peace be upon all of them). The ziyarat of some of these companions have also been included in this booklet. Kindly inform your family and friends of the availability of this book.

Cost per copy is $12:00. Special price for those purchasing Ziyarat Guide together with Pilgrims’ Guide (for those going for hajj) is $20:00.

Please order your copy from LTakim@Mcmaster.ca or 647 865 7863.

Israelis See Ticking Clock, and Alternate Approaches, on Iran and Palestinians

Israelis See Ticking Clock, and Alternate Approaches, on Iran and Palestinians
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/world/middleeast/israelis-see-ticking-clock-and-alternate-approaches-on-iran-and-palestinians.html
By JODI RUDOREN
Published: November 25, 2013

JERUSALEM — Israeli leaders on Monday condemned the interim deal on Iran’s nuclear program as an exercise in appeasement by the Western powers and a delaying tactic by Iran. Yet many of them see the same strategy of interim confidence-building steps as the only realistic route to resolving their long-running conflict with the Palestinians.

Israel is outraged that, under the deal signed Sunday, Iran is not required to stop enriching uranium or to dismantle centrifuges while negotiating a final agreement with the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany. At the same time, Israel continues to build West Bank settlements while negotiating with the Palestinians, prompting similar outrage from the international community.

Easing economic sanctions against Iran, Israel argues, will only remove the pressure that brought Tehran to the table in the first place. Yet Israel — as well as the United States — sees initiatives to improve the Palestinian economy as a critical companion to the political and security discussions.

Do these alternate approaches to parallel issues that are crucial to Israel’s future amount to hopeless hypocrisy? Or are they simply a sign of the profound differences in the way Israel views the two problems and its starkly different role in the two sets of talks?

“Looking at how Bibi views these negotiations tells you a great deal about how he’s seeing the world,” said Aaron David Miller, a Middle East expert at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, using the nickname of Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. “Bibi’s self-image first and foremost is shaped by wanting to lead Israel out of the shadow of the Iranian bomb. His image is not driven by being the peacemaker, creating two states and dividing Jerusalem.”

“Both offer pathways that are incredibly problematic for him,” Mr. Miller added. “It’s like the rest of the world is playing checkers and he is forced to play three-dimensional chess.”

After years of railing against Iran’s nuclear program, and decades of discussions with the Palestinians, Israel suddenly finds itself facing clocks ticking simultaneously on both fronts. As Tzipi Livni, Israel’s lead negotiator with the Palestinians, said on Monday, “We have six months to prevent a permanent agreement with Iran that will make it nuclear, and six months to reach a permanent agreement with the Palestinians, which will secure a safe, Jewish and democratic Israel.”

Mr. Netanyahu announced Monday that he was sending a team led by his national security adviser to the United States to discuss the final deal with Iran, which he said “must lead to one result: the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear capability.”

But Israel is not a party to the Geneva-based talks on Iran’s nuclear program, leaving it mostly to lobbing grenades from the bleachers. And Israel views Iran’s nuclear ambitions as a threat to its existence, while the Palestinian issue garners far less urgency and is mainly seen as a problem to be managed in the hope of avoiding international isolation.

“It’s interesting on paper, but it’s missing the whole point of the substance about what each of these tracks are about,” said Yossi Klein Halevi, a fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute here who has written extensively on both issues. “There’s a difference between creating a state and stopping a nuclear program. It’s not the same dynamic.”

“This is an existential moment,” he added, “and the Palestinians at this point are a diversion.”

There has long been suspicion of linking the two issues, along the lines of the Obama administration’s promising Mr. Netanyahu it would block Iran from getting the bomb in exchange for his making concessions with the Palestinians. Such a trade seems off the table now, and many think Israel will continue to go through the motions of the peace talks started this summer only at the insistence of Secretary of State John Kerry, while focusing intensely on Iran.

The significance of the interim agreement for the Israeli-Palestinian issue did not escape the notice of Palestinian officials. On Monday, Saeb Erekat, the lead Palestinian negotiator, called it a “unique precedent” and “platform” that should be applied to the peace process.

“What happened in Geneva is a new prototype where everybody has shared in reaching an agreement to avoid war and achieve stability,” Mr. Erekat said in a statement. “We call upon the international community to make use of the same efforts in order to end decades of occupation and exile for the people of Palestine in order to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israel and Palestine.”

In some ways, Israel’s approach to Iran has echoed arguments long made by its Palestinian adversaries. Over the past few weeks, Israeli leaders frequently said Iran must be forced to comply with United Nations resolutions and International Atomic Energy Agreements that it has been violating for years. Similarly, the Palestinians insist that Israel must live up to prior promises to evacuate settlements considered illegal under international law.

“It shows a double standard,” said one senior Palestinian official involved in the talks, speaking on the condition of anonymity under an American dictate not to discuss them publicly. “If they expect to reach a solution in Iran by pushing more and more sanctions, why shouldn’t they expect from our side to push for sanctions against Israel?”

Jay Rothman, a professor in a new program at Bar-Ilan University on conflict management, resolution and negotiation, said both tracks were stuck in a pre-negotiations phase where the sides saw each other as “evil” and had yet to narrow their differences enough to define a common agenda.

“These are existential needs, and unfortunately when we play the negotiations game, they’re played against each other as if they’re zero-sum,” Professor Rothman said. “If we’re talking about interests, power, economic gains — those are bargainable. But in existential needs, the more I get the better, but the less you get, not the better, because unless you get your existential needs, you’re not going to let me get mine.”

A version of this article appears in print on November 26, 2013, on page A10 of the New York edition with the headline: Israelis See Ticking Clock, and Alternate Approaches, on Iran and Palestinians.

U.S. and Saudis in Growing Rift as Power Shifts

U.S. and Saudis in Growing Rift as Power Shifts
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/world/middleeast/us-and-saudis-in-growing-rift-as-power-shifts.html
By ROBERT F. WORTH
Published: November 25, 2013

Secretary of State John Kerry was escorted by the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, as he arrived in Riyadh on Nov. 3. - Pool photo by Jason Reed

WASHINGTON — There was a time when Saudi and American interests in the Middle East seemed so aligned that the cigar-smoking former Saudi ambassador, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, was viewed as one of the most influential diplomats in Washington.

Those days are over. The Saudi king and his envoys — like the Israelis — have spent weeks lobbying fruitlessly against the interim nuclear accord with Iran that was reached in Geneva on Sunday. In the end, there was little they could do: The Obama administration saw the nuclear talks in a fundamentally different light from the Saudis, who fear that any letup in the sanctions will come at the cost of a wider and more dangerous Iranian role in the Middle East.

Although the Saudis remain close American allies, the nuclear accord is the culmination of a slow mutual disenchantment that began at the end of the Cold War.

For decades, Washington depended on Saudi Arabia — a country of 30 million people but the Middle East’s largest reserves of oil — to shore up stability in a region dominated by autocrats and hostile to another ally, Israel. The Saudis used their role as the dominant power in OPEC to help rein in Iraq and Iran, and they supported bases for the American military, anchoring American influence in the Middle East and beyond.

But the Arab uprisings altered the balance of power across the Middle East, especially with the ouster of the Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, a close ally of both the Saudis and the Americans.

The United States has also been reluctant to take sides in the worsening sectarian strife between Shiite and Sunni, in which the Saudis are firm partisans on the Sunni side.

At the same time, new sources of oil have made the Saudis less essential. And the Obama administration’s recent diplomatic initiatives on Syria and Iran have left the Saudis with a deep fear of abandonment.

“We still share many of the same goals, but our priorities are increasingly different from the Saudis,” said F. Gregory Gause III, a professor of Middle East studies at the University of Vermont. “When you look at our differing views of the Arab Spring, on how to deal with Iran, on changing energy markets that make gulf oil less central — these things have altered the basis of U.S.-Saudi relations.”

The United States always had important differences with the Saudis, including on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the spread of fundamentalist strains of Islam, Mr. Gause added. But the Obama administration’s determination to ease the long estrangement with Iran’s theocratic leaders has touched an especially raw nerve: Saudi Arabia’s deep-rooted hostility to its Shiite rival for leadership of the Islamic world.

Saudi reaction to the Geneva agreement was guarded on Monday, with the official Saudi Press Agency declaring in a statement that “if there is good will, then this agreement could be an initial step” toward a comprehensive solution for Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

In recent days, Saudi officials and influential columnists have made clear that they fear the agreement will reward Iran with new legitimacy and a few billion dollars in sanctions relief at exactly the wrong time. Iran has been mounting a costly effort to support the government of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, including arms, training and some of its most valuable Revolutionary Guards commandos, an effort that has helped Mr. Assad win important victories in recent months.

The Saudis fear that further battlefield gains will translate into expanded Iranian hegemony across the region. Already, the Saudis have watched with alarm as Turkey — their ally in supporting the Syrian rebels — has begun making conciliatory gestures toward Iran, including an invitation by the Turkish president, Abdullah Gul, to his Iranian counterpart to pay an official visit earlier this month.

In the wake of the accord’s announcement on Sunday, Saudi Twitter users posted a wave of anxious, defeatist comments about being abandoned by the United States.

In many ways, those fears are at odds with the facts of continuing American-Saudi cooperation on many fronts, including counterterrorism. “We’re training their National Guard, we’re doing security plans and training for oil terminals and other facilities, and we’re implementing one of the biggest arms deals in history,” said Thomas W. Lippman, an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute who has written extensively on American-Saudi relations.

And despite all the talk of decreasing reliance on Saudi oil, the Saudis remain a crucial producer for world markets.

But none of this can obscure a fundamental split in perspectives toward the Geneva accord. The Saudis see the nuclear file as one front in a sectarian proxy war — centered in Syria — that will shape the Middle East for decades to come, pitting them against their ancient rival.

“To the Saudis, the Iranian nuclear program and the Syria war are parts of a single conflict,” said Bernard Haykel, a professor of Near Eastern studies at Princeton. “One well-placed Saudi told me, ‘If we don’t do this in Syria, we’ll be fighting them next inside the kingdom.’ ”

How the Saudis propose to win the struggle for Syria is not clear. Already, their expanded support for Islamist rebel fighters in Syria — and the widespread assumption that they are linked to the jihadist groups fighting there — has elevated tensions across the region. After a double suicide bombing killed 23 people outside the Iranian Embassy in Beirut last Tuesday, the Arab news media was full of panicky reports that this was a Saudi “message” to Iran before the nuclear talks in Geneva. A day later, a Shiite group in Iraq claimed responsibility for mortars fired into Saudi Arabia near the border between the two countries.

The Saudi-owned news media has bubbled with vitriol in recent days. One prominent columnist, Tareq al-Homayed, sarcastically compared President Obama to Mother Teresa, “turning his right and left cheeks to his opponents in hopes of reconciliation.”

American efforts to assuage these anxieties, including Secretary of State John Kerry’s trip to Riyadh earlier this month, have had little effect.

The Saudis have already broadcast their discontent about the Iran agreement, and America’s Syria policy, by refusing their newly won seat on the United Nations Security Council last month. It was a gesture that many analysts ridiculed as self-defeating.

Beyond such gestures, it is not clear that the Saudis can do much. The Obama administration has made fairly clear that it is not overly worried about Saudi discontent, because the Saudis have no one else to turn to for protection from Iran.

The Saudis have increased their support for Syrian rebel groups in the past two months, including some Islamist groups that are not part of the secular American-backed coalition.

“They are working with some people who make us squeamish,” said one United States official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “But they’re effective, they’re the real deal. These are Islamists who foresee a Syria where Alawites and Christians are tolerated minorities, but at least they’re not enemies to be slaughtered.”

In its most feverish form, the Saudis’ anxiety is not just that the United States will leave them more exposed to Iran, but that it will reach a reconciliation and ultimately anoint Iran as the central American ally in the region. As the Saudi newspaper Al Riyadh put it recently in an unsigned column: “The Geneva negotiations are just a prelude to a new chapter of convergence” between the United States and Iran.

That may seem far-fetched in light of the ferocious and entrenched anti-Americanism of the Iranian government. But the Saudi king and his ministers have not forgotten the days of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi of Iran, who cherished his status as America’s great friend in the region.

“The Saudis are feeling surrounded by Iranian influence — in Iraq, in Syria, in Lebanon, in Bahrain,” said Richard W. Murphy, a retired American ambassador who spent decades in the Middle East. “It’s a hard state of mind to deal with, a rivalry with ancient roots — a blood feud operating in the 21st century.”

A version of this article appears in print on November 26, 2013, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: U.S. and Saudis in Growing Rift as Power Shifts.