Sunday, October 27, 2002
Monday, October 14, 2002
It is a long known fact that whenever the United States wants to advocate its foreign policy through a non-diplomatic channel it usually echoes in its newspapers. This was the case in 1979 when a senior American official writing in the Washington Post warned of "dire consequences" should Pakistan's Prime Minister, Bhutto not comply with the "great white elephant" as he (Bhutto) once famously put it. The matter at the time was Pakistan's fledgling nuclear weapons program. The Americans wanted it rolled back and for Pakistan to settle into a nice and quiet state under the ever-looming shadow of India. The crux of the matter is that Pakistan would be a banana republic had the program not started. There were other issues at the time that directly relate to the nuclear matter. Bhutto wanted to unite the Islamic world. He wanted to create an Islamic block and unite all the Muslim nations. He called a meeting of the OIC (Organization of Islamic Countries) during the mid 70’s and it convened in Lahore. Bhutto, Moammer Qaddafi and King Faisal of Saudi Arabia were especially united in this cause. This didn't please the West (United States) one bit. Bhutto was a dangerous man and had to be gotten rid of. Kissenger warned him, Democrat and Republican went hand in hand and warned him. The consequence; Bhutto was hung in a coup, Faisal was killed in a coup and Qaddafi's Libya was reduced to an international pariah state. The senior American official that I speak of is the American Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. It is safe to assume that Kissenger, a Jewish immigrant from Germany, must have been severely vexed by Pakistan’s stubborn, dogmatic and uncompromising stance towards Israel. Pakistan, then and now, refuses to accept the existence of Israel. In the globalised world that we live in today this would be detrimental if one were to bring up issues such as trade and economic ties, etc. But unlike the Arab states that crumbled under American pressure and accepted Israel, Pakistan stuck to its ideological belief. That being, that to usurp someone’s land and claim it as a "promised holy land" is absolutely wrong. Moreover, the continual daily humiliation towards its native inhabitants adds salt to the already gaping wounds. What this reminds me of is colonization. What the Jews have done is colonized Palestine. Slowly, but surely they will freeze out the " grasshoppers" (former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meirs description of Palestinians) and then within another one hundred years the colony would have been well settled, stable and accepted easily within the world community. The Palestinians will be reduced to mere natives. Their treatment would be like those of Australian and American (whole continent) natives. Their daily humiliation will not become a world hot topic, but an internal matter of discrimination, just as it has become in the Americas and Australia. But, they wont be referred to as natives; for such a referral would be a symbol of recognition of their status as the original inhabitants. They would be systematically frozen out and forced to live in the slums of society and eventually not recognized. Ali.
Germany, and the people of Germany have my blessings. Gerhard Shcroder: Thank You. Thank you for defying the great despot and in doing so defining true democracy. Thank you for refusing to join the high horse of your close friends. In doing so you and your country have set an exemplary standard of people power. By saying " Sorry Mr Bush, my people wont allow me to support you in attacking Iraq" you have truely in one tiny yet symbolic act of defiance given power to your people. Power to the People.
Saturday, October 12, 2002
I once saw in a documentary, 2 park rangers in a South African game reserve. Both were counting a heap of cash that had been recovered from poachers. One was a native ( i.e, he was black ) and the other was white. I couldn't help but notice that should any of the money go missing who will be the one that is to be blamed. If one were to escape the box of political correctness, it would be inevitable that you would blame the black man. But, why? Is it because he is less honurable a man than the other. Hardly? It is because and only because of colonial reprecussions .
Friday, October 11, 2002
Let me be righteous and begin by trying to explain that age-old question. The Jewish Question. The middle east in its current array is in turmoil, the peace process is in tatters and Ariel Sharon is checking his teeth against the window of the Oval Office .Apparently there seems to be a lot of mouth related activity going on there. Anyway that’s beside the point. To try to answer The Jewish Question would be fruitless if attempted from a political angel. Lets get Biblical .Lets get Abrahamic. And hopefully, lets cause a stir. The three great religions. Judaism, Christianity and Islam both claim their ancestry from him. Yet why, is there all this turmoil? There is one aspect of Judaism that is really, in my opinion, one of the roots to the current problem. Namely, it is Judaism's inherent exclusivity. Jews (practicing, not pragmatic) have this unwithering belief within them that THEY are Gods Children and everyone else is the offspring off Satan. This exclusivity is seen more clearly in the practice that only one with a Jewish mother can claim to be Jewish. Now, I know some Rabbi who has been pouring over those theological books for the most part of his life can come up with seven reasons and give me the reasons for such an exclusivist practice. From its very early explanations it sees itself as a religion that is "better" than others, especially in comparison to Islam. First Example, Jews and Muslims alike believe that Abraham had two sons; Isaac (or Ishaq in Islam) and Ishmael or (Ishmael as known to the Muslim world). One fathered the Muslim race ( Ismael ) and the other the Jewish race. The first controversy that arises is that Judaism and only Judaism believes and strongly reiterates that Ishmael was the bastard son of Abraham, because Sarah (Abraham’s wife) was barren at the time. As a result of which Abraham sleeps with his slave, Hagar and thus Ishmael is born (given the tremendous importance attributed to the mother in Judaism, one tends to think that Judaist scholarly pursuits must, in their heart of hearts see the Muslim people as the "children of a slave”). Now as if such a belief would not cause a bitter, bloody and long lasting dichotomy between Judaism and its supposed eternal enemy, Islam. The Second Example is, which of Abraham’s sons was it that almost came under the knife on Moriah. Christianity and Judaism alike believe that it was Isaac. Islam differs. The Jewish Torah says: Offer for sacrifice " your son, your only one, whom you love, your Isaac" 'Your son, your only one' seems to blatantly signify that Isaac was Abraham’s son and his only one. Ismael is seen through Jewish eyes as the unrecognized son. ' Whom you love. your Isaac'. What this line rather directly implies is that Ismael is not loved by Abraham, not recognized and thus he is as good as disowned. Now, such a belief which is firmly entrenched and holed up in Jewish belief is as a matter of cause and effect, going to cause deep resentment, suspicion and hate amongst Muslims in general. There are many other things such as God saying to Hagar that although Ismael will have 12 great sons ( the twelve Arab tribes) the Covenant ( circumcision; which is meant to signify Mans allegiance to the Lord) will only run through Isaacs line. I am in no way attacking Judaism or taking sides with a certain religion. Its just that these beliefs within Judaism do cause problems. There are of course problems within the other two religions. One of the top of my head would be the manner in which Islam has been preached and how self righteously the moral guardians of Islam have taken over the reigns of this religion. Fanning the flames of fanaticism will not restore the once far reaching zenith of Islam. Those bearded fools fail to understand that " the ink of a scholar is holier than the blood of a martyr". Christianity also has its problems. Namely the bible being seen as a Judo-Christian compilation and the many glaringly obvious historical and anthropological holes in it. Don’t get the wrong idea however, I am not a neo- religion guy, who is blindly taking a swipe at every religion that comes my way, I am merely highlighting the troubles that arise when the bulwark of religion is held in the select hands of a few who may have agendas or even worse, an undying idealist dream to see that they must change the world. Note clearly that, I am a God-fearing man of 19 years and bow down when ever the talk of religion is about. My advice to the guardians of ALL religions would be the following; tread carefully, in justifying yourself as the chosen ones you may be walking over other God-fearing people who believe in the same universal entity as you.