Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Palestine’

Two years ago, I had written a brief essay on Prophet Muhammad’s (PBUH) mystic Night Journey to Jerusalem and then further into Heaven which is commemorated by many Muslims today, 27 Rajab, al-’Isrā’ wal-Mi‘rāj. According to the Holy Qur’an (Q17:1) and aḥādīth the Prophet was taken to the “furthest mosque”, al-masjid al-aqsa,by al-Buraq, the mythical white-winged mare, and ascended to heaven from the Rock on the Temple Mount. The journey took place about one year before the Prophet’s hijra, 621 CE, and he testified afterwards to the Quraysh of Makkah what he had seen in Jerusalem.  But what had he actually seen?

Fact of the matter is that during a rather short period of time, between 614 and 629, Christian almost three centuries long control over Jerusalem had been adjourned by Persian rule. In 614 Jerusalem had been besieged for 21 days by the army of Shah Khosrau II’s General Sharbaraz and after the city’s surrender most Christian inhabitants were massacred and all churches destroyed. Even the True Cross was taken as a trophy to the Capital Ctesiphon. But Persian reign lasted only until 629 when the Byzantine emperor Heraclius reconquered the city and returned the True Cross to the rebuilt Holy Sepulchre.

What the Prophet of Islam might have seen when for the first and last time in Jerusalem I had mainly derived from Oleg Grabar’s book on early Islamic Jerusalem, The Shape of the Holy (Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey 1996) which provides some computer-generated images of the city around 600 CE, one and a half decade before the Persian conquest. One has to assume that in 621, the year of the mystical Night Journey, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Church of Resurrection, and the Church on Mt. Zion commemorating the Last Supper and the large Church Nea Ekklesia of the Theotokos lay in ruins.

A few decades after the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem in 638 CE, around 700 CE, the Umayyad Caliphs Abd’ al-Malik and his son al-Walid erected, in commemoration of Muhammad’s Night Journey, the Dome of the Rock (from where he ascended to Heaven) and the al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount, the site of Solomon’s First and post-Babylonian exile Second Temple, and Herod’s reconstruction which had finally been destroyed in 135 CE by the troops of Roman Emperor Hadrian.

Oleg Grabar, who has deceased last year, has co-edited with Benjamin Z. Kedar of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Where Heaven and Earth Meets: Jerusalem’s Sacred Esplanade (Yad Ben-Zvi Press, Jerusalem and the University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas 2009) which assembles an impressive panel of Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars who present many unknown facts in three thousand years’ history and stunningly illuminate the unique historical, religious, spiritual, cultural, and political importance of this true interface between, focus of, the three monotheistic, revealed, religions (the not less-charged significance for Christians is derived from Jesus’ relation with and acts in Herod’s Temple). The for Jews significant Western Wall of the Esplanade is not forgotten in the account.

Due to the unsolved political situation of Israel occupying East Jerusalem, al-Haram al-Sharif, the Noble Sanctuary, is seriously endangered. But there is hope. Grabar, in a personal statement concludes:

“There are legal and technical mechanisms for the preservation of what is deemed beautiful and historically significant, but the implementation of these mechanisms requires decisions about governance and responsibility which cannot be exclusively in the hands of political and religious authorities. Alternate possibilities, through UNESCO for instance, have failed so far. But, if one mediates on the eschatological component of the Haram as the space where Go[o]d will be made prevail and man will be judged, one can perhaps imagine that a space shaped by the Antique world long gone and constantly enhanced by the living culture of Islam could become a place for reconciliation and mutual understanding rather than of strife and contest. Hope springs eternal.” (Emphasis added.)

 

June 17, 2012 @ 17:20

Last modified June 17, 2012.

 

Read Full Post »

Update below.

With huge cheers Palestine membership in the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization was today approved in a meeting at the UNESCO headquarters in Paris by a 107 to 14 vote with  52 abstentions. The United States acted immediately by cutting off funds to the body which would have been due in November. That doesn’t come as a surprise, though. The act is required under federal legislation of February 1990 at the time of the first Intifada (22 USC 287e as amended by PL 101-246):

Membership of the Palestine Liberation Organization in United Nations Agencies

Pub.L. 101-246, Title IV, §414, Feb. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 70 (101st Congress, 2/16/90) provided that:

“(a) Prohibition. — No funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or any other Act shall be available for the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof which accords the Palestine Liberation Organization the same standing as member states.

“(b) Transfer or reprogramming. – Funds subject to the prohibition contained in subsection (a) which would be available for the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof (but for that prohibition) are authorized to remain available until expended and may be reprogrammed or transferred to any other account of the Department of State or the Agency for International Development to carry out the general purposes for which such funds were authorized.

 

What a shame that Obama just missed another historical chance. But wait a minute. The US dept to the United Nations is more than $ 1.5 billion anyway.

When, finally, deprives the Nobel Prize Committee of Norway him of the Peace Prize?

 

Update November 1, 2011. Thanks to Sean Lee at The Human Province see the voting results below.

No: Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Palau, Panama, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Sweden, United States of America, Vanuatu.

Abstentions: Albania, Andorra, Bahamas, Barbados, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Cook Islands, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Fiji, Georgia, Haiti, Hungary, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kiribati, Latvia, Liberia, Mexico, Monaco, Montenegro, Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Switzerland, Thailand, Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Zambia.

Yes: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Chad, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Sant Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Absent: Antigua and Barbuda, Central African Republic, Comoros, Dominica, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Madagascar, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Confederated States of Micronesia, Mongolia, Niue, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan.

Read Full Post »

The world is eagerly awaiting this year’s decision of Oslo’s Peace Nobel Prize Committee, chaired by Norway’s former Prime Minister Thorbjørn Jagland. While last year’s choice, Chinese human rights activist, literary critic, writer, and academic, dissident Liu Xiaobo was very much okay (not for his fellow countrymen, of course), the year before, the group around Jagland made a grave mistake when nominating President Barack Obama as Peace Laureate. And Obama did a mistake when not declining to accept the honor. Well, everybody was afraid (and he knew best) that his talent is holding nice speeches which differed from his later deeds. The Arab Spring is at risk to end in, no, not an “Iranian Winter”, as Israel’s hard line Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prophesied in addressing the UN General Assembly, but rather an American Winter. So little has been achieved in Tunesia and Egypt while, after eight months, killings in Yemen and Bahrain are now, in a way, considered different than those in Syria. Not to talk about human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia, the strongest ally in the Middle East after Israel. No, Obama has clandestinely supported Egypt’s dictator for 30 years Husni Mubarak up to the last minute. In his speech on the Arab Spring he did not mention Saudi Arabia with a single word, the Kingdom which had just invaded the small Gulf island of Bahrain to brutally crack down the uprising of the Shi’ite majority (not minority, as misinformed Obama had claimed). And now he is about to maroon the Palestinians.

The Arab Spring and certain (largely unknown) protagonists are top on this year’s Peace Nobel Prize list. But so far, one doesn’t know where it leads. One might in fact wonder whether the huge treasure trove of diplomatic cables published by Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks in last year’s autumn has ignited the uprising. People in the Middle East suddenly noticed how false the U.S. and the West played with North African and Middle Eastern citizens, nurturing their brutal dictators, including Libya’s Muammar Qadaffi) . If the Nobel Peace Prize was a Challenge Cup, Obama would now have the opportunity of handing it over to, well, Assange and PFC Bradley Manning, the young soldier who allegedly had leaked the cables and much more to WikiLeaks and who was first detained since May 2010 in maximum custody at Marine Corps Brig, Quantico, Virginia, and later at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. We owe both a lot. That would also be a late indemnification of Jagland’s notorious committee. Both, Manning and Assange with WikiLeaks are among this year’s record number of 241 nominees.

I just read about this year’s laureate of the Ig Nobel Prize for Psychology, annually awarded at Harvard University (years ago, I have reported on the prize for Economy in 1996, see my blog entry “Floss or Die” here). “For achievements that first make people LAUGH, then make them THINK.” It is Karl Halvor Teigen of Oslo University. He wrote about a very human emotional expression, the sigh.

Is a sigh “just a sigh”? Sighs as emotional signals and responses to a difficult task

Abstract. Sighing and the interpretation of sighs in everyday life seem never to have been the subject of psychological research. A questionnaire study of sighing showed that people associate sighing mainly with negative, low-intensity and deactivated emotional states. A second study investigated self/other differences in the interpretation of sighs in four hypothetical situations, revealing that sighs in other people are primarily perceived as signs of sadness, whereas own sighs are more often believed to express a state of “giving up” something or somebody. In a third experimental study participants worked on difficult (insoluble) puzzles, which generated many futile solution attempts, often accompanied by sighs. It is concluded that sighs are often unintentional expressions of an activity, plan or desire that has to be discarded, creating a pause before it can be replaced by a novel initiative. Scand J Psychol 2008;49:49-57. (No emphasis added.)

Jagland when eventually announcing his decision on the real Nobel Peace Prize on Friday next week might should have read the entire article.

Last update October 12, 2011.

Read Full Post »

How President Obama would address, in his speech on recent developments in the Middle East, the three key players, which have not participated in any constructive way in what is called the Arab Uprising, was in fact quite interesting.

First Iran. Well, the current power struggle between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his rapidly shrinking support gang on one side and the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and most of the clergy on the other, which escalated after the Guardian Council’s disapproval of Ahmadinejad’s aspirations toward caretaker Minister of Oil, apparently does not deserve much attention any more. Well, Obama, for instance in his historic speech in Cairo only one week before Iran’s contested presidential election of June 12, 2009, which ended in the almost complete silencing of any opposition group, had offered dialogue with Iran,

“I recognize it will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude, and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect.” 

These times are definitely over. What he had said in Cairo, well, it had in general not been meant so seriously, I am afraid. It has not really been taken into consideration by the U.S. Administration that the people in Tunis, Cairo, Benghazi, Bahrain, Sana’a, to name but a few of the uprisings, would finally, in 2011, take him at his nice words. What Obama has now to say on Iran (and its strongest ally Syria) is the following:

“Thus far Syria has followed its Iranian ally, seeking assistance from Tehran in the tactics of suppression. This speaks to the hypocrisy of the Iranian regime, which says it stand for the rights of protesters abroad, yet suppresses its people at home. Let us remember that the first peaceful protests were in the streets of Tehran, where the government brutalized women and men, and threw innocent people into jail. We still hear the chants echo from the rooftops of Tehran. The image of a young woman dying in the streets is still seared in our memory. And we will continue to insist that the Iranian people deserve their universal rights, and a government that does not smother their aspirations.

Our opposition to Iran’s intolerance – as well as its illicit nuclear program, and its sponsorship of terror – is well known. But if America is to be credible, we must acknowledge that our friends in the region have not all reacted to the demands for change consistent with the principles that I have outlined today.”

Well, illicit or not; sponsoring or not. Talking about Iran’s hypocrisy might indeed be somewhat frivolous. Isn’t it hypocritical, too, when Obama had claimed, only minutes earlier, “As we did in the Gulf War, we will not tolerate aggression across borders, and we will keep our commitments to friends and partners,” given the fact of two more or less failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with hundreds of thousands civilian casualties and current bombardments in Libya, Pakistan, the Yemen, and elsewhere; and America’s and the World’s ultimate foe’s assassination on foreign territory?

Obama also claims that “Iran has tried to take advantage of the turmoil in [predominantly Shi’ite] Bahrain,” for which there is actually not a shred of evidence either. But his surprising condemnation of Bahrain’s government which, with the help of troops sent by several Arab dictators, brutally cracked down Shi’ite protests in Manama’s Pearl Square leads us in fact to Saudi Arabia. Remarkably, Obama does not mention that Kingdom with word in his speech on Moments of Opportunity. Bahrain, vis-à-vis Iran and home of the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet, is too important an ally to fall to America’s arch foe in the region. So, Saudi Arabia’s and the UAE’s violent intervention early in March, only hours after Minister of Defense Robert Gates had left the island after talks with its Sunni leader King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa seeking a solution for the ongoing protests there, must be regarded as, in principle, highly welcome. That particular solution might have even been hatched in the talks between Al Khalifa and Gates.

Does his mentioning of women’s rights address in particular Saudi Arabia?

“What is true for religious minorities is also true when it comes to the rights of women. History shows that countries are more prosperous and more peaceful when women are empowered. And that’s why we will continue to insist that universal rights apply to women as well as men – by focusing assistance on child and maternal health; by helping women to teach, or start a business; by standing up for the right of women to have their voices heard, and to run for office. The region will never reach its full potential when more than half of its population is prevented from achieving their full potential.” (Emphasis added.)

Probably; women are not even supposed to drive a car in the Salafi kingdom. Whether history has shown “that countries are more prosperous and more peaceful when women are empowered” may not apply to the recent past, think for instance of Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, Maggie Thatcher, Condi Rice, Hillary Clinton; or Germany’s Angela Merkel who travelled in 2002 to Washington in order to denounce former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s denial of German “adventures” in Iraq.

The third key player addressed was Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s outcry, who was probably already on his way to Washington, was apparently desired when Obama mentioned a two-state solution of the 63-yr Israel/Palestine problem within the boundaries of 1967. Honestly, how should that be accomplished else? Netanyahu’s ranting and, well, desperate contribution in the press conference which followed bilateral talks between him and the American President after his speech indicate that here Obama may have made an impact. When Netanyahu stresses that,

“The third reality [after 1967 boundaries would be unacceptable for Israel; and negotiations with Palestinian radical-Islamic Hamas, which questions Israel’s right to exist, cannot be done] is that the Palestinian refugee problem will have to be resolved in the context of a Palestinian state, but certainly not in the borders of Israel. 

The Arab attack in 1948 on Israel resulted in two refugee problems – Palestinian refugee problem and Jewish refugees, roughly the same number, who were expelled from Arab lands.  Now, tiny Israel absorbed the Jewish refugees, but the vast Arab world refused to absorb the Palestinian refugees.  Now, 63 years later, the Palestinians come to us and they say to Israel, accept the grandchildren, really, and the great grandchildren of these refugees, thereby wiping out Israel’s future as a Jewish state,”

he actually uses certain disingenuous language of his arch foe, Iranian President Ahmadinejad. As a brief reminder, tiny Israel possesses nuclear weapons. As a matter of fact, Israel has, by enforcing its illicit settlement policy in the West Bank, rather wiped out Palestine, probably once and forever.

In view of Obama’s apparent intention of pushing the Middle East peace process without further paying attention to attempts of further delay by the old warhorse, Netanyahu’s speech to the U.S. Congress next Tuesday might be a war declaration.

Last modified May 21, 2011.

Read Full Post »

While Cairo is rocked for the fifth day in succession by an uprising of its people which ultimately will send its dictator president Hosni Mubarak packing in a similar way as Tunisia’s dictator Ben Ali earlier this month, WikiLeaks has posted a confidential diplomatic cable of January 15, 2009, regarding the brutality of the police in Egypt, physical violence against even females and torture to extort convicts confessions and torture against members of the Muslim Brotherhood which is considered a political threat. Police brutality is, according to contacts, attributed to “poor training, understaffing and official sanction.” Some policemen might even “believe that Islamic law sanctions torture.” The cable further states that,

¶7. (C) Contacts agree that in the past five years, the government has stopped denying that torture exists and has taken some steps to address the problem. However, contacts believe that the Interior Ministry lacks the political will to take substantive action to change the culture of police brutality. XXXXXXXXXXXX asserted that following alleged standing orders from the Interior Ministry between 2000 and 2006 for the police to shoot, beat and humiliate judges in order to undermine judicial independence, the GOE made a political decision in 2007 to allow the courts to sentence police officers to short prison terms. XXXXXXXXXXXX described the 2007 Imad El-Kebir case as a turning point in influencing the government to permit the sentencing of police officers.”

Another cable of February 23, 2009, is summarizing a meeting of Senator Joe Lieberman and unofficial crown prince Gamal Mubarak on February 17. Lieberman, now an “independent Democrat”, had endorsed Republican candidate John McCain in the U.S. presidential campaign of 2008, not Obama. He has recently announced to retire next year from senate.

It is interesting to read both diplomatic cables from Cairo carefully. Lieberman was allegedly seeking “advice” from Gamal for a solution of a number of problems of the region, for instance, Gaza after the 2008/2009 war; Iran’s attempt to exploit “the current split within Arab ranks between ‘moderate (Egypt, Saudi Arabia) and ‘radical’ (Syria and Qatar);” and whether and how “to engage” with Iran. That this sort of small talk might in any way be informative for Lieberman might in fact be doubted. It shows, anyway, the “insider view” of somebody who many expected to become Egypt’s next dictator; of course, before the anti-government demonstrations turned into riots with at the moment 25 at least 74 fatal casualties.

¶4. (C) Senator Lieberman asked Gamal if he thought the United States should re-engage with Iran. ‘As long as Ahmedinejad is there, I am skeptical,’ Gamal responded. Senator Lieberman said he shared that skepticism, but explained that the new administration believes the U.S. should try to engage the Iranians, but no clear strategy has yet emerged in Washington; Dennis Ross has been tasked with ‘reviewing’ the situation. The one thing that is clear, Gamal stressed, is that by removing Saddam, the U.S. opened the door for Iran to flex its muscles and spread its influence throughout the region. ‘Like it or not, Saddam was a stumbling block to Iranian aspirations. His fall led directly to an increase in Iranian influence on the region.’ Now, it is all the more important not to send a message of weakness to the Iranians, Gamal said, ‘neither from the U.S., nor from the moderates in the region.’ We cannot “concede to their policy of aggression.’

¶5. (C) There are many in the region, Gamal explained, who believe that the U.S. was weakened by its actions in Iraq, and that Iran was strengthened. Furthermore, there is a perception that the U.S. has been hurt by the economic crisis and that it will be more inward looking for the next few years. Therefore, the Americans, it is said, will deal with problems in the region in a ‘less confrontational’ fashion, and ‘may be willing to compromise. Iran is working hard to convince others that this is the case.’ This creates a very dangerous situation for moderate states like Egypt, Gamal stressed. Noting that there was some truth in this analysis, particularly concerning the economic straits the U.S. is in, Senator Lieberman said that the U.S. will nonetheless engage in an even more aggressive Middle East foreign policy than previously, as evidenced by President Obama’s choice of Secretary Clinton and Special Envoy Mitchell. Gamal welcomed this reassurance, noting that the GCC states in particular are ‘terrified’ of Iran. Just the previous week, he said, an Iranian general had said publicly that Bahrain ‘has always been part of Iran,’ as well as the Tunb Islands.

¶6. (C) Senator Lieberman then asked Gamal for his assessment of Qatari behavior. They are coordinating closely with Syria and Iran, Gamal said, ‘in an orchestrated attack on Egypt and other moderate Arab states.’ Qatar has enabled Hamas to hamper every effort we have made to cement a ceasefire in Gaza. For some reason, Qatar seems to want to play the role of spoiler, Gamal surmised. ‘Even regarding the March 2nd Gaza conference we are hosting, they have called for another Arab only meeting in Doha just two days before.’ In response to Senator Lieberman’s question as to Qatari motives, Gamal responded, ‘They just want a place at the table, no matter what.’”

The small Gulf island Bahrain has actually been Persian until the late 18th century. Its seventy per cent Shi’ite majority is heavily oppressed by its Sunni rulers. Shi’ite demonstrations have been cracked-down by the regime before parliamentary elections last year. About the dispute on the Tunbs one may read a bit here. That Gamal mentions Qatar in a row with Syria, describing its Salafi rulers as “radical’, might surprise. The tiny Gulf emirate is generally considered a strong ally of the U.S. On the other hand, Tehran and Doha had signed in February 2010 a defense cooperation agreement stressing that the two countries will expand their cooperation in training and conduct joint campaigns against terrorism and insecurity in the region. Qatar’s Prime Minister has publicly given support to Iran’s right for developing nuclear technology within its peaceful nuclear program. A diplomatic cable of December 21, 2009 from Doha, which was posted by WikiLeaks on the very day the Cablegate leaks commenced (November 28, 2010) and which describes preparations of the Prime Minister’s visit in Washington in January 2010 may reflect American nervous concerns regarding the “working relationship with Iran, given the natural gas reserves [Qatar] share[s] with Iran.” On the agenda for the upcoming visit a question was put, “How best do you think we can persuade Iran to give up its military nuclear aims without military confrontation?”

But back to the Cairo cables. In his talk with Lieberman, former international banker Gamal mentions Egypt’s far better shape regarding its economic situation than expected after the global financial crisis. Inflation was quite low, and the banking sector had thoroughly been overhauled a couple of years ago. “We are bound to feel the brunt of [the financial crisis] eventually.” He made even some suggestions for bolder measures by the United States to end the crisis to which Lieberman seems to agree in a way. In 2009 Egypt still seemed a reliable partner in the Middle East.

As a final note, Senator Lieberman is among those American politicians who have targeted WikiLeaks, in particular its founder Julian Assange, and even the New York Times for publishing the leaks most. Glenn Greenwald has compared Lieberman with Chinese dictators when it comes to the American Constitution’s First Amendment. There is certainly much relief  after he had announced to retire in 2012.

Last modified January 29, 2011.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.