It must be sad to look back, and see it as it was!

I know GW is old news, but I have just received this cartoon in an email from a friend. It is not a funny cartoon, but it is amazingly sad.

Imagine yourself, with all the fire power, financial power, propaganda power, intelligence service capabilities in the galaxy at your disposal for a whole lot of 8 very long years. Yet, you leave the presidency with nothing you can claim as an achievement.

And when your best line on your way out is that history would be kinder to your legacy.... Boy, that really is bad. You almost feel sad for him.

The only thing going for our ex, is that he has proven himself consistently delusional, and predictably lacking when it comes to the perception of reality. And as long as he does not get treated, or miraculously acquires some common sense in the coming 40 or 50 years he still has to live, he will be fine.

So, having thought of that, I do not almost feel sad for him any more. I can just enjoy the thought that that nightmare is over.

Khaled

The mystery we call the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and do nations have the right to exist by a divine decree?

A good friend of mine is half Jewish by birth, but has for the last 5-6 years been more aware of her Jewish identity. Recently I received an email from her after she read some of my latest blog postings. I felt that it may be worthwhile to share with you part of her email in blue (with her permission), and my response in red to it.

A major part of the wide gap between pro-peace Israeli and pro-peace Arabs is that despite being united by goal, they hardly understand each other. There is a lot of raw visceral emotions that influence how we feel about the Israeli-Palestinian (IP) conflict on all sides.

Many of these emotions are deeply rooted in history, religion, culture, upbringing and many other unexplainable influences. No matter how we try to understand the 'other', it always seems an incomplete understanding. We can never be in their shoes, not matter how hard we try.

So, here is her email commenting on some of my recent postings on the Israeli operation in Gaza, and how our politicians stood in line to please the pro-Israel crowd. I highlighted parts of the email that are relevant to this posting :

"Don't get me wrong, I completely got the joke and thought it was funny. I also agree with what you said. Some right wingers in this country scare the pants off me with their support of Israel because their line of thinking is that if Israel exists the Messiah will come. It will be the first time for the Jews and the Second Coming for the Christians. Truly a scary way to dream up foreign policy.

My point was that the concept of the Jewish state is so central to the religion of Judaism that it's hard to separate the two. I almost have to work at not being a Zionist. So making light of Israel is blasphemy for a lot of Jews.

But I think it's important to step back from the religious view of the state of Israel and look at ours and Israel's current policies because we live in the here and now and people are dying NOW."

The emphasized sentence is really the part that makes me wonder if a non-Jew can ever put themselves in the shoes of a Jew. That form of empathy is not a luxury. It is impossible to resolve long standing problems if you cannot even imagine yourself in the other person's shoes.

When you are unable to do that, anything harmful to you from the other side will always be attributed to their evil nature, and moral bankruptcy, because you cannot see the emotional pressure leading to that behavior toward you.

And the sentence below would help make my point clear as she states:

"I wish the Palestinians would stop lobbing rockets into Israel though. Hard to argue that Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself."

Our response to this argument is usually "with their land occupied, borders closed off, food in short supply, fuel running out, and nobody willing to listen to Palestinian concerns, what do you want them to do? If you imagine yourself in that position, you may do the same thing you are criticizing them for."

This is EXACTLY the point I was trying to make earlier. You and I, as Arabs or Muslims, will be trying to put our opponents (my poor friend in this case) in a position where they should feel like a Palestinian: occupied, oppressed and besieged. You are asking the other to put themselves in the Palestinians shoes.

My response to my friend puts emphasis on an earlier point in her message: the centrality of Israel and the Land of Palestine to Judaism and Jews. And here is my response:

"To me, it is simply not understandable that any religion would have political and military domination over a piece of land as a central issue of faith. When I talked in the past to a self-admitted 'atheist' Jew who still thinks that he or she is entitled to a piece of land there, it confuses me even more.

On NPR many months ago, an American man was talking fondly about his beautiful and cheap house in a settlement in the West Bank. The funny part was that the man was NOT a Jew till less than a decade before that. And, of course, he did not relinquish his home in the US, or his citizenship by converting to Judaism.

He just became entitled to another piece of land, and another home with no consideration for who was there before he 'decided' to adopt his new religion that came with the rights to someone's else land, and cheap housing.

That should not sound right, feel right, or judged to be right."

I doubt many, if any, of my Muslim or Arab readers would disagree with my statement, or find any logic flaws with it.

But I also know that very few Jews, if any, even amongst the most dovish and peace loving Jews would agree completely with me. They simply cannot see it through my eyes because, for them, it is a matter of faith, emotions, culture and upbringing.

And we, Muslims and Arabs, have to agree these are the same factors that shape our vision of what is right and what is just.

There is, of course, absolute truth and justice no doubt, but only God can be certain what they are. For us, mere mortals, we have to admit that truth and justice are always in the eye of the beholder. So, defending your position from the the angle of 'absolute truth and justice' leads no where.

Practical and pragmatic solutions will have to do, not absolute justice. And, that, as well got expressed by my good friend in her last sentence when she wrote

"But I think it's important to step back from the religious view of the state of Israel and look at ours and Israel's current policies because we live in the here and now and people are dying NOW. "

My final statement was more pointed:

"I do not believe that God gives land to people. Nations are political and historic entities that come and go, and using religion to assume control over a piece of land by some form of 'divine authorization' is not legitimate in my view, and regardless of what religion practices it."

But I also conclude that only practical and realistic solutions are the answer, not absolute positions.

"Israel is a de facto state now, and calling for its destruction is absurd. But so was the call for its creation.
Little can be done about it now, and reversing it is not an option, but that does not make the initial decision any more right or legitimate."

So I do not think Palestinians, or anyone, need to be brain-washed or re-programmed to accept that establishing Israel was legitimate or fair in order to qualify as peace partners. But also, calling for its destruction does not seem like a valid or even legitimate strategy either.

Israel would do itself a great favor if it acknowledges the historic injustices done to the Palestinians by its establishment, and even apologizes for the unimaginable harm it inflicted on Palestinians and neighboring Arabs for decades.

Palestinians and other Arabs, on the other hand, need not to forget what befell them, but need to accept Israel in its June 4 1967 borders, negotiate reasonable compensations and move one.

Anything else will just prolong the agony, and keeps the rivers of blood running.

Khaled

In the piles of hatred around us, glimpses of tolerance and friendship still show every now and then.

Richard Silverstein is probably one of the last Jews on the planet that should receive hate mail from a Muslim or an Arab. If you do not believe me, check his web site or his contribution to the British Guardian.

Of course he gets a lot of hate mail, but almost exclusively from right wing Jews or ardent pro-Israel fundamentalist Christian. Over the years, he stopped taking it personally. And with his political knowledge and religious background as a practicing Jew he knows how to handle that kind of hate.

Yesterday he got something of a rarit for him - hate mail from someone with an Arab Muslim name. The letter was profane, abusive and full of flawed logic, but above all spewed a tremendous amount of hatred. And rather than post the hateful letter as an example of how bad an Arab and a Muslim can be, he did not publish it but shared it with some of his Muslim friends, even suggesting that it may be form a radical anti-Arab who wanted to smear Arabs and Muslims by using a pseudonym.

Some of his eloquent Muslim friends wrote a beautiful reply to the stupid letter, and only then, Richard Silverstein was able to publish both: the ugly letter, followed by a most beautiful and eloquent reply from Jafar Siddiqqi, Richard's Muslim friend, to the angry hateful person.

Few hours later, I came across an article that puts an Israeli military Rabbi into awful (but well-deserved) light. This hateful 'man-of-God' was inciting Israeli troops to violate their own code of conduct, show disrespect for civilian safety, and was promoting the worst kind of racist violent attitudes toward Gaza Arabs during the last Israeli Massacre. This was an extreme example of Jewish radicalism using scripture and religious authority, encouraging young soldiers to commit unspeakable crimes.

While I know things like that exist, highlighting them carries the inherent risk of inciting equally hateful attitudes towards all Jews, not only those involved in a particular situation. I did not feel comfortable using that extreme example on my blog, and I communicated my feelings to Richard Silverstein. His response was almost instantaneous. He sat down, and wrote a scathingly critical posting about the horrible Rabbi and his hateful message, with the same eloquence and enthusiasm that his Muslim friend used in responding to the hateful Muslim Arab that insulted Silverstein and Jews in General.

I did not mention that as an example of a you-scratch-my-back-I-scratch-yours type of relationship, but rather as an example of friendship and mutual respect between smart, fair-minded and well-informed people of different faiths and political affiliation realizing that what is right is right, and what is wrong is wrong, regardless of who is the perpetrator and who is the victim.

Our Muslim community in St. Louis should remember that lesson very well. I this city, and soon after September 11, 2001 when Muslims and Muslim institutions and buildings were subject to threats by zealous brainless angry mob, Jewish and Christian interfaith partners of the Muslim community in St. Louis came to the Mosque on Weidmann road, to show support, and offer help protecting our mosque.

During the same difficult times, a Christian neighbor and a Jewish colleague of mine offered, independently, to take care of my children after school until the end of workday of myself and my wife's. My children were old enough to stay by themselves at home, but our friends felt that it may give us more peace of mind they took care of them while we were not at home. Our Christian neighbor also asked his son, who went to the same school with my older son, to keep an eye on my son during recess in case other students harass him in the school yard.

What I mentioned above is not just one or two feel-good examples. Behavior like that SHOULD be the norm expected from people who are civilized, honest and have faith of any kind.

Respecting, befriending and protecting people of other faith is not just a practical short-term tactic, it is not even just a long term strategy; it is simply what God mandates.

"As for such [of the unbelievers] as do not fight against you on account of [your] faith, and neither drive you forth from your homelands, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and to behave towards them with full equity: for, verily, God loves those who act equitably." (Chapter 60:8)

God was very clear in the Quran, that even though there would be conflicts with the people of the Book (Christians and Jew), it has to remain clear in the minds of Muslims that generalizing to all Jews and Christians is NOT the what He enjoins since He know that among them would be the righteous that deserve kindness and friendship.

"[But] they are not all alike: among the followers of earlier revelation there are upright people, who recite God's messages throughout the night, and prostrate themselves [before Him]. They believe in God and the Last Day, and enjoin the doing of what is right and forbid the doing of what is wrong, and vie with one another in doing good works: and these are among the righteous." (Chapter 3:113 & 114)

The nut cases on all sides are small in number, but they are loud, obnoxious and hateful to the rest of us no matter what our religion is. We need each other, moderates, from all faiths, or we, moderates, are doomed to extinction, or total submission.

Khaled

Links:

• Israel’s War Against the Palestinians Hurts Jews Too - Richard Silverstein
• IDF Chief Rabbi Teaches Torah to Terrorists, Advises Soldiers to Show Palestinian Civilians ‘No Mercy’ - Richard Silverstein
• IDF rabbinate publication during Gaza war: We will show no mercy on the cruel - Haaretz

You may want to take a look at an earlier post of mine:

• Extremophobia: The hate that may save the world

Internet Round 1/27/2009

Gaza War Pushes Arabs to the Brink - The Nation

Anger is boiling over in the Middle East over Gaza, and -- exactly as I predicted -- the result of the war has been to boost radicalism throughout the region, to strengthen the terrorist-inclined fanatics of Hamas, and to enhance the muscle of terrorist-inclined Israelis, including far-right parties such as Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu and, of course, Likud's bombastic Benjamin Netanyahu.

Speaking on January 14 at the New America Foundation, the outgoing US ambassador to the UN, Zalmay Khalilizad said explicitly that the United States feared a violent explosion in the region, including the seizure of US embassies by angry mobs, if the United States continued to block action by the UN. A central concern, said Khalilzad, is that mosque leaders all over the Middle East would mobilize the anger and direct it against the United States.

In case you think the anger against Israel and the United States among the Arabs is limited to Hamas and Hezbollah, consider the stunning comments of Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal, the former head of Saudi Arabia's intelligence service, who also served as the country's ambassador to both Great Britain and the United States: ".... America is not innocent in this calamity. Not only has the Bush administration left a sickening legacy in the region – from the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to the humiliation and torture at Abu Ghraib – but it has also, through an arrogant attitude about the butchery in Gaza, contributed to the slaughter of innocents. ..."

Miri Eisin: Is only the Israeli narrative 'the truth' and all the others wrong? - Haaretz

Israel has a national obsession with everything concerning hasbara (a Hebrew word for "explanation" and referring to information, spin, propaganda or a strategic public relations policy).

Every time a warlike event takes place, the Israeli broadcasting networks turn to hasbara experts with the recurring question - what must we do to improve Israel's international image? They really mean "how can we prove to everyone that we're right, they're wrong and everybody hates us and they're anti-Semites?"

The narrative shown in the Western media, especially in Europe, is based on a different world of cultural references than Israel's. It says the era of wars is over, that military force is not the way to solve disputes and that there is a direct link between occupation and violence. The challenge facing Israeli hasbara is not simple - certainly as long as the Palestinians' tragedy is shown to the world. The Western media scrupulously present the Israeli side, but does not accept its narrative.

Israelis are exposed mainly to the domestic networks and are shocked to hear how we appear to others. But is only the Israeli narrative "the truth" and all the others wrong?

And finally, and possibly as a reaction to the total lack of other important issues facing Muslims, the Yoga Police strikes again in Indonesia.

Yoga ban: Indonesia follow malaysia in Banning Yoga - The guardian

Indonesia has joined Malaysia in banning Muslims from practising yoga that
includes Hindu rituals, fearing that it may corrupt their faith.

The country's senior body of Islamic clerics ruled that Muslims must refrain from yoga if it involves elements such as chanting mantras, which reflect its Hindu roots.

When Malaysia's fatwa council told Muslims they should avoid yoga last year, the ruling provoked such strong opposition that the prime minister, Abdullah Badawi, stepped in to overturn the outright ban.

I disagree with Stephen Walt - Israel is a strategic genius

In a previous post I presented a very good article by Stephen Walt disputing the Mythical Strategic Genius of Israel and its politicians.

Although it may be a stretch for me to disagree with the analysis of someone in Walt's stature, I actually do disagree with him. I still think that Israel is a strategic genius today, and here is why I think so.

I do not disagree with Walt on his historic facts. I just disagree with him on Israel's leadership intentions. He, for the sake of that article, assumes that Israel's intentions is to search for peace. He judges their strategic success (or genius) by assessing how their actions bring them closer to their goals.

And while I agree that a valid gold standard for strategic success is that such success should bring you closer to your goals, it seems to me that their strategy actually bring them closer to their goals. Only, that their goals are different from what Walt assumes.

Over time, Israel seems to me more and more like one of those fish that must keep moving otherwise it dies. Israel must continue to be at war or it ceases to exist as we know it now. The reason for that is that its current founding principles of uniqueness, and destiny to have Jewish majority forever are unsustainable without being at war. Therefore, regional hostilities and a national sense of eminent danger are essential for Israel's survival.

Only eternal 'existential threats', mostly perceived rather than real, will manage to keep its people together.

How else can you convince citizens that they live in a democracy, when the founding principle of their existence is based into a metaphysical promise made by God to some tribes that lived in the Middle East many thousand years ago?

How about a founding principle that dictates the need for eternal Jewish Majority otherwise the country faces demise?

For most of the smart, Western-style Israeli citizens, it should normally be evident that a democracy that somehow requires Jewish majority forever is a non-sustainable situation.

What if the Jewish majority is no longer possible due to emigration, natural growth rates, etc?

Are they going to kick out non-Jewish 'Israelis'? Or would they just deprive them of the right to vote and officially establish a second class citizenship status for non-Jews?

Would it be an option for Israel to shed some pieces of land that has more Arabs than Jews and transfer Jews to a smaller piece of land in order to restore the Jewish Majority?

None of these options would seem acceptable to the majority of Israelis under normal circumstance. And I stress the word normal in this situation. Hence the need to ensure 'abnormal' circumstance prevail all the time.

And when life is not 'normal', when people are at war continually, and when they are made to feel that they are surrounded by existential threats all the time, the glaring inconsistency between maintaining democracy on one hand, and maintaining Jewish majority on the other will become more of a 'philosophical issue' that is simply put on the back burner, or even in the freezer.

Most of us know that the fear for one's survival seems to trump all other values and fears. That is why demonizing the enemies -- who would 'pillage, rape, and torture you if they win' -- has always been a better propaganda technique than solely glorifying your cause.

You, as a leader, can bring up people to believe that every one is out to get them. Surely they would be emotionally scarred, and their life will be horrible and miserable, but you will succeed in controlling them and getting them to do whatever you want to defend their 'survival', no matter whether their fears are founded or not.

That is where strategic genius lies. Israeli leaders have one strategy that always achieved its goals: stay at war, avoid making peace and make sure you are always surrounded by enemies and existential threats. This strategy have worked so far for one government after another.

The failures that Stephen Walt mentions in his article(e.g., lack of peace, and persistence of hostility around Israel) are not strategic failures. These are part of the strategic goal. And if you look at things from that angle, Israel strategic genius is not a myth, it is a concrete reality.

And this strategy is still working for them but unfortunately, for Israel at least, I do not think it will continue to work for more than few more decades. And without sound and sustainable founding principles, any country, Israel included, will not last as a political entity, although their people could survive as people.

Israel is a de facto state now, and its presence cannot be denied on historic or religious basis any more than one can deny the presence of the USA or Australia as nations. The major difference though, is that USA and Australia will continue as nations no matter who is in power, and no matter which ethnic or religious group constitutes a majority, and Israel would not. Can you imagine where would the USA be today if its founding principle was that white majority has to be maintained for the USA to exist?

The strategic genius of Israel is a reality today, but their strategy will not be viable for a long time to come. And if Israel, as a nation, does not face the reality that their founding principle is flawed and non-sustainable as it is, then they are doomed to face a future where their worst nightmare will become their reality.

Khaled

Strategic Genius of Israel may not be that genius

Israel seems always to win. Does that make Israel a strategic genius?

With practically unlimited military superiority, and with boundless support from the World's only superpower, one imagines that Israel would always be on target when it comes to achieving its strategic goals.

Most pro-Israel politicians in the US keep would actually argue that only Israel knows what is best for Israel (although that same politicians often behave as if Israel also know what is best of the US as well). These politicians that adopt the idea of Israel's strategic genius are adamant that the US should grant unlimited support and never second-guess, dispute or criticize anything Israel does.

To some analysts and foreign policy experts Israel's strategics genius seems to be more of a myth than a worthy reality. One of those experts is Stephen M. Walt who is a professor of International Relations at Harvard University. He is also a regular contributor to Foreign Policy (FP) Magazine and has a very active blog on FP website. He is, above all, best known to the public for his famous - or infamous - book about The Israeli Lobby and US foreign Policy co-authored with John J. Mearsheimer.

In a recent blog titled The Myth of Israel's Strategic Genius, Walt argues that Israel's history was full of strategic blunders that lead to the persistence of all the threats around them, and that had interfered with progression to a more peaceful existence of Israel in the Middle East. He briefly, but very succinctly, discusses his opinion about all the wars that Israel fought, and sheds very interesting light on all of them.

Following, I will include some Excerpts to entice the reader, but make sure you read the full article (link below). It is truly it is a very worth-while, brief and succinct reading. I will be posting why I disagree with some of his conclusions later.

The myth of Israel's strategic genius
By Stephen Walt (1/19/2009)

Many supporters of Israel will not criticize its behavior, even when it is engaged in brutal and misguided operations like the recent onslaught on Gaza. In addition to their understandable reluctance to say anything that might aid Israel's enemies, this tendency is based in part on the belief that Israel's political and military leaders are exceptionally smart and thoughtful strategists....

This image of Israeli strategic genius has been nurtured by Israelis over the years and seems to be an article of faith among neoconservatives and other hardline supporters of Israel in the United States. It also fits nicely with the wrongheaded but still popular image of Israel as the perennial David facing a looming Arab Goliath; ....

He then goes on to list the most famous 'strategic achievements and success of Israel often cited, buts expresses his disagreement with the significance of those achievements.

These tactical achievements are part of a larger picture, however, and that picture is not a pretty one. Israel has also lost several wars in the past -- none of them decisively, of course -- and its ability to use force to achieve larger strategic objectives has declined significantly over time.
.... The assault on Gaza is merely the latest illustration of this worrisome tendency.

He followed with listing of the different wars from 1948, 1956, 1967 etc, and all the way to the first Lebanon War in 1982. He highlights the role Israel's mischief as he discusses the 1993 Oslo Accords, and he puts the blame, or most of it anyway, squarely on Israeli leader's shoulders:

The signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 offered an unprecedented chance to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict once and for all, but Israel's leaders failed to seize the moment. Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, and Benjamin Netanyahu all refused to endorse the idea of a Palestinian state -- even Rabin never spoke publicly about allowing the Palestinians to have a state of their own....

He is also critical of the the so- called generous offer by Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Barak to the Palestinians in 2000 when Bill Clinton was trying to quickly fix the Middle East in Camp David before he left office. He quotes Barak's own foreign minister, Shlomo Ben-Ami saying "if I were a Palestinian, I would have rejected Camp David as well."

And while he is critical of both American and Palestinians leaderships for their own big mistakes, his focus in this article is on Israel's mythical strategic planning capabilities.

His analysis moves forward to Israel's role in the Iraq war, and their desire for an 'Iran war'.

Indeed, prominent Israelis like Ehud Barak, Benjamin Netanyahu, and then-Foreign Minister Shimon Peres helped sell the war in the United States, while Prime Minister Sharon and his chief aides put pressure on Washington to make sure that Bush didn’t lose his nerve and leave Saddam standing. The result? A costly quagmire for the United States and a dramatic improvement in Iran's strategic position. Needless to say, these developments were hardly in Israel's strategic interest.

Stephen Walt does not shy from nearly accusing the Israeli Leadership of malice for the 'unilateral withdrawal" from Gaza in 2005. He concludes that both withdrawal from Gaza as well as the 2006 Lebanon war were significant blunders that will harm Israel in the long term. He sees similar "strategic myopia" in Israel's latest bloody adventure in Gaza that left over 1400 Palestinians dead.

... Israel's international image has taken a drubbing, Hamas is probably more popular, and moderate leaders like Mahmoud Abbas have been badly discredited. A two-state solution -- which is essential if Israel wishes to remain Jewish and democratic and to avoid becoming an apartheid state -- is farther away than ever.

And while he admits that Israeli forces performed better in Gaza than it did in Lebanon ion 2008, he bluntly attributes that to the fact that "Hamas is a less formidable foe than Hezbollah".

And while picking for a weaker opponent may make one look more mighty, in his opinion "... this does not matter: the war against Hamas is still a strategic failure. And to have inflicted such carnage on the Palestinians for no lasting strategic gain is especially reprehensible. "

He concludes from all these examples that "... there is no reason to think that Israel possesses uniquely gifted strategists or a national security establishment that consistently makes smart and far-sighted choices. Indeed, what is perhaps most remarkable about Israel is how often the architects of these disasters -- Barak, Olmert, Sharon, and maybe Netanyahu -- are not banished from leadership roles but instead are given another opportunity to repeat their mistakes.".

His most powerful paragraph comes near the end:

The moral of this story is that there is no reason to think that Israel always has well-conceived strategies for dealing with the problems that it faces. In fact, Israel's strategic judgment seems to have declined steadily since the 1970s...

The reason for that in the opinion of that expert is what the rest of us with any common sense and some knowledge about the Middle East always knew:

... perhaps because unconditional U.S. support has helped insulate Israel from some of the costs of its actions and made it easier for Israel to indulge strategic illusions and ideological pipe-dreams.

He suggests that Israel's friends in the US government should be more honest and open about what they think is wrong in Israel's planning and goals, but he is not optimistic.

... that's unlikely to happen, because Israel's supporters make it almost impossible for Washington to do anything but reflexively back Israel's actions, whether they make sense or not. And they often do not these days.

This is a great article that reviews all Israels adventures and major blunders in a 10 minute reading.

Khaled
Links:

• The myth of Israel's strategic genius - Stephen Walt, Foreign Policy Blogs(January 19, 2009)

Also, check this very good article detailing the failure of Israel in the latest Gaza campaign from the view of an Israeli journalist.

• Gaza war ended in utter failure for Israel - Gideon Levi, Haaretz

Excerpts from Gideon Levi article:

Israel's actions have dealt a serious blow to public support for the state. While this does not always translate itself into an immediate diplomatic situation, the shockwaves will arrive one day. The whole world saw the images. They shocked every human being who saw them, even if they left most Israelis cold.

The conclusion is that Israel is a violent and dangerous country, devoid of all restraints and blatantly ignoring the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, while not giving a hoot about international law. The investigations are on their way.

Proper farewell to failing arrogant and wasteful presidency

Theories on the timing of the last Israeli Gaza massacre and when Israel decided to wrap it up abound. And events like those are not of course haphazard. The timing of a rapidly cooked Israeli-American Pact, on monitoring Gaza weapons supply, signed by the smug Condoleezza Rice with the Israeli counterpart was not a mere coincidence either.

The Bush administration has found its soul mate in successive warmongering Israeli governments and politicians over the last 8 years. The Bush gang became the enablers of all the evil policies that Israel took pleasure in exercising regardless of who was in Israel Prime ministers seat.

That is why I think it is appropriate if Arabs in general, and Palestinians in particular, feel that this cartoon sums up their 'warm' feelings towards George W Bush and his times.

Khaled

Well played Israel. You are a winner - but not forever.

Anything that cuts down the blood shed is fine with me. But the way that ceasefire came about stinks.

This 'ceasefire' is announced unilaterally. Israel had only 'negotiated' and coordinated it with the US, a country not officially or officially part of the 'war'. this joke makes it seem as if this was a war against invisible beings, except of the fact we and the world have witnessed 1300 of them get killed, rivers of their blood shed, hundreds of their little children slaughtered and thousands of their homes, schools and hospitals turned into rubble.

There was not even a slight attempt to put a fake cover by getting the PA to 'sit in' on the discussions. they probably would have had the spine to utter a single peep, but at least appearances would have been kept.

This is the same pathology that has always plagued Israeli and American policy in the Middle East. It is always about what, when and how Israel and the USA like it to be. The others, if their existence is even acknowledged, have to fall in line - or else.

Israel occupies for decades after decades.
Israel denies people even existed in the land they occupied.
Israel leaves a troubled strip of land with no one in control behind.
Israel besieges the poor people in that strip of land with no one to care for them.
Israel violates previous truces at will to kill, kidnap, bombs and detain whomever it wants.
Israel cries foul when home made Qassams fall in its own cities by the some of the people it besieges.
Israel re-occupies, pillages, demolishes at will the poor people it besieged for several years, killing hundreds of times more people than it lost.
Israel gets the full unanimous support of politicians of one country - just ONE country in the world.
Israel's stooges accuse the rest of the world of antisemitism, and Israel genuinely (!!!) thinks it was the victim in all this.

Then the big act finale

Israel 'sacrifices' by declaring unilateral ceasefire after it runs out of targets, and gets a bonus pact with the USA to comfort the poor victimized Israel.

Military domination gives the arrogant and short-sighted politicians and countries the capability of ignoring the truth, and ignoring that the universe has other creatures that may, once in a while, count. The arrogant ones do not of course realize that exercising this capability to dominate by force does not bring a solution to the problem at hand any closer.

History repeatedly shows that what goes around, comes around. And that when one resorts to the sword or heavy sticks to always get it their way, they need to remember that one day they would be the ones under the sword, or at the receiving end of the sticks.

It is that arrogance that blinds them to what they claim to have in their holy books - the Golden Rule they call it - which says: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Yes, it is just a claim.

Because the arrogant ones have nothing holy in their eyes other than their own military might, and their wish to dominate. Domination and power is their idol.

But the Good Book says: Pride WILL come before the fall.

And common sense and experience tell us that the time to make friends, show humility and establish mutual respect is when you are in power, not when you are the underdog.

Israel is not learning from its own history. It will be a shame if they do not wake up before it is too late.

If I were Israel, I should be praying that when the shoe gets on the other foot, the mighty ones then will have more morals than what Israel has now.

Khaled

An interesting article on the Ethics of Reciprocity (the Golden Rule) can be found on Wikipedia here.

They might be our closest allies but, culturally, we are oceans apart.

For some people, the US and the UK may seem like two peas in a bod. Tony Blair throughout his era as a Prime Minister tried his best to make it look like that, even at the price of being called, Bush's lap poodle.

But no matter how you slice it: the UK is in Europe and the British are European people. And that set them oceans apart from Americans, culturally and politically. Look at the BBC and The Guardian on one hand, and look at our 'token liberal' New York Times on the other. Get the picture?

This can be a big topic, but I will keep it brief.

Few days ago, our esteemed 'public servants' in the Congress decided to show off the extreme loyalty to the usual cuddly ally: Israel. These 'loyalists' chose the right time to do it; the time when Israel is exercising it military superpower muscles on defenseless people in the unluckiest part of God's land: Gaza.

Our representatives [our is used here in the loosest possible] voted, in a non-binding resolution 390 to 5 in support of Israel's mischief in Gaza, despite the fact that even public opinion polls do not show the American public with that kind of determination (You can read more about this in Foreign Policy Magazine here). What is even funnier is that Israel's government cannot garner this kind of support in its own parliament!

While, on the other side of the ocean, British Members of Parliaments (representatives of our twin pea in the pod) do the unthinkable: they express anger against Israel. In our Congress, that is a 'career-ender' move.

But in the UK, expression of fury at Israel crosses party lines, and the harshest words come from a Jewish MP, Sir Gerald Kaufman.

Check this from The Scotsman:

• BRITISH MPs yesterday lined up to give their strongest condemnation yet of Israel's actions in Gaza, branding Ehud Olmert's government "mass murderers" and calling for the country to face sanctions.
• The strongest criticism in the one hour session, that followed a statement from the Foreign Secretary, came from Sir Gerald Kaufman, a former Labour minister, who is Jewish. Directing his fury at the Israeli prime minister, foreign minister and defence minister, he said: "Olmert, (Tzipi] Livni and (Ehud] Barak are mass murderers, war criminals and bring shame on the Jewish people whose Star of David they use as a badge in Gaza."
• The strongest criticism in the one hour session, that followed a statement from the Foreign Secretary, came from Sir Gerald Kaufman, a former Labour minister, who is Jewish. Directing his fury at the Israeli prime minister, foreign minister and defence minister, he said: "Olmert, (Tzipi] Livni and (Ehud] Barak are mass murderers, war criminals and bring shame on the Jewish people whose Star of David they use as a badge in Gaza."
• Chris Mullin, a former Foreign Office minister, said "These are war crimes that we are witnessing in Gaza. "Britain should start talking with EU allies about sanctions and "at the very least to stop selling them weapons and, perhaps, the withdrawal of our ambassador".

The Jerusalem Post quotes Gerald Kaufman using even harsher words:

• "The present Israeli government ruthlessly and cynically exploit the continuing guilt from Gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians."
• The MP [Kaufman] also commented on the claim that large numbers of the Palestinian victims were militants, saying that "I suppose the Jews fighting for their lives in the Warsaw ghetto could have been dismissed as militants," he said.

Elected representatives harshly criticizing Israel?!!!!!

I know that sounds unreal, but believe me: on the other side of the ocean, in a place called Europe, things like these do happen.

Khaled

More quotes can be found on The Guardian "Commons debate on Gaza - live".

Links:

• Cross-party fury of MPs at Israel - Scotsman
• Jewish MP compares Israeli troops in Gaza to Nazis - Scotsman
  British MP: Israel exploits guilt over Holocaust to murder Palestinians - The Jerusalem Post

• US Senate supports Israel's Gaza incursion - Reuters
• Americans Closely Divided Over Israel’s Gaza Attacks - Rasmussen Reports
• It's time to redefine "pro-Israel" - Stephen Walt in Foreign Policy Magazine

Why wasn't this news?? - Local media blackout of a St. Louis pro-peace event

What events are 'worthy of reporting' by the media? How big should a protest crowd be before getting some coverage? And does the nature of the protest subject matter at all?

Or is it all at the discretion of the media reporters and their editors?

These questions were on the mind of many people I know, with significant sense of frustration for the last 5 days. And here is the reason why.

Last Saturday, over a thousand pro-peace demonstrators (1100-1200 by my estimate) walked through the streets of University City near the Delmar loop peacefully singing, and shouting pro-Palestinian and pro-peace slogans. At least 2 dozen police cars were there, with many dozens of police officers in helmets, with their riot batons in their hands, not in the scabbards.

The demonstration was organized by several pro-peace groups (Instead of War, Women in Black, Veterans for Peace, to name some). The demonstrators were of all religions and creeds, and of all races and ethnicities. And, believe me, traffic was not fun in that area for nearly two hours in the middle of a Saturday.

In a nutshell, the demonstration was quite noticeable to many many thousands of St. Louisans, to the police, and even to many pro-Israel groups that had token representation nearby with large Israeli flags.

Why, then, was not their ANY reporting of any significance about it in our local printed media, TV or radio stations? that is a question that irks many people I know, and probably all the demonstrators, and probably many other St. Louisans that were on the street that day, and possibly were hoping to know a bit more about what was going on there and why.

I truly do not know why such an event was ignored and probably your guess is as good as mine. But some assumptions tend to surface in such a situation: that it was not worthy on coverage, that readers and viewers are tired of hearing and reading about Gaza and Israel, or that the issue has been covered ad nauseam and one more article or video clip will not add much. Finally, and as the most aggressive/sinister of all assumptions, is the one suggesting that Pro-Israel lobby have the media in a choke hold and would not like to make known that there are a lot of average Americans that may sympathize with Palestinians these days.

While one or more of these factors could be at play, I am certain their contribution to over- or under-exposure of a particular issue would vary depending on the market, readership, and the issue at hand.

The Post Dispatch for example had done reasonable coverage of the latest Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and at least one its journalists have been under attack by pro-Israel readers of portraying local Palestinians, during a previous protest, in a human form. So I cannot accuse it of yielding to 'pro-Israel' lobby for not covering the rally. But I strongly disagree with their editors judgment that the event was not news-worthy.

Channel 4, surmised some friends, gave the rally the cold shoulder because one week before that there was a demonstration in their own front yard by pro-peace activists; so it was pay back time.

But how about Channle 2, 5 and 11. And how about KWMU, KMOX, etc. Who knows.

Yet it is intriguing to me that any event of that size on St. Louis streets would not get mentioned at all. And to have unanimous agreement among all local media to ignore such a large street event is even more intriguing.

Regardless of the political aspect of the event, blocking some section of St. Louis streets in the middle of the day on a Saturday for several hours for an event that required the presence of 2 dozen police cars and was attended by at least a thousand people should have gotten some attention from some media.

Wouldn't you think so?


Khaled

Links:

• Sorry. No links available, since it received NO coverage. But one St. Louis blogger, Umar Lee, who attended the rally, posted about the event on his blog and had some pictures of the event as well here.
• If you know of any worhtwhile coverage please let me know. and if you have some good pictures of the crowd, please let me know and I will be happy to post you pictured here.

Addendum:
Shiela Musaji, a St. Louis Muslim Activist and writer has writtena nice article about the rally, and it is worth reading. Here is the link:
-- Protests for Gaza, St. Louis and Worldwide

With life being so depressing around us, how about some 'funnies' from Egypt?

A friend sent me an email today from Egypt with some painful political cartoons by a talented cartoonist known as Sharif Arafa. His web page is here, but was still under construction at the time this posting is written.

The cartoons are more painful for those who know Egypt well, or know some places like it: you know is on planet Earth, yet is seems on another planet.

I am not sure if the 'humor' will be appreciate by many, but I will give it a shot (and include some translation in English).

_______________________________

"You need to know, Egypt was once a very different place"

_______________________________

On the left: "Education in Egypt", and the poor thinker is memorizing 20 centuries-old poetry about 'tribal supremacy and pride' from the 'official study book'
On the right: "Education abroad". And the thought process does not nead my explanation!

_______________________________

This is a most painful one: Protesting America, while willingly drowning themselves in consuming American culture and products.

_______________________________

Another painful one. The hard core criminal asking the nerdy-looking newcomer: "Here for theft or murder?".
The nerdy guy answer is... well, you can read it in English.

And FYI, Facebook protests in Egypt can land you in jail!

_______________________________

And concluding with this sad one.
The 'remnants-of-a-person' says: " .. no money ... and I cannot find a job .. but that is OK .. it is still a life."

_______________________________

This last one brings up the issue I hate the most about Egyptians: their eternal contentment- the contentment that makes them put up with what other humans would not put up with.

They manage to survive, but at what price.

Khaled

Killing with your silk gloves on - Thugs in suits, and their thugs in battle fatigue

The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, promised an "iron fist" for Hamas and "silk gloves" for the civilian citizens of Gaza.

But when thugs make you a promise that they would behave like humans, it is still stupid to believe them. And when the thugs in politician's suits are sending their thugs in hi-tech battle gear under a a name like Israeli Killers Forces - oops, did I say Killer Forces? Sorry, I meant Israeli Defense Forces - what you will get is the same centuries-old savagery in a 21 century style.

For the killers (oops again! I meant defense forces), it seems neater and cleaners: shooting is from a distance, killing is simply by pushing a button, and demolishing homes is conveniently at you finger tip by manipulating a small joy stick while you are in the comfort of your unmanned air vehicles command center, or from the convenience of air conditioned cockpit of you jet plane.

But, on the victims side, it is still the same old savagery: it is dirty, noisy, bloody with a lot of body parts around: body parts that belong to their parents, their brothers and sisters, their little playmates, or their little own bodies.

On the 'plus side', there is mercy on the high-powered guns and bombs. they kill you before you get to see the blood and body parts flying around. How civilized!

Unfortunately the unlucky one survive to see the horror. but I am sure that, deep inside, they really really appreciate Olmert's silk glove handling.

In their hearts I know they are saying:

"Thank you, Ehud Olmert, of caring. And, please remember to thank your friends in Washington for us.

Without their help, all this would not have been possible. \

You are a true light unto the nations.

And, they are a true gift to humanity."

Khaled

Links:

• Israel vows to pummel Hamas but treat Gaza civilians ‘with silk golves - Kansas city star
• UN says Israel shelled Palestinian evacuees - Guardian, UK
• 'As I ran I saw three of my children. All dead' - Gaurdian, UK
• UN levels war crimes warning at Israel - Reuter
  

Vatican: "Gaza resembles a big concentration camp"

The Vatican justice minister said the unthinkable, but with sky rocketing civilian deaths, schools being bombers, UN compounds demolished, and tens of families wiped of the face for the planet while hiding in their homes, the Vatican could not take it any more.
BBC reported on January 7, 2009 the harshest comments I am aware of coming out of the Vatican against Israel:

The Pope's justice minister, Cardinal Renato Martino, has sharply criticised Israel's actions and likened the Gaza Strip to a "big concentration camp".
....
He accused both sides of only thinking of their own interests while innocent people paid the price.

And after 130 Palestinians, mostly civilians, died in one day even the Vatican could not put on the 'diplomatically correct' face.

"Look at the conditions in Gaza: more and more, it resembles a big concentration camp."

His common sense tells him exactly what anyone with common sense knows:

Cardinal Martino urged both sides to hold peace talks. "If they can't come to an agreement, then someone else should do it [for them]," he said. "The world cannot sit back and watch without doing anything."

But this is when he goes wrong. The only one that can do anything about it is us: the US, but we wont. Why?

Because the tail, unfortunately, still wags the dog.

Khaled

Links:

• Vatican deplores Gaza situation - BBC

• Medical teams find horror amid rubble - Guardian, UK

And a most emotional posting from the prolific Richard Silverstein

• Gaza: Praise the Dead, Curse Their Killers

Does Religion have a Stupefying Effect of People?

Religion is a mean for God to open the eyes of its creatures, and enlighten them to what is right and what is wrong. He thus teaches us how to handle injustice and oppression, in the hope that this may lead to more equitable, human and just society. In a nutshell, religion teaches us to be smarter human beings, by learning the rule on how to build good societies.

Every time I approach the Quran it feels that a new window is open for me. Reading about the Prophet and his teachings lead me to one feeling: how great his message was, not in a metaphysical sense, but in a very concrete intellectual sense.

And as I am reading about the history of the early great teachers of Islam and the great scholars that established the different schools of thought, iit is striking how liberal, progressive, intellectual and human these teachers and intellectuals were.

How come then when you look at the outcome of many ultra-religious people these days one cannot help but wonder: why would the same message that lead to the lightning-speed evolution of an enlightened culture and civilization, seem to be a gigantic stupefying factor for so many so-called religious people?

In my previous post I talked about a 'joke of a scholar' in Saudi Arabia who denounced demonstrations supporting Gaza citizens at a time of their ongoing slaughter that claimed 450 Palestinian lives so far (Out of one and a half million people of Gaza, that is equivalent to 90000 in a population the size of Europe or the US).

Now, it is touching closer to home. A friend and a Muslim activist in St. Louis received a stupid email that is more upsetting, and decided to share with me that shameful piece of nonsense:

My respected Muslim brothers and sisters, may Allaah shower you with His mercy. We advise all of you to avoid any form of street demonstrations taking place anywhere. They are not from the means of rectification of the hardships that befall the Ummah. Rather, as Shaikh Muhammad ibn Umar al-Bazmool stated, demonstrations are not from the means of rectification, not from the Sunnah of the Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wassallam) and nor from the sunnah of the righteous predecessors.

Then that person goes on to claim that:

Demonstrations are not considered as being from the means of da’wah nor jihaad as the scholars have explained. So beware and warn the muslims from participating in this futile act that is not from the Islamic religion.

He then quotes the 'authority' sheik literally (and many other hyper-conservative sheiks in passing):

Answer: There is no benefit in demonstrations – it is just commotion. It is from the types of disorder. How will it cause harm to the enemy if the people go out and demonstrate in one of the streets, raising their voices? Rather, this is from the things that will only make the enemy pleased and happy. Thus he will say: “This has harmed and hurt them.” So the enemy will rejoice.

Does that sound stupid to you as it sounds to me? would you trust such a brain to make decisions that influences your life?

If you think religion has enlighten or educated these people, you are mistaken. They are lacking the common sense and any understanding of modern culture. They may have memorized a lot of text. But carrying the books (on your back or in your memory) is one thing, and using knowledge in those books is another (See what God said as a parable for such people in Chapter 62:5)

Unfortunately, this is what happens in a culture where how much you memorize sets your stature amongst your peers. The culture of copying and memorizing dominates many hyper-religious individuals and institutions, where the goal is to retain and regurgitate bits of information, not to process knowledge.

I would not even call these people Salafi's or conservatives. Linking any of them to intellectual schools of thought is an insult to those schools, even though I disagree with many of the conclusions of those schools of thought. These fake authorities have no thought process to talk about, therefore they are not part of a 'school of thought'.

And let me give you these examples on how our enlightened teachers and early coreligionists handled communicating messages to leaders:

• When the prophet wanted to communicate to heads of states and other societies leaders during his years in Medina he sent them letters with messengers.
• When Muslims disagreed with the prophet on an issue that did not seem like part of Islamic theology, they talked directly to him as it was the case with the military advise he received during the battle of Badr given by a companion who felt the Prophet's plan was not the best. The great Prophet thought about it, and yielded to the man's opinion.
• When a woman heard an opinion from the Prophet that she did not agree with, she told him that, and gave her opinion. He did not agree with her, so she came the following day arguing her case again, and again. The Quran documented this interesting interaction in the chapter named "The Arguing Woman" (Al-Mujadilah, Chapter 58:1 ), not to reprimand her, but to reveal that actually God agreed with her opinion, the opinion she made publicly and repetitively with the Prophet, peace me upon him.
• When a woman did not like what Omar, the second great civil leader, said during a Friday sermon, she did not keep her mouth shut. She stood up immediately, confronted him and proved her point by using a reference from the Quran. Omar, the great leader of an extensive Muslim empire, conceded with his famous statement: The woman is right, Omar is wrong, reversing his opinion on the spot.
• The great scholars of early Islamic centuries never stopped communicating to their heads of state, as well as the provincial and local appointees in charge. That was a time when they could simply go to the king, or province governor, and meet with them. If that was not feasible, they delivered written messages,that the leaders were obliges to receive, read and act upon, sometimes agreeing with the scholars, sometimes rejecting their advice.

That was then.

Today, the common sense and the prevalent culture teaches us that a message written to a leader will not reach them (especially in our 'lucky' Muslim countries). It also teaches us that requesting a meeting with the king, the president, or the head of a foreign state to express an opposing opinion will at best get people to laugh at you. At worst, it may get you midnight visitors to teach you a lesson on how to behave properly as a citizen.

And contrary to the women that publicly argued and opposed the Prophet and his second successor Omar, opposing you modern day Muslim leader face to face, or arguing with them in public using evidence from the Quran will not fare well for your survival or your future welfare.

The modern and prevalent culture teaches us that demonstrations in the street (without violence) are one effective way to deliver our messages to rulers - locally and abroad - and to fellow citizens as well as the whole world. Different times need different communication tools.

Why would that simple fact of life appear so difficult to grasp for those fancy 'scholarly' Sheiks, also commonly known in Arab cultures as 'the government scholars'?

One answer would be that they are integral parts of ruling regimes that do not like protests by citizen. Protests and 'noisy and messy', where people 'raise their voices' (to quote the email sheik literally), and call for change. And why would sheiks want to change anything when their patron leaders, and their highly paid scholars are happy with the way things are for them?

But another answer may be more important, especially with the large number of self-proclaimed scholars who do not have strong association with ruling hierarchy in their countries, yet they come up with equally stupid edicts .

A hall mark of our early true scholars that I mentioned above is that they lived as an integrated part of their societies. Their knowledge was more useful and durable because it was a result of the 'textbook knowledge' interacting with common sense and proper knowledge of the world around them.

Of special note in this respect is the high esteem for Abu Hanifa's jurisprudence on contracts and market transactions which is attributed to his profound knowledge of market operations of his time, being a tradesman himself. Another great scholar like Ibn Hazm showed comprehensive and creative way of approaching religious analysis that is at least attributed to the diverse and eclectic nature of the prevalent culture of Spain in his lifetime.

These examples contrast with the way many 'hyper-pious' individuals and scholars handle life today. They live in shells, isolated from everyday life, with little or no cultural or intellectual interactions with anyone even slightly different from themselves. These so-called scholars know little about modern day life, society, culture, communication skills, politics or modern physical and social sciences. Yet, they feel comfortable telling us what to do with our everyday life.

How arrogant!!

As for the fact the 'email scholar' mentioned that the Prophet and his honorable companions did not demonstrate on the streets: that is not much of an argument. According to widely accepted jurisprudence rules, the original ruling for all things is that they are permitted. So, unless they prove that street demonstrations are religiously forbidden by the Holy Quran or the authenticated Prophetic narrations, those fake scholars better keep their mouths shut.

And, if they need an explicit permission from the The Prophet's teachings or the Quran for everything they do, then please ask them stop using running water, indoor bathrooms, computers, air conditioning, TV and eyeglasses.

And while we are at it, let us all pray they stop using emails, internet, cars, cellular phones and airplanes.

That way they may vanish from our view and from our life while they continue to live in the caves that they are intellectually living in.

An that would be a blessing for the rest of us.

Khaled

How stupid can a senior clergy be?

We are all familiar with the 'absent minded scientist' stereotype. And we all may have an example or two of brilliant scientists that left a legacy of funny stories about them, and rumors of weird obsessions and habits.

Some scientists may even be known for being mean and even evil people. We can live with an odd genius, when we see that their brilliance in their own science makes it all worthwhile.
But how would you put up with a 'scholar' whose weirdness is in his own science and knowledge.

I came across an example of the latter. An ugly example at a time when ugliness is coming in abundance from the poor land of Gaza, may God help its people.

For the Arabic speakers among you, please take a deep breath and calm down. Throwing your shoe at his image on the screen will only ruin your fancy LCD monitor.

For the non-Arabic speakers, here is the translation:

President of the Saudi Judiciary Council [states]: Demonstrations [in support] of Gaza is demagogic denouncement that prevents people from remembering God

London - President of the Supreme Council of the Judiciary in Saudi Arabia, sheik Saleh Al-Luhaidan, described the demonstrations by the Arab public in many Arabic countries to denounce the Israeli aggression in Gasa strip as "corruption on earth", explaining his interpretation by the fact that demonstrations 'stop people from remembering God, even if there was no rioting".

What on earth is this guy inhaling?

What is worse is that the position that guy occupies is not a secular position - it is a religious position as all judiciary activities are controlled by clergy in Saudi Arabia. That is to say this person is a religious authority!!!


And like a 'scientist', he uses evidence. In summary, his evidence was that the earliest recorded political demonstration in Islamic history (in his belief anyway), led to "evil and major trial of the Muslim nation".

He was in reality referring to a riot by angry mob over 1400 years ago, protesting the third Political leader in Islam, Uthman, nearly 20 years after Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, dies.

So, that Sheikh thinks a mob riot 1400 years ago is a valid argument against demonstrations supporting our brothers and sisters being bombarded by tons of high-powered explosives while their hands are tied.

Does the Prophetic saying that "Believers are like one body, when part of it is sick, the rest of the body responds with restlessness and fever" has some hidden exclusion for the people of Gaza?

And I guest this "scholar's" appointment and employment by the Saudi Royal Family - whose rules prohibit political demonstrations, and protests of any kind - is just a coincidence.

But as the saying goes: the worst of religious scholars are those fed of the Sultans money.

Some scholar he is. And with scholars like that, who needs enemies.

Khaled

Links (Sorry, Arabic only):

رئيس مجلس القضاء السعودي: مظاهرات غزة استنكار غوغائي يصد الناس عن ذكر الله