Netanyahu has openly enlisted the US Congress in his diplomatic war against US President Obama and his efforts to resolve the long-festering Iran question

By James M. Wall

OBAMA CALLING…Photo released by White House shows President Barack Obama speaking directly with his Iranian counterpart Hassan Rouhani by phone on Sept. 27. –Xinhua

This week, two intrepid American Jewish journalists, Richard Silverstein and MJ Rosenberg, reminded somnolent Americans that Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu has declared diplomatic war against the White House.

It is not a new war. What is different this time is that Israel’s leader has openly enlisted the US Congress in his campaign.

It is that simple, Congress and Israel on one side; Barack Obama and John Kerry on the other. On his website, Tikun Olan, Silverstein explains why this is a different level for this diplomatic war.

The Obama administration proposes to soften “some parts of the anti-Iran sanctions regime” in order to reach a workable nuclear agreement with Iran. The Israeli government has a different scenario in mind for Iran. It wants war. President Obama, John Kerry, and the American people do not want another Middle East war.

This is open diplomatic warfare, not the usual back room maneuver of Israeli lobbyists slipping copies of pro-Israel legislation to congressional staff members.
Israel’s Iranian marching orders to the US Congress have been issued: Squeeze the Iranian economy with even harsher sanctions.

This new diplomatic warfare surfaced this week at a meeting of the US Senate Banking committee, where, the New York Times reports:

Secretary of State John Kerry and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. pressed senators on Wednesday to give the Obama administration some breathing room to reach an accord with Iran to freeze its nuclear programs, warning that a new round of sanctions could mean war instead of diplomacy.

Right on cue, one Republican member of the Banking Committee, Illinois Republican Senator Mark Kirk, openly embraced Israel’s side in delicate US negotiations to secure a nuclear agreement with Iran. Silverstein writes:

Sen. Mark Kirk was even more forceful in criticizing the [US] officials’ presentation:…“It was fairly anti-Israeli,” Kirk said to reporters after the briefing. “I was supposed to disbelieve everything the Israelis had just told me, and I think the Israelis probably have a pretty good intelligence service.” He said the Israelis had told him that the “total changes proposed set back the program by 24 days.”
Time to strike up a chord and sing the old labor union song, “Which Side are You On?”

Silverstein has chosen his side. He is troubled by congressional dependence on Israeli sources. He continues:

There are a number of very troubling issues here: first, that Israel’s government has taken upon itself to lobby intensively for policies opposed by the current administration; second, that US senators would readily attend such lobbying sessions with foreign government officials and use the briefing material offered them in order to shape their own views; third, that a US senator would admit that he’d been briefed, even indirectly, by a foreign intelligence service; fourth, that a US senator believes the Mossad’s views about the Iranian nuclear program represent those of a “pretty good intelligence service.”

Buzz Feed reported that Sen. Kirk drew parallels between Nazi Germany and Iran, the British and the US.

“Today is the day I witnessed the future of nuclear war in the Middle East,” Kirk said, also comparing the administration to Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister who signed away the Sudetenland to Hitler’s Germany in 1938. “How do you define an Iranian moderate? An Iranian who is out of bullets and out of money.”

Bad joke, Senator. It even falls below AIPAC’s standard. This is not a time for a US senator to undercut two important  peace-oriented Obama-Kerry initiatives.

A well-known political adage speaks of foreign policy stopping at the nation’s water edge.  The adage has many incarnations, the earliest of which may have originated in 1814 with Daniel Webster’s “Even our party divisions, acrimonious as they are, cease at the water’s edge”.

Senator Kirk would do well to restore any version to his senatorial playbook.

Kirk’s support for the policies of a foreign nation against that of his own president, does not measure well against Secretary Kerry’s recent candid interview with two journalists in Jerusalem where Kerry spoke of the importance of reaching a peace agreement between Israel and Palestine, an agreement forged in the best interests of, and the values of, the American people.

Kerry demonstrated his consistent diplomatic candor in his testimony on Iran before the Banking Committee. What he faced was at least one senator who takes his marching orders from beyond the water’s edge.

Buzz Feed reports:

A Senate aide familiar with the meeting said that “every time anybody would say anything about ‘what would the Israelis say,’ they’d get cut off and Kerry would say, ‘You have to ignore what they’re telling you, stop listening to the Israelis on this.’”

MJ Rosenberg, a Jewish-American columnist who once worked for AIPAC, is the second intrepid American Jewish journalist to issue a warning to the American public. In this week’s column, he writes:
The President of the United States and, according to the polls, 75% of Americans, want the United States to reach a nuclear deal with Iran. That view is as universal as any can be in a democracy like ours. Americans want an Iran deal to avoid U.S involvement another monstrous war in the region. And because they know that only negotiations can prevent a nuclear armed Iran if that is the goal of its leaders.

Only one group opposes a deal. It is the Israel lobby following orders it receives from Israel’s government. Members of Congress who oppose a deal are doing so in order to please the lobby and continue to receive campaign donations from it. Writers, columnists, reporters, bloggers and media personalities who oppose a deal are all (with no exceptions) associated with the lobby. In short, American interests are all arrayed on one side and Netanyahu’s interests are on the other.

A few days before the Senate Banking Committee took up the issue of Iranian sanctions, leaders of the American Jewish Federation received their inspiration from the Man Himself, Benjamin Netanyahu.

Speaking November 10 in Jerusalem to the Jewish Federations of North America General Assembly, Netanyahu (pictured speaking to the Assembly above) stated his case against the U.S. on two issues, Iran and Palestine.

He repeated his demand that Palestinian leaders “recognize Israel as a Jewish state”, a deal breaker in the negotiations. He knows that, which is why he has added the demand to the talks.

He also told his American Jewish audience they must reject their own government’s move toward a nuclear compromise with Iran because the compromise is a “bad deal”.

Netanyahu received “loud cheers from the crowd” as  he combined the two demands with his emotional call for Jewish worldwide unity

“When it comes to Jewish survival and the survival of the Jewish state, I will not be silenced, ever. We are the Jewish state. We are charged with defending ourselves and speaking up. All of us, all of us, have to stand up and speak up.”

It is not hard to see “which side” the Chicago Tribune is on. In his November 14 story on the Bank Committee hearings, Tribune Washington bureau reporter Paul Richter dealt with Netanyahu’s cohabitation with the U.S. Congress in tortured euphemistic terms:

“Netanyahu, like many Congress members, fears the White House may accept too lenient a deal and is urging stronger sanctions in hopes of making Tehran more willing to yield.”

The Israeli Prime Minister, “like many Congress members”? Does the Tribune’s Richter see it as a mere coincidence that the Congress and Netanyahu are reading from the same script?

Surely, he knows that Netanyahu wrote the script, delivered it to the Jewish Federation leaders last Sunday and then dispatched his agents to Washington to deliver the word directly to the U.S. Senate.

The Banking Committee will presumably vote on the Iranian “tougher” sanctions this week.  Which side will it choose?

15-48

By Adil James, TMO

Audience members listen to the Emcee, Dr. Mohannad Hakeem.

About 500 people were present Sunday for a fundraiser for medical organizations doing vital life-saving work in Syria.

The event was held at the unusual but beautiful venue of the Pontiac Marriott.

The two main sponsors of the event were the Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS) and SWASIA Charity Foundation.

Both organizations gave presentations through representatives who were present (respectively Dr. Opada Alzohili and Mr. Adib Chouiki).  Also speaking were Dr. Mohannad Hakeem, who functioned as the Emcee of the event, Sheikh Kraiem Rajeh, and Shaykh Kifah Mustapha who did the fundraising for the evening.

Also speaking was an eyewitness to the devastation in Syria, a Mr. Abdulla Dahhan.

The evening began with recitation of Qur`an, then a thorough presentation about SWASIA’s activities by Mr. Chouiki.

SWASIA is a 501(c)(3) founded in February of 2012.  It started in New Jersey but has now expanded to Connecticut, Massachusetts, and it acts elsewhere as well, notably Syria, where it provides humanitarian help in Aleppo, Homs, and elsewhere.  The principle programs Mr. Chouiki described, all of them successful and remarkable in their scope, were an udhiya program, clothing, orphan sponsorship, family sponsorship, and food distribution.  SWASIA also provides shelter.  The scale of each of these activities is substantial, for example SWASIA has provided 1,200 shelters to families, 482 udhiya animals were distributed, and 16 containers of clothes have been shipped from the US to Syrian people in need of relief.

Also, Dr. Alzohili described SAMS’s incredible efforts in Syria, where they have provided several professionally equipped field hospitals, medicine, doctors–providing trauma care and care to people with chronic diseases in war-torn areas where routine medical care is only a distant memory.

Visit http://swasia.org/ and http://sams-usa.net/ to support this humanitarian cause.

15-48

By Dean Irvine, CNN

Ruler of Dubai Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid al-Maktoum (L) at the Dubai Airshow on November 17.

More than $160 billion in orders by Gulf airlines agreed in first three hours

Boeing and Airbus strike huge deals with region’s big three — Etihad, Emirates Qatar Airways

Emirates signs $76B deal with Boeing for 150 of new wide-bodied 777X airliner

Dubai, UAE (CNN) — The biennial Dubai Airshow began Sunday with the Gulf region’s major carriers announcing some of the biggest aviation deals in history.

There was as much speculation swirling around the size of the orders before the event as there was desert sand outside the nearby Al Maktoum airport.

However few predicted that $192.3 billion worth of deals for commercial jets (at list prices) would be announced on the first day — a new record that has outstripped the orders from the entire 2007 airshow.

The region’s three big players — Etihad, Emirates and Qatar Airways — announced orders for 393 new commercial planes. Boeing and Airbus shared the spoils, with high demand for the 777X, Boeing’s next-generation version of the existing 777.

Cameron promotes UK business in Dubai Dubai’s mega-airport open for business

The Abu Dhabi based airline Etihad was the first to lay down a marker at the event: a $25.2B deal for 56 new wide-bodied Boeing aircraft, including 25 777X planes, 17 of the biggest 777-9X variants and eight of the 777-8X version.

“This order enables us to build upon our achievements, using the next generation of aircraft to support our next generation of development,” said Etihad CEO James Hogan. “This order is for 2018 out to 2025/2030. The traffic is there.”

Later Hogan trumped his Boeing order with an announcement for 87 Airbus jets worth $26.9B at list price, including 50 A350 aircraft, the twin-aisle competitor of the 777X currently in development.
The airline is also set to be the biggest operator of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, with a new order for 30 of the new planes to add its current deal for 41 of the composite, medium to long-distance jets.

But it was Dubai’s Emirates that revealed the largest order with a $76B deal for 150 Boeing 777X planes, plus an additional 50 Airbus A380s, worth $23 billion, to bring its order of the superjumbo up to 101. The airline currently operates 39 of the world’s largest commercial jet.

Low-cost carrier FlyDubai committed to purchasing 111 Boeing 737 jets worth $11.4B.

Doha-based Qatar Airlines added to the impressive figures for Boeing’s 777X with a $19B order for 50 of the aircraft. Lufthansa will be the forth “launch airline” to receive the new model jet when delivery begins from 2020 onwards. It has 34 on order.

The aircraft is the latest iteration of the company’s 777 series and will be manufactured with all new composite material wings. With a wingspan of 71 meters, the 777-9X is greater than the 747-800.

“With around $100B worth of orders, this makes it the largest aviation product launch,” said Boeing Chairman and CEO Jim McNeary. “We look forward to … continuing to support Dubai’s expansion into a global aviation hub.”

Finding room for the new aircraft in Dubai should not be a problem as the Al-Maktoum airport is the city’s second international hub and predicted to be the world’s largest when completed. Dubai’s ruler Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al-Maktoum was at the show and supportive of the new airport and mega deals.

“We cannot operate from one airport with all these planes,” he told CNN’s John Defterios after the Emirate’s announcement.

“The passengers are growing so much and a lot of people are coming and going from here to America, to Europe and Asia. So Emirates has to be strong and so does FlyDubai.”

Hogan predicts passenger numbers for Etihad to grow by 14% annually for the next five years, while Sheikh Ahmed Bin Saeed Al-Maktoum, Emirates’ CEO, believes the numbers will come as more countries open up.

“We don’t want anything below double digital growth in passenger numbers,” he said. “Some countries may be scared (to open up their markets), but they really have to open up.”

15-48

During the early period of Prophet’s (s) mission in Makkah, Muslims fasted on Muharram 10th and then they started fasting for two days in Medina on the 10th and 9th or 11th of the month. Ashura refers to the 10th of Muharram and according to Muslim beliefs in all religious traditions this day was of great significance.The literature about the fasting on the 10th of Muharram is all over the internet and one does not need to repeat that  here. It is a significant part of our faith and the entire Muslim world recognizes that.

But this article would focus on what was said by Imam Ibn Taymiya about one of the greatest events in the early history of Muslims.

وأما من قتل الحسين أو أعان على قتله أو رضي بذلك فعليه لعنة الله والملائكة والناس أجمعين, ابن تيمية في مجموع الفتاوى 4 / 487

“The curse of God, the angels, and the entire community is on those who killed al-Hussein, assisted in killing him, or accepted his killing. 

Ibn Taymiya, Majmou’ al-Fatawa 4 / 487

فإن قتل الحسين وقتل عثمان من قبله كان من أعظم أسباب الفتن في هذه الامة وقتلتهما من شرار الخلق عند الله, ابن تيمية411 /3 الفتاوى

The killing of Hussein and Uthman before him is one of the great reasons for the temptations in the Muslim community and God regard their killers as the worse of people / Majmou’ al-Fatawa, Ibn Taymiya

In our recent memory, the 10th of Muharram is remembered more for one of the greatest tragedies that occurred in the early history of Muslims. It was this day when Imam Hussein (ra), son of Ali (kw), the cousin and son-in-law of Prophet Muhammad (s) offered his life together with members of his family in the fields of Kerbala in Iraq. It was this day when an army claiming to be Muslims confronted the grandson of the Prophet (s) and denied him even water before decimating him and his family. It is a tragic day for Muslims, nay for all the people in the world, and the 10th of Muharram reminds us of that constantly.

Shias observe this day as a day of great mourning reminding them of the sacrifices of Imam Hussein (ra) and his family. Sunnis on the other fast on these days and usually avoid participating in events organized to commemorate the martyrdom of Imam Hussein (ra).

Imam Hussein belongs to the entire ummah and his sacrifices are for the entire ummah and not just for one section of the community. He stood for the principles of Islam and not just for the interests of one section of the community. He stood for those eternal values of Islam that every Prophet (s) preached to his people. He knew that life is sacred and a gift from Allah, yet he realized that there may come times in the life of individuals when the goals of life may become more important than the life itself.

The goals of life he stood for are obvious. He believed that people should not be coerced to give political allegiance to leaders they disagreed with. People have a right to dissent with rulers and leaders with dignity and honor. The resources of a nation belong to all and not to one dynasty, or aristocracy or an elite group. Coercion and violence were weapons of despots in their campaign against truth and justice.

Thus, Imam Hussein (ra) challenged the decision of Ameer Mu’awiya (ra), the ruler of the Muslim world at the time, one of the companions of the Prophet (s), when he nominated his son Yezid as his successor. Imam Hussein (ra) was of the opinion that Islam was against dynastic rule and the one nominated was not qualified to lead the nation of Muslims. He was not alone in this opinion. Many of the companions in Medina and Makkah supported his ideas.

Against all odds, Imam Hussein (ra) challenged the forces of Yezid in Kerbala realizing that those who had promised to be on his side would betray him. He knew he would be crushed and his family would suffer the dire consequences. He knew that he would achieve martyrdom in the battlefield. Yet he decided to offer his life. Primarily to prove the point that goals of life are more important than the life itself. He knew that compromise was not an option in these situations. He also realized that when the choice is so clear between right and wrong, one should offer all one has in defense of one’s ideals. His ijtihad and actions were based on his understanding of the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet (s) and he stood by that.

It is this message Imam Hussein upheld and offered his martyrdom for. This message has been forgotten by one section of the community and highly expanded by the other. Shias mourn on this day. If they mourn the loss of the grandson as a token of love, it should be within the limits that his grandfather set for these occasions. Because the mourning and repentance should belong to those who betrayed Imam Hussein and refused to support him even after inviting him to continue his resistence. It does not behoove to those who see in the example of Imam Hussein a manifesto for the ummah to rid itself from all sorts of depots and tyrants in every aspect of life. By and large, Sunnis have remained silent on his martyrdom in general not realizing that he stood for the principles that Allah introduced to the world through his grandfather. 

Tenth of Muharram, thus, is a day of great significance in Muslim history as it is a day when one of the great leaders of the community, Imam Hussein, knowingly and consciously accepted martyrdom for saving the soul of Islam. It could be a day to bring Shias and Sunnis together. Because it is a day of pride when the divine cause was given the priority over one’s life and family. This day should be viewed as the day of deliverance.

Both Sunnis and Shias can focus on the message of the Imam and work together to rid their world of all sorts of despotism that have negated the essence of the divine guidance.

15-48

With ALLAH’S name, The Merciful Benefactor, Merciful Redeemer

By Imam Abdullah El-Amin

November, 2013–With God’s name, The Merciful Benefactor, Merciful Redeemer

We witness that there is but One God over the entire creation regardless of your faith tradition.  Some call Him Yahweh.  Some call Him Jehovah.  Some call Him Elohim, Adonai, El, and many others.   In Spain they call Him Dios.  In India they say Deva. In Italian, Christos.  .  In the Amazon jungle they might call Him “The Howling Wind or Great Spirit.

The main point we are to remember is that He is One – and our job as human beings is to worship Him and thank Him for the many blessings He constantly bestows on us.

This annual celebration of Thanksgiving gives us an excellent opportunity to exercise our gratitude.  This day was born out of an extremely difficult period in the early years of our country.  After a trying period of famine,  Almighty God blessed the early settlers and Native Americans with a bountiful harvest so significant that the air of gratitude has continued even to this day – and we pray -  forever.

We as American Muslims can look upon this day in a special way.  Exercising gratitude is one of the surest ways to acquire peace and productivity in this life.  And this is for the Muslims who were born in this country and those who chose to emigrate here and choose to stay here.  I can see nothing wrong with praising ALLAH and being grateful to Him for the great many gifts we receive.

Let us try to live with gratitude, not only on this special day of Thanksgiving but throughout the year – and every year God gives us to live.  As we recognize that this life is only a fleeting moment, and so short, let us make the best of it.  Show your love for Almighty God.  Let us be cheerful, positive, and peaceful to our fellow brothers and sisters.  If you are given a good greeting by someone give that greeting back – and go a little further and give them more than they gave you.   

Thanksgiving comes at a time when look with foreboding at the coming dreary weather. Some of us don’t cherish the thought of the oncoming winter.  But let us be grateful for everything Almighty God allows us to experience.  He is the Most Beneficent and the Most Merciful.

Let us show God that we are appreciative of His benevolence by letting negativity pass you by.  Focus on praising God more.  Observe the beautiful creation He has provided us.  Stop and smell the flowers.  Educate yourself about God and His creation.  Laugh and be happy.  Be especially cordial to those you feel have wronged you.  Do not be afraid of challenges.  Know that God is with you.

Almighty God reminds us of His benevolence by allowing us to observe this annual day of Thanks.  We are thankful that He put the spirit of brotherly and sisterly moral consciousness in us that allows human beings of many cultures, ethnic groups, and faith traditions to come together in the spirit of Thanks.

And, as He says in the Quran scripture, “If you are grateful I will give you more.”

As Salaam alaikum,
Al Hajj Imam Abdullah El-Amin

Author of the Forthcoming book, THE SPIRITUAL ADAM: Reflections to tap into our power as human beings

15-48

By Eli Lake

When the war on terror has lost the founder of Blackwater, counterterrorism efforts could be in real trouble. Why Erik Prince thinks the national security state has become too big.

Erik Prince is not the kind of man one expects to make the case for slashing U.S. intelligence and military budgets. After 9-11, his company, Blackwater, expanded exponentially, winning contracts to protect diplomats and politicians in Iraq and to train and work with CIA paramilitary teams hunting terrorists. 

In an interview Monday, Prince said the national security state he once served has grown too large.

“America is way too quick to trade freedom for the illusion of security,” he told The Daily Beast. “Whether it’s allowing the NSA to go way too far in what it intercepts of our personal data, to our government monitoring of everything domestically and spending way more than we should. I don’t know if I want to live in a country where lone wolf and random terror attacks are impossible ‘cause that country would look more like North Korea than America.”

Today Prince is out of the contracting business and is promoting a book telling his side of the Blackwater story. To be sure, he accuses Democrats of abusing state power to wage a political war on him and the media of aiding and abetting that campaign.

Prince’s new book, Civilian Warriors, recounts in detail the battles Prince waged in the last decade over his company. He writes, for example, about a conversation at one point with his accountant, who claimed an IRS auditor told him that he was never under such pressure to get someone as he was in the case of Prince. He takes shots at the left-wing lawyers who brought civil suits related to the incident at Nisour Square, a traffic circle in Baghdad where Blackwater contractors killed 11 Iraqis. Prince says the evidence shows the incident was a firefight and not, as his critics alleged at the time, a massacre of an unarmed crowd. And he complains that the media coverage of Blackwater was biased and often wrong. 

But despite attacking Blackwater’s many critics in the book, Prince also sounds a bit like them when discussing what he considers President Obama’s counterterrorism policies.
“I am all in favor of killing terrorists,” Prince said. “But the fact that [Anwar] al-Awlaki was killed and his 16-year-old son, born in Colorado, was killed with no due process other than that he got on the ‘kill list’ is troubling to me.” The Obama administration has claimed that Awlaki, an American citizen who was killed in a drone strike in 2011, was an operational leader of al Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen.
Prince said he believes al-Awlaki’s son was deliberately targeted in a second strike after the one that killed Awlaki. The Obama administration has said that strike was not targeting Awlaki’s son, but someone else.

“I don’t know if I want to live in a country where lone wolf and random terror attacks are impossible ‘cause that country would look more like North Korea than America.”

Prince also said the over-reliance on drone warfare in the Middle East and South Asia would likely reap “a bitter harvest,” because of the scale of collateral damage from drone strikes. He said it was wiser to send in small teams to such denied areas to find and target terrorists, or outsource this kind of work to local surrogates.

Prince was most animated on the subject of the military and intelligence budgets.

“The left wants to protect social programs, the right wants to protect defense and intelligence spending and all the rest. I say the defense and intelligence world will be better off with a smaller budget. They would be less encumbered by bloat and able to maneuver the way they used to be able and not trip over themselves,” he said.

Prince said the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian national who nearly blew up an airplane full of passengers on Christmas Day in 2009, illustrated this case. “If it wasn’t for a sweaty groin, that airplane would have blown up,” Prince said. “His father warned the CIA station in Abuja, they ignored intercepts, State Department never did a thing with his visa.” Prince said that despite $80 billion a year in spending, U.S. intelligence had nothing to do with thwarting the Nigerian national.

Today, Prince said, he is focusing his business on expanding markets in Africa. He said he will never work for the U.S. government again. When asked if he would run for president, Prince said there was no chance that he would. For now he is not that focused on presidential politics at all. But when that election cycle does roll around, Prince said, “I will support vigorously whoever commits to reduce the size of government the most.”

15-48

An ethnic Uighur man checks a mirror after getting his beard shaved by a barber (R) on a street in Aksu, Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region July 21, 2013.

(Reuters) – China’s far-flung western region of Xinjiang is demanding that lawyers guarantee family members don’t wear burqas or grow long beards, the latest government move critics say unfairly targets the region’s Muslim Uighur ethnic community.

Lawyers in Turpan, an oasis city southeast of the regional capital, Urumqi, have to sign a pledge denouncing extremism and participation in “illegal religious activities”, the Xinjiang judicial affairs department website said on Tuesday.

“Lawyers must commit to guaranteeing that family members and relatives do not wear burqas, veils or participate in illegal religious activities, and that young men do not grow long beards,” the statement said.

While many Uighur women dress in much the same casual fashions as other women in China, others have begun to wear full veils, something more common in Pakistan or Afghanistan than traditionally in Xinjiang.

As an “important force” for protecting social stability, lawyers must take a leading role in combating extremism, the statement said, adding that 57 lawyers and six law students had signed the pledge so far.

The demand comes after a car ploughed through bystanders on the edge of Tiananmen Square in Beijing and burst into flames in late October, killing the three people in the car and two bystanders. China called it a “terrorist attack” carried out by Islamist militants from Xinjiang.

More than 40 people were hurt, and the police have detained five people in connection with the attack.

But Uighur exiles, rights groups and some experts have cast doubt on the official accounts.

Since 2001, China has intensified a sweeping security crackdown in Xinjiang, further repressing Uighur culture, religious tradition and language, rights groups say, despite strong government denials of offering the Uighurs anything but wide-ranging freedoms.

The main Uighur exile group, the World Uyghur Congress, said it feared those who did not sign the pledge risked losing their license to practice law or would face investigation.

“China’s judicial reform forces Uighur lawyers into a choice: safeguard the sanctity of their duty as lawyers and lose their personal freedoms, or violate their professional ethics and support China’s suppression of the Uighur people,” the group’s spokesman, Dilxat Raxit, said in an emailed statement. (Reporting by Michael Martina; Editing by Nick Macfie)

15-48

Coalition Against Genocide

Bipartisan House Resolution praises India’s diversity, decries the role of Modi and sectarian forces in eroding religious freedom  

Resolution gaining momentum on Capitol Hill with 15 initial co-sponsors and more lawmakers expected to join

Press Release

Washington D.C, Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Coalition Against Genocide (CAG – http://coalitionagainstgenocide.org/), a broad alliance dedicated to justice and accountability for the Gujarat pogrom of 2002, today welcomed the introduction of a bipartisan resolution in the US House of Representatives. The resolution praises India’s “rich religious diversity and commitment to tolerance and equality,” while raising concerns over the erosion of religious freedom. The resolution also highlights the role of Mr. Narendra Modi in the orchestrated violence and the continuing denial of justice to the victims of the 2002 pogroms.
In a historic development in Washington DC, 15 US Congressmen, led by Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) introduced resolution H. Res. 417, calls the US administration to have “religious freedom and related human rights to be included in the United States-India Strategic Dialogue” going forward.

Highlighting the “divisive and violent agenda” of the Hindu nationalist movement that “has harmed the social fabric of India” as “contrary to the tolerant and pluralistic traditions of the Hindu faith”, the resolution encourages “the establishment of an impartial body… to discuss and recommend actions to promote religious tolerance and understanding”.

Commending the US administration in placing a visa ban on Modi, the resolution acknowledges that under Mr. Modi’s rule in Gujarat, “minorities have suffered horrific violence, as well as attacks on their religious freedom through draconian anti-conversion laws”. The resolution also refers to the harassment of whistle-blowers and human rights activists, that reflects on Mr. Modi’s consistent role in the obstruction of justice.

The bipartisan resolution initially co-sponsored by 9 Democrats and 6 Republicans, has been referred to the House Foreign Affairs Sub-Committee on Asia and the Pacific. “This resolution’s strong bipartisan support shows that the rights of religious minorities in India are a priority for the U.S. Congress,” said Congressman Keith Ellison in a joint press release with Congressman Joe Pitts after the introduction of the resolution. “India is big enough for all its citizens. Its best leaders have worked to promote unity among its diverse populations, not division,” commented Mr. Ellison referring to the elevation of Mr. Modi as the prime ministerial candidate of the BJP. “India is a land of unrivaled religious diversity, but with such diversity comes great responsibility in ensuring the rights of religious minorities,” added Mr. Pitts.

Echoing the sentiments of the Congressmen, CAG spokesperson Mr. Kannan Srinivasan said: “It is a sad day for all Indians, that a man whose complicity in mass violence and suppression of minorities is acknowledged internationally, happens to be the Prime Ministerial candidate of a major political party in India.” He further added: “The fact that threats to our secular polity and traditionally rich diversity are now an international concern, should cause all Indians to reflect on the direction our country has taken in recent years. Thankfully, this trend is not irreversible.” 

The introduction of the resolution is the latest among several recent developments that highlight the US administration’s consistent and grave concerns about Narendra Modi’s role in broad human rights violations in Gujarat, including extra-judicial killings by the state law enforcement agencies. The resolution also comes close on the heels of a fiasco in Washington, DC that led a group of top Republican leaders to dissociate themselves from an event organized by Mr. Modi’s supporters, due to their criminal misuse of the US House of Representatives Seal and pictures of prominent Republican congresspersons without their consent.

While Representatives Pitts and Ellison are the first two sponsors of the resolution, it is expected to gather more support in the weeks to come. The resolution also highlights violence that took place against Muslim, Christian and Sikh minorities. It calls on the Government of India to take steps to stem the erosion of religious freedom and urges Gujarat and other states to repeal anti-conversion laws.

CAG is a group of over 40 organizations, representing a diverse cross section of the religious and political spectrum of the Indian diaspora, including Hindu and other faith-based organizations.  The coalition is committed to democracy, pluralism and to the preservation of the idea of India.

15-48

Fashion, faith tie into art of head-wrapping at expo in Dearborn

By Niraj Warikoo

Isoke Iyi of Detroit poses for a portrait during the expo. Women — and some men — wrap their hair for a variety of reasons, from protection from the elements to spirituality to fashion. / Timothy Galloway/Special to the Detroit Free Press

For Zarinah El-Amin Naeem, wearing a head-wrap is not just about fashion, it’s about spirituality and connecting with people of diverse cultures around the world.
“You look at queens and kings, and you see they have something on their heads,” Naeem, 34, of Detroit explained Sunday. “There is a magic in wrapping, one that many spiritual and religious practices across the globe have tapped into for centuries.”

On Sunday, more than 500 people packed a center at the University of Michigan-Dearborn for an expo on head-wrapping organized by Naeem. It drew Jewish, Christian, Muslim, African, Japanese, white, South Asian, and Arab women interested in learning about the latest fashions in head-wraps. People from Baltimore, Toronto, Chicago and London, as well as from countries such as Ghana and Somalia, attended the expo, the first year it was held in metro Detroit.

In the West, head-wrapping is often associated with the Muslim community, but it has also been a part of Sikh, African, Hindu and early Christian cultures. Women and men wrap their heads for a range of reasons: from protection against hot and cold climates to spirituality to fashion.

“We’re inspired by all the faiths that head-wrapping has been a part of,” Naeem said. “The expo is about loving people of different cultures.”

Standing more than two feet above Naeem’s head Sunday was a blue-and-gold wrap known as a “gele,” done Nigerian style. An African-American Muslim, Naeem has worn head-wraps for much of her adult life, blending African, African-American urban and Islamic styles to create her own unique identity.

“The act of wrapping is like the building of courage, strength, spirituality and love all at once,” she said. “With each fold, tuck or pull of the cloth, you become beautifully wrapped in a sense of inner strength and a higher purpose.”

For Naeem and others at the expo, head-wraps are a way to express their individuality and beauty. Observant Jewish and Muslim women cover their heads for modesty reasons, but don’t see that as prohibiting them from being stylish.

Angel Mechling, 34, of Dearborn, a white convert to Islam who wears an Islamic headscarf often referred to as hijab, brought her 12-year-old daughter to Sunday’s expo.

“I want her to know that hijab is not a burden, but about freedom, fun and fashion,” Mechling said. Mechling said she wears hijab so “I can be seen as a person rather than for my sexuality.”

Ndidi Okakpu of Chicago grew up Muslim with a father from Nigeria. Her head-wraps are variations of the Nigerian gele that “express my American personality,” she said.

Naeem’s father is Imam Abdullah El-Amin, one of metro Detroit’s longtime Muslim leaders. He attended Sunday’s expo, saying “it was intercultural, interracial, interfaith, inter-everything.”

The views of Muslims at the expo were echoed by the Jewish women who attended.

Rivka Malka Perlman, 37, of Baltimore had a booth at the expo with her company Wrapunzel. Like other Orthodox Jewish women who are married, Perlman covers hear hair. Some in the Jewish community prefer wearing wigs or hats to cover their hair, but Perlman likes head-wraps. In Judaism, the soul is rooted in the brain, and so head-wraps take people “away from sensuality and into beauty and dignity,” she said.

Gail Weinenger, a 26-year-old Orthodox Jewish woman from Southfield, said she likes head-wraps instead of wigs because it signifies: “I’m different because I’m Jewish.”

“I’m more comfortable with scarves,” said Weinenger, wearing a blue and pink scarf. “They’re more fun and pretty.”

Contact Niraj Warikoo: nwarikoo@freepress.com

Detroit Free Press

15-48

Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi Arabia’s Gatsby, Master Spy

By Christopher Dickey

Prince Bandar bin Sultan, once famous in Washington for his cigars, parties and charm, is now Saudi Arabia’s point man, fighting Iran in Syria and denouncing the Obama administration.

Prince Bandar, Photo by Hassan Ammar/AP

When the prince was the ambassador he was the toast of Washington, and plenty of toasts there were. Bandar bin Sultan smoked fine cigars and drank finer Cognac. For almost 30 years as Saudi Arabia’s regal messenger, lobbyist, and envoy, he told amazing stories about politicians and potentates, some of which, surprisingly, were true. Washington journalists loved him. Nobody had better access to more powerful people in higher places, or came with so much money, so quietly and massively distributed, to help out his friends.

Over the years, Bandar arranged to lower global oil prices in the service of Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and both the Bushes. At the behest of the CIA’s Bill Casey, and behind the back of Congress, Bandar arranged for the Saudis to bankroll anti-Communist wars in Nicaragua, Angola and Afghanistan. He was thick with Dick Cheney, and he was so tight with the George H.W. Bush clan—the father, the mother, the sons, the daughters—that they just called him “Bandar Bush.”

Now, the prince is a spy, or, more precisely, the master spy of the Middle East. He is the point man for a vast Saudi program of covert action and conspicuous spending that helped overthrow the elected Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt and is attempting to forge a new “Army of Islam” in Syria. Without understanding the man and his mission, there’s no way, truly, to understand what’s happening in the world’s most troubled region right now.

Bandar’s goal is to undermine Iranian power: strip away Tehran’s allies like Assad and Hezbollah; stop the Shiite mullahs from acquiring nuclear weapons; roll back their regional designs; and push them out of office if there’s any way to do that.

While there may be much to fault in Obama’s policy, it’s not as if Bandar and the Saudis have been innocent bystanders.

At the same time, he aims to crush the Muslim Brotherhood, a Sunni organization that pays lip service to democracy and is fundamentally anti-monarchy.

The Bandar program makes for some interesting alliances. Never mind that there’s no peace treaty between Saudi Arabia and Israel, in these parts, as they say too often, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and Bandar has become the de facto anti-Iran ally of Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin “Bibi” Netanyahu. They are “curiously united,” says historian Robert Lacey, author of Inside the Kingdom: Kings, Clerics, Modernists, Terrorists, and the Struggle for Saudi Arabia. Bandar has always been inclined to defy conventions and bend rules. “Bandar is a man with chutzpah,” says Lacey.

In recent months, echoing Bibi, Bandar has let it be known that one of the biggest obstacles to his goals is U.S. President Barack Obama. And Bandar reportedly told European diplomats last month that Saudi Arabia would make a “major shift” away from its longstanding alliance with the United States.

Some of Bandar’s Saudi associates say he was just blowing off steam. But those who’ve followed his career closely suspect that as part of the shift he’s talking about he may be trying to forge an ever-closer relationship with nuclear-armed Pakistan.

The recently elected prime minister there, Nawaz Sharif, lived under royal protection in Saudi Arabia for much of the last decade. Journalist and scholar David Ottaway, author of the up-close Bandar biography The King’s Messenger, predicted in 2009 that “if Iran did become a nuclear power and threatened the Kingdom, Pakistan could well become its principal defender rather than the United States.” In October, Yezid Sayigh of the Carnegie Middle East Center reported that the Saudis have been trying to coax the Pakistanis into a major training program for Syrian rebels.

Of course a lot of this can be attributed to Saudi frustration with Obama. But Bandar’s bigger problem may be Bandar. He has put the resources and prestige of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on the line again and again in recent years, and with very little to show for it. Syria remains a blood-drenched disaster practically on the Saudi doorstep. Iraq is sliding every deeper into a new sectarian civil war between Shiites (more or less supported by Iran), and Sunnis (more or less supported by Saudi Arabia). Egypt’s continuing civil strife and economic implosion are turning the country into a black hole for billions of Saudi dollars. And while there may be much to fault in Obama’s policy, it’s not as if Bandar and the Saudis have been innocent bystanders.

King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, who is at least 90 years old, has spent his lifetime and countless billions of dollars trying to promote stability in the region. But he’s not getting what he paid for. The Arab Spring stunned the Saudis, the chaos that followed terrified them, and they haven’t found any effective way to restore calm.

Even in little Lebanon, the Saudis and their men have been outmaneuvered time and again by the Iranians and their Hezbollah allies. When Bandar gave up his post as ambassador in Washington 2005, he took on the ill-defined job of national security advisor to the king. And one of his first acts, in 2006, was to offer behind-the-scenes encouragement to the Israelis in their ferocious war on Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. Then Hezbollah fought them to a draw, emerging bloodied but unbowed, and with more credibility than ever.

So weirdly skewed is Bandar’s vision of Lebanon at this point that for a while he promoted Samir Geagea, the semi-mystical former commander of a savage Maronite Christian militia, to be the next president of the country. Other warlords who’ve worked with Bandar complain they can no longer get the Saudi intelligence chief on the phone. He supposedly disappears for days at a time. Saudi King Abdullah, it’s said in Beirut, doesn’t even want the word “Lebanon” spoken in his presence.

“Saudi Arabia is not doing well, and the measure of this is the panic of the Kingdom about the American-Iranian rapprochement,” says a Lebanese source, who is close to many backroom negotiations in the region and who asked not to be identified.

The “major shift” in the American relationship has not come because Bandar, or for that matter, King Abdullah, decided to shake things up. Saudi Arabia just isn’t quite as vital to the United States as it once was. The last 10 years have seen tectonic shifts in world energy supplies. The Kingdom and the once-feared Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) have nothing like the power they wielded 40 years ago. Thanks largely to fracking, the United States is now the world’s biggest producer of hydrocarbons (oil and natural gas), and non-OPEC supplies around the world far outstrip those of the old cartel.

Back in 1973, Saudi King Faisal could declare an oil embargo against the West that shook the United States to its economic foundations and transformed the global economy. Today, the Saudis vent their anger with fits of forgettable diplomatic rage. It’s doubtful most of the world even noticed when they declined to speak at the United Nations General Assembly in September, or announced a few weeks ago that they would turn down one of the rotating seats on the U.N. Security Council.

“Of course the Saudis are unhappy,” says Lacey. “But this nothing like 1973.”

Bandar, truly, must wish for the good old days. During the 22 years he served as ambassador in Washington, and even before that, he operated at the deep core of world events.

Despite his title and his late father’s position as longtime defense minister and potential heir to the throne, when the young Prince Bandar was in Riyadh he was not really part of upper-crust Saudi society. His mother had been a black-skinned servant (by some accounts, a slave) impregnated by his father when she was 16. So Bandar enjoyed none of the prestige or the clout that well-connected mothers bring to their sons in the Kingdom. But he was very bright, a brilliant English speaker, and an accomplished fighter pilot who knew his way around American military men.

Bandar played a key role in the late 1970s persuading the U.S. Congress over strenuous Israeli objections that the United States should sell billions of dollars worth of jet fighters to Saudi Arabia. After that, he became a trusted messenger carrying communications back and forth between President Jimmy Carter and Crown Prince Fahd, Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler at the time.

Fahd recognized only too well the essential contradictions in the relationship between the Land of the Free and the House of Saud. The United States might be the biggest energy consumer in the world, and the Saudis the biggest energy producers, but beyond that fact few interests converged. “The United States is the most dangerous thing to us,” Fahd told the young Bandar, as recounted by Patrick Tyler in his superb history, A World of Trouble: The White House and the Middle East—from the Cold War to the War on Terror. “We have no cultural connection with them … no ethnic connection to them … no religious connection … no language connection … no political connection.”

Close personal relations and major favors would be the key to sustaining close ties, and Bandar was the man who would make it all work. His Washington soirées were legendary, like those of an “Arabian Gatsby,” says Tyler. And behind the scenes, it seemed, there was almost nothing he would not do to cement the Riyadh-Washington axis.

The big payoff came when the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, looming as an enormous threat to Saudi Arabia as well.  Bandar smoothed the way for the United States to pour troops into his country and mount Operation Desert Storm, driving Saddam out of Kuwait and eliminating the menace to the Kingdom.

Just over a decade later, in the summer of 2001, Bandar was the emissary for then Crown Prince Abdullah, telling the recently inaugurated President George W. Bush that it was time for another major initiative: recognition of the Palestinians’ right to a state of their own, and an end to the slaughter in the Holy Land. If not, Bandar told Bush, things were going to get very ugly.

Once again there was talk that Riyadh might use “the oil weapon.” Bush agreed to endorse the eventual establishment of a separate and viable Palestinian state. But just as the White House and State Department were drafting the announcement, 19 terrorists flew planes into the Twin Towers of New York’s World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania— and 15 of them, “the muscle” terrifying passengers on the planes— turned out to be Saudis.

I saw Bandar soon afterward at his mansion in Neuilly-sur-Seine, just outside of Paris (one of his many residences around the world), and he was putting on a brave act. But he clearly did not know what to say. The evidence that Saudi citizens were involved was irrefutable, and the Saudi security services had missed it.

Then the Bush administration started preparing for a new war with Iraq. Bandar warned against it. The Saudis knew the end result of Saddam’s ouster would be to strengthen Iran, and so it did. Once again, they increased oil supplies so the price of gas at the American pump wouldn’t spike too badly: a vital political favor to Bush. But “if  9/11 took the special out of the U.S.-Saudi ‘special relationship,’ the U.S. invasion of Iraq killed it stone dead,” says Lacey.

Even after Bandar left as ambassador to Washington in 2005, he continued to carry messages back and forth from Riyadh. It was increasingly clear, however, that the world and his world had changed. With chronic back pain from a crash landing when he was a pilot, and other health problems as well, the hitherto indefatigable Bandar was fatigued indeed. Although only in his early 60s, he now appears much older.

Last year, according to Saudi sources who’ve worked closely with Bandar, he told King Abdullah that he could solve the Syria situation in a matter of months. The previous intelligence chief, Abdullah’s half brother Prince Muqrin, had not been able to make much headway. But Bandar, as it turns out, has not been much of an improvement.

“His job requires being able to work 18 hours a day and he cannot,” says a Saudi who has collaborated closely with Bandar. He is frustrated and angry and anxious to show off to the world his ability to achieve the seemingly impossible, as he did in the past. But as the same Saudi points out, “being angry is not good in the intelligence business.” And in today’s Middle East, chutzpah just isn’t enough.

15-47