Archives: Articles

By Aaron Maté

12 Mar 2025 – By arming the sectarian insurgency that now rules Syria, the US and its allies bear responsibility for the current slaughter of Alawite civilians and other minority groups.

Since Friday [7 Mar], fighters loyal to Syria’s new Al Qaeda offshoot government have massacred hundreds of people in the coastal provinces of Latakia and Tartus, the heartland of Syria’s Alawite population. Contacts in Syria have shared stories, corroborated by gruesome videos circulating on social media, of outright pogroms: entire families murdered in their homes; residents rounded up and executed in the streets; shops looted and burned to the ground; and thousands hiding in mountains and farmland from the marauding killers, many of them foreign fighters. According to the Washington Post, “witnesses said the gunmen who wrought carnage were indistinguishable from government forces.” This has resulted in massive displacement, with thousands of civilians seeking refuge anywhere they can, including a Russian military base, churches, and neighboring Lebanon.

TO READ FULL STORY Go to Original – aaronmate.net

17 March 2025

Source: transcend.org

By Marc Botenga

11 Mar 2025 –European countries are stepping up military aid and economic investment in Rwanda, said to be an ally in keeping order in the region. The reality: Rwanda’s authoritarian government is massively destabilizing eastern Congo by backing rebel forces.

TO READ FULL ARTICLE Go to Original – jacobin.com

17 March 2025

Source: transcend.org

By Michael Brenner

12 Mar 2025– Stupidity, stupidity everywhere – and not a word to witness.

“Stupid” is a commonplace term casually used in everyday conversation. Much less so in writing – especially when the subject is political personalities. It is heavily weighted with inhibition. Why this hesitation? Why at a time when manifest stupidity in speech and action is rampant?

“Stupid” is both blunt and conclusive. Straight-forward. It does not welcome qualification or discussion. It implies: matter settled, closed. Moreover, it suggests a character flaw as well as low intelligence. That somehow makes us uncomfortable. So we prefer: dense, slow, thick, dim or dim-witted; or pithy euphemisms, e.g. “not the sharpest tool in the kit” or “none too swift” or “slow on the uptake” or “not playing with a full deck” or “in so far over his head that the bubbles don’t reach the surface.” In addition, there are those words that refer directly to intelligence: moron, imbecile, idiot. They, too, are in currency but suffer from the disability of taking in vain a descriptive word that refers to the poor souls who are born with mental deficiencies.

“Stupid” is used as an epithet 95% of the time. Not as a depiction of someone’s Intelligence Quotient (IQ). To do so in the latter sense is to complicate matters. Intelligence, as we now are aware, is a broad concept that covers 5 or 6 or 7 mental attributes whose correlations are quite low. So, almost no one thinks that through before throwing the word around. To the degree that one might consider meanings, it implies lack of logic – the core characteristic of conventional IQ intelligence.

Squirt kerosene on a simmering barbecue – that’s stupid. Sending more troops to Afghanistan in  2017 when you’ve failed miserably to achieve your (undefined) objective over the past 15 years with much larger contingents is stupid, i.e. illogical. Denouncing China as US’ enemy on whom it plans to impose severe economic sanctions while senior officials publicly predict war within 10 years, and then beseeching Beijing for assistance in keeping the dollar the global currency by ending its sale of U.S. securities; and then demanding that China slow its economic growth because 1) it causes balance-of-trade imbalances, and 2) that would reduce its oil imports thereby minimizing Russian revenue from its sales on a softer world market (as did Janet Yellin on two separate visits) – that’s stupid. Silently letting Turkey provide crucial material support to ISIS and al-Qaeda in Syria(**) while decrying terrorist acts by jihadis the in US and Europe is stupid, i.e. illogical. (The Obama administration soon joined in supplying arms indirectly those same groups, then helped secure their control of the Idlib enclave which was their base for the eventual breakout a few months ago; now in power they are massacring Alawites and Christians). Bestowing praise and honors on the Saudi leaders as declared brothers in the “war on terror” when in fact these very persons have done more to propagate the fanatical creed that inspires and justifies acts of terror is stupid, i.e. “illogical.”

These instances of stupid behavior draw our attention to the connections between intelligence and knowledge – between “stupidity” and “ignorance.” Stupid (illogical) behavior is more likely when you don’t know what you’re doing because important information is missing. In the examples cited, though, the information that is the foundation for logical thinking was known to the parties taking those actions. Not just accessible – it is lodged (somewhere) in the brain of the actor. “Dumb”(*) in popular usage is the word that combines “stupid” and “ignorant” – with the connotation that the ignorance is willful. That is a pertinent notion to which we’ll return.

Assuming that the “stupid’ actors are not mentally deficient, why do they act as if they are? That is the persistent question that crops us as we see and read the antics of public officials, commentators, and a host of celebrity personalities. Several explanations, not excuses, come to mind.

One is that there exists an implicit logic that is not acknowledged but salient for the person(s) involved. The Pentagon brass may well have been less concerned about “winning” in Afghanistan, whatever that means, than they were living with the intolerable perception that they “lost.” No general cum security policy-maker wants to be saddled with the label of “loser.” That sensitivity can become institutionally generalized; Generals Mattis and McMaster(**) were in little danger of being blamed personally for failure in Afghanistan. What seems to count is that they did not want the U.S. military to be stigmatized as a failure. They were acutely aware of how much the image of the uniformed military suffered as a result of America losing its first war in Vietnam. It follows that they might hope against hope that the outcome can be fudged enough so as to escape that fate. There is a practical side to this concern, too. Failure, as perceived in the public eye, could tarnish the resplendent image so successfully cultivated during the “war on terror” era. That could translate into less support for bigger budgets, less lucrative consultancies after retirement, and less acclaim. And a weaker voice in policy debates.

If one were to postulate that these are cardinal objectives, then campaigning to send several thousand more troops on a strategically pointless mission is logical – and the plan’s promoters not as stupid as they appear. What of senior policymakers in and around the White House who did not share those particular interests? They, indeed, were stupid.

Another instructive example is Barack Obama’s announcing the conclusion of an historic, arduously negotiated nuclear treaty with Iran (JPOA) in a speech that vilifies the Tehran regime as a tyranny that sponsors terrorism, aims to dominate the Persian Gulf, and endangers Israel. Thereby, he emboldened opponents of the accord to attack it – clearing the way for its abrogation by Trump a few years later. The net result: we now are on the brink of war with Iran because of its nuclear activities. Stupidly illogical? Perhaps not. Obama, on narrow political grounds, was trying to insulate himself from a barrage of criticism from Washington hard-liners and the Zionist lobby. Only two years earlier, he had infuriated them by scotching plans for American military strikes against government forces in response to chemical attacks blamed on the Assad regime (in fact, a false flag operation by MI-6 and their White Hats in collaboration with the jihadi rebels); hence, the perceived need to mollify them. So, it can be seen as logical given his weighting of interests and priorities. Not stupid – just self-centered and unresponsive to the public good, vintage Obama.

A second reality to keep in mind is that governments are plural nouns – or, pronouns with multiple antecedent nouns. The numerous organizations, bureaucracies and individuals involved in decision-making typically lead to a convoluted process wherein it is easy to lose track of purposes, priorities and coordination. Where little discipline is imposed by the chief, the greater the chances that the result will be contradictory, disjointed, sub-optimal and often poorly executed policies. At the present moment, we are witnessing a disjointed Trump administration, that in regard to Ukraine/Russia, 6 individuals are pursuing 7 different lines as indicated by their public remarks – an octopus trying to put on a pair of mismatched socks. All exacerbated by a scatterbrained Chief Executive who contradicts himself – as well his senior deputies – on a nightly basis.

Another kind of impediment to coherent, reality-based policymaking arises when the opposite condition prevails: an elaborate process involving several parties with divergent perspectives and parochial interests concludes with an agreement on a lowest common denominator basis. Arduously reached, that decision becomes frozen, insulated from new information or changes in the environment due to the fear that any revision would unravel the consensus – a form of groupthink.  An extreme example of this phenomenon is provided by the EU where 27 sovereign states must agree before any policy can be enunciated. In Brussels, success is proclaimed when they reach accord as if negotiating among themselves is tantamount to negotiating an accord with other governments. A similar example is presented by the current campaign of the Trump administration to press Ukraine into negotiations with Russia. The tussle between Washington and Kiev is taken to be the crucial step toward resolution of the conflict. In fact, the ideas being bandied about as key ingredients of a settlement already have been absolutely rejected by Moscow – in particular, the much ballyhooed ceasefire that is a Western pipedream. As yet, they have not even been formally conveyed to the Russians. Stupid – or pathological?

Finally, we should recognize that rigorous thinking is far from the norm – at the highest levels of government as well as in everyday life. It takes a combination of education/training, experience, intellectual integrity, a cultivated sense of responsibility, discomfort with deciding on the basis of skimpy or suspect information, and an ingrained preference for knowing why you’re doing something instead of flying by the seat of your pants. True, when practiced and reinforced, rigorous thinking can become habitual – just like other modes of human behavior. There are multiple influences, though, that militate against that habit taking root and being sustained. They include the lure of celebrity, time pressures due to an excess of travel and/or summonses to mind-numbing TV interviews, long-tedious-inconclusive meetings (such as those presided over by Susan Rice which drove Chuck Hagel out of government), endless bureaucratic games-playing, distracted Chief Executives who demand ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers to complex issues. Altogether, the tumult can soften the toughest mind. Weaker minds simply latch onto whatever conventional wisdom and catch phrases are floating around in order to remain relevant and minimally functional in the kaleidoscopic setting of most administrations.

All of these patterns with attendant adverse consequences are more likely to crystallize into stupid acts when the man nominally in charge lacks the intelligence, emotional stability, self-awareness and/or advisors to recognize either the requirements for sound policymaking or for implementation. A lack of capacity to accept responsibility and to be held accountable exacerbates matters.

A business career such as Trump’s is not the desired preparation. Not only is that world fundamentally different from the world of public affairs (and especially foreign policy) Further, Trump partially compensated for his flaws through coercion, cheating, and duplicity. And at the end of the day, he could rig the books. That modus operandi doesn’t fly in the Middle East or in dealing with the likes of Vladimir Putin or Xia Jinping. It could, and does, win elections in a country where ignorance and “obtuseness”, in its many inglorious forms, are commonplace.

“Willful ignorance,” or “studied ignorance,” is an increasingly familiar phenomenon. Not just in Washington but among heads of large organizations of all stripes (e.g. universities). The inclination to avoid acquiring knowledge about a matter either at hand or looming is not necessarily a sign of stupidity. Here, too, there may be hidden considerations at play. American foreign policymakers may have wish to mask the Kabul government’s faltering popular support because doing so means a fundamental rethink of aims- an agonizing reappraisal for which they are unprepared intellectually, politically, and diplomatically. (MB: substitute Ukraine)

Making no effort to uncover the facts only becomes “stupid” where the responsible official then does things, as a consequence, that harm his interests. That has been the case in Syria where Barack Obama refused to come to terms with the uncomfortable truth that the “rebels” were overwhelmingly Salafist jihadis. In this case, an admission of that cardinal truth would pose the stark choice between continuing to back an al-Qaeda-led cause or reversing course in tilting toward the Assad regime. The President lacked the courage to deal with the wide-ranging ramifications of that; so, he deluded himself into pursuing a will-o’wisp that existed only in the imaginings of those who were keen on an American military intervention. By surrounding himself with a rogue Secretary of Defense, a strategically disoriented Secretary of State, a self-absorbed, unpracticed National Security Advisor, and an obstreperous UN Ambassador, Obama fostered an environment that enabled his escapist behavior. So, too, did his ritual deference to the warped liturgy of the foreign policy Establishment that they represented.

For a President to avoid acting “stupidly,” he need not have an exceptional IQ – or score remarkably high on other dimensions of intelligence. Two things are most important: he must be honest with himself; and he must put in place a policy system that is both logical in process and self-aware as to why decisions are taken with what end in mind. To borrow an analogy from the football terminology favored in the corridors of Washington power: you can win a championship with a simply competent quarterback if the other pieces are in place and he follows a disciplined script. (Bart Starr of the old Green Bay Packers). An emotionally handicapped or narcissistic quarterback – however talented – will cripple a team sooner or later. One who suffers from the latter condition(s), along with a lack of athletic talent, is a guarantor of disaster. “Stupidity” will be the least of the derogatory terms applied to the ensuing performance; that word should be reserved for those who chose him.

Moral: we should not hesitate to call things as they are. Feigned politeness in situations marked by systematic deceit, ill-will and harm to the nation serves no good purpose. Concerned about the proverbial “dignity of the office?” Take your shoes off before entering the Oval Office. If “stupidity” displayed by stupid people is what we observe, virtue lies in calling it by its name.

The foregoing discussion pertains directly to government leaders. What of those non-official members of the “foreign affairs community” – the think tank pundits, the media personalities, the op ed columnists? These days, the thinking of most mirrors that of those in government positions. The unstated or unconfirmed premises, the partial or selective information, the logical flaws. The main differences are that they write/speak at far greater length, compose longer sentences, and use polysyllabic words. The level of intellectual rigor, though, is pretty much the same.

NOTES:

(*) ”Dumb” as a pejorative has been out of favor for some time. It sounds stale to the post-modern ear.  Only be adding the suffix “SOB” or “bastard” does it make any impact. That may be changing, though. The comeback of “dumb” could well have something to do with the fact that it rhymes with “Trump.” The German spelling “Drump” has even truer resonance.

(**) The honor should have gone to General Jones (National Security Adviser), Admirals Mullen (Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff) and Blair (Director, CIA). The most forceful advocates were two civilians: Secretary of Defense Bobby Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

(***) Abu Mohammad al-Julani, nom de guerre of Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa, and Abu Bakra al-Baghdadi of ISIS notoriety were confederates in the al-Qaeda subsidiary al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia that had been active in Iraq after the 2003 American invasion and occupation. Soon after the civil war in Syria broke out in 2011, they went their more or less separate ways: al-Baghdadi leading the Islamic State and Julani controlling al-Nusra as it came to be known. Over time, al-Nusra became the dominant force in the opposition coalition.  It used its non-jihadi allies as convenient cover. American aid, along with that of European supporters, was laundered through those other groups. In effect, they served as a postal drop box. Over the eight years when al-Nusra ran the Idlib pocket under Turkish protection, they set up a repressive Islamic autocracy. They also assembled a multiethnic force including ISIS remnants, Uigurs, Uzbeks, Afghans, Chechens that acted as Turkish mercenaries in Libya, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan.  Now, they enjoy a measure of independence as militias in the new-found regime of Jalani’s Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) – its latest organizational incarnation. However, they could not commit the massacres against the Alawites without Jolani’s tacit approval, and HTS security forces, too, were involved.

For the record: among Syria’s 4.5 million Alawites, few supported Assad to the end and active opposition to the HTS takeover was very limited.

________________________________________________

Michael Brenner is professor of international affairs at the University of Pittsburgh; a senior fellow at the Center for Transatlantic Relations, SAIS-Johns Hopkins (Washington, D.C.), contributor to research and consulting projects on Euro-American security and economic issues.

17 March 2025

Source: transcend.org

By The Chris Hedges Report

10 Mar 2025 – Christian extremists in the US bond with Jewish extremists in Israel not over religion but a shared fascism.

TO READ FULL ARTICLE Go to Original – chrishedges.substack.com

17 March 2025

Source: transcend.org

By Ben Norton

12 Mar 2025 – The United States is the biggest arms dealer on Earth, responsible for 43% of the world’s weapons exports from 2020 to 2024. The US transferred seven times more than China, and five times more than Russia.

In fact, Russia’s global arms exports declined by 64% from 2020 to 2024, and China’s fell by 5.4%, whereas those of the US grew by 21%.

TO CONTINUE READING Go to Original – geopoliticaleconomy.com

17 March 2025

Source: transcend.org

Dear MoveOn member,

Donald Trump is expected to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to authorize the summary deportation of immigrants.¹

The 227-year-old wartime law gives the president the unchecked power to arrest and deport immigrants—all without a court hearing or due process.²

The heinous law has been used only three times in U.S. history: the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II.³ The law is best known for its role in Japanese internment—a horrifying time in our nation’s history when the U.S. government forcibly kidnapped and incarcerated 120,000 people of Japanese descent, including U.S. citizens, in concentration camps.⁴

We are barreling toward a dictatorship. But tyranny cannot prevail over people who refuse to succumb to it.

In these dangerous and precarious times, MoveOn members across the country are fighting back.

Will you start a $5 monthly donation to MoveOn to help ratchet up and sustain our work to help bring about the downfall of the Trump regime while building the grassroots movement to build a better future for all of us?

Yes, I’ll chip in $5 a month. If you’ve saved your payment information with ActBlue Express, your donation will go through immediately.

No, I’m sorry, I can’t make a monthly donation.

Chandra, we are already seeing the despicable consequences of Trump’s disgusting and anti-immigrant deportation rampage.

NBC News just broke a story about a 10-year-old girl recovering from brain cancer who was deported to Mexico with her undocumented parents.⁵

The child, who is a U.S. citizen, was detained with her family while they were on their way to Houston for an emergency medical appointment to see the girl’s specialists.⁶

The family had made the trip from their home to Houston at least five times in the past, passing through an immigration checkpoint every time without any issues. On previous occasions, the parents showed immigration officials letters from their doctors and lawyers and were allowed passage.⁷

But when Trump took office, the medical letters were not enough. Immigration officials arrested the girl’s parents and—under Trump’s policy wherein “families can be deported together”—the girl and her parents were deported to Mexico.⁸

According to NBC News, the 10-year-old girl has been unable to receive adequate health care for her brain cancer treatments in Mexico.

This is just one of the many gut-wrenching stories that will come about because of Trump’s deportation rampage.

And it is only going to get significantly worse if and when Trump expands his own powers to indiscriminately deport immigrants by invoking the wartime Alien Enemies Act of 1798.

But do not give in to despair or hopelessness.

What happens to our country will come down to us, to our own courage and resolve. To our ability to engage in peaceful protest. To organize and mobilize others. To work against hate and bigotry. To fight for justice and democracy.

Will you start a $5 monthly donation to support MoveOn’s programs to train, organize, and communicate with millions of us all across the country to stop Trump’s hateful regime and build a burgeoning America that serves all of us?

Yes, I’ll chip in $5 a month. If you’ve saved your payment information with ActBlue Express, your donation will go through immediately.

No, I’m sorry, I can’t make a monthly donation.

Thanks for all you do.

–Mia, Julia, Bekir, Chris, and the rest of the team

Sources:

1. “Trump to invoke wartime Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to carry out deportations to Guantanamo,” CBS News, March 13, 2025
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-alien-enemies-act-1798-deportations-guantanamo/

2. Ibid.

3. “The Alien Enemies Act, Explained,” Brennan Center for Justice, October 9, 2024
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/alien-enemies-act-explained

4. Ibid.

5. “U.S. citizen child recovering from brain cancer removed to Mexico with undocumented parents,” NBC News, March 13, 2025
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/us-citizen-child-recovering-brain-cancer-deported-mexico-undocumented-rcna196049

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid.

Want to support our work? The MoveOn community will work every moment, day by day and year by year, to resist Trump’s agenda, contain the damage, defeat hate with love, and begin the process of swinging the nation’s pendulum back toward sanity, decency, and the kind of future that we must never give up on. And to do it we need your ongoing support, now more than ever. Will you stand with us?

17 March 2025

By Saurav Sarkar

As chants of ‘No ICE, No KKK, No Fascist USA!’ echoed through downtown Manhattan on 10 March 2025, I spoke to a person named Richard who had been marching just ahead of me. He declined to give his last name but was eager to speak his piece.

‘We need to be out in the streets and say “This will not fly. This will not happen on our watch”’, he said.

The state kidnapping and imminent deportation of recently graduated Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil had brought both Richard and me out into those streets.

Khalil was detained by the U.S. government on Saturday, 8 March, at his university-owned residence after returning from an Iftar dinner with his wife, who is a US citizen and eight months pregnant. According to information from the US Immigration & Customs Enforcement agency (ICE), Khalil was being held in a detention centre in Jena, Louisiana, as of 11 March 2025.

The Palestinian student, born in 1995, was a visible participant throughout 2024 in the Columbia students’ protests against the ongoing genocide in Gaza. As a result, he has now been accused of ‘pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity’ by the president of the United States on the social media platform the latter owns.

A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s indecency until at least 12 March 2025 but Khalil’s future in the United States beyond that is uncertain.

‘We need to remember what Mahmoud was harassed by Zionists and then arrested by [the Department of Homeland Security] for. It was for protesting Israel’s genocide of his own people, of the Palestinian people,’ Miriam Osman, an organiser with Palestinian Youth Movement, told Al Jazeera. The Department of Homeland Security is the cabinet-level body in the US that houses ICE.

Khalil’s arrest comes amidst an alarming rise in anti-Muslim hate crimes in the United States that many link to the US president’s words and actions and land sales in the West Bank by Zionist organizations targeting US citizens.

The Trump administration is attempting to deport Khalil, who graduated from Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs in December 2024. This is despite the fact that Khalil holds permanent residence in the United States.

According to anonymous government sources cited by the New York Times, he is accused of “presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences,” an obscure provision in the primary US immigration law that practitioners have not seen used to justify a deportation in living memory.

An hour previous to the march, framed by the austere government buildings that surround downtown New York City’s Federal Plaza, about 1,000 people had gathered for a demonstration.

The numbers in Federal Plaza were not themselves massive by the standards of the past two years of Palestine protests in New York City. But those assembled represented a much larger group of people; over 2 million have signed a petition as of 11 March 2025 to ‘demand the immediate release of Palestinian student activist Mahmoud Khalil from [immigration] detention and a reversal to Columbia University’s protocol permitting [immigration enforcement agents] on campus without a warrant.’

Moreover, the protest brought out a wider swathe of community and movement organisations than many pro-Palestine protests in the New York City area, ranging from anti-Zionist organisations like Palestinian Youth Movement and Jewish Voice for Peace to political groups like ANSWER Coalition and Democratic Socialists of America to local immigrant rights bodies. These groups have been active in the protests that began since October 2023 against the genocide in Gaza. Mahmoud Khalil was part of those protests.

‘The Trump regime… is endangering Jewish people and using the guise of fighting antisemitism to dismantle our Constitutionally protected rights to free speech and dissent’, said Jewish Voice for Peace in a statement on its website.

Numerous speakers at the rally emphasised the need to organise against Zionism and against Trump in daily life. One protester was already living that; she declined to be formally interviewed but said that she had been on her way home from a doctor’s appointment when she learned of the demonstration and felt compelled to attend.

Saurav Sarkar is an editor at Globetrotter and a freelance movement writer and editor living in Long Island, New York. Follow them on Bluesky @sauravthewriter.bsky.social and at sauravsarkar.com.

12 March 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By V.A. Mohamad Ashrof

The concept of the “chosen people” has long been a cornerstone of Jewish identity and theology, sparking intense debate and discussion throughout history. Originating in the sacred texts of the Torah and the Old Testament, this notion has been subject to various interpretations, often oscillating between assertions of exclusivity and divine favour. This paper seeks to explore the scriptural roots and theological implications of this idea, clarifying the Jewish people’s relationship with the divine.

The idea that the Jews are God’s “chosen people” is a central theme in Jewish theology and scripture, but it has often been misunderstood and misinterpreted. This notion, deeply rooted in the Torah and the Old Testament, describes the Jewish people’s unique relationship with God. However, this relationship does not imply inherent superiority or exclusivity; rather, it carries significant responsibilities and conditions.

Biblical Foundations of the “Chosen People” Concept

The Torah and the Old Testament prophets emphasize that the Jewish people were chosen by God not because of any inherent greatness or moral superiority, but as part of a divine plan. Key passages highlight this special status:

•        “You are a holy people to the Lord your God; He has chosen you to be His own people above all other peoples on the face of the earth.” (Deuteronomy 14:2)

•        “You shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” (Exodus 19:6)

These verses underscore that the Jewish people were set apart for a specific purpose: to serve as a “kingdom of priests” and a “holy nation,” tasked with upholding God’s laws and being a light to other nations. However, this status was not unconditional. The prophet Amos makes this clear:

•        “You only have I chosen of all the peoples of the earth; therefore, I will punish you for all your sins.” (Amos 3:2)

This passage highlights the conditional nature of the covenant between God and the Jewish people. The relationship was not a one-sided promise of favour but a mutual agreement requiring obedience and faithfulness. The Quran also acknowledges that a firm pledge was taken from the Children of Israel. (1)

The Development of the “Chosen People” Concept in Jewish Thought

Over time, the concept of the “chosen people” evolved within Jewish tradition. In the Talmud, for example, there is an interpretation that suggests the Torah was offered to all nations, but only Israel accepted it:

•        “God promised to give this law (Torah) to all nations, but all except Israel rejected it.” (Talmud, Avodah Zarah 2b) (2)

This interpretation has sometimes been used to support a communal-ethnic ideology among Jews. However, Jewish scholars have also offered more inclusive readings of the concept. For instance, Rabbi Ar. Meir argued that anyone who studies and applies the Torah in their life can attain a high spiritual status, even equating them to the rank of a high priest. This suggests that the Torah’s teachings are not inherently exclusive but are open to all who seek to live by them. (3)

The Quranic Perspective on the “Chosen People”

The Quran also addresses the concept of the Jews as a chosen people, acknowledging their special status in the past while critiquing their failure to uphold their covenant with God. Several verses highlight the blessings bestowed upon the Children of Israel:

•        “Remember when Moses said to his people: O my people, remember the blessings that God bestowed on you, and that He raised up among you prophets and made you kings. And He gave you that which He has not given to anyone else in the world.” (Quran 5:20)

•        “O Children of Israel, remember My favour upon you and how I preferred you above all the worlds.” (Quran 2:47)

These verses do not imply eternal or exclusive favouritism. Rather, they reflect a historical moment when the Jewish people were entrusted with divine wisdom and leadership. The Quran criticizes the Jews for failing to uphold their covenant, as seen in:

•        “And [recall] when We took your covenant, [saying], ‘Do not shed your [i.e., each other’s] blood or evict one another from your homes.’ Then you acknowledged [this] while you were witnessing. Then, you were those who killed one another and evicted a party of your people from their homes…” (Quran 2:84-85) (4)

This criticism is echoed by some anti-Zionist Jewish groups, who argue that the establishment of the modern state of Israel is not in alignment with their understanding of divine will. They believe that true restoration will only occur with the coming of the Saviour. (5)

A Balanced Understanding of the “Chosen People”

The concept of the Jews as the “chosen people” is multifaceted and cannot be reduced to a simple claim of superiority or exclusivity. Key points to consider include:

1.       Conditional Covenant: The special status of the Jewish people was contingent upon their adherence to God’s laws and their role as a moral and spiritual guide to other nations.

2.       Universal Implications: While the covenant was made with the Jewish people, its teachings and principles have universal relevance. The Torah, as interpreted by some Jewish scholars, is not closed off to others but offers wisdom for all humanity.

3.       Historical Context: The Quran acknowledges the historical role of the Jews as recipients of divine favour but critiques their failure to uphold their responsibilities. This perspective aligns with the biblical emphasis on accountability.

The idea of the Jews as the “chosen people” is a profound theological concept that carries both privileges and responsibilities. It is not a blanket endorsement of superiority but a call to fulfil a specific role in the divine plan. Both the Bible and the Quran emphasize that this status is conditional and requires faithfulness to God’s commandments. By understanding this concept in its full context, we can move beyond misinterpretations and appreciate its deeper spiritual and ethical significance.

Jewish Criticism in the Quran

The Quran offers a comprehensive critique of certain behaviours and attitudes among the Jewish people, particularly those who opposed divine guidance. It accuses them of several moral and theological failings, including:

1.       Killing the Prophets: The Quran condemns the killing of prophets sent to guide them. (6)

2.       Distorting Scripture: It criticizes the practice of altering religious texts for personal gain. (7)

3.       Rejecting Jesus: The Quran notes that some Jews dismissed Jesus, who performed miracles, as a mere magician. (8)

4.       Attempting to Crucify Jesus: It accuses them of attempting to crucify Jesus, though the Quran clarifies that they did not succeed. (9)

5.       Manipulating Divine Words: The Quran highlights their tendency to twist the words of God for selfish purposes. (10)

Despite these criticisms, the Quran also acknowledges the revered status of key Jewish figures such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Israel), whom it recognizes as prophets. (11) It further notes that the Israelites were uniquely blessed with numerous prophets, setting them apart from other nations. (12) However, the Quran rejects any notion of racial or ethnic superiority, emphasizing that no group is inherently greater than another. (13)

Historical Context: Jews in Muslim Lands

The anti-racist stance of Islam historically provided refuge for Jewish communities during periods of widespread persecution, particularly in the Middle Ages. This is evidenced by the enduring Jewish presence in countries like Turkey, Iraq, and Iran, where Muslims offered protection against anti-Semitism. This stands in contrast to the persecution Jews faced in many Christian-majority regions.

The Quran and Islamic scholars have critiqued certain tendencies within Jewish religious practice and interpretation. For instance:

•        Priority of the Talmud: Jewish tradition often prioritizes the Babylonian Talmud over the Torah, which some argue has led to interpretations that incite racial or ethnic exclusivity. (14)

•        Critique of Racial Superiority: The Quran challenges the idea of racial or ethnic supremacy, asserting that true greatness lies in righteousness and obedience to God. (15)

The Quran critiques the inclination among some Jews to overlook or justify wrongdoing within their community, including injustices and exploitative acts. (16) (17) However, it is crucial to recognize that these criticisms are not sweeping condemnations of all Jews throughout history. Rather, the Quran distinguishes righteous individuals among them, holding them up as exemplars of virtue. (18)

Objectives of Quranic Criticism

The Quran’s critique of the Jewish community serves two primary purposes:

1.       A Warning to Humanity: It serves as a living testimony to the consequences of deviating from divine guidance.

2.       Exposing Religious Distortion: It highlights how religious teachings can be manipulated to justify injustice and oppression.

The Quran also emphasizes that salvation remains open to all, including Jews, provided they return to righteousness and reject falsehood. (19)

Misinterpretation of the “Chosen People” Concept

The Quran addresses the misinterpretation of the “chosen people” concept, which some Jews and Christians have used to claim superiority:

•        “The Jews and the Christians say: We are the sons of God, beloved to Him. Say to them: Why then does He punish you for your sins? In reality, you are only human beings like the other people He created.” (Quran 5:18)

This verse underscores that divine favour is conditional upon moral and spiritual conduct, not ethnicity or lineage. The Quran warns that racial prejudice and a sense of superiority lead to oppression and exploitation. (20)

The Quran notes that some Jews rejected Muhammad’s prophethood on racial grounds, arguing that no messenger could come from outside the Israelite community. (21) However, the Quran also highlights that there were righteous individuals among the Jews who upheld justice and truth:

•        “And among the people of Moses were a group who guided to the truth and practiced justice by the truth.” (Quran 7:159).

The Quran’s distinction between the individual’s moral character and their collective community identity is a timeless and universal principle. This principle is reinforced through various verses that emphasize the importance of individual accountability and moral responsibility.

For instance, Quran 5:69 states, “Those who believe, and those who follow the Jewish scriptures, and the Christians, and the Sabians – any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord.” This verse highlights the shared values and moral principles that unite individuals across different faith communities.

Similarly, Quran 2:62 also underscores the idea that moral character and individual actions are the ultimate measures of a person’s worth.

Quran 3:113-115 further reinforces this idea, praising a group of righteous Jews who “are not all alike; among them are those who are upright, reciting the signs of God in the watches of the night, and they prostrate. They believe in God and the Last Day, and enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong, and hasten to good works.” These verses demonstrate the Quran’s appreciation for individuals who embody moral virtues, regardless of their communal affiliation.

Moreover, Quran 3:199 and 5:65-66 emphasize the importance of individual moral responsibility, stating that those who believe and do righteous deeds will be rewarded, regardless of their faith community. These verses underscore the idea that moral character and individual actions are the ultimate measures of a person’s worth.

Through these verses, the Quran reinforces the importance of individual moral character and accountability, while also emphasizing the need for empathy, compassion, and understanding towards others. By recognizing this fundamental principle, we can cultivate a more inclusive and empathetic approach to understanding the diversity of human experience.

The Quran expresses hope that the Jewish people will learn from their history and return to righteousness:

“We scattered them on the earth and scattered them into nations. Some of them were righteous and some were evil. We tried them with good and evil. What if they returned?” (Quran 7:168)

This reflects the Quran’s broader theme of divine mercy and the possibility of redemption for all who repent.

Biblical Parallels

The Torah itself emphasizes that exaltation is conditional upon obedience to God’s commandments:

“If you obey the voice of the Lord your God and carefully keep all his commandments that I am giving you today, the Lord your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth.” (Deuteronomy 28:1)

Conversely, disobedience brings severe consequences:

“He will send curses, trouble, and rebuke on all your undertakings until you perish, because you have forsaken the Lord through your wickedness.” (Deuteronomy 28:20)

These themes are echoed in the teachings of Jesus, who criticized the religious leaders of his time:

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men. You yourselves do not go in, and you do not allow those who are entering to go in.” (Matthew 23:13-14)

Modern Implications: Zionism and Conflict

The Quranic critique of certain Jewish attitudes finds echoes in modern debates about Zionism. Some argue that Zionist ideology, like the attitudes of the ancient Pharisees, perpetuates conflict and injustice in the Middle East. The Quran’s warnings against racial and ethnic superiority remain relevant in addressing contemporary issues of oppression and exploitation.

The Quran’s criticisms of the Jewish community are rooted in a broader theological framework that emphasizes justice, accountability, and the rejection of racial or ethnic superiority. While it critiques certain behaviours and attitudes, it also acknowledges the righteousness of individuals and offers a path to redemption. By understanding these critiques in their proper context, we can appreciate the Quran’s call for universal justice and moral integrity.

A journey through the mind of one of the most influential proponents of Christian Zionism, Reverend Jerry Falwell (1933–2007), reveals the ideological underpinnings and contradictions of this movement. Falwell, a prominent figure in the Christian Zionist movement, exemplifies the theological and ethical tensions inherent in the alignment of certain Christian groups with Zionist ideologies.

Falwell and other Christian Zionists often reject the biblical truth that the Jewish people, like all nations, are subject to divine judgment for their sins. (23) This rejection is striking, given that the Old and New Testaments—texts Falwell himself accepts—clearly affirm that no nation, including Israel, is exempt from accountability before God. (24) Falwell’s refusal to acknowledge this biblical principle underscores a selective interpretation of Scripture that prioritizes political ideology over theological integrity.

Falwell asserts that Jews possess theological, historical, and legal rights to Palestine. (25) However, this assertion becomes problematic when examined in light of the actions of secular Zionists, many of whom are atheistic, violent, and exploitative. These individuals have engaged in acts of terror, formed alliances with colonial powers, and established the state of Israel through cunning and force. Yet, figures like Falwell continue to justify the state of Israel theologically, inadvertently portraying God as complicit in racism, predation, and cruelty.

Falwell himself admits to being troubled by the persecution, double standards, and human rights violations perpetrated by Israel against Christians. (26) Despite this, he remains unapologetic in his unwavering support for the Zionist state, even as it oppresses fellow believers. This contradiction highlights the moral and ethical compromises inherent in Christian Zionism.

The celebration of Israel’s founding as a fulfilment of biblical prophecy is another area of concern. Many overlook the fact that Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern political Zionism, was a secular atheist who considered locations such as Argentina and Uganda as potential Jewish homelands. This historical reality challenges the notion that the establishment of Israel was a divinely ordained event.

At its core, religion must be interpreted through the lens of justice, fairness, and mercy. The Bible consistently emphasizes these values. The Old Testament describes the Messiah as the “Prince of Peace” (28), while the New Testament portrays Jesus as the embodiment of peace and the path to reconciliation. (29) Peacemakers are explicitly called “God’s people” (30), and Jesus Christ underscores that loving God and one’s neighbour are prerequisites for achieving this status. (31)

Justice is upheld as the highest value in the teachings of Jesus. (32) Those who justify the oppression of the Palestinian people and support atrocities against them under the guise of imperialist or Zionist agendas are, in essence, rejecting the divine mandate for justice. The Bible is clear: God despises religious practices that abandon justice. (33) Religion without justice is not only futile but also antithetical to the will of God. (34) True liberation, both spiritual and physical, can only be achieved through the pursuit of justice. (35)

Jesus Christ issued a stern warning against those who distort Scripture to justify violence and injustice: “Many false prophets will appear and deceive many. And because lawlessness will increase, the love of many will grow cold.” (36) The book of Revelation further identifies such individuals as belonging to the “synagogue of Satan.” (37) In this light, Christian Zionists and Jewish Zionists who perpetuate injustice and violence under the guise of biblical fulfilment align themselves not with the teachings of Christ but with the forces of deception and oppression.

Notes and References:

1) Quran 2:83

2) Mek Yitro, Pes. R.K. 103b, 186a, 200a

3) Leviticus 18:5, 2 Samuel 7:19, Isaiah 26:2, Psalms 33:1, 98:20, 125:4

4) Quran 4:153

5) Judaism does not recognize Jesus Christ as the true Messiah; the Quran accepts Jesus as the True Messiah (Q.3:45, 4:171).

6) Quran 2:61, 3:112, 4:155, 5:70. Jesus Christ himself indicates that the Jews killed the prophets (Matthew 23:37-39)

7) Quran 9:31

8) Quran 5:110

9) Quran 4:153-159

10) Quran 5:13, 5:41, 5:68, 2:75, 2:79, 3:71, 3:78

11) Quran 44:32

12) Quran 5:20

13) Quran 49:13

14) The writings of Jewish priests were later codified under the name Talmud. They attempted to control the people and elevate their own status through their own writings, arguing that they had violated other revelations to him, in addition to the Torah given through Moses.

15) Isaak Landman, The Universal Jewish Encyclopaedia, Universal Jewish Encyclopaedia Co., Inc.: New York, 1948, “Authority,” p.637

16) Quran 5:79

17) Quran 5:63

18) Quran 7:168, 5:66, 4:162, 3:199, 3:75, 3:113-114

19) Quran 2:62, 5:69

20) Quran 4:155, 5:13, 5:18

21) Quran 2:109, 4:54

22) The sharpest such criticisms can be read in Micah 3:1-12 and Hosea 8:1-14. Here the Jews are portrayed as abandoners of justice, peace-breakers, and bloodshed. Such criticisms, even within their own scriptures, should serve as a lesson to Jewish and Christian Zionists.

23) Merrill Simon, Jerry Falwell and the Jews, Jonathan David Publishers, Inc.: New York, 1984, p.13

24) Bible scholars generally believe that there is a prophecy related to this in Psalms 69:21, 69:25, and Matthew 23:38.

25) Merrill Simon, Op. cit, p.62

26) Merrill Simon, Op. cit, p.68

27) Isaiah 2:1-5, Psalm 82:2-4, Luke 6:27-38

28) Isaiah 9:6

29) Luke 1:79, John 14:27

30) Matthew 5:9

31) Matthew 22:36-40

32) Matthew 23:23

33) Amos 5:2124

34) Micah 6:8, Deuteronomy 16:20

35) Isaiah 56:1, Jeremiah 9:24, 22:16

36) Matthew 24:11-12

37) Revelation 3:9

V.A. Mohamad Ashrof is an independent Indian scholar specializing in Islamic humanism.

11 March 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies

When European Union leaders met in Brussels on February 6th to discuss the war in Ukraine, French President Emmanuel Macron called this time “a turning point in history.” Western leaders agree that this is an historic moment when decisive action is needed, but what kind of action depends on their interpretation of the nature of this moment.

Is this the beginning of a new Cold War between the U.S., NATO and Russia or the end of one? Will Russia and the West remain implacable enemies for the foreseeable future, with a new iron curtain between them through what was once the heart of Ukraine? Or can the United States and Russia resolve the disputes and hostility that led to this war in the first place, so as to leave Ukraine with a stable and lasting peace?

Some European leaders see this moment as the beginning of a long struggle with Russia, akin to the beginning of the Cold War in 1946, when Winston Churchill warned that “an iron curtain has descended” across Europe.

On March 2nd, echoing Churchill, European Council President Ursula von der Leyen declared that Europe must turn Ukraine into a “steel porcupine.” President Zelenskyy has said he wants up to 200,000 European troops on the eventual ceasefire line between Russia and Ukraine to “guarantee” any peace agreement, and insists that the United States must provide a “backstop,” meaning a commitment to send U.S. forces to fight in Ukraine if war breaks out again.

Russia has repeatedly said it won’t agree to NATO forces being based in Ukraine under any guise. “We explained today that the appearance of armed forces from the same NATO countries, but under a false flag, under the flag of the European Union or under national flags, does not change anything in this regard,” Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on February 18. “Of course this is unacceptable to us.”

But the U.K. is persisting in a campaign to recruit a “coalition of the willing,” the same term the U.S. and U.K. coined for the list of countries they persuaded to support the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. In that case, only Australia, Denmark and Poland took small parts in the invasion, Costa Rica publicly insisted on being removed from the list, and the term was widely lampooned as the “coalition of the billing” because the U.S. recruited so many countries to join it by promising them lucrative foreign aid deals.

Far from the start of a new Cold War, President Trump and other leaders see this moment as more akin to the end of the original Cold War, when U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev met in Reykjavik in Iceland in 1986 and began to bridge the divisions caused by 40 years of Cold War hostility.

Like Trump and Putin today, Reagan and Gorbachev were unlikely peacemakers. Gorbachev had risen through the ranks of the Soviet Communist Party to become its General Secretary and Soviet Premier in March 1985, in the midst of the Soviet war in Afghanistan, and he didn’t begin to withdraw Soviet forces from Afghanistan until 1988. Reagan oversaw an unprecedented Cold War arms build-up, a U.S.-backed genocide in Guatemala and covert and proxy wars throughout Central America. And yet Gorbachev and Reagan are now widely remembered as peacemakers.

While Democrats deride Trump as a Putin stooge, in his first term in office Trump was actually responsible for escalating the Cold War with Russia. After the Pentagon had milked its absurd, self-fulfilling “War on Terror” for trillions of dollars, it was Trump and his psychopathic Defense Secretary, General “Mad Dog” Mattis, who declared the shift back to strategic competition with Russia and China as the Pentagon’s new gravy train in their 2018 National Defense Strategy. It was also Trump who lifted President Obama’s restrictions on sending offensive weapons to Ukraine.

Trump’s head-spinning about-turn in U.S. policy has left its European allies with whiplash and reversed the roles they each have played for generations. France and Germany have traditionally been the diplomats and peacemakers in the Western alliance, while the U.S. and U.K. have been infected with a chronic case of war fever that has proven resistant to a long string of military defeats and catastrophic impacts on every country that has fallen prey to their warmongering.

In 2003, France’s Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin led the opposition to the invasion of Iraq in the UN Security Council. France, Germany and Russia issued a joint statement to say that they would “not let a proposed resolution pass that would authorize the use of force. Russia and France, as permanent members of the Security Council, will assume all their responsibilities on this point.”

At a press conference in Paris with German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, French President Jacques Chirac said, “Everything must be done to avoid war… As far as we’re concerned, war always means failure.”

As recently as 2022, after Russia invaded Ukraine, it was once again the U.S. and U.K. that rejected and blocked peace negotiations in favor of a long war, while France, Germany and Italy continued to call for new negotiations, even as they gradually fell in line with the U.S. long war policy.

Former German Chancellor Schröder took part in the peace negotiations in Turkey in March and April 2022, and flew to Moscow at Ukraine’s request to meet with Putin. In an interview with Berliner Zeitung in 2023, Schröder confirmed that the peace talks only failed “because everything was decided in Washington.”

With Biden still blocking new negotiations in 2023, one of the interviewers asked Schröder “Do you think you can resume your peace plan?”

Schröder replied, “Yes, and the only ones who can initiate this are France and Germany… Macron and Scholz are the only ones who can talk to Putin. Chirac and I did the same in the Iraq war. Why can’t support for Ukraine be combined with an offer of talks to Russia? The arms deliveries are not a solution for eternity. But no one wants to talk. Everyone sits in trenches. How many more people have to die?”

Since 2022, President Macron and a Thatcherite team of iron ladies – European Council President von der Leyen; former German Foreign Minister Analena Baerbock; and Estonia’s former prime minister Kaja Kallas, now the EU’s foreign policy chief – have promoted a new militarization of Europe, egged on from behind the scenes by European and U.S. arms manufacturers.

Has the passage of time, the passing of the World War II generation and the distortion of history washed away the historical memory of two world wars from a continent that was destroyed by war only 80 years ago? Where is the next generation of French and German diplomats in the tradition of de Villepin and Schröder today? How can sending German tanks to fight in Ukraine, and now in Russia itself, fail to remind Russians of previous German invasions and solidify support for the war? And won’t the call for Europe to confront Russia by moving from a “welfare state to a warfare state” only feed the rise of the European hard right?

So are the new European militarists reading the historical moment correctly? Or are they jumping on the bandwagon of a disastrous Cold War that could, as Biden and Trump have warned, lead to World War III?

When Trump’s foreign policy team met with their Russian counterparts in Saudi Arabia on February 18, ending the war in Ukraine was the second part of the three-part plan they agreed on. The first was to restore full diplomatic relations between the United States and Russia, and the third was to work on a series of other problems in U.S.-Russian relations.

The order of these three stages is interesting, because, as Secretary of State Marco Rubio noted, it means that the negotiations over Ukraine will be the first test of restored relations between the U.S. and Russia.

If the negotiations for peace in Ukraine are successful, they can lead to further negotiations over restoring arms control treaties, nuclear disarmament and cooperation on other global problems that have been impossible to resolve in a world stuck in a zombie-like Cold War that powerful interests would not allow to die.

It was a welcome change to hear Secretary Rubio say that the post-Cold War unipolar world was an anomaly and that now we have to adjust to the reality of a multipolar world. But if Trump and his hawkish advisers are just trying to restore U.S. relations with Russia as part of a “reverse Kissinger” scheme to isolate China, as some analysts have suggested, that would perpetuate America’s debilitating geopolitical crisis instead of solving it.

The United States and our friends in Europe have a new chance to make a clean break from the three-way geopolitical power struggle between the United States, Russia and China that has hamstrung the world since the 1970s, and to find new roles and priorities for our countries in the emerging multipolar world of the 21st Century.

We hope that Trump and European leaders can recognize the crossroads at which they are standing, and the chance history is giving them to choose the path of peace. France and Germany in particular should remember the wisdom of Dominique de Villepin, Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schröder in the face of U.S. and British plans for aggression against Iraq in 2003.

This could be the beginning of the end of the permanent state of war and Cold War that has held the world in its grip for more than a century. Ending it would allow us to finally prioritize the progress and cooperation we so desperately need to solve the other critical problems the whole world is facing in the 21st Century. As General Milley said back in November 2022 when he called for negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, we must “seize the moment.”

Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies are the authors of War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict, published by OR Books, with an updated edition due this summer.

10 March 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr. Mahboob A. Khawaja

“War provides an outlet for every evil element in man’s nature. It enfranchises cupidity and greed gives a charter to petty tyranny, glorifies cruelty and places in position of power the vulgar and base.”  (C.E.M Joad. Guide to Modern Wickedness, 1936)

What if Arab -Muslim Leaders were Intelligent and Honest?

Are they deaf or dead conscience not to see what is happening on the ground across Gaza and other parts of Palestine? Their portrait of deception, vice and treachery to the expectations of masses is exhibited worldwide. Every authoritarian leader, every prince, every king is a despot in his heart and enemy of the human race as history reveals. The Arab Summit (Cairo) should have known and determined the agenda and issues facing helpless people of Gaza for their security and survival. How to undo the Israeli occupation and restore normal life to the people of Gaza was the top most issue to be considered and resolved. Not so, they wanted to fly high to rebuild Gaza even though it is occupied and targeted daily to disrupt the civilian lives trying to imagine some consolence in an unthinkable world of tomorrow. Their absurd proposition to rebuild Gaza under continuous Israeli occupation is nothing more than a joke to common sense. Most modern Arab states are managed by secret police and masses live in fear and hatred of the rulers. Wherever people cannot think freely and reason the unreason, consequently human progress is stalled and anarchy and insanity become the rule of the land.

PM Netanyahu has achieved his ambitions to destroy Gaza for vengeance and to destabilize the Arab world for futuristic domination. and The Arab League and OIC do not represent the Muslim masses except they are olgirach entities to mislead the people. The Hamas- Israel ceasefire deal was shaky, fluid and unpredictable from the very beginning as Israel and America just wanted their hostages freed and keep the occupation of Gaza intact without Israeli IDF withdrawal. Most of the leading Arab leaders were complicit in making the Gza war happen and catastrophic destruction of the infrastructures and killings were happening on their television screen and witnessed by the concerned global community. They were silent spectators as some have heavy financial investments in Israel and American corporate entities producing AI, surveillance technology and other industrial setups. If logic, honesty and sense of moral-political responsibility were implied, a collaborative will and action was deemed necessary to check the Israeli intransigence and warfare against 2.5 million innocent civilian population of Gaza and offer some leadership security and protection to the beleaguered masses. Please see: “Israel Lost the War and America Betrayed Humanity in Gaza.”

https://www.uncommonthought.com/mtblog/archives/2024/05/15/israel-lost-the-war-and-america-betrayed-humanity-in-gaza.php

Ironically, Arab-Muslim leaders talk in public discourse but lack prompt action to offer any tangible help to the victims of War. They lost the path of reality and truth and just pretended to be concerned about the Israel onslaught of the Gaza masses. The deaths and destruction are unparalleled in modern times as if it was another chapter of a Third World War against the Arab and Muslim world. The affluent oil producing Arab leaders breathe oxygen away in seclusion and comforts of palaces guarded by foreign mercenaries and do not live with people to know the reality of on-going pains and horrors of killings imposed on the people of Palestine.

Arab Leaders live in Palaces, not with People

The Arab world lives in a conflicting time zone and its stance does not match the reason and aggressiveness of the Israeli war plans for ‘Greater Israel’ supported by the US and more so by the Trump Presidency. Does reason not know how to protect the Islamic interests? Now, American and Israeli unreason appears a dominant brute force to destroy the Muslim masses and put a finished answer on the Palestinian identity and movement for an independent State of Palestine. The UNO and global systems of peace and security are broken, dysfunctional and would never act to safeguard the interests of the Arab-Muslim world, simply because the Arab-Muslim leadership is composed of dummies, inept and egoistic former agents of European imperialism and have no moral or intellectual capacity to respond to situations of urgency for the people of Islamic world.

Their cowardly unreason and unthinking of Islamic interests, is causing catastrophic outcomes for the besieged people of Gaza and across Palestine. The Arab-Muslim leaders are more like a cult working together to replace the Islamic values and principles of accountability with technology, entertainment and diversion of morality – this could well be witnessed in Saudi Arabia, the UAE or other Arab gulf states enjoining good times and sports while the people in Gaza are bombed and massacred. The Divine warning of the Quran is self-explanatory: “We have revealed for you (O men!) a book in which is a message for you: Will ye not then understand?” (21: 10). And it warns: “Then the Apostle will say: O My Lord! My people took this Qur’an for just foolish nonsense.”(25:30), “Does Man not see; It is God Who created him from sperm. Yet Behold! he (stands forth) as an open Adversary.” (36:77).

The Arab Summit (Cairo) a Fake Trajectory of Escape from Realities

The Arab League Summit (Cairo) last week was publicized to address the focal issue of peace and security of the much ravaged and destroyed strip of Gaza by Israel-American war on the innocent people who had nothing to do with alleged terrorism claimed by Israeli think tanks. Across the globe, concerned people were watching if the Arab leaders would use knowledge, courage, and sense of honesty to help the besieged masses of Gaza – the new killing ground of Israeli experiments to displace the inhabitants for a Greater Israel concurred by the US new President Trump – an enthusiastic supporter of likeminded Netanyahu – who is in desperate search of settling his mental microscope for a different powerful future by ignoring and rejecting the Israel masses call of peace, normalization of relationships and safe return of the hostages.

The crises facing the Muslim Ummah needed urgent critical thinking for a navigational change and expert consultations (‘Shura’ in Quranic term) to foster conflict management, change, security and peace with other nations. But the emerging crises clearly indicate the Western policies and practices goals to incapacitate the Arab intellectual hub into unthinking of the present or future. There seems to be no escape from the current volatile political crises, when Arab leaders act as if they had no knowledge of what massive deaths and destruction meant to contemporary rational thinkers. Temptation and compulsion of evil embedded in psychological factors of sectarian rivalries operate across many Arabian gulf regions to perpetuate in-house fear, death and destruction. Recently, Gaza and West Bank Palestinians witnessed the forcible massive displacement of people from their homes under false pretext of terrorism, and continuing atrocities in other parts of Palestine. Who will deal with restoration of peace, normalcy and conflict management? Do the Arab-Muslim leaders have any moral and intellectual capacity to extend security and sense of protection to the helpless people of Palestine? Rationality is replaced by a perpetuated insanity. Time and history are not on the side of the Arab kings and princess doomed to be replaced by those friendly to the Western powers and new political imagination of the people seeking societal change as was the aim of Arab Spring, 2011. As it stands now, Arab leaders have no other thought and priority except to check the depleted oil prices, and count the dead bodies – soon they could be part of abstract statistics debated and defined by the American and Israeli warriors as to how the Arabs lost their national freedom, human dignity and oil pumping economic happiness. To reverse the naïve blunders for accidental change and to strike a rational outlook for the future, this author (“Arab Leaders: Waiting to Count the Dead Bodies.” Opinion Maker:) and “Arab Leaders Count Dead Bodies but Peacemaking is not the Aim.” Uncommon Thought Journal, USA):, offered the following insight and reminder to all concerned in the Arab -Muslim world:

Once the Arabs were leaders in knowledge, creativity, science and human manifestation, progress and future-making – the Islamic civilization lasting for eight hundred years in Al-Andalusia- Spain. But when they replaced Islam – the power and core value of their advancements with petro-dollars transitory economic prosperity, they failed to think intelligently and fell in disgrace and lost what was gained over the centuries. They relied on Western mythologies of change and materialistic development which resulted in their self- geared anarchy, corruption, military defeats and disconnected authoritarianism. The Western strategists ran planned scams of economic prosperity to destroy the Arab culture with their own oil and their own money turning them redundant for the 21st century world and beyond. Today, the Arab -Muslim leaders are so irrational and cruel that they reject all voices of reason and honesty from Muslim scholars for political change, public institutions building and human development only to bring more deaths and destruction to their societies. Please also see: https://www.uncommonthought.com/mtblog/archives/2023/10/07/how-did-arab-leaders-betrayed-islam-and defied-the-logic-of-political-change-peace-and-security.php / “How the prosperity bubble destroyed the Arab Moral and Intellectual culture” Uncommon Thought Journal: 6/12/2013/ https://www.uncommonthought.com/mtblog/archives/2023/10/07

Professor John Esposito, (Unholy War and What Everyone Needs to Know about Islam, 2nd ed. 2011), a reputable scholar of Western-Islamic culture and history at the Georgetown University, offers a lesson in a rational context:

“An important lesson of history is that rulers and nations do rise and fall. Unforeseen circumstances can bring up unanticipated change. Few expected the breakup of the Soviet Union and the liberation of Eastern Europe to occur when they did ……now is the time for those in all walks of life (political, economic, military, media and academic) who wish to see a new order not to be silenced but to speak out, organize, vote and be willing when necessary to make sacrifices in promoting a new global order.”

Dr. Mahboob A. Khawaja specializes in international affairs-global security, peace and conflict resolution and has spent several academic years across the Russian-Ukrainian and Central Asian regions knowing the people, diverse cultures of thinking and political governance and a keen interest in Islamic-Western comparative cultures and civilizations, and author of several publications including: One Humanity and the Remaking of Global Peace, Security and Conflict Resolution 2019, and a forthcoming book: Apathy to Peace and Wars on Ukraine and Palestine, Kindle Direct Publishing, USA, 2025.

11 March 2025

Source: countercurrents.org