Archives: Articles

Patrick Martin of the Toronto Globe and Mail gets the diction right when he says that Iyad Allawi’s list won a thin plurality. The official results of the March 7 Iraqi parliamentary elections have been announced by the Independent High Electoral Commission. Of 325 seats, 91 went to the National Iraqi List (“Iraqiya”) of former interim prime minister Iyad Allawi. The State of Law grouping of incumbent Nuri al-Maliki came in at 89. The Shiite fundamentalist coalition, the Iraqi National Alliance, which includes the followers of clerics Ammar al-Hakim and Muqtada al-Sadr, garnered 70 seats. The Kurdistan Alliance won only 43 seats.

That leaves 33 seats in the hands of smaller parties, many of them wild cards.

Shortly before the results were announced, two large bomb blasts in Khalis, in Diyala Province northeast of Baghdad, killed 53 persons. Diyala is still the site of violent struggle between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.

Most Sunni Arabs in Iraq have moved on from the violence and fundamentalism of groups such as the ‘Islamic State of Iraq,’ and most voted for the Allawi list as a way of reentering national politics.

Despite some breathless headlines, the outcome of the elections is not very different from previous elections. Allawi put together a coalition of Sunni Arabs and secular Shiites. In the December, 2005, parliamentary elections, those two groups received about 80 seats, only 11 less than Allawi’s just list won. If the two major Shiite religious lists (State of Law and Iraqi National Alliance) had run on the same ticket, they would have nearly a majority, about what they won in December, 2005. The Kurdistan Alliance only has 43 seats, down from 54 in the last parliamentary election, but the overall number of Kurdish Members of Parliament is not so different from that in the last polls.

In spring-summer of 2006, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki put together a government of national unity, with the help of the US ambassador. It included Sadrists and Allawi’s Iraqiya. But it gradually fell apart. This election is an opportunity for al-Maliki to attempt to repeat that feat. Indeed, a national unity government may be the first preference of the Iraqi National Alliance, which has, according to al-Sharq al-Awsat, swung into action to convince the other major lists that such a path is the only right one for Iraq at this juncture.

Although Allawi’s list won the most seats, he is very unlikely to be the next prime minister. Al-Maliki’s State of Law list is anti-Baathist and hasn’t gotten on well with Sunni Arabs, while ex-Baathists and Sunnis are the backbone of Allawi’s constituency. Likewise, the Shiite religious party, made up of Sadrists and members of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), among others, are unlikely to ally with secularist ex-Baathists. Allawi says that he is dialoguing with the parties led by Hakim and Sadr, as well as with the Kurds. But Allawi rejects a role in politics for Shiite clerics, which would make for an uneasy alliance with lists headed by clerics. Without the two big Shiite blocs, Allawi could only become prime minister by attracting the Kurdistan Alliance and all of the smaller parties and independents. Keeping such a disparate coalition together would be difficult in the extreme. Allawi is supported by Sunni Arabs who have sharp differences with the Kurds over the future of the mixed province of Kirkuk, which the Kurds covet. Allawi may therefore have a plurality that is incapable of growing into a majority.

It is also true that al-Maliki is deeply disliked by Muqtada al-Sadr and the Sadrists because he used the Iraqi Army to crush their Mahdi Army militia in Basra and East Baghdad in spring-summer of 2008. His party, however, the ‘State of Law,’ groups Shiite religious parties such as his own Islamic Mission Party (Da’wa), and the natural ally of Da’wa is the Sadrists and ISCI. Still, as Sadrist and ISCI officials admitted on Wednesday, their parties are natural allies with the State of Law. The easiest way to form a new government would be to dump al-Maliki and choose another leader of Da`wa as prime minister. The State of Law and the Iraqi National Alliance can form a coalition of 159 at a time when only 163 is needed for a majority. By picking up just 4 independents, these two could form a strong, stable government. Al-Maliki has gathered a lot of power into his hands, however, and unseating him may prove difficult and time-consuming. In the end, the Iraqi National Alliance may decide that he is their best bet for dominating Iraq in the near to medium term.

Al-Maliki said Friday that he rejects the announced outcome and demands a manual recount of the ballots. He had earlier warned of “violence” if the votes were not recounted. The reason for his adamant stance is that if he could nose ahead of Allawi by even a single vote, he seems to feel that he would have more of a mandate to remain prime minister. The Iraqi constitution stipulates that the president ask the head of the largest single party or coalition to attempt to form the government. As it now stands, al-Maliki will not be asked, while Allawi could be.

One possibility is for his State of Law to form a coalition with the Iraqi National Alliance [Hakim and Sadr] while easing al-Maliki out in favor of some candidate more acceptable to both. Iraqi courts have ruled that post-election coalitions will be counted as legitimate for the purpose of installing a government. The Shiites are thus still in a position to remain dominant, though if they remain divided then Allawi could pick up the pieces. A Shiite electoral alliance accompanied by the elegance of the numbers would detract from the quality of life.

It seems unlikely that anyone can become prime minister without the Sadr Bloc, now the majority component inside the Iraqi National Alliance. Sadr may well demand as a quid pro quo for joining any Iraqi government that the new PM pledge to accelerate the timetable for US troop withdrawal from Iraq, and also promise to end that troop presence altogether.

The difficult road ahead is indicated by the recent denunciation of al-Maliki by both Muqtada al-Sadr and Ammar al-Hakim for his initial warning that “violence” might break out if the ballots are not recounted. Muqtada called the implied threat of violence “political terrorism,” thus ironically turning the tables on al-Maliki, who had hunted down Sadr-linked Mahdi Army commanders on the grounds that they were terrorists.

The big question now in Iraqi politics is whether the new government will look like the sectarian Shiite coalition with the Kurds in 2005, or more like the national unity government forged in summer, 2006. Each proved unstable in its own way, it should be remembered, so neither is a guarantor of a good outcome for these elections. The other question is how many concessions smaller parties can wring from the majority in order to form a government. It seems to me that if the Sadrists demand with sufficient vigor, they should be able to get a faster US troop withdrawal. Their platform since 2003 has been the removal of the American military from Iraq. They may finally be in a position to effect via the ballot box what they could not by their armed paramilitary, the Mahdi Army.

By Juan Cole

29 March, 2010

@ Juancole.com

Chandra Muzaffar is Malaysia’s best-known public intellectual. A professor at the Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, he recently assumed the position of Chairman of the Board of Trustees of 1 Malaysia, a foundation set up by some concerned citizens to promote harmony between Malaysia’s various ethnic and religious communities.

In this interview with Yoginder Sikand, he talks about the ongoing controversy in Malaysia in the wake of a recent court ruling permitting the country’s Christians (and other non-Muslims) to use the term ‘Allah’, which many Malaysian Muslims fiercely oppose.

Q: Why do you think many Malaysian Muslims are so opposed to the use of the term ‘Allah’ by Christians?

A:  I think among many Malaysian Muslims there is a certain degree of apprehension about Christians using the term because they feel that it is somehow exclusive to them. They also fear that some Christian groups deliberately want to use the term in order to mislead Muslims and gradually convert them to Christianity. Supporting these fears is the general Muslim mindset that sees Islam as special, as an exclusive claim to truth. Now, since Allah is the basis of Muslim doctrine, they feel that the term ‘Allah’ must be a Muslim monopoly.

Personally, I do not agree with this thinking, but you have to understand the general Malaysian Muslim response in the wider political context, in the context of how the Malays, who form the vast majority of Malaysia’s Muslims, feel about their position in Malaysia. This is linked to the perception that, historically, Malaysia was a Malay land and that, in the presence of large numbers of non-Malays who now live in Malaysia, and who are still economically strong, Malay identity needs to be protected and promoted. Islam is one of the major pillars of Malay identity, the other two being the Malay language and the Malay Sultans. Islam can be said to be an even more powerful pillar of Malay identity than the other two, the essence of which is the concept of Allah.

I think we need to deal with these fears about identity, and be careful not to dismiss them out of hand. We need to empathetically understand how many Malays feel about having once been a nation, living in a Malay land, and, then, with the advent of colonialism, being turned into an economically subordinate community in their own country. I think non-Muslims must appreciate these fears and concerns of many Malays.

On the other hand, we also need to educate the Malaysian Muslims, to convince them that there is nothing in Islam that forbids non-Muslims from using the term ‘Allah’. Unfortunately, that sort of public education has not been undertaken at all. We need to reach out to people and tell that that the Quran does not prohibit people of other faiths from referring to God as Allah. We need to explain to Malaysian Muslims that, historically, many non-Muslims have used the term ‘Allah’ to refer to the Divine, and that, in fact, the term Allah actually precedes the Quranic revelation. Even prior to the Prophet Muhammad there were a large number of Christian Arabs, and they, too, used the word ‘Allah’ to refer to God. And when Islam began spreading across the Arab world, the Muslims never forbade the Arab Christians from using the word ‘Allah’, although, of course, Muslims and Arabic-speaking Christians understood the word in different ways. Yet, it never became a theological problem. True, there were conflicts between Arab Christians and Muslims over many issues, but the use of the word ‘Allah’ by the former was never a problem or a cause of any conflict. I think Malaysian Muslims need to be educated about this.

Then, again, we need to educate Malaysian Muslims that the Christians of Sabah and Sarawak, in East Malaysia have been using the term Allah to refer to God for over a hundred years. They have all along been using the Indonesian translation of the Bible, which uses the word ‘Allah’ to refer to God. Of course, it is true that this translation, first made by Dutch Christian missionaries in what is now Indonesia, aimed at converting Muslims to Christianity, and so deliberately used the term ‘Allah’ instead of the Malay term Tuhan to refer to God. But, still, we cannot now tell the Christians of Sabah and Sarawak to stop using the word ‘Allah’. Their using that word has never caused any communal problem—in fact, in those parts of Malaysia there are numerous families that have both Christians and Muslim members, and relations between them have all along been fairly harmonious.

We also need to educate the Muslims of our country to understand that even other communities that live in Malaysia, such as Sikhs and some Hindus, also use the word ‘Allah’ to refer to God, in addition to other names. The word ‘Allah’ occurs 46 times in the Guru Granth Sahib, the holy book of the Sikhs.

Q: But non-Arab Christians generally do not use the word ‘Allah’, so why are some Christians in Malaysia making such a hue and cry about the reaction of Malaysian Muslims to the court ruling?

A: It may be that some of these Christian groups are indeed missionary in orientation and that they actually want to spread Christianity among the Muslims. I think we really must ask the question as to why, if the vast majority of Christians worldwide do not use the word ‘Allah’, these groups are insisting that they must have the right to do so in Malaysia.

Frankly, as I see it, the issue is not strictly religious. In fact, the controversy has become an ethnic one, and so you have many Hindus and Buddhists—people who generally do not use the word ‘Allah’ to refer to the Divine—taking a position against the Muslims.

Q: What is your own personal position with regard to the controversy?

A: I think religious bigots and exclusivists who insist that only Muslims can use the word ‘Allah’ themselves pose a grave danger to Islam. They have absolutely no justification for their claim from the Quran. In fact, the Quran very explicitly mentions, without any disapproval whatsoever, non-Muslims also referring to God as Allah. Thus, in the Surah Hajj (22:40) God says:

Those who were unjustly expelled from their homes just because they said, “Allah is Our Lord”; and had Allah not repelled some men by means of other men, the abbeys, churches, synagogues and mosques – in which the name of Allah is profusely mentioned – would definitely be demolished; and indeed Allah will assist the one who helps His religion; indeed surely Allah is Almighty, Dominant.

God certainly does not prohibit people from calling Him by any decent term, including ‘Allah’, so, as far as I am concerned, I think everyone—Muslim or other—has the right to call God by that name. But what I object to is the misuse of the term in the public domain, because then it becomes a problem. You cannot stop anyone from referring to God as Allah, but his or her misuse of the term in the public domain can be made punishable.

Q: And how would define ‘misuse’ in this context?

A: Although the term ‘Allah’ predates the Quran, it is a fact that the concept of Allah that we are familiar with has been shaped through the last fourteen hundred years by the Quran and the Islamic tradition. So, if the term ‘Allah’ is sought to be given an interpretation that goes against this concept, and if that interpretation is sought to be articulated publicly—as opposed to privately—then surely that could be controlled.

To come back to my own position, I have been pushing for the setting up of a National Consultative Council for Religious Harmony, as an official body or mechanism to promote dialogue between the different religious communities in Malaysia. Such a council can deal with issues like this ongoing controversy. While some inter-faith dialogue initiatives do exist in civil society, there is nothing of the sort at the government level, although it is extremely crucial. Lamentably, the muftis of the different states in Malaysia have consistently opposed the setting up such a council, on the specious grounds that it would mean Islam being treated at par with the other religions although Islam is the religion of the Malaysian Constitution. Their argument is actually quite fallacious, because I have stressed that the proposed council would naturally operate within the ambit of the Malaysian Constitution, which reserves a special place for Islam.

Q: What do you think of the way the Malaysian Government has handled the controversy?

A: I think the police have acted admirably. When some non-Muslim places were attacked, they rushed to the scene. So did the Prime Minister, who roundly denounced the attacks. In some other multi-ethnic and multi-religious country such attacks might have led to rioting, and so I think it is to the credit of the Malaysian government and the police that nothing of that sort happened.

The Government has taken a largely law-and-order approach to the issue. But, I do not think this law-and-order approach is enough. The government has not dealt with the theological issues involved, and, as a result, it is the Islamic muftis associated with the ruling establishment that are now setting the tone. Sadly, they have all adopted a very conservative, bigoted and exclusivist position—to the effect that the term ‘Allah’ is a Muslim monopoly. Very cleverly, they have resorted to the Sultans, who have the last say on Islamic matters, and who have largely endorsed their stance. It is a pity that the muftis are reflecting such a superficial, shallow understanding of the Quran. Their understanding of the Quran appears to be very shallow and superficial, and even worse.

I think the Prime Minister may be more inclined to our own position, the 1Malaysia position—which is that we cannot prohibit non-Muslims to use the term ‘Allah’ but that we should prevent its misuse—but I guess he cannot say so openly because the vast majority of Malaysian Muslims do not agree. The issue is a veritable political minefield, and so I think the government is simply trying to delay taking any decision.

I must add here that a number of Malaysian Muslims strongly condemned the attacks on the churches and a Sikh gurdwara that took place in the wake of the court ruling. Some Muslim NGOs also set up voluntary squads to guard non-Muslim places of worship in some parts of the country. So, I think, there is ample good sense among ordinary Muslims, who, like ordinary non-Muslims in this country, want and value inter-communal peace. There is always this great fear in Malaysia of an ‘ethnicquake’—inter-community violence—and I think ordinary Malaysians, Muslims and others, know that this is something that we just can’t afford.

Q: The way the Western media reported the controversy, it was as if Malaysia was on the verge of civil war in the wake of the violence following the court ruling. How do you see the way the Western media handled the issue?

A: I think their projection was wide off the mark. They made it out to be as if Malaysia was on the verge of destruction. They seemed to relish the thought of that actually happening. I think this has much to do with the way the West wants to see itself—as supposedly ‘civilized’, compared to the non-Western world, particularly Muslims, who are depicted as the mirror opposite, as intolerant, violent, barbaric, primitive, fanatic and so on. I think, therefore, that the Western media’s reporting was really most unfortunate, although not entirely unexpected.

Chandra Muzaffar can be contacted on cmuzaffar@gmail.com

Yoginder Sikand works with the Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy at the National Law School, Bangalore.

Check out my blogs: www.madrasareforms.blogspot.com

www.islampeaceandjustice.blogspot.com

How are the tracks in Gasing ?

There were E-mails from visitors to my sites as to the whereabouts is this Gasing! Well it is at the boundary between the federal capital of Kuala Lumpur and the major township of Petaling Jaya in Selangor State. As for geography,  the areas where the two territories meet, there were 3 roads that linked them. Namely :- Damansara, Federal Highway and Old Klang Road. This place, Gasing is just beside the “Arch” along Federal Highway. In fact, lines along the hill itself, served as a demarcation . Then the next most popular enquiry would be, how to reach the actual spot?

This time I have updated this site with a sketch.

There are 5 hills, [the patches in dark green] inferring the existence of many slopes. The facilities and the privately given names are indicated with alphabet and numbers to convenience you, while discussing with your friends, as to the spots that you had being.

I trust that most information given are clear enough and self-explanatory.

Then I can go on to giving my views on what is Bukit Gasing Forest all about. Before going into more details on the trails, I would like to express my views on the differences that seperate “exercising” and jungle “trekking”.

Exercising

Most urban folks have come to know this place as having a fantastic environment to do their quota of exercising, I am one of them. Exercising would mean burning away calories, tone up the muscles and getting some cardiovascular work done. But unknown to many too, the big varieties of terrain here offers much more than merely offering places for routine exercise.

For you, interesting in authentic fitness exercise, you could choose “H”, the road walk. This is a stretch of tar road serving the houses at the fringe of the jungle. It is 1.9 kilometers long, over very gradual but the undulating Jalan Tanjong. Then again, if some of you would like to do brisk walking as the doctor recommended! But how strenuous and how often could you sustain that determination ?

To circumvent any doubts, you could substitute personal determination and leave it to the terrain, choose another more challenging road. That is the Road 5/46, marked “J”! This is a 1.2 kilometers tar road on a fair slope going all the way to the Indian temple. The walk fits nicely into a 30 minutes stroll.  Here the inclination pushes you.

Talking about that road! Here is the view of the summit. There is small public car park , complete with viewpoint to look down on the surrounding housing and built up areas of Petaling Jaya, Old Klang Road and Puchong. This summit at 523 feet high also houses the Telecom towers and the Sivan Indian Temple. If you are seriously thinking about this new place, it is best that you complete your hike to this place before 7.00 am. After that the road users pushing themselves up the slope, with their cars make the road not that conducive.  Years ago, a “Chi Kung” capitalized on the “clear air” atmosphere here to have their morning exercise. However, the secluded car park also attracted undesirable elements who stay away from home till the break of daylights hours. That factor could be the main cause as to why, up till today, the crowd to this place is very thin.

Nevertheless, when someone talks about exercising in Bukit Gasing, many would assume that you would have taken the road up the hills for your exercise. Not much residents even in PJ is aware of the trails in the jungle.

For Bukit Gasing as a hill, one consolation though! When you look down from Bukit Gasing onto the remaining 4 “peaks”, you could see that these hills are not high or the trails within them should not be that formidable.

Look carefully, that dull brown patch, slightly off center, in the foreground is that Watch Tower. Those condominium in the background are the “Panoramas”. The Telecom Offices are faintly visible. The trails in the jungle, they stretches from this Telecom Towers to the edge of the forest at the site of the condominiums. As the crow flies, it should be  just over a kilometer.

Having seen and with such excellent tar roads for exercising, then why do most joggers who frequent this Gasing Hills opt for the unpaved jungle trails?

There is a lot of differences between walking for exercise and trekking for real hearty morning work out. Walking on the road needs no concentration. Simply bit of determinations and pushing yourself to complete a daily quota. For me for example, having walked briskly on the road for 90 minutes, I barely sweat. But trekking is different. The fact that  when I am walking on uneven surfaces, needs concentrations, judgment and skills to negotiate each steps. A 30 minutes of trekking puts 3 times more stress on the mind and body.

Trekking

Citing the example of walking on a level road and that of a slope is a good analogy. On level road, you push yourself to obtain the desired results. On slopes, having to complete the walk itself will bring the desired result. So, when it comes to jungle trekking, the efforts needed just multiplies, brought about by the terrain. Therefore those bent on having vigorous exercises need that type of terrain.

Bukit Gasing offers just that! There are so many trails with varying degree of extremities. Length that rules the duration that each person has to choose from. One that he or she needs for the daily quota. As for those names you see on the keys to the sketch above, I would offer some personal experiences with the trails that I know.

The Tower Loop –  This is a 350 meters trail one way and can be completed within 15 minutes. However, the catch here is the “200 steps”. This sector is only attempted by few. This is a 8 minutes climb up a continuous slope of 45* and will draws all your resources, if a normal pace is desired.

The River Trek – Followed by certain hard core joggers who need to extend the length of their circuit. The walk will introduce new element of river trekking. Then reinforced with additional steep slope before joining back the regular trail at the chain link fencing.

The Chain link Fencing – The path here is made up of laid concrete slabs. Easy and safe. An almost level stretch to complete a loop.

The Long March – This by far is the most popular stretch. Starting with and combined with the Tower Loop, this stretch is 1.82 kilometers long, up till the area of the suspension bridge. After one stretch of jungle trek, there are those who opt to walk out to the tar road at this exit of 5/4J. That would be a mixed walk, jungle and tar. The jungle trail should last 40 minutes each way. Then there are those who are enticed to take the suspension bridge.

The Abu Bakar Slope – Once you crossed over to the other side, or another hill separated by a deep ravine, there is another hike up a  peak. Then down all the way into a steep ravine to be followed with equally steep slope up. I would recommend that this climb should be attempted by those fittest walkers. To give you an idea of impromptu fitness. As a benchmark, those city folks with little opportunity of outdoor, should ponder before deciding on the river trek. It is tough. Compare that with this Abu Bakar stretch, no way except for those who are used to regular strenuous exercise.

On the way after the second hill, the trail re-join the Long March.

Bukit Gasing Hike – This climb is for those who have limited time and for those who need full works. This trail of 720 meters. It fits into their tight schedule.  It is a 30 minutes straight climb and then back trek – all finished and out within an hour.

The Temple Road – Yet, there are those who need to finish all the 5 hills, each time they come to Gasing. Take this jungle trail up to join the tar road and down the Bukit Gasing Hike to the River Trek. The duration for this circuit is usually 3 hours

As you can see, this series of little hills indeed offer a cross section samples of conditions similar to that found in our tropical jungles. The short stretches may not have the length or height as the real hills. But a big variety of samples are here. You need not travel far and do not have to set aside that much of extra time. Yet experience the funs and benefit of mountain trekking.

That is the secret of Gasing’s popularity among those few who knows and love outdoor life.

Now Showing in Bolehland

COMMENT You would never dream of a former British prime minister opening a general meeting of the right-wing British National Front or the English Defence League, or a former US president (not even George W Bush) opening that of the supremacist group White Aryan Resistance. But things are different in Bolehland. Something like that took place last Saturday.

That was when Dr Mahathir Mohamad, former prime minister of Malaysia, earned himself a place in the Hall of Shame by officiating at the inaugural general meeting of Pertubuhan Pribumi Perkasa Negara (Perkasa).

To be sure, it was not unexpected. He was being consistent with his practice over the years – enhanced during the last two – of the principle of divide and rule. Endorsing the chauvinistic activism of Perkasa was something right up his street and he played his role with relish.

His son Mukhriz was there to provide support in the audience. However, as an Umno leader and deputy minister, how could he justify to the Malaysian people of all races his presence at the gathering? And what about Deputy Finance Minister Awang Adek Hussin and Wan Ahmad Wan Omar, the deputy chairman of the Election Commission, a civil servant in what is supposedly an impartial body?

Perkasa is anathema to progress; subscribing to it is to subscribe to a bleak future. What does it preach but narrow-minded concerns? What does it really champion? An old system that has seen Malaysia plunge into the abyss of corruption and rent-seeking, a system that has made the country unattractive to foreign investors, that perpetuates a mediocrity arising from affirmative action that has gone extreme and awry.

Mahathir used to pride himself as being a forward-thinking man; yet in his speech at the gathering, he asked Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak and the Umno leadership to listen to Perkasa and to return to the old ways of defending Malay rights. This is passé politics. Malaysia should be looking forward to multi-racialism and globalisation rather than be frozen in a time warp – and for whose benefit? Everyone suffers if we stagnate.

Even Malays talk of the need to reform affirmative action, chief among them Nazir Razak, Najib’s own brother and the boss of CIMB Group. In an interview with The Edge on March 15, he said, “I spent much of the 1990s listing companies and saw at close proximity arbitrary allocations of shares [made] to individuals in the name of the NEP. Many become rich or much richer overnight, and then we wonder why bumiputeras are not competitive.”

He advocates that the New Economic Model that Najib will unveil tomorrow must be “transparent and conducive to competition and market forces”. This would be the kind of thing Perkasa would object to strongly.

Mahathir of course won’t acknowledge it but opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim’s idea of an economic model that provides assistance based on need rather than race makes better sense. Why talk of protecting Malay privileges when it is only a small group of Malays who reap the rewards of such privileges?

Why fight for an NEP that benefits only a small group of Malays with the right connections and helps them succeed in business without really trying? According to Nazir, “Unfortunately, (these) few may be politically powerful and loud.” Is Perkasa in cahoots with them? If not, why serve their cause?

What problems, indeed?

Ibrahim Ali’s own speech at the gathering sounded like an Umno speech. He hit out at Anwar and blamed him for causing the problems faced by the Malay community. What problems, indeed? Does Ibrahim see as a problem the split in thinking between progressive Malays and the backward ones like him? That, surely, is not a problem? Is it wrong to want to move forward, to cast off the old beliefs that are a proven burden to the community and the country as a whole?

He hit out at DAP’s “Malaysian Malaysia” concept, of the DAP wanting to do away with the Malay rulers, of being against Islam and the Malays. That’s irresponsible talk. The objective of “Malaysian Malaysia” is to bring together all Malaysians to “enjoy justice, freedom, democracy and good governance”. How can that be objectionable? Must unity be exclusive to Malays? Why not extend it to the whole nation? How would that be detrimental to the Malay rulers, Islam and the Malay race?

“The rest of us might well ask why ‘pribumi’ features in Perkasa’s name. Ibrahim and his gang are not pribumi, surely? Do they represent the Orang Asli?

On the whole, Ibrahim’s speech was full of bravado and nothing much else. He even warned political parties not to make an enemy of Perkasa because they would lose at the elections. And strangely, among the resolutions adopted at the gathering was one urging the government to retain the Internal Security Act, the infamous ISA. What has that to do with Malay rights?

The event itself was more theatre than politics. Mahathir was given atengkolok to wear and a sash to adorn his torso, and bestowed with the ‘Bintang Pribumi Perkasa’ award. There was a silat performance. Ibrahim unsheathed a keris and kissed it, then waved it in the air to the cries of “Hidup Melayu!” An act that might have made Hishammuddin Hussein proud. There was also a performance by the Istana Budaya cultural troupe. If they are a government-sponsored troupe were they were hired as professionals or were their services offered gratis?

Should Perkasa be taken seriously? Or is it just a showcase of tribal emotionalism with more hype than substance? Right-wing groups have not been known to go very far – anywhere in the world. As long as they don’t create violence or cause harm to anyone, they should in a democratic space be allowed to vent their geram – and then be roundly rejected by sensible citizens. If Najib has any guts, he would make a strong statement against right-wing thinking and activism. He would staunchly stand by his 1Malaysia concept and make an unequivocal commitment to multiracialism.

The rest of us might well ask why “pribumi” features in Perkasa’s name. Ibrahim and his gang are not pribumi, surely? Do they represent the Orang Asli? As far as we all know, those are the real pribumi. Let’s not confuse the meaning of the term with that used in Indonesia. Here, we already have “bumiputera” so let’s stick with that. The Registrar of Societies should look into this.

And as for Mahathir, he should have known better than to associate himself with Perkasa. After this, what credibility is there left for us to still give the old man? He is obviously as misguided as Ibrahim by tribal emotionalism. Pathetic, indeed. Those non-Malays foolish enough to hold him in high esteem in the past would surely now be disabused of their foolishness.

DAP leader Lim Kit Siang puts it eloquently. “Mahathir has come full circle, from an ultra back again to an ultra (sic) – repudiating Bangsa Malaysia and Vision 2020 which he enunciated in 1991. This is the greatest tragedy.”

I have to disagree there. Tragedy, in the original Aristotelian sense, occurs only with tragic heroes who embody nobility and greatness in their character. Mahathir is nothing of the sort. A person who does what he does exudes neither nobility nor greatness. “Meanness” might be a suitable word, but I’m not mean enough to say it.

MON, 29 MAR 2010 16:56

By Kee Thuan Chye

Kee Thuan Chye is a dramatist, author and journalist. He is a contributor to Free Malaysia Today

During the International Week Against Racism there were dozens of injuries from choking gas bombs in the village of Bil’in

In Bil’in dozens suffered from gas inhalation when troops suppressed a march against the Israeli occupation organized by the Popular Committee Against the Wall and settlements. The demonstration was a manifestation against the wall being built on Bil’in’s land and the annexation and expansion of Israeli apartheid. The occupation forces fired tear gas towards the citizens of Bil’in, foreign peace activists and peace-loving Israelis.

This week’s demonstration marked the Global Week against racism in the world and coincided with many popular events against racism and oppression against the peoples and territories – in particular the Palestinian people. The demonstration begun after Friday prayers and marched from the centre of the village, then continued to the western gate of the wall. Over one hundred people participated in the march, including a group from the PFLP (The Popular front for the Liberation of Palestine) and a delegation from the Freedom Theatre in Jenin. The demonstration was headed by people dressed up as three prominent figures in the global struggle against racism and occupation: Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King. Palestinian flags were raised and toured the village streets as the participants chanted slogans condemning the wall and the occupation.

As the march reached the wall it was met with a shower of tear gas, rubber bullets and sound bombs, then clashes broke out between demonstrators and occupation soldiers. The demonstration lasted for hours as troops deliberately fired tear gas towards crews of journalists from Palestine TV and other stations to discourage the footage from the International Week Against Racism -and the Popular Committee’s condemnation of Israel’s racist and immoral practices- from being broadcast.  In response, the Popular Committee stressed the need for cohesion, national unity and solidarity and highlighted that it was in the public interest for everyone involved in anti-racist struggles to stand shoulder to shoulder with each other.

http://www.bilin-ffj.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=252&Itemid=1

5 March 2010

Thank you for your continued support,

Iyad Burnat- Head of Popular Commitee in Bilin , co-founder of Friends of Freedom and Justice – Bilin

Email- bel3in@yahoo.com
Mobile-                        (00972)(0)547847942
Office-             (00972)(2)2489129
Mobile-                        (00972)(0)598403676
www.bilin-ffj.org

IN JANUARY 1077, King Henry IV walked to Canossa. He crossed the snow-covered Alps barefoot, wearing a penitent monk’s hair shirt, and reached the North-Italian fortress in which the Vicar of God had found refuge.

Pope Gregory VII had excommunicated him after a conflict over the right to invest bishops throughout the German Reich. The excommunication endangered the position of the king, and he decided to do everything possible to get it lifted.

The king waited for three days outside the gates of Canossa, fasting and wearing the hair shirt, until the pope agreed to open the gate. After the king knelt before the pope, the ban was lifted and the conflict came to an end – at least for the time being.

THIS WEEK, the Netanyahu went to Canossa in the United States, in order to prevent Pope Obama I from putting a ban on him.

Contrary to the German king, Bibi I did not walk barefoot in the snow, did not exchange his expensive suit for a hair shirt and did not forgo his sumptuous meals. But he, too, was compelled to wait for several days at the gates of the White House, before the pope deigned to receive him.

The German king knew that he had to pay the full price for the pardon. He knelt. The Israeli king thought that he could get off cheap. As is his wont, he tried all kinds of subterfuges. He did not kneel, but barely bowed. The pope was not satisfied.

This time, the walk to Canossa did not succeed. On the contrary, it made the situation worse. The deadly sword of American excommunication continues to hang above Netanyahu’s head.

IN ISRAEL, Binyamin Netanyahu is considered the expert No. 1 on the USA. He was brought there as a child, attended high school and university there and speaks fluent – even if rather shallow – American.

But this time he was mistaken, and in a big way.

Netanyahu’s heart is with the American right. His closest friends there are neoconservatives, right-wing Republicans and evangelist preachers. It seems that these had assured him that Obama would lose the big battle for health care and would soon be a lame duck until inevitably losing the next presidential elections.

It was a gamble, and Netanyahu lost.

At the beginning of the crisis over construction in East Jerusalem, Netanyahu was still sure of himself. Obama’s people rebuked him, but not too severely. I seemed that the conflict would end like all the previous ones: Jerusalem would pay lip service, Washington would pretend that the spit was rain.

A less arrogant person would have told himself: let’s not rush things. Let’s wait at home until it becomes clear who will win the health insurance battle. Then we shall think again and make a decision.

But Netanyahu knew that he was assured an enthusiastic welcome at the AIPAC conference, and AIPAC, after all, rules Washington. Without thinking much he flew there, made a speech and harvested thunderous applause. Drunk with success he waited for the meeting in the White House, where Obama was supposed to embrace him before the cameras.

But in the meantime, something absolutely awful had happened: the health law was adopted by Congress. Obama won a victory that has been called “historic”. Netanyahu was not facing a beaten and beleaguered pope, but a Prince of the Church in all his splendor.

ACCORDING TO an Israeli joke, the shortest unit in time is the moment between the light turning green and the driver behind you starting to honk. My late friend, General Matti Peled, insisted that there was a shorter moment: the time it takes for a newly promoted officer to get used to his new rank. But it appears that there is an even shorter period of time.

George Mitchell, the hopping mediator, handed Netanyahu Obama’s invitation to the White House. The cameras showed everything: Smiling from ear to ear, Mitchell extended his hand for the handshake, he even stretched out his other hand to hold Netanyahu’s arm. And then, the moment he thought that the cameras had stopped recording, the smile disappeared from his face at a dizzying speed, as if a mask had fallen, and a sour and angry expression appeared.

If Netanyahu had perceived that moment, he would have been cautious from there on. But caution is not one of his most outstanding qualities. Completely ignoring Obama, he told the thousands of cheering AIPAC-sters that he would go on building in East Jerusalem, that there is no difference between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, and that all successive Israeli governments have built there.

That is quite true. The most energetic settler in East Jerusalem was Teddy Kollek, the Labor Party’s mayor of West Jerusalem at the time of the annexation. But Teddy was a genius. He succeeded in fooling the whole world, appearing as a shining peace activist, gathering all possible peace prizes (except the Nobel Price), and between prizes established a huge area of Israeli settlement all over East Jerusalem. (Once I talked in Jerusalem with Lord Caradon, the father of UN Security Council resolution 242, a sober British statesman who was very critical of Israel. After our conversation, he met with Teddy, who devoted the whole day to him and toured Jerusalem in his company. By the evening, the noble lord had become Teddy’s devoted admirer.) Teddy’s slogan was: Build and don’t talk! Build and don’t make noises!

But Netanyahu can’t keep quiet. It is said of Sabras, the native-born Israelis, that they “finish quickly” because they have to run and tell the boys. Netanyahu is a Sabra.

Perhaps Obama would have been ready to apply to Jerusalem the rule used by the US armed forces about gays: Don’t ask, Don’t tell. But for Netanyahu, the telling is the most important part of it, the more so since all the preceding governments had indeed built there.

NETANYAHU’S OTHER argument is also interesting. He said that there is a consensus about the new Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. Bill Clinton’s peace plan provided that “what is Jewish in Jerusalem will go to Israel, what is Arab will go to Palestine”. Since everybody agrees that in the final agreement the Jewish neighborhoods would be joined to Israel anyhow, why not build there now?

This sheds light on a tried and tested Zionist method. When an unofficial consensus about the division of the land between Israel and Palestine is reached, the Israeli government says: OK, now that there is agreement about the land we are getting, let’s talk about the rest of the land. Mine is mine, now let’s negotiate about what is yours. The existing Jewish neighborhoods are ours already. There we are free to build without limitation. It remains only to decide upon the Arab neighborhoods, where we also intend to build.

Actually, Netanyahu should be thanked. For decades, everybody made a distinction between the “settlements” in the West Bank and Gaza and the “Jewish neighborhoods” in East Jerusalem. Now this distinction has been eradicated, and everybody speaks about the settlements in East Jerusalem.

SO NETANYAHU went to Canossa. He entered the gate of the White House. Obama listened to his proposals and told him that they were not sufficient. Netanyahu huddled with his advisors in a side room in the building and went back to Obama. Again Obama told him that his proposals were insufficient. That’s how it ended: no agreement, no joint statement, no photos.

That is not just a “crisis” anymore. It is something really momentous: a basic change in the policy of the US. The American ship in the Middle East is making a large turn, and this is taking a long time. There have been many disappointments for peace-lovers on the way. But now it is happening at last.

The President of the United States wants to end the conflict, which is threatening the vital national interests of the US. He wants a peace agreement. Not at the end of time, not in the next generation, but now, within two years.

The change finds its expression in East Jerusalem, because there can be no peace without East Jerusalem becoming the capital of Palestine. The Israeli building activity there is designed to prevent just this. Therefore, it is the test.

Up to now, Netanyahu has played a double game. At one moment he leans towards the US, the next he leans towards the settlers. Aluf Ben, the senior political editor of Haaretz, this week asked him to choose “between Benny Begin and Uri Avnery” – meaning, between Greater Israel and the two-state solution.

I feel flattered by the formula, but the political choice is now between Lieberman-Yishai and Tzipi Livni.

Netanyahu has no chance of escaping Obama’s excommunication as long as he is a hostage of the present government coalition. It is said that a clever person knows how to get out of a trap into which a wise person would not have fallen in the first place. If Netanyahu had been wise, he would not have set up this coalition. Now we shall see if he is clever.

Kadima is far from being a peace party. Its countenance is blurred. During the whole year in opposition it has not proven itself in any way and has not taken part in any principled struggle. But the public considers it a moderate party, unlike Netanyahu’s overtly extremist partners. According to the latest polls, Kadima has recently extended its slight advantage over Likud.

In order to enter into serious negotiations with the Palestinians, as demanded by Obama, Netanyahu will have to dismantle the existing coalition and invite Livni in. Until that happens, he will be left standing at the gate of Canossa.

The struggle between the king and the pope did not end with the humiliating scene at Canossa. It went on for a long time. The battle between Netanyahu and Obama will be decided much more quickly.

Uri Avnery

27.3.10