Monday, April 28, 2014
The British Muslim Is Truly One Among Us – and Proud To Be So
History of harmony: Dr George Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, meets Muslim elders at an east London mosque
Those who believe in a clash of civilisations, in which British values are pitted against those of the Muslim world, have not been short of examples in the past few days. The BBC reports on an “Islamic takeover plot” by hardliners to seize control of several Birmingham state schools. Two Morrisons workers are suing the supermarket for not being able to take holiday during Ramadan, after being told that they submitted their applications too late. Such stories do make the blood boil, and may lead the less charitable to ask if such people should move to a country that better reflects their prejudices.
But one hears such complaints rarely, and this is what marks us out in a Europe that is paranoid about Islam and identity. Britain is, through empire, the original multi-ethnic state. When Churchill was writing for The Daily Telegraph as a war correspondent, his criticism of the Afghan tribesmen was that their behaviour was un-Islamic. “Their religion – fanatic though they are – is only respected when it incites to bloodshed and murder,” he wrote in December 1897. Then, the Queen had tens of millions of Islamic subjects and her ministers boasted of running the greatest Muslim power on earth.
The integration of Muslims can now be seen as one of the great success stories of modern Britain. While the Dutch and the French have huge troubles with integration, and are caught in agonised struggles about their national identities, Britain is marked out by the trouble that we are not having. Dig a little deeper, and the real story is the striking amount of harmony.
Last year, for example, the Jews of Bradford were facing the closure of their synagogue. Its roof was leaking, and the few dozen remaining regulars could not afford the repairs. Its chairman, Rudi Leavor, made the decision to sell the building and face up to it being transformed into luxury flats. As things turned out, the synagogue was saved after a fundraising campaign led by a local mosque. Zulfi Karim, the secretary of Bradford’s Council of Mosques, now refers to Leavor – who fled the Nazis – as his “newfound brother”. He gave his support, he says, to protect the diversity of Bradford.
After the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich last year, skinheads went on the march in hope of stirring up a reaction against Muslims. It was the perfect moment, given how high feelings were running. The next week, a mosque in Muswell Hill, north London, was burnt down – an act that might, in other places, have started a cycle of reprisals. But here, the Muslims were given shelter by the local Jewish community, who offered space, laptops and whatever support was needed. Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner said she was proud to help “our brothers and sisters of the Muslim community, emotionally and physically”.
Such stories can be found the length and breadth of Britain, for those with an eye to see them. St John’s Episcopal Church in Aberdeen last year agreed to accommodate neighbouring Muslims, who had outgrown their mosque and had taken to worshipping outside it. The Rev Isaac Poobalan said that allowing Muslims to pray in the wind and rain would mean abandoning “what the Bible teaches us about how we should treat our neighbours”. He argued that his church was empty on a Friday lunchtime, when Muslims needed to pray.
Anyone serious about either religion will know that they both worship the same God – and their stronger ties are, in part, forged by the knowledge that they have a common enemy in secularism. The kind of secularism that would stop people wearing crucifixes and skullcaps in public, as well as the niqab. When the Council of Europe came out against religious circumcision, it was natural that Manchester’s sizeable Jewish community would protest. But less expected for Manchester’s Muslims to join them. Both have plenty to fear from the abridgment of religious freedom in a Britain that is – by some measures – the least religious country in the rich world.
Before he became pope, Cardinal Ratzinger spoke about the “dictatorship of relativism”, and the collapse of notions of right and wrong. He later came to see Muslims as an ally in this broader agenda, which emphasised freedom of worship. When the Coptic Christian church in Cairo came under attack from jihadis, Muslims formed a human chain to deter bombers. It was more than an act of fraternity: mainstream Islam faces a mighty threat from the well-organised jihadis, who seek to impose their own kind of coup.
The attempts by extremists to speak for Muslims in Britain is made a lot easier by the lack of an Islamic hierarchy – there’s no Muslim pope who can excommunicate psychos who praise jihad. It’s also made easier by the understandable reluctance of ordinary British Muslims to get involved in the political side of their religion – a world disproportionately occupied by old men with long beards and poor English. When Channel 4 said that its 2006 Christmas message would be given by a Muslim in a full-face veil, it fitted the BNP narrative of a clash of civilisations.
The BNP gave up on racism some years ago, and has since moved on to Islamophobia. It’s understandable – you can pick almost any country on the Continent to see a market for all of this. In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders is at large, likening the Koran to Mein Kampf and referring to Islam as a “Trojan horse in Europe”. His party, PVV, is now at the top of the opinion polls. Marine Le Pen’s Front National, which warns now and again that Islamic culture will subvert French civilisation, has just had a breakthrough in the recent elections.
But in Britain, Islamophobia simply does not exist as a political force. We just don’t have Muslim youths rioting in suburbs, as you see in Paris. When London riots, the city comes together like a Benetton advert. Next month’s Euro-elections are likely to bring about the burial of the BNP, as the protest vote goes to Ukip, a party whose extraordinary success has come due to its rejection of the prejudices for which the BNP is infamous.
This is all the more surprising given the serious problems that Britain still faces with integration. Our habit of giving asylum to the world’s least desirable jihadis means that London is still a hotbed of Islamist terrorism; the CV of any apprehended Islamist normally involves a spell in the capital. The 7/7 bombers were, as the Mayor of London said, as British as Y-fronts and Tizer – and yet there was no anti-Islamic backlash after the 2005 attacks. Too many of our cities still choose ghettoisation over integration, but the sense of Muslims as being alien, or un-British, is not widely felt.
British Muslims don’t really feel a sense of otherness. In fact, polls show they’re much more likely to identify with Britishness than the general population. The Citizenship Survey found that most Muslims agree with two propositions: that Islam is the most important thing in their life, and that their primary loyalty lies with the British state. Most are baffled by the idea of a tension between the two.
Perhaps this is why Britain has proven consistently unable to get into a lather about the idea of a Muslim enemy within – it’s just not the British way, and never has been.
Fraser Nelson is editor of 'The Spectator’
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Zionist Billionaire To Purchase Next US President
Sheldon Adelson
Israel’s American Pimp-In-Chief
The casino mogul, Sheldon Adelson, organized a public display of his power.
He summoned to his Las Vegas betting paradise the four most probable Republican candidates for the next presidential elections, in order to choose one of them. All the invitees heeded the summons, of course.
It was a shameless exhibition. The politicians grovelled before the casino lord. Mighty governors of important states did their best to sell themselves like applicants at a job interview. Each of them tried to trump the others in promising to do the Mogul’s bidding.
I wonder how ordinary Americans react to this spectacle of one billionaire – especially a Jewish one – choosing their next president for them.
Flanked by Israeli bodyguards, Adelson grilled the American hopefuls. And what was he demanding from the future president of the United States? First of all and above everything else, blind and unconditional obedience to the government of another state: Israel.
Adelson is one of the richest Jews in the world. He is also a fanatical rightist – not only an American rightist, but also an Israeli one.
While he is now looking for the best American president money can buy, he has already chosen his Israeli stooge. He has done something unprecedented in Israeli history: created an instrument to impose his ultra-right views on the Israeli people.
The Pimp’s Mouthpiece
For this purpose he has invested large sums of money in a daily newspaper of his creation. It is called Israel Hayom (Israel today), and is literally priceless: it is distributed for nothing all over the country. Its readership is now the largest in the country, threatening the existence of the former No. 1, Yedioth Ahronoth and killing the next one, Maariv.
The sole purpose of Adelson’s paper is to serve Binyamin Netanyahu, personally and politically, unconditionally and unreservedly. This is such a blatant intervention in Israeli politics by a foreign billionaire that it is causing a reaction: all Knesset factions, both rightist and leftist (except the Likud, of course) have signed a demand to put an end to this corruption of democracy…
Las Vegas has now become the capital of American politics. Everything Adelson does is done openly, proudly, shamelessly. I wonder how ordinary Americans react to this spectacle of one billionaire – especially a Jewish one – choosing their next president for them.
We are told that anti-Semitism is on the rise in Europe and across the globe. In the crazy mental world of the anti-Semites, Jews control the cosmos. And here we have a Jew, straight out of the pages of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, trying to appoint the ruler of the mightiest country on the planet.
Adelson has failed in the past. Last time, he spent huge sums of money on one hopeless candidate, and then on the winning Republican nominee, who was soundly trounced by Barack Obama, a liberal, black abomination. But nobody can be sure that this will happen again. For Adelson, the slogan could well be: “If money does not work, try more money!”
A Corrupt System With A Zionist At The Pinnacle
The basic problem is that the American political process is totally corrupt. There is no other way to put it.
In order to become the nominee of one major party, and then to be elected president, one needs enormous sums of money. Since the major battlefield is TV, and candidates have to pay for it, these sums get bigger and bigger.
It is nice to think that ordinary citizens can raise these sums with their modest donations, but that is an illusion. Donations of these dimensions can only come from the rich, especially from the very, very rich. (Americans don’t like this revealing word anymore and speak of “the wealthy”. But that is sheer whitewashing.)
The very rich were once called millionaires, then multi-millionaires, and now billionaires. Adelson is a multi-billionaire.
If he [Sheldon Adelson] succeeds in installing his favourite in the White House, the US will become totally subservient to the extreme right-wing in Israel.
A billionaire does not donate a fortune for a presidential candidate for nothing. That’s not how he became a billionaire in the first place. Once he gets his man elected, he demands his pound of flesh, many pounds.
I am told that Adelson wants internet betting to be prohibited, so that ordinary, honest-to-goodness casinos can flourish. But I have no doubt that his right-wing Zionist passions come first. If he succeeds in installing his favourite in the White House, the US will become totally subservient to the extreme right-wing in Israel. He might as well put Netanyahu in the Oval Office. (Now there’s an idea! It just needs a small amendment to the constitution. How much can that cost?)
That would have been OK with me, if Adelson really understood anything about the Israeli-Arab conflict. With the typical arrogance of the very rich, he thinks that he does. Yet it seems that he has not the slightest idea about the roots of the conflict, its history and the acute dangers lurking in our future.
If Adelson could dictate our future, it would spell disaster for our country.
(Uri Avnery)
Saturday, April 26, 2014
EUROPE'S FRAGMENTED FUTURE
The specter of secession is haunting Europe. Since 2000 there have been three successful separations from existing states — by Montenegro, Kosovo and Crimea — and at the moment, several other regions are attempting to secede and create independent states. In March, Crimea first seceded from Ukraine and then voted, in a referendum, to rejoin the Russian Federation. At the same time, in an informal online referendum, voters of the Veneto region in northern Italy overwhelmingly favored independence and the restoration of the old Venetian republic. In September, the citizens of Scotland will vote in an independence referendum, and the government of the Spanish region of Catalonia plans to hold a referendum of the same kind two months later — despite a ruling by the Constitutional Court of Spain that such a referendum would be illegal (a similar referendum in the Basque region in 2008 was thwarted by the Spanish government).
Why Now?
Why are these referendums all taking place in 2014? In fact, the Scottish and Catalan votes were planned several years ago, at a time when dissatisfaction with the “host states” among the citizens of these regions was the highest. Spain and Italy were experiencing a series of banking and fiscal crises and increasing unemployment; the Conservative government in the U.K., which had no electoral support at all in Scotland, was introducing unpopular austerity measures. It was only when repeated attempts to get the Veneto regional assembly to hold an independence referendum stalled that the Veneto secessionists proceeded on their own with the online referendum — and made it coincide with the Crimean one.
The point of these referendums is to mobilize the dissatisfaction of those who strongly self-identify as Scots, Catalan or Venetian and who regard their current “host state” as foreign, burdensome, incompetent or corrupt. By leaving this state, literally, and creating another, better state, the secessionists hope to improve their lot in life. In contrast to these movements, the Crimean referendum was conceived and conducted within a few weeks: It was a response to the violent overthrow of the Ukrainian president, a popular figure in Crimea, and was used to channel the consequent fears among the majority Russian speakers into a vote to rejoin Russia as a safe haven from the new, (allegedly) hostile, anti-Russian Ukrainian government. The referendum was rushed, with the Russian military lurking in the background, before the new Ukrainian government was able to dispel voters’ fears or establish control over the autonomous republic. Within weeks after the region rejoined Russia, the pay of public employees and pensions in Crimea almost doubled; the reunification thus brought more benefits to some Crimeans than a mere secession from Ukraine would have.
No Easy Way Out
Seceding from a country isn’t always as fast and (relatively) painless as Crimea made it seem. But there are other cases of secession that suggest these pains can be eased somewhat. First, the best strategy for any secessionists is to attempt to convince their host state that the secession of their territory won’t cause much harm. The potential secession of Scotland does not appear to be harmful to the U.K., so the U.K. government is prepared to recognize its independence. The secession of Montenegro in 2006, which the EU supported and supervised, did not appear to harm Serbia either; the Serbian government agreed to the secession of this federal unit.
If this tactic fails, a secessionist movement should try to find a powerful sponsor – a superpower, such as the U.S., or a neighbor more powerful than its host state (and not easily intimidated by a superpower), such as Russia. The Albanian secessionists in Kosovo gained U.S. sponsorship in 1998, when they led a large armed uprising against Serbia. And in 2008, when Kosovo, then a province of Serbia under U.N./NATO administration, formally seceded from Serbia in spite of Serbia’s vehement opposition, the U.S., Kosovo’s principal sponsor, along with most EU member states immediately recognized its independence. It is notable that Spain, Slovakia, Romania, Greece and Cyprus refused to recognize, on principle, a state, such as Kosovo, that unilaterally seceded against the opposition of its “host state”; not coincidentally, all these EU member states oppose separatist movements within their own borders.
This doesn’t lend much hope to the Catalan, Basque and Venetian secessionists — their host states oppose their aspirations, and they are not likely to gain powerful sponsors. Secessionists all over the globe face similar obstacles: Those in Tibet and Xinjiang (in China), the Caucasus (in Russia), Congo, Kurdistan (in Iraq) or Azawad (in Mali) — to mention, randomly, only a small selection of cases — have little chance of carving out an independent, internationally recognized state, however strong their movements may be. Quebec at least has the law on its side: If its secessionists ever succeed in winning over the majority of their province’s population, they may legally secede from Canada, thanks to a 1998 Canadian Supreme Court opinion.
For secessionists, the state they currently live in is effectively foreign.
The differences between secessionists in Europe and Quebec, on the one hand, and those elsewhere are quite obvious. Outside Europe and Quebec, the secessionists often face either a failing or a highly repressive state. Faced with the pervasive threat of violence, they aim to create a state structure that will protect the lives of its inhabitants. In some cases, such as that of Somaliland (in Somalia) or Kurdistan (in Iraq), they succeed in creating a separate, protective state that has, however, no international recognition as an independent state. In many others, they fail and are plunged into a cycle of violent civil conflict.
Secessionists in Europe and Quebec, by contrast, aren’t facing threats of violence; thus their aim is not protection but provision of perceived benefits. They claim that an independent state would advantage their constituents in all aspects of their lives much more than the current host state could; this includes a better standard of living. For them, independence serves to provide a variety of enhanced benefits to a group of people inhabiting a region within an existing state.
Many supporters of secession find it oppressive to live in a state whose rulers speak a language or dialect they consider foreign. State or cultural symbols (flags, anthems, coats of arms, popular songs) are to them also foreign: For them, the state they currently live in is effectively foreign. But these people are in the minority. As the opinion polls in Scotland, Quebec, Veneto and Catalonia suggest, identity secessionists do not form clear majorities in these regions, so would-be voters need to be convinced that independence would benefit them.
That’s not easy: In Quebec’s past two referendums, in 1981 and 1995, the veteran secessionist Parti Québécois failed to achieve even simple majorities to support independence. Pre-referendum opinion polls in Scotland, Catalonia andVeneto, while showing that the majority of voters in these regions are highly dissatisfied with the host state or central government, do not unequivocally show that the same majority would vote for independence.
Questionable Benefits
Who would benefit most from the secession of Scotland, Catalonia, Veneto or Quebec? The answer is simple: The beneficiaries would first and foremost be the leaders of secessionist parties whose aim is to take over the governments of the newly independent states. If they were rulers of independent and sovereign states, their policies and actions — including the use of coercion and force — as well as their remuneration would not be subject to any higher or “foreign” sovereign authority or oversight. In addition, as the new state takes over the functions of the old — including those of diplomacy — there would be lots of new job opportunities in the expanding state bureaucracy. Local small and medium businesses would profit, too, as their competitors from outside the region withdraw across new state borders.
It’s less clear how other citizens of the new states would fare. As many nonlocal or even local companies pull out of the region (as they did prior to the Quebec referendum in 1995), employment is likely to become a pressing issue. Perhaps an economic downturn may be avoided if the seceded state remains in a regional economic organization (such as the EU) of which its former host state is a member. But this, too, remains uncertain: The EU, for example, has no policies about, or obligation toward, states seceding from an EU member.
For most people in these regions of Europe — unlike those in Crimea — seceding now would bring uncertainty and anxiety about the future that secessionist leaders would not be able to allay. For this reason alone it is highly uncertain whether the planned referendums will produce majorities in favor of independence — and, even if they do, whether these regions will become independent states, or be recognized as such, anytime soon.
Friday, April 25, 2014
Imam Khomeini Space Center - Iran
Courtesy Of The: Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI)
Iran inaugurated the Semnan Spaceport (now known as the Imam Khomeini Space Center) in early 2008, with a test launch of the Kavoshgar 1 (Explorer 1) rocket, which appeared to be a modified Shahab-3B. [1] Construction of the complex reportedly began in 2003. [2] Satellite images taken of the site in 2009 show extensive infrastructure development including the construction of a horizontal rocket assembly and checkout building, and an engine test stand. [3]
The older launch complex is comprised of a circular pad, which replaced the original dirt patch. It has a collapsible umbilical tower to support the Safir space launch vehicle (SLV) and other rockets. In February 2009, Iran successfully launched an 'Omid' satellite weighing 27kg into orbit from the Semnan site using the Safir two-stage rocket. [4] In May 2009, Iran successfully tested a Sejil 2 medium-range surface-to-surface missile launched from or close to the Semnan site. [5]
In March 2010, satellite images revealed the construction of a second launch pad roughly 3km east of the original site. [6] It includes a gantry tower, an umbilical tower, and two flame trenches. The gantry tower is aproximately 45m tall, which far exceeds the needs of the Safir or Simorgh SLVs.
Iran also constructed an engine test stand, suggesting it will test new or indigionous designs.
Sources:
[1] Aresu Eqbali, "Iran Opens First Space Centre, Launches Rocket," AFP, 4 February 2008; James Hackett, "Iran's Great Missile Leap," The Washington Times, 25 February 2008, www.washingtontimes.com.
[2] "Nuclear Iran, Production Capability," Jane's CBRN Assessments, 1 October 2009, www.janes.com.
[3] "Massive Construction Visible at Iran's Missile and Space Center at Semnan," Defense Update, 5 November 2009, www.defense-update.com.
[4] Geoffrey Forden, "Congratulations Iran!" Arms Control Wonk Blog, 3 February 2009, www.armscontrolwonk.com.
[5] Ali Akbar Dareini, "Iran Tests Missile with Range that Can Hit Israel," AP Online, 21 May 2009; "Iran Missile Test Appears 'Successful,' U.S. Officials," AFP, 20 May 2009.
[6] Yaakov Katz, "New Iranian Missile Launch Pad Revealed," The Jerusalem Post, 7 March 2010, www.jpost.com.
[2] "Nuclear Iran, Production Capability," Jane's CBRN Assessments, 1 October 2009, www.janes.com.
[3] "Massive Construction Visible at Iran's Missile and Space Center at Semnan," Defense Update, 5 November 2009, www.defense-update.com.
[4] Geoffrey Forden, "Congratulations Iran!" Arms Control Wonk Blog, 3 February 2009, www.armscontrolwonk.com.
[5] Ali Akbar Dareini, "Iran Tests Missile with Range that Can Hit Israel," AP Online, 21 May 2009; "Iran Missile Test Appears 'Successful,' U.S. Officials," AFP, 20 May 2009.
[6] Yaakov Katz, "New Iranian Missile Launch Pad Revealed," The Jerusalem Post, 7 March 2010, www.jpost.com.
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
