Friday, 30 October 2009

Earthquakes and Tsunamis: Is God a Murderer?

The recent earthquake in Indonesia has evoked memories of the catastrophic Tsunami of 2004 that left hundreds of thousands dead. Natural disasters of cataclysmic proportion always raise the question of how a merciful God can permit indiscriminate carnage and devastation. How can a just God allow such injustices to take place? The secularists, atheists and agnostics use such catastrophic events to reinforce their belief in a Godless universe. They reason, if God does exist He should stand trial for murder and cruelty.

Murder by definition means to take a life unlawfully. But which laws has jurisdiction over God? He is the lawgiver, the creator and the owner of the entire universe and its content; hence it is His prerogative to give and take, life. He is above any law by definition.

Furthermore, God created mankind and placed them on earth with a limited life span as the giver and taker of life. Therefore, according to secular ‘logic’ He has been committing ‘murder’ from the death of the very first man! By the way: what is about the 'mass murder' of cattle, sheep and chicken in the slaughter-houses just to satisfy the nutritional needs of humans: how does this squares with ‘murder’ and 'justice' in the secular minds.

Another point is the ability to resurrect life. The creator has the ability to recreate mankind after they have perished, as recreating is easier than creating from scratch. The divine can easily undo the alleged ‘murder’ of his subjects and He will on the Day of Judgment by resurrecting everyone! This is something a human being could not do to the murdered victims. Thus, the concept of murder can only be applied to those human beings that take another life unlawfully; they are guilty as they did not create the life in the first place, thus have no rights over it. And they are not able to resurrect the victims: the guilt persists forever.

Who knows the fate of those who have perished? Who has this knowledge? To assume that they are worse off is an assumption. The creator may have given them a better life and spared them further sufferings in this world. From the Islamic perspective those who have perished are martyrs, they will be rewarded greatly and the young will enter paradise as they are innocent, they do not need salvation and no one needs to die for their ‘sins’. Therefore, to pass quick judgment upon the divine without the full picture is premature, foolish and in reality impossible.

As for the hardship suffered by those who have survived the recent disaster, it cannot be construed as evil. Many tend to confuse between evil and suffering in general. According to the Islamic text, evil is rebelling against Gods commandments and the consequential suffering inflicted upon the victim. But not all forms of hardship constitutes evil by definition, a serious error often made by many. The creator is entitled to test us from time to time and how quick are we to forget all the bounties that He has given us prior to that.

Adjectives like ‘love’, ‘merciful’ used in describing God Almighty should be understood not in terms of human qualities but as divine attributes. When for example God says He hears everything that does not mean He has big powerful ears but the use of such vocabulary allows the limited human minds to get an infinitely small appreciation of the power of the divine, whilst remembering that HE is nothing like the creation, not part of it and not subjected to the laws of the creation.

There is a clear distinction between the creator and created. This is fundamental point about the notion of God. He created human beings and their mind, given it the ability to compose, analyze and deduce ideas. By rational necessity the finite human mind cannot comprehend the nature of the infinite and eternal God. Furthermore, the reality shows that the human mind being finite struggles to comprehend the creation itself let alone the nature of the creator.

Despite this, the secularists, atheists and agnostics have attempted conceptualize the essence of God using their limited mind, and perhaps the Christian and Pagan traditions have also contributed to this; the end result is God is a more powerful being with super human qualities. Naturally God is now thought of as a being that can be understood in terms of having human qualities and therefore subjected to the same principles that are applied to human beings. And this is where the error begins with charges of murder.

By rational necessity the eternal and uncreated God can never be subjected to the principles that have been derived from the minds of those who HE has created. Similarly, He cannot be subjected to the laws and ethics derived from the human mind as He has created the mind, body and soul. Just as a slave cannot command his master in the same way the eternal sovereign God cannot be commanded or evaluated by His own creation.

These major events like earthquakes and tsunamis are for us to reflect about the meaning of life, the limitations of human beings, these events are proof that the span of life on earth is pre-determined.

Yamin Zakaria (
London, UK

Monday, 26 October 2009

Humiliation of Nick Griffin

Appearance of Nick Griffin, the leader of the far-right British National Party (BNP) on the BBC Program, Question Time1, has caused a furore and raised questions on the limitations of freedom of speech. Should an individual be permitted to express views that cause offence to a certain section of society? Even if the views are technically permitted by law, should the mass media encourage this by giving racist bigots like Nick Griffin a platform on a primetime TV? A more fundamental point in this debate is - should freedom of speech have a limit in the first place.

With the exception of Nick Griffin, there was consensus amongst all the panellists on the limitations of freedom of speech. Those limits specify that it is unacceptable to express views that are deemed racist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic. Most pertinently, you should not deny the holocaust; even to question this sacred subject is taboo. However, you can express anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim views, no matter how much offence it causes; in fact the more the better, because it is often used by sections of western societies as a barometer for freedom of expression. After struggling against the censorship for centuries, suddenly their freedom of expression rests on their ability to insult Islam and Muslims.

The political lightweight Nick Griffin was convincingly knocked out in the first round, and humiliated on all the issues, except when it came to the subject of Islam and Muslims. All the panellists failed to respond to the baseless anti-Islamic rants of Nick Griffin, except the ‘mufti’ ‘Syeda Warsi, whose answer was inadequate and superficial, not really worth dwelling upon.

It is not surprising for Nick Griffin to express anti-Islamic or anti-Muslim views, as a racist bigot naturally dislikes foreign people and their culture. Although, I am sure, many members of his party enjoy the Indian curry or the Turkish/Arabic kebab! I still remember the racists thugs would end up eating curry in the Indian/Pakistani restaurants in the evening, after taunting the Asian kids for smelling of curry during the day. Although these bigots were in the minority, but couple of drops of urine is sufficient to spoil a bowl of milk. The British society has progressed considerably since those times, but not the primitive members of the BNP.

When specifically asked by a member of the audience why Nick Griffin considers Islam a wicked and an evil religion, his response was on two points a) it oppresses women b) allegedly the Quran 'ordains as a religious duty the murder of Jews as well as other non-Muslims'.

Let us examine each of these points.

On the issue of women, it is perplexing as to why Nick Griffin would be concerned for Muslim women. After all, majority of the Muslims in the UK are from Asia and the Middle East, therefore clearly visible to eyes of the British National Party members, unlike the recent East European migrants!

If Islamic Laws were oppressive to women, they would naturally abandon Islamic values and exchange their modest clothing for the mini-skirt and the bikini. Nobody is forcing the Muslim women to remain as practising Muslims in secular West or in secular East. However, according to the mainstream media and major parties in the UK for some strange reasons they like to remain oppressed. What is even more puzzling, majority of the converts to Islam are in fact women, but these small details are always overlooked! How is it that such an evil religion continues to attract these women from all sections of a free society? Why do they choose to oppress themselves by embracing Islam?

The same kind of secular-prophecy was made prior to the invasion of Afghanistan; the Anglo-American forces would liberate the Afghan women from their veil. It failed. Today in certain European countries, the attitude is, if the Muslim women do not want to be liberated from their modest clothing, we will force them to do so! This is a blatant contradiction with the notion of freedom, and reflects the mindset of medieval Europe on the verge of launching a liberal-inquisition.

With regards to the second point of killing Jews and non-Muslims, Nick Griffin did not elaborate with any reference from the Quran, of substantiate it by citing scholarly works and historical examples. There is no verse in the Quran orders the indiscriminate killing of non-Muslims. On the contrary, a section of Islamic law deals with how the non-Muslim population should be protected, hence they are known as the Dhimmis, which means the protected people. It is fact that non-Muslims flourished within the Islamic Societies, Jews and Christians lived peacefully under the Muslim rule in Spain for centuries, as they did in places like India, Syria, Turkey and Palestine. In fact, facing religious persecution in Christian Europe, the Jews sought sanctuary within the Ottoman Empire, and prospered there for centuries.

The rise of BNP (British National Party) can be partially attributed to the demonisation of Muslims and Islam fanned by sections of the mainstream media. The nasty propaganda machine has often reversed the roles of victim and aggressor. The cowboys were always the virtuous people chasing the terrorists of the time, the Native Americans, often depicted as irrational wild savages; of course nothing to do with the new colonisers taking over their lands and resources. Today the impression created in the minds of the masses is that the Muslims are the anti-Semitic, illustrated by reversing the role of victim (Palestinians) and aggressor (Zionist State) in the region.

It is easy to blame others for your problem, this is the politics of the far-right according to the likes of Jack Straw and others, however, the reality is the mainstream media and the major parties have a majority share of this blame game, along with sections of the Muslim community.

Yamin Zakaria (
London, UK



Tuesday, 13 October 2009

Where are the Noble Acts for this Nobel Peace Prize?

"We think that this gives us a sense of momentum when the United States has accolades tossed its way rather than shoes" - U.S. State Department spokesperson, P.J. Crowley

Obama made history as the first black President of USA, and once again, he makes history as the first person awarded the Noble Peace Prize for hopes and promises, rather than actual accomplishments. He is the fourth US President to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, after Theodore Roosevelt (1908), Woodrow Wilson (1919), and Jimmy Carter (2002). Another prominent Noble Peace Prize laureate from the ranks of US leadership was the controversial Henry Kissinger, the former Secretary of State in the Nixon administration, he is considered by many as a war criminal, let alone deserving of such an accolade. But it might explain why Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin were also nominated for this award.

This is paradoxical, so many Noble Peace Prize awarded to the US, a nation that has constantly waged wars from the turn of the century, including the dropping of two Atom bombs on civilian population, and yet a passive nation like China has not been awarded any such prize.

As expected, there is incredulity around the world, which is compounded by the fact that Obama took office just two weeks before the 1 February deadline for nomination, which remains a mystery. Conspiracy theorist would suggest the decision was already made to award him this prize.

There is praise and criticism for the award. The critics argue there has been no delivery on making peace in the Middle East. Israel continues to build more settlement exclusively for Jews, despite Obama’s objection. Furthermore, Obama has ignored the UN Judge Goldstone's report of a damning indictment of Israeli war crimes in Gaza.

The selective targeting of Iran for its pursuit of nuclear technology, whilst ignoring Israel’s nuclear arsenal is the same old hypocrisy, and hardly a good start to rid the world of nuclear weapons. It would have been better to lead by example and get the other nuclear nations to disarm first.

Obama is contemplating sending 40,000 troops in Afghanistan, which is likely to escalate the war, and spill into Pakistan.

Those who view President Obama as a worthy recipient of this prize argue that his efforts focused on strengthening international diplomacy and cooperation, which has replaced military unilateralism of Bush. Nobel committee head Thorbjoern Jagland said: "It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve. It is a clear signal that we want to advocate the same as he has done." The Nobel Peace Prize committee stated that the Prize was for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”.

The proponents further argue dealing with Israel and the Middle East with a more balanced foreign policy will take time; he cannot simply turn everything on its head over night. The man has just arrived, let him settle down first and give him support to deal with the Zionist regimes whose tentacles run deep inside the US.

They also applaud his strategy to engage Iran, rather than to confront them on behalf of Israel. Similar tactics are being used to open channel of discussion with the Taliban, hoping that would also isolate the pro Al-Qaeda elements.

Obama does deserve praise at least for the fact that he will be donating the prize money of $1.4 Million USD to charity, I would recommend he gives it to the people of Afghanistan, Palestine and Iraq, the victims of the previous regime, and the constant Zionist aggression.

Whatever your views are about the merit of the peace prize, ultimately he will be judged by results, consider the following points:

• Will Obama break the US free from the Zionist clutches or at least loosen their grip? Will he be able to halt the Zionist expansion into West Bank?

• Will he manage to curb nuclear weapons across the world rather than just keeping his boots on a nuclear free Iran?

• Will he manage to end the conflict in Iran and Afghanistan?

Yamin Zakaria (
London, UK

Thursday, 8 October 2009

Lisbon Treaty Referendum: Is the European Union an example for the Islamic World?

Lisbon Treaty established on 13th of December 2007, is another step towards cementing European unity. Almost all the member states of the European Union have ratified the treaty through the parliamentary process. Ireland is the only country to have done this through a referendum. Once the treaty comes into effect, Europe will have its first President, unfortunately the nasty war criminal, Tony Blair, looks set to occupy that position.

It all started back in 1957 with the treaty of Rome; six European countries formed the EEC (European Economic Unity). The small economic club has now increased to 27 member states, which is increasingly asserting itself beyond an economic entity. It is only a matter of time that we may see a call for the creation of a European army, controlled by the European Parliament, headed by the new President of Europe. To a spectator, it seems they are moving inexorably towards a Federal Europe or some kind of super state. Is the new Roman Empire on the rise again? Many would view this power as a positive force to counterbalance the negative situation of having a lone super power.

Only 70 years ago, Europe was at war, and despite their historical animosity, diversity of language, culture and race, they are gradually moving forward with greater unification. One can argue the formation of European unity has been one of the main factors that have prevented wars breaking out in the continent. This period of stability is slightly tainted by the limited air raids carried out over Serbia by the NATO forces. However, this is seen in the fringes of Europe, and hardly constituted a full-scale war.

Rational justification for unity is self-evident. It gives more strength by pooling the resources of various nations. A unified European economy is one of the largest economies in the world that is competing with the US and the Japanese economy. The Euro looks set to replace the US Dollar as the dominant currency.

The tide of European unity is opposed by those who are concerned about sovereignty of their nation. The counter argument is the old notion of sovereignty of territorial or national integrity is outdated, has to be modified to conform to the globalised world. Increasingly the nation’s ability to determine its own economic or political policy is being limited by the rising tide of globalisation. Sovereignty is redefined as the ability of a nation to determine the welfare of its own citizen.

As an example, the European powers have collectively relinquished some level of political and economical sovereignty for the increasing collective benefit. Hence, if the UK were to pull out from the EU it would be more sovereign to determine its economic and political policies internally, but its influence would be reduced significantly in the international arena. Consequently, this would harm the welfare of its own citizen significantly. If it loses power and influence, in effect it is losing real sovereignty.

Nation states are supposed to be inherently divisive as each nation seeks to promote its interests. Yet, these European states have overcome these barriers and forge unity, propelled largely by the mutual economic benefit, which is reinforced by cultural and political cohesion brought through education, open debates and legislation.

Unity does not mean uniformity in every aspect. Different nations within Europe maintain their cultural identity, language and religion. In this age, mass participation is a feature of most society; this implies unity should come from within through mutual consultation, rather than the imposition of force, like the good old days of Napoleon. European Union reflects that ethos, and it seems to be working well.

Many of the Muslim countries and the respective minorities can learn from European countries like the UK, which has different nations (Scotland, Wales, Irish) flourishing within. The minorities retain their cultural identity, there is no ban imposed on the Celtic or Cornish language or the Scottish Kilt. In fact, the central government encourage all minorities, including the recent migrant populations to express their cultural identity; it adds character to the nation and enriches the culture.

The case for unification of the Islamic world is even greater. Apart from the rational justification of increasing material benefit, there is a religious obligation to be unified under one Caliphate. Our values are identical, from Morocco to Indonesia. The cultural similarities are stronger than our regional differences.

However, the Islamic world is more divided than ever before, and to blame this entirely on the west is simply being in denial of our failure. We were colonised argument has passed its sell by date. Other countries have made considerable progress since independence, whereas the Muslims countries are constantly falling behind.

Take the example of India and Pakistan (and Bangladesh), both countries have gained independence in 1947, yet India has made far more progression, despite having far greater levels of disparity in terms of language, race, religion and culture. To blame the British for the stagnation and corruption that exists within Pakistan and Bangladesh is ludicrous. Whenever, I have travelled through these parts of the world, just the experience with the airport officials seeking bribes tells the story. When you peek under their cover, you see nepotism and bribery is a way of life. There is no evidence to suggest the west is dictating or influencing the Muslim countries to behave in this manner. Why should they?

Those who argue the absence of Caliphate is the reason for our failure are missing the point. The progression does not start with the Caliphate but rather Caliphate would embody the result of our progression, which should begin before that. The existence of the Caliphate should not be a prerequisite to have the basic level of civility and some level of progression even within secular dictatorships or monarchs.

The stable European model and the volatile Islamic world shows, unity in the modern age has to be achieved gradually through mutual consultation, rather than the imposition of force. It has to be cultivated in the minds of people. The various organisations have failed to create any form of unification, even in terms of close cooperation between the various Islamic nations. There is deep-seated racism amongst various racial groups; the Turks see themselves as superior to Arabs, and the Arabs in turn looks towards the Pakistanis with disdain, and so on. The example of Iraq clearly illustrates this fracture, each group based on racial and sectarian motive pursued its interests, and thus the war was lost even before the US invaded Iraq.

Even the smaller experiment of Arab nationalism has failed at every level because the same prejudice is replicated amongst the various Arab states. It is no secret, many of the Arab states are eager to delete the Palestine issue, rather than collectively confront Israel. All they can offer is some token economic aid to the Palestinians after watching the routine Israeli massacres.

The world is moving on, but the Muslims seem to be stuck in the past literally. You see the endless lectures of what the Muslims achieved in the 12th century, failing to see the scientific advances made by the west in the last 500 years have left us behind in another galaxy!

‘Allah will never change the situation of a people unless they change what is within themselves’ (Quran - 13:11)

Yamin Zakaria (
London, UK

Tuesday, 6 October 2009

Hamas Response To Their Election Result of 2006

“The US can't promote democracy but then reject the results of this democracy.” (Amr Moussa, Arab League Secretary General)

Jimmy Carter, the former US president, leading a team of 900 foreign observes said, the elections in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were "completely honest". Definitely honest, compared to the standards set by the US, when George Bush ‘won’ the Florida 2000 election by denying the Afro-Americans and all the other coloured folks a vote, as they were poised to vote for the democrats. It must have brought pleasant memories back of the good old days, when the likes of Bush could literally chain and lynch those black folks; never mind vote, they would be lucky, if they could breath.

The turnout was 78 percent of 1.3 million voters, greater than most of the ‘democracies’ in the West, where the election results are known even before the election. Such ‘elections’ are determined by money, and not the votes: and if this is democracy then we need to redefine what constitutes oligarchy! It was amusing to see the responses of the Western leaders; some of them could be described as idiotic even if I was to be kind! Anyway, I have taken the liberty to respond to those comments on behalf of Hamas. If my answers are at odds with the Party position, I hope they will correct me.

Italy: "It is a very, very, very bad result," (Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister.)

Hamas: Oh, Why is that? I thought you were in favour of free and fair election, a pillar of democracy we keep hearing. Perhaps you prefer the mafia style oligarchy instead. Or may be you want our leaders to invest in porn and crime syndicates. When you clarify your commitment to democracy, you know the type of democracy, which is not rigged by money and ‘influence’, perhaps then we can understand why you thought the result was a bad one. We did our best to play by the rules of your game but it seems somehow we have misunderstood the rules!

United Kingdom: “But I think it is also important for Hamas to understand that there comes a point, and that point is now following that strong showing, where they have to decide between a path of democracy or a path of violence." (Tony Blair, the British prime minister)

Hamas: Mr Blair, if you oppose violence, what is your army doing in Iraq. Why have you invaded a country, killing between 30,000-100,000 innocent civilians, who have done no harm to your people? Is that not a clear example of unprovoked violence? Yes, a bit like your football hooligans, just ask Nick Griffin, he might give you a guided tour. If violence and democracy are mutually exclusive, then why do you not lead by example; disband your nuclear weapons, stop making huge profit from the sale of arms to dictators around the world. Why do you not call for the total nuclear disarmament and instead of selectively demanding that Iran does not produce nuclear weapons to defend itself from the hungry wolves?

Before you lecture us about violence, at least do the decent thing and get the facts, I know that can sometime hurt your conscience - that is if you have one. Tell us how many Palestinians and Israeli Jews have perished since 1948 or 1924. Who have been the bigger victims numerically? They are not the perpetrators but the real victim of state-terrorism. Did you know that many Jews from your country serve in the Israeli army, helping the ethnic cleansing process that began in 1948? Of course by wearing an Israeli army uniform that makes it civilised, but if the Muslims from Britain help the Palestinians that makes them terrorists. Is it like your UN, a Veto for you but none for us! If you do not believe me about the ethnic-cleansing process, which began in 1948, please look at the map of Palestine from 1946 till today.

USA: "I don't see how you (Hamas) can be a partner in peace if you advocate the destruction of a country (Israel) as part of your platform." (George Bush, the US President.)

Correct Mr Bush, how can you be partner if you are destroying a legitimate country. That is exactly what the Iraqis are asking now. In fact, how can you even talk of peace, as your armed forces have destroyed a country, a country that has never attacked your people? Do you not feel any shame in even uttering words like “peace”? Perhaps you no longer understand what shame is, like many of your soldiers demonstrated in Abu-Ghraib, as many do regularly on Jerry Springer.

We would urge you to look at the facts. Please have a look at the map, it shows clearly who has been diminishing and who has been expanding since 1948. I refer to a map, as you have demonstrated numerous times you have a very poor grasp of history and geography. I know it might shock many of your citizens; some would dismiss the map as propaganda, as many think Palestinians invaded Israel in 1948. How many Palestinians houses destroyed compared to how many Jewish settlement are built everyday. You advocate a law where the Palestinians disposed from their homes in 1948 cannot return but any Jew can come and settle in that land, because the Bible says so. Now we as Muslims must abide by your religious verdict, yet all this time we thought you were against mixing religion and politics.

Hamas is not opposed to the existence of the State of Israel; we have no objection to its existence as long as it is not in Palestine. In fact, if you are so committed to a Jewish state, then why do you not lead by example? Remember deeds speak louder than words. You have a continent to play with. Give them Alaska, or New York. The Islamic world will give you more than 100% cooperation. By the way, while you are at it, please take with you all the other puppets you have imposed on the Islamic world. As for opposing the existence of Israel in Palestine, this is the opinion of the 1.5 billion Muslims and those who want a compromise, only because they are pragmatic not because they believe it to be a just solution.

USA: "You cannot have one foot in politics and another in terror"… that for the US, Hamas was still a terrorist organisation. (Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State).

Hamas: Hamas condemns terrorism, especially the larger state terrorism of the US, UK and Israel. We condemn the terrorism in Iraq, its people terrorised under “shock and awe”, so that it can provide cheap entertainment for your people. Yet, how proud you Americans feel calling others violent, but this is what happens when one becomes immune from shame and arrogance. All we say, we have the right to defend and retaliate. If that means we are terrorists, then let the world know that we are indeed proud terrorists, as Osama Bin Laden said clearly.

I am afraid Hamas could never match the terror of your firepower and your war machine that has consumed 100,000 plus civilians. We favour renouncing violence as the Palestinians are the ones who are terrorised, by the weapons that your government supplies to Israel. So that the ‘chosen’ people of God can have their way at any cost and some would classify that as a Nazi like ideology. Hamas will lay down their weapons when the Israelis lay down their weapons and return our lands and homes. Moreover, Hamas will support the right of the Jews to be compensated for the hundreds of years of persecution faced in Europe.

Final Remark

Why do you not admit that you do not favour genuine democracy but a government that will be subservient to your interests? It would stop all the arguments and debates. Remember when FIS (Islamic Salvation Front) was poised to win a fair election, the Algerian government postponed it. Similarly, the Turkish army constrained the Islamic party led by Necmettin Erbakan, after it won the election. No cry for democracy than, which had to wait until 2003, when the US launched its war on terror (Islam), so building democracy became a good pretext.

This is not the first time the West has been exposed for their arrogance by arrogating themselves to speak for the Muslims, when they do not even represent their own population. Indeed, it was amusing to think how much agony the right-wing commentators must be in, like Jim Carey, in the film “Liar Liar” - they cannot utter “free and fair election” for the next 24 hours. Let us hope, those obnoxious characters disguised as journalists will stop knocking on our doors with slogans of democracy and freedom. May be now they realise that election like technology is only a means to achieve something, no civilisation has a complete monopoly on those things.

The party that has won has given its blood to its people and for the Muslims Ummah (Community). Was it not our children with rocks and stones have been defending Al-Aqsa, while the Muslim armies sit in their barracks and our so-called leaders commit hideous acts of treachery after treachery. By our blood and by our soul we will continue to sacrifice, until the return of Salahuddin Al-Ayubi with his army, and regain our peace and security; the land of olives (Bilad Az-Zaytun) will once again become green from red. We urge the rest of the Muslims Ummah to help us to hasten the return of Salahuddin Al-Ayubi and as a first step replicate our humble example in their respective lands.

Yamin Zakaria (
London, UK

Thursday, 1 October 2009

Iran, Palestine and Israel, What a contrast

We live in a crazy world; war-mongering nations lecturing about peace, nations that have trampled on UN Charter by invading Iraq using fabricated evidences are swearing allegiance to the UN Charter, and the massacre of civilians in Gaza is now certified by the UN as a war crime, but it does not make a blip in the UN Security Council radar. Then we witness nations armed with nuclear weapons making noise about nuclear proliferation, scorning Iran for seeking the same nuclear deterrence, concurrently ignoring the nuclear arsenal of Israel. This sort of blatant hypocrisy pithily describes the history of Middle East, from the betrayal of Sykes-Picot to the recent events, and this is the real source of anger in the streets.

Just compare the response from the western leaders to the publication of the recent UN report produced by Richard Goldstone on the Gaza Conflict, and revelations made by Iran of its nuclear site near the holy city of Qom. The former is a definite murder case testified by the countless victims lying in their pool of blood, whereas the latter is an administrative dispute between nations.

The UN report gives ‘pseudo legitimacy’ to the view that Israel had committed war crimes at the very least in its offensive against the civilians in Gaza. It was largely civilians, as no sane person will equate the lightly armed Hamas with their home made ‘rockets’ (which does not explode) to a conventional armed force. The report merely confirmed the obvious, the world witnessed the carnage and suffering inflicted on the trapped civilians in Gaza by the ‘brave’ Israeli soldiers. Israel has violated international law, and therefore, some kind of action is warranted but nobody dares to raise a finger against the sacred Zionist-Jews.

However, earlier I stated the report gives ‘pseudo legitimacy’, because legitimacy through the UN is dependent on the will of the leading western powers. In short, the UN is only effective when they want it to be. The west barely raised an eyebrow to the UN report, no calls for sanctions, or any form of action. Without any kind of enforcement, the UN report is a thesis of an academic student and it will remain academic, like the numerous UN resolutions issued against Israel.

In contrast, there was an instant, and a coordinated response by the western leaders to Iran announcing of a nuclear facility near the city of Qom, as if only now nuclear proliferation has become a serious problem. The sheer hypocrisy makes you seethe with anger, as one by one, the western leaders followed Obama, and issued warnings to Iran for developing nuclear energy, forgetting the nuclear arsenal in their backyard. It reminded me of a pack of dogs, when one starts to bark the others follow.

Iran is still some distance from acquiring nuclear weapons, and the US already knew about the facility, no surprises there because it can be easily detected by advanced satellite technology. In that case, why did the US and its allies react sharply to Iran’s declaration? The coordinated response makes sense as it is part of a broader US policy to make Iran to conform to its desires, in particular the aspirations of the Zionist state. This partially explains the recent decision to abandon the missile defence plan that had infuriated Russia, clearing the way for closer cooperation on placing sanction on Iran. This was followed by the speech at the United Nations by Obama, appealing to strengthen the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Then Obama met Dimtry Medvedev, and Russia subsequently announced for the first time that it would consider applying sanctions on Iran, obviously reciprocating to the US move to abandon the missile defence plan. That leaves the only other nuclear member of the Security Council, China. Obama no doubt also discussed this issue in the recent meetings with the Chinese President Hu Jintao. Historically, China has always been the last passenger to board the US ship. It seems, Obama has been active in preparing to confront Iran, and the influence of the Israeli lobby embedded inside Obama’s administration is very clear.

Here is the commonsense view of a layperson. Israel is a certified war criminal, a serial killer that is pointing its nukes at its neighbours, in particular Iran; it is constantly ignoring and violating UN resolutions, and casually invades and bombs its neighbours when it wants to ‘feel’ secure. Despite all this, Iran is accused of being the guilty party here, just for acquiring nuclear energy. How can an administrative dispute take precedence over a murder case? From the Iranian perspective, the country is surrounded by US-led military bases, and constant Israeli threat of launching bombing raids; thus, Iran has ample justification to develop nuclear weapons to protect its borders from the unruly Spartans.

Yamin Zakaria (
London, UK