Tag: Muslim

  • Israel’s Settlement Law: Consolidating Apartheid

    Israel’s Settlement Law: Consolidating Apartheid

    “Israel has just opened the ‘floodgates’, and crossed a ‘very, very thick red line’.” These were the words of Nickolay Mladenov, United Nations’ Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, in response to the passing of a bill at the Israeli Knesset on February 7 that retroactively legalises thousands of illegal settler homes, built on stolen Palestinian land.

    Mladenov’s job title has grown so irrelevant in recent years that it merely delineates a reference to a bygone era: a “peace process” that has ensured the further destruction of whatever remained of the Palestinian homeland.

    Israeli politicians’ approval of the bill is indeed an end of an era.

    We have reached the point where we can openly declare that the so-called peace process was an illusion from the start, for Israel had no intentions of ever conceding the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem to the Palestinians.

    In response to the passing of the bill, many news reports alluded to the fact that the arrival of Donald Trump in the White House, riding a wave of right-wing populism, was the inspiration needed by equally right-wing Israeli politicians to cross that “very, very thick red line”.

    There is truth to that, of course. But it is hardly the whole story.

    The political map of the world is vastly changing.

    Just weeks before Trump made his way to the Oval Office, the international community strongly condemned Israel’s illegal settlements on Palestinian land occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem.

    UN Security Council Resolution 2334 stated that these settlements have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of international law. Fourteen UNSC members voted in approval, while the US abstained, a revolutionary act by the US’ brazenly pro-Israel standards.

    The US, when still in the final days of the Barack Obama administration, followed that act by even more stunning language, as Secretary of State John Kerry described the Israeli government as the “most right-wing in history”.

    A chasm immediately emerged.

    Capitalising on the US-Israel rift, Trump railed against Obama and Kerry for treating pompous Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with “total disdain and disrespect”. Trump asked Israel to “stay strong”, for January 20 was not too far away.

    That date, Trump’s inauguration was the holy grail for Israel’s right-wing politicians, who mobilised immediately after Trump’s rise to power. Israel’s intentions received additional impetus from Britain’s Conservative Prime Minister, Theresa May. Despite her government vote to condemn Israeli settlements at the UN, she too ranted against the US for its censure of Israel.

    Kerry’s attack on a “democratically elected Israeli government” was not appropriate, May charged. “We do not … believe that the way to negotiate peace is by focusing on only one issue, in this case, the construction of settlements,” she added.

    Not only did May’s words define the very hypocrisy of the British government (which committed the original sin 100 years ago of handing historic Palestine to Zionist groups), but it was all that Israel needed to push forward with the new bill.

    It is quite telling that the vote on the bill took place while Netanyahu was on an official visit to the UK. In a country greatly influenced by ‘Friends of Israel’ cliques in both dominant parties, he was among friends.

    With the UK duly pacified, and the US in full support of Israel, moving forward with annexing Palestinian land became an obvious choice for Israeli politicians. Bezalel Smotrich, a Knesset member of the extremist Jewish Home party, put it best. “We thank the American people for voting Trump into office, which was what gave us the opportunity for the bill to pass,” he said shortly after the vote.

    The so-called “Regulation Bill” will retroactively validate 4,000 illegal structures built on private Palestinian land. In the occupied Palestinian territories, all Jewish settlementsare considered illegal under international law, as further indicated in UNSC Resolution 2334.

    There are also 97 illegal Jewish settlement outposts – a modest estimation – that are now set to be legalised and, naturally, expanded at the expense of Palestine. The price of these settlements has been paid mostly by US taxpayers’ money, but also the blood and tears of Palestinians, generation after generation.

    It is important, though, that we realise that Israel’s latest push to legalise illegal outposts and annex large swaths of the West Bank is the norm, not the exception.

    Indeed, the entire Zionist vision for Israel was achieved based on the illegal appropriation of Palestinian land. Wasn’t so-called “Israel proper” – as in land obtained by force from 1948 to 1967 – originally Palestinian land?

    Soon after Israel occupied the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem in 1967, it moved quickly to fortify its military occupation by unleashing settlement construction throughout the occupied territories.

    The early settlements had a strategic military purpose, for the intent was to create enough facts on the ground that would alter the nature of any future peace settlement; thus, the Allon Plan. It was named after Yigal Allon, a former general and minister in the Israeli government who took on the task of drawing an Israeli vision for the newly conquered Palestinian territories.

    The plan sought to annex more than 30 percent of the West Bank and all of Gaza for security purposes. It stipulated the establishment of a “security corridor” along the Jordan River, as well as outside the “Green Line”, a one-sided Israeli demarcation of its borders with the West Bank.

    While the religious component of the Israeli colonisation scheme currently defines the entire undertaking, it was not always this way. The Allon Plan was the brainchild of Israel’s Labor government, as the Israeli Right then was a negligible political force.

    To capitalise on the government’s alluring settlement policies in the West Bank, a group of religious Jews rented a hotel in the Palestinian town of Al-Khalil (Hebron) to spend Passover at the Cave of the Patriarchs, and simply refused to leave.

    Their action sparked biblical passion of religious orthodox Israelis across the country, who referred to the West Bank by its supposed biblical name, Judea and Samaria. In 1970, to “diffuse” the situation, the Israeli government constructed the Kiryat Arba settlement on the outskirts of the Arab city, which invited more orthodox Jews to join the growing movement.

    Over the years, the strategic settlement growth was complemented by the religiously motivated expansion, championed by a vibrant movement, epitomised in the finding of Gush Emunim (Bloc of the Faithful) in 1974. The movement was on a mission to settle the West Bank with legions of fundamentalists.

    Presently, by incorporating the illegal outposts (the work of religious zealots) into the strategically located, government-sanctioned larger illegal settlement blocs, Israeli politics and religion converged like never before.

    And between the unfortunate past and the troubling present, Palestinians continue to be driven out of their ancestral land and homes.

    But what is the Palestinian leadership doing about it? “I can’t deny that the (bill) helps us to better explain our position. We couldn’t have asked for anything more,” a Palestinian Authority official told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity, as quoted by Shlomi Elder.

    Elder writes: “The bill, whether it goes through or is blocked by the Supreme Court, already proves that Israel is not interested in a diplomatic resolution of the conflict.”

    Be as it may, this is hardly enough. It is absurd to argue that it was Palestinians’ purported inability to articulate their position that emboldened Israel to this extent. It is rather the international community’s failure to translate its laws into action that bolstered Israel’s militancy.

    The greatest mistake that the Palestinian leadership has committed (aside from its disgraceful disunity) was entrusting the US, Israel’s main enabler, with managing a “peace process” that has allowed Israel time and resources to finish its colonial projects, while devastating Palestinian rights and political aspirations.

    Returning to the same old channels, using the same language, seeking salvation at the altar of the same old “two-state solution” will achieve nothing, but to waste further time and energy. It is Israel’s obstinacy that is now leaving Palestinians (and Israelis) with one option, and only one option: equal citizenship in one single state or a horrific apartheid. No other “solution” suffices.

    In fact, the Regulation Bill is further proof that the Israeli government has already made its decision: consolidating apartheid in Palestine. If Trump and May find the logic of Netanyahu’s apartheid acceptable, the rest of the world shouldn’t.

    In the words of former President Jimmy Carter, “Israel will never find peace until it … permit(s) the Palestinians to exercise their basic human and political rights.” That Israeli “permission” is yet to arrive, leaving the international community with the moral responsibility to exact it.

    Dr Ramzy Baroud has been writing about the Middle East for more than 20 years. He is an internationally syndicated columnist, a media consultant, an author of several books and the founder of PalestineChronicle.com. His books include Searching Jenin and The Second Palestinian Intifada, and his latest, My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story. His website is www.ramzybaroud.net .

     

    Source: www.aljazeera.com

  • Malaysian Authorities Seize Pig-Hair Paint Brushes Following Complaints From Muslims

    Malaysian Authorities Seize Pig-Hair Paint Brushes Following Complaints From Muslims

    KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (AP) — Malaysian authorities have seized thousands of paint brushes suspected of containing pig bristles after consumers in this Muslim-majority nation demanded a crackdown, officials said Wednesday.

    Pigs and dogs are considered unclean by many Muslims, who make up some 60 percent of Malaysia’s 30 million people. It is illegal in the country to sell products made from any part of a pig or a dog, unless the goods are labeled and kept separately.

    Zarif Anwar, an enforcement official with the domestic trade and consumer ministry, said that since Tuesday, officials nationwide have been inspecting shops selling paint brushes for art and commercial use.

    He said the brushes seized were not labeled and found to have a different texture from other brushes and frayed ends, signs that they could be made from pig bristles. In some cases, the brushes had a “halal” certification that had expired, he said. The halal tag is issued by an Islamic government body to certify products safe to be used by Muslims.

    The seized brushes will be sent to a lab to be examined, Zarif said.

    “We want to protect consumers and we want traders to be aware of the religious sensitivity involved. This is a big offense,” Zarif told The Associated Press.

    He warned that traders who flout the rule face up to three years in jail, a fine of 100,000 ringgit ($22,522) or both.

    Conservative attitudes have been on the rise in Malaysia. A wide range of products have been certified halal, from mineral water to a newly launched internet browser, to appeal to Muslims.

    The Muslim Consumers Association of Malaysia called for stricter enforcement not just for paint brushes, but for other products as well. An official from the group, Nadzim Johan, said the association also received complaints that culinary brushes used in eateries may also contain pig bristles.

    “The key issue here is about labeling,” he said. “We want Muslim consumers to be forewarned. It’s not fair to deceive them.”

    Source: https://sg.news.yahoo.com

  • Watching America Under Trump Is Like Watching A Real-Life Cartoon

    Watching America Under Trump Is Like Watching A Real-Life Cartoon

    America is now run by Donald, with the help of Mickey (Pence). He’s now becoming Grumpy coz the Justice Department is Goofy-ing around with his executive orders.

    Can’t these guys just behave like the Seven Dwarfs and follow the script? When he gets mad, he Tweets. I’m not sure what Tweety Bird thinks of this coz all this while she’s been terrorized by Sylvester, the All-American cat, not the Persian or Arabia breed.

    He wants to build a wall to keep Speedy Gonzales out. I’m sure those muchachos will make Looney Tunes out of him. After that bad phone call, the Aussies may not want to be his Road Runner anymore.

    And I’m told that his inauguration speech was taken from Dory. Or was it Nemo? That’s a tough one.

    But I’m sure America will be great again!

     

    Source: Effendi Basri

  • More Than 2 Years But Still No Muslim Stall At Nan Hua Pri School Canteen

    More Than 2 Years But Still No Muslim Stall At Nan Hua Pri School Canteen

    *Renting of Muslim Stall at Nan Hua Primary School*

    (this post/advertisement/invitation will expire after 15 Feb)

    Dear all. It’s been more than 2 years since the Muslim staff and pupils have any Muslim stall. My school has been trying to publicise and advertise for interested stallholders, but to no avail. I hope to have some luck posting in this FB group.

    • Stall Rental: $15/mth
    • Payment to cleaner: $8/school day
    • Own registration for water and gas with PUB
    • Electricity usage will be billed by school based on meter reading
    • Operating hours: 9.00am to about 2.00pm on school days
    • Peak hours:
    Recess time: 9.30am to 11.00am
    Lunch time: 1.30pm to 2.00pm
    Address: 30 Jalan Lempeng S128806 (opposite Clementi Fire Station)

    Please call Mr Phua (Admin Manager) at 67788050 if you are interested and/or want to view the stall.

    Thank you.

    P/S: There is a generous individual who is willing to help the eventual successful applicant for the malay stall with a $500 interest-free loan. This is to help with the licensing fee, rental and initial costs. The individual will contact the successful applicant directly. His niat is to enable the muslim students and teachers to have easier access to halal food.

    God bless the above-mentioned generous loan 😇

    Regards,
    Md Faizal
    PE Teacher
    Nan Hua Primary School

     

    Source: Mohamad Faizal in Halal Cafe & Restaurants in Singapore

  • Why Is Ong Teng Cheong Not Recognised As Singapore’s First Elected President?

    Why Is Ong Teng Cheong Not Recognised As Singapore’s First Elected President?

    The changes to the Elected Presidency (EP) scheme were passed by Parliament on Monday, 7 February.

    The Government have also announced that the next EP will take place in September 2017.

    This next presidential election will be a special one which is reserved only for Malay candidates.

    It is part of the slew of changes made to the EP scheme by the Government which claimed that it was concerned about there not being a minority-race president for an extended period.

    The changes ensure that this would not be so. If there has not been a minority-race president for five terms, the following EP election will be reserved only for minority candidates.

    The proposed changes had only been announced last year and were quickly debated in Parliament in November last year.

    Barely two months later, the changes are now in force and the next election will be reserved only for Malay candidates.

    Since the proposed changes were raised, some have expressed suspicion that they were engineered by the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) to bar Dr Tan Cheng Bock from running in September.

    Dr Tan had come within a whisker of defeating the PAP-approved candidate, former PAP minister Dr Tony Tan, in the 2011 election.

    Dr Tan Cheng Bock had last year announced that he would contest the next presidential elections.

    The Government, in the meantime, has said the changes are not to bar anyone, and that it was making the changes because of its concern that Singapore, being a multi-racial society, should be represented at the highest level by the different racial groups.

    While there have been many questions raised about the new rules, one in particular is worth delving further into.

    This has to do with the decision to designate the next election as a reserved one.

    Workers’ Party chairman and Member of Parliament for Aljunied GRC, Sylvia Lim, highlighted the issue in Parliament on Monday.

    “The Schedule sets out a table showing President Wee Kim Wee as the first President to be counted,” Ms Lim said. “Together with the subsequent Presidential terms of President Ong Teng Cheong, two terms of President SR Nathan and one term of President Tony Tan, these form 5 terms where a non-Malay President was in office.  Thus, the government reaches the conclusion that this year’s Presidential Election will be reserved for Malays.  This is a conclusion that has left Singaporeans bewildered and suspicious.”

    Indeed it has.

    The Government, which said it was advised by the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC), had explained that counting should begin from President Wee because he was the first President to exercise the powers of an Elected President.

    “This advice was surprising and illogical to many Singaporeans, given that President Wee Kim Wee was never elected to office,” Ms Lim said.

    “Why not count from the first Elected President, Mr Ong Teng Cheong?” she asked. “Is it because if President Ong was the first one to be counted, we would have to go through this year’s election as an open election and risk the contest by Chinese or Indian candidates who may not be to the Government’s liking?”

    In his response, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, Chan Chun Sing, said Mr Wee was the first president to exercise the powers under the elected presidency.

    According to news reports, Mr Chan doesn’t seem to have elaborated further on his argument, except to insist how the Government had no political intentions, and that in fact “the changes carried high political risk and cost.”

    “If this Government led by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong is for short-term political advantage, would we do it?” he asked. “Would we expend our political capital to do this?”

    Rhetoric aside, the Government’s position on why Mr Wee should be the starting point makes him, in effect, the first elected president because he had exercised the powers under the elected presidency.

    But such a view runs counter to earlier statements by Government ministers themselves, including former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, and the government-controlled media, who had all described Mr Ong as Singapore’s first Elected President.

    Let us take a short walk down memory lane.

    Way before the EP scheme became reality, former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, who had initiated the idea, “hinted” in 1985 “that Singapore might have its first elected President at the end of Mr Wee’s four-year term or, perhaps, earlier.”

    st85

    The Business Times, in September 1993, just a day before Mr Ong was sworn in as President, described Mr Ong as “the first elected president.”

    businesstimes

    In the Malay Berita Harian newspaper the next day, it said “History made: Mr Ong Teng Cheong has been sworn in as S’pore’s first [elected president].”

    tnp-93

    6 years later, in 1999, the Straits Times published a chronology of Mr Ong’s achievements, including: “1993: Mr Ong Teng Cheong wins Singapore’s first presidential Election..”

    st-99

    In 2002, upon Mr Ong’s demise, the radio station 93.8FM had this headline: “Former president Ong Teng Cheong, S’pore’s first elected president, has died..”

    tnp-02

    And even as recent as 2007, the Straits Times was still referring to him as Singapore’s first Elected President:

    st-07

    “Hwa Chong Institution now has student centre in honour of  Singapore’s first elected president, Mr Ong Teng Cheong.”

    And if you are still not convinced that Mr Ong was indeed Singapore’s first Elected President, here are two authoritative sources which might change your mind.

    First, there is the government’s own National Library website.

    Right the top of its “History SG” page is this headline, in caps:

    nlbotc

    “ONG TENG CHEONG IS THE FIRST ELECTED PRESIDENT OF SINGAPORE”.

    That is pretty unequivocal from the curators of our history.

    And second, here was what then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in 2002 said in his condolence letter to Mr Ong’s family:

    nlb02

    “As the first elected President, Teng Cheong had to work the two-key system…”

    So, there you have it.

    Singaporeans, the media and even the Government itself, had referred to Mr Ong as Singapore’s first Elected President many times the last 24 years since he was first elected.

    Mr Chan’s explanation on why it was instead Mr Wee who is being counted as the nation’s first Elected President is unconvincing at best, and totally disrespectful of Mr Ong, at worst.

    It also denies our own political and national history which, in fact, is plain for all to see. And not to mention it is also an utter repudiation of Singaporeans’ choice when they elected Mr Ong to be the first Elected President.

    All in all, a simple stroke of the pen to change our history is an act of betrayal.

    Mr Ong Teng Cheong presented himself to the people as a candidate, convinced them he could do the job and they elected him through the ballot.

    This, with all due respect to Mr Wee who himself was a very excellent president indeed, is what the ELECTED president is supposed to do, at a minimum.

    What Mr Ong has done as Singapore’s first Elected President resonates even today with many Singaporeans, especially when he stood independent from the rulers of the party he once belonged to, in carrying out his duty on behalf of Singaporeans.

    And because of his presidency, the EP went through many substantial changes and improvements as well.

    Mr Ong was Singapore’s first Elected President and the changes to the EP should take reference from his tenure.

    To conveniently sidestep his presidency, without any valid or convincing explanation, only fuels suspicion and speculation that the current Government has ulterior motives in pushing through the changes at such speed.

    In the end, it damages the credibility of the EP, especially the reserved EP, and this is not good for the country.

    Mr Chan needs to do better to convince Singaporeans that the Government has no ulterior agenda in not recognising Mr Ong’s presidency.

     

    Source: https://andrewlohhp.wordpress.com

deneme bonusu