PNA slams Israeli propaganda against Iran’s nuclear energy program

Chairman of the Palestinian National Council (PNA) Salim Zanoun

The Palestinian people express their solidarity with the Islamic Republic of Iran in its attempt to achieve peaceful nuclear energy.”

Chairman of the Palestinian National Council (PNA) Salim Zanoun 

Chairman of the Palestinian National Council (PNA) Salim Zanoun has condemned the Israeli regime’s propaganda against Iran’s peaceful nuclear energy program.

“The Palestinian people express their solidarity with the Islamic Republic of Iran in its attempt to achieve peaceful nuclear energy,” Zanoun said in a message to Iran’s Majlis (parliament) Speaker Ali Larijani on Sunday.

He lashed out at arrogant powers for keeping silent on the nuclear arsenals of Israel.

The United States and Israel have repeatedly threatened Tehran with the “option” of a military strike based on the allegation that Iran’s nuclear energy program may include a covert military aspect.

Iran has categorically refuted the US-led allegations regarding its nuclear energy program, saying that as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency, it is entitled to develop and acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

The PNA chairman also expressed his appreciation for the Iranian government and nation’s support for the Palestinian people’s rights and their condemnation of the Israeli regime’s racist measures to falsify the cultural identity of Palestine.

He voiced his readiness to expand joint cooperation with Iran’s Majlis to adopt necessary measures with the purpose of countering the criminal acts of the Israeli regime.

(www.presstv.ir / 15.07.2012)

Settlers Storm Village, Attack Homes in Nablus

NABLUS, July 15, 2012 (WAFA) – A number of Extremist Jewish settlers Sunday stormed Jalud, a village southeast of Nablus and attacked residents’ houses, according to a local activist.

Ghassan Daghlas, in charge of settlements file in the Palestinian Authority in the northern part of the West Bank, told WAFA that settlers of a nearby settlement stormed the village, threw rocks at residents’ houses and tried to break into several homes.

(www.wafa.ps / 15.07.2012)

Saudi protesters continue anti-regime demos despite police brutality

Anti-regime demonstrators gather in the Qatif region of Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province, July 8, 2012.

Saudi protesters continue staging demonstrations against the repressive regime of Al Saud despite the violent crackdown by the security forces.

Protests against the Riyadh regime in several towns have increased in number over the past few days.

Demonstrators condemn the brutal police crackdown and demand the release of prominent Shia cleric Sheikh Nemr al-Nemr, who was attacked, injured and arrested on July 8.

On July 13, Saudi security forces in the town of Awamiyah killed an 18-year-old protester during a demonstration held near a police station in support of Sheikh Nemr.

At least 10 female protesters have also been arrested in the city of Buraydah, about 380 kilometers northwest of the capital, over the past couple of days.

Since February 2011, protesters have held demonstrations on an almost regular basis in Saudi Arabia, mainly in the Qatif region and Awamiyah in Eastern Province, calling for the release of all political prisoners, freedom of expression and assembly, and an end to widespread discrimination.

However, the demonstrations have turned into protests against the Al Saud regime, especially since November 2011, when Saudi security forces killed five protesters and injured many others in Eastern Province.

Similar demonstrations have also been held in Riyadh and the holy city of Medina over the past few weeks.

The Saudi Interior Ministry issued a statement on March 5, 2011, prohibiting “all forms of demonstrations, marches or protests, and calls for them.”

According to Human Rights Watch, the Saudi regime “routinely represses expression critical of the government.”

(www.presstv.ir / 15.07.2012)

95 Days of Hunger Strike: Act Now to Save Akram al-Rikhawi’s life!

Akram al-Rikhawi has now been on hunger strike for 95 days. He is the longest serving hunger striker anywhere in the world.  He is suffering from numerous medical conditions, including diabetes, asthma, high cholesterol, osteoporosis, glaucoma, kidney problems and immune deficiency. Addameer reports that “Prior to his arrest, Akram received injections of Kenacort to treat his asthma, but following his arrest, the Israeli Prison Service (IPS) did not allow Akram to take this injection. Instead, it was replaced with injections of cortisone, which is most likely the cause of severe complications, resulting in additional chronic illnesses such as diabetes and osteoporosis, from which Akram now suffers.” Take action today to call for the immediate release of Akram al-Rikhawi!

Akram began his hunger strike on April 12 of this year to demand his early release due to his heath circumstances. He also has eight children, and he and his wife are also responsible for the care of the five children of his late brother. Despite his severe health circumstances and his difficult family and economic straits and responsibility for 13 children, his appeals for early release in 2012 and on June 5, 2012 were both rejected.

He did not stop his hunger strike on May 14 at the time of the agreement between prisoners and the Israel Prison Services because his unique circumstances were not addressed – namely, early release on medical grounds. Physicians for Human Rights were denied access to Akram for nearly two months, until June 6. He has lost 26.5% of his body weight – and was already very unhealthy. Akram has been refusing medical examinations since mid-May – and in response, the cortisone injections have only increased. PHR has stated that he must be transferred immediately to a civilian hospital in order to receive proper medical care, and filed suit to demand he be transferred – which was denied by an Israeli District Court on June 14. Since June 16, he has been refusing supplements and other forms of artificial nourishment that the Israeli prison hospital has attempted to impose on him.

He has now been on hunger strike for 95 days. He is in severe danger. International action is urgently needed to save his life! It is urgent that we act now to free Akram Rikhawi and secure his much-needed medical care.

Akram al-Rikhawi is not the only Palestinian prisoner currently on hunger strike:

• Samer al-Barq has now been on hunger strike since May 22, for 55 days, protesting Israeli violations of the agreement with the prisoners – after his own administrative detention, rather than expiring as agreed by the Israelis at the end of the strike, was renewed for an additional three months. Samer al-Barq is now on hunger strike until his release is secured.
• Hassan Safadi, a long-term hunger striker who had been striking for 71 days at the time the May 14 agreement was concluded, had his administrative detention order renewed by the Israelis on June 21, despite the explicit agreement that the long-term hunger strikers such as Safadi serving in administrative detention without charge or trial would not have those orders renewed. Safadi is now on his 25th day of hunger strike and plans to continue until he is released.

The Israeli Prison Services have continued to violate the May 14 agreement in numerous ways – Dirar Abu Sisi remains in solitary confinement and another prisoner was recently moved to isolation. Although family visits to Gaza prisoners have now been announced, they will be “experimental,” apply only to 25 of the 479 prisoners and will exclude prisoners’ children from visits.

After his 96-day hunger strike, Palestinian soccer star Mahmoud Sarsak returned on July 10 to his home in Gaza to a hero’s welcome. It is urgent that we act now for all Palestinian prisoners to return to their families and homes like Sarsak. Administrative detention, mass roundups, and military trials are continuing in Palestine.  International solidarity and action is needed to hold the occupation accountable for its ongoing imprisonment and abuse of the people of Palestine!

TAKE ACTION!

(Sign the petition on the site: http://samidoun.ca/2012/07/95-days-of-hunger-strike-act-now-to-save-akram-al-rikhawis-life/  15.07.2012)

Nawaf Fares: ‘The Syrian regime is dead’

One of Syria’s high-profile defectors explains what is really going on inside the corridors of power in Damascus.

He is one of the highest-profile defectors from the Syrian regime. Until a few days ago, Nawaf Fares was Bashar al-Assad’s ambassador in Baghdad, Iraq’s capital. He has been a very prominent figure in Damascus for years. After a career with the police, he served as governor in several Syrian provinces. He held senior Baath party posts since the time of the late president Hafez al-Assad. And finally he was appointed ambassador to Baghdad in 2008, which made him the first Syrian envoy to Iraq for nearly three decades. Fares, a Sunni who is said to have close ties to Syrian security, is the second senior diplomat to quit the embattled government since the beginning of the Syrian uprising. The first was Bassam Imadi, the Syrian ambassador to Sweden. Western diplomats have hailed recent defections as a sign that the al-Assad government is slowly beginning to crumble from within. So, why did Fares, once known as a confidant of the president, change sides? What is really going on inside the corridors of power in Damascus? And what does he make of the latest diplomatic moves as rival draft resolutions are exchanged at the UN – in the aftermath of yet another massacre which some say may have killed as many as 200 people? Inside Syria, with presenter James Bays, speaks exclusively to Nawaf Fares, the former Syrian ambassador to Iraq. “The regime and Bashar al-Assad himself gave us illusions about reforms. We are now convinced that this regime will never do anything for the sake of the people. Lies are going on, the head of the regime is lying, it’s mirage, it’s illusion, killings everywhere, destruction everywhere and oppression everywhere …. He [Bashar-al-Assad] carries the genes of a dictator. His father killed people 30 years ago. Those who deal with him know that he is a liar … The Russian support, the Iranian support and the hesitation or the inability of the international community to protect the Syrian people are the main reasons why the regime is buying time and why the regime is staying for a longer period of time. But from inside, the regime is dead. Economically, socially, in all domains … Reforms could have given some fruits if applied at the very beginning of the revolution. But after waves of blood it’s impossible for the Syrians to trust Bashar al-Assad again, to accept his existence in Syria even …. This regime is dead, it’s just a matter of time.” Nawaf Fares, the former Syrian ambassador to Iraq RECENT DEFECTIONS: Western diplomats have hailed defections as a sign that the Syrian government is beginning to crumble from within Last week the Revolutionary Guard commander, Brigadier General Manaf Tlass defected. He was a close confidant of President Assad and the son of a former defence minister Bassam Imadi, the Syrian ambassador to Sweden, left the government in December. He is now a member of the opposition Syrian National Council Among the many thousands of soldiers who have defected from the Syrian army, around 15 generals are said to have fled to Turkey A colonel in the Syrian air force also sought asylum in June, flying his MiG-21 fighter jet south across the border to a Jordanian air base (www.aljazeera.com / 15.07.2012)

Epidermolysis Bullosa ….A skin Disease affects on the Children ….Brief definition

Epidermolysis Bullosa is in Palestine affected our Kids. we have around 7 cases in Gaza strip most of them are kids under 7 years old. As you see in the Note below in the Treatment section, the only way for the treatment is to Prevent blisters forming and complications by using topical antibiotics and hygienic procedures. 
another thing could be help is teach their Parents what kind of Food should they eat, what kind of environment should they stay….etc 

My call is I want from all my friends If they know any doctors, or associations could help those kids with the Treatment I mentioned above in both ways (Medical and Nutritional ). 

Epidermolysis bullosa is a group of inherited disorders in which skin blisters develop in response to minor injury.

 

 

Causes

There are four main types of epidermolysis bullosa:

• Dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa
• Epidermolysis bullosa simplex
• Hemidesmosomal epidermolysis bullosa
• Junctional epidermolysis bullosa

 

Symptoms

Symptoms depend on the type of epidermolysis bullosa, but can include:

• Alopecia (hair loss)
• Blisters aound the eyes and nose
• Blisters in or around the mouth and throat, causing feeding problems or swallowing difficulty
• Blisters on the skin as a result of minor injury or temperature change
• Blistering that is present at birth
• Dental problems such as tooth decay
• Hoarse cry, cough, or other breathing problems
• Milia (tiny white bumps or pimples)
• Nail loss or deformed nails

 

Treatment

The goal of treatment is to prevent blisters from forming and complications. How much treatment is needed depends on how severe the disease is. Recommendations often include avoiding skin damage (trauma) and hot environments.

• To prevent infection take very good care of the skin, especially if any blistered areas become crusted or exposed (raw). Follow your health care provider’s instructions closely. You might need regular whirlpool therapy and to apply antibiotic ointments to wound-like areas. Your health care provider will let you know if you need a bandage or dressing, and if so, what type to use.
• For swallowing difficulties, your may need to use oral steroids for short periods of time. Long-term steroids for epidermolysis bullosa is generally not recommended. If you also have candida in the mouth or esophagus, you will also need to take medication for that infection.
• Good dental hygiene is very important, including regular dental visits. It is best to see a dentist who has experience treating people with epidermolysis bullosa.
• Proper nutrition is also important. When you have a lot of skin injury, you may need extra calories and protein to help you recover. Work closely with a nutritionist. If you have blisters or complications in the mouth or esophagus, avoid eating hard or brittle foods such as pretzels, nuts, and chips. Eating soft foods can help prevent making the sores worse.
• Working with a physical therapist can help you keep the full range of motion in the joints and minimize contractures.

Skin grafting for denuded or ulcerated areas of the skin may be necessary. Other surgical procedures for complications of epidermolysis bullosa might be recommended. Such surgeries include:

• Dilation of the esophagus if there is a narrowing (stricture)
• Repair of hand deformities
• Removal of of any squamous cell carcinoma that develops

(Facebook / 15.07.2012)

 

Drone Strikes Do Fuel Blowback in Yemen

Slate columnist Fred Kaplan recently attempted to defend President Obama’s increasing reliance on drones. While he partially concedes that drones could be “morally iffy,” Kaplan argues that this “kill list” of extrajudicial assassination could be ”assuring“:

“Not only are people—trained, authorized personnel—very much in control of what the drones do; in the most sensitive cases, the ultimate decision is made, in a very deliberate fashion, by the president of the United States.“

Clearly, Kaplan has completely disregarded one of the most disturbing revelationsfrom a May New York Times piece: ”Today, the Defense Department can target suspects in Yemen whose names they do not know.” Increasingly, Yemenis and Pakistanis are victims of signature strikes. These attacks target groups of people with traits that are shared by “terrorists” or “militants.” Violent, aggressive traits like loading fertilizer onto a truck or doing jumping jacks.

For this reason, Marcy Wheeler has attacked the “kill list” as a “shiny object”

“…because it propagates the myth that everyone we’re killing is a known terrorist…The reference to and focus on a Kill List hides precisely the most controversial use of drones outside of Afghanistan: the targeting of patterns, not people.”

No wonder American drones are highly unpopular around the world.

Later in his piece, Kaplan cites a New America Foundation study that asserts 96% of all those killed by drones or air strikes in Yemen were “militants.” But as The New York Times reported earlier this month, the Obama administration, ”in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants.” In other words, thanks to sinister accounting, the Obama administration has eliminated the divide between “guilty” and “innocent bystander.” This would also explain why the official civilian casualty count has been incredibly low. So the true militant and civilian death tolls are unknown.

Finally, Kaplan raises many crucial questions about American involvement in Yemen:

“Are they having an effect on the war against al-Qaeda? Does killing the No. 2 in Yemen degrade the organization, or does it just mean the ascension of an equally competent No. 3? Have the killings to date triggered a backlash? Ibrahim Mothana, co-founder of the Watan party, writes in an op-ed in today’s New York Times, “Drones strikes are causing more and more Yemenis to hate America and join radical militants.” Is this true? I don’t know, but it’s a question worth investigating.”

But just three paragraphs later, Kaplan himself writes:

“Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which operates out of Yemen, is now seen as the center of the most dangerous operations, the locus of several attempted attacks against the United States. AQAP’s ranks are said to have swelled to more than 1,000 fighters (up from 200 to 300 just three years ago), and they control significant parts of southern Yemen.”

So under the Obama administration, AQAP has drastically increased its membership. Meanwhile, the Obama administration has drastically increased its drone strikes: since 2009, it has launched 28 drone strikes and 13 air strikes in Yemen. (By comparison, George W. Bush only ordered one drone strike during all eight years of his presidency.) More dramatically, according to the same New America Foundation paper cited by Kaplan, 99% of all Yemenis killed by American drones or air strikes occurred during the Obama administration.

Could these trends be related?

Yes.

Appearing on Up with Chris Hayes, Jeremy Scahill, a national security correspondent at The Nation, argues that these strikes motivate people “to hate the United States:”

“The most dangerous thing I think the US is doing (besides murdering innocent people in many cases) is giving people in Yemen or Somalia or Pakistan a non-ideological reason to hate the United States. To want to fight the United States. Non-ideological reasons, meaning a personal vendetta, is much more powerful than ‘We hate your McDonald’s. We hate your freedom. We hate your Christianity.’ That’s real to them.”

Or as a Yemeni lawyer tweeted in May, ”Dear Obama, when a U.S. drone missile kills a child in Yemen, the father will go to war with you, guaranteed. Nothing to do with al-Qaeda.” Furthermore, a May 2012 Washington Post article declared, ”In Yemen, U.S. airstrikes breed anger, and sympathy for al-Qaeda.” That article meticulously detailed how resentment, outrage, and vengeance towards U.S. drones legitimize AQAP. While this concept of blowback is controversial in the United States, it’s increasingly becoming the consensus in Yemen, shared by politicians, human rights activists, and victims’ families:

“Every time the American attacks increase, they increase the rage of the Yemeni people, especially in al-Qaeda-controlled areas. The drones are killing al-Qaeda leaders, but they are also turning them into heroes.

“These attacks are making people say, ‘We believe now that al-Qaeda is on the right side,’

“There is more hostility against America because the attacks have not stopped al-Qaeda, but rather they have expanded, and the tribes feel this is a violation of the country’s sovereignty…There is a psychological acceptance of al-Qaeda because of the U.S. strikes.

“The Americans are targeting the sons of the Awlak. I would fight even the devil to exact revenge for my nephew.”

In addition, American drone strikes completely ignore the delicate complexity of Yemeni politics. According to Malou Innocent, a foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute, “Rather than encourage the Yemeni government to respond to southern demands for greater local autonomy, Washington’s tactics are helping the U.S.-backed Yemeni government repress Southern separatists.”

Yet there has been push back against blowback. Writing in Foreign Affairs, Christopher Swift, a fellow at the University of Virginia Law School’s Center for National Security Law, argues that drone blowback is a ”fallacy.” Swift recently traveled to Yemen and interviewed 40 different politicians, tribal leaders, and clerics about their views towards drones. Instead of revenge, Swift argues that poverty motivates people to join or sympathize with AQAP. He quotes an Islamist parliamentarian:

“The driving issue is development. Some districts are so poor that joining al-Qaeda represents the best of several bad options.”

However, Yemen’s economy has been stagnant. According to the CIA World Factbook, in 2009, the same year AQAP was first created, Yemen’s GDP per capita was $2,500. In 2011, it was $2,500. The Yemeni economy has not dramatically deteriorated since the inception of AQAP. But what has changed dramatically over the past few years is the number of Yemenis killed by American aircraft. As I mentioned earlier, 99% of all Yemenis killed by American drones or air strikes occurred during the Obama administration.

In addition, there could very well be an ideological divide between leadership and other elites and the low-level recruits who join AQAP. Furthermore, writing at Antiwar.com, John Glaser notes that Anwar al-Awlaki, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the so-called “Underwear Bomber,” and Faisal Shahzad, the so-called Times Square Bomber, all state that their plots were “in retaliation” for the US killing innocent civilians.

In order to prevail over AQAP in the long-run, the Council on Foreign Relations quotes Ali Soufan’s recommendation: ”You have to counter the [al-Qaeda] narrative, the ideology,” and prevent them “from becoming part of opposition society.” But by needlessly killing innocent civilians, the Obama administration sows discord, thereby unwittingly strengthening al-Qaeda as an opposition force.

Furthermore, AQAP is a relatively young organization, first formed in January 2009. So escalating U.S. involvement against an al-Qaeda affiliate is precisely what these terrorists want. As Osama bin Laden himself explained in October 2004:

“We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy…All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations.“

(original.antiwar.com / 15.07.2012)

Most Muslims in the Middle East Want Islam and Democracy, See No Contradiction

WASHINGTON – As an Islamist president took office in Egypt, most Muslims in the Middle East nations want both democracy and a strong role for Islam in politics and government, a new survey has found.

“Solid majorities in Lebanon, Turkey, Egypt, Tunisia and Jordan believe democracy is the best form of government, as do a plurality of Pakistanis,” the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitude Project said in a new report released earlier this week. “There is also a strong desire for Islam to play a major role in the public life of these nations, and most want Islam to have at least some influence on their country’s laws.”

The survey, conducted a year and half after the Arab Spring swept the Middle East, found that most people in many predominantly Muslim nations remain optimistic that democracy can succeed in the Middle East.

Conducted in six countries between March 19 and April 20, the survey found that a majority of people in Lebanon, Turkey, Egypt, Tunisia and Jordan believe that democracy is the best possible form of government, as does a 42 % plurality in Pakistan. Even among Pakistanis, who expressed the weakest support for democracy, only 17% said that nondemocratic systems of government are sometimes preferable.

Majorities in five of the countries surveyed reported that Islam already plays a large role in their political systems.

“In newly democratic Tunisia, where the Islamist party Ennahda won the largest share of votes in the recent parliamentary elections, fully 84% think Islam has a major role,” Pew report said. “Similarly, in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood has won both parliamentary and presidential elections, 66% hold this view, up from 47% two years ago.”

Support for Islamic law was lower in Lebanon, Turkey and Tunisia, but big pluralities in the latter two said they wanted the values and principles of Islam to be reflected in their laws to some degree.

Another Pew survey released earlier this year found that most Egyptians want Islam to play a major role in society and the Noble Qur’an shape their country’s laws.

The nationwide survey of 1,000 respondents also showed that six-in-ten Egyptians believe the Noble Qur’an should shape the country’s laws.

Economy

When the importance of having democratic government was weighed against the need for a strong economy, support for democracy weakened.

“When respondents are asked which is more important, a good democracy or a strong economy, Turkey and Lebanon are the only countries where more than half choose democracy,” Pew report said.

“Egyptians are divided, while most Tunisians, Pakistanis and Jordanians prioritize the economy,” the report added.

With Turkey a notable exception, views about the economic situation in these countries are grim. Nearly six-in-ten Turks (57%) say their country’s economy is in good shape, but at least seven-in-ten in Pakistan, Lebanon, Tunisia, Egypt and Jordan offer negative assessments.

The Pew poll is part of the broader 21-nation spring 2012 Global Attitudes survey. The surveys are based on face-to-face interviews conducted under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates and included sample sizes of at least 1,000 people in each of the 6 countries. Margins of error ranged from 4.2% to 5.2%.

(www.faithinallah.org / 15.07.2012)

MYANMAR: Muslims and Their History

Burma re-named as Myanmar in 1989 is a multi-ethnic country in Southeast Asia bordering Thailand, Laos, China, India, Bangladesh and Andaman Sea. Buddhism, which is professed by about 89% of country’s various ethnic groups like Burmans, Karen, Shan, Rakhine and Mon – has more or less become a part of their national identity. Various reports suggest that due to certain historical, social, political and cultural problems the Muslim minority had felt alienated and occasional communal riots have occurred.

Historically, some reports suggest that there was a mass killing of Muslims in Arakan in 17th century, when Shah Shuja, the second son of Shajahan lost to his brother Aurangzeb and fled to this province by sea route. As Shuja failed to meet the demand of the then king of Burma asking for his daughter and the wealth he had carried with him, his companions were massacred.

The entry of Muslims in Burma was mainly from countries like Turkey, Persia, Arab, China and India. They were mostly travellers, traders, sailors, pioneers, adventurers, and war prisoners. Although, their arrival in this land began even prior to the first Burmese Empire founded by king Anawrahata in 1055 AD, their main influx was from the eighteenth century onwards through the Arakan region. The current Muslim population in Burma is therefore the descendents of Arab, Persian, Turks, Moors, Pathans, Indians, Pakistanis, Chinese, Malays and Bangladeshis. While the Muslim immigrants from China, who are meagre in number and mostly settled in Rangoon are termed as Panthay, those who entered in Arakan particularly from East Bengal are known as Rohingyas, who form a prominent group of Muslims in Burma.

Arakan extends nearly 550 km along the coastal areas of Bay of Bengal. In fact the region is a continuation of East Bengal and is intersected by a chain of hills. (Hindu Colonies in the Far East by R. C. Majumdar, 1944, page 202). It is a land of many ethnic groups with majority of Rakhines and therefore, this state is also known as Rakhine. Till 1784 an independent king, who ruled over this region – had exercised “fluctuating sovereignty” over extensive part of Muslim majority East-Bengal. This facilitated the immigration of Muslims to this region. The British annexed Burma in 1885 and made it a part of its Indian colony. This further increased the influx of Muslims and Hindus from India to Burma.

A widely believed theory suggests that Muslims from Bengal migrated to the coastal areas of Burma principally to Arakan are called Rohingyas, who form a prominent group of a Muslim minority in Burma. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia also suggests that the Rohingyas are migrants from southern regions of Bangladesh.

During the British colonial rule the unabated migration of Indians particularly Muslims from Bengal to Burma as labour and for other miscellaneous professions including petty business increased the population of Indian immigrants, which constituted about 7% of Burma population by 1931. Yangon (Rangoon) with two-third of immigrant population including 53% Indians emerged as an immigrant city. Muslims, the main immigrants from Bengal province of British India became synonymous to Indians and therefore they were identified as the main alien group that could weaken the cultural tradition of the Buddhist- society of Burma.

Initially, the Muslims co-existed with local population peacefully. As discussed above inter-marriage of Muslims with different ethnic groups like Rakhine, Shan, Karen and Mon was never resisted by the free Buddhist society in that country. In fact inter-ethnic marriage had been a tradition of Burmese society but it was far less in case of marriage between the Muslim girls and the Burmese boys. But due to their strict social structure, the Muslims did not integrate in the mainstream of the egalitarian character of the indigenous ethnic groups of Burma. More and more intermarriage between the Muslims and the Burmese women after their conversion followed by substantial rise to their progeny known as ‘Zerabadis’, who also professed the faith of their parents led to a steady growth of Islamic population.

“According to 1931 census Buddhism was the professed religion of five-sixths of the total population of Burma”. Population of other religious groups included Muslims 4%, Hindus 3.9% and Christians 2.3%. (Modern Burma by John Leroy Christian – University of California Press, 1942, page 194). According to Burma Human Rights Year Book (2002-3) the religion wise population of the country included Buddhists 89.3%, Christians 5.6%, Muslims 3.5%, Hindus 0.5% and Animists 0.2%. Contrary to the Government claim of Muslim population around 4%, the Muslim organisations maintain that their number is around 10%.

The above figures of religion wise population suggests that there was a decline in Buddhist population whereas the Muslim population was on the rise. The new generation of indigenous groups in Burma viewed this declining trend as danger to their cultural tradition and national identity and they also apprehended that it would weaken the Buddhist society. The larger majority of the Hindu immigrants returned to their native land India particularly after Burma got independence from British colonial rule but the communal divide between the Buddhists and the Muslims, who did not return to the place of their origin continued and even prevails today.

The Burmese people always viewed the role of their fellow Muslims during independence movement suspicious as the latter were found more under the influence of the political movement in Bengal led by All India Muslim League than the national movement in Burma. The growing influence of All India Muslim League also ignited the separatist imagination of the Burmese Muslims. One Imanullah Khan even made an attempt to form a branch of the Muslim League in Burma. Burmese Muslims, who were ignorant of the concept of separate Muslim nationalism, also developed communal consciousness under the inspiration of 1930 Muslim League Conference at Allahabad under the presidentship of Mohammad Iqbal. Accordingly, in their annual Muslim conference, which was hitherto confined to purely religious discourse they turned towards forming Muslim organisations. They also started opening of separate schools for Muslims and imparted Islamic education in Urdu language. One Ali Ahmad also formed a Gaddar Party patterned after the one in India. These developments further widened the gap of mistrust between the Burmese Buddhists and the Muslims.

In 1937 the British administration separated Burma from India and ruled over it separately as an independent country. Just before Second World War General Aung San (Father of Aung Sang Su Kyi, the leader of National League for Democracy, who is presently under detention) and U Nu formed Anti-Fascist People’s Freedom League (AFPFL) and launched the movement for freedom of Burma from colonial rule of the British. The Muslims of Burma in stead of enrolling themselves as members of AFPFL formed a separate organisation called Burma Muslim Congress (BMC). They however joined the movement as a constituent of the AFPFL but maintained their independent identity. Although AFPFL leaders did not make it an issue for tactical reasons, they remained suspicious about the Muslims. General Aung Sang San, while addressing a conference in 1946 “bluntly asserted that reliance on alien support could only make Burma a prostitute nation”. (Burma and Pakistan: A Comparative Study of Development by Mya Maung, 1971, page 77).

In 1938 a Muslim clergy had passed some derogatory remarks against the Buddhists which ignited communal riots. Police had to open fire in which two Buddhist monks died. The local media highlighted the news, which spread all over the country causing burning of Muslim houses, shops, properties and mosques. In fact the religio-political divide between Hindus and the Muslims in India also had its impact in Burma.

On April 4, 1948 Burma got independence from British colonial rule and formed a democratic government with U Nu as Prime Minister. The new government, while counting the Muslims settled in Arakan as Indians (The Role of Indian Minorities in Burma and Malaya by Mahajani, 1966) asked the BMC leaders to resign from the AFPFL. BMC leaders however assured the new government that they would discontinue the religio-political activities of the organisation and subsequently got two berths in U Nu’s cabinet. But in 1956 U Nu removed the BMC from the League and in 1958 declared Buddhism as state religion, which antagonized the Muslims and the Christians. (Burma and Indonesia by Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, South Asian Publishers, New Delhi, 1983, page 34).

The Ne Win regime with a view to divert the peoples attention from the main issues of the country initiated action against Rohingyas, who were fighting for a separate statehood ever since the independence of Burma.  They had even made an unsuccessful attempt for making Arakan a separate independent country. This created an adverse impact in the minds of Burmese Buddhists against them. Although, the U Nu Government remained indifferent towards them, the military regime headed by General Ne win took them seriously for their alleged Islamist activities. The new regime declared Rohingyas as illegal immigrants on the plea that they had settled in Burma during British rule. They however, recognized the Kachins, who are mostly Christians as indigenous ethnic group of the country. It also formed its own party namely Burma Socialist Programme Party (BSPP).

In 1974 the military regime framed a new constitution and named the country as Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma. Its main focus was on Burmese culture, language, tradition and religion. Accordingly it completely removed the nationality of Rohingyas, declared them as foreigners, denied their citizenship rights, removed them from various government jobs and also confiscated their properties. They also put travel restrictions on them by introducing special identity papers for their movement. In 1978 the army launched repressive measures against them for their alleged Islamist activities and links with terrorist organizations. This forced a large number of Rohingyas to flee to Bangladesh, where they were settled in various refugee camps in Cox Bazar area. The Islamist organizations in Bangladesh took advantage of the situation and sent a sizeable number of them to Afghanistan to fight against the Russian army. After the withdrawal of Russian Army from Afghanistan in 1989 most of the war trained Rohingyas retuned to Bangladesh and also re-entered Burma to fight against the Burmese army.

After the end of Afghan war the Ne Win government intent on removing all anti-Burmese elements again targeted the Muslims settled in its western region bordering Bangladesh. The repressive measures against them was for their alleged link with international Islamist terrorist organisation like Al Qaeda and Taliban. Therefore, in 1991-92 again a large number of Rohingyas fled from Burma to Bangladesh.

Conclusion

Even though there is no written law or regulation mandating customary discriminatory practices against the Muslims, the latter have suffered from ethnic and religious discrimination in Burma for long.  The rigid socio-religious character of the community which generated anti-Muslim feelings among the Buddhist majority was the main reason behind the developments. The pro-democracy movement in Burma since August 19, 2007 had accepted the Rohingyas as indigenous population. Even some of the National League for Democracy leaders in their talk to the author blamed the military regime for diverting the attention of the people from the real issue by masterminding communal tensions in the country. But they evaded the question as to why the democratic government led by U Nu declared Buddhism as state religion and dropped Muslim members from his cabinet. Even Aung San, the main leader of freedom movement and National Martyr had assertively expressed his reservation against the Muslims.

(R. Upadhyay / 15-Nov.-2007 / 15.07.2012) 

Israeli Occupation Forces Arrest, Deport Five International Activists

• 

 

On Saturday, 14th July, Israeli police spokeswoman for the Arab media, Loba Samri, said that the Israeli police is still detaining five international, anti-settlement female activists who were arrested during a demonstration on Friday, 13th July.

Samri told Agence France-Presse (AFP) that “the five European activists who were arrested in a demonstration in Nabi Saleh village in the West Bank are still in detention.”

“The five women were accused of causing so much chaos in the public system during the demonstration in the village of Nabi Saleh, near Ramallah,” Samri continued, “The Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court is supposed to hold a hearing session Saturday night to discuss possibility to deport them to their original Countries; Sweden, Italy and Britain.”

“The border guard also arrested four other activists including the Israeli activist, Jonathan Pollack,” Said Samri, “But they were released shortly after being interrogated.”

Yet, she denied the arrest of the New York Times reporter Ben Ehrenreich.

Spokeswomen for the Popular Struggle Coordination Committee assured on Friday that soldiers from the Israeli border guard arrested 12 people including the American reporter.

Every Friday, Nabi Saleh village witnesses continuous demonstrations in protest against the confiscation of large areas of the villages’ lands for the benefit of Halamish settlement. Dozens of international and Israeli peace activists participate with Palestinians in these demonstrations.

(english.pnn.ps / 15.07.2012)