Yet again we are at a point where our Fabulous Arab leaders meet.
Arab foreign ministers met in the past two days to decide the topics that the leaders will be discussing in the meetings. Having decided on the agenda; the main issues to be discussed will be:
- Reconciliation between Arab states (or 'Differences management')
- The Sudanese issue
- The Arab peace initiative with Israel and the Palestinian reconciliation initiatives
Those are the four main issues that are going to be discussed at the meeting, however, an important issue that needs to be quickly resolved still remains with no solution and has been removed completely from the agenda of the Arab league meetings taking place today in Doha, Qatar, that is the issue of Palestinian refugees stuck on the borders between Jordan and Iraq and Syria and Iraq.
Those refugees living under harsh conditions have no one to help them out and are completely ignored by most media outlets in the Arab world. I must admit that I don't understand the reasons for not allowing those approximately 3000 Palestinian refugees into Syria under humanitarian grounds and with the help of the UN, having allowed 2 million Iraqi refugees into Syria since 2003.
Neither are other rich Arab countries in the Gulf region helping those refugees resettle. Come to think of it, they didn't allow any Iraqi refugees into their countries, yet they host more than 1 million American and other foreign military personnel on their lands. And to be honest solving this problem will be much easier and actually achievable in comparison to the other 'main' issues that are topping the meeting's agenda.
More information on the Palestinian refugees here.
Monday 30 March 2009
Thursday 19 March 2009
A Moment to Stop and Enjoy
A friend sent this to me a while back, and I just decided that I should post this.
"A man sat at a metro station in Washington DC and started to play the violin; it was a cold January morning. He played six Bach pieces for about 45 minutes. During that time, since it was rush hour, it was calculated that thousand of people went through the station, most of them on their way to work. Three minutes went by and a middle aged man noticed there was musician playing. He slowed his pace and stopped for a few seconds and then hurried up to meet his schedule. A few minute later, the violinist received his first dollar tip: a woman threw the money in the till and without stopping continued to walk.
A few minutes later, someone leaned against the wall to listen to him, but the man looked at his watch and started to walk again. Clearly he was late for work. The one who paid the most attention was a 3 year old boy. His mother tagged him along, hurried but the kid stopped to look at the violinist. Finally the mother pushed hard and the child continued to walk turning his head all the time. This action was repeated by several other children. All the parents, without exception, forced them to move on.
In the 45 minutes the musician played, only 6 people stopped and stayed for a while. About 20 gave him money but continued to walk their normal pace. He collected $32. When he finished playing and silence took over, no one noticed it. No one applauded, nor was there any recognition.
No one knew this but the violinist was Joshua Bell, one of the best musicians in the world. He played one of the most intricate pieces ever written with a violin worth 3.5 million dollars.
Two days before his playing in the subway, Joshua Bell sold out at a theatre in Boston and the seats average $100. This is a real story. Joshua Bell playing incognito in the metro station was organized by the Washington Post as part of an social experiment about perception, taste and priorities of people. The outlines were: in a commonplace environment at an inappropriate hour: Do we perceive beauty? Do we stop to appreciate it? Do we recognize the talent in an unexpected context?
One of the possible conclusions from this experience could be:
If we do not have a moment to stop and listen to one of the best musicians in the world playing the best music ever written, how many other things are we missing?"
"A man sat at a metro station in Washington DC and started to play the violin; it was a cold January morning. He played six Bach pieces for about 45 minutes. During that time, since it was rush hour, it was calculated that thousand of people went through the station, most of them on their way to work. Three minutes went by and a middle aged man noticed there was musician playing. He slowed his pace and stopped for a few seconds and then hurried up to meet his schedule. A few minute later, the violinist received his first dollar tip: a woman threw the money in the till and without stopping continued to walk.
A few minutes later, someone leaned against the wall to listen to him, but the man looked at his watch and started to walk again. Clearly he was late for work. The one who paid the most attention was a 3 year old boy. His mother tagged him along, hurried but the kid stopped to look at the violinist. Finally the mother pushed hard and the child continued to walk turning his head all the time. This action was repeated by several other children. All the parents, without exception, forced them to move on.
In the 45 minutes the musician played, only 6 people stopped and stayed for a while. About 20 gave him money but continued to walk their normal pace. He collected $32. When he finished playing and silence took over, no one noticed it. No one applauded, nor was there any recognition.
No one knew this but the violinist was Joshua Bell, one of the best musicians in the world. He played one of the most intricate pieces ever written with a violin worth 3.5 million dollars.
Two days before his playing in the subway, Joshua Bell sold out at a theatre in Boston and the seats average $100. This is a real story. Joshua Bell playing incognito in the metro station was organized by the Washington Post as part of an social experiment about perception, taste and priorities of people. The outlines were: in a commonplace environment at an inappropriate hour: Do we perceive beauty? Do we stop to appreciate it? Do we recognize the talent in an unexpected context?
One of the possible conclusions from this experience could be:
If we do not have a moment to stop and listen to one of the best musicians in the world playing the best music ever written, how many other things are we missing?"
Wednesday 18 March 2009
Qatar Science and Technology Park
Yesterday saw the opening ceremony of the Qatar Science and Technology Park (QSTP). The QSTP will combine research, business and educational institutions all in one area making it an ideal place where new technologies are introduced to the world.
World class research and training centers are available for corporations that are willing to take part. Shell, Total, Microsoft, EADS, Exxonmobile, Virgin are amongst the first memebers to join QSTP.
I think this is great, even though it costs around $850 million dollars to build with no immediate payback on investment in the short term, its still better than wasting that money on buying Yachts and building Islands for rich Russians to buy. I have to say I like the direction which Qatar is taking.
Anyways this is the great opening speech by Sheikha Moza of Qatar:
World class research and training centers are available for corporations that are willing to take part. Shell, Total, Microsoft, EADS, Exxonmobile, Virgin are amongst the first memebers to join QSTP.
I think this is great, even though it costs around $850 million dollars to build with no immediate payback on investment in the short term, its still better than wasting that money on buying Yachts and building Islands for rich Russians to buy. I have to say I like the direction which Qatar is taking.
Anyways this is the great opening speech by Sheikha Moza of Qatar:
And this is a short intro of what is in the park:
Monday 9 March 2009
The Strangers - الغرباء
The Strangers (Al-Ghuraba'a) is an Islamic cantata (song without music) that was sung by a young man that belonged to the muslim brotherhood in Egypt. It was sung after the young man and a couple of others were sentenced to death in Egypt in a case that was known as the "case of the century" where the closing speech of the defendants lawyer lasted for almost 2 hours. Most people beleived that the defendants would most definitely not be sentenced to death, however given the type of government that was present in Egypt in 1993 (and still present till this day) the defendants were sentenced to death.
The reason for the title strangers is due to a Hadith of the prophet Mohammad peace be upon him which says:
The reason for the title strangers is due to a Hadith of the prophet Mohammad peace be upon him which says:
"Islam came as something Strange, and will once again be strange, beatitude for the strangers!"
روى مسلم أيضاً عن أبي هريرة رضي الله عنه وأرضاه أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال
"بدأ الإسلام غريباً وسيعود غريباً كما بدأ، فطوبى للغرباء"
The following is the cantata of the young man after they were all sentenced to death:
Translation in English:
Translation in English:
Sunday 8 March 2009
Apostasy In Islam
There has been a lot of talk by critiques of Islam on the rule of Apostasy in Islam which has been fueled by fatwa’s given out by some Islamic scholars on the matter. This topic has always featured in discussions by those interested by religious matters especially in the Arab world and generally in the Islamic world.
In order to deal with this issue we need first to discuss it from two different concepts and levels and we also need to differentiate between those two levels in order to avoid confusion and ambiguity. Those two levels are the general and the personal.
The first level refers to the general concept in Islam of freedom of belief which is made clear in the following verses from the Quran:
- And if thy Lord willed, all who are in the earth would have believed together. Wouldst thou (Muhammad) compel men until they are believers? (Sura 10 verse 99)
- If then they turn away, We have not sent thee as a guard over them. Thy duty is but to convey (the Message)… (sura 42 verse 48)
- Thou art not one to manage (men's) affairs. But if any turn away and rejects Allah― Allah will punish him with a mighty Punishment. For to Us will be their Return; Then it will be for Us to call them to account. (Sura 88 verses 22-26)
- Say "The Truth is from your Lord": let him who will, believe, and let him who will, reject.. (Sura 18 verse 29)
- We showed him the Way: whether he be grateful or ungrateful (rests on his will). (sura 76 verse 3)
- Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from Error; whoever rejects Evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah hearth and knoweth all things. (Sura 2 verse 256).
It is obvious that these verses give people the freedom of belief. A person is free to believe in Islam or not to believe and the prophet (pbuh) was not given the right to force those who reject Islam back into believing neither to force people to believe in Islam.
A lot of fuqaha’a (Islamic jurists) would say that these verses are “copied” and are a response to “the verses of the sword” however both these concepts do not exist in the Holy Quran. Nevertheless, the verses that are referred to as “copied” are the ones that have been passed down from past Abrahamic prophets and their teachings either through the concepts of those teachings or their meanings have been compiled together with the arrival of the prophet Mohammad peace be upon him. On the other hand the so-called “verses of the sword”; there is no such verses however there are verses that permit or allow the fighting of non-believers of Mecca whom the Muslims were at war with. The Muslims at the time and under the threat of liquidation through killing by the non-believers of Mecca, and after they have been persecuted and evicted from their homes (amongst them the prophet pbuh) fought the non-believers of Mecca in self defense and nothing else, it is worth noting that this war was empty from the spirit of revenge by the Muslims. It is known that the prophet accepted the Treaty of Hudaybiyah when the Meccans intercepted the muslims attempt to enter Mecca, and it is also known that the Muslims entered Mecca later on through negotiations that were preempted by the prophet through his marriage of Abu Sufyan’s (the leader of the non-believers of the Quraish) daughter Um Habiba and were carried out (the negotiations) by Mohammad’s (pbuh) uncle Al-Abbas. When the muslims entered Mecca he order a person to call out and let everyone know that “whoever enters the house of Abu Sufyan is safe, and whoever closes the door is safe, and whoever enters the mosque is safe.”
In regards to apostasy from Islam to another belief this falls into the second level, the personal level from the perspective of the “freedom of belief” as was mentioned earlier. Within this personal level there are two levels, the personal and the personal-personal.
Here the personal level is referred to in the following verses of the Quran:
- Anyone who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters unbelief― except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith― but such as open their breast to unbelief― on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty. (Sura 16 Verse 106)
- And if any of you turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be Companions of the Fire and will abide therein. (Sura 2 verse 217)
- As for those who sell the faith they owe to Allah and their own solemn plighted word for a small price, they shall have no portion in the Hereafter: nor will Allah (deign to) speak to them or look at them on the Day of Judgment, nor will He cleanse them (of sin); they shall have a grievous penalty. (sura 3 verse 77)
- How shall Allah guide those who reject Faith after they accepted it and bore witness that the Messenger was true and that clear signs had come unto them? But Allah guides not a people unjust. (86) Of such the reward is that on them (rests) the curse of Allah, of His angels, and of all mankind. (sura 3 verse 86-87)
- If anyone contends with the Messenger even after guidance has been plainly conveyed to him, and follows a path other than that becoming to men to Faith, We shall leave him in the path he has chosen, and land him in Hell,-what an evil refuge! (sura 4 verse 115)
- Those who believe then reject Faith, then believe (again) and (again) reject Faith and go on increasing in unbelief―Allah will not forgive them, nor guide them on the way. (sura 4 verse 137)
In all the verses mentioned above the punishment of the person who apostates from Islam is not death but rather it is God’s wrath, curse, hell; in other words it is God who punishes those who apostate from the religion and not other humans. This is what we find in the Quran, however Islamic jurists say that the punishment of those who apostate from the religion of Islam is death and base this judgment on a hadith (prophets saying) which says “whoever changes their religion, kill them”. So how can this difference be explained?
Without getting into the debate as to whether the for mentioned hadith is correct or not, fighting those who apostate from islam has occurred at the time of the first caliph Abu Bakr, may God be pleased with him, and it is a historical fact. However, it is important to separate or differentiate between those who change their religion for personal reasons without having any other motives and under their personal convictions and judgment, and between those who apostate for external motives. This is what is meant by the concept of ‘personal-personal’. That is, the apostates that Abu Bakr (ra) fought as the ‘head of state’ were not only people who changed their beliefs due to personal convictions, but were people who rebelled against the state and organized themselves to fight that state lead by Abu Bakr. Therefore the apostate in this sense are those who went out and attacked the state, whether it is an Islamic state or not, in any form possible whether they actively fought or conspired against the state.
Thus the Islamic arbitration of apostasy in this meaning is not one against the freedom of belief, but against those who betray the state, nation, homeland or country and is against those who collude with the enemy of the state. From this we can understand how Islamic jurists linked the concepts of a ‘fighter’ (a person who goes against the state and society and fights against it in any means for example as a bandit) and between an ‘apostate’; thus an apostate in this sense is a form of ‘fighter’ (bandit) and the arbitration of Islamic jurists in this case will vary between different jurists depending on the extent as to whether the apostate is a ‘fighter’ or not. With the agreement of Islamic jurists, a ‘fighter apostate’ is to have capital punishment; Islamic jurists have been at a disagreement in regards to the punishment an apostate receives if they only apostate and not fight the state. This just shows how that Islamic jurists have considered the case of apostasy not as something linked to freedom of belief but as something linked to a person who is fighting against the rule of the state and against society.
To conclude, the Islamic law in regards to apostasy is not related to freedom of belief but is linked to, what we call today treason. Likewise those who speak about Human rights, of which the freedom of belief is at its forefront, do not defend or do not have a belief of “freedom of treason” or “freedom of being a bandit” or “freedom of colluding with the enemy of a state”, therefore it is clear that Freedom is something and apostasy is something else.
What needs to be worked on however, is whether a Muslim, who apostates without causing trouble to the state or society, is considered as a ‘fighter apostate’ and deserves capital punishment?! It is obvious that in such case the evidence from the Holy Quran (being the highest authority in Islam) states that an apostate will be punished by God almighty and not by other humans as the earlier stated verses show and those who are arguing that an apostate deserves to be killed do not really have any bases for their argument. And God knows best.
In order to deal with this issue we need first to discuss it from two different concepts and levels and we also need to differentiate between those two levels in order to avoid confusion and ambiguity. Those two levels are the general and the personal.
The first level refers to the general concept in Islam of freedom of belief which is made clear in the following verses from the Quran:
- And if thy Lord willed, all who are in the earth would have believed together. Wouldst thou (Muhammad) compel men until they are believers? (Sura 10 verse 99)
- If then they turn away, We have not sent thee as a guard over them. Thy duty is but to convey (the Message)… (sura 42 verse 48)
- Thou art not one to manage (men's) affairs. But if any turn away and rejects Allah― Allah will punish him with a mighty Punishment. For to Us will be their Return; Then it will be for Us to call them to account. (Sura 88 verses 22-26)
- Say "The Truth is from your Lord": let him who will, believe, and let him who will, reject.. (Sura 18 verse 29)
- We showed him the Way: whether he be grateful or ungrateful (rests on his will). (sura 76 verse 3)
- Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from Error; whoever rejects Evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah hearth and knoweth all things. (Sura 2 verse 256).
It is obvious that these verses give people the freedom of belief. A person is free to believe in Islam or not to believe and the prophet (pbuh) was not given the right to force those who reject Islam back into believing neither to force people to believe in Islam.
A lot of fuqaha’a (Islamic jurists) would say that these verses are “copied” and are a response to “the verses of the sword” however both these concepts do not exist in the Holy Quran. Nevertheless, the verses that are referred to as “copied” are the ones that have been passed down from past Abrahamic prophets and their teachings either through the concepts of those teachings or their meanings have been compiled together with the arrival of the prophet Mohammad peace be upon him. On the other hand the so-called “verses of the sword”; there is no such verses however there are verses that permit or allow the fighting of non-believers of Mecca whom the Muslims were at war with. The Muslims at the time and under the threat of liquidation through killing by the non-believers of Mecca, and after they have been persecuted and evicted from their homes (amongst them the prophet pbuh) fought the non-believers of Mecca in self defense and nothing else, it is worth noting that this war was empty from the spirit of revenge by the Muslims. It is known that the prophet accepted the Treaty of Hudaybiyah when the Meccans intercepted the muslims attempt to enter Mecca, and it is also known that the Muslims entered Mecca later on through negotiations that were preempted by the prophet through his marriage of Abu Sufyan’s (the leader of the non-believers of the Quraish) daughter Um Habiba and were carried out (the negotiations) by Mohammad’s (pbuh) uncle Al-Abbas. When the muslims entered Mecca he order a person to call out and let everyone know that “whoever enters the house of Abu Sufyan is safe, and whoever closes the door is safe, and whoever enters the mosque is safe.”
In regards to apostasy from Islam to another belief this falls into the second level, the personal level from the perspective of the “freedom of belief” as was mentioned earlier. Within this personal level there are two levels, the personal and the personal-personal.
Here the personal level is referred to in the following verses of the Quran:
- Anyone who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters unbelief― except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith― but such as open their breast to unbelief― on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty. (Sura 16 Verse 106)
- And if any of you turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be Companions of the Fire and will abide therein. (Sura 2 verse 217)
- As for those who sell the faith they owe to Allah and their own solemn plighted word for a small price, they shall have no portion in the Hereafter: nor will Allah (deign to) speak to them or look at them on the Day of Judgment, nor will He cleanse them (of sin); they shall have a grievous penalty. (sura 3 verse 77)
- How shall Allah guide those who reject Faith after they accepted it and bore witness that the Messenger was true and that clear signs had come unto them? But Allah guides not a people unjust. (86) Of such the reward is that on them (rests) the curse of Allah, of His angels, and of all mankind. (sura 3 verse 86-87)
- If anyone contends with the Messenger even after guidance has been plainly conveyed to him, and follows a path other than that becoming to men to Faith, We shall leave him in the path he has chosen, and land him in Hell,-what an evil refuge! (sura 4 verse 115)
- Those who believe then reject Faith, then believe (again) and (again) reject Faith and go on increasing in unbelief―Allah will not forgive them, nor guide them on the way. (sura 4 verse 137)
In all the verses mentioned above the punishment of the person who apostates from Islam is not death but rather it is God’s wrath, curse, hell; in other words it is God who punishes those who apostate from the religion and not other humans. This is what we find in the Quran, however Islamic jurists say that the punishment of those who apostate from the religion of Islam is death and base this judgment on a hadith (prophets saying) which says “whoever changes their religion, kill them”. So how can this difference be explained?
Without getting into the debate as to whether the for mentioned hadith is correct or not, fighting those who apostate from islam has occurred at the time of the first caliph Abu Bakr, may God be pleased with him, and it is a historical fact. However, it is important to separate or differentiate between those who change their religion for personal reasons without having any other motives and under their personal convictions and judgment, and between those who apostate for external motives. This is what is meant by the concept of ‘personal-personal’. That is, the apostates that Abu Bakr (ra) fought as the ‘head of state’ were not only people who changed their beliefs due to personal convictions, but were people who rebelled against the state and organized themselves to fight that state lead by Abu Bakr. Therefore the apostate in this sense are those who went out and attacked the state, whether it is an Islamic state or not, in any form possible whether they actively fought or conspired against the state.
Thus the Islamic arbitration of apostasy in this meaning is not one against the freedom of belief, but against those who betray the state, nation, homeland or country and is against those who collude with the enemy of the state. From this we can understand how Islamic jurists linked the concepts of a ‘fighter’ (a person who goes against the state and society and fights against it in any means for example as a bandit) and between an ‘apostate’; thus an apostate in this sense is a form of ‘fighter’ (bandit) and the arbitration of Islamic jurists in this case will vary between different jurists depending on the extent as to whether the apostate is a ‘fighter’ or not. With the agreement of Islamic jurists, a ‘fighter apostate’ is to have capital punishment; Islamic jurists have been at a disagreement in regards to the punishment an apostate receives if they only apostate and not fight the state. This just shows how that Islamic jurists have considered the case of apostasy not as something linked to freedom of belief but as something linked to a person who is fighting against the rule of the state and against society.
To conclude, the Islamic law in regards to apostasy is not related to freedom of belief but is linked to, what we call today treason. Likewise those who speak about Human rights, of which the freedom of belief is at its forefront, do not defend or do not have a belief of “freedom of treason” or “freedom of being a bandit” or “freedom of colluding with the enemy of a state”, therefore it is clear that Freedom is something and apostasy is something else.
What needs to be worked on however, is whether a Muslim, who apostates without causing trouble to the state or society, is considered as a ‘fighter apostate’ and deserves capital punishment?! It is obvious that in such case the evidence from the Holy Quran (being the highest authority in Islam) states that an apostate will be punished by God almighty and not by other humans as the earlier stated verses show and those who are arguing that an apostate deserves to be killed do not really have any bases for their argument. And God knows best.
Saturday 7 March 2009
WHY DO YOU KILL ZAID?
Interview with Professor Dr. Juergen Toedennofer who visited Iraq and witnessed the truth about the occupation and about the Iraqi resistance.
His perspective is not strange to the majority of Arabs but according to the people in the interview it seems as if it is a revelation. Hope this man's first hand experience in Iraq gives many of you (those of western origin especially) something to think about.
Thursday 5 March 2009
Omar Al Bashir And Sudan
The international criminal court has issued a warrant for the arrest of Sudan's president Omar Al Basher, yesterday. The warrant however fell short of accusing Al-Basher of committing genocide and accuses him of seven war crimes including crimes against humanity, which include murder, rape and torture. The three-judge panel said it had insufficient grounds for genocide.
For me, this is nothing to do with bringing justice, it is basically politicizing international institutions taking the side of western plans of dominating regions by force and cutting off any benefits emerging economies are getting from fair deals in other developing countries. Here we are mainly considering China. Consider the following points to know where I'm coming from:
- Before the "conflict" in the Darfur region China's import of Oil from the African continent was around 30% of its total imports, of which 35% was imported from Sudan and the Darfur region specifically. The Sudanese government has always favored Chinese companies compared to Western oil companies that were not allowed to benefit from the new discoveries in the Darfur region. But since the start of the "conflict" in 2003 China's import of oil from Sudan has decreased and now is roughly around 10% of its total imported oil from Africa.
- The "conflict" that was in the South of Sudan which took up the lives of approximately 3 million Sudanese people was not even picked up by the ICC or any western country as being acts of genocide or war crimes. However, when a "conflict" in Darfur is going on, and when it has been going on for a much shorter period of time compared to the conflict in the South, there is an instant uproar and condemnation to the acts of supposedly "Arab" militias backed by the Sudanese government against "the people of Darfur".
- The "conflict" started when rebels in the Darfur region took up arms against the government.
- And the fact that Abdel Wahid al-Nur, the leader of the largest rebel group in Darfur (who has been exiled where he stayed in France since 2001) met top defense officials in Israel to discuss their support for the rebels forces. This same person and from Israel, rejected the 'goodwill' agreement signed by the Sudanese government and rebel factions in Doha, Qatar. The rejection came on the same day the agreement was signed while Abdel Wahid Al-Nur was in Israel meeting defense officials and mossad agents as different sources mention.
What bothers me most though is how in a Haaretz article it says that Abdel Wahid Al Nur is supported by humanitarian organizations. I wonder what type of humanitarian organizations those are that supported a person who was the main reason for the start of this conflict, a man that refuses to even agree to sit down and negotiate instead of fighting and having more innocent people killed.
To try to convince me that this has been done to bring justice and peace... the decision by the ICC to charge Bashir with human rights violations and other war crimes thinking that this will bring just and peace is just ridiculous! the only thing this will manage to create is more turmoil in Sudan and worsen the situation there.
For me, this is nothing to do with bringing justice, it is basically politicizing international institutions taking the side of western plans of dominating regions by force and cutting off any benefits emerging economies are getting from fair deals in other developing countries. Here we are mainly considering China. Consider the following points to know where I'm coming from:
- Before the "conflict" in the Darfur region China's import of Oil from the African continent was around 30% of its total imports, of which 35% was imported from Sudan and the Darfur region specifically. The Sudanese government has always favored Chinese companies compared to Western oil companies that were not allowed to benefit from the new discoveries in the Darfur region. But since the start of the "conflict" in 2003 China's import of oil from Sudan has decreased and now is roughly around 10% of its total imported oil from Africa.
- The "conflict" that was in the South of Sudan which took up the lives of approximately 3 million Sudanese people was not even picked up by the ICC or any western country as being acts of genocide or war crimes. However, when a "conflict" in Darfur is going on, and when it has been going on for a much shorter period of time compared to the conflict in the South, there is an instant uproar and condemnation to the acts of supposedly "Arab" militias backed by the Sudanese government against "the people of Darfur".
- The "conflict" started when rebels in the Darfur region took up arms against the government.
- And the fact that Abdel Wahid al-Nur, the leader of the largest rebel group in Darfur (who has been exiled where he stayed in France since 2001) met top defense officials in Israel to discuss their support for the rebels forces. This same person and from Israel, rejected the 'goodwill' agreement signed by the Sudanese government and rebel factions in Doha, Qatar. The rejection came on the same day the agreement was signed while Abdel Wahid Al-Nur was in Israel meeting defense officials and mossad agents as different sources mention.
What bothers me most though is how in a Haaretz article it says that Abdel Wahid Al Nur is supported by humanitarian organizations. I wonder what type of humanitarian organizations those are that supported a person who was the main reason for the start of this conflict, a man that refuses to even agree to sit down and negotiate instead of fighting and having more innocent people killed.
To try to convince me that this has been done to bring justice and peace... the decision by the ICC to charge Bashir with human rights violations and other war crimes thinking that this will bring just and peace is just ridiculous! the only thing this will manage to create is more turmoil in Sudan and worsen the situation there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)