Egyptian Uprising overthrows its Zionist Master..??!

At the start of the Egyptian uprising western public opinion responded positively to the mostly young, middle class, people who took to the streets demanding greater political freedoms which many westerners interpreted as western style political institutions. Sunday, February 27,2011 14:03 by Bob Finch CounterCurrents.org During the cold war period no liberation movement in any third world country was left to its own devices to fulfill the will of the people through the creation of democratic institutions and a more just society. They were continually corrupted by the superpowers seeking to enhance their global strategic interests in pursuit of global political dominion. The Soviets generally tended to support secretive revolutionary movements which invariably aimed at creating one party states that would be sympathetic to their interests whilst the Americans, aiming to take over from former colonial powers, sought to install dictators who would promote their interests. It might have been thought that, with the end of the cold war, the days when overarching global strategic factors were able to corrupt domestic struggles for a better society would be long gone but the January 15, 2011 uprising in Egypt confirmed the existence of a new strategic factor. This threatened to stymie Egyptians' liberation struggle. Although this struggle was eventually successful, the new strategic factor could still end up deterring or delaying the completion of this struggle i.e. the creation of a new constitution and democratic institutions.

Since the second world war, most Arab countries have been run by tyrants who have either been installed by America or have aligned themselves with American interests –even Nasser made overtures to the Americans but was rebuffed. Most of these dictators have enriched themselves, their families and friends, whilst ruthlessly suppressing domestic demands for political reforms and independent foreign policies. Like bank robbers they have stolen whatever riches their economies generated. As a consequence Arab societies have ossified preventing indigenous economic development thereby locking tens of millions into poverty. Since 1979, one of the great turning points in Middle Eastern history, these dictators have increasingly implemented American/Zionist friendly foreign policies. At the start of the Egyptian uprising western public opinion responded positively to the mostly young, middle class, people who took to the streets demanding greater political freedoms which many westerners interpreted as western style political institutions. [i] But western politicians and the western media quickly began to oppose Egyptians' prospects for liberation and their right to bring about a revolutionary foundation of democratic institutions. This opposition was couched in what seemed to be straightforward nationalist terms. ‘Mubarak has ensured stability in Egypt and the Middle East and has deterred the rise of both Arab nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism.' ‘He may be a dictator but he's our ‘son of a bitch'.' The suggestion here was that it was in the west's national interests to continue protecting this dictator. In order create doubts about the consequences of the Egyptian protestors' uprising, western politicians/commentators sought to popularize the fear that it would lead to the rise of an extreme Islamic government hostile to the west. Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood were touted as a major threat to western interests even though it was nothing of the kind. [ii] The proposition that the Egyptian uprising was against western interests, however, ran counter to the commonly held belief in western states that democracy is important not merely to protect political freedoms, guarantee property rights, and ensure justice, but to give people the opportunity to run and develop their own businesses and thus enhance national economic growth. So, if this belief is valid domestically then it must also be valid globally. It is therefore in the national interests of western states to encourage the widest possible democratic reforms in Egypt, and in all other countries, not merely because this would narcissistically imitate western political principles but because, more mundanely, it would promote Egyptian, and thus global, economic growth. Western companies would have another growing consumer market which would enable them to increase output and profits and thereby boost their own countries' economy. A comparison between the economies of democratic Turkey and dictatorial Egypt suggests that democracy makes a critical difference to the economic development. “… its (Egypt's) economy is today a quarter the size of Turkey's (though both countries have populations of similar size).” (Daniel Levy ‘After Mubarak - What Does Israel Do?' http://www.tfdnews.com/news/2011/02/11/79782-daniel-levy-after-mubarak-what-does-israel-do.htm%20class= Feb 11, 2011). It is said that ‘imitation is the greatest form of flattery' and so the west should have been proud that Egyptian protestors wanted to emulate its humanitarian values, political principles, and prosperity. Surely what westerners want is a thriving Egyptian democracy leading to a thriving economy with which they could freely do business? Surely westerners should have been exhilarated at the prospects of Egypt becoming more westernized? The Zionist State's support for Mubarak The question then is why so many western politicians/commentators insisted that it was in western interests to protect Mubarak and thereby try so intensely to discourage democratic reforms? The critical strategic factor that, once again, was exposed by their attitude was the primary importance they attached to the security of the Jews-only state in Palestine. The all too obvious implication was that it didn't matter to them what their country's interests were: all that mattered was protecting the Zionist colonial state. The Zionist state was virtually the only country in the world, outside of the world of Arab dictators, who disapproved of what the Egyptians were doing – even the Iranians applauded events in Egypt. It adamantly insisted that its security interests would be best served by the west continuing to support Mubarak, and other Arab dictators, no matter how much they crushed the will of their people for democratic reforms and nationalistic foreign policies. [iii] This was not unexpected since it has always helped to install and sustain Arab dictators who have pledged their allegiance to zionist expansionism rather than the welfare of their own people. Mubarak was a zionist puppet. He'd helped to establish the Camp David accord which in effect gave the Zionist state the freedom to wage war against the Palestinians and surrounding Arab states. He denounced Hezbollah [iv] ; urged the Zionist state to crush Hamas [v] ; accused Iran of fomenting an arc of shi'ite interests in the middle east [vi] ; and even encouraged the Jews-only state to bomb Iran [vii] . It has also been alleged that he sold subsidized gas to the Zionist state. [viii] Egypt had once been self sufficient in oil and food but such was the corruption and incompetence of the Mubarak regime that the country was having to import both. [ix] Here was a leader of country which could no longer feed itself and in which tens of millions of people were living in poverty, who was exporting gas at subsidized rates to a far richer country. Quite revealingly, during the uprising, Mubarak poured out his zionist heart to a zionist confidente. [x] In the western world, zionist politicians and Jewish lobbies echoed the Jews-only state's stance and went into over-drive pressuring western governments into propping up Mubarak and his fellow Arab dictators. [xi] The zionist owned western media put even more pressure on western politicians to stop sympathizing with Egyptian protestors. No sooner had Netanyahu raised the spectre that ‘Egypt is Iran' than his minions were diligently spreading the message around the west. “We are watching these events, said Netanyahu, with “vigilance and worry.” The worry is rooted, he said, in the possibility that “in a situation of chaos, an organized Islamist body can seize control of a country. It happened in Iran. It happened in other instances.” No sooner had these words escaped his mouth than Israel's amen corner in this country and around the world echoed the “Egypt is Iran” meme until it had found its way into nearly every news report, and virtually every public statement by a major politician on the Egyptian events.” (Justin Raimondo ‘It's Always About Israel. Even when it isn't…' http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/02/13/its-always-about-israel/ February 14, 2011). It was shocking that in the western world Jewish lobbies and zionist politicians/commentators were simply regurgitating the Zionist state's line. It was even more shocking to hear supposedly democratic politicians/commentators defending a brutal and corrupt dictator. But what was even more shocking was that they were promoting the interests of a foreign state rather than their own country's national interests. They were sacrificing their democratic principles and the interests of the country they were living in for the sake of a colonial state that was perpetuating dictators throughout the Arab world. Most shockingly of all, however, was that they seemed entirely comfortable arguing that it was in the interests of democratic states to sustain dictators because they knew that nobody, not even those on the left, would challenge such nonsense and highlight their treachery. Zionist politicians/commentators in America were promoting blatantly un-American policies whilst, similarly, zionist politicians/commentators throughout the rest of the western world were promoting blatantly anti-western policies, and nobody was challenging them about why they were giving priority to the interests of a foreign state. There is very little difference between the cold war bogey of ‘reds under the bed' and zionists' transformation of the moderate Muslim Brotherhood into an Islamic bogeyman. Since the formation of the Zionist state, zionists have fabricated a long list of Islamic bogeymen from Nasser to Saddam Hussein. They have become specialists at conjuring up nightmarish Islamic threats to frighten the west into supporting zionist interests and it was easy for them to demonize the Muslim Brotherhood given that most westerners knew little about the group. Contrary to zionists' accusations, the group was not run by Islamic extremists. It had not triggered the uprising. [xii] And it had not orchestrated the protests. [xiii] What do facts matter to zionists when they can churn out lies to an ignorant western public which is usually disinterested in anything beyond their zionist inspired prejudices? Zionist propagandists invented, and popularized, a fear and loathing for the ‘Muslim Brotherhood' to pressure western states into supporting Mubarak solely in order to protect the security of the Zionist state. Western citizens who regurgitated this new strategic bogey were gullible for not understanding that they were undermining their own country's national interests for the sake of promoting the security of the warmongering colonial state in Palestine. The Dominance of Zionist Propaganda This wouldn't be the first time, however, that extreme zionist propagandists have managed to manipulate western states into pursuing policies supposedly promoting western interests when in reality all they were doing was undermining such interests for the sake of boosting the security of the Zionist state. This was their great propaganda achievement in provoking the first and second gulf wars. If the Zionist state could invent and then popularize amongst western politicians/media the gigantic fiction that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction then it could easily dupe the west into believing the smaller lie that if it didn't continue supporting Mubarak then it wouldn't be long before Egypt was being run by an extreme Islamic government intent on developing nuclear weapons aimed at the western world. After all, the Zionist state had already succeeded in conning the west into believing that Iran poses the same nuclear threat to the west as Saddam was supposed to have done. “Beyond the Arab world, U.S. policy on Iran is dictated more or less totally by Israel.” (Kathleen Christison ‘The US as Israel's Enabler in the Middle East' http://www.counterpunch.org/christison02162011.html February 16, 2011). There are, of course, those who would scoff at the idea of Jewish lobbies in the west corrupting western political principles, values, and national interests by trying to turn western public opinion against young, middle class, Egyptian protestors in order to promote the strategic interests of the Jews-only state. There are those who would be scornful of the idea of western zionist politicians pretending to pursue their country's national interests whilst in reality undermining such interests for the sake of protecting the Zionist state in Palestine. And there are those who would dismiss the idea that much of the western media is owned, managed, or manned by zionists whose primary political goal is protecting a foreign state even if this is at the expense of the country in which they are living and working. [xiv] Surely the west cannot be dominated to such an extent by zionists putting the interests of a foreign state above that of the countries they are supposedly protecting? The truth of these accusations is all too easy to appreciate when it is considered that the ruling elites throughout the western world have never mentioned that the Jews-only state developed nuclear weapons in the 1960s. It is easy to measure the scale of zionist domination over the western world by the fact that no politician/commentator has been willing to mention zionists' nukes. Even though this has been the most critical factor in middle eastern politics, western politicians/commentators ignore their existence and assiduously formulate policies on the grounds of their non-existence. They prefer to promote fantasies about Saddam's nuclear weapons, and more recently Iran's non-existent nuclear weapons, rather than telling the truth about zionists all too real nuclear weapons. [xv] What could be further from the west's national interests than ignoring the threat that zionists' nukes pose to the west? Any visitor from outer space analyzing the views of the west's mainstream politicians/commentators would be astounded to discover they were promoting foreign policies in the middle east that ran counter to western humanitarian values, political principles, and economic interests. That the west could support the zionists' hideous oppression of Palestinians shows that its humanitarian values are vacuous, that its political principles are a sham, and that its economic interests are being undermined because the Palestinians, just like all Arab people being oppressed by Arab dictators, are being denied the right to establish businesses that would promote economic growth both nationally and globally. The west's support for zionist colonialism and zionist domination over the middle east is shameful, grossly undemocratic, and counter to its economic interests. [xvi] Hypothetically speaking, it was a fortunate that in 1948 zionists didn't create a Zionist state in the centre of Europe, perhaps in place of Switzerland. If they had they would have inflicted on westerners the same miseries they have inflicted on Arabs. They would have created zionist quisling dictatorships across the continent to defend their interests. European countries would have found themselves as impoverished as those in the Arab world. America would also be poorer without its current vast trade with Europe. Zionist politicians would have spent the next half century undermining the idea of neighbouring countries establishing democracies because of the threat they would supposedly posed to the security of the Zionist state. They would have denounced European patriots seeking to liberate their country from zionist dictators as terrorists. Of course, on the bright side, if the Zionist state had been founded in central Europe, then the Islamic world from Morocco through to Tajikistan would now be almost totally democratic and economically booming. [xvii] But, then again, zionist lobbies would have doubtlessly infiltrated these wealthy Arab democracies and sought to develop an ideological alliance with them, based on a pseudo Judeo-Arabic civilization, invoking Europhobia in order to win their support for propping up quisling zionist dictatorships across the European continent. It has to be suspected, however, that these rich Arab democracies wouldn't have been so gullible as to believe that it was in their economic and political interests to perpetuate fabulously wealthy, European dictators ransacking their impoverished economies. The Zionist state is a black hole decimating democratic aspirations and economic opportunities in surrounding countries in order to preserve its economic and military supremacism. What was so marvelous about Egyptians' uprising was not merely the overthrow of a tyrant, but the overthrow of a zionist puppet who'd been imposed upon them by the Zionist state and its gigantic American satellite. It was also the western public's refusal to be manipulated by zionists' propaganda onslaught against the uprising. Many ordinary people continued to sympathize with the Egyptian protestors despite zionist politicians/editors/commentators and Jewish lobbies doing their best to provoke yet another wave of Islamophobia. The efforts of the west's zionist leaders to insist that western governments should continue propping up Mubarak, and thereby keep sacrificing the lives of tens of millions of Egyptians, was a revolting example of naked zionist self-interest. Fortunately, the more determined that protestors in Egypt became to rid themselves of a zionist tyrant, the more the western public sympathized with their aspirations, the more revolting these reactionary zionists politicians/commentators/lobbyists appeared to become. Yet again the zionists in the western world showed themselves to be a bunch of reactionary traitors who not merely supported a tyrant at the expense of people wanting democratic institutions but who were willing to sacrifice the interests of the countries they were living and working in for the sake of their beloved Zionist state. Western zionists in politics and the media constantly denounce western Moslems for their alleged dual loyalties but the uprising in Egypt revealed they have no such duality: they are devoted to the interests of a foreign state. During the Eyptian uprising, it cannot be said, however, that all western politicians were total shrills to the zionist cause. President Obama initially supported the uprising but was quickly forced to recant under pressure from the zionist think tanks dug in on the lawns of the white house. He sent a personal envoy to the paroah, supposedly to have a chat about him taking early retirement but, after the meeting, the envoy publicly announced that Mubarak should stay in office. “After turning against Mubarak, he suddenly opined that he must stay in power, in order to carry out democratic reforms. As his representative he sent to Egypt a retired diplomat whose current employer is a law firm that represents the Mubarak family (much as Bill Clinton used to send committed Jewish Zionists to “mediate” between Israel and the Palestinians).” (Uri Avnery ‘Tsunami in Egypt' http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery02142011.html February 14, 2011). However, Obama would not be beaten into submission by zionist politicians/media/lobbies. On the morning of Thursday February 10, 2011, it was reported that Mubarak would announce his retirement that evening. Obama couldn't hide his jubilation even though he knew this would provoke zionist scorn and, sooner or later, revenge. When Mubarak finally resigned who could doubt the adoration Obama heaped upon Egyptian protestors? His speech outlined with crystal clarity the best of western political principles and values. Those who opposed Egypt's western style protestors were nothing less than un-American and anti-western traitors. It was all too symbolic that, after his enforced resignation, Mubarak moved to a part of Egypt which is as close to the Zionist state as he could get without actually leaving the country. Clearly he feared that if the Egyptian people launched a violent uprising which threatened his life and that of his family, then their safe haven would be only a few miles away. [xviii] Doubtlessly the Zionist state would have welcomed into its midst yet another criminal with vast amounts of wealth just as it had done with Robert Maxwell and the russian oligarchs not to mention a few American-Jews who'd fled there to escape justice in America. There were two factors that might have persuaded Mubarak to stay on in power albeit, in the end, only for less than 24 hours. Firstly, Ehud Barack, the Zionists' defence minister, flew to Washington to denounce the Obama administration for showing concern for the aspirations of Egyptian protestors when it should have supported Mubarak in crushing the uprising – doubtlessly with the same ferocity as the Zionist state crushed Palestinian protests. [xix] Secondly, the Saudi leader, fearing an uprising in his own personal fiefdom, offered to fund Mubarak's armed forces if the Obama administration ever decided to withdraw its annual funding for the Egyptian military. [xx] These dramatic interventions must have convinced Mubarak he still had enough international support to survive. The State of Global Politics So what does the Egyptian uprising indicate about the state of global politics? America is commonly recognized as the only remaining superpower. Some commentators go much further and refer to it as an American empire. But most American politicians couldn't muster the political power to celebrate Egyptians' democratic protests because of the pressure being exerted on them by the Zionist state and its vastly wealthy allies in America. When American politicians turned their backs on people who seemed to be trying to replicate American values and democratic institutions this suggests there are profoundly suspicious factors at work. The reality is that America's ruling elite consists substantially of zionists who care more about the Zionist state in Palestine than they do about America or American democracy and that they are willing to use American military power to promote that foreign state no matter how much it undermines America's military capabilities or the country's financial resources and political prestige around the world. Since the end of the cold war, the key global strategic criterion guiding the west's formulation of political policies has increasingly become whether these policies enhance or detract from the security of the Zionist state in Palestine. [xxi] Whether this political phenomenon can be categorized as a global Zionist empire or Zionist world domination is open to debate but when the west goes out of its way to prop up a tiny, virulently aggressive, illegal, colonial state with no raw resources and a tiny population of 6 million, and thereby alienates a multiplicity of Arab/Islamic countries with vast quantities of natural resources and a combined population of hundreds of millions, it has to be one or the other. Over the last sixty years, the Zionist state has heaped a flood of humiliations upon American presidents and politicians. These are humiliations that the powerful inflict on the powerless, not the pin pricks that satellite states occasionally inflict on their colonial masters. No American president has dared to criticize let alone insult political leaders in the Zionist state but zionist politicians insult American presidents with impunity because they know that America's zionist lobby is powerful enough to prevent American presidents from seeking revenge. It doesn't matter what shameful, disgusting, or downright criminal, acts the Zionist state carries out whether this might be starving Palestinians into submission, denying them medical supplies, slaughtering innocent people, or even attacking American military ships such as the U.S.S. Liberty, American politicians cheer it on and protect it in the United Nations. There is no barbarism carried out by the Zionist state that American politicians have not slavishly defended to their utmost. There is no limit to the amount of hatred they are willing to suffer for the sake of by defending the barbarity of the Zionist state. The Zionist state beats its American Dog whenever it wants and the poor Dog's inbred loyalty just keeps leading it back to its master for more abuse and punishment. It is a testimony to the Zionist domination in America, that the Zionist state can repeatedly humiliate American presidents and yet the American public shows no sense of patriotic anger about it. Hannah Arendt coined the phrase ‘the boomerang effect' when colonial/imperial powers suffered ethically, financially, politically, and militarily, because of the appalling activities of their colonists/imperialists in foreign countries. America has suffered considerably, militarily, financially, and in terms of its political reputation, for its contribution to the growth of the Zionist empire – the holding of American hostages during the first Islamic revolution in Iran, the wars against Saddam Hussein, the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the invasion of Afghanistan. And yet still the American Dog faithfully serves its master. Another, even more stark indicator that America is a gigantic satellite of the Zionist state is that no American president has been able to limit, let alone withdraw, what are frequently referred to as subsidies to the Zionist state in order to punish it for its misdeeds. The reason for this is that these are not subsidies but tribute payments. Satellites are supposed to make tribute payments to their colonial/imperial powers, not vice versa and this is precisely what is happening when America hands over vast sums of money to the Zionist state which it then uses in whatever way it thinks fit even if it embarrasses America. Even more critical for appreciating America's subservient role to its zionist master is that America has no influence over the Zionist state's domestic policies especially those affecting the Palestinians. Indeed, it could be argued the Zionist state has more influence over America's domestic policies than the reverse. And the same is true in terms of foreign policies. America has little control over Zionists' foreign policies but zionists have a critical influence over America's foreign policies. America's foreign policies are being determined by its so-called satellite across an ever increasing area of the world not merely the middle east nor even the greater middle east but the entire moslem world. “… Israel is at the center of virtually every move the United States makes in the region.” (Kathleen Christison ‘The US as Israel's Enabler in the Middle East' http://www.counterpunch.org/christison02162011.html February 16, 2011). [xxii] Prospects for Democracy in Egypt The prospects for democracy in Egypt do not look good but, then again, just a few months ago the prospects for overthrowing Mubarak seemed non-existent. [xxiii] The Egyptian uprising seemed to be an entirely modern, high tech, liberation brought about with the aid of mobile phones and social networking websites. Such websites are notorious for organizing spontaneous, one-off, anarchic, street parties so whether they are suitable for formulating a revolution has yet to be seen. However, the protests seemed so highly co-ordinated and tactically astute, successfully managing to maintain the momentum of the protests despite the efforts made to counter them, that this bodes well for the next, much more difficult, stage of founding democratic institutions. [xxiv] Although social networking websites creep into the public domain the Egyptian protestors seemed to be able to organize themselves either without the authorities and international secret agencies being aware of what they were doing or, if the authorities were aware, of being unable to counter what the protestors were doing. [xxv] Little is known about the protestors or what motivated them. Western commentators are only now beginning to ascertain such motivations. “It's fair to say that at this stage the Egyptian street keeps close to its heart those that supported it, from al-Jazeera and assorted Arab nationalists to Hezbollah in Lebanon. And knows very well those that despised it - from the House of Saud and assorted Wahhabi extremists to Israel. No one will forget that Saudi King Abdullah accused the street of "meddling in the security and stability of Arab and Muslim Egypt".” (Pepe Escobar ‘Under the (Egyptian) volcano' http://www..atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB15Ak01.html February 15, 2011). Having been so successful in liberating themselves, it is to be hoped they can take the next revolutionary step. Whether they will be able to do so is difficult to assess especially since the protestors relinquished their main political leverage, the occupation of Tahrir square, within days of the pharaoh's overthrow. It has to be suspected that the Egyptian army will be reluctant to stop issuing communiqués. “There's no way a new Egypt may be born without overthrowing this whole system. Ergo, the street has to take on the army. Expect major fireworks ahead. Forget about the army swiftly handing over power to a civilian-led interim government.” (Pepe Escobar ‘Under the (Egyptian) volcano' http://www..atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB15Ak01.html February 15, 2011). However, Egypt's protestors face an even more insidious enemy than the Egyptian army - the Zionist state and its global allies who will pressure the army to stay in power. The Zionist state will do its utmost to restore another zionist quisling as dictator. The zionists may have been thrown off guard by the spontaneity of Egypt's struggle for liberation but they are not going to allow the much longer, and far more complex, process of establishing democracy to proceed without doing their best to manipulate events in order to restore their power. Watch out for fabrications such as ‘Iraqi soldiers bayonet babies in incubators'. In a future democracy, Egyptians may wish to change or abandon the Camp David accords. They may refuse to continue supporting the siege of Gaza, the continuing war crimes against the Palestinian people, and the zionist colonization of Palestine They may refuse zionist ships passage through the Suez canal, [xxvi] and stop subsidizing gas exports to the Zionist state. [xxvii] They may oppose zionist wars against its neighbours and its regional supremacism. [xxviii] They will want to develop new, independent, foreign policies. Such policy changes would be unacceptable to the Zionist state but there may be even worse to follow. Faced with dwindling fossil fuel resources, the Egyptian people will invariably demand precisely what westerners enjoy and what the Iranian people also want: nuclear energy. This will almost certainly lead to demands for the acquisition of nuclear weapons to ensure their military defence and bring about a less unbalanced military situation in the middle east. Although such changes in Egypt may not be in the least bit detrimental to the long term interests of the Zionist state, they would certainly be perceived as anathema by the current bunch of warmongers occupying Palestine. From the perspective of the warmongering Zionist state it would lose too much to allow democratic reforms in Egypt especially if this might lead to the country acquiring nuclear weapons. They will deem it imperative to scupper any move to democracy in favour of restoring a zionist quisling who would once again put zionist interests before those of the Egyptian people. The west's values, political principles, and national interests, would be best served through the creation of a democratic Egypt similar to that in Turkey. Its primary strategic concern would be the Suez canal but given Egyptians' open attitude to the west this shouldn't be a problem. The west doesn't have to fear Egypt's development of an independent foreign policy – only those suffering from zionist paranoia would fear the worst. [xxix] But given zionist domination of America's political system, zionist propagandists will doubtlessly terrify American politicians and the American public by conjuring up even more fantastical Islamic bogeymen in Egypt. The foundation of freedom in Egypt is thus a test of zionist world domination. ZIonists may have lost out because of the Egyptian uprising, and the refusal of a significant part of western public opinion to denounce Egyptian freedom fighters, but they will certainly try to restore their dominance. After the second world war, the cold war became the primary global political preoccupation. The foundation of the Zionist state was a relatively insignificant issue in the worldwide competition for global supremacy. But during this time the Zionists' military successes led them install pliant Arab dictators and to use islamophobia to whip up opposition against Palestinian freedom fighters and hostile Moslem states across the african-asian continents. After the demise of the cold war, the west's zionist ruling elites, its zionist owned media, and its zionist lobbies succeeded in pressuring western politicians into adopting their islamophobia. Western political leaders increasingly see zionist colonialism as their own cause. Zionists' achievement of manipulating the west, and the rest of the world including Russia and China who also have their Islamic minorities who object to their second class status, into adopting the zionist creed is the most blatant manifestation of zionist global dominion. After the demise of the Russian empire, many commentators in the west wondered what the next global conflict would be since both superpowers seemed to rely on a cold war conflict to keep their military-industrial complexes in profit and an ideology that unified their peoples. Many thought it might be China or Asian tigers. The zionists have successfully conned the west into supporting zionism against fictitious Islamic bogeymen. The best way that people in the west can help Egyptian protestors to defeat their adversaries i.e. the Egyptian army and zionist colonialists, is to challenge zionist dominance at home. Bob Finch has been an environmental and political thinker for many decades and has published many articles on a range of websites. His website can be found at www.carbonomics.com and blog at http://themundiclub.blogspot.com/ [i] Some commentators have suggested the uprising was not entirely political but had economic roots. “… turning the story into a fairytale about democracy. Rage over food costs played a major role in getting people out into the streets.” (Matthew Wild ‘Peak Oil, Climate Change, Political Turmoil: The Lesson From Egypt' http://countercurrents.org/wild150211.htm February 15, 2011). There is much to be said for environmentalism and the impact that global burning is having around the world but, as will be noted, just as the Moslem brotherhood didn't get involved in the protests until the last minute, so the same was also true of Egypt's workers. Industrial strikes may have played a critical contribution to the eventual success of the uprising but they did not seem to initiate it. [ii] "The hysteria in American media about Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood is not only ignorant and demagogic, it is hypocritical.” (Juan Cole ‘Fear Not the Muslim Brotherhood Boogeyman' http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/f ear_not_the_muslim_brotherhood_boogeyman_20110215 February 15, 2011); “Such a hostile attitude toward the MB is also unfounded. As Nathan Brown describes them, “a lot of their program is just standard reform stuff—independence of the judiciary, the end of corruption, protecting the environment. Especially when they got more political over the last 10 years or so, what they really began to push was a very general reform language that takes Islamic coloration in some areas. But an awful lot of it is consistent with other reform programs coming from reformists all over the political spectrum.”” (Elizabeth Shakman Hurd ‘Misrepresenting Egypt – the Mubarak myth of “secular” vs “Islamic”' http://blogs.reuters..com/faithworld/2011/02/14/guestview-misrepresenting-egypt-the-mubarak-myth-of-secular-vs-islamic/ February 14, 2011). [iii] “Indeed Israel's own reaction to the momentous events in Egypt, that this might not be the time for democracy in Egypt (thus allowing it to keep the title of "the only democracy in the Middle East"), has been as implausible as it has been self-defeating.” (Robert Fisk ‘Hypocrisy Is Exposed By The Wind Of Change' http://countercurrents.org/fisk100211.htm February 10, 2011); “Israeli leaders have made it clear they oppose elections in Egypt on general principle, and believe that an elected government would end the 1979 peace deal. This does not, of course, mean that a war would break out, but a number of Egyptians are unhappy with restrictions the deal places on travel in Sinai, and well as obliging them to comply with the Gaza blockade.” (Jason Ditz ‘Netanyahu on Egypt: Israel Must ‘Prepare for Worst' http://news.antiwar.com/2011/02/16/netanyahu-on-egypt-israel-must-prepare-for-worst/ February 16, 2011). [iv] “In 2006, during the Israeli war on Lebanon, Mubarak argued that Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah was an adventurer who had done Lebanon a great disservice by going to war against Israel - words that echoed what had been said in Riyadh.” (Sami Moubayed ‘Iran hopes for Egypt in new orbit' http://www..atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB18Ak02.html February 18, 2011). [v] “As far as he (mubarak) was concerned, given Iran's alliance with Hamas, if the Palestinian group was not crushed, he would eventually have Egyptian borders not with Gaza, but with the Islamic Republic of Iran. That is why he struck with an iron fist, sealing the Rafah crossing into Gaza, preventing pro-Hamas demonstrations in Egypt, and urging Israel - behind closed doors - to continue in its war, hoping that they could crush the Islamic resistance in Palestine. (Sami Moubayed ‘Iran hopes for Egypt in new orbit' http://www..atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB18Ak02.html February 18, 2011). [vi] “Mubarak sent shockwaves throughout Iran when he appeared on al-Arabiyya TV in 2006 and said that Shi'ites of the Arab world were more loyal to Iran than they were to their own countries, echoing what King Abdullah of Jordan had earlier described as a "Shi'ite crescent".” (Sami Moubayed ‘Iran hopes for Egypt in new orbit' http://www..atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB18Ak02.html February 18, 2011). [vii] “As WikiLeaks revealed, Mubarak was one of the loudest advocates of a US (or Israeli) strike on Tehran …” (Justin Raimondo ‘It's Always About Israel. Even when it isn't…' http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/02/13/its-always-about-israel/ February 14, 2011). [viii] “... re-examining the export of natural gas to Israel at subsidized rates …” (Pepe Escobar ‘Under the (Egyptian) volcano' http://www..atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB15Ak01.html February 15, 2011). [ix] “Egypt, formerly an oil exporter that was self-sufficient in food, now imports both – and cannot afford to feed itself.” (Matthew Wild ‘Peak Oil, Climate Change, Political Turmoil: The Lesson From Egypt' http://countercurrents.org/wild150211.htm February 15, 2011); “The nation, whose arable land is only the size of Maryland, cannot feed its 84-85 million people and has become the world's largest wheat importer through a major U.S. food-aid program, authorized by Congress—a program that has been rife with egregious illegalities and kickbacks.” (Eric Margolis ‘Fall of the Raj' http://www.amconmag..com/blog/fall-of-the-raj/ February 17, 2011). [x] “It's interesting to note that Hosni Mubarak, holed up in his presidential palace at the height of the protests, put in a call not to the US State Department, or the White House, but to a member of the Israeli Knesset, one Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, a former cabinet minister who dealt with the Egyptian tyrant during the negotiations that set up the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty.” (Justin Raimondo ‘It's Always About Israel. Even when it isn't…' http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/02/13/its-always-about-israel/ February 14, 2011). [xi] “… the highly influential leading pro-Israel organizations in the US (AIPAC, the Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations) and their army of scribes have mobilized congressional leaders to pressure the White House to continue backing Mubarak, as Israel is the prime beneficiary of a dictator who is at the throat of the Egyptians (and Palestinians) and at the feet of the Jewish state.” (James Petras ‘Washington Faces the Arab Revolts: Sacrificing Dictators to Save the State' February 10, 2011). [xii] “The Brotherhood joined this year's protest movement only at the last minute and was not a leading force in it.” (Juan Cole ‘Fear Not the Muslim Brotherhood Boogeyman' http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/fear_not _the_muslim_brotherhood_boogeyman_20110215 February 15, 2011). [xiii] “Fox News has already told its viewers in America that the Muslim Brotherhood, about the "softest" of Islamist groups in the Middle East, is behind the brave men and women who have dared to resist the state security police ...” (Robert Fisk ‘Hypocrisy Is Exposed By The Wind Of Change' http://countercurrents.org/fisk100211.htm February 10, 2011). In the United Kingdom, Jane Corbin, married to a member of the house of lords who is a prominent member of the british zionist lobby, produced another Panorama special, bbc1, February 07, 2011, on the unfolding situation in Egypt. Egyptian protestors welcomed her behind the scenes to give her a first hand experience of the violence they faced but, when entering Tahrir square, she stated she was just going to meet the Moslem Brotherhood “organizing the protests”. The cute and cuddly but ferociously conventional, Andrew Neil, one of the BBC's top political commentators, repeatedly ask his interviewees whether the west should be supporting Egyptian protestors when it might lead to Islamic extremists i.e. the Moslem Brotherhood or even al Quaeda, gaining political power. [xiv] In Britain the most blatant example of this was Robert Maxwell who used his publishing empire to denounce Moredechai Vanunu's expose of the Jews-only state's nuclear weapons industry. He also contributed enormously to whipping up anti-Saddam fervour in the months leading up to the first gulf war. He not only looted British workers' pensions but after his suicide was given a state funeral in Jerusalem. He also received state honours for the services he'd rendered, not to Britain where he'd become a thief and an outcast, but to the Jewish state. [xv] Over the last decade zionists in the west have launched a torrent of criticisms against Iran for having (non-existent) nuclear weapons. By refusing to mention the Jews-only state's nukes their insistence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons makes Iran seem like the aggressor when, in reality, the acquisition of such weapons would be entirely defensive. Such criticisms seem even more ridiculous given that if Iran wanted to develop such weapons it could easily use the rationale employed by British politicians in the 1980s. They continually rebuffed demands for unilateral nuclear disarmament by arguing that Britain had to have nuclear weapons to counter Russia's huge nuclear arsenal. Why do these same politicians now refuse to accept that Iran has the same right to defend itself against the Jews-only state's nukes? Is it not entirely understandable that the Iranian people want nuclear weapons to defend themselves from the threat of nuclear annihilation by the war mongers running the Jews-only state? Objectively speaking, Iran's most powerful motive for acquiring nukes is to defend itself from zionist nuclear warmongers. [xvi] Historically, British democracy evolved around the issue of property rights. Those with property wanted political rights in order to protect their property and their profits. For many centuries the right to vote was based solely upon the ownership of sizeable landholdings. The right to own property and not have it confiscated was the backbone of British politics. Echoes of these past developments still reverberate in contemporary British politics in many ways. Most parliamentarians see one of their main duties as protecting property rights. They are proud of living in what they call a property owning democracy. But these property owning democrats would never dream of condemning the zionist state for confiscating Palestinian property. Tory politicians were outraged when a local farmer was convicted of murdering and maiming robbers intent on stealing his property and insisted he had the right to defend his property. But this is not a right they would extend to Palestinians. [xvii] This is a feasible scenario. The Egyptians had a democracy in the 1950s before it was overthrown by a military coup and the eventual rise of Abdul Nasser. Iran had a democracy until, in 1953, BP and the CIA conspired to overthrow the Mossadegh government. And in 1991 in Algeria's moderate Islamist party won a landslide victory before “Paris and Washington quickly backed the Algerian army in crushing the vote and jailing its victors.” (Eric Margolis ‘Fall of the Raj' http://www.amconmag..com/blog/fall-of-the-raj/ February 17, 2011). The army launched a wholesale slaughter of Islamists in which tens of thousands of innocent people lost their lives. Hamas too was elected by free and fair elections until the zionists decided to quosh the result. Hezbollah has been demanding greater democratic participation in Lebanon. Turkey is currently the great beacon of democracy in the Islamic world. If these countries, some of the biggest in the Islamic world, had managed to ensure the survival of their democracies this would have helped to spread democracy around the region. This, in turn, would have enabled such countries to boost economic growth and national prosperity. [xviii] The same point has been made by Eric Margolis. “It was no coincidence that Mubarak holed up at Sharm el-Sheikh in Sinai, a short helicopter ride to Israel.” (Eric Margolis ‘Fall of the Raj' http://www.amconmag..com/blog/fall-of-the-raj/ February 17, 2011). [xix] “Israel's military chief Ehud Barak has expressed concern that if power transition happens quickly in Egypt, Muslim brotherhood (MB) will come into power. Following a Thursday statement by the embattled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, the Israeli official, who is in Washington, emphasized on the need to prevent Egypt from falling into the hands of what he described as ‘extremists' €? saying the country needs more time for change. “The real winners of any short-term election, let's say within 90 days, will be the (opposition) Muslim Brotherhood,” €? Reuters quoted Barak as saying.” (‘Israel vows fear of MB's gain in Egypt' http://www.aljazeera.com/news/articles/34/Israel-vows-fear-of-MBs-gain-in-Egypt.html February 11, 2011). [xx] “On Thursday morning Mubarak probably told Suleiman and the US that he was going to quit, then forgot and, braced by a supportive call from the Israelis and a pledge by the Saudis to give him $1.4 billion if the US withheld it, announced that he would be around till September.” (Alexander Cockburn ‘Ain't That Good News!' http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn02112011.html February 11 - 13, 2011). The zonists, americans, and saudis have worked together for many years e.g. in propping up the lebanese government. The zionists got their American muppets to give feldman the job as ambassador to lebanon so that he could act as their point man in the country. He struts around diminishing areas of the country like a zionist viceroy issuing orders to his lebanese subjects. [xxi] “A transformative uprising in Egypt or Tunisia comes to be seen as being about Israel ..."” (James Zogby ‘Politics and Nonsense on Egypt' http://www.counterpunch.org/zogby02112011.html February 11 - 13, 2011). [xxii] Alexander cockburn talks about “the American Empire” even in the same article where he points out the realities of modern american politics. “… the White House is being besieged by the Israel Lobby which is following the script being hysterically written in the press in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, with headlines such as "We're on our own," "Obama's betrayal of Mubarak," and "A bullet in the back from Uncle Sam.” (Alexander Cockburn ‘The God That's Failing' http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn02042011.html February 4 - 6, 2011). It seems as if its too much to expect lefties, even compassionate ones such as Alexander Cockburn, to change their weltanschaaung and rid themselves of such redundant phrases as the American empire. Those on the left continually argue that one of the best means for understanding political power is to follow the money and yet they refuse to accept the conclusions that are derived from such an analysis. America gives huge amounts of money, both directly and indirectly, to the Jews-only state. Even Mubarak subsidized the zionist state through cheap gas exports. The answer to the question of which country is the master and which is the slave becomes even more blatant if the left's follow the trail maxim is explored in terms of who initiates global policies. Anyone who explores a ‘follow the source and distribution of the policy' analysis will discover that, over the last forty years or so, by far and away the biggest proportion of the west's foreign policies have originated in the Zionist state. Whilst for a decade the Americans praised Saddam as their dictator, the zionists were condemning him as a menace to their security. When Saddam positioned his army on the Kuwaiti border for three weeks the bush administration said nothing seeing an invasion as Iraq's reward for the terrible losses it suffered waging its eight year long war against Iran. But, once the invasion took place, the zionist lobby succeeded in forcing bush into betraying his close ally and waging war against him. The idea that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons originated as a paranoid zionist fantasy. On the other side of the political spectrum, Justin Raimondo knows all too well the political power the Jewish lobby in America and the threat it poses to anyone who highlights its dominance of American politics. Whilst he often argues the zionist state dominates American foreign policy he sprinkles his work with enough caveats about zionist domination to deter the zionist lobby from exacting revenge. “Change is coming to the Middle East, whether the Israelis, or their American patrons, like it or not. And these changes will necessitate a change in US foreign policy, which up until now has been cravenly Israeli-centric.” (Justin Raimondo ‘It's Always About Israel. Even when it isn't…' http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/02/13/its-always-about-israel/ February 14, 2011). [xxiii] The Egyptian people faced formidable odds in trying to rid themselves of mubarak because of the vast security apparatus at his disposal. According to James Petras, this consisted of not merely the 468,500 members of the Egyptian army but 325,000 in the central security forces and 60,000 in Mubarak's own personal presidential guard. [xxiv] Sami Moubayed rather naively takes it for granted that the democracy is on its way to egypt. “Mubarak was a dictator while the new president will certainly be elected to office through a parliamentary democracy and not stay in power for more than two terms. The ex-president was hostile to Hamas and Hezbollah and was radically pro-American and pro-Israeli. The new president will probably be way less pro-American or pro-Israeli than his predecessor, which makes him by default, closer to resistance groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.” (Sami Moubayed ‘Iran hopes for Egypt in new orbit' http://www..atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB18Ak02.html February 18, 2011). [xxv] “The House and senate committees on intelligence are grilling defensive personnel of the CIA and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) for their alleged failure to catch the pulse of youth movements and online chat rooms, which ended up damaging US assets in the Middle East much more than violent Islamist terrorist cells of al-Qaeda.' (Sreeram Chaulia ‘The spies who got it wrong' http://www..atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB19Ak02.html February 19, 2011); “The Mossad, pride and joy of Hollywood producers, presented as a ‘model of efficiency' by their organized Zionist colleagues, were not able to detect the growth of a mass movement in a country right next door. The Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was shocked (and dismayed) by the precarious situation of Mubarak and the collapse of his most prominent Arab client – because of Mossad's faulty intelligence. Likewise, Washington was totally unprepared by the 27 US intelligence agencies and the Pentagon, with their hundreds of thousands of paid operatives and multi-billion dollar budgets, of the forthcoming massive popular uprisings and emerging movements.” (James Petras ‘Egypt: Social Movements,the Cia and Mossad – February 16, 2011). [xxvi] Zionists seem to believe they control who uses the Suez canal. “Financial markets the world over are in turmoil and Brent North Sea Crude has reached a new short-term high today after Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman accused Iran of planning to send two warships through the Suez Canal later this evening and suggested this could provoke an Israeli attack on the nation.” (Jason Ditz ‘Israeli FM Threatens War With Iran Over Suez Warship Claim' http://news.antiwar.com/2011/02/16/israeli-fm-threatens-war-with-iran-over-suez-warship-claim/ February 16, 2011). [xxvii] “Things may start at a minimum with lifting the siege of Gaza and re-examining the export of natural gas to Israel at subsidized rates; then they will move to reconsidering the safe passage of the US Navy in the Suez Canal and finally rediscuss the holy of holies - the 1979 Camp David accords with Israel.” .” (Pepe Escobar ‘Under the (Egyptian) volcano' http://www..atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB15Ak01.html February 15, 2011). [xxviii] “With Egypt out of the picture and indeed often assisting, Israel has been free to launch military assaults on several of its neighbors, including Lebanon twice and Gaza and the West Bank repeatedly, and free to expand settlements, absorb Palestinian territory, and severely oppress Palestinians without fear of retaliation or even significant disagreement from any Arab army.” (Kathleen Christison ‘The US as Israel's Enabler in the Middle East' http://www.counterpunch.org/christison02162011.html February 16, 2011). [xxix] Pepe Escobar suspects that, “Way beyond the inevitable clash in Egypt of demographic explosion and economic crisis, what is literally freaking out the West is that its elites know what the vast majority of Egyptians don't want. A truly democratic, sovereign Egyptian government cannot possibly remain a slave of US foreign policy.” (Pepe Escobar ‘Under the (Egyptian) volcano' http://www..atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB15Ak01.html February 15, 2011). Raimondo shows similar concerns, “As WikiLeaks revealed, Mubarak was one of the loudest advocates of a US (or Israeli) strike on Tehran: with the despot deposed, that kind of political support for military action will no longer be forthcoming. This is a major blow to the War Party in the United States, and this alone justifies opponents of US intervention cheering the Egyptian revolution no matter what kind of government comes to power.” (Justin Raimondo ‘It's Always About Israel. Even when it isn't…' http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/02/13/its-always-about-israel/ February 14, 2011). Source of Reference: http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=28111

Final Report from OIC Summit - Mecca the Holy City

Final communiqué of OIC summit OIC, 17 August 2012 MAKKAH, Aug 17: The following is the final communiqué issued at the just-concluded extraordinary summit of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation in Makkah. The Summit was briefed on the reports and recommendations submitted to it by the foreign ministers in their preparatory meeting for Summit and reviewed a number of important issues on its agenda relating to the Muslim world and its exceptional circumstances demanding their consideration with wisdom and tackling them in a way to enhance Islamic solidarity.

PERUTUSAN MA'AL HIJRAH AQSA ASY-SYARIFF 1433H

--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ali firdaus
Date: 2011/11/26
Subject: [IKRAM Hulu Langat] Perutusan Maal Hijrah 1433H Aqsa Syarif
To: ikram-hululangat@googlegroups.com

Assalamu'alaykum

http://www.aqsasyarif.org.my/2011/11/perutusan-maal-hijrah-1433h-aqsa-syarif/

Aqsa Syarif mengucapkan Selamat Tahun Baru Hijrah kepada seluruh umat Islam di Malaysia khususnya. Sebagaimana sudah menjadi tradisi setiap menjelang tahun baru maka setiap orang akan menanam azam untuk melakukan perubahan ke arah kebaikan. Bersempena dengan tahun baru Hijrah 1433, kami mengajak seluruh umat Islam untuk memberi perhatian kepada umat Islam di tanah suci Al-Quds yang kini sedang menghadapi penindasan dan penjajahan. Di saat kita meletakkan sasaran untuk meningkatkan pencapaian dalam pelbagai bidang yang diceburi dan memperbaiki taraf hidup, saudara-saudara kita berhadapan dengan persoalan bagaimana untuk meneruskan kehidupan itu sendiri dalam keadaan dinafikan hak mereka yang paling asas sebagai manusia.

Mereka disekat dari mendapat bekalan makanan, air bersih untuk minuman, ubat-ubatan dan bahan bakar. Mereka juga tiada jaminan keselamatan tempat tinggal kerana bila-bila masa sahaja tanah mereka akan dirampas, mereka dihalau keluar dan rumah mereka dirobohkan. Bahkan nyawa mereka sentiasa berada dalam keadaan bahaya akibat terdedah kepada serangan Israel yang boleh dilancarkan tanpa amaran dan secara tiba-tiba.

Inilah senario yang sedang dihadapi oleh rakyat Palestin di saat kita menyambut Maal Hijrah. Bagi mereka tahun baru Hijrah hanya menjanjikan satu kepastian iaitu perjuangan untuk pembebasan Baitul Maqdis dan Masjid al-Aqsa pasti diteruskan. Itulah azam yang tertanam kukuh di dalam setiap umat Palestin. Cita-cita untuk melihat tanah suci al-Quds kembali ke pangkuan umat Islam tidak pernah luput dari ingatan mereka. Bahkan inilah azam yang tidak pernah luntur dalam diri para pejuang sejak 66 tahun yang lalu. Semangat jihad yang terus membara disanubari mereka menjadi obor yang menerangi seluruh dunia Islam dan menyuntik kekuatan meski berhadapan dengan pelbagai pengkhianatan dan pembelotan dari kalangan pemimpin-pemimpin negara Islam yang berkepentingan yang bersekongkol dengan pihak musuh.

Jika diamati, setiap orang akan merasa insaf bagaimana mungkin sebuah umat yang diperangi oleh kuasa tentera yang ke empat terbesar di dunia dan mendapat sokongan padu dari kuasa besar dunia Amerika Syarikat dan Kesatuan Eropah dapat bertahan puluhan tahun lamanya. Bahkan Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu yang sering memihak kepada kepentingan Zionis kerana didalangi oleh Amerika dan sekutu-sekutunya sering gagal membela kepentingan dan hak rakyat Palestin. Apakah rahsia kekuatan mereka sehingga mereka tidak berganjak langsung dari prinsip perjuangan meskipun diasak dengan begitu hebat oleh Zionis, negara kuasa besar bahkan rejim-rejim negara Arab yang menjadi boneka kepada kepentingan Amerika?

Semua ini menuntut umat Islam di Malaysia untuk mengambil inspirasi dari satu perjuangan yang amat menakjubkan. Apakah yang mendorong satu umat yang tidak punya kekuatan tentera dan senjata untuk berhadapan dengan Israel yang mendapat bantuan hampir USD3 billion setahun dalam bentuk pelbagai senjata terkini. Bahkan mereka bukan sahaja berhadapan dengan jet pejuang, kereta kebal, peluru berpandu, bom pintar, pesawat ‘predator’ kawalan jauh, tetapi mereka turut dihujani dengan bom fosforus putih yang diharamkan. Kemusnahan kepada nyawa, harta benda dan tempat tinggal tidak dapat dibayangkan. Tetapi semua ini hanya meningkatkan semangat juang dan menyemarakkan lagi jihad di bumi Palestin. Pastinya umat yang berjuang di atas dasar jihad yang benar tidak akan dapat ditundukkan oleh mana-mana kekuatan di bumi ini. Meskipun seluruh dunia menalakan senjatanya kepada umat yang sedemikian, mereka tidak akan mampu menumpaskan satu umat yang kekuatannya datang langsung dari Allah SWT.

Hari ini di saat rakyat Gaza sedang bergelut dengan persoalan hidup dan mati, para pejuang menyibukkan diri mereka dengan mempersiapakan generasi akan datang. Lima puluh peratus anak-anak Gaza berhadapan dengan masalah kurang zat makanan. Sebahagian besar dari mereka tidak dapat meneruskan persekolahan. Bukan sahaja bangunan sekolah sudah ranap menyembah bumi, bahkan kertas dan alat tulis juga tidak dapat dibekalkan akibat sekatan Israel dan penutupan sempadan Gaza dengan dunia luar. Namun dalam serba kekurangan dan kedaifan ini, mereka tidak pernah putus pergantungan dengan Allah SWT. Mereka tetap meletakkan harapan penuh yakin bahawa masa depan Palestin sudah dijamin di dalam Islam. Oleh itu salah satu agenda yang penting yang diberikan perhatian penuh para pejuang ialah membina generasi pelapis. Mereka ditarbiyah dengan al-Quran.

Mereka ditarbiyah untuk menjadi para hufaz dan membawa al-Quran di dalam dada-dada mereka. Pada musim panas yang lalu mereka berjaya menghasilkan 30,000 para hufaz cilik dari kalangan anak-anak lelaki dan perempuan. Sebahagian dari mereka bergelar hufaz hanya dalam tempoh tiga bulan atau lebih pendek dari itu. Program melahirkan generasi Rabbani ini akan menjamin kelangsungan jihad untuk mem pertahankan tanah suci dan Masjid al-Aqsa. Dengan nukleus para rijal yang mempunyai kualiti tarbiyah imaniah ini, benteng-benteng pertahanan umat di bumi al-Quds akan terus dijamin terpelihara dari pencerobohan dan pengkhianatan golongan yang cuba mengkhianati perjuangan ini.

Kami mengajak umat Islam untuk mengimbau perjuangan umat Islam di Palestin sempena Maal Hijrah. Apakah kaitan peristiwa hijrah Nabi SAW dengan perjuangan yang ditempa oleh umat Islam zaman ini terutama di Tanah Suci Al-Quds. Apakah hubungkait peristiwa besar di dalam perjuangan Nabi SAW 1,400 tahun yang lalu dengan kesinambungan perjuangan umat Islam pada hari ini. Pastinya peristiwa hijrah bukan hanya satu peninggalan sejarah tetapi satu panduan yang terus relevan sepanjang zaman. Perjuangan Nabi SAW adalah kemuncak segala perjuangan di antara hak dan batil, di antara kebenaran dan kepalsuan. Allah SWT telah menjadikan resam perjuangan yang batil sentiasa berada di pihak yang kuat dari sudut zahir dan luarannya. Semua itu menjadi ujian kepada orang-orang yang beriman agar mereka tidak silau dan goyah melihat kekayaan dan kekuatan pendukong-pendukong kezaliman.

Nabi SAW berhadapan dengan penindasan dan penyeksaan golongan penguasa Quraish selama 13 tahun menerajui perjuangan menegakkan kalimah Allah dan kebenaran di bumi Mekah. Mereka merupakan golongan minoriti yang sentiasa diasak oleh pemuka-pemuka Quraish yang berkuasa, berpengaruh dan kaya-raya. Golongan inilah yang memegang tampuk kekuasaan dan tidak pernah henti-henti menyakiti Rasulullah SAW dan orang-orang yang beriman. Sebahagian mereka syahid di tangan penguasa-penguasa ini dan apa yang mampu dilakukan oleh Rasulullah SAW hanyalah menyuruh para sahabatnya bersabar. Apabila semua penyeksaan dan penindasan ini tidak berjaya melemahkan keimanan maka mereka telah mengambil satu pendekatan di luar batas-batas persaudaraan bahkan di luar batas kemanusiaan.

Umat Islam diboikot dan dikepung selama tiga tahun lamanya. Mereka tidak dibenarkan menghubungi dan menyambung silaturrahim meskipun dengan ahli keluarga yang terdekat. Bekalan makanan disekat sehingga ada umat Islam yang meninggal dunia akibat kebuluran. Bahkan Saidatina Khadijah RA dikatakan meninggal akibat kesan dari kekurangan makanan. Namun umat Islam tetap bertahan dan tidak sekali-kali menggadaikan keimanan mereka hanya untuk mengalas perut yang pedih menahan lapar. Mereka tetap bertahan meskipun anak-anak merintih pada waktu malam menahan lapar. Tangisan yang memilukan pada waktu malam telah mendorong orang-orang Quraish yang masih punya hati untuk membekalkan makanan secara sembunyi-sembunyi supaya tidak diketahui orang lain.

Allah SWT telah menguji Rasulullah SAW sehingga kemuncak dan kemudian memberi kelegaan kepada umat Islam dengan campur tangan Allah SWT sendiri. Berakhirnya boikot rupa-rupanya menjanjikan dugaan yang lebih berat kepada Rasulullah SAW. Kematian dua orang yang paling disayangi dan yang paling kuat menyokong dan melindungi Rasulullah SaW iaitu isteri dan bapa saudaranya, Abu Talib sudah tentu meninggalkan kesan yang amat besar pada jiwa Rasulullah SAW. Dalam keadaan menanggung sedih itu Rasulullah SAW tidak berputus asa dan tetap menjalankan amanat dakwah yang dipikulkan ke atas dirinya.

Kunjungannya ke Taif bukan disambut dengan baik bahkan dilempari dengan batu sehingga menanggung luka yang berat. Pada saat sedemikianlah Allah SWT memperjalankan Nabi dalam satu peristiwa yang menakjubkan iaitu Isra’ dan Mikraj. Perjalanan ke Masjid al-Aqsa dan kemudian ke Sidratul Muntaha adalah langkah pertama ke arah kemenangan yang bakal datang. Kembalinya Rasulullah SAW disusuli dengan siri-siri pertemuan dengan penduduk Yathrib. Rasulullah Saw dinanti-nantikan oleh penduduk Yathrib dan diangkat sebagai pemimpin di Madinah. Peristiwa hijrah adalah kunci kepada kemenangan ini.

Dalam konteks perjuangan rakyat Palestin pada hari ini, peristiwa hijrah adalah satu jaminan dari Allah SWT bahawa kemenangan pasti akan berpihak kepada pejuang kebenaran. Kekuatan fizikal dan sokongan antarabangsa yang dinikmati oleh Israel tidak akan melindungi rejim haram itu dari kemusnahan. Sebagaimana kepungan dan boikot ke atas Rasulullah SAW gagal maka begitu juga sekatan ekonomi dan kepungan ke atas Gaza akan gagal dengan kuasa Allah SWT. Sebagaimana komplot dan persekongkolan golongan Yahudi dan munafiq di Madinah begitu juga persekongkolan rejim-rejim Arab bersama Zionis untuk menekan gerakan Hamas dan gerakan Islam di Palestin akan menemui kegagalan.

Golongan Ahzab moden yang diterajui oleh Amerika Syarikat akan gagal sebagaimana gagalnya golongan Ahzab dalam peperangan Khandak. Keyakinan yang bulat inilah yang terus memercikkan api kebangkitan rakyat Palestin. Kini persoalannya ialah apakah peranan umat Islam sejagat? Apakah kita hanya sekadar menonton dan memberi ulasan-ulasan yang kadangkala terpisah dari realiti sebenar. Ramai umat Islam di luar sana merasa sangsi dengan janji Allah SWT. Mereka bukan sahaja mengambil sikap tidak peduli dengan apa yang menimpa tanah suci al Quds bahkan tergamak mencemuh para pejuang dengan kata-kata nista dan penghinaan.

Sebabnya ialah umat Islam tidak kembali kepada persoalan dasar iaitu melihat perjuangan yang berlaku ini dalam konteks Al-Quran dan sunnah. Mereka mengukur kekuatan musuh dengan penilaian kebendaan lalu membuat kesimpulan bahawa perjuangan rakyat Palestin adalah usaha yang sia-sia. Kami menyeru seluruh umat Islam supaya kembalilah kepada Allah dan Rasulnya dalam menilai perjuangan umat Islam di Palestin. Kemenangan sebenarnya telah ditetapkan oelh Allah SWT bagi hamba-hambanya yang berjihad dengan ikhlas dan penuh keimanan.

Sebagaimana yang disebut lewat hadis-hadis sahih Rasulullah SAW bahawa umat ini akan terus berjuang sehingga Allah memberi kemenangan mutlak kepada mereka. Apabila ditanya oleh sahabat di manakah mereka itu, dijawab oleh Rasulullah SAW, mereka itu berada di Baitul Maqdis. Dalam hadis yang lain Rasulullah SAW memberi jaminan bahawa pengkhianatan golongan yang berkhianat tidak akan memudaratkan mereka. Mereka akan tetap menjadi golongan yang menang. Golongan ini disebut oleh Rasulullah berjuang di pintu-pintu Dimasq (Damsyik) dan pitu-pintu al-Quds (Baitul Maqdis).

Sempena Maal Hijrah 1433 ini Aqsa Syarif menyeru seluruh umat Islam supaya meletakkan satu azam untuk bersama di dalam jihad mempertahankan tanah suci. Umat Islam diseru memperuntukkan sebahagian dari penghasilan mereka untuk perjuangan pembebesan al-Quds. Barangsiapa yang memberi bekal kepada para mujahidin maka dia juga adalah mujahidin. Dengan hadis Nabi SAW ini, kami mengakhiri perutusan Maal Hijrah ini dengan harapan agar seluruh umat Islam bersama berganding bahu berjuang dengan segala daya dan upaya untuk menyokong jihad di bumi Palestin.

Dr. Hafidzi Mohd Noor
Pengerusi
Aqsa Syarif Berhad
1 Muharram 1433H

Reference:
http://www.aqsasyarif.org.my/2011/11/perutusan-maal-hijrah-1433h-aqsa-syarif/

Different Angle of Criticism from Prof Dr Tareeq Ramadhan

Egypt: A complex equation
In reality, the Brotherhood and Al Nour's political forces and visions differ greatly from their Islamist ideologies

By Tariq Ramadan, Special to Gulf News
Published: 00:00 December 13, 2011

0.
Image Credit: Ramachandra Babu/©Gulf News

It is not easy to assess what is really happening in Egypt. After the first round election results, all hypotheses remain possible; the outcome is unpredictable. The two Islamist parties, Freedom and Justice representing the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Nour, representing the Salafists, have emerged as the main political forces in Egypt, giving rise to questions about the nature of the future state.

Things are moving rapidly and many elements are surprising, unclear and even unknown: it is difficult to identify not only the protagonists but also the new alliances that are taking shape at this historical turning point.

In less than six months, the Salafist movement has completely changed its ideological and religious position toward “democracy”. Their leaders had been repeating for years that “democracy” was not Islamic, that it was even kufr (rejection of Islam), and that true Muslims should not take part in elections — or in politics at all — as the whole system is corrupt to its very foundations.

Then, suddenly, the Salafists set up a party, started to be active everywhere in the country, producing leaflets and booklets, calling the people to vote for them and, if not, at least for the Brotherhood. Their 180-degree turnabout was as quick as it was surprising and curious. How could they now declare to be Islamically legitimate what only yesterday they called kufr? How can they ask the people to vote for the Brotherhood who they constantly criticised, almost from the beginning, as being too far from “true Islam”, too open to harmful innovations (bida), and, in a nutshell, too “westernised and modern?” Why are the Salafists changing so dramatically?

Article continues below

It is not the first time we have observed such changes among the more literalist and traditional Islamic organisations. In the mid-nineties in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Taliban refused to consider political involvement; for them it was Islamically wrong. In less than eight months, they organised themselves into one of the main forces in Afghanistan and got involved politically.

We later learned that they had been pushed into that position under Saudi pressure (even though the Saudis considered the Taliban to be following a distorted Islamic school of thought) in response to American strategy in the region.
The Americans have never had a problem in dealing with the more literalist Islamist trends. On the ground, in Afghanistan, as today in Egypt, the Salafists are playing a contradictory game: they have adopted a completely new — for them — Islamic position, while in practice they work for the very interests (such as those of the US) that they reject and demonise in theory.

The same scenario may well be unfolding in Egypt today.

The problem with the Salafists and the traditionalists (such as the Taliban) is not only their interpretation of Islam (literalist, narrow-minded and often obdurate) but also the potential use that can be made of their presence in political terms. No one can deny they can be (and very often are) religiously sincere. At the same time, they are politically naive and easy to manipulate. This became clear in Afghanistan and may hold true in Egypt again.

The world is looking at the first-round election results, and concluding that the two Islamist parties account for almost 60 per cent of the vote (as there should be a natural alliances between the two). That might be a completely wrong interpretation. It is possible that the Al Nour party may have another role to play in the Egyptian equation. Supported, ideologically and financially, by the Saudi government, it may emerge as one of the actors of America’s Egypt strategy.

Al Nour would be a tool to weaken the Brotherhood’s influence and power by forcing it into risky alliances. If the Brotherhood chooses to conclude a pact with the literalists it will very quickly lose its credibility and put itself at odds with its proclaimed reformist agenda. If it decides to avoid the Salafists, it would have no alternative but to consider an alliance with other political forces (which are very weak) and mainly the military, which remains very powerful.

The Brotherhood decided to contest only 40 per cent of the electoral positions and not to contest the presidency. It announced it would be an active and key political force but would avoid exposing itself. This strategy was a way to appease the West and to avoid losing its credibility, as it would be acting in a more discreet mode.

The Brotherhood now finds itself in a very tricky, and for it, quite a dangerous, position. Al Nour may become the strongest enemy of the Brotherhood and the objective ally of the military. On the ground, the two Islamist parties invoke the same references and promote several common objectives; in reality they represent quite distinct political forces and visions.

Over the years, the Brotherhood has shown how pragmatic it can be: evolving with history, adapting its strategy and diversifying its contacts (Saudi Arabia, the US, the European countries, the emerging countries, etc). It seems it will not be possible for the Brotherhood to avoid dealing, one way or another, with the military.

There were rumours of an agreement but nothing was clear: now it seems such an agreement is quite unavoidable. This is what the US government, which is maintaining close links with the generals, is working for in order to keep some control over the situation.

A civilian face such as Mohammad Al Baradei (also close to the Americans contrary to what is said) might be democratically elected later, yet true power will be elsewhere.

Despite what we have witnessed over the last few weeks, it would be better to suspend judgement and remain cautious in our conclusions. Egypt is a critical country in the Middle East and neither Israel nor the US will remain passive onlookers when the Egyptians choose the Brotherhood, whose ideology is the same as Hamas’s (when it comes to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict).

Some other regional actors, which do not really care about democracy, such as the monarchies, are playing a key role in neutralising the Islamist forces. And, in any event, these forces still have much to prove; no one knows whether they will keep their promises when in charge.

The way towards democracy in Egypt is far from transparent; we should avoid taking appearances for realities. Islamists might work against Islamists just as a democratic western government might support a non-democratic military apparatus. This is politics; we must remain vigilant even in our optimism. Religious or not, sincerity in politics is never enough.



Tariq Ramadan is professor of Contemporary Islamic Studies in the Faculty of Oriental Studies at Oxford University and a visiting professor at the Faculty of Islamic Studies in Qatar. He is the author of Islam and the Arab Awakening

Reference:

Warga Malaysia Perlu Tahu Tentang Revolusi Syria

Revolusi Syria (Al-Thaurah al-Suriyyah)*
(DUNIA PERLU TAHU KEKEJAMAN BASYAR ASAD)

Jinsiyyatunā al-Islām (Kewarganegaraan kita ialah Islam);

Di dunia sebelah sini (Asia Tenggara), pertengahannya adalah Malaysia (Awsaṭuha Maliziā) yang sedang memberi banyak sumbangan kepada perjuangan Islam;

Syria jantung umat Arab dan juga miftāh ‘ala al-gharb (kunci ke Barat);

Makam sahabi Hasan ibn Thabit al-Ansari (Makam di Hama); Hama dan Homs merupakan markaz Aiyubin (Salahuddin al-Aiyubi); Hama terkenal melahirkan ulama mujahidin; Balad Nawa (tempat Imam al-Nawawi);

Kelompok Nusairiyin, ‘Alawiyin, adalah cabang daripada golongan Syiah – mereka tidak wajib salat, puasa, zakat, haji, maka mereka bukanlah umat Islam;
Komponen rakyat Syria: (6% Nusairi); (10% Kristian, Druz & Kurdi Sunni); (84% Arab Sunni – 70% sekular, 30% multazim);

Dalam sejarah perjuangan Islam mutakhir di Syria: ulama dibakar, wanita diperkosa;
1973 Hafiz al-Asad (dibantu oleh para penasihat Russia) berkuasa selama 32 tahun dan menukar perlembagaan “Islam sebagai masdar” kpd “Islam satu dpd masadar”, supaya presiden Syria tak perlu daripada kalangan umat Islam;

Hafiz Asad mengumpulkan ulama dan menyatakan bahawa tiada satu ayat Qur’an pun yang bercakap tentang hijab – tapi Syeikh Abdul Wahab Zuhaili menyangkal Asad dan menegaskan bahawa wujud enam ayat Qur’an tentang hijab;

Pasukan payung terjun wanita ‘Alawi ditugaskan untuk membuka hijab para mukminat, tapi akhirnya hijab dibenarkan selepas bom dibaling ke arah mereka yang menentang hijab;

Di penjara Tadmur di padang pasir, setiap hari Isnin dan Khamis 10 orang ikhwan dibunuh – 950 orang Ikhwan syahid pada tahun 1980 (semuanya 1150 orang Ikhwan syahid);

Rifa’at Asad (adik Hafiz Asad) mempunyai 40,000 orang tentera yang menjaga rejim; berkata bahawa Stalin telah mengorbankan 10 juta nyawa untuk mempertahankan rejim dan ia pula “bersedia untuk membunuh...”; antara perangai buruknya ialah ia suka menculik wanita jelita di jalanan.

Majoriti tentera daripada golongan Sunni, tapi empat tahap kuasa teratas daripada puak ‘Alawi, tahap yang ke-5 barulah daripada puak Sunni yang fasiq;

Hingga 2 Mac 1982, 46,000 rakyat terkorban, menyebabkan 1.5 juta rakyat berhijrah ke negara-negara lain;

Asad mendakwa negara Syria benteng yang berdepan dengan Israel – satu pembohngan kerana tak pernah sebiji peluru pun ditembakkan ke arah Israel, Bukit Golan masih milik Israel;

Bashar Asad dan saudara perempuannya Bushra menghubungi Netanyahu yang menyatakan bahawa Bashar tetap pemimpin yang menjaga maslahah Israel;

Lapan bulan sebelum revolusi, rejim telah mengaharamkan pemakaian niqab dan 2,500 orang guru telah dipindahkan ke bahagian pentadbiran kerana memakai niqab;

Sebab thaurah: ‘Atif Najib (rapat dengan Bashar Asad) antara para penzalim; punca revolusi ialah kezaliman dalaman yang sudah lama yang dilakukan oleh Bashar;

Pencetus thaurah: 28 pelajar sekolah yang menulis protes di papan dinding ditangkap –seorang dibunuh dan selainnya diseksa, apabila bapa mahu mengambil anaknya yang sudah tiada, para penyiksa mengatakan bahawa “biar kami bersama wanita kamu supaya dapat anak baru!”

15 Mac 2011 bermula pemberontakan besar-besaran hingga kini; 157 tempat memberontak (hancurkan patung Asad); Jumaat 2 Disember yang lepas 3 juta rakyat memberontak;
Pada mulanya Asad menggunakan senjata sementara rakyat tidak menggunakan senjata;
Damsyik dan Haleb pun sudah mula bangun; sebuah kampung 6 km dari Golan diserang, tapi Asad tak menyerang Israel;

Kini 29,000 orang tentera telah berpaling tadah;
Kapal terbang, 400 kereta kebal digunakan untuk menyerang rakyat dan 21 masjid serta 4 gereja telah dimusnahkan;

Duta di Malaysia ‘Alawi, di Indonesia Sunni fasiq;Para pemberontak keluar rumah bersedia untuk syahid, berwuduk dan berwangi-wangian dan keluar setiap hari dan malam; pihak kerajaan mesti dibayar untuk keluar;Kini sudah 10,000 syahid (termasuk budak Kristian yang mati), ada juga puak Druz bersama-sama pemberontak; 39,000 rakyat telah cedera; ambulan tidak boleh membantu, 19 doktor dibunuh, rakyat cedera dibunuh;109,000 dipenjara, mata dicungkil, lidah dipotong, 413 syahid setelah diseksa, 400 kanak-kanak syahid, wanita diperkosa depan suami;

Zainab al-husni 23 berusia tahun cuba melawan – beliau diseksa dan terus keempat-empat anggotanya dipotong, kemudian dilemparkan ke depan keluarganya;
Umm ‘Abdillah diperkosa oleh lima orang tentera, mereka mengatakan bahawa anaknya bukan Abdullah tapi ‘Abdu Bashar, ‘Abdu Maher (saudara Bashar Asad);
Pemberontak yang ditangkap dipaksa menukar syahadah kepada lailahaillabashar (kelihatan jelas dalam video CD yang mengandungi banyak adega yang mengerikan termasuk anak-anak kecil lelaki dan perempuan yang dibunuh setelah diseksa);
Tanzim an-nisa’ wujud di Syria;

Antakia Ard Mubarak (bumi keberkatan): tentera berada di sana; 29,000 tentera telah memerdekan diri mereka dan menyiapkan diri untuk bertempur dengan tentera Asad;
Pelarian: 16,000 di Turki, 6,000 di Lubnan, 6,000 di Jordan;
Lubnan (Hizbulla), Iraq (Syiah) dan Iran (Syiah) menyokong rejim Bashar Asad;
Syeikh Qaradawi berperanan besar untuk membantu revolusi Syria.

* Noktah-noktah ringkas oleh BungHatta ini berasaskan ucapan Dr Khaled Hasan Hendawi (keturunan Syria, orang kanan Syeikh Yusuf al-Qaradhawi) yang disampaikan selama hampir tiga jam kepada beberapa orang pemimpin IKRAM Pusat, Selangor dan Wilayah Persekutuan di Pejabat IKRAM Pusat, bermula sekitar jam 09.30 malam 3 Disember 2011.

Refereence:
https://mail-attachment.googleusercontent.com/attachment?view=att&th=1340f3f7027acee4&attid=0.1&disp=vah&safe=1&zw&saduie=AG9B_P_uXGGDBxEfv_nDYW8nYAco&sadet=1323154111522&sads=9sCGN2pPMILBPeIVj_uC74Pcf2A&sadssc=1

Kenyataan Khairy Tentang Dana Harta RM589.14 Juta Timbul Tandatanya..?

Kerajaan ditekan berhubung kes Tajudin selepas dakwaan Khairy Oleh Shazwan Mustafa KamalMay 24, 2012KUALA LUMPUR, 24 Mei — Penyelesaian sulit kerajaan dengan Tan Sri Tajudin Ramli timbul kembali selepas ketua Pemuda Umno Khairy Jamaluddin berkata minggu ini syarikat susunan semula aset nasional Danaharta tidak kehilangan duit dalam penyelesaian luar mahkamah.

DAP hari ini menuntut jawapan daripada Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Razak selepas Khairy membuka semula perbalahan mengenai penyelesaian sulit yang kontroversial ini dengan menuntut semasa debat yang disiarkan di televisyen dengan Rafizi Ramli dari PKR bahawa dia telah diberitahu sumber bahawa kerajaan tidak kehilangan dalam pengaturan dengan Tajudin (gambar). “Datuk Seri Najib Razak mesti mengesahkan dengan serta-merta jika ketua Pemuda Umno-nya bercakap benar atau sedang menipu orang awam tentang skandal tersebut. “Terutamanya kerana ini kali pertama seorang ahli politik Barisan Nasional (BN) telah membuat tuntutan bahawa Tan Sri Tajudin telah membayar separuh atau semua hutang tertunggaknya sebagai sebahagian penyelesaian,” ketua publisiti DAP Tony Pua, berkata dalam kenyataan media hari ini. Khairy telah berkata ada sumber bahawa bekas pengerusi Malaysia Airlines (MAS) itu mungkin telah membayar lebih dari RM589 juta yang dihutang kepada Danaharta berikutan suatu penyelesaian luar mahkamah yang jumlahnya masih belum didedahkan. Menteri Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz pada tahun lalu mengarahkan semua syarikat berkaitan kerajaan (GLC) termasuk Danaharta untuk menarik balik kes sivil terhadap Tajudin kerana kerajaan telah memutuskan semua kes diselesaikan di luar mahkamah. “Dakwaan Khairy itu adalah langsung tidak boleh dipercayai dan kurang kredibiliti, berdasarkan cara sulit di mana kerajaan telah mencuba untuk menutup episod ini dan keengganan sebarang menteri untuk mengesahkan atau menafikan tuntutan bahawa Danahara sebenarnya telah melupuskan semua hutang Tajudin,” ahli parlimen Petaling Jaya Utara itu berkata. Danaharta dan Tajudin telah menamatkan kes yang telah lama berlanjutan ini apabila mereka membuat penyelesaian luar mahkamah pada 14 Februari selepas Putrajaya telah mengarahkan Ogos lalu supaya semua GLC menguggurkan kes sivil terhadap bekas anak buah Tun Daim Zainuddin itu. Tetapi terma penyelesaian luar mahkamah itu kekal sebagai rahsia antara dua pihak itu walaupun Mahkamah Tinggi telah memutuskan pada Disember 2009 supaya Tajudin membayar Danaharta RM589.14 juta dengan faedah tahunan dua peratus yang bermula dari 1 Januari 2006. Ahli politik dari pihak kerajaan dan pembangkang telah menggesa supaya butiran lengkap penyelesaian luar mahkamah antara Tajudin dan Danaharta diumumkan kepada orang awam, tetapi setakat ini kerajaan masih senyap. Jawatankuasa Kira-kira Wang Negara (PAC) Parlimen telah menuntut pada bulan Mac supaya Putrajaya mendedahkan butiran penyelesaian luar mahkamah yang dicapai antara bekas syarikat pengurusan aset nasional Pengurusan Danaharta Bhd (Danaharta) dan Tajudin. The Malaysian Insider memahami bahawa panel yang mempunyai 13 ahli itu membuat keputusan yang hampir sekata untuk tanya Kementerian Kewangan dan Prokhas, unitnya yang mengurus baki aset Danaharta, untuk menjelaskan penyelesaian sulit yang dicapai pada 14 Februari. Polisi bekas perdana menteri, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, menjadi bahan kritikan selepas pentadbiran Najib memutuskan untuk mengadakan penyelesaian di luar mahkamah terhadap hutang RM589 juta oleh Tajudin ketika membuat pinjaman untuk membeli MAS pada 1994. Kes antara Danaharta dan Tajudin timbul selepas beliau melakukan perjanjian kemudahan pada 13 Julai, 1994 untuk meminjam RM1.79 bilion daripada sindiket bagi membiayai pembelian saham sejumlah 32 peratus saham MAS. Namun begitu, pada 1994 ke 1998, beliau gagal menyelesaikan hutang berkenaan dan menjadikannya pinjaman tidak memuaskan (NPL). Pada tahun 1998, Danaharta mengambil alih NPL daripada peminjam tetapi Tajudin juga gagal menyelesaikan hutangnya dengan Danaharta sehingga mereka berhutang sebanyak RM1.41 billion pada 8 Oktober 2001. Pada 31 Disember 2005, amaun yang belum dibayar adalah RM589.14 juta dan pada 11 Mei 2006, Danaharta dan anak syarikatnya telah mula ambil tindakan untuk mendapatkan semula kesemua duit itu. Tajudin mendakwa dalam afidavitnya beliau diarahkan oleh Dr Mahathir dan Daim pada 1994 untuk membeli dan mengawal pegangan saham MAS untuk menjamin daripada kerajaan. Ahli perniagaan itu mendakwa pembeliaan itu adalah “khidmat negara” yang dipaksa, kerana kerajaan ingin menenangkan para pelabur dan orang awam. Dr Mahathir bagaimanapun menafikan dakwaan Tajudin berkenaan dalam memoir yang ditulisnya. Reference: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/bahasa/article/kerajaan-ditekan-tentang-kes-tajudin-selepas-dakwaan-khairy/