Sunday, February 26, 2012

Bakri Musa Likens Anwar to Anwar Sadat


It caused some disquiet when Dr Bakri Musa, a Malaysian doctor practising in California likened Anwar Ibrahim to Egypt’s long dead President, Anwar Sadat.

What did he mean and why so?

The good doctor came out with such a label on October 26, 2006 after listening to Anwar talking on “Democracy and the Muslim World” at Stanford University.

Nevertheless, after almost seven years, Dr Bakri’s prognosis rings true, when today we see Anwar strident, although going through great pains to defend his controversial statement, in which he stood by the defence of Israel as published by The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) recently.

This time around the issue differs, but the context is almost the same.

Last January 26, WSJ reported Anwar saying, “I support all efforts to protect the security of the state of Israel,” said Mr. Anwar, although he stopped short of saying he would open diplomatic ties with the Jewish state, a step which he said remains contingent on Israel respecting the aspirations of Palestinians”

Following the above statement, PAS spiritual advisor Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat came out with his own statement on February 13 while reading out the decision of PAS Ulama Council.

He said, “I, as the spiritual leader of PAS, and with the consent of all members of the party’s Ulama Council call upon Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to retract his statement as reported by the Wall Street Journal.

“If the statement was misreported or carried a different meaning, I and the whole of the Ulama Council advise Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to institute legal proceedings by suing The Wall Street Journal, in order to clear his name.”

It was after this that Anwar hastened to call on Nik Aziz, where he stressed on the phrase ‘contigent’, although in the disputed statement he had used the phrase, ‘all efforts’ to justify his refusal to obey what the Ulama Council wanted him to do.

It was rather interesting to be told that Anwar went alone to meet up with Nik Aziz, who was accompanied by PAS Information Chief, Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man at Kuala Lumpur’s PNB Darby Park Condominium.

Appraising the situation from political eyes, Anwar’s going alone to meet Nik Aziz, who was with Tuan Ibrahim, in itself, was in a symbolism of sorts.

Confirmation and its Ramifications

After the hour-long meeting, Anwar was asked by reporters if he would really sue WSJ. Anwar replied,” Why should I sue WSJ? They used the word ‘contingent’, which was not mentioned by UMNO media. They (UMNO media) only reported a twist to what the WSJ reported last January 26…it was not a misreport, instead it was their own words.

According to former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Anwar’s refusal to sue WSJ only proved that the opposition leader indeed supported Israel.

Meanwhile, after the meeting Nik Aziz stressed that “understanding Datuk Seri Anwar’s explanation, I would like to repeat our stand in PAS, as agreed by the Ulama Council…that PAS will never ever recognise the illegitimate state of Israel. As such, PAS will continue its support for the people of Palestine, who have been humiliated in their own land. It’s up to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim whether to accept PAS’s stand on the matter.

Based on the statements by Anwar and Nik Aziz after the February 21 meeting, it showed that both stood by what they have said. Therefore, even if the meeting had not taken place, Anwar would still stand by his statement of January 26, which appeared in WSJ, while Nik Aziz holds fast to the stance decided by the Ulama Council on February 13.

Although many saw no relevance in the meeting, nevertheless Anwar surely was harassed by what the Ulama Council had decided for him to do. Why? Because earlier on he was dallying in ‘tai chi’ moves over what he had said about supporting Israel.

And as long as the Ulama Council does not reconvene another meeting to have the statement retracted, it will go down in history like what happened in 1926 to Egypt’s Ali Raziq, the intellectual father of Islamic laicism or secularism (the separation of state and religion, not the secularization of society). Like Anwar, Ali was given the ultimatum by Egyptian Ulama Council whether to retract his stand or face the consequences.

Anwar’s pro-Israel affirmation can be traced as far back as the 1990s. It was not until February 21, 2012 that this was confirmed.

Anwar Sadat

Ever since Anwar was labelled as pro-Israel towards the end of the 1990s, the first non-political individual to confirm his stance came in the rather unlikely form of a surgeon – a Malaysian who resides in the U.S.

But, living in the U.S. did not stop Dr Bakri Musa from closely following political developments in Malaysia, through the convenience of the Internet, mostly.

And so, there he was, attentively listening to Anwar expounding on ‘Democracy and the Muslim World’ at Stanford University on that day of October 12, 2006.

Incidentally, at that time Anwar, too, was residing in the U.S, where he was visiting lecturer at Georgetown University’s Center for Muslim and Christian Understanding (CMCU).

Anwar’s talk at Stanford University was organised by the FSI (The Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies), in collaboration with the university’s CDDRL (Center for Democracy, Development and Rule of Law) and Shorenstein APARC (Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center).

After having listened to Anwar’s talk, Dr Bakri concluded that Anwar was among Islamic leaders who could be looked upon to ‘build the bridge’ between Islam and the West. He attributed this to Anwar’s understanding and his easy demeanour with the West… For that, Dr Bakri said he likened Anwar to Egypt’s Anwar Sadat.”

“At one time, when the Bush Administration had wanted some help from the Islamic world, several names was put up as candidates – one of whom was Anwar.

In his website www.bakrimusa.com, Dr Bakri said although many of Anwar’s supporters have been concerned about his connection with the ‘neo-cons’, Anwar, nevertheless, was able to defend his stand.

For sure, Dr Bakri had his reasons when he equated Anwar to Anwar Sadat.

Anwar Sadat was Egypt’s third president (1970-1981).

On November 20, 1977, Sadat became the first Arab leader to visit Israel officially when he met with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, and spoke before the Knesset in Jerusalem about his views on how to achieve a comprehensive peace to the Arab-Israeli conflict, which included the full implementation of UN Resolutions 242 and 338.

The Egyptian–Israeli Peace Treaty was signed by Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in Washington, DC, on 26 March 1979, following the Camp David Accords (1978), a series of meetings between Egypt and Israel facilitated by US President Jimmy Carter.

The treaty was extremely unpopular in the Arab World and the wider Muslim World. Anwar Sadat was seen as a traitor to Arab unity and pan-Arabism.

For his efforts, Jimmy Carter was feted as the ‘father of peace’ by the Americans.

On Oct. 7, 1981, which marked Egypt’s Armed Forces Day, in commemoration of the Egyptian Third Army’s launching of a surprise attack on that day in 1973 against Israeli forces occupying the Sinai since 1967, several soldiers riding in a truck that was part of the military parade jumped to the ground and strode toward the reviewing stand. One soldier threw a grenade while others opened fire killing Sadat.

Eleven others were killed, including the Cuban ambassador, an Omani general, and a Coptic Orthodox bishop. Twenty-eight were wounded, including Vice President Hosni Mubarak, Irish Defence Minister James Tully, and four US military liaison officers.

At Sadat’s funeral on Oct. 10, 1981, the United States was represented by three former presidents: Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon. Ronald Reagan did not attend, ostensibly because of fears over his safety.
Most Arab leaders did not turn up except for Sudan’s President, Gaafar Nimeiry.

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Tanah peneroka bakal tergadai - fitnah pembangkang


Peneroka dulu...sekarang bagaimana?

Kalau dipertimbangkan secara waras, adakah mungkin Barisan Nasional (BN) yang bersungguh-sungguh mahu mengekalkan kedudukannya sebagai peneraju utama dalam kerajaan akan menginainya rakyat?

Tidak mungkin.

Sebaliknya kerajaan bertekad mempertingkatkan kehidupan rakyat seperti mana yang diterapkan melalui pelbagai inisiatif transformasi yang diilhamkan oleh Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak sejak kebelakangan ini, dan banyak lagi di masa-masa akan datang.

Bagaimana pun, BN dan kerajaan tidak serba sempurna. Masih terdapat pelbagai kecacatan dan ini sedang diperbaiki dan diusahakan untuk di atasi berikutan perubahan dalam landskap politik dan kecelikan rakyat terhadap hak mereka. Kini apa saja yang dilakukan kerajaan perlu telus dan berhemah.

Tetapi, kesedaran dan iktibar yang diambil kerajaan BN sejak pukulan hebat yang diterima pada PRU ke-12 dulu tidak disenangi pembangkang yang hanya mahukan diri mereka sebagai juara bagi segala-gala yang positif, tidak kiralah sama ada apa yang mereka laungkan itu sekadar langkah populis sahaja.

Kerakusan inilah yang membawa kepada fitnah terbaru pembangkang menuduh penyenaraian Felda Ventures Holdings Berhad (FGVH) akan menyebabkan tanah peneroka tergadai.

Tidak benar apa yang difitnahkan itu, kerana tiada langsung agenda untuk mengusik tanah milik peneroka apabila penyenaraian FGVH direalisasikan kelak.

Jikalah benar ini berlaku, rakyat dan peneroka perlu sedar betapa kuasa menurunkan kerajaan BN juga berada di tangan mereka, dan kerajaan BN akan menerima padahnya.

Dan ini juga modal yang digunakan Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. Beliau mendakwa kononnya pemimpin BN semakin takut akan kekalahan yang bakal berlaku pada PRU akan datang, maka disebabkan itu mereka masing-masing berusaha untuk memanipulasikan hak rakyat sebagai persiapan.

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Proof of Anwar’s Support for Israel: the Annapolis Summit


On December 1, 2006, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called on all reformists within and beyond the country to together build an effective institution for a democratic nation.

Rice talked about reformation in the regional context (Middle East and North Africa) and ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which was an important agenda for herself and President Bush.

Also mentioned were former U.S. Supreme Court Judge, Sandra Day O’Connor and former Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia Anwar Ibrahim, as among important personalities in the Foundation for the Future (FFF), which worked together with regional reformation efforts to realise the agenda for change.

The mission and direction of the FFF, as shown above is part of the 267 documents produced by the U.S. State Department to the Government Accountability Project (GAP), which was responsible for administrative accountability in the U.S.

GAP’s international officer, Shelley Walden used the U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) as the channel, and it took almost three months to procure the documents and prepare a report on the FFF, which was sponsored by the State Department.

Annapolis Summit 2007

To make good on her promise as mentioned above, Rice organised the ‘Annapolis Summit’, which was aimed at bringing an end to the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

The summit was held on November 27, 2007 at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, and was chaired by President George W.Bush.

Israel was represented by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, while Palestine by the President’s representative, Mahmoud Abbas.

Although the summit had yet to finalise its resolution, the draft document, ‘Road Map for Peace’, sponsored by President Bush, which rode on the ‘two states solution’ theme was leaked to Israeli newspaper, ‘Haaretz’ 10 days earlier than the holding of the summit.

How did Haaretz get hold of the documents at such an early date, considering that it was a confidential resolution document on the ‘two states solution’?

According to Wikipedia, the two-state solution refers to the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict currently under discussion, which calls for "two states for two peoples." The two-state solution envisages the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel.

What it means is ‘…a solution to form an independent state of Palestine along with a legitimate nation of Israel.’

The formation and recognition of a legitimate ‘nation of Israel’ became the main reason for the Palestinians, who were represented by Hamas and Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khameini to boycott the conference.

The people of Palestine rose in protest. Throughout the Gaza peninsula they took to the streets and demonstrated against the ‘two states’ agenda. Meanwhile, Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad criticised the conference, saying ‘to support Annapolis is to support the Zionist agenda.’

“We do not recognise the representative, who is part of the Annapolis talks…he does not represent the people of Palestine,” said Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh.

As Wikipedia puts it, the Annapolis Summit 2007 was a continuation of the peace agreement between Egypt’s President Anwar Sadat with Israel, and a follow up official visit to Israel in 1977, which culminated with the Camp David Peace Accords in 1978.

Anwar Signs for the Lobbying of the ‘Two States Solution’

Besides his involvement in the FFF, Anwar was also part of the George Soros-sponsored International Crisis Group (ICG).

Anwar was appointed as a committee member of the ICG sometime in June, 2006.
At the ICG meeting in Vancouver, Canada in March, 2007, which was also attended by Anwar, the group passed the ‘two states solution’ and subsequently demanded that Islamic countries, in particular the Arab world to establish diplomatic ties with Israel as the best way to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

According to the ICG, this was the best way to put an end to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, as endorsed by the UN Security Council’s Resolution 242 (1967) and (338 (1973), the Camp David Peace Accords (1978), the Quartet 9UN, US, EU and Russia), i.e. to recognise an independent state of Palestine, and at the same time accord the same to a ‘legitimate’ nation of Israel.

The ICG Resolution was agreed by all those who attended, including Lord Patten (the joint chairman), Thomas R. Pickering (joint chairman), Gareth Evans ()president), Morton Abramowitz, , Kenneth Adelman, Anwar Ibrahim, Shlomo Ben-Ami, Kim Campbell, Maria Livanos Cattaui, Wesley Clark, Carla Hills, Stephen Solarz, George Soros and others.

Ensuing from the meeting, on October 10, 2007, the ICG once again rose to the occasion when it collaborated with two other U.S. think tanks, namely the United States Middle East Project (USMEP) and the New America Foundation/ American Strategy Programme in sending a lobby letter in support of the President Bush and Condoleezza Rice’s efforts for the calling of a conference between Israel and Palestine, which was later to be known as the Annapolis Summit.

In the lobby letter to President Bush, the ICG, USMEP and the New America Foundation recommended that the U.S. government gave priority to the ‘two states solution’ concept, which would, invariably, establish a legitimate nation of Israel and that of Palestine. Jerusalem was to be the capital of both entities, but the Israeli neighbourhoods coming under Israeli control, while the Arab neighbourhoods to be under the control of ‘independent’ Palestine.

New America Foundation’s Steve Clemons, who was also a signatory in the letter of support for President Bush, went on to reveal how Southeast Asia’s most ‘respected’ Islamic personality, Anwar Ibrahim gave all out support to the Annapolis Summit initiative.
The proof of Anwar’s complicity in all this was revealed by Clemons.

Anwar Ibrahim’s name was placed on the same line as that of former CIA Deputy Director, John McLaughlin.

Besides Clemon’s revelation, the ICG, USMEP and the New America Foundation also disseminated on the Internet the names of those who supported the Annapolis Summit with PDF documents downloadable at prospectsforpeace.com and druckversion.studien-von-zeitfragen.net.
Both documents have Anwar Ibrahim’s name.

Monday, February 20, 2012

Anwar at pains trying to justify his WSJ statement


To a question posed by a journalist at a media conference during a programme organised by the Foreign Correspondents Club Thailand (FCCT), while avoiding eye contact and shaking his head, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim agreed that his controversial statement published by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) had brought forth a deluge of polemics in Malaysia.

Expressing regret that such a question was raised by someone whom he considered to be a friend (and ally?), Anwar reminded the journalist that he should realised how much trouble he (Anwar) was in over the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

Subsequently, Anwar went on trying to explain and justify his statement in which he maintained that the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people must be respected.

He said as long as the U.S. and Israel did not recognise Hamas, the two states solution agenda would forever be doomed to failure.

According to him, peace talks with Israel could only be a reality when Hamas and Fatah made peace with each other, along with the involvement of international bodies. That, to him, would be the best resolution.

Anwar, as reported by WSJ on January 26 said, “I support all efforts to protect the security of the state of Israel,” said Mr. Anwar, although he stopped short of saying he would open diplomatic ties with the Jewish state, a step which he said remains contingent on Israel respecting the aspirations of Palestinians”

Anwar continued to explain what he alleged was the context of his interview with WSJ by issuing another statement on his official website, anwaribrahimblog, last January 28 in which he agreed to the proposal for a ‘two states solution.’

The ‘two states solution’ is an idea lobbied by Jewish apologist organisations in the likes of the International Crisis Group (ICG), which suggested that both Israel and Palestine be given recognition as legal and sovereign states, and that the Islamic world, in particular the Arab countries establish diplomatic ties with Tel Aviv.

In spite of that, the ‘two states solution’ as suggested by Anwar was rejected by many including PAS President, Datuk Seri Hadi Awang, Dr Azzam Tarmizi of Ikhwan Muslimin and Palestine Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh.

Why, even the Syura Council of PAS demanded that Anwar retract his statement or sue WSJ over the matter.

In 2006, when Anwar was residing in the U.S., he admitted that efforts to approach Hamas were a strategy to persuade and ensure that it agreed with the U.S. agenda.

“In fact, Minister Erdogan briefed me on what happened, and to my mind he was courageous and smart to take advantage of the opportunity to show Hamas that he respects the decision of the Palestinian people, and that he is prepared to work with them.

But it is also important to convince Hamas, "We want you to be a player in the international community, which means that there are some parts of your charter stemming from an angry period, which must be rationalised."

Engagement with Turkey provides an opportunity to convey to Hamas the need to moderate their position, and as an ally of the U.S., Turkey can legitimately tell Hamas that "Yes, we will also work with the United States to try to find common ground," said Anwar as reported by Julia Kirby of Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, U.S.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Facebook dan Malaysia: Ke arah Orde Baru Dunia?



Pengasas, pemilik Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, 27 tahun seorang berketurunan Yahudi yang kuat menyokong pendirian Zionisme.

Yang menghairankan, Malaysia sebagai antara negara penanda tangan protokol fatwa anti perdagangan dgn Rejim Tel Aviv pendukung media sosial berkenaan yang mempunyai paling ramai pengguna dari segi nisbah penduduk – sebahagian besarnya terdiri daripada orang Melayu Islam, termasuk orang PAS.


Ke arah orde baru dunia?


Dalam pada itu, sering kali UMNO, PAS dan juga orang Melayu dalam PKR saling berbalah berikutan pelbagai ‘pendedahan’ kononya pihak itu dan ini mempunyai pertalian dgn Israel. Apa hal?

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Anwar on a silver platter for Israel's image


Contributing writer to The Jerusalem Post, Michael Ordman, whose piece was published on the online version of the newspaper (jpost.com) spared his punches for Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, and instead went to town celebrating the Malaysian opposition leader’s defence of the Tel Aviv regime, which was carried by The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) recently.

"And from the political world, I personally liked the news of the high regard that Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim gave to the Jewish State when asked whether he would open diplomatic ties with Israel,” observed Ordman in his piece “We have Lift-off.”

Also blogging for ‘Good News From Israel”, Ordman sits high on the Israeli media’s credibility chain for his efforts in highlighting the regime’s latest achievements in the fields of technology, health, business, co-existence and building the Jewish State.


Michael Ordman


Last January 26, WSJ published Anwar’s provocative statement, where he expressed support for the protection of the state of Israel, and in which the influential paper noted that “…although he stopped short of saying he would open diplomatic ties with the Jewish state, a step which he said remains contingent on Israel respecting the aspirations of Palestinians”

What he said was evidence enough to merit the outpouring of criticisms from many pockets of Malaysians, who unreservedly expressed dread should he succeed in taking over Putrajaya along with his Pakatan Rakyat cohorts.

Following the statement in WSJ, Anwar subsequently came out with another statement on January 28 – this time through his official website, anwaribrahimblog, where he emphasized his desire for a ‘two states solution’ as the most apt panacea for the Israeli-Palestinian stand-off.

The ‘two states solution’ is an idea lobbied by Jewish apologist organisations in the likes of the International Crisis Group (ICG), which suggested that both Israel and Palestine be given recognition as legal and sovereign states, and that the Islamic world, in particular the Arab countries establish diplomatic ties with Tel Aviv.

According to Anwar his position was consistent with the principles held by PKR, which he said was in line with universal justice and the rights of the oppressed.

He pointed to Resolution 1397 of the UN Security Council and the Arab Peace Initiative, which were founded on the much-touted ‘two states solution.’

Back in March 2008, jpost.com journalist, Shani Ross wrote a piece titled “Anwar Ibrahim: Malaysia’s Future Prime Minister?” which unabashedly heaped praises on Anwar’s perceived resounding victory in the 12th General Election.

According to Ross, Anwar’s win had given a much needed boost for the erstwhile Deputy Prime Minister to redeem his shine on the political road.

“As a proponent of moderate Islam, cultural and religious impartiality, and liberal democracy, Anwar's popularity is gaining strength, with some reports suggesting that should the opposition coalition win the next election, he may well be next in line as Malaysia's Prime Minister,” wrote Ross, who was also the Coordinator for the Executive Programs & Conferences at the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT), Interdisciplinary Centre Herzliya, Israel.

Monday, February 13, 2012

Jadual perbahasan Soi Lek, Guan Eng lancar, tiada konflik topik

Ketua Eksekutif ASLI Datuk Michael Yeoh menafikan berlaku sebarang konflik berhubung topik bagi perbahasan masa depan politik Cina Malaysia pada Sabtu.

Oleh itu, perbahasan di antara CSL dan Guan Eng kekal seperti dirancangkan.

Mengapa ini tidak boleh berlaku bagi orang Melayu?

Published with Blogger-droid v2.0.4

Monday, February 6, 2012

What did Anwar do in Turkey?


Going by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s reply, only Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan extended an invite for him give a talk on ‘Islam, Democracy and Freedom’ at Dolmabache Palace in Istanbul soon after his acquittal on a charge of sodomy by the Kuala Lumpur High Court of January 9, 2012.

Or at least that was the perception that Anwar had wanted to establish in all his tweets, in which he painstakingly tried to portray his greatness to the extent that the Turkish PM would not be able to lead his country properly without Anwar’s guidance.

However, when PKR President Dr Wan Azizah Ismail, Deputy President Azmin Ali and PKR Secretary-General Saifuddin Nasution tagged along to Turkey, the desired perception failed to materialise because it defied logic that a staff member of PKR, who was not even leading a government was guiding Erdogan to rule his country.

So, what was the real reason for Anwar and the other PKR leaders visit to Turkey?

Islam and Democracy

Reading todayszaman.com, which reported Anwar praising Turkey as ‘a model of a new democracy’ in the context of the ‘Arab Spring’ for the whole Islamic world to emulate, makes us want to ask what was the real nature of business that the de facto PKR leader needed to attend to.

“That was the reason for my excitement when the Turkish Prime Minister (spoke), touching on human rights issues, freedom for all and issues relating to self respect for all men and women as universal principles, not only for Turkey and the West,” said todayszaman.com, quoting Anwar’s words.

Taking a passage from the aforementioned statement by Anwar, it had tried to give credence to the perception that Anwar was invited to ‘teach’ Tayyip Erdogan. No, it is more likely instead of Anwar ‘teaching’ Erdogan, it is the other way round.

According to Anwar, the West is closely watching Turkey and Indonesia as models for Islam and Democracy within the Islamic world, as well as the perceived ‘winds of change’ brought on by the Arab Spring, which is touted as being emulated across the region.

“It is timely when the Turkish Prime Minister chose to stand on the premise that no leader can sustain his rule without taking into account the sentiments and aspirations of his people.

“I will always be optimistic of the Arab Spring and the future of the world of Islam. We can see how Turkey has succeeded in democratisation and change,” he told the audience at the ‘Alliance of Civilisation’ programme in Istanbul.

‘Alliance of Civilisations’

According to Wikipedia, ‘The Alliance of Civilisation’ or ‘AoC’ is an initiative mooted by former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero at the 59th United Nations General Assembly in 2005.

The idea was supported by Erdogan in seeking to galvanize international action against extremism through the forging of international, intercultural and inter-religious dialogue and cooperation. The aim of the initiative was to produce actionable, time-bound recommendations by the end of 2006 for UN member states to adopt.

In essence the UN action plan is aimed at increasing inter-cultural and inter-faith cooperation to close the divide between the West and the Islamic world.

To this end, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan brought together a High-Level Group (HLG) comprising 20 of the world’s eminent persons representing various fields of expertise, including academic policy makers, civil society, religious leaders and the media.

Among the group were former president of Iran, Seyed Mohamed Khatami, South Africa’s Archbishop Desmond Tutu, authority on comparative religions Karen Armstrong (UK), founder of Georgetown University’s Centre for Muslim-Christian Understanding (CMCU), Professor John Esposito (US), founder and president of the Appeal of Conscience Foundation and spiritual leader of Park East Synagogue, New York, Rabbi Schneier, and others.

In April 2007, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon appointed former president of Portugal Jorge Sampaio as High Representative of the AoC at the UN Headquarters in New York.

The AoC Secretariat organised the "Dialogue of Civilizations" award at the 2007 RUMI Peace and Dialogue award ceremony co-sponsored by the Rumi Forum and the Georgetown University Center for Peace and Security Research in Washington.
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
The AoC’s official website can be inspected at unaoc.org.

The Jesuit Network

If this is the background of the programme, which Anwar attended in Turkey, it can be concluded that it is, invariably, a platform for the Jesuit network, which uses Turkey as its host.

Turkey’s position with regards to this complicity is made stronger when it hosted a similar programme from April 6-7, 2009 in Istanbul.

The first AoC forum held in Spain from January 15-16, 2008 passed several important resolutions, which included:

- The setting up of
Silatech, which aim to address the critical and growing need to create jobs and economic opportunities for young people. Funding for the project was provided by Qatar’s HH Sheikha Mozah bint Nasser Al-Missned, who made a private commitment of $100 million to “seed-fund” the initiative in collaboration with World Bank, HSBC and the broad support of several high profile corporations.

- Announcement of a multi-million dollar AoC Media Fund, the first-of-its-kind non-profit large-scale media production company focused on normalising images of stereotyped communities and minorities in mass media through partnerships with major Hollywood production, distribution, and talent management companies. The Fund was launched with an initial commitment of USD10 million, and an estimated target of USD100 million.

- Establishment of a Youth Solidarity Fund aimed at providing grants to support youth-led programs in the areas of intercultural and interfaith dialogue, and decision to strengthen the network of youth participants who attended the AoC Forum and broaden the network to include other youth.

With all these activities in the pipeline, it was no wonder that Dr Wan Azizah, Azmin Ali and Saifuddin Nasution also attended the programme.

But, why was Anwar invited as among the speakers? That, too, comes as no surprise – not because of the Erdogan factor, but more important the participation of two personalities from the High-Level Group of the AoC, comprising Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Professor John Esposito.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu was the first of such personalities with whom Anwar met following his treatment in Munich, Germany in December 2004.

Awarded the ‘Presidential Medal of Freedom’ in 2009, for leading an active crusade in support of among other things, homosexuality and racial reconciliation as sponsored by the UN and the US. He is also a prominent figure in several organisations including the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and The Elders, which claim to be an independent group of global leaders who work together for peace and human rights.

As for John Esposito, he can be considered as Anwar’s mentor.

Since way back in 2001, in his book “Makers of Contemporary Islam” Esposito classified Anwar as a ‘Moderate Muslim’, along with Palestinian-American philosopher the late Isma'il Raji al-Faruqi, Chairman of Pakistan’s Institute of Policy Studies Khurshid Ahmad, ideological elder of Tunisia's Ennahda, or the Renaissance Party Rashid Ghannoushi, Sudan’s Hasan al-Turabi, Iranian thinker Abdolkarim Soroush, and Indonesia’s Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur).

In another book, “Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam”, Esposito sees Anwar as “an unabashed globalist well suited to the modern world of markets and media” and a “liberal”… “He remains, a significant voice on issues of socio-political and economic development, advocating pluralism in multi-religious societies and inter-civilisational dialogue… Pluralism and tolerance based upon mutual respect and understandings are cornerstones of Anwar Ibrahim’s vision of a civilisational dialogue on convivencia (living together), which alludes to the spirit of Roger II’s twelfth-century Sicily and Muslim rule in the Iberian Peninsula in centres like Toledo, Cordoba, and Granada.” In Iberia, Christians, Muslims and Jews lived together in a context of social intercourse and cultural exchange.

After Anwar’s release from prison, Esposito took him in as visiting lecturer at his Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (CMCU) at Georgetown University, US.

Georgetown University is a private Jesuit research university whose main campus is in the Georgetown neighbourhood of Washington, D.C. Founded in 1789, it is the oldest Catholic university in the United States.

Georgetown's founding by John Carroll realized efforts dating from 1634 to establish a Roman Catholic college in the province of Maryland. Later, Caroll went on to become the first Bishop of the US.

As the first Jesuit private university in the US, it purportedly brought together Christian intellectuals for what detractors believe as the caderisation process that staunchly abides by the directions of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Jesuits is the short reference to the Society of Jesus, founded and conceived by the Christian theologian Ignatius Loyola, who led a catholic male religious order known colloquially as "God's Marines".

Besides his credential as a Jesuit activist, John Esposito is described by the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report website, globalmbreport.org, as a ‘foreign affairs analyst’ for the US State Department Intelligence Agency (INR).

The World Interfaith Harmony Week

AoC’s programme in Istanbul was held in conjunction with ‘The World Inter-Faith Harmony Week”, which was approved to be held by the UN on the first week of February every year.
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
The basis for the World Interfaith Harmony Week is the ‘Common Word Initiative’ founded in 2007, which urge for Muslim and Christian leaders to work together on the basis of dialogue.

According to the website, vatican.usembassy.gov, the initiative is based on a memorandum of October 2007 known as ‘A Common Word between Us and You’, which claimed to have been written by several Islamic authorities and scholars from around the world to the Pope.

Anwar Ibrahim’s name was among the group of apologetic signatories of the memorandum.

The interfaith dialogue between Muslims and Christians, which has been extended to Judaism (the Jews) and perceived as the three ‘monotheistic’ religions based on the concept of ‘Love of God, and Love of the Neighbour’.

It also encompasses Hinduism and Buddhism.

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Anwar says he represents the 'two states solution'...


The 7 minutes 48 seconds video recording of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s speech, which many say is in support of an ‘Israeli State’ has begun to make its rounds.

“I represent the view…‘two states solution’ for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, “said Anwar at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre (WWIC), Washington DC on June 24, 2010.

Anwar said this when answering a question posed by Stanley Kober, a former Research Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at Cato Institute, Washington, who asked him to explain why he voted the way he did on the flotilla incident, as well as why this issue was so important that the Malaysian parliament wanted to vote on it and would want to make its opinion.

It could be that, according to the participant in question, Anwar as the leader of Malaysia’s opposition pact should be opposing the motion to criticise Israel in the Malaysian parliament, and that if, he too, supported it, it only showed that he was also ‘anti-Semitic.’

In reply, Anwar said he was suspicious and rejected the motion to criticise Israel – a motion that was suggested by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Mohd Najib Tun Razak because, according to him the act of bringing up an anti-Israeli motion was tantamount to a policy of ‘racism.’

He said Najib, who brought that motion, had criticised what was considered as brutal action on the part of the Zionist state of Israel. He went on to say that he and his cohorts (actually) in the opposition were sceptical in support of the resolution.

However, he cautioned that many among his group realised that there was no need to adopt an anti-Jew or anti-Semitic stance, as this would be tantamount to being racists.

To support his answer, and to prove that he rejected the anti-Israeli motion, Anwar claimed that he represented those who supported the ‘two states solution’ idea in putting an end to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

In the video, Anwar also criticised the laws practised in Malaysia, which he considered as undemocratic…laws such as the whipping sentence imposed on former part time model, Kartika Sari Dewi Sukarno for consuming alcohol, as well as the ban on the use of the word Allah among Christians.

The ‘two states solution’ is an idea lobbied by the International Crisis Group (ICG), which is an international body based in Brussels and Washington DC.

In a meeting of the ICG held in Vancouver in March 2007, which was attended by Anwar, it was proposed that the ‘two states solution’ be invoked as the best way to end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

What the ‘two states solution’ entails is the recognition of Palestine as an independent nation, but at the same time accepting that Israel is also a legitimate state.

According to the ICG, the ‘two states solution’ is in line with the UN Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) and (1973), the Camp David Peace Accord (1978), the Clinton Parameters (2000), the Arab League Initiative (2002), the Roadmap for Peace (2003), and the Quartet on the Middle East (UN, US, EU and Russia).

Besides that, the ICG also proposed for the establishment of diplomatic ties between Islamic nations, in particular the Arab world and Israel, which should be strengthened.

According to the collaborative resource for citizens and journalists, Sourcewatch, the ICG is sponsored by funding sources, including the Open Society (OSI), which is owned by the billionaire Jewish currency trader, George Soros.

Soros is on the Executive Committee and the US Board Members of the ICG.

Anwar Ibrahim was appointed to the ICG Members Committee sometime in June 2006, when he was a Visiting Lecturer at St Anthony’s College, Oxford, the most international of the colleges under Oxford University, often linked to Chris Pattern and his crony, Soros for reasons that are obvious.

On December 1, 2005, when Anwar was participating in the NED (National Endowment for Democracy) question and answer session in New York, he shared his sentiments with Israeli activist and founder of the Israel Palestine Center for Research and Information (IPCRI), Gershon Baskin.

During the session Baskin asked Anwar for his views on the process of democratic maturity in Palestine when Hamas/Hizbollah, which were purportedly moving towards democracy, but at the same time still held on to armed struggle.

In reply, Anwar said at least he had a good friend in Gershon Baskin from Israel. He said he shared the same sentiments as Baskin, that what should be emphasised when an organisation chose to accept their democratic process (Hizbollah and Hamas) is to forget all other means…such as armed struggle, militancy and military action.

Anwar stressed that his stand as regards violence was non-negotiable.

He said if Hamas and Hizbollah wanted to implement the democratic process and have elections, all those things must be done away with.

Hearing the answer given by Anwar, Baskin did not hesitate to heap praises for Anwar in his article of January 27, 2006 for The Jerusalem Times.

In yet another ‘song of praise’ for Anwar which appeared in the ‘Israel Insider’ on January 6, 2006, Baskin said if Anwar was a Palestinian he would have been former Israeli President Ariel Sharon’s counterpart in efforts to bring about a settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

Baskin supported the ‘two states solution’ idea for the conflict. However, the idea is rejected by the majority of Muslim Palestinians, who saw it as yet another of Israel’s attempts to hoodwink them into recognising a legitimate ‘nation of Israel.’