just commentary march 2009

Vol 9, No. 3 March 2009

Turn to next page

STATEMENTS

THE BOSNIAN EXAMPLE OF

COEXISTENCE

By Ali Abunimah ......................................... page 6

By Marc Gopin .......................................... page 7

ARTICLESREDUCING POLITICKING; FOCUSING

UPON THE ECONOMIC CRISIS ... It is no

coincidence that in the short span of 3 or 4 days Ruler

after Ruler has expressed grave concern about the

situation in the country .............................. P.2

MEDIA SILENT AS INDIAN MUSLIMS

FOREGO HOLIDAY

ASEAN RESPONSIBILITY TOWARDS

THE PLIGHT OF THE ROHINGYA AND

OTHER REFUGEES IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

.....The Rohingya, who live in the northern part of Arakan

state in Myanmar, adjacent to Bangladesh, are a Muslim

minority ............................................................. P.3

REMOVE THEIR NAMES

CAN MITCHELL TURN JERUSALEM

INTO BELFAST?

By Jean-Moïse Braitberg, Michael Neumann, Osha

Neumann ........................................................page5

By Amir Telibeirovic

No ‘Westerner’ can erase the

Islamic influences in Bosnia,

and no ‘Easterner’ can impose

their own influences on our way of life.”

This statement, overheard at a Sarajevo

coffee bar, explains the unique

character and identity of Bosnia and

Herzegovina. Despite the conflict of the

previous decade, it is still a unique case

of a country following a middle path

of coexistence between individuals

with different religions and ethnicities.

Islam was introduced to Bosnians in

the 15th and 16th centuries during the

Ottoman Empire. Bosnian Muslims,

ethnically identified as Bosniaks, have

long been neighbours with ethnic Serbs

who are largely Orthodox Christian,

predominantly Catholic Croats and

other ethnic and religious minorities,

such as Sephardic Jews, Albanians,

Roma and others.

If you talk to members of the older

generation in Bosnia and Herzegovina,

they will recall a time when Yugoslav

communist leader Josip Broz Tito

pointed to Bosnia and Herzegovinia as

a model for Yugoslavia to coexist

without conflict.

Though there has been intolerance and

conflict between members of various

religious and ethnic groups, tensions

never pitted the entire populations of

one group against another. Most

conflicts in Bosnia’s history were

imported or orchestrated from Ankara,

Vienna, Berlin, Belgrade and Zagreb —

for territorial occupation or the

exploitation of local natural resources.

One critical exception in recent history

was the Bosnian War (1992 to 1995),

which erupted as a result of the breakup

of Yugoslavia and brought much misery

and destruction to the region.

Eventually, peace was restored by

NATO forces. But after the Dayton

Peace Accords in 1995, which brought

an end to the three-year war, refugees

returned to their homes to find their

cities divided — sometimes physically

— along ethnic lines. And local laws

limiting freedom of movement

exacerbated these tensions and

obstructed reconciliation efforts.

As a result, parts of Bosnia and

Herzegovina remain divided —

politically, religiously and ethnically —

even today.

Since the war, however, restoring the

middle path of coexistence has been the

goal of ordinary Bosnians working with

non-governmental organisations in local

cities. Reconstruction has served as a

way for various groups to work

together for a common good. Non-

GLOBAL FINANCIAL UNCERTAINTIES

AND THE FUTURE OF MALAYSIA (PART 2)

By Mahathir Mohamad ................................ page 8

By Faith in Human Rights .......................... page 10

OBAMA ON AFGHANISTAN .....Barack Obama

is reported to have decided to send 17,000 more troops

to Afghanistan .................................................... P.4

THE TUSSLE FOR POWER IN PERAK ........

Whatever the legal issues involved .................. P.4

FAITH IN HUMAN RIGHTS

L E A D A R T I C L EI N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D

2

continued from page 1

governmental organisations such as the

Sarajevo-based International Forum

Bosnia, which houses the Center for

Interreligious Dialogue and facilitates

dialogue among different religious

groups, and the International Mennonite

Organization which aids in home

reconstruction and youth programmes,

are hard at work to ease remaining

tensions in this post-conflict society.

But what is most notable is those places

where coexistence between ordinary

people of different religions and

ethnicities never stopped, not even

during the war. These are the

communities that the rest of the region

can learn from, the people that adhered

to the middle path and refused to align

with those who committed acts of

violence along ethnic or religious lines

and turned against their neighbours in

times of trouble.

Cities like Sarajevo, Mostar and Tuzla,

were known to have the largest inter-

ethnic populations in the Balkans. In

various sieges throughout the war,

neighbours came together, regardless

of ethnicity or religion, to protect one

another and their towns from

destruction. In fact, the heavy artillery

raining down upon them created

solidarity among them, instead of

separating them.

Historically, neighbourhoods in these

cities were not divided between one

group or another. There had been inter-

ethnic and inter-religious mixing for

generations, and this kind of

coexistence was considered the norm,

unlike other towns in the region where

one ethnic or religious group comprised

the majority.

This attitude of coming together during

the war demonstrated that not all

communities can be driven apart along

ethnic or religious lines, even in times

of war. In fact, people of various

backgrounds came together in reaction

to the aggressive attempts to divide

them.

Despite the violent upheaval in the

1990s and the tumultuous years that

followed, coexistence amongst the

diverse population of Bosnia and

Herzegovina has endured. The resilience

of the people in the region, particularly

those still working to build united

communities out of divided groups,

serves as an example not only in the

Balkans, but for conflict-torn countries

around the world.

10 February 2009

Amir Telibeirovic is senior editor of

Sarajevo-based online magazine Bosnia

Daily. This article is part of a series on

lesser-known Muslim societies written for

the Common Ground News Service

(CGNews).

Source: CGNews

continued next page

It is no coincidence that in the short

span of 3 or 4 days Ruler after Ruler

has expressed grave concern about the

situation in the country. Their concern

reflects the sentiments of the rakyat

who are fed up with the excessive

politicking that has characterized public

life since the General Election of 8

March 2008.

Even people outside Malaysia — as I

discovered recently— are astounded

that leaders in government and the

opposition are consumed with political

manoeuvrings at a time when the

whole world is focused upon the global

economic crisis. Some of them are of

the view that the antics of the politicians

have brought Malaysia to the brink of

political turmoil.

At the root of this politicking is the

unbridled drive to acquire and enhance

power, whatever the costs and

consequences, among politicians on

both sides of the divide at state and

federal levels. Ethical principles mean

little to them.

Their politics has not only created

tension and antagonism, illustrated so

starkly in the Perak crisis. It has also,

it appears, increased corruption and

abuse of power and has led to the

further deterioration of ethnic relations.

Intense politicking has also taken a toll

upon certain institutions of governance

such as the Election Commission, the

Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission

(MACC), the Police and even the

Judiciary.

Most of all, it has distracted our political

leaders from concentrating upon the

economy. With almost all exports –

petroleum, palm oil, rubber, electrical

and electronic goods—declining,

unemployment escalating steeply, and

the Gross Domestic Product(GDP)

shrinking, the prognosis for the next

few months is discouraging. Our

leaders, regardless of party affiliation,

should be responding to this Herculean

challenge by implementing carefully

thought-out policies and programmes

that will ensure the well-being of the

people in these difficult times. All their

energies should be focused upon this

challenge— and not on how to engineer

defections or to oust their political

rivals.

Such a concentrated focus upon the

economy may not be forthcoming for

an obvious reason. The two major

dramatis personae in the Malaysian

political arena today, Dato Seri Najib

Razak, the incoming Prime Minister,

and Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim, the

Leader of the Opposition, will continue

to be locked in combat for some time

to come. Najib will want to consolidate

and strengthen his position as head of

government, while Anwar will go all out

to topple him since his single-minded

ambition is to become Prime Minister

in the shortest time possible.

It is partly because of their fear of the

disastrous consequences of this titanic

REDUCING POLITICKING; FOCUSING UPON THE ECONOMIC CRISIS

STATEMENTS

I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D S T A T E M E N T S

3

The Rohingya, who live in the northern

part of Arakan state in Myanmar,

adjacent to Bangladesh, are a Muslim

minority. They are amongst those

persecuted by the Myanmar military

government. Due to persecution, they

have fled to Thailand and Malaysia and

live as illegal refugees in miserable

conditions in refugee camps. The

receiving states consider them illegal

refugees and do not provide them with

adequate protection. Many of them have

been persecuted by the security forces

of these states and exploited by the

locals. Their situation is pathetic.

The recent boat people incident is

additional testimony to their miserable

situation. It was reported that the Thai

Navy had pushed hundreds of

Rohingya boat people back into the sea

and let them die. The Indian Navy and

the Indonesian authorities in Aceh

rescued hundreds of them. Some of the

survivors had claimed that they were

abused by the Thai Navy.

The Myanmar government has told the

ASEAN foreign ministers that it is

willing to accept the refugees from

their countries if they are identified as

Bengali minorities. There is a

contradiction in their stance as the

Myanmar government does not classify

them as citizens.

It was reported on 27 February 2009

in the Bangkok Post that the Malaysian

Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah

Badawi had stated that the countries

affected by the influx of the Rohingya

refugees must be firm in turning them

back. The Rohingyas must prove that

they came from Myanmar and have

addresses and family members there.

Speaking after chairing a meeting of

ASEAN Foreign Ministers on the eve

of the summit, the Thai foreign

Minister, Kasit Pironmya said that since

no conclusion was reached on the

Rohingya issue, further discussions

would be held with Malaysia,

Indonesian and Bangladesh

governments. The matter would be

discussed from 14-15 April 2009 at the

Bali Process meeting which is a non-

binding grouping founded in 2002 to

solve problems concerning human

trafficking and smuggling. It is obvious

that the meeting will not produce any

substantive result as it has no binding

value upon the states concerned.

Any proposal to send the Rohingyas

back will only make their plight worse.

What awaits them is more torture and

inhuman treatment. Despite the

presence of adequate human rights

laws at international and regional

levels, the refugee problem, especially

the plight of the Rohingyas in

Southeast Asia remains a long neglected

issue that needs the urgent attention of

the international community and

regional states.

It is time that ASEAN gave serious

attention to this problem as it has

adopted an ASEAN Charter that alludes

to human rights. It has a moral

responsibility to solve the problem as it

is a flagrant human rights violation in

its own backyard.

ASEAN should not hide behind the

policy of non-interference in the internal

affairs of a fellow member state and

allow refugees to suffer. In fact,

ASEAN should, as a matter of urgent

priority, adopt a common policy on the

fair and humane treatment of refugees

which would cut across national

boundaries. In formulating this policy,

ASEAN states should be guided by

both international law and the religious

cultures of the region which exhort us

to show our humanity to our distressed

neighbour so that his dignity would be

preserved and protected.

Dr Arujunan Narayanan

Executive Committee Member,

International Movement for a Just

World (JUST)

6 March 2009


ASEAN RESPONSIBILITY TOWARDS THE PLIGHT OF THE

ROHINGYA AND OTHER REFUGEES IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

tussle for power between these two

personalities that concerned citizens like

Anas Zubedy have proposed a truce that

would help to reduce politicking. Najib

and Anwar could perhaps seek to forge

some agreement in the following areas:-

1)The formulation of anti-defection

laws at state and federal level which

would require an elected legislator to

vacate his seat in parliament or the state

assembly if he decides to resign from

his party. Some existing provisions in

the Federal and State Constitutions will

have to be amended in order to

accommodate the proposed legislation.

2)Joint efforts to improve Federal-State

ties in accordance with their respective

constitutions and in the true spirit of

federalism.

3)The creation of ‘economic crisis

councils’ at federal and state levels

which will bring together the

government and the opposition— apart

from other groups and individuals—

with the single aim of overcoming the

economic crisis.

4)Joint efforts to improve ethnic

relations by eliminating communal

rhetoric, deepening understanding of

the ethnic situation in Malaysia, and

demonstrating through deeds a

commitment to a balanced, all-

embracing notion of justice for all

communities.

5)Concrete measures to enhance

mutual respect for their respective roles

as Prime Minister, on the one hand, and

Leader of the Opposition, on the other.

If Najib and Anwar make no attempt to

reduce politicking and improve the

political atmosphere in the near future,

it is quite conceivable that the overall

situation will deteriorate rapidly with all

its dire consequences.

In such a situation, the rakyat would

expect the Rulers— specifically the

King— to help restore good governance

through measures which accord with

constitutional rule and democratic

principles.

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar.

President,


World (JUST)

9 March 2009

I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D

4

S T A T E M E N T S

Whatever the legal issues involved in

the tussle in Perak, there is no honour

in coming to power through

defections. I have maintained since the

mid-eighties that acquiring power

through the backdoor is unethical. It

is not only a betrayal of the voter; it

also shows very little respect for the

democratic process.

The Perak episode is in a sense linked

to the attempt by the de facto leader

of Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) , Dato

Seri Anwar Ibrahim, to engineer

defections from the ruling Barisan

Nasional (BN) at the federal level in

order to achieve his ambition of

becoming Prime Minister of Malaysia.

Anwar’s backdoor politics in fact

began two weeks after the 12th

General Election. He tried over a period

of seven or eight months to topple the

BN which at that time had a clear 58

seat parliamentary lead over the

combined opposition. Anwar failed in

his bid. Even in the case of Perak, it

was after he enticed a Barisan Nasional

Assembly member to cross over, that

the BN hit back with its manoeuvres

leading to the present tussle for power.

Anwar had now been hoisted by his

own petard. However, it is not going

to deter him from trying again. One

hopes that his PKR colleagues and his

partners in the Pakatan Rakyat, Parti

Islam SeMalaysia (PAS) and the

Democratic Action Party (DAP), will

be more critical of Anwar’s antics and

evaluate his leadership of the PR in a

more objective manner. After all, he is

partly responsible for the loss of one

of the states that the PR captured in

the last General Election.

More important, now is the time for

both the PR and the BN to demonstrate

their sincere commitment to the well-

being of the people by joining hands in

formulating an anti-defection law which

will be adopted at Federal and state

levels. There are a number of countries

from Bolivia to Trinidad to South Africa

to India which have such laws. The

BN has been reluctant to enact such

legislation because it has for a very long

time benefited from crossovers. Now

it knows that the PR can also play the

same game.

If the BN and PR continue to play this

diabolical game, there will be no political

stability. Malaysian democracy will be

a sham. Economic development will

stagnate since political leaders will be

preoccupied with manoeuvres and

machinations aimed at ousting their

adversaries. The bureaucracy will

cease to deliver. Even ethnic relations

will take a turn for the worse as political

instability increases and economic

growth declines. Most of all, the people

will suffer when their interests and

aspirations are ignored as leaders jostle

for power.

The Malaysian citizenry should not

allow this to happen. It should adopt a

principled stand against defections and

demand an anti-defection law

immediately. It is wrong of our people

to endorse defections or remain silent

about them when one’s own side is

the beneficiary. Likewise, it is

hypocritical to oppose defections

simply because one’s side is the victim.

It is only when our citizenry rises

above such biases and commits itself

to what is ethical regardless of who

gains and who loses that we would

have developed a political culture that

is resistant to defections and other

forms of Machiavellian politics.

Chandra Muzaffar.

9 February 2009.

THE TUSSLE FOR POWER IN PERAK

President Barack Obama is reported to

have decided to send 17,000 more

troops to Afghanistan on top of the

33,000 already deployed there.

Although this is almost half the number

that commanders in the field asked for,

in our opinion, this surge of troops

would constitute a continuation of the

Bush policy in the region and a

dangerous escalation on the part of the

new administration. This is mainly

because it would be against the human

values enshrined in the American

constitution. Besides, in the past,

occupation and war have not

succeeded in the land of Afghanistan.

In this regard, the Soviet attempt of

the 1980s was the most recent fiasco.

Many pundits are already comparing

US involvement in Afghanistan with its

earlier debacle in Vietnam - in the 1960s.

In our opinion, this involvement might

turn out to be much worse than that.

Almost everybody who is familiar with

the conflict agrees that the only

alternative is to win the hearts and

minds of the people of Afghanistan.

This would also be in line with the

fundamental values of Islamic and

Western civilizations. In our view,

President Obama should rather give

priority to social and economic

development in Afghanistan, ensure an

effective system of governance, and

resist the temptation of pursuing the

military solution.

Of course in the short term the security

situation must be addressed; Instead of

increasing troops, President Obama

should replace US and NATO forces

with OIC troops. The purpose of an

OIC presence would be to stabilize the

immediate security situation. Once

some stability has been achieved, talks

may begin for the formation of a truly

national government and legitimize it

through the democratic process.

Dr Abdullah al-Ahsan

Vice-President,


World (JUST).

24 February 2009

OBAMA ON AFGHANISTAN


5

A R T I C L E S

Mr. President of the State of Israel, I

am writing to you to intervene with the

appropriate authorities to withdraw,

from the Yad Vashem memorial

dedicated to the memory of Jewish

victims of Nazism, the name of my

grandfather, Moshe Brajtberg, gassed

at Treblinka in 1943, and those of other

members of my who family died during

deportation to various Nazi camps

during World War II. I ask you to honor

my request, Mr. Chairman, because

what took place in Gaza, and more

generally, the injustices to the Arab

people of Palestine for sixty years,

disqualifies Israel to be the center of

the memory of the harm done to Jews,

and thus to all humanity.

You see, since my childhood, I lived in

amongst survivors of the death camps.

I saw the numbers tattooed on their

arms, I heard the story of torture; I

knew the impossible grief and I shared

their nightmares. I was taught that

these crimes must never happen again,

that never again must man, because of

ethnicity or religion despise other man,

mock his Human Rights of living a safe,

dignified life, without barriers, and

hope, so remote be it, of a future of

peace and prosperity.

Yet Mr. President, I note that despite

dozens of resolutions adopted by the

international community, despite the

glaring evidence of the injustices done

to the Palestinian people since 1948,

despite the hopes raised in Oslo, and

despite the recognition of the right of

Israeli Jews to live in peace and

security, repeatedly reaffirmed by the

Palestinian Authority, the only answers

given by successive governments of

your country have been violence,

bloodshed, confinement, incessant

controls, colonization, deprivations.

You’ll tell me Mr. President, that Israel

has the right to defend itself against

people launching rockets into Israel, or

suicide bombers that destroy innocent

Israeli lives. My response to that is that

my humanism doesn’t vary according

to the nationality of the victims.

Yet you, Mr. President, you lead the

destiny of a country which claims not

only to represent the Jews as a whole,

but also the memory of those who were

victims of Nazism. This is what

concerns me and that I find

unacceptable.

By displaying the names of my family

members at the Yad Vashem Memorial,

in the heart of the state of Israel, your

state imprisons my family memories

behind the barbed wires of zionism, and

makes it hostage of a so-called moral

authority which commits every day the

abomination of denying justice.

So, please, remove the name of my

grandfather from the shrine dedicated

to cruelty against Jews so that it no

longer justifies the injustice being done

to the Palestinians.

Please accept, Mr. President, the

assurances of my respectful

consideration.

Jean-Moïse Braitberg

Following the example of Jean-Moise

Braitberg, we ask that our

grandmother’s name be removed from

the wall at Yad Vashem. Her name is

Gertrud Neumann. Your records state

that she was born in Kattowitz on June

6, 1875 and died in Theresienstadt.

M. Braitberg delivers his request with

excellent reasons and eloquent personal

testimony. His words are inspiring,

but they give you — and those who

stand with you - too much credit. I

will instead be brief. Please take this

as an expression of my disgust and

contempt for your state and all it

represents.

Our grandmother was a victim of that

very ideal of ethnic sovereignty in

whose cause Israel has shed so much

blood for so long. I was among the

many Jews who thought nothing of

embracing that ideal, despite the

sufferings it had inflicted on our own

race. It took thousands of Palestinian

lives before, finally, I realized how

foolish we had been.

Our complicity was despicable. I do

not believe that the Jewish people, in

whose name you have committed so

many crimes with such outrageous

complacency, can ever rid itself of the

shame you have brought upon us.

Nazi propaganda, for all its calumnies,

never disgraced and corrupted the

Jews; you have succeeded in this. You

haven’t the courage to take

responsibility for your own sadistic

acts: with unparalleled insolence, you

set yourself up as spokesmen for an

entire race, as if our very existence

endorsed your conduct. And you

blacken our names not only by your

acts, but by the lies, the coy evasions,

the smirking arrogance and the infantile

self-righteousness with which you

embroider our history.

In the end, you will give the Palestinians

some scrap of a state. You will never

pay for your crimes and you will

continue to preen yourself, to bask in

your illusions of moral ascendancy.

But between now and the end, you will

kill and kill and kill, gaining nothing by

your spoilt-brat brutality. In life, our

grandmother suffered enough. Stop

making her a party to this horror in her

death.

Michael Neumann

I join my brother, Michael Neumann,

in asking that any reference to our

grandmother be removed from Yad

Vashem, the Holocaust memorial.

I have been to this memorial. Its

buildings, paved courtyards and plazas

REMOVE THEIR NAMES

By Jean-Moïse Braitberg, Michael Neumann, Osha Neumann

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

A R T I C L E SI N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D

6

continued next page

US President Barack Obama’s

appointment of former Senator George

Mitchell as his new Middle East envoy

is a good choice. Mitchell showed

even-handedness uncharacteristic of

US officials when he led a fact-finding

mission to the region in 2000.

Had its recommendations been

followed — cessation of all violence

and a full freeze of Israeli settlement

construction on occupied Palestinian

land — the peace process might have

made progress. Mitchell, who is already

in the Middle East, helped broker the

1998 Belfast Agreement, the key to

ending decades of strife in Northern

Ireland. Because of historical

similarities, that peace agreement is an

important precedent for Palestinians

and Israeli Jews.

Before 1948, European Jewish settlers,

newly-arrived in Palestine, wanted their

own state once British colonial rulers

withdrew. But because Jews were a

minority, the only way to achieve this

was a partition that the majority Arab

Palestinian population, fearing

dispossession, bitterly opposed. When

Israel was established in 1948, most

Palestinians were forced from their

homeland, and those remaining became

second-class citizens in a “Jewish

state.”

The modern conflict in Ireland began

when Great Britain, facing resistance

from Irish nationalists, decided to

withdraw after centuries of rule. But

the Protestant ruling class — a quarter

of the population — descended from

English and Scottish settlers, insisted

that Ireland remain tied to Britain.

These unionists refused to live in a state

with a nationalist Catholic majority.

To appease the unionist minority, which

threatened violent rebellion if it did not

get its way, Britain partitioned Ireland

in 1921, creating Northern Ireland, an

entity whose legitimacy nationalists

refused to recognize.

As Israeli Jews did to Palestinians,

Protestants institutionalized their own

culture and religion as the official creed

and violently suppressed expressions

of nationalist identity. In the words of

its first prime minister, Northern

Ireland’s seat of government at

Belfast’s Stormont Castle was a

“Protestant parliament for a Protestant

people.” Catholics faced systematic

discrimination in jobs and housing.

Nationalists launched a civil rights

movement in the 1960s inspired by the

one in the US. Protestant unionists

violently resisted demands to share

power and reform, but the numerical

growth and assertiveness of the

nationalist Catholic population within

Northern Ireland made such

intransigence untenable.

In 1972, Britain sent in troops and

imposed direct rule. During 30 years

of “The Troubles,” 3,700 people died

at the hands of the Irish Republican

Army (IRA), Protestant militias, British

forces and others.

CAN MITCHELL TURN JERUSALEM INTO BELFAST?

spread themselves authoritatively over

many landscaped acres. It frames the

Holocaust as a prelude to the creation

of the state of Israel. It embalms

memorabilia of the death camps and

preserves them as national treasures.

That treasure does not belong to Israel.

It is a treasure only if it serves as a

reminder never to permit any nation to

claim an exemption for its chosen

people from the bounds of morality and

decency.

Israel has twisted the Holocaust into

an excuse for perpetrating more

holocausts. It has spent the treasure

of the world’s sympathy for the victims

of the Holocaust on a fruitless effort

to shield itself from all criticism as it

massacres and tortures Palestinians and

suffocates them under a brutal

occupation. I do not wish to have the

memory of my grandmother enlisted

in this misbegotten project.

I grew up believing that Jews were that

ethnic group whose historical mission

was to transcend ethnicity in a united

front against Fascism. To be Jewish

was to be anti-Fascist. Israel long ago

woke me from my dogmatic slumber

about the immutable relationship of

Jews to Fascists. It has engineered a

merger between the image of Jewish

torturers and war criminals and that of

emaciated concentration camp victims.

I find this merger obscene. I want no

part of it. You have forfeited the right

to be the custodian of my

grandmother’s memory. I do not wish

Yad Vashem to be her memorial.

Osha Neumann

31 January 2009

Jean-Moïse Braitberg is a French author

Michael Neumann is a professor of

philosophy at a Canadian university. He

is the author of What’s Left: Radical

Politics and the Radical Psyche and The

Case Against Israel. He can be reached

at [email protected]

Osha Neumann is a defense lawyer in

Berkeley and author of Up Against the

Wall MotherF**ker: a Memoir of the 60s

with Notes for Next Time.

Source: Le Monde and Common Ground

News


By Ali Abunimah

A R T I C L E SI N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D

7

The Mitchell-led Belfast Agreement

ended formal Protestant hegemony in

favor of equality, mitigating partition’s

injustices. It promised that government

power “shall be exercised with rigorous

impartiality on behalf of all the people”

and guaranteed “just and equal

treatment for the identity, ethos, and

aspirations of both communities.”

Decades of bloody conflict left deep

social divisions. But a framework for

nondiscriminatory democratic

governance has allowed nationalists and

unionists within Northern Ireland to

begin to shed their siege mentalities.

While formal partition of Ireland

remains, it is disappearing on the

ground as anyone can live, work and

move freely, and official cross-border

bodies are integrating the infrastructure

and economies of the two jurisdictions

on the island of Ireland.

The power-sharing executive in

Belfast, led by staunchly nationalist

Sinn Fein (closely affiliated with the

IRA) and the hardline Democratic

Unionist Party, was once as

inconceivable as a government made

up of members of Hamas and Israeli

politicians would be today. US

diplomacy played a key role by putting

pressure on the stronger parties —the

British government and Protestant

unionists — in favor of the weaker

nationalist side. Instead of shunning

Sinn Fein the US, prodded by the Irish

American lobby, insisted it be brought

into the process.

By 2010, Palestinians will outnumber

Israeli Jews in Israel, the West Bank

and Gaza Strip combined. The two

groups can no more be totally separated

than Protestant unionists and Catholic

nationalists in Ireland.

Like Irish nationalists, Palestinians will

never recognize the “right” of another

group to discriminate against them. Like

Protestant unionists did, Israeli Jews

insist on their own state. Israel’s

“solution” is to cage Palestinians into

ghettos — like Gaza — and periodically

bomb them into submission just so

Israeli Jews, their relative numbers

dwindling, can artificially maintain a

Jewish state.

continued next page

Millions of Muslims across India

decided to temper or even cancel

festivities on their most cherished week

of holy yearly celebrations, Eid al-

Adha, which commemorates the

willingness of Abraham to sacrifice his

son in obedience to God and His mercy

upon him as a result, in protest of violent

acts committed in the name of Islam

by the criminals who murdered so

many in Mumbai.

According to a Times of India article,

“They wore black ribbons, carried

placards of peace, sent out emails and

SMS’s reiterating harmony and put up

banners saluting those who died in the

26/11 terrorist attack.

Some Muslims even avoided festival

purchases such as new clothes. From

Chennai’s Thousand Lights Mosque to

Delhi’s Jama Mosque, from the

Khwaja Banda Nawaz Dargah (shrine)

in Gulbarga to the mosques of Mumbai

- Eid celebrations were subdued, in a

symbolic declaration of Muslim protest

against terrorism.

“At every shrine prayers were said for

the grieving families in Mumbai. In the

cities of Ajmer Sharief, Kaliyar Sharief

(Uttarakhand) and Barabanki’s Deva

Sharief, communities came together

burying their differences to focus on

one thing: communal harmony. By

showing our unity, we have spoilt the

terrorists’ Eid,” said Qari Mohd Miya

Mazhari, editor of the Urdu daily,

Secular Qayadat.

“The festival of sacrifice also became

a platform of protest both for celebrities

as well as ordinary citizens.

“In Mumbai, actor-director Aamir Khan

wore a black band on his arm. So did

Jab We Met director Imtiaz Ali, lyricist

Javed Akhtar and his actor-director son,

Farhan Akhtar. A news agency reported

that other Bollywood biggies such as

Shah Rukh Khan and Salman Khan too

preferred to stay away from the

festivities.”

This is an act of solidarity with the

victims - Hindu, Jew, Muslim, and

Christian alike - and this despite the fact

that the prejudice and structural injustice

that Indian Muslims experience is

widespread and systemic. I have always

sensed from my readings and studies

that Indian Islam, the religion of one of

the largest Muslim communities in the

world, has always articulated a deeply

ethical form of Islam. It historically has

MEDIA SILENT AS INDIAN MUSLIMS FOREGO HOLIDAY

By Marc Gopin

If Mitchell is allowed to apply Northern

Ireland’s lessons, then there may be a

way out. But he goes to Jerusalem with

few of the advantages he brought to

Belfast. The Obama administration

remains committed for now to the

failed partition formula of “a Jewish

state” and a “Palestinian state” and

maintains the Bush administration’s

misguided boycott of Hamas, which

overwhelmingly won Palestinian

elections in 2006. And the Israel lobby

— much more powerful than its Irish

American counterpart — warps US

policy to favor the stronger side, an

intransigent Israel committing war

crimes. If these policies don’t change,

Mitchell’s efforts will be wasted and

escalating violence will fill the political

vacuum.

2 February 2009

Co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, Ali

Abunimah is author of One Country: A

Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-

Palestinian Impasse.

An abridged version of this article first

appeared in The Detroit Free Press.

Source: The Electronic Intifada



8

A R T I C L E S

continued next page

At the other end of the spectrum we

see a number of countries which have

been sanctioned by the powerful and

rich countries of the world. They have

hardly any involvement in foreign

investments, certainly not in financial

instruments and funds. The financial

turmoil would not affect them as badly

since they have become insulated

though the sanction etc. But still they

will be faced with some relatively minor

problems.

We may say that Malaysia is a country

in between the two examples

mentioned. We have not been great

investors in foreign funds or even in

the foreign industries which are

collapsing. But we are a trading nation

and for a trading nation the sufferings

of its trading partners cannot but affect

it adversely. We are going to find our

trading partners unable to pay, partly

because their banks are bankrupt and

partly because their countries’

recession must affect their buying

power and their priorities when they

buy. Our trade must therefore diminish

and this will affect our industries and

jobs for our workers.

This is the environment in which

Malaysia will have to function and it

will have to handle. How it handles this

environment will determine its future.

The last time Malaysia had to face a

financial crisis, its economy went down

the way other countries did. The people

became poor suddenly and the growth

became stunted. It seemed like it would

have to borrow from the IMF and

surrender itself to IMF dictates. The

result would be a less independent

country with no certainty of recovery

as the IMF loan was for settling

Malaysia’s foreign debts and not really

to help its economy to recover.

It therefore chose not to seek IMF and

World Bank “help” because Malaysia

had to continue with its New Economic

Policy. We did not think the IMF would

be interested in our principle objective

of correcting the economic imbalance

between the races. They believe in

competition in which the losers should

be put to death like the gladiatorial

fighters of old. Such an attitude would

increase the ill feelings and tensions

between the races, would in fact lead

to racial clashes and instability for the

country. And the instability would have

an adverse effect on the economy.

Today Malaysia has joined other

countries in the region in being

politically unstable. For 50 years

political stability was what attracted

investments, both foreign and local.

Now a weak Government has tried to

regain popularity by pandering to the

demands of the extremists and the

naïve. The floodgates have been opened

and all kinds of sensitive issues are being

publicly debated.

The result is not the kind of liberal

society that such a policy was

supposed to bring. The result is the

resurgence of racism on the part of all

the ethnic groups.

In this atmosphere the Government will

find it difficult to handle the oncoming

financial and economic instability. The

fear of political repercussions will

prevent the Government from taking

decisive, if unpopular, measures.

Admittedly the crisis is not the easiest

been a model to the world of a minority

community asserting its identity and

simultaneously arguing for a strongly

non-violent ethic of religiosity.

Why does the world ignore millions of

good simple people when they stand

up for non-violence but keep everyone

riveted when 20 or so criminals hijack

a city? More importantly why is a

hijacking a “Muslim event” but not the

peaceful protests and statements of

solidarity with Hindu victims of millions

of people?

We cannot have a deep understanding

of the problems facing humanity if this

prejudice against peaceful expressions

of religion goes on in the media. I know

that “if it bleeds it leads” in the media,

but the lack of attention to the majority

who are peaceful is creating at least as

much bleeding as the acts of terrorism.

The three Abrahamic religions share a

story of Abraham and his son being

prepared to offer the greatest sacrifice

to God, and this Muslim holiday

celebrates God’s response to such

devotion. I say what I am about to say

in protest against the haters in our

midst: I am grateful that God saved this

son of Abraham so that a great culture,

civilisation and religion could be born,

a culture and civilisation of the Arab

and Muslim world.

And I refuse to join the haters in my

midst who look at these sad

brainwashed criminals of the Mumbai

attack and say, “They are the flower

of Islam”. They are no more the flower

of Islam than Timothy McVeigh and his

Christian Identity Movement, or the Ku

Klux Klan and their burning Christian

crosses, are the flower of Christianity.

Crime is crime, and we must honour

the millions of Indian Muslims today

who are surrendering their holiday spirit

in solidarity with the innocent.

What a wonderful model and challenge

to the rest of humanity.

16 December 2008

Dr. Marc Gopin is the director of George

Mason University’s Center for World

Religions, Diplomacy and Conflict

Resolution, and author of

www.marcgopin.com.

Source: Common Ground News Service

(CGNews).


GLOBAL FINANCIAL UNCERTAINTIES AND THE FUTURE OF MALAYSIABy Mahathir Mohamad

(Part 2)


9

A R T I C L E S


problem to handle. But if confidence is

to be restored the Government must

be seen to be serious about handling it.

Making a few billion dollars available is

not the total answer. There is a need to

identify the problem areas, to

understand the underlying causes and

to devise plans of actions to counter

them.

Actually Malaysia is cash rich. It has

huge savings and its reserves exceeded

the statutory requirement. Its economy

is made up of both the production of

raw material and commodities and the

manufacture of goods.

Its growth remained quite steady during

the early period of the downturn

because commodity prices were very

high and were able to sustain high

exports earnings despite decline in

earnings from exports of manufactured

goods.

I have no figures to support the

statement but our exports used to

consist in value terms of 82% of

manufactured goods and 18% of

commodities. But when the prices of

crude oil went up from USD 30/- to

USD 140/-, while palm oil went up from

less than RM 1000/- to RM 4,500/-,

the export earnings from commodities

must be a major contributor to the USD

100 billion of Malaysia’s export

earnings in 2007 and first half of 2008.

But now we are seeing the prices of

commodities making a steep dive with

crude down to about USD 50/- and

palm oil to RM 1500/-. Our export

earnings must take a beating. It is likely

that the trend will continue.

In the meantime exports of

manufactured goods will not be rising,

but is likely to decline.

FDI has not been flowing in either.

Although there have been a lot of

proposals nothing much is seen on the

ground. The Arab proposal to invest in

Wilayah Iskandar may not materialise

nor will the other corridors see any

real contribution to growth.

The reason is simple enough.

Worldwide there has not been much

FDI lately. But for corridors or regional

development to take place, the

infrastructure in terms of roads,

railways, water supply and electricity

must be assured. Sites for industries

must also be identified and be well

prepared. We do not see anything of

these developments either.

Generally infrastructure projects have

been neglected. It must be noted that

these projects are not only necessary

to support growth, but they also

create business opportunities and jobs

for the people. Sadly we are told many

of the projects have been overpriced

and there is a likelihood that much of

the money will not go into real

construction. This will mean the

contribution of such large

Government expenditure towards

economic stimulation would be

minimal.

This is the future that Malaysia is likely

to experience if we go by the present

economic scenario in the country and

internationally. But the future can

become brighter if the economic and

financial crisis facing the world and

their effect on Malaysia are better

managed.

This crisis is extraordinary and the

scale is enormous. The world has

never seen anything like this before,

not even during the Great Depression

of 1929 - 31. The great financial

institutions and banks survived in 1929

- 31 but we are seeing them falling

like nine-pins this time.

For Malaysia to handle the effects on

the country the crisis must be carefully

studied and understood. Certainly we

must know why and how they

happened and how they affect us.

This crisis is largely Man-made. It is the

result of greed being allowed to abuse

the systems. This is what happens when

Government abdicates its regulatory role

and slavishly acceded to the demand of

the bankers and financers to leave the

market to the market. The signs of a

breakdown were seen early but such is

the faith in the market regulating the

market that the free market

Governments took no notice and did

nothing.

Fortunately Malaysia has always been

conservative and has not taken to the

idea that Government should not

interfere with the market. As a result

much of market activities in Malaysia

have remained subjected to regulations.

So Malaysia should be in a better position

to counter the effects of deregulation.

Now Government must look into playing

a bigger role in the economy. But it should

also be judicious. If it controls too

tightly, business will not be attracted or

it will fail, strangled by Government

regulations.

In any case, deep knowledge of the

aetiology of the crisis will help the

process of identifying the effect on

Malaysia’s economy and finances and

perhaps help formulate a plan for

tackling or mitigating the fallouts from

this, the greatest financial crisis ever.

The world has yet to acknowledge that

this financial crisis needs a global

solution. It needs a revision in the

banking system and the monetary

system. It may even need a totally new

system developed with the interest of

all the countries in the world.

Malaysia may be able to lessen the

effects on the country’s economy but

until the world succeeds in devising new

systems for banking and international

monetary regime, all solutions will only

be cosmetic.

11 December 2008

Dr. Mahathir Mohamad is a former Prime Minister of Malaysia. The above speech was delivered at the ‘Bridges — Dialogue

Towards a Culture of Peace’, held at Putrajaya, Malaysia on 11 December 2008

Part one of the speech was published in the February 2009 issue of the JUST Commentary

I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D A R T I C L E S

10

continued next page

I Human Rights: Achievements

1. The Universal Declaration of Human

Rights celebrates the dignity of the

human person, irrespective of religion,

race, sex or other distinctions. As such

it helps realise our shared vision of a

religiously and culturally diverse world

community striving together to promote

and defend the rights and dignity of all.

The Declaration has stimulated and

inspired a new standard setting and

good practice at national and

international levels. We wish to

emphasize the importance of two of its

principles: that every person enjoys the

freedom of thought, conscience and

religion, and that no one should be

discriminated against on the basis of

religion or belief.

2. States bear the primary responsibility

to promote and protect human rights.

However, we wish to underline that

everyone has duties to the wider

communities of which they form a part

and only in which the free and full

development of one’s personality is

possible. It is therefore important to

make all people aware, through

information and education, of their

human rights and also of the common

responsibility to make human rights a

reality. In this regard we commend the

valuable contribution of many religious

and civil society organisations.

II Human Rights: Challenges

3. We express our deep concern that

despite all achievements, the enjoyment

of human rights in today’s world

remains a distant reality for many.

Human rights violations cause innocent

people to die or to be seriously harmed

resulting in untold suffering, loss and

hardship. More than ever, in this world

threatened by racial, economic and

religious divisions, we need to defend

and proclaim the universal principles of

dignity, equality, freedom, justice, and

peace, which are enshrined in the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Challenges to the acceptance of

human rights and fundamental

freedoms

4. The rights, freedoms and obligations

laid down in the Universal Declaration

of Human Rights are recognised all over

the world. Nevertheless, they are not

fully accepted everywhere. We observe

tensions with regard to a number of

specific rights, such as the freedom of

religion or belief, the principle of equality

and the prohibition of torture. We wish

to state clearly that the Declaration

should not be regarded as a ‘pick-and-

choose’ list. There is an urgent need

for a thorough reflection on the integral

acceptance of each right.

Challenges to the interpretation of


freedoms

5. Human rights are open to a variety

of interpretations. The argument of

cultural relativity of human rights is at

times used to justify grave violations

of human rights and fundamental

freedoms. We therefore recall the 1993

Vienna Declaration and Programme of

Action on Human Rights, wherein all

States of the world agreed that “all

human rights are universal, indivisible

and interdependent and interrelated. (..)

While the significance of national and

FAITH IN HUMAN RIGHTSPreamble

On the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 2008, we,

representatives of various world religions, are gathered at the Peace Palace, seat of the International Court of Justice,

in The Hague, The Netherlands, to pronounce and confirm that our religions recognise and support the human rights

and fundamental freedoms of every human person, alone or in community with others.

It must be acknowledged that sadly enough religion sometimes is being misused in a way which violates human rights.

But now, while representing different faith traditions, we come together in unity to stress that religion has been a

primary source of inspiration for human rights as our sacred writings and teachings clearly show:

“Someone who saves a person’s life is equal to someone who saves the life of all.” (Qu’ran 5:32);

“A single person was created in the world, to teach that if anyone causes a single person to perish, he has destroyed

the entire world; and if anyone saves a single soul, he has saved the entire world” (Mishna Sanhedrin 4:5);

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all

your mind; and your neighbour as yourself” (Luke 10:27);

“Let us stand together, make statements collectively and may our thoughts be one” (Rigveda 10:191:2);

“Just as I protect myself from unpleasant things however small, in the same way I should act towards others with a

compassionate and caring mind” (Shantideva, A Guide to the Bodhisattva’s Way of Life);

“Let us put our minds together to see what life we can make for our children” (Chief Sitting Bull, Lakota).

We recognise our responsibility towards our believers and to the world at large and reaffirm our intention to take all

necessary steps both within our communities and in co-operation with others to promote and protect human rights and

fundamental freedoms for each and every person, irrespective of religion or belief.

Therefore, we solemnly state to take to our heart the following achievements, challenges and commitments:

I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D A R T I C L E S

11


regional particularities and various

historical, cultural and religious

backgrounds must be borne in mind, it

is the duty of States, regardless of their

political, economic and cultural

systems, to promote and protect all


freedoms.” This implies that a continued

dialogue is necessary among

government representatives, religious

communities, indigenous peoples and

independent experts based on a dynamic

interpretation of human rights.

Challenges to the implementation

of human rights and fundamental

freedoms

6. Peace and security are essential

conditions for the enjoyment of human

rights and fundamental freedoms.

Whilst States are entrusted to guarantee

the peace and security of their societies

and their citizens, this should not lead

to curtailing basic human rights. We

denounce the development of security

measures and means that endanger

human life rather than protect it, for

example the tremendous worldwide

expenditures on weapons. This life-

threatening devastating power makes

it imperative to look for peaceful means

of resolving tensions.

7. The prevalence of violence within

the international and national

communities remains a source of

serious concern and impedes the

realisation of human rights. We call on

all concerned to pursue all peaceful

means of redress and to refrain from a

misuse of violence. In addition, we

wish to highlight the problem of

structural violence within society and

of domestic violence in particular. It is

of utmost importance to counter this

and to save by so doing the lives of the

most vulnerable among us.

8. We note with serious concern the

increase of intolerance in matters

relating to religion or belief, of cases

of incitement to religious hatred, overt

or covert. While emphasising the

importance of the freedom of

expression, we deplore portrayals of

objects of religious veneration which

fail to be properly respectful of the

sensibilities of believers. We consider

the freedom to have, to retain and to

adopt a religion or belief of one’s

personal choice, without coercion or

inducement, to be an undeniable right.

Furthermore, the freedom to manifest

one’s religion or belief in any form of

worship, observance, practice and

teaching may only be subject to

carefully defined limitations consistent

with generally accepted principles of

international law.

9. The Universal Declaration of Human

Rights demands meeting basic human

needs. The abject and dehumanizing

conditions of extreme poverty to which

more than a billion people are currently

subjected, must be decisively altered.

The human destruction of the

environment has to be stopped. The

process of achievement of the

Millennium Development Goals (eight

targets that 189 countries have pledged

to meet by 2015) represents a key

indicator of the commitment of States

to realise human rights for all.

III Commitments

10. Adherents of various faith traditions

have striven to protect human dignity.

Religion has to stand for peace,

reconciliation, universal values, mutual

respect and upholding human rights

and fundamental freedoms. Our faith

traditions have been and are capable of

providing inspiration and guidance

towards realising these aims. We wish

to reiterate our commitment to respect

all human rights for all, as enshrined in

the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights.

11. The contributions that may come

from religious inspiration and from the

structures of religion or belief towards

a fuller implementation of human rights

include the need to:

a. study carefully our holy

scriptures and teachings and to explore

the theological rationale in defence of

human rights; provide responses where

harm has been done in the name of

religion and seek ways of forgiveness

and reconciliation in order to foster

mutual respect and understanding

among our communities;

b. address major threats to the full

realisation of human rights by fostering

concepts of peace, security and

development that advance the full

realisation of the Millennium

Development Goals and make our

shared world a safe place to live;

c. listen to the suffering of

individuals, families and communities

and assist them to tell and visualize their

stories so that empathy may lead to

solidarity and action;

d. encourage religious

communities to become further

engaged with human rights issues, both

within and outside their community, and

stimulate interfaith co-operation with

mutual respect.

Conclusion

12. Humbled by the authority that is

vested in the religions of the world and

conscious of our shared responsibility

to defend human rights, we fervently

desire that this Statement will initiate a

wider process, and will become a

catalyst for transformation and change.

In order to widen and deepen the

support for human rights by religious

communities we invite religious leaders

around the world to endorse this

Statement. We call upon believers

everywhere to disseminate this

Statement as widely as possible and act

upon it.

Source: The above statement was sent to the JUST Commentary by JUST member Fr. Pieter van Dongen from The

Netherlands, who signed the petition. The petition is available for signature at http://www.faithinhumanrights.org

INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENTFOR A JUST WORLD (JUST)P.O BOX 288Jalan Sultan46730 Petaling JayaSelangor Darul EhsanMALAYSIAwww.just-international.org

Bayaran Pos JelasPostage Paid

Pejabat Pos BesarKuala Lumpur

MalaysiaNo. WP 1385

The International Movement for a Just World isa nonprofit international citizens’ organisationwhich seeks to create public awareness aboutinjustices within the existing global system.It a lso attempts to develop a deeperunderstanding of the struggle for social justiceand human dignity at the global level, guided byuniversal spiritual and moral values.

In furtherance of these objectives, JUST hasundertaken a number of activities includingconducting research, publishing books andmonographs, organising conferences andseminars, networking with groups and individuals and participating in public campaigns.

JUST has friends and supporters in more than130 countries and cooperates actively withother organisations which are committed to

similar objectives in different parts of the world.

About the International Movement for aJust World (JUST)

It would be much appreciated if you

could share this copy of the JUST Com-

mentary with a friend or relative. Bet-

ter still invite him/her to write to JUST

so that we can put his/her name on our

Commentary mailing list.

TERBITAN BERKALA

Please donate to JUST by Postal Order or Cheque

addressed to:

International Movement for a Just World

P.O. Box 288, Jalan Sultan, 46730, Petaling Jaya,

Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

or direct to our bank account:

Account No. 5141 9633 1748

Malayan Banking Berhad, Damansara Utama Branch,

62-66 Jalan SS 21/35, Damansara Utama, 47400,

Petaling Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan,

MALAYSIA

Malaysian Tax Exemption no.

LHDN.01/35/42/51/179-6.5755

Donations from outside Malaysia should be made

by Telegraphic Transfer or Bank Draft in USD$

just commentary march 2009

Documents