Friday, 15 December 2017

Do Not Forget:



Muslims Do Not Forget:




---



Quote:

“I am the Sultan Abdul Aziz Bin Abdul Rahman Al Saud al-Faisal and I conceded and acknowledged a thousand times to Sir Percy Cox, delegate of Great Britain, that I have no objection to giving Palestine to the poor Jews or even to non-Jews, and I will never ever violate their [the UK] orders,”
read the note signed by King Abdul Aziz.


Roosevelt later wrote to the Saudi king in a follow up letter.


--
Ibn Rashid had rejected all overtures from the British Empire made to him via Ibn Saud to be another of its puppets.8 More so, Ibn Rashid expanded his territory north to the new mandated [Sott ed - mandate means colony] Palestinian border as well as to the borders of Iraq in the summer of 1920.

The British became concerned that an alliance may be brewing between Ibn Rashid, who controlled the northern part of the peninsula, and the Sharif who controlled the western part. More so, the Empire wanted the land routes between the Palestinian ports on the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf under the rule of a friendly party. At the Cairo Conference, Churchill agreed with an imperial officer, Sir Percy Cox, that "Ibn Saud should be 'given the opportunity to occupy Ha'il.'"9

By the end of 1920, the British were showering Ibn Saud with "a monthly 'grant' of £10,000 in gold, on top of his monthly subsidy. He also received abundant arms supplies, totaling more than 10,000 rifles, in addition to the critical siege and four field guns" with British-Indian instructors.10
Finally, in September 1921, the British unleashed Ibn Saud on Ha'il, which officially surrendered in November 1921. It was after this victory the British bestowed a new title on Ibn Saud. He was no longer to be "Emir of Najd and Chief of its Tribes" but "Sultan of Najd and its Dependencies". Ha'il had dissolved into a dependency of the Empire's Sultan of Najd.  Here


--

US President Donald Trump has said it is time to officially recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

The decision comes seven decades after the Declaration of the establishment of the State of Israel, that was unilaterally announced on 14 May 1948 by David Ben-Gurion. At the time, no borders were settled for the new state. It is also for this reason that Israel's admission to the United Nations (UN) soon became a strategic priority. The admission to the UN, in fact, was and is the "most secure and expeditious way" of gaining widespread or universal recognition.

Yet, Israel's original application for admission to the UN was rejected by the UN Security Councilon December 17, 1948. The second bid for application was made on February 24, 1949. "Negotiations", assured the then Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban at the General Assembly of the UN, "would not, however, affect the juridical status of Jerusalem, to be defined by international consent".

These binding assurances - that served as the basis for Israel's admission to the UN - were made one year after the war of 1947- 48 (see Uri Avnery's "
sacred mantras" on "rejectionism"): none of the historical events of the following seven decades has the legal capacity to erase them. Even more so considering that when, in 1980, Israel passed a Basic Law which declared Jerusalem "complete and united", as the "capital of Israel", the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 476affirming that "measures which have altered the geographic, demographic and historical character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem are null and void".

This decision was in line with the juridical principles affirmed 35 years earlier. In June 1945, in fact, the San Francisco Conference stipulated, in
Article 80 of the UN Charter, that the organisation had the necessary power to conclude trusteeship agreements that could alter existing rights held under the pre-existing Mandate for Palestine. In the Partition Plan (Resolution 181, November 29, 1947) the UN General Assembly clarified the will to establish an international trusteeship regime in Jerusalem.

The relevance of history


Notwithstanding these considerations, juridical aspects alone can hardly explain why any unilateral step regarding Jerusalem cannot but ignite further polarisation: It is history, in fact, that shows the key reasons why Trump's unilateral decisions or attempts are ill-fated.

Despite growing absolutist claims, "Uru-Shalem" (the city "founded by Shalem", a god venerated by the Canaanites), founded by the Canaanites around 5,000 years ago, has not belonged to one single people in its entire history. This is a further reason why, in its nature, Jerusalem must be internationally, or at least bilaterally, shared.

Long before the three monotheistic religions, Al-Haram al-Sharif, the site on which Solomon's Temple stood, hosted a Canaanite place of worship. It is noteworthy that in biblical usage, Jerusalem is often mentioned as "Zion", the high ground where its original inhabitants built the present city's original fortress. "Siyon" is a term of Canaanite origin that can be translated as "hill" or "high ground".

At the beginning of the last century, almost 80 percent of the city's inhabitants lived in mixed neighbourhoods and quarters. In Yaacov Yehoshua's memoir, Yaldut be-Yerushalayim ha-yashena, the author recalled that in the city "there were joint compounds of Jews and Muslims. We were like one family [...] Our children played with their [Muslim] children in the yard, and if children from the neighbourhood hurt us the Muslim children who lived in our compound protected us. They were our allies."

All this should not suggest that inter-religious and/or confessional conflicts were historically unknown. Some clashes have been documented as early as the Middle Ages. Yet, their nature and scope are hardly comparable to more recent times. More importantly, they don't mirror the actual history of most of Jerusalem's (and the broader region's) past.

True, the "actual history" and local equilibria, particularly in late Ottoman times, were not perceived by all observers, particularly external ones, in the same way. In 1839, William T. Young, first British Vice-Consul in Jerusalem, noted, for instance, that a Jew in Jerusalem was not considered "much above a dog". Young himself, however, had to acknowledge that, in case of need, a Jew would have found shelter "sooner in a Mussulman's house than in that of a Christian".

Moreover, external observers used to provide very different, and, at times, contradictory opinions. Just a few years after Young, in 1857, British Consul to Jerusalem James Finn pointed out, for instance, that "there are few countries in the world where, in spite of appearances to the contrary, there is so much of practical religious tolerance as in Palestine".

Nowhere more than in judicial records is it possible to assess to which extent local communities perceived themselves, in Finn's times and in other periods of Ottoman history, as being constructive elements of the Ottoman milieu. American historian Amnon Cohen, who spent years studying documents stored in the archives of the Sharia (Islamic law) religious court of Ottoman Jerusalem, found 1000 Jewish cases filed from the year 1530 to 1601.

Jews preferred to use Islamic Sharia courts rather than their own, rabbinical courts: "The Sultan's Jewish subjects",
noted Cohen, "had no reason to mourn their status or begrudge their conditions of life. The Jews of Ottoman Jerusalem enjoyed religious and administrative autonomy within an Islamic state, and as a constructive, dynamic element of the local economy and society they could - and actually did - contribute to its functioning".

External understandings: a pattern

Arthur Balfour, who gave his name to the 1917 Declaration, visited Palestine for the first time in his life in 1925. On that occasion, he presided over the opening of Jerusalem's Hebrew University, accompanied by Chaim Weizmann and his wife, Vera.

Despite Balfour's very limited knowledge of the local reality, his actions were based on the rock-solid conviction that the ideas that he was embracing were "rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land".

Each observer and historian can have a different opinion about these aspects and Balfour's approach. "The truth", noted Oscar Wilde, "is rarely pure and never simple". Yet, the point remains: US President Donald Trump, not dissimilarly from Arthur Balfour one century ago, is imposing a unilateral understanding of the local reality without knowing much of its complex past and present. To pay the price for this will be, once again, Israelis and Palestinians alike. Here

--

100 years on: The Balfour Declaration explained
What is the Balfour Declaration?
The Balfour Declaration ("Balfour's promise" in Arabic) was a public pledge by Britain in 1917 declaring its aim to establish "a national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine.
The statement came in the form of a letter from Britain's then-foreign secretary, Arthur Balfour, addressed to Lionel Walter Rothschild, a figurehead of the British Jewish community.  
(Read Here)
--

The 100-year-old letter that still divides the Middle East
Read:  Here
--



Read: Here
--


Saudi offers Abu Dis as future capital of Palestine
December 6, 2017 at 1:31 pm           | Published in: Israel, Middle East, News, Palestine, Saudi Arabia
--
Makkah and Madinah imams silent on Jerusalem in Friday sermons
December 9, 2017 at 2:03 pm          | Published in: Israel, Middle East, News, Palestine, Saudi Arabia
--
Saudi Arabia has ordered media outlets in the kingdom to not focus "too much attention" on Washington's controversial decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital, sources have said.
The Saudi royal court sent a "severe warning" to bosses of newspapers and television and radio stations this week about the issue which has sparked protests across the Arab world, sources told The New Arab on Thursday.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, they added that the directive ordered media to instead "take aim at Iran and other regional countries" in its coverage.
--
As Jerusalem burns, pro-MBS Saudi cleric focuses on... clean socks Here

 --

---------------------------------


---


Did Saudi Arabia Just Try To Give the West Bank to Israel?



The 82-year-old Abbas was summoned to Riyadh on November 6 by the 32-year-old MBS as part of the latter’s high-powered effort to engineer a joint Arab-U.S. offensive against Iran and its allies. He was not the first Arab leader to be invited. Days before his arrival, Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri was strong-armed by MBS into a sudden, though short-lived, resignation as part of the anti-Iran offensive.

MBS was in high dudgeon, according to the source, as he is playing a high-stakes gamble to cement both his leadership and his corollary offensive. On this score, MBS announced that the Arab Peace Initiative (API)—a Saudi-sponsored grand bargain promising Arab recognition of and peace with Israel in return for the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza with east Jerusalem as its capital—is effectively dead.

It’s time for Plan B, declared the crown prince: a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip, fattened by undetermined Egyptian transfers of land in the Sinai Peninsula. When the startled Palestinian leader asked about the place of the West Bank and East Jerusalem in this scheme, MBS replied, “We can continue to negotiate about this.”
“What about Jerusalem,  the settlements, [West Bank] Areas B and C?” Abbas pressed.
“These will be issues for negotiation, but between two states, and we will help you.”

According to the source, MBS offered the Palestinian leader $10 billion to sweeten the bitter pill he had just prescribed. “Abbas can’t say no [to the Saudis],” the source explained, “but he can’t say yes.” Here

---


Saudi Crown Prince offered $10 billion to Mahmoud Abbas to give the West Bank to Israel?
December 14, 2017, 6:18 PM IST

According to the source, Mohammed bin Salman is playing a high-stakes gamble to cement both his leadership and his corollary offensive. On this score, the crown prince announced that the Arab Peace Initiative (API) is effectively dead. The crown prince declared that it’s time for Plan B, a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip. When Mahmood Abbas asked about the place of the West Bank and East Jerusalem in this scheme, the crown Prince replied, “We can continue to negotiate about this.” He is also said to have offered the Palestinian leader $10 billion to sweeten the bitter pill he had just prescribed. Abbas is in dilemma he can neither say no nor yes. Here


---


Do not forget your Najd

Saudi Crown Prince to 'chase terrorism until it disappears'

November 26, 2017


The 40 members of the Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition met in Riyadh to launch the alliance that aims to defeat terror both in its “ideology and in its violence".  
He said the Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition aimed to fight terrorism both in its “ideology and in its violence".
Today, we will chase it until terrorism has disappeared from the face of the earth,” 
Prince Salman, who is also the Saudi defence minister, told the meeting in Riyadh
“We haven’t had good co-ordination between each other, today that lack of communication ends because of this coalition.”

---


When were they moderate?




The Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman said:

 “I will return Saudi Arabia to moderate Islam”

Mohammed bin Salman tells the Guardian that ultra-conservative state has been ‘not normal’ for past 30 years
Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, has vowed to return the country to “moderate Islam” …”
“What happened in the last 30 years is not Saudi Arabia. What happened in the region in the last 30 years is not the Middle East. After the Iranian revolution in 1979, people wanted to copy this model in different countries, one of them is Saudi Arabia. We didn’t know how to deal with it. And the problem spread all over the world. Now is the time to get rid of it.”
Earlier Prince Mohammed had said: We are simply reverting to what we followed – a moderate Islam open to the world and all religions. 70% of the Saudis are younger than 30, honestly we won’t waste 30 years of our life combating extremist thoughts, we will destroy them now and immediately.”
--
The crown prince also announced Saudi Arabia would "eradicate promoters of extremist thoughts", saying the country was not like this in the past.
"We are returning to what we were before - a country of moderate Islam that is open to all religions and to the world,"
--
Madawi Al-Rasheed, a Middle East scholar at the London School of Economics, argued in an email that Saudi Arabia was not one of the many countries where moderate Islam turned ultraconservative, but was instead an exception. It is a “unique case of radical religion becoming the official religion of the state and its legitimacy narrative,” said Rasheed, who cautioned that the Saudi leadership imprisoned clerics who had attempted to “offer reinterpretations of Islamic text, for example how Islam and democracy are compatible.” Here 
 ---
We are simply reverting to what we followed
We are returning to what we were before 
the country was not like this in the past.
---


The Original Najdi

The Original Najdi Wahhabi Movement Were More Extreme In Bloodshed & Takfir Than ISIS!
Read: Here
--

The Wahhabi Tree
The Twigs and Leaves

(Embellishment and Adornment)

-
-
-
LORD OF NAJD THE RISE OF DARKNESS HORN OF SATAN
-
-
WAHHABISM - MYTH OR REALITY?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


--------------------

Imam Mahdi

---

(Edited by ADHM)