30 August 2014

Part 1: Merdeka and Independence Carry Different Meaning


For Malaysia, whilst that (freedom) may be the popular belief of the push for independence, there was/is a bigger concern that fuelled the subconcious state of mind of the Malays. It is the existence of the Malays or the diminishing of such existence that hold strong pursuasive psychological need to preserve.

OMORROW is our country's (Malaysia) Independence Day, or, better known as Merdeka. What is Merdeka? In many other scenario of countries seeking independence from its colonial masters, the instant underlying factor was the instrumental urge to be free from the control of a foreign power that had earlier invaded the particular land and its people. For Malaysia, whilst that (freedom) may be the popular belief of the push for independence, there was/is a bigger concern that fuelled the subconcious state of mind of the Malays (The word 'Malay' is intended to also be inclusive of other Bumiputera races for the purpose of this article). It is the existence of the Malays or the diminishing of such existence that hold strong pursuasive psychological need to preserve.

Notice that I have used the word "is" alongside "was" - this is intentionally done as the same concern (diminishing existence of the Malays) still exist until today. If Merdeka was meant to address that urge of preservation (of the Malays), then why do we (Malays) still have the concern today? That can only mean that we have not yet achieved the true Merdeka that we intended back in 1957. That is what differentiates Merdeka from a mere independence of a nation. If we wanted an independence that is generic, we could have achieved it simply via the Malayan Union as proposed by the colonial masters (British) and get on with life. But we did not accept the Malayan Union. That is because our desire of a Merdeka is far more pervasive than a mere independence.

This concern has turned into a dilemma because Malaysia has grown into a multiracial society. We no longer have non-Malays who are significantly represented by immigrants but those who were born and grew up in Malaysia. We have significant proportion of non-Malays who are 2nd or 3rd generations of citizens. Therefore how do we (Malays) struggle to comfort ourselves that we do not need be haunted by such concern? How do we translate what the initial meaning of Merdeka was into what it should be for this new composition of the rightful population of citizens? Of course if we had the answers, we will not be experiencing the pain that arose from our polarised society as what we are experiencing today. Do we blame our forefathers for not pushing assimilation enough? or, do we continue our quest to find the right formula to glue the society together? This will prove to be quite a challenging task especially when the disparity in the pool of wealth and the level playing field is far from a harmonious state.

Dato' Onn Jaafar welded the Malays under a single cohesive banner and succeeded in bringing an end to the Malayan Union. He and other patriotic political comrades managed to unite the Malays for the first time against one foe, to protect the sovereignty of the Malay Rulers. They were fighting to survive as Malays and to exist as Malays.

In a New Straits Times article "The day the Malays decided not to be fooled" by Dr Paridah Abd Samad on 1 April 2014, she shared her views/knowledge of what had driven the history. Now let's go down memory lane with what Paridah has to share in order to understand this psychological concerns that the Malays have:
  1. The Malayan Union that was born on 1 April 1946 had properties that could have diminished the existence of the Malay Rulers and in turn, diminished the position of the Malays. The proposal was planned to remove the Malay Rulers' sovereignty and transfer it to the British Crown.
  2. The Malayan Union proposed to merge all Malay states into a unitary state that offered equal citizenship to both Malays and non-Malays.
  3. The plan of the Malayan Union involved the non-Malay leaders lobbying the British Government in London. Informal negotiations between Tun Tan Cheng Lock, the founder of the Malayan Chinese Association (MCA), had taken place during the war.
  4. The plan of the Malayan Union was perceived as a form of a British punishment for the Malays, who were accused of collaborating with the Japanese after the British surrender in 1942.
  5. At the time when the push by non-Malays for the Malayan Union was intense, the Malays were still feeling the after effects of the ruthless Communist Three-Star (Bintang Tiga) Chinese guerillas who ruled the nation for 14 days. As much as generalising the Bintang Tiga as Chinese dominant is unfair, it was/is the unescapable perception in the minds of the Malays - just like how Nazi is associated with the Germans.
  6. Dato' Onn Jaafar welded the Malays under a single cohesive banner and succeeded in bringing an end to the Malayan Union. He and other patriotic political comrades managed to unite the Malays for the first time against one foe, to protect the sovereignty of the Malay Rulers. They were fighting to survive as Malays and to exist as Malays.
  7. Many confrontations and Malay movements errupted. In December 1945 10,000 Malays from Kota Bharu confronted Sir Harold McMichaels. On 3 January 1946 the Peninsula Malay Movement of Johor united 100,000 Malays in Batu Pahat. In February 1946 the first rally was held in Batu Pahat attracting over 15,000 Malays. At that time such rallies were unheard of in Malaya.
  8. At the historic gathering of the first Pan-Malayan Malay Congress on 1 March 1946 at the Sultan Sulaiman Club, Kampung Baru, Kuala Lumpur, a resolution was unanimously resolved: first to oppose the Malayan Union and second, to form the Pertubuhan Kebangsaan Melayu Bersatu (Pekembar) that would later become UMNO.
  9. On the morning of 1 April 1946 when the ceremony for Malayan Union was intended, Dato' Onn ensured the gatherings of thousands of Malays, male and female, in the grounds of the Station Hotel Kuala Lumpur to appeal to the Sultans not to attend the ceremony. From the balcony the Sultans could see thousands of Malays with a white cloth over their songkok, shouting loyal slogans "Long live the Kings - Daulat Tuanku!" The Sultans did not attend the ceremony. This was indeed a big blow to the British Government.
  10. The British Government agreed to the formation of the Federation of Malaya on 1 February 1948. The feudal Rulers were to be maintained, which bolstered the Malays and their hundreds of years of traditions, and more difficult requirement for citizenship. 

What does all the above  means in the context of Merdeka that we all know? If Malayan Union was not introduced, the Malays would have not been united and we would not have achieved independence in 1957 (It could have been later like Hong Kong). Also, under the Malayan Union, the Malays would have lost their Sultans and along with it, lose their significant position in the nation's political landscape to the non-Malays. A land with the majority of its population being Malays and a land with hundreds of years of Malay rule under the first established governments of the Sultans (or even the early Hindu Malay governments) would still be under colonialisation if the powers of politic transfers from the British to the non-Malays. They (Malays) would still be slaves on their own land. They would still not achieve independence even if Malaya was/is declared independent. They would still not achieve Merdeka. In fact, today, they are still questioning whether they have achieved Merdeka. This is the context that the non-Malays cannot appreciate nowadays - an appreciation that proved to be very difficult when the non-Malays are 2nd or 3rd generation of Malaysian citizens. In the end, the question of Merdeka continues unanswered. 
A land with the majority of its population being Malays and a land with hundreds of years of Malay rule under the first established governments of the Sultans (or even the early Hindu Malay governments) would still be under colonialisation if the powers of politic transfers from the British to the non-Malays.

* kopihangtuah

| mcmlxxv:viii:xxix |

09 August 2014

The Queries from the Confusion of the Palestinian-Israeli Chaos


Quran does not ask people to kill. When oppressed, still Muslims should not be killing and they must do whatever necessary instead of killing. However, if the enemy starts killing your people and family or if they (enemies) are attacking your people and family, to not defend would mean you are a coward. In Islam, being such coward is one of the 7 deadly sins.

ALESTINE is in a state of mess. As the Israel Defence Force ("IDF") move forward to invade 2km beyond the borders of the Gaza strip, many parties have expressed concerns over Israelis disproportionate attack on Gaza that destroyed most of the civilisation in Gaza. Whilst many Governments, leaders, organisations and general public show support for Palestine, there are some people on this planet who question the Palestinian, particularly Hamas, and generally Muslims or Islam, on some aspects of the whole war. They are either confused, or misinformed or simply refuse to accept the truth.
The supporters of Palestine have the obligation to remedy this so that those who fail to comprehend the issues can appreciate where the truth is. If we (supporters of Palestine) have discharged our duties of adequately informing and educating those confused people, and they are still in confusion, then we hope God have mercy to shine the light of truth onto them (Tawakkal). So, what are the queries from the confusion (or the confused) of the Palestinian-Israeli chaos? Here they are with the necessary rebuttal:


Question 1:
Is Hamas' priority not right economically where monies should have been used to build schools, hospitals, develop the nation and many more like what Israel did instead of building tunnels?
Answer 1:
Well, I think they do build their nation but a huge chunk of the money is needed for defence inclusive of underground tunnels in Gaza, if not, there will be no nation to justify building of schools, hospitals etc. We must remember that Israel could do it because it is not being occupied and the danger is at the border whereas Palestine is being invaded. The composition of how a nation's wealth is being appropriated is a function of its state of affairs.
Just like Malaysia, we had to spend huge amount of money for military against communists and rural development during Tun Razak's time. When Tun Mahathir took over from Tun Hussein, he allocated more to modernisation. That does not mean that he ignored rural development. The composition is dynamic. For Palestine, let's focus in obtaining the sovereignity of the nation, which is what Hamas is focusing on. This is Sociology 101. I fail to understand the analysis by those who make noise about Hamas misuse money to build tunnels.


Question 2:
Why do Hamas in their Charter, Palestinians and Muslims in general, kill the Jews unjustifiably in the name of religion as warranted by the Quran?

Answer 2:
Quran does not ask people to kill. When oppressed, still Muslims should not be killing and they must do whatever necessary instead of killing. However, if the enemy starts killing your people and family or if they (enemies) are attacking your people and family, to not defend would mean you are a coward. In Islam, being such coward is one of the 7 deadly sins. You must be a defender when faced with such threat. And in that capacity, you are bound to kill people,  people who are attacking you and who are oppressing you. Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) led armies to war many times with plenty of killings. Had he not do that, the enemies would have slaughtered him, his army, his family and many Muslims. The enemies, the Arab Jahilliah lot, is known to have no remorse as they kill their own daughters for no reason.
Don't be confused. NEVER, I repeat, NEVER claim that Quran asks to kill. To conclude simplistically as such is irresponsible. Some parties made reference to Hamas' Charter that urges killing of Jews. I asked for the paragraphs of the Charter and I have read it. It made references to Quran on Jihad. I think many people conclude Jihad too simplistically. It is not "killing". It is "you can kill those who oppress you, your family, your country or your religion." Pretty much like our army protecting our country and in doing so, kill the enemies. In the case of Hamas, I don't have to explain what their Jihad relates to. Any 3rd grader can guess. By the way, references to Jews on this debate is inaccurate. The oppressors should be labelled as Zionists.


Question 3:
Why do Muslim supporters cherry pick their shout  whereby they only make noise when Israel attacks Palestine but they don't shout when ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) kills thousands of Christians? 

Answer 3:

Well, I am a Palestinian supporter and I am also a supporter of the Christians who were killed and are oppressed by ISIS. Both IDF and ISIS should be charged as murderers. Don't be confused. ISIS does not equate to Islam and neither is Zionism equate to Judaism. Whilst I do not have evidence to say what I want to say next, I must say that there are already doubts on the origins of ISIS. Many believe that they are not (or at least the leader) true Muslims and that they are planted by the Zionists simply to create chaos in the Middle East - very much like the fictional book The Mahdi by A.J. Quinnell - having involved intelligence such as CIA and Mossad. In any case, with or without such conspiracy theory, what ISIS is doing is wrong. Muslims should not support such movement (ISIS). They are not carrying Jihad in its true spirit.


Question 4:

Why do Muslims believe on conspiracy theories that Jewish people wants to control the world without any basis?

Answer 4:

Many believe that there is a Zionism conspiracy (not Jewish) to control the world to their advantage particularly via Politics/Governments, Communication/Media, Banking/Finance and Military/Terrorism. There are many publications advocating this such as the International Jew by Henry Ford and the so called "secret document" of Zionism called The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. These have been dismissed by many others as hoax because of their lack of evidence or proof of misrepresentation. I cannot help to notice that even without those publications, there are enough to observe by a Jo Bloke like me and many others to suggest that there is a fairly strong chance that such conspiracy exist.
With that hypothesis, instead of questioning "proof that there is a conspiracy", I'd rather say, "proof that there isn't one." Of course many Media viewed as Zionism also report news from the Palestinian perspective and state the negativities of Israel but pale in comparison to that of opposite perspective. This is the same as Obama saying, "Israel should stop killing" but gets millions of export money from selling weapons to Israel. A typical behaviour of a hypocrite - in Malay we call this "Talam Dua Muka" - they appear to be balanced strategically with a focused intention to support a particular party as predetermined.

A lay man does not need to think far to see how the USA (and the UK) has toppled and destroyed many Governments in the Middle East and have put their puppet Governments in place. For those that they have not done so (yet), they have engaged in numerous military campaigns and economic sanctions. The world financial crisis and dominance boil down to a few big players who unethically drive the financial market. They even colonialised the Third World countries economically via their Economic Hitman Techniques via International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and many other mechanisms. All these media houses, financial institutions and Member of Parliaments or Congressmen are known to be controlled by the Zionists. There are plenty of information on this floating in the open market.

It is ok to have doubts over some publications but you cannot dismiss something as hoax based on someone else's claims without you reading the material first. read them first, then conclude whether you want to believe those claims (materials being hoax). I recommend you to read the International Jew by Henry Ford and the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (available at www.bookdepository.com or www.abebooks.com) - you will see that there is a compelling urge to notice the consistency of what is happening out there with what have been laid out in those publications - Go figure!   


My answers to the queries may not be comprehensive but I want to believe that it should be adequate to start the ball rolling. I hope these confused people will open their eyes to see the empirical evidence out there that will be consistent with what we are discussing here. I would love to dig out information from history and publications to support my arguments but that can be done by the confused themselves if they have the heart to comprehend the matter sincerely. They can also choose to read my previous blog post where I have made references to the Old Testament, the Quran, historical chronological order of events and disturbing information about oil and gas driven actions in the region. In the end, everybody believes that there should be peace; but peace comes with a price.

In the end, everybody believes that there should be peace; but peace comes with a price.

* kopihangtuah

| mcmlxxv:viii:xxix |

03 August 2014

Gaza is in a Gazazster State


Today the Israel-Gaza war reached its 25th day. What does it really mean in terms of inhumanity? Well, Palestinian officials say 1,653 Gazans, mostly civilians, have been killed . . .

AZA is in a "gazazster state" that anyone with a heart would weep. Humanity, or shall I say, inhumanity, is at its worst since Hitler swiped the Jews off Europe. Today the Israel-Gaza war reached its 25th day. What does it really mean in terms of inhumanity? Well, Palestinian officials say 1,653 Gazans, mostly civilians, have been killed. Sixty-three Israeli soldiers have been killed, and Palestinian shelling has killed three civilians in Israel. What is the underlying causes of such madness? We cannot comprehend. For Muslims, many would naturally support the Gazans and for non-Muslims, they rely on the media to digest facts before they decide who to support. Some (mostly non-Muslims) won't even take sides as they are unclear of the facts that are contradictory between Islamist backed media or the conventional mainstream media. Many arguments have been put forth by both sides but one cannot help to notice that the simplistic apparent fact is, Israelis are killing women, worse case, children and worst case, shelling the United Nations' centres, hospitals and mosques. So what is this war all about? Is it about religion? Is it about land? Is it about history? or; Is it about economy?

The role of religion in the Palestinian conflict

If one were to study the Jewish texts, one cannot avoid noticing that the Lord promises the 'Land' for His chosen people, the children of Israel. With this believe, the Jewish community strongly holds dear the land they call Israel and the occupied Palestine. Historically Jews have gone through quite a normadic odyssey throughout history. They have been in the Mesopotamian areas during the Prophet Isaac (Nabi Ishak a.s.) days, Eqypt during Prophet Moses (Nabi Musa a.s.) and Prophet Aaron (Nabi Harun a.s.) days; and the current Israel-Palestine areas during King Solomon (Nabi Sulaiman a.s.), King David (Nabi Daud a.s.) and Jesus (Nabi Isa a.s.) days. They have somehow been dispersed for hundreds of years everywhere across Europe and the Middle East under the Islamic empires of Muawiyah, Abassiyah and Ottoman; the Christian empire of Byzantine as well as the modern civilisations pre-World War 2. Subsequently they also migrated to the new world of Americas.

Now, religion plays an important role to motivate these dispersed Jews to unite and occupy the so called 'Promised Land'. Surely you cannot discount religion after digesting all this? The question is, why the Palestinian land? History shows that the strongest Jewish empire ever established in marking a particular land as its sovereign foothold is during King Solomon's reign. Solomon built the Jewish temple of which, the remaining is believed to be the wailing wall of Jericho we see today. Perhaps this is the reference the Israelis planted in their believes to justify the right to the land? What more with God's revelation to them (Jews) in the Old Testament as follows:

Exodus 23:31-32: "I will establish your borders from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean Sea, and from the desert to the Euphrates River. I will give into your hands the people who live in the land, and you will drive them out before you. Do not make covenant with them or with their gods."

One would argue that similar phrases appear in the Quran that give justifications to similar religious-led actions from the Muslim's side. Let us see how the Quran has warranted such actions - below:

Quran 5:51: "O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you, then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people."

Now, notice the difference between the two phrases from Exodus and the Quran respectively? The Exodus says, "drive them (people of the said land) out before you..." whereas the Quran says, "... do not take as allies... " Clearly those two phrases have different mandates to it. The former (Exodus) gives authority to oppress whereas the latter (Quran) simply warns not to trust the Jews (Zionists), the Christians (majority of Europe and the Americans) as well as those 'among you' (the Arab nations surrounding Palestine). At this point we should differentiate between Jews, Israel and Zionism. The state is Israel and the population consists of mostly ethnic Jews. Some Jews are Zionists and some not. Zionism is an ideology that reinforces the idea of 'Promised Land' via politics and apparently, now via military campaigns. For clarity, we should reduce the war reference to the Zionists.

The Quran refers to the 'Yahudi' (the Jews) as there were no words to describe Zionism or the State of Israel those days. The Quran must be read with intelligence whereby if there are Jews who oppose Zionism, they are therefore not to be within that definition of 'Yahudi'. Similarly, the Quran refers to the 'Nasrani' (the Christians) and should there be Christians who are friends with Muslims, they are not to be taken as the 'Nasrani' that was referred to earlier. Can the same be said (exclusivity of exempted cases)  about the reference to the Palestinians in the Old Testament? Well, yes! in fact the Quran (instead of the Old Testament) did mention "whoever is an ally to them among you" to exempt the Palestinians or the Arabs who are supporting the Israel from being trusted by the Muslims - a positive factor in the eyes of the Israelis.

Why did I choose those specific phrases from Exodus and Quran? Well, simply to rebut a blog post that uses those phrases - Huffpost blog post entitled "7 Things to Consider Before Choosing Sides in the Middle East Conflict." The blog also mentioned that Muslims are guided by a hadith that warrants Muslims to kill Jews behind Gharqad trees. This cannot be taken out of context. It did not say kill Jews. It says kill Jews behind Gharqad trees. What this really means is that the Muslims are allowed to kill Jews who are oppressing you, that is, who are approaching to invade your (Palestinians) land. The Quran predicted the situation whereby the oppressor would be hiding behind the Gharqad trees. We have news that Netanyahu's armies have planted such trees at the border of Gaza as a strategy to minimise Palestinians movement with the aim of expanding the land further. Surely this does not involve the Jews who are innocent. It should be acknowledged that the Quran only warrants killing when justified by oppression whereas the reference to the Old Testament seem to lack such parameter, at least in the one referred to by the Huffpost blog.

Secular arguments fuelling the Palestinian conflict

We have established earlier that religion has its role in the conflict. But many keep on saying that this is not about religion and claim that this is about land, economy and politics. Well, I cannot disagree. Whilst religion is at the heart of the conflict, we cannot rule out secular arguments as religion references did mention 'Land' (Occupied Palestine).  That in itself is a mega link. How else would you 'acquire' the Land if not by economic, political or military means? Similarly, why else would you want to 'acquire' the Land if not because of economic, political and military benefits and advantages? Israel uses the Governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom, the Arab nations and many more as a political tool to establish its significance in a Muslim dominated region. Palestinians may have used politics but to re-establish the land they used to live on. See the difference?

Israel blocks supplies into Palestine and controls the movement on the infrastructure within Palestine. This dampens the economic growth of the Palestinians. Without supplies and proper infrastructure, Palestine will be (has already been) crippled. No schools. No transportation. No supplies. No resources. All of which, are recipe for a deteriorating economy. Not to mention the Palestinian's inability (because of the earlier said constraints) to harvest the huge gas reserves of the shores of Gaza - that can be a wealthy source of economic substance to Israel if they grab hold of Gaza - catch my drift?!. Finally, military enforcement is the best way of strengthening the military presence in the region. Surrounded by Arab nations, Israel will require a more prominent strategic military positions securing Red Sea linkage to the Mediterranean Sea, the European gateway to the East as well as the abolishment of the closest opponent military force (Hamas). All these factors make it easy for us to understand why Israel should want to occupy Palestine (although inhumane).

Let's drill further into the economic side of all this. Referring to an article on 10 July 2014 at www.globalresearch.ca  entitled "War and Natural Gas: The Israeli Invasion and Gaza’s Offshore Gas Fields", the following extract puts the earlier point on economy into perspective:

Five years ago, Israel invaded Gaza under “Operation Cast Lead”. An article was published by Global Research in January 2009 at the height of the Israeli bombing and invasion under Operation Cast Lead. In the wake of the invasion, Palestinian gas fields were de facto confiscated by Israel in derogation of international law. A year following “Operation Cast Lead”,  Tel Aviv announced the discovery of  the Leviathan natural gas field in the Eastern Mediterranean “off the coast of Israel.” At the time the gas field was: “ … the most prominent field ever found in the sub-explored area of the Levantine Basin, which covers about 83,000 square kilometres of the eastern Mediterranean region.” Coupled with Tamar field, in the same location, discovered in 2009, the prospects are for an energy bonanza for Israel, for Houston, Texas based Noble Energy and partners Delek Drilling, Avner Oil Exploration and Ratio Oil Exploration. (See Felicity Arbuthnot, Israel: Gas, Oil and Trouble in the Levant, Global Research, December 30, 2013). The Gazan gas fields are part of the broader Levant assessment area. What is now unfolding is the integration of these adjoining gas fields including those belonging to Palestine into the orbit of Israel. (see map above). It should be noted that the entire Eastern Mediterranean coastline extending from Egypt’s Sinai to Syria constitutes an area encompassing large gas as well as oil reserves. 

My first reaction to the above finding was (still is), "Wow!!!!!" This is a mega deal man. Multi-billion dollar deal. This reminds me of some comments made by my friends suggesting that if Israel wanted to kill all Palestinians, they would have done so long time ago. They claim that this is not about Zionists wanting to kill Muslims for ethnic cleansing or religion for that matter. Well, let's just, hypothetically, accept that argument. Let's say that yes, Zionists are not after the Muslims in Palestine.... Errrr... Duhhh.. of course! They are after the damn gas reserves right? I think I agree with the claim now because I found the above article on 'gas reserves' as a reason to explain why Israel did what they did (and what they will do further) - expansion for gas reserves control and not because of religion - how convenient, as they already have the holy land (Jerusalem).
Accusations made on Hamas and how history shapes the current complexity

Hamas has been accused of drawing first blood and using civilians as human shields. Hamas was also accused of launching rockets from densely populated areas including hospitals and schools.  This is said to cause very little damage on the Israeli's side but great damage on the Gaza side. Hamas was also blamed for not accepting Israel's decision to pull out soldiers and settlers in 2005 as well as opening border crossings to facilitate commerce. Israel even gave 3,000 greenhouses to produce fruits and flowers for the economy. Hamas was also accused of not choosing to invest in schools, trade or infrastructure. Worse still, Hamas invested in underground tunnels to facilitate military campaign against Israel. Hamas also did not build bomb shelters for the Palestinians and as a result, Palestinians face the bombs being dropped on their roofs. In a nutshell, Hamas is accused of disordering priorities and could have sought help from neighbouring rich Arab nations.

In order to understand the complexities of the Palestinian people supporting Hamas to the extent that they allow themselves to be faced with sufferings, we ought to understand the history. In 1948 the British Government 'awarded' the land they call Israel now to the Jewish people that was led by Zionists. Since then, there have been many conflicts including the infamous 7-day war involving Egypt on the Palestinian's side. This is clearly the response to the giving away of land that belonged to the Palestinians. In a way, the oppression was started by the British and its allies. Understandably, the British Government (and the United States of America (USA)) had already been infested by Zionists. The 5 million Palestinians have always fought against Israel. They may be stupid fools throwing stones at a bunch of Israeli soldiers shooting machineguns but they were reacting to the oppression. With or without Hamas, what you see (assisting military force for Palestine) would have happened anyways. Hamas only came into existence in 1987, which is 39 years after the creation of the State of Israel in 1948.

Still scanning through history, one must remember that the oppression was not only from Israeli's side. it was also at the United Nations  (UN) level where Palestine could not be granted full member status by the UN as the USA (ally of Israel) threatened to veto against it at the Securities Council in 2011. In the end, they only got a Non Member State Observer status only. How do you respond to that? Any nation would continue to fight (even if it means sacrificing lives). Mind you, the USA funds USD3 billion a year of its tax payers monies to Israel particularly to support military campaigns against Palestine. Today, the USA is trying to show that they care and that they want to champion a peace treaty between the Palestinians and the Israelis. One cannot ignore how superficial this looks like. They (US) seem to portray characteristics of a hypocrite and what is worse (or worst) is that, the entire world seems to be blinded by them (or choose to remain silent). With all this painful history and the continuous blockade of the Palestinians, one can only ignore logic and start 'feeling' the unhealthy psychological development of the people of Palestine. No wonder they are willing to work together with Hamas and ended up having their kids and wives blown up into pieces. 
Israel kept on using Hamas' rockets as a reason to do a full military attack on civilians. In a way, the civilians themselves have evolved into military agents of sorts. I have read many non-conventional media to uncover that the accusations on Hamas are not all necessarily correct. Many times in the past Hamas respected peace agreements but started firing rockets again because Israel drew first blood - an example would be Israel's massive crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank during a ceasefire agreement. Conventional media may have reported differently but how do you conclude when 2 separate groups of media report contradictory findings? Of course the more pervasive one would be the conventional media that is controlled by the Zionists (An idea promoted by Henry Ford in his thesis, the International Jew, to prove the authenticity of the Zionist's secret blue print to control the world, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion). To demonstrate a point, Hamas even sent some of its Palestinian members to jail for disobeying peace treaties. There are many examples that I can give but to cut the story short and to have a rough feel of the contradictory messages (as opposed to conventional media), I urge you to read www.salon.com 29 July 2014 article entitled "Debunking the Myths About Gaza: the Truth Behind Israeli and Palestinian Talking Points."

The recent war was said to have been erupted when Hamas kidnapped 3 Israeli teenagers. Before any validity, Netanyahu sent his military force to bulldoze Gaza only to later confirm that Hamas was not involved. How crucial was that validity? Clearly this shows that any reason, whether justified or not, serves as justification to war anyway. Even if Hamas was behind it, the conventional media did not emphasise that 10 days earlier (from the kidnapping) a 10 year old Palestinian kid was killed in an airstrike by the Israelis. So who drew first blood? The simple fact is that Israel has all the intentions to demolish Hamas following the potential threat it can be if Hamas were to combine forces with its brothers in the West Bank forming a United Palestinian Leadership (which was progressing anyway).

In the past Israelis offered a retreat of its soldiers and open borders. This meant nothing. For the Palestinians it is as if they were asked to accept slavery. The offer was on the back of Israelis still controlling the borders, the roads, the supplies, the land and everything else under the sun. It is like saying, "O.K. we will stop bombing you and let you live your lives but as our slaves." Who in their right mind accepts that especially when their families have died previously defending the very right to freedom? 3,000 greenhouses to produce fruits and flowers for the economy means nothing if the economy is still controlled by the Israelis. As I mentioned earlier, logic (IQ) does not work. Psychological comprehension (EQ) is what fuels the Palestinians. You must put your self in their shoes. Feel them. 66 years of oppression surely is more than enough to psychologically turn the people of Palestine into fighters - fighter for their own freedom - fighter to protect the remaining 22% of their land not yet occupied by the Israelis (for which Israelis are subtly expanding into by way of illegal settlements) - fighters mistakenly labelled as terrorists. 

Before I forget about the question on 'help from neighbouring rich Arab nations', I think it is pretty clear that the neighbouring Arab countries did very little to assist their Palestinian brothers. Firstly, Egypt had blocked the South border of Gaza that traps Gazans in an open air prison while Israelis are attacking from the North and the West - One can only wonder whether this is an intentional colluding act. Saudi King superficially expressed concerns after 25 days of Gaza being destroyed. Never did he offer any help earlier (unlike the late King Faisal who was murdered for championing the Palestinian course). Countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arabs Emirates, Bahrain and many more are practically under the grips of the USA Government that is controlled by the Zionists. This is the result of many years of subtle political colonisation in the name of oil. Meanwhile, USA had also paralysed countries like Iraq, Egypt and Libya via military campaigns and toppling of Governments of those countries. Meanwhile, Syria and Iran are busy dealing with almost 180,000 killings of Muslims in their countries by the ISIS militant group rumoured to have been organised by the Western super powers' intelligence agencies inclusive of CIA and Mossad.

So what now?

So what? Well, we need a remedy. A remedy that is biased towards the oppressor is not a remedy. Some may argue that we should not look back at history because history is full of vendettas and vendettas will never end the conflict. Some also say that there are 3 generations of Israelis who were born in Israel which gives them the right to claim the land. Some also say that you really don't have to choose between being "pro-Israel" or "pro-Palestine" - i.e. support secularism, democracy and a two-state solution - at the same time oppose Hamas, oppose settlement expansion/occupation and don't pick a side. Some also say that there is no use posting images of the dead Palestinians on Facebook as it will not make any difference and disrespectful to the demised family members.

In my humble opinion, the 22% should be left alone and Israelis should retreat back into the Israel that was given to them in 1948. Even if we are to ignore history, moving forward, Israelis must not be allowed to occupy more land than what they have stolen. Giving excuses to expand land in order to distant settlements away from the firing distance of Hamas rockets is no longer acceptable as Israel has proven themselves not trustworthy when they kept on putting in settlement right till the edge of the border whenever they expand their invasion in the name of Hamas' rockets. If West Bank and Gaza wants to combine into a united front, so be it as it is their freedom to choose.

As for the Facebook postings, no matter how ugly and painful those images can be, I believe it must be made public. Awareness must be shouted. This needs to be exposed. If previously it was said that Zionists control media, the age of social media now works against that. Why? Because now everybody can publish. Of course Facebook is owned by a Jew but so far, I have seen numerous postings against Zionists on Facebook. It is either Facebook is not Zionist or they just cannot stop an inertia so strong and pervasive evidenced by the numerous rallies across the globe involving both Muslims and Non-Muslims (inclusive of Non-Zionist Jews) supporting Gaza. The voice of the people is strong.
Some Governments had to take action in response to their people's pressure even if the action is a mere declaration. Ireland has blocked supplies of goods from Israel. Argentinian President has revoked any Argentinian passports given to holders of Israeli passports. Germany's Deutschbank has blacklisted Israeli banks who finance the properties of Israeli settlements on occupied Palestine. Many countries have asked Israeli embassies to be closed. People around the world are boycotting Israeli products or products of companies that heavily give financial assistance to Zionism. In the end, it is more compelling for you to take the Palestinian's side because to remain silence (or worse, to support Israel) is simply incomprehensible in light of the arguments put forth earlier.

In the end, it is more compelling for you to take the Palestinian's side because to remain silence (or worse, to support Israel) is simply incomprehensible....

* kopihangtuah

| mcmlxxv:viii:xxix |
There was an error in this gadget