In a citation at a dinner hosted by the American Jewish Congress (AJC), Senator Tom Lantos said the Congress had noted Musharraf as “a man of vision” and “an indispensable leader,” who has emerged as “the quintessential Muslim leader of moderation, decency, reason, and acceptance of pluralism.”
Earlier Musharraf was given a standing ovation and big round of applause as he stepped into the conference room for the dinner-meeting with leaders of the American Jewish Congress.
Musharraf said he gave a military salute to the audience because he could not “imagine that a Muslim and that too a Pakistani and more than that a man in uniform would ever get such a warm reception and such an applause from the Jewish community.”
How naÃ¯ve of the General who pretended as if he could not understand the reason behind glowing tributes and comments such as: “President Musharraf’s decision to be with us tonight is an act of individual courage, leadership and vision.”
All Muslim opportunists realize the importance of the Zionist influence on American political leaders. To please their masters in Washington, Muslim opportunists have resorted to making themselves acceptable to the Jewish lobby in the US. These opportunists understand each other’s motives very well. Hussain Haqqani, a fellow at the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, has been mingling with Zionist organizations since his arrival in the US. He has been lecturing the Board of Directors of Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) for quite some time on the same themes as Musharraf did lately.
Haqqani doubts Musharraf’s intentions. He says, “what remains to be seen is whether the move is aimed only at garnering further US support or is it actually based on a desire for genuine change.” The military and civilian opportunists didn’t come into being just recently. These are the product of the comprehensive moves by Hindu fundamentalists, Zionists and Christian Zionists since the inception of Pakistan. Such opportunists have been thriving under the combined influence of these forces since then. The civilian opportunists seem to be the strongest opponents of the military role, but when it comes to Pakistan’s policy toward Israel, both sound exactly the same.
For example consider Hussain Haqqani’s article, published in the Nation Pakistan, on July 23, 2003 and compare his ideas with General Musharraf’s statements and approach since then.
Both the military and civilian “moderates” believe, Israel is “a reality and it might be in Pakistan’s interest to overcome ideology to recognize reality.”
Both suggest, Pakistan can “wait a little longer to be part of its collective recognition by the Arab-Islamic world.”
Both see religious elements “enforcing ideological paradigms on an unwilling Pakistani populace.”
Both conclude, “Pakistan’s options for success and development would certainly be better as a functional democratic state, which retains its Islamic ethos through the conviction of its citizens rather than by the enforcement of conflicting theocratic visions.”
The issue of Israel’s reality is discussed in detail later in this chapter. Here we need to analyze similarity of the approach between the civilian and military “moderates” and their promoters in the US. Haqqani and other secularists’ criticism of Musharraf is just for the sake of criticism to curry more favor with Zionists with the use of misleading statements. In his 1200 word essay, Haqqani introduces the idea of anti-Semitism in Pakistan. He wants to score more points than Musharraf by stating: “Violent ideas, including anti-Semitism and sectarianism, should be eliminated to pave the way for a tolerant society” to give the impression that Pakistanis hate Jews.
In promoting such lies, the secularists ignore the basic message of the Qur’an and the fact that Pakistanis have nothing against Jews. The message of the Qur’an is to recognize and defend the rights of Jews and other people of the book whether in Israel or in the diaspora to live in peace, to worship freely, to protect their identity and to express themselves. The people of the book, while they rely basically on God’s revelation, have moral precepts and know what is lawful and what is not. For this reason, if one of the people of the book cooks some food, it is lawful for Muslims to eat it. In the same way, permission has been given to a Muslim man to marry a woman from among the people of the book (Qur’an 5:05). Muslims must respect Christian and Jewish places of worship (Qur’an 22:40). In many verses, friendship is recommended even with the idolaters (Qur’an 9:06). Concerning the People of the Book, God gives Muslims a command in the Qur’an to rally to a common formula with Christians and Jews towards peace (Qur’an 3:64).
These commands show that bonds of kinship may be established as a result of the marriage of a Muslim with a woman from the people of the book and that those on each side of the union can accept an invitation to a meal. These are the fundamentals that will ensure the establishment of equitable human relationships and a happy communal life. Since the Qur’an enjoins this equitable and tolerant attitude, it is unthinkable that a Muslim, whether Pakistani or not, could take an opposing view.
When the self-proclaimed “moderates” ignore the core message of the Qur’an and blame Pakistanis as a whole for anti-Semitism, they ignore that every Muslim must oppose anti-Semitism as he would oppose every other racist ideology; he must resist this ideology of hatred and defend the rights of Jews as he would defend the rights of all other people.
Nevertheless, Muslims and all other people of conscience, have the right to justly condemn the cruel and aggressive policies of the State of Israel. But to condemn Israel and criticize its official Zionist ideology has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. The reason Pakistanis object to Zionism is that Zionism is also considered to be a racist ideology. Anti-Semitism is rejected for the same reason.
The crimes committed by Israel in the present day against the Palestinian people are painfully thoroughly documented, but all this must not be taken by Muslims as a cause to feel hostility against the Jewish people. The crimes committed by a group of Jews in allegiance to their Zionist ideology should never be blamed on Judaism or the Jewish people. Muslims who pledge allegiance to the same racist ideology also become Zionists by default and become subject to the same criticism.
The mutual criticism of civilian and military “moderates” and their calling Pakistanis as anti-Semite are all part of the wider “war within Islam” that was so earnestly dreamed up by Thomas Friedman of the New York Times and others. It is not only the so-labeled Islamists vs. secularists, but also the self-proclaimed moderates vs. moderates. What else could the Islamophobes desire.
It is a dream of a minority but powerful anti-Muslim lobby to eradicate Islam from the face of the earth. Pakistan was presented as a bastion of Islam and it was quite natural to see all anti-Islam forces teaming up against this bastion. Their last three centuries of persistent efforts has given rise to pseudo-Islamic cults, new sects, sects redefined, and corrupted orders within Islam. In the last fifteen years, their message has been crystallized. They summed up a new acceptable brand of Islam, called “moderate” Islam as discussed under Musharraf’s doctrine in chapter 1, which clearly calls on Muslims to accept part of the Qur’an and stop believing it as the final manifesto of God.
Muslim opportunists are working under the same influence. The political and intellectual moves that we witness are the direct result of this influence of the enemies of Islam. The leading among these forces are pro-Zionist intellectuals. The Pakistani leaders have succumbed to the Zionist influence to different degrees in the past, but Musharraf has surpassed everyone in the degree he has surrendered to the Zionist pressure.
A recent Israeli study, “Beyond the Veil,” brings to light what Pakistan’s own `pro-Israeli’ lobby’ has been doing since 1947. “Beyond the Veil” is necessarily incomplete, based on only Israeli sources and other published matter. Even so, as they are, parts of the Tel Aviv University study make a disgraceful reading for the Pakistani nation.
According to the Israeli study:
"At one time or another, important Pakistani leaders, such as the articulate Foreign Minister Sir Zafrulla Khan (1947-54), military dictators Ayub Khan (1958-69), Yayha Khan (1969-71) and Zia ul-Haq (1977-88) and Prime Ministers Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (1972-77), Benazir Bhutto (1988-90 and 1994-96) and Nawaz Sharif (1990-93 and 1997-99) were sympathetic toward Israel or facilitated interactions with Israeli leaders, diplomats or officials. They were not alone. A host of Pakistani officials and diplomats have met, discussed and at times dined with their Israeli counterparts. Such contacts were held primarily in Washington, London or at the United Nations headquarters in New York. At the same time, a number of other locations, such as Rangoon, Kathmandu and Tokyo in Asia, Lagos in Africa, Ankara and Tehran in the Middle East, Caracas and Ottawa in the Americas and Brussels and Rome in Europe also functioned as meeting points for Israeli and Pakistani diplomats."
Quoting the above statement in no way implies that the listed Pakistani leaders were traitors to Islam. They were, in fact, traitors to the cause they publicly stood for. They were traitors to themselves. They could not achieve what they publicly stood for because they were not sincere to the stated cause. They deceived their people and acted against what they stated at public forums, such as their rhetoric at the UN. The details that follow show what has actually made their actions disgraceful. Everyone knows that the American black activists who called for bloody revolution harmed the cause of racial equality. Martin Luther King Jr. with his call for non-violent resistance advanced the cause of civil rights in America. No one says the only solution to the problem in the Middle East lies in killing or exiling all Jews and the above mentioned leaders are wrong because they were exploring other ways of winning justice for Palestinians while accepting the right of Israelis to some living space. The issue is of hypocrisy and deceit. Truth and justice never need concealment or moves under the table. But they were not sincere to their public statements and publicly proposed ways for ensuring justice and equality.
The following facts about the previous Pakistani leadership show that Musharraf stands in stark contrast to them. He seems to be saying: If you could deal privately with anti-Islam forces, I dare to do it publicly. If you could sell Pakistan’s interests on the sly, I dare sell it publicly without any fear or hesitation. One can argue that Musharraf’s talking to Israelis is not selling anything because the Irish government is not selling the rights of the Irish by talking to the British. Here, one needs to keep the difference in mind. Musharraf is not negotiating any solutions and proposals for peace. He is accepting the unacceptable before reaching any solution, as we will see in detail below.
The reason for this attitude on Musharraf’s part is simple. The times have changed. The war on Islam was waged under cover and now it is openly referred to as a crusade without any hesitation.
Muslims are openly told that they have to live by secular laws. Iraqis were clearly told that the Qur’an cannot be the only source of their laws. A reference to the Qur’an in Afghanistan’s constitution was a “troubling aspect” for the New York Times editors. In such an environment, the modern day fascists do not need covert friends, like the ones listed above. They want overt collaborators. That is the reason Musharraf gets standing ovation as well as Congressional citations, noting him to be a “man of vision,” unaware that the Washington Post will prove him a liar a week later.
During the days of covert war on Islam, Zafrulla Khan, the first foreign minister of Pakistan, can rightly be described as the ideological father of Pakistan’s laid-back and ever-submissive foreign policy. Beyond the Veil reveals that the man who was acclaimed all over the Arab world for his eloquent advocacy of the Palestinian and Arab cause at the UN and other international forums was not quite honest to his brief. Zafrulla Khan publicly said in Cairo in February 1952 that Israel must be “regarded as a limb in the body of the Middle East.” He further urged Egypt to seek a peaceful solution of the conflict! In other words, to give up any thought of liberating Arab and Palestinian lands and recognize the illegitimate occupation of Palestine.
Israeli occupation of the Arab land is illegitimate because never in history a people has made such claims as the Zionists are making. Look at South Africa. The local population was conquered and enslaved by the Zulus. Some time later, the Dutch arrived and in turn subjugated them. Then the Brits conquered the Dutch. Should everyone be exiled except “the original” inhabitants? Should everyone be making claims on the basis of theological argument dating back to 3000 years? How about the Indians claiming right to the US land and demanding all the aliens to leave because occupation of their land is not even 500 years old? The best way to deal with the inequalities of history is to get over them, analyze the current situation and find the solution that is the most just for everyone. This is typically a compromise, which we don’t see on the part of Israel despite the 58 years of occupation, displacement and dispossession of the people it occupied.
Going back in history, there were once Celts, Anglo-Saxons and Normans in Britain. Now, you can be 100% Welsh and live happily with someone who is 50% Norman and 50% Saxon. There are people who cherish their Scottish ancestry, would never marry someone who is not Scottish, and choose to hate the English. As long as they don’t impose their views on others, they are free to follow their traditions. Someone must explain how this is not in principle possible in the Holy Land. If, magically, everyone there was given good will and tolerance, we could have a State that cherished the three main religions equally, which is a much vaunted principle of secular state anyway. Instead of rushing into recognizing a racist Zionist regime, which doesn’t want anyone other than a single race on its soil, cooler heads ask: Jews could live purely within their religion while their neighbor was a devout Muslims: Is this not better than mutual genocide? Such basic questions don’t cross minds of those, who like Musharraf are bent upon seeking legitimacy and recognition for themselves. Musharraf cannot even see what correspondent of the New York Times has to tell the world in his famous 1986 book Arab and Jews: Wounded Spirits in a Promised Land, David Shipler writes on page 438:
"Non Jews are excluded from sharing authority and participating fully by the basic fact that Israel is a Jewish state, conceived as a sanctuary and vehicle of Jewish life and representing a culmination of Jewish power and self-reliance. Israel has never resolved the contradiction inherent in having an Arab population in a “Jewish state.” But two other forces also bolster discrimination against Arabs. One is the obstacle of military preparedness and security, which in a defense-oriented economy closes off important avenues of advancement to Arabs. The other is the culture of poverty, in which a cycle of inferior education, impoverished living conditions, low motivation, and a lack of investment capital renders Arabs economically dependent on Jews. As a result, the Arabs have become Israel’s underclass, a continuation of their inferior position that grew out of the 1948 fighting, when those Arabs who fled were often the wealthiest urban residents who could afford to go and those who stayed were generally the most rural and the least privileged."
The tragedy with Pakistan vis-Ã -vis Israel that began in 1947 is simply reaching its climax in the 21st century under General Musharraf. Zafrullah Khan was appointed by Jinnah himself. In October 1947, soon after the emergence of Pakistan, Jinnah warned that the partition of Palestine would entail “the gravest danger and unprecedented conflict and that the entire Muslim world will revolt against such a decision which can not be supported historically, politically and morally.” Soon afterwards, Pakistan proclaimed at the United Nations that all the Holy Land was being nailed and stretched on the cross. Surprisingly, all these words came from the mouths of those who were being held hostage by the Zionist influence.
Feroz Khan Noon recognized Israel ex gratia by declaring “Israel had come to stay” and Zafrullah Khan declared in 1952 that Israel must be regarded as “a limb in the body of the Middle East.”
Before considering the background of these individuals, let us have a look at the argument that maybe they honestly believed this. Maybe they were right. After all, Jinnah pushed for the partition of India. Why was the same solution not also good in Palestine? The answer is that if these individuals honestly believed so, they were not supposed to say something totally different at the UN in favor of the suffering Palestinians. The world could have reached a solution if they were not saying one thing to the world and another to their Zionist friends.
Moreover, in the case of Pakistan, there were no claims laid over the land, nor were any competing claims of different religions over this land. Muslims were in a majority and already living in this part of the South Asia. The situation in Israel is totally different as a result of rejecting all that has been offered to it since its inception, including partition on the basis of equality.
As far their backgrounds, Feroz Khan Noon came from a typically feudal family, the kind of pillars on which the British colonialism had stood. Duly knighted along the way, he had served as high commissioner for (British) India in London (1936-41) and as member of Viceroy’s executive council (1941-45).
These serving members of the colonialists dominated affairs of nascent Pakistan and were considered loyal to its objectives. Sir Feroz, an empire loyalist with an Austrian Jewish wife, seemed to have become a Zionist by marriage. We may give Feroz Khan the benefit of the doubt by considering him a tolerant person, accepting of differences. But his committed service to colonialism exposes his real face. He was serving as high commissioner for India in London before the partition in 1936-41, when the colonial secretary, Lord Moyne, asked him to prepare a draft scheme for creating a Jewish state in Arab Palestine, but in a way that British imperialist do not get blamed for being anti-Arab or pro- Zionist. The can-do knight submitted his proposal to the secretary of state for India, Leopold Amery, who too happened to be Jewish. Noon proposed that they first create an Arabian federation, but also slip in an autonomous Jewish state within that federation. This Jewish entity should be a part of the treaty creating the federation.
The full-blown Jewish state would come into existence later, Sir Feroz explained, but the federation would provide the cover that they all needed so that no Muslim ruler could blame England for having created a Jewish state in Palestine or part of Palestine’. According to declassified papers from British Government (file No: F0372-275-E6190/53/65), Noon’s proposals were forwarded by Amery to Churchill on 10 September 1945.
Zafrulla Khan also belonged to the heterodox Ahmadi group, created by the colonialists, which made Ahamdis loyal to the British empire by their “faith.” Zafrulla also served the colonists and in 1945 represented the British Indian government at a conference on Commonwealth Relations. He met the head of the Jewish Agency Chaim Weizmann, who organized his six-day visit to Palestine.
According to Tel Aviv University’s latest study, Weizmann (later president of the Zionist entity) told his men in Jerusalem to “see to it that (Zafrulla’s) stay in Palestine, and his contacts with our work, are made as interesting and as agreeable as possible.” And so it happened. Having allowed himself to be taken on a conducted tour by the Zionist Agency, it seems Zafrulla did undergo an “agreeable” change of mind. He wrote to Weizmann that he found the problem of Palestine “much more complicated than I had imagined, but let its hope that a just and equitable solution may soon be discovered.” Surely any decent person has to agree with such a sentiment. The question, however, is that being in a position to speak truth to power, what did he actually do to help the parties reach a “just and equitable solution.” He was just expressing regrets over his public stand on the issue.
Zafrulla did not indicate, though, what complications had since entered his mind, nor, what would make “a just and equitable solution.” He was economical with the truth. However, two years later after the UN had adopted the partition resolution (November 29, 1947), Israeli orientalist Uriel Heyd, who was also working for the Zionist intelligence in London, reported “noticeable changes in the position of Zafrulla Khan…During his talks in Damascus, Zafrulla Khan indicated that partition, which he [as Pakistan’s foreign minister had] vehemently opposed, was the only solution for Palestine. He even counseled the Arabs to allow the establishment of the Jewish state.” It was not a volte face, it was a double face.
The sad part of this saga is that Zafrulla Khan and Feroz Khan Noon were not the only individuals who deceived the nation and betrayed the Palestinians. What they were doing then, or Musharraf is doing now, cannot even be justified as using diplomacy in support of Palestinians. There were many others working on their respective projects, who remained unknown. The extent of the Zionist influence can be judged from the fact that in 1950 (May-June) Pakistan’s first Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan visited the United States and American leaders of trade and industry met him. At the meeting they promised all possible military and economic assistance if Pakistan recognized Israel. The American industrialists also underlined the importance of such a package for the new state of Pakistan. Liaqat Ali Khan in his known gentle tone replied: “Gentlemen! Our soul is not for sale.”
Nevertheless, it is extremely surprising to know that Zafrulla had kept telling Israelis that Pakistan was about to recognize Israel. So when Abba Eban saw him in New York on January 14, 1953, as part of their continuing dialogue, Zafrulla “disclosed” to him that while the previous government of Liaqat Ali Khan favored the policy of recognizing Israel, the government now headed by Prime Minister Khawaja Nazimuddin (1894-1964) “‘had retreated from the favorable approach adopted by his predecessor.” This government “was weaker and more susceptible to public pressure from Muslim extremists.” He himself, Zafrulla told Abba Eban, “was attacked for his moderation.” It shows Musharraf’s moderation is not a new mantra either.
These “founding” figures of Pakistan’s foreign services shaped the minds and ideology of a totally raw and unformed diplomatic service. The first batches of the Foreign Service were “trained” in Britain, Canada or the US; when they came back they very well knew how to serve the interests of the new imperial power against the interest of Pakistan. The vision and raison d’Ãªtre of the nation was no more than a joke for them. At best, Islam remained a slogan to make everything acceptable to the masses.
Pakistan’s history is replete with hypocrites who provided full support to the views of Feroz Khan Noon and Zafrulla Khan. The prime minister, Husain Shaheed Suhrawardy and the president, Iskandar Mirza, fully agreed with Noon. Mirza, too, had started his career as a British Political Agent in the tribal districts of the North West Frontier. Later on, Ayub Khan, who followed Noon and Mirza, had to work with the same pro-Zionist and pro-imperialist policy tools.
Musharraf, too, is surrounded by personalities who are either known Ahmadis or have ties with those who are in charge of the modern day crusade. Pakistani hypocrites are not exposed to the nation. But outsiders know them very well. The evidence lies in the world’s silence over Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and its willingness to even go to war with Iran and North Korea to prevent them from becoming nuclear powers. The outside world knows what Pakistani leaders and representatives tell them in private. Pakistanis can guess it from the incident reported by the Israeli Ambassador to Canada, M.S. Comay. On December 23, 1956, just weeks after the cease-fire between Egypt and Israel, but before Israel withdrew from Sinai, the Indian embassy in Canada hosted a reception in honor of Indian Prime Minister Nehru. Among others, the Israeli and Pakistani ambassadors were invited. Reporting on his conversation with his Pakistani counterpart, Israeli Ambassador M.S. Comay recorded:
"…the Pakistan High Commissioner Mirza Osman Ali Baig publicly came up to me, shook me by the hand, and warmly congratulated me on the ‘wonderful show your splendid little army put up in beating the Egyptians.’ His only regret was that the British and the French had intervened, otherwise we might have gone right through to Cairo."
Dr. Shahid Qureshi, London bureau Chief of the Frontier Post, argues that it is impossible to assume that Baig was speaking for himself alone: “He certainly represented a certain small but insidious and powerful toady-Zionist-Qadiyani nexus within the country’s foreign policy establishment, especially that has continued to blight Pakistan’s foreign policy and external relations to this day. Perhaps there is no other country today, which is as friendless and as isolated as Pakistan.”
Under Musharraf, Pakistan has become totally bereft of its founding vision, which it started losing after the assassination of its first legitimate prime minister, Liaqat Ali Khan. The policy of subservience which passed into the hands of characters like Zafrulla and Noon and their offspring culminated in total surrender at the hands of cronies surrounding Musharraf.
Pakistan and Israel are the only two countries on the globe formed on the basis of religion: Pakistan, on the basis of Islam, and Israel on the basis of Jewish ancestry. Under Musharraf, Pakistan surrendered its raison d’Ãªtre whereas the whole non-Muslim world seems united to defend the Jewish character of the Israeli state. Pakistan, a Muslim country, has gone always with the plea that it will follow the wishes of the Muslim Ummah. But Musharraf’s doctrine in practice is based on directions and approval from Washington.
Musharraf clearly told the nation on January 12, 2002 that Pakistan is not responsible for the Muslim world. After getting a lesson in Camp David in 2003, he returned home with a message that the heavens won’t fall if he recognized Israel and indulged in the rhetoric, “would we be more Catholic than Pope and more Palestinian than the Palestinians themselves” forgetting completely about the Arab League resolution passed in Beirut that Israel should not be recognized unless it completely withdrew from the land it occupied in 1967.
Besides personal motivation, Musharraf has been under a great deal of pressure from his pro-Zionist Western mentors and Pakistani cronies to recognize Israel. The recent Gaza pullout gave them the stick to browbeat the General into taking initiatives that would soon bring about Pakistan’s full recognition of Israel. He had also been told that a positive gesture could mean further extension of his absolute hold on power which Washington does not consider an embarrassment to its current campaign for marketing democracy as a global phenomenon. The US has always supported governments that give it financial and political benefits, regardless of ideology or human rights. The talk of Democracy is just that–”talk.
The US is now pressing Musharraf due to Israel’s obsession for recognition. As far as Musharraf’s dictatorship is concerned, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has defended the use of military force to advance the cause of democracy and liberty as “the only guarantee of true stability and lasting security.”
Supporting the tyranny of Musharraf is part of this agenda. Hitler made that same claim, and Germany under Hitler was stable and secure for a few months. The US administration hardly realizes that one doesn’t make people free by pointing guns at them. The way to set people free is to leave them alone to determine their own destiny and way of life without occupation and dictatorial rulers.
To understand Pakistan and its dictator’s position as a pawn in the Zionist game one has to understand the Zionist strategy and its main objectives which are to: 1. Keep the US, UK, India (for neutralizing Pakistan) and Israel under full control; 2. Keep all the countries in the Middle East and South Asia ( including Pakistan) unstable by imposing unpopular rulers or discrediting popular rulers, and creating new political parties or infiltrating existing ones with Zionist agents in the name of openness and democracy; 3.Use agents in politics and the press to create or exacerbate civil strife among ethnic groups, regions or sects that seek change in existing political boundaries to create smaller countries that would readily permit control over their resources (oil) and wealth (individual as well as national reserves); and 4. Preclude consolidation of the Greater Middle East (including Pakistan) and its emergence as a strong military power; even resorting to invasion to pre-empt such a possibility.
Pakistan figures prominently in all the Zionist objectives but Saudi Arabia is their most important target. Pakistan is a target because it is the only nuclear-powered nation with armed forces trained to fight a modern war. That is why one finds many schemes to undermine the Pakistani army through moves towards of secularization, internal conflicts and even perpetual dictatorship so as to completely devalue it in the eyes of its nation.
Zionist influence has reached its peak in Pakistan because Bush and Blair won re-elections and the Labour party is still on the sidelines in Israel. Similarly in India, the government is still under the influence of the BJP. Muslims are totally helpless before the traitors and subversives. The press in the Muslim world is subservient to the rulers who, in turn, are serving their Zionists-infected masters. They can hardly expose the Zionist strategy and plans against Islam and Muslims.
It is very unfortunate that under the influence of Zionists, Musharraf and other Muslim dictators and civilian sell-outs–””moderates”–”pretend that they do not see or know the realities on the ground. Musharraf and his “moderate” critics and colleagues believe that Israel is a reality that will not go away. To them it is a real estate issue, similar to British history in Ireland, the racial conflict in South Africa, Indians in Fiji, many of the genocidal racial conflicts in black Africa, and so on forever.
Jews somehow reached Palestine, now there are two groups of people with identifiable differences of some kind, sharing the same land and competing for resources. Which is the better way to address the issue: the IRA’s, or Nelson Mandela’s? The most important point to highlight is that no sane mind advocates genocide in Israel. Nevertheless, Musharraf and his company must be blind not to see the following facts:
1. Israel’s very foundation is based on racism. It will not exist without racism. It was not anti-Semites, but “most Israelis have argued that Israel cannot remain a Jewish state or a democracy if it incorporates the occupied territories, because Palestinians would alter the nation’s demographic balance.”
2. Not only Israel was founded on racism but through the means of terrorism, brutal murders of men, women and children, exiling 700,000 of them from occupying their lands, homes, gardens and farms. Among those events was the sadistic massacre of 254 Palestinian at Deir Yassin. It was an especially vicious, cold-blooded massacre characterized by Zionist forces cutting apart the bellies of pregnant women. Former Israel Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, a participant in this horrendous massacre, boasted of the terrorism of Deir Yassin. He wrote that there would not have been a State of Israel without the “victory” of Deir Yassin. “The Haganah carried out victorious attacks on other fronts… In a state of terror, the Arabs fled, crying, ‘Deir Yassin.”
3. One of the most important and influential newspapers in the United States, The Wall Street Journal, opined that the “right of return” of Palestinian refugees would result in the “demographic destruction of the Jewish state.” When the same views of a virtual ban on immigration into his nation were expressed by Austrian political leader, Jorge Haider, he was widely condemned in the mainstream media of the United States and Europe as a racist.
4. Not recognizing Israel is not a denial of reality. It is simply a denial to legitimize “an illegitimate child of Western powers.”
5. Asking to recognize Israel’s reality is no less than asking to legitimize Nazism because political Zionism and German Nazism bear some distinct similarities. Joachim Prinz, a former Vice-President of the World Jewish Congress, in 1934 praised the Nazi revolution (1933) in Germany: “Only a state based on the principle of the purity of the nation and the race can possibly endow dignity and honor on…those Jews who themselves subscribe to this principle.”
6. Zionism remains a political philosophy that is firmly grounded in the anti-integrationist racial thought of the past and present. A former member of Israel’s Supreme Court, Haim Cohen, described the system that applies to Jews and Palestinians in Israel as similar to “Nuremberg laws” of Nazi Germany: “…the bitter irony of fate which has led the same biological and racist laws propagated by the Nazis and which inspired the infamous Nuremberg laws, to serve as a basis for the definition of Judaism within the State of Israel.”
7. Israeli and American scientists are conducting studies to emphasis the biological history of the Jewish people and prove how the latter differ from the non-Jewish world. This information is used to define into existence a “Jewish race” and discriminate against non-Jews. Indeed, Jewish Zionists and their gentile supporters would probably demand immediate annihilation of the countries involved if, for example, it were found that Muslim scientists were attempting to determine how Muslims differ from non-Muslims in genetic-biological sense, and this information would be used to implement racially discriminatory policies.
8. These scientific studies have the objective to deny anyone the right to settle in Israel if he does not have “Jewish genes.” With this in mind, consider point four of the Nazi Party Program of May 25, 1920. It reads: “None but members of the nationality may be citizens of the state. None but those of German blood, irrespective of religion, may be members of the nationality.” In contemporary terms, only those with “German genes” could be citizens of Nazi Germany. Is this reality not enough to show the faÃ§ade of the Israeli Apartheid state?
9. In the words of Uri Davis, who is a Jewish citizen of Israel, but he prefers to describe himself as a Palestinian Jew, to mask Israeli apartheid, it was necessary to present Israel to the world as an advanced form of democracy. Thus, duplicitous legal structures were devised that effectively mask the racial discrimination and apartheid. A study of Israeli and South African apartheid published in the 1980s brought the reality to the forefront that “The parallels between South Africa’s system of legalized racism and that of Israel are well-known in academic circles but rarely discussed in the mainstream media, peace community or halls of Congress.” Former Congressman George W. Crockett, Jr. noted back in 1985 that “Here in Congress we are fighting against South Africa’s repressive measures, and yet closing our eyes to the institutional repression and the brutality that is daily being conducted against the Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied Arab territories.”
10. Ronnie Kasrils, a Jew, who was active in the fight against apartheid in South Africa from the 60’s onwards, told an international conference on Palestine, Israel and International Law at the Institute of Education in London (October 29-30, 2005) that the situation for Arabs in Israel & Palestine is “far worse” than that of the blacks in what was apartheid South Africa. He is currently Minister of Intelligence and Deputy Minister of Defence in South Africa.
11. The former editor-in-chief of the Rand Daily Mail (the Johannesburg newspaper that fought against South African apartheid), Raymond Louw, further clarifies the reality that the situation in the Israeli occupied territories is worse than the way things were under the South African apartheid regime because under South African apartheid “there was a recognition that the blacks would continue to live in these areas. Here the impression is that the objective is to push the Palestinians out.”
It is not that Musharraf does not know the above realities and he is only blinded by self-interest. It is simply that besides opportunism he is under Zionist influence and immense pressure. In short, General Musharraf is as helpless before the Zionist pressure and influence as is his nation before his brute force. He will remain so until he breathes his last or the Zionists achieve their objectives. There is absolutely no hope that he can release himself from Zionist clutches. As long as he remains entangled in the Zionist and the neo-cons web, as long as Pakistan remains under their influence, its sovereignty and independence will remain at stake.
We know that Pakistan is not what it was envisaged by Muslims before 1947. There must not be any doubt that Pakistan will cease to exist if the same timidity, hypocrisy, selfishness and greed remain part of the agenda of its self-appointed leader.
This is an excerpt from the author’s latest book, “The Musharraf Factor: Leading Pakistan to Inevitable Demise,” which explains the factors that have brought Pakistan to the edge of disaster.
Also see: .