One aspect of Canadian Islam: the cover of Irshad Manji's book. Questions about specific likes and dislikes reveal greater appreciation for generalities (democracy and freedom) than for one's own circumstances (finding employment). I found it especially encouraging that Canadian Muslims understand democracy as not just a system for choosing leaders but as a mentality and a way of life permitting an individual the autonomy to think and act in freedom, to develop his own opinions, and to opt out of politics entirely. रुचि और अरुचि के सम्बंध में प्रश्नों के उत्तर में जो कुछ सामने आया उसके अनुसार वह सब सामान्य ही है और इनके प्रति प्रशंसा का भाव है ( लोकतंत्रऔर स्वतन्त्रता) न कि अपनी स्वयं की परिस्थितियाँ ( रोजगार पाना) । मुझे यह जानकर अत्यंत उत्साह हुआ कि कनाडा मे मुसलमान लोकतन्त्र को केवल अपने नेता के चयन की पद्दति मात्र नहीं मानते वरन इसे एक ऐसी जीवन पद्धति मानते हैं जो कि व्यक्तियों को सोचने और स्वतन्त्रता के साथ सोचने और कार्य करने की अनुमति देती है साथ ही अपना अलग विचार विकसित करने और पूरी तरह राजनीति से बाहर रहने की छूट भी देती है।
32.
Apr. 11, 2013 addenda : Some reflections that did not fit the main article: (1) Before this article appeared, I gave a several interviews ( here , here and here ) advocating tactical support for the Assad regime; these prompted name-calling by CAIR and some hysterical reactions about me urging genocide in Syria. No: I look forward to the day when Syria is at peace with itself and a good neighbor, when its government is democratic and law-abiding. But until that distant time, I prefer that evil forces direct their attentions against each other than against the outside world. (2) To the argument that early Western support for the rebels would have prevented the Islamists from dominating them ( which they now do ), I reply that Western powers did provide early support to rebels in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt and look what that achieved - Islamists dominate all three of those countries. The same would likely have been the case in Syria. Western assistance is not that influential in altering the course of an ideological movement. (3) I dislike advocating support for Assad and respect the intentions of those who share my goals but disagree with my means. I do, however, see them engaging in wishful, non-strategic thinking. (4) That my approach gives priority to strategic considerations marks it, in the context of modern Western politics, as conservative. Liberals enjoy a confidence in their own wellbeing that conservatives lack. Where liberals tend to worry about others (snail darters), conservatives tend to worry about themselves (a sufficient electricity supply). Consistent with this temperamental difference, the former focus on civilian welfare in Syria and the latter on Western security. (5) My advice is hardly original to me but is old-fashioned Realpolitik. Put differently, it fits into a divide-and-rule tradition that goes back to the Romans. (6) Assad's staying in power has the advantage that the regime's chemical weapons are less dangerous than if he fell. इस भावना के अनुरूप मेरा तर्क है कि अमेरिका को हारते हुए पक्ष की सहायता करनी चाहिये और वह कोई भी क्यों न हो, जैसा कि मई 1987 के विश्लेषण में मैंने कहा था, “ 1980 में जब इराक ने ईरान को धमकी दी थी तो हमारा हित कुछ मात्रा में ईरान के साथ था। परंतु 1982 की गर्मियों से इराक रक्षात्मक हो गया और अब वाशिंगटन पूरी तरह इसके साथ है..... भविष्य की ओर यदि देखें तो क्या इराक एक बार पुनः आक्रामक हो सकेगा वैसे तो यह सम्भव नहीं दिखता परंतु असम्भव भी नहीं है, अमेरिका को फिर से युद्ध में आना चाहिये और ईरान को सहायता करने के सम्बंध में सोचना चाहिये” ।
33.
I am an economist and banker. I would sum up my main area of expertise/responsibility as “Turkish debt”. As much as I dislike the AKP and its ideas, what they did (or tried to do) in the economy was exactly the opposite of what you suggest in your article. I am 37 and for the first time in my life I witnessed the notion of a Turkish state budget in the black under these guys. Your assertion that “the party's patronage machine borrowed massive amounts of short-term debt to finance a consumption bubble” is wrong, to say the least. Do you mean they borrowed money and rationed to the public so they can spend? :) I'm kidding. But the reality is that Turkish foreign debt has in fact shrank, again under these guys, when looked at in terms of who did the borrowing. The Turkish public debt is largely owed to the Turkish public, and the portion that constitutes foreign debt makes up the minority of Turkey's foreign debt. It is indeed the private sector that borrowed heavily in the past 8 years or so due to the fact that USD borrowing was extremely cheap. Banks in turn lent that money in the domestic markets as cheaper credit, which fuelled the boom you mention in your article. The AKP has been trying hard to curb that growth as they are very aware of the dangers. इजरायल के साथ युद्ध की ताक में - गमाल अब्दुल नसीर और सद्दाम हुसैन की परम्परा का पालन करते हुए तुर्की प्रधानमंत्री ने इजरायल विरोधी लफ्फाजी के द्वारा स्वयं को अरब राजनीतिक सितारा बनाने का प्रयास आरम्भ कर दिया है। लोग यह सोचते हुए भी भयभीत होते हैं और मानते हैं कि इससे पूर्व ही वह अपना तेवर त्याग देंगे।मई 2010 में गाजा में एक विरोधी जहाज को अंकारा ने समर्थन दिया जिसमें अपनाये गये आक्रामक तेवर के चलते इजरायल की सेना ने आठ तुर्की नागरिकों और तुर्क नस्ल के व्यक्ति को मार गिराया और इस घटना का भरपूर उपयोग कर तुर्की ने अपने देश में यहूदी राज्य के विरुद्ध घरेलू स्तर पर आक्रोश भड्काया। एरडोगन ने इस घटना को युद्ध भड्काने के लिये पर्याप्त करार दिया और आवश्यकता पड्ने पर इजरायल के साथ युद्ध की भाषा भी कही और इसके साथ ही एक बार फिर गाजा के लिये जहाज भेजने की बात की और यदि आवश्यकता हुई तो इस बार सेना के संरक्षण में।
34.
When one puts this in the context of what Obama said off-mic to then-Russian president Dmitry Medvedev in March 2012 (“This is my last election. And after my election, I have more flexibility”) and in the context of Obama's dislike for Netanyahu , it would be wise to assume that, if Obama wins on Nov. 6, things will “calm down” for him and he finally can “be more up front” about so-called Palestine. Then Israel's troubles will really begin. Sep. 5, 2012 update : Before the Democrats restored mention of Jerusalem as Israel's capital to its party platform, Romney called the omission “very troubling” and “one more example of Israel being thrown under the bus by the president.” Sep. 16, 2012 update :Appearing on NBC's Meet the Press , Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu twice avoided answering the question of whether Obama throws Israel “under the bus” or not, finally relenting the third time. Of course, he had to deny the charge, which does not enhance Mitt Romney's credibility. Meet the Press : Governor Romney for a year, and he said it in his convention speech, has said, “President Obama has thrown allies like Israel under the bus.” Do you agree or disagree with Governor Romney's charge? It's a serious charge. Binyamin Netanyahu : Well, you're trying to get me into the American election. and I'm not going to do that. the relationship between Israel and the United States is just a very powerful bond. It was, it is, and will be. and will continue to be. and I can tell you there's no one-there's no leader in the world who's more appreciative than me of the strength of this alliance. it's very strong. There's no one in Israel who appreciates more than me the importance of American support for Israel. It's not a partisan issue. In fact, we cherish the bipartisan support of Democrats and Republicans alike. This is critical for us. Meet the Press : … It seems to me for you to remain silent on whether this administration has thrown Israel under the bus is tantamount to agreeing with the sentiment. So where do you come down on that specific charge against President Obama ? Binyamin Netanyahu : There you go again, David, trying to draw me into something that is something not the case and is not my position. my position is that we have strong cooperation and we continue to cooperate with the best of allies. And Israel is the one reliable ally of the United States in the Middle East . Meet the Press : President Obama has not thrown Israel under the bus? Binyamin Netanyahu : There's no bus, and we're not going to get into that discussion, except to say one thing. We have a strong alliance, and we're going to continue to have a strong alliance. I think the important question is where does the-the only bus that is really important is the Iranian nuclear bus. That's the one that we have to derail. And that's my interest. That's my only interest. David Gregory and Binyamin Netanyahu on “Meet the Press,” Sep. 16, 2012. Mar. 20, 2013 update :Abunimah has just posted a picture of the whole gang - himself, the Khalidis, the Obamas, and the Saids - at a Chicago dinner. Obama and his anti-Zionist friends: Abunimah, Khalidi, and Said. Related Topics: Israel & Zionism , US policy receive the latest by email: subscribe to daniel pipes' free mailing list This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete and accurate information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL. Comment on this item यदि मार्च 2012 में रूस के राष्ट्रपति देमेत्री मेडडेव के साथ माइक्रोफोन से अलग जो कुछ ओबामा ने कहा ( कि यह मेरा अंतिम चुनाव है और चुनाव के उपरांत मैं अधिक लचीला हो जाऊँगा ) उसे इस संदर्भ के साथ जोडें और ओबामा द्वारा नेतन्याहू को नापसंद करने से संदर्भ से भी जोडें तो यह पूर्वानुमान लगाया जा सकता है कि यदि ओबामा 6 नवम्बर को निर्वाचित होते हैं तो उनके लिये चीजें अधिक सहज हो जायेंगी और वे तथाकथित फिलीस्तीन के लिये अधिक मुखर होंगे। इसके उपरांत इजरायल का संकट आरम्भ होगा।
