Untitled Document

01-12-09

Rothschilds and Rockefellers Manipulating Israel's Crimes Against Humanity, Plotting Holocaust II

In the last couple of weeks Israel has engaged in War Crimes by murdering over seven hundred Palestinians, a third of the dead, children. Why? No reason. Israel wants to. Make sense? Not to me. Not unless it is part of a bigger plan to bring war to the world. Not unless it is part of a bigger plan for the Rothschilds to Holocaust Jewish people again. Who wants the World at War? The bad guys who own or banking system, the Federal Reserve Fraud, the Rothschilds and Rockefellers. Can't you hear the New York Times if the Palestinians had killed over 700 Israeli over the last two weeks for no reason, just because they want to? Hamas is Sunni. Saddam Hussein is Sunni. Saudi Arabia is Sunni. Little and Big George Bush have been on the side of Saddam Hussein and Sunni from day one. Kenya is Sunni, so logic dictate that Barack Hussein Obama is Sunni. Sunni is al Queda and al Queda is blamed for 911 although we know 911 was a bad guy deal with Rothschilds and Rockefellers ultimately responsible.

Iran is Shiite. Thanks to Big George Bush and Robert Gates manipulating the Iraq Iran War in which over one million fine Sunni and Shiite kids were murdered, Sunni and Shiite have been killing each other. So what the heck does Israel murdering Sunni Palestinians have to do with the price of rice in East Asia? Do you understand who the terrorists are and who are our brave soldiers being forced to kill? Nope. And it is no accident the New York Times and the Rothschilds and Rockefeller owned big media keep us in the dark relative to who the terrorists are and what the relationship is between Sunni and Shiite, Sunni and al Queda, Israel, Palestinians, Iran, Iraq, Robert Gates and the entire crucial facts of this war. It may sound as if I am picking on Robert Gates. In a way I am and in a way I fear to. I am wary of Robert Gates because of his connect to the Bushes and other bad guys, but since he has been Secretary of Defense we have not directly nuked Iran. The question becomes who is the real Bob Gates and what he will do as Obama's Secretary of Defense. If Gates steps down will his replacement be a total and complete war monger? Logic dictates the bad guys want a world at war and this boils to Sunni and Shiite killing each other. Sunni, Israel, Palestinians, al Queda are financed by Rothschilds and Rockefellers who own the politicians who run the United States, Great Britain and the West and Shiites are supported by India, China and Russia. Propaganda, murder and lies run the communi$t world of aggression and murder. Of course all thinking people realize communi$m is the invention of and the product of the Rothschilds and Rockefellers. The Rockefellers and Rothschilds propaganda machine is making the war against terrorism a war against Muslims, ie Mid Eastern people. When Sunni Palestinians kill Israel people we are manipulated to think Sunni Palestinians are Iranians. We the people of the United States are not allowed to know Sunni and Shiite are completely different. Sunni are mostly Arabs and Shiites are mostly Persians. So the next propaganda step is for the USA and the West to nuke Iran and for the American people to assume in our doing so our brave soldiers are killing the same bad guys, Palestinians, who are being mean to Israel and who are responsible for 911.

So besides putting the world at war the Rothschilds and Rockefellers, who own and control the USA's members of the USA House and Senate, have a plan in place that will guarantee Jewish people are Holocaust ed again. All thinking people know the Rothschilds were responsible for Holocaust I. The Rothschilds finest hours were watching the crumpled and desecrated bodies of Jewish people tossed in to mass graves, knowing the Rothschilds are responsible and most Jewish people do not have a clue they did it. The Rothschilds and Rockefellers made a few bucks off Holocaust Jewish people during WWII, and the Rothschilds are licking their chops to fool Jewish people again, throw them in mass graves, and steal Jewish money again. The gotcha fooled you again for the Rothschilds is almost as much fun as the stealing of the money, although the Rothschilds and Rockefellers are responsible for the recent economic meltdown where they stole trillions and stealing money is probably more fun for them than Holocausting Jewish people. So how are the Rothschilds and Rockefellers going to get the world gung ho to Holocaust Jewish people? The Rothschilds put Jewish people in charge of 911, Abu Ghraib, anthrax, selling nukes to Pakistan, war crimes against Palestinians, the nuking of Iran, Alan Greenspan, the making Obama president when Obama is not eligible to be president because both his parents were not US citizens, the deliberate destruction of Wachovia, and this dirty deed and that dirty deed. Of course the Rothschilds and Rockefellers have proof of Jewish people responsibility for the dirty deeds which they will make public when it suits them.

When is Joe the Plumber Scheduled to Die?

The killing of Joe the Plumber is a media event too big not to happen. Karl Rove had Pat Tillman shot in the back to help comrade Little George's slumping poll numbers. If the Rothschilds have Joe Plumber murdered it may cause Obama some problems and we can expect the Rothschilds will constantly keep problems in Obama's life to get Obama doing their agenda. Killing people as a media stunt is too popular a method to get people around the tube so I see very little way Joe the Plumber will not be killed when news is slow or the bad guys need Joe's death as a diversion to take attention away from news they want cut short.

http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/01/07/joe-the-plumber-to-become-war-correspondent-2/

Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent

Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent in Israel for conservative Web site

Staff
AP News

Jan 07, 2009 13:55 EST

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/11/joe-the-plumber-files-fir_n_156978.html

Joe The Plumber is putting down his wrenches and picking up a reporter's notebook.

The Ohio man who became a household name during the presidential campaign says he is heading to Israel as a war correspondent for the conservative Web site pjtv.com.

Samuel J. Wurzelbacher (WUR'-zuhl-bah-kur) says he'll spend 10 days covering the fighting.

He tells WNWO-TV in Toledo that he wants to let Israel's "'Average Joes' share their story."

Wurzelbacher gained attention during the final weeks of the campaign when he asked Barack Obama about his tax plan.

He later joined Republican John McCain on the campaign trail. At one stop, he agreed with a McCain supporter who asked if he believed a vote for Obama was a vote for the death of Israel.

___

Information from: WNWO-TV, http://www.nbc24.com/

Source: AP News

Joe The Plumber's First Report From Israel: "When Someone Hits Me, I'm Going To Unload On The Boy"

AMY TEIBEL | January 11, 2009 02:05 PM EST
Samuel Wurzelbacher, known as Joe the Plumber, who is in the region to report for US the conservative pjtv.com Web site and back dropped by smoke billowing from fires caused by Israeli military attacks from inside the Gaza Strip, poses for pictures, near the southern Israeli city of Sderot, Sunday, Jan. 11, 2009. Wurzelbacher became famous after campaigning for US republican presidential candidate John McCain during the US Presidential elections in 2008. (AP Photo/Moshe Milner, Government Press Office, handout)

SDEROT, Israel — Joe the Plumber has set aside his wrenches to become a rookie war correspondent, covering Israel's side of its two-week-old military offensive in Gaza.

The Ohio man, who rocketed to fame during the U.S. presidential campaign for asking Barack Obama about his tax plan, was in the southern Israeli town of Sderot on Sunday to tell readers of the conservative pjtv.com Web site about the rockets that rain down from the neighboring Gaza Strip.

The people of Sderot "can't do normal things day to day" like get soap in their eyes in the shower, for fear of rockets, said America's most famous plumber, whose real name is Samuel J. Wurzelbacher.

"I'm sure they're taking quick showers," he said. "I know I would."

Wurzelbacher's status as a rookie was evident when he stood in front of a pile of spent rockets and said: "I have thousands of questions but I can't think of the right one."

What he could summon was contempt for Israel's critics, who are outraged by the more than 870 Palestinians killed in Israel's bruising air and ground onslaught against Gaza's Islamic militant Hamas rulers. Thirteen Israelis have also died since the operation began, including four killed by the rocket fire that touched off the war in the first place.

"Why hasn't Israel acted sooner?" Wurzelbacher asked. "I know if I were a citizen here, I'd be damned upset."

He described himself as a "peaceloving man," but added, "when someone hits me, I'm going to unload on the boy. And if the rest of the world doesn't understand that, then I'm sorry."

We are delighted to share the news that Ambassador Dennis Ross, counselor and Ziegler Distinguished Fellow at The Washington Institute, has accepted an invitation to join the Obama administration as ambassador-at-large and senior advisor to Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton.

In 1981, following the election of President Ronald Reagan, the newly appointed U.S. National Security Advisor Richard V. Allen was put in charge of assembling the Reagan administration's foreign policy advisory team. Allen offered Paul Wolfowitz the position of Director of Policy Planning at the U.S. State Department. In this position Wolfowitz and his newly selected staff, which included Scooter Libby, Francis Fukuyama, Ross, Alan Keyes, Zalmay Khalilzad, Stephen Sestanovich and James Roche, were responsible for defining the Reagan administration's long-term foreign policy goals.

6-05-08

Obama to AIPAC - My Goal Will be to Eliminate Iran

The media blasted Hillary because she said something to the effect that if Iran attacked Israel the USA would blow Iran away. Obama has taken it one step further. Iran does not have to attack Israel, the USA will eliminate Iran for Iran doing exactly what Iran is doing today. Obama's nice word for eliminate Iran is isolate Iran. So now we know why the Federal Reserve Fraud, Yalies Howard Dean and Little George, Jacob "Holocaust" Rothschild, Rockefellers, Neocons have rigged the Democratic primary process to select Obama as the Democratic nominee for president, to attack Iran. Odds are as a new years' present to zioni$t$, Little George will order Israel or the US military to bomb and attack Iran. So Obama will take office knowing what he is to do, keep up the good work killing Shiites and invading countries to steal their oil and to raise the price of oil. Will the media tell us Obama plans to attack Iran? Nope. That's another secrete to keep from the American people. One thing the American people have learned or should have learned. The Rothschild/Rockefeller bad guys select the US president for their agenda. The bad guy agenda is a world war in which the USA is fighting along side of Sunni al-Queda against Shiite Iran and then on in to Russia. Barack Hussein "Kenya Sunni al-Queda" Obama is the perfect US president as far as Rothschilds/Rockefellers are concerned because Obama is one generation away from be a full blooded Sunni al-Queda. Obama will cheerfully send our brave soldiers to their deaths killing Shiites because Shiites have been enemies of Sunni al-Queda forever. Then again Obama may have a chip on his shoulder and in his justice system to send White US soldiers to their deaths killing his hated Shiites is tit of tat since the White man has killed Blacks through the years. The Rothschilds will not have had so much fun manipulating the death and destruction of White men at the hands of a Black men since they financed the killing of Jews in the Rothschild's Holocaust. Since Rothschilds are responsible for the Holocaust logic dictates that after they turn Obama on Shiites they will turn Obama on Jews. Doesn't make sense? It is logical when one realizes the Rothschilds care only about money and many Jewish people have money. The Rothschilds financed the Holocaust to make a buck stealing Jewish money and forcing Jews to Palestine to implement their plan to steal Arab oil.

All of Obama's remarks at the AIPAC Policy Conference are wild. The following are a few that caught my eye. Read between the lines.

The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.

My father was black, he was from Kenya, and he left us when I was two. ( Perpetual victims - Poor pitiful Obama and Israel - recipe for racism, bully)

Iran - which always posed a greater threat to Israel than Iraq - is emboldened, and poses the greatest strategic challenge to the United States and Israel in the Middle East in a generation.

Israel’s quest for peace with its neighbors has stalled, (And I thought Obama did not have a sense of humor)

The question is how to move forward.

That starts with ensuring Israel’s qualitative military advantage.

As President, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel

we can enhance our cooperation on missile defense. (This means war with Russia.)

We must isolate (Obama's definition of isolate - engage in war, blow away) Hamas

Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.

There is no greater threat to Israel - or to the peace and stability of the region - than Iran.

But instead of pursuing a strategy to address this threat, we ignored it and instead invaded and occupied Iraq. (Obama is is Sunni al-Queda & Sunni al-Queda hate Shiite Iran)

and I refuse to continue a policy that has made the United States and Israel less secure. (Obama is saying make the world safe, attack Iran.)

I have proposed a responsible, phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq. (Obama is saying he will send our brave soldiers to Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan)

We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. (Military)

We have no time to waste.

with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing (Arrogant, control freak, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the bad guy now its the appropriate Iranian leader)

we will present a clear choice. If you abandon your dangerous nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives

If Iran fails to change course when presented with this choice by the United States, it will be clear - to the people of Iran, and to the world - that the Iranian regime is the author of its own isolation. (For Obama isolation means engage in war, blow away)

And America is more isolated in the region, reducing our strength and jeopardizing Israel’s safety (Obama defines isolation - entangled in war)

from cutting off loan guarantees and expanding financial sanctions, to banning the export of refined petroleum to Iran, to boycotting firms associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, whose Quds force has rightly been labeled a terrorist organization. ( Same program as comrade Little George.)

The price of a barrel of oil is one of the most dangerous weapons in the world. Petrodollars pay for weapons that kill American troops and Israeli citizens. (Who do you think you, Obama is working? Rothschilds and Rockefellers. You boss is behind the price increases in oil. You do not really think they will allow you to cut into their, Exxon's oil profits?)

The surest way to increase our leverage in the long term is to stop bankrolling the Iranian regime. (Obama you are blaming Iran for high oil prices when your bosses, Rothschilds and Rockefellers, who are responsible for increases in oil prices.)

I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation (Iran is really a threat.)

tikkun olam - the obligation to repair this world. (Translates- revenge)

Jewish and African Americans have stood shoulder to shoulder.

Together, we can rededicate ourselves to end prejudice and combat hatred in all of its forms. Together, we can renew our commitment to justice. Together, we can join our voices together, and in doing so make even the mightiest of walls fall down. (Revenge- Blacks and Jewish people rule the world with iron rod. Bkzi$m)

Now is the time to be vigilant in facing down every foe, (Pennsylvania farmer)

Now is the time to join together in the work of repairing this world. (Revenge)

Prepared Remarks: Obama at AIPAC Policy Conference
by FOXNews.com
Wednesday, June 4, 2008

Facebook Stumble Upon del.icio.us Digg Email

BARACK OBAMA: It’s great to see so many friends from across the country. I want to congratulate Howard Friedman, David Victor and Howard Kohr on a successful conference, and on the completion of a new headquarters just a few blocks away.

Before I begin, I want to say that I know some provocative emails have been circulating throughout Jewish communities across the country. A few of you may have gotten them. They’re filled with tall tales and dire warnings about a certain candidate for President. And all I want to say is - let me know if you see this guy named Barack Obama, because he sounds pretty frightening.

But if anyone has been confused by these emails, I want you to know that today I’ll be speaking from my heart, and as a true friend of Israel. And I know that when I visit with AIPAC, I am among friends. Good friends. Friends who share my strong commitment to make sure that the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable today, tomorrow, and forever.

One of the many things that I admire about AIPAC is that you fight for this common cause from the bottom up. The lifeblood of AIPAC is here in this room - grassroots activists of all ages, from all parts of the country, who come to Washington year after year to make your voices heard. Nothing reflects the face of AIPAC more than the 1,200 students who have travelled here to make it clear to the world that the bond between Israel and the United States is rooted in more than our shared national interests - it’s rooted in the shared values and shared stories of our people. And as President, I will work with you to ensure that it this bond strengthened.

I first became familiar with the story of Israel when I was eleven years old. I learned of the long journey and steady determination of the Jewish people to preserve their identity through faith, family and culture. Year after year, century after century, Jews carried on their traditions, and their dream of a homeland, in the face of impossible odds.

The story made a powerful impression on me. I had grown up without a sense of roots. My father was black, he was from Kenya, and he left us when I was two. My mother was white, she was from Kansas, and I’d moved with her to Indonesia and then back to Hawaii. In many ways, I didn’t know where I came from. So I was drawn to the belief that you could sustain a spiritual, emotional and cultural identity. And I deeply understood the Zionist idea - that there is always a homeland at the center of our story.

I also learned about the horror of the Holocaust, and the terrible urgency it brought to the journey home to Israel. For much of my childhood, I lived with my grandparents. My grandfather had served in World War II, and so had my great uncle. He was a Kansas boy, who probably never expected to see Europe - let alone the horrors that awaited him there. And for months after he came home from Germany, he remained in a state of shock, alone with the painful memories that wouldn’t leave his head.

You see, my great uncle had been a part of the 89th Infantry Division - the first Americans to reach a Nazi concentration camp. They liberated Ohrdruf, part of Buchenwald, on an April day in 1945. The horrors of that camp go beyond our capacity to imagine. Tens of thousands died of hunger, torture, disease, or plain murder - part of the Nazi killing machine that killed 6 million people.

When the Americans marched in, they discovered huge piles of dead bodies and starving survivors. General Eisenhower ordered Germans from the nearby town to tour the camp, so they could see what was being done in their name. He ordered American troops to tour the camp, so they could see the evil they were fighting against. He invited Congressmen and journalists to bear witness. And he ordered that photographs and films be made. Explaining his actions, Eisenhower said that he wanted to produce, “first-hand evidence of these things, if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to propaganda.”

I saw some of those very images at Yad Vashem, and they never leave you. And those images just hint at the stories that survivors of the Shoah carried with them. Like Eisenhower, each of us bears witness to anyone and everyone who would deny these unspeakable crimes, or ever speak of repeating them. We must mean what we say when we speak the words: “never again.”

It was just a few years after the liberation of the camps that David Ben-Gurion declared the founding of the Jewish State of Israel. We know that the establishment of Israel was just and necessary, rooted in centuries of struggle, and decades of patient work. But 60 years later, we know that we cannot relent, we cannot yield, and as President I will never compromise when it comes to Israel’s security.

Not when there are still voices that deny the Holocaust. Not when there are terrorist groups and political leaders committed to Israel’s destruction. Not when there are maps across the Middle East that don’t even acknowledge Israel’s existence, and government-funded textbooks filled with hatred toward Jews. Not when there are rockets raining down on Sderot, and Israeli children have to take a deep breath and summon uncommon courage every time they board a bus or walk to school.

I have long understood Israel’s quest for peace and need for security. But never more so than during my travels there two years ago. Flying in an IDF helicopter, I saw a narrow and beautiful strip of land nestled against the Mediterranean. On the ground, I met a family who saw their house destroyed by a Katyusha Rocket. I spoke to Israeli troops who faced daily threats as they maintained security near the blue line. I talked to people who wanted nothing more simple, or elusive, than a secure future for their children.

I have been proud to be a part of a strong, bi-partisan consensus that has stood by Israel in the face of all threats. That is a commitment that both John McCain and I share, because support for Israel in this country goes beyond party. But part of our commitment must be speaking up when Israel’s security is at risk, and I don’t think any of us can be satisfied that America’s recent foreign policy has made Israel more secure.

Hamas now controls Gaza. Hizbollah has tightened its grip on southern Lebanon, and is flexing its muscles in Beirut. Because of the war in Iraq, Iran - which always posed a greater threat to Israel than Iraq - is emboldened, and poses the greatest strategic challenge to the United States and Israel in the Middle East in a generation. Iraq is unstable, and al Qaeda has stepped up its recruitment. Israel’s quest for peace with its neighbors has stalled, despite the heavy burdens borne by the Israeli people. And America is more isolated in the region, reducing our strength and jeopardizing Israel’s safety.

The question is how to move forward. There are those who would continue and intensify this failed status quo, ignoring eight years of accumulated evidence that our foreign policy is dangerously flawed. And then there are those who would lay all of the problems of the Middle East at the doorstep of Israel and its supporters, as if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the root of all trouble in the region. These voices blame the Middle East’s only democracy for the region’s extremism. They offer the false promise that abandoning a stalwart ally is somehow the path to strength. It is not, it never has been, and it never will be.

Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security.

That starts with ensuring Israel’s qualitative military advantage. I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat - from Gaza to Tehran. Defense cooperation between the United States and Israel is a model of success, and must be deepened. As President, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade - investments to Israel’s security that will not be tied to any other nation. First, we must approve the foreign aid request for 2009. Going forward, we can enhance our cooperation on missile defense. We should export military equipment to our ally Israel under the same guidelines as NATO. And I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself in the United Nations and around the world.

Across the political spectrum, Israelis understand that real security can only come through lasting peace. And that is why we - as friends of Israel - must resolve to do all we can to help Israel and its neighbors to achieve it. Because a secure, lasting peace is in Israel’s national interest. It is in America’s national interest. And it is in the interest of the Palestinian people and the Arab world. As President, I will work to help Israel achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security. And I won’t wait until the waning days of my presidency. I will take an active role, and make a personal commitment to do all I can to advance the cause of peace from the start of my Administration.

The long road to peace requires Palestinian partners committed to making the journey. We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and abide by past agreements. There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations. That is why I opposed holding elections in 2006 with Hamas on the ballot. The Israelis and the Palestinian Authority warned us at the time against holding these elections. But this Administration pressed ahead, and the result is a Gaza controlled by Hamas, with rockets raining down on Israel.

The Palestinian people must understand that progress will not come through the false prophets of extremism or the corrupt use of foreign aid. The United States and the international community must stand by Palestinians who are committed to cracking down on terror and carrying the burden of peacemaking. I will strongly urge Arab governments to take steps to normalize relations with Israel, and to fulfill their responsibility to pressure extremists and provide real support for President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad. Egypt must cut off the smuggling of weapons into Gaza. Israel can also advance the cause of peace by taking appropriate steps - consistent with its security - to ease the freedom of movement for Palestinians, improve economic conditions in the West Bank, and to refrain from building new settlements - as it agreed to with the Bush Administration at Annapolis.

Let me be clear. Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non- negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper - but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.

I have no illusions that this will be easy. It will require difficult decisions on both sides. But Israel is strong enough to achieve peace, if it has partners who are committed to the goal. Most Israelis and Palestinians want peace, and we must strengthen their hand. The United States must be a strong and consistent partner in this process - not to force concessions, but to help committed partners avoid stalemate and the kind of vacuums that are filled by violence. That’s what I commit to do as President of the United States.

The threats to Israel start close to home, but they don’t end there. Syria continues its support for terror and meddling in Lebanon. And Syria has taken dangerous steps in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, which is why Israeli action was justified to end that threat.

I also believe that the United States has a responsibility to support Israel’s efforts to renew peace talks with the Syrians. We must never force Israel to the negotiating table, but neither should we ever block negotiations when Israel’s leaders decide that they may serve Israeli interests. As President, I will do whatever I can to help Israel succeed in these negotiations. And success will require the full enforcement of Security Council Resolution 1701 in Lebanon, and a stop to Syria’s support for terror. It is time for this reckless behavior to come to an end.

There is no greater threat to Israel - or to the peace and stability of the region - than Iran. Now this audience is made up of both Republicans and Democrats, and the enemies of Israel should have no doubt that, regardless of party, Americans stand shoulder-to- shoulder in our commitment to Israel’s security. So while I don’t want to strike too partisan a note here today, I do want to address some willful mischaracterizations of my positions.

The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race, and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its President denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.

But just as we are clear-eyed about the threat, we must be clear about the failure of today’s policy. We knew, in 2002, that Iran supported terrorism. We knew Iran had an illicit nuclear program. We knew Iran posed a grave threat to Israel. But instead of pursuing a strategy to address this threat, we ignored it and instead invaded and occupied Iraq. When I opposed the war, I warned that it would fan the flames of extremism in the Middle East. That is precisely what happened in Iran - the hardliners tightened their grip, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected President in 2005. And the United States and Israel are less secure.

I respect Senator McCain, and look forward to a substantive debate with him these next five months. But on this point, we have differed, and we will differ. Senator McCain refuses to understand or acknowledge the failure of the policy that he would continue. He criticizes my willingness to use strong diplomacy, but offers only an alternate reality - one where the war in Iraq has somehow put Iran on its heels. The truth is the opposite. Iran has strengthened its position. Iran is now enriching uranium, and has reportedly stockpiled 150 kilos of low enriched uranium. Its support for terrorism and threats toward Israel have increased. Those are the facts, they cannot be denied, and I refuse to continue a policy that has made the United States and Israel less secure.

Senator McCain offers a false choice: stay the course in Iraq, or cede the region to Iran. I reject this logic because there is a better way. Keeping all of our troops tied down indefinitely in Iraq is not the way to weaken Iran - it is precisely what has strengthened it. It is a policy for staying, not a plan for victory. I have proposed a responsible, phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq. We will get out as carefully as we were careless getting in. We will finally pressure Iraq’s leaders to take meaningful responsibility for their own future.

We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That starts with aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions, but with a clear-eyed understanding of our interests. We have no time to waste. We cannot unconditionally rule out an approach that could prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We have tried limited, piecemeal talks while we outsource the sustained work to our European allies. It is time for the United States to lead.

There will be careful preparation. We will open up lines of communication, build an agenda, coordinate closely with our allies, and evaluate the potential for progress. Contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as President of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing - if, and only if - it can advance the interests of the United States.

Only recently have some come to think that diplomacy by definition cannot be tough. They forget the example of Truman, and Kennedy and Reagan. These Presidents understood that diplomacy backed by real leverage was a fundamental tool of statecraft. And it is time to once again make American diplomacy a tool to succeed, not just a means of containing failure. We will pursue this diplomacy with no illusions about the Iranian regime. Instead, we will present a clear choice. If you abandon your dangerous nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives - including the lifting of sanctions, and political and economic integration with the international community. If you refuse, we will ratchet up the pressure.

My presidency will strengthen our hand as we restore our standing. Our willingness to pursue diplomacy will make it easier to mobilize others to join our cause. If Iran fails to change course when presented with this choice by the United States, it will be clear - to the people of Iran, and to the world - that the Iranian regime is the author of its own isolation. That will strengthen our hand with Russia and China as we insist on stronger sanctions in the Security Council. And we should work with Europe, Japan and the Gulf states to find every avenue outside the UN to isolate the Iranian regime - from cutting off loan guarantees and expanding financial sanctions, to banning the export of refined petroleum to Iran, to boycotting firms associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, whose Quds force has rightly been labeled a terrorist organization.

I was interested to see Senator McCain propose divestment as a source of leverage - not the bigoted divestment that has sought to punish Israeli scientists and academics, but divestment targeted at the Iranian regime. It’s a good concept, but not a new one. I introduced legislation over a year ago that would encourage states and the private sector to divest from companies that do business in Iran. This bill has bipartisan support, but for reasons that I’ll let him explain, Senator McCain never signed on. Meanwhile, an anonymous Senator is blocking the bill. It is time to pass this into law so that we can tighten the squeeze on the Iranian regime. We should also pursue other unilateral sanctions that target Iranian banks and assets.

And we must free ourselves from the tyranny of oil. The price of a barrel of oil is one of the most dangerous weapons in the world. Petrodollars pay for weapons that kill American troops and Israeli citizens. And the Bush Administration’s policies have driven up the price of oil, while its energy policy has made us more dependent on foreign oil and gas. It’s time for the United States to take real steps to end our addiction to oil. And we can join with Israel, building on last year’s US-Israel Energy Cooperation Act, to deepen our partnership in developing alternative sources of energy by increasing scientific collaboration and joint research and development. The surest way to increase our leverage in the long term is to stop bankrolling the Iranian regime.

Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation. But that only makes diplomacy more important. If we must use military force, we are more likely to succeed, and will have far greater support at home and abroad, if we have exhausted our diplomatic efforts.

That is the change we need in our foreign policy. Change that restores American power and influence. Change accompanied by a pledge that I will make known to allies and adversaries alike: that America maintains an unwavering friendship with Israel, and an unshakeable commitment to its security.

As members of AIPAC, you have helped advance this bipartisan consensus to support and defend our ally Israel. And I am sure that today on Capitol Hill you will be meeting with members of Congress and spreading the word. But we are here because of more than policy. We are here because the values we hold dear are deeply embedded in the story of Israel.

Just look at what Israel has accomplished in 60 years. From decades of struggle and the terrible wake of the Holocaust, a nation was forged to provide a home for Jews from all corners of the world - from Syria to Ethiopia to the Soviet Union. In the face of constant threats, Israel has triumphed. In the face of constant peril, Israel has prospered. In a state of constant insecurity, Israel has maintained a vibrant and open discourse, and a resilient commitment to the rule of law.

As any Israeli will tell you, Israel is not a perfect place, but like the United States it sets an example for all when it seeks a more perfect future. These same qualities can be found among American Jews. It is why so many Jewish Americans have stood by Israel, while advancing the American story. Because there is a commitment embedded in the Jewish faith and tradition: to freedom and fairness; to social justice and equal opportunity. To tikkun olam - the obligation to repair this world.

I will never forget that I would not be standing here today if it weren’t for that commitment. In the great social movements in our country’s history, Jewish and African Americans have stood shoulder to shoulder. They took buses down south together. They marched together. They bled together. And Jewish Americans like Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner were willing to die alongside a black man - James Chaney - on behalf of freedom and equality.

Their legacy is our inheritance. We must not allow the relationship between Jews and African Americans to suffer. This is a bond that must be strengthened. Together, we can rededicate ourselves to end prejudice and combat hatred in all of its forms. Together, we can renew our commitment to justice. Together, we can join our voices together, and in doing so make even the mightiest of walls fall down.

That work must include our shared commitment to Israel. You and I know that we must do more than stand still. Now is the time to be vigilant in facing down every foe, just as we move forward in seeking a future of peace for the children of Israel, and for all children. Now is the time to stand by Israel as it writes the next chapter in its extraordinary journey. Now is the time to join together in the work of repairing this world.

http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=215

ExplainsUPDATE: Washington Institute Reports Bigger Role for Ross
The matchless Nelson Report has updated the news about the prospective appointment of Dennis Ross as Special Envoy for Iran, and the update is even more concerning than the original report. Chris Nelson apparently got hold of an internal memo from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) in which its director, Robert Satloff, outlines Ross’ much-expanded job description. It reads as if Ross will be a sort of Middle East “czar”. Here it is, as quoted in the Report:

To: Members of the Board of Trustees
From: Chairman Fred Lafer, President Howard Berkowitz, and Executive
Director Robert Satloff
Re: Ambassador Dennis Ross to Join Obama Administration

In that seventh-floor job, designed especially for him, Ambassador Ross
will be the secretary’s top advisor on a wide range of Middle East issues,
from the Arab-Israeli peace process to Iran. Ambassador Ross will not
reprise his previous role as special Arab-Israeli peace envoy, a post that
will be held by someone else; rather he will be working closely with both
the special envoy and the secretary. Ambassador Ross is expected to take
his post immediately after inauguration.

We know you share our pride in Ambassador Ross’s achievements, which
reflect not only his outstanding contribution to U.S. foreign policy, but
also the Institute’s unique role in supporting those who can advance peace
and security in the Middle East.

Needless to say, if the memo is genuine (and I have no doubt that it is) and accurate, Ross’ appointment marks a major setback for those who had hoped that Obama might bring some fresh thinking to Middle East policy, particularly vis-a-vis Iran and Israel-Palestine.

P.S. Haass has vigorously denied that he has been offered the Israel-Palestinian portfolio, although I’ve heard the denials are not entirely persuasive. If Haass indeed does not get it, then Dan Kurtzer, who served as a close adviser to Obama during the campaign, would be considered the most likely choice at this point, although Martin Indyk would, I imagine, be far more compatible with Ross. Indeed, neither Kurtzer nor Haass may find the job particularly inviting if they have to report through Ross to Clinton and the White House.

http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=14041

January 12, 2009
A Serious Crisis With Iran?

by Gordon Prather
Last month the Congressional Commission on Strategic Posture issued an interim report, on the basis of which one of its co-chairmen, former Secretary of Defense William Perry, publicly predicted this week that President-elect Obama will soon face a "serious crisis with Iran."

Iran?

Now, Perry was SecDef in the early 1990s when the International Atomic Energy Agency – which was negotiating the Safeguards Agreement with North Korea, required as a condition of its being a signatory to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) – concluded North Korea was not accurately "declaring" the amount of plutonium which could be recovered from the spent-fuel elements being subjected to IAEA Safeguards for the first time.

The IAEA wanted to do chemical diagnostic assays of those spent-fuel elements, and the Koreans refused.

The IAEA then reported the refusal to the IAEA Board of Governors and to the UN Security Council, as required by the IAEA Statute.

On March 12, 1993, North Korea announced its intention to withdraw from the NPT, its principal stated rationale being its claim that the United States had threatened its national security by, inter alia, strong-arming the IAEA Board of Governors into adopting on Feb. 25, 1993, a resolution requiring Korean officials to open military sites to inspection, sites that North Korea claimed were not related to NPT-proscribed materials storage or to activities involving the physical or chemical transformation of such materials.

But NPT withdrawal would never do, since President Clinton had hoped to make his legacy getting every nation – including India, Pakistan, and Israel – to become signatory to the NPT.

The NPT was viewed – then and now – as having three "pillars":

A promise by the NPT nuke-states to eventually dispose of nukes.
An affirmation of the inalienable right of all other NPT states to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy "without discrimination."
A mechanism for verifying that nuclear energy was not being diverted from peaceful to military purposes.
Soon after taking office, President Clinton had begun to pledge at UN conference after UN conference that he would honor the NPT commitment to dispose of our nukes, soon, rather than eventually.

Hence, the Clinton-Gore-Perry-negotiated Agreed Framework [.pdf] of 1994, under which North Korea agreed to not only remain an NPT signatory, but to "freeze" the operation and construction of its Soviet-designed-and-built plutonium-producing reactors and related facilities, subjecting all to IAEA lock, seal, and oversight.

Next, at the 1995 NPT Review Conference, Clinton got all signatories to agree to its indefinite extension.

Now all this nuke disarmament activity upset some Republicans in Congress more than somewhat. So Clinton had then SecDef Perry draw up a contingency plan to "take out" the North Korean nuclear facilities should North Korea either refuse to sign the Agreed Framework or cease to abide by it.

Whereupon, Bush-Cheney-Wolfowitz-Bolton came to power, intent upon reversing the "globalist" nuclear disarmament policies of Clinton-Gore-Perry and establishing, instead, American hegemony.

However, Bush-Cheney-Wolfowitz-Bolton realized that the only rationale most Americans would accept for establishing that American hegemony – forcibly effecting regime change in Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and elsewhere – would be for those regimes to actually have nuclear weapons and a willingness to supply them to terrorists.

Then came the second attempt by the Islamic jihadists – this time armed with box-cutters – to bring down the World Trade Center Twin Towers.

So, according to then-Deputy SecDef Paul Wolfowitz, the obvious and necessary thing for Bush-Cheney to do was deliberately discredit – even destroy – the NPT-associated nuke-proliferation-prevention regime with which Iraq, Iran, Syria, and North Korea were then in total compliance.

It is important to note that, as of this writing, no evidence has surfaced that at that time Iraq, Iran, Syria, or North Korea were diverting NPT-proscribed materials to a military purpose. Furthermore, as of this writing, no evidence has surfaced that Iran has ever diverted NPT-proscribed materials to a military purpose.

Now, according to the commission, the Soviet Union did pose "an existential threat" to the United States, but its dissolution dramatically reduced that threat, permitting us to reduce our reliance on nuclear weapons.

However, a new threat has "come to the fore – that of catastrophic terrorism." Hence the commission's proposed four "security imperatives":

To reduce and provide better protection for existing nuclear stockpiles of weapons and fissile material.
To keep new nations from going nuclear.
To provide effective protection for the fissile material generated by enrichment activities, reprocessing facilities, and commercial nuclear reactors.
To improve our tools to detect clandestine delivery of nuclear weapons and to disable and otherwise defend against them.
Now, presumably commission members know the difference between nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants.

So when Perry et al. declare one of our "security imperatives" to be keeping new nations from "going nuclear," the commission must mean keeping them from acquiring anything "nuclear," peaceful or otherwise.

"The efforts to keep other nations from going nuclear are obviously multinational. The 6-party talks have had limited success to date in dealing with North Korea but may ultimately be successful. However, there is no similarly comprehensive diplomatic approach to Iran, which has constructed a major facility for enriching uranium.

"It appears that we are at a 'tipping point' in proliferation. If Iran and North Korea proceed unchecked to build nuclear arsenals, there is a serious possibility of a cascade of proliferation following. And as each new nuclear power is added the probability of a terror group getting a nuclear bomb increases."

Well, there you have it. Iran has constructed and is operating – subject to IAEA Safeguards – a major facility for enriching uranium.

Since Iran is unquestionably within its rights – under the NPT, the IAEA Statute, and the UN Charter – the commission is correct in noting that there is no "comprehensive diplomatic approach" to forcing Iran to give up those "inalienable" rights.

So what does former SecDef Perry mean when he predicts that Obama will soon face a serious crisis with respect to Iran?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Ross

Dennis Ross
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Ross speaking at Emory University.Dennis B. Ross (born November 26, 1948 in San Francisco) is an American author and political figure who served as the director for policy planning in the State Department under President George H. W. Bush and special Middle East coordinator under President Bill Clinton. The envoy and chief negotiator under both Republican and Democratic presidents, Ross was integral in shaping U.S. involvement in the Middle East peace process during his tenure.

For more than twelve years, Ross played a leading role in shaping U.S. involvement in the Middle East peace process and in dealing directly with the negotiations. Ross was responsible in both the George H. W. Bush and Clinton administrations for exploring ways to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As an architect of the peace process, he helped the Israelis and Palestinians in reaching the 1995 Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and brokered the Protocol Concerning the Redeployment in Hebron in 1997. He facilitated the Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace and also worked on talks between Israel and Syria.

Ross has reportedly been selected by the Obama administration to be an ambassador-at-large on the Middle East, working with the Secretary of State and the special Arab-Israeli peace envoy.[1]

Contents [hide]
1 Personal life
2 Career
3 After politics
4 Awards and honors
5 Bibliography
6 References
7 External links
7.1 Interviews

[edit] Personal life
Ross was born on November 26, 1948, in San Francisco. He lives in a suburb of D.C. with his wife and three children. According to his book, he was raised in Marin County, California, by his Jewish mother and Catholic stepfather, who maintained a non-religious household atmosphere. Ross did his undergraduate studies at the University of California, Los Angeles, and did graduate work in political science at the same institution, focusing on study of the Soviet Union. Ross continues to teach at various prestigious colleges. Ross is well sought after for his public speeches.

[edit] Career
A scholar and diplomat with more than two decades of experience in Soviet and Middle Eastern policy,[citation needed] Ross worked closely with Secretaries of State James Baker, Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright. While not listed in his official biography, according to the "The Truth about Camp David" by Clayton Swisher, Ross co-founded the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)-sponsored Washington Institute for Near East Policy in 1980s. [1]

Prior to his service as Special Middle East Coordinator under President Clinton, Ross served as Director of the State Department's Policy Planning office during the G.H.W Bush administration. In that position, he played a prominent role in US policy toward the former Soviet Union, the unification of Germany and its integration into NATO, arms control negotiations, and the development of the Gulf War coalition. He served as director of Near East and South Asian Affairs on the National Security Council staff during the Ronald Reagan administration, and as Deputy Director of the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment.

Ross returned briefly to academia in the 1980s, serving as executive director of the Berkeley-Stanford program on Soviet International Behavior from 1984-1986.

Ross (right) with Ehud Barak in 1999.During his years of trying to broker Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations he was criticized by people on both sides of the conflict. Palestinians made repeated references to the fact that he is Jewish, and some right-wing conservative Israelis branded him "self-hating" — each questioning his ability to be unbiased.[2][2] According to Aaron David Miller, a member of the Ross-led US negotiating team in 1999-2000, under Ross they frequently acted as "Israel's lawyer."[3] According to Miller:

“ With the best of motives and intentions, we listened to and followed Israel's lead without critically examining what that would mean for our own interests, for those on the Arab side and for the overall success of the negotiations. The "no surprises" policy, under which we had to run everything by Israel first, stripped our policy of the independence and flexibility required for serious peacemaking. If we couldn't put proposals on the table without checking with the Israelis first, and refused to push back when they said no, how effective could our mediation be? Far too often, particularly when it came to Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy, our departure point was not what was needed to reach an agreement acceptable to both sides but what would pass with only one -- Israel. [3] ”

Time magazine has also reported on Ross's role leading the US negotiating team, noting "A former colleague, Dan Kurtzer (an Orthodox Jew and former U.S. ambassador to Israel who also supports Obama), published a think-tank monograph containing anonymous complaints from Arab and American negotiators saying Ross was seen as biased towards Israel and not 'an honest broker'".[4] Professor of political science Norman Finkelstein, in an article published in 2007 in Journal of Palestine Studies,[5] held that all the concessions at Camp David came from the Palestinian side and none from the Israeli side.

Ross's memoir, The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace tells the story of efforts to negotiate peace over the 1990s and outlines the key lessons to be drawn from that experience. His 2007 book, Statecraft: And How to Restore America's Standing in the World, criticizes the administration of President George W. Bush for its failure to use the tools of statecraft to advance U.S. national interests. He advocates instead for a neoliberal foreign policy which relies on a much broader and more effective use statecraft. While having worked under both Republican and Democratic administrations, Ross himself is a Democrat.[6] He remains a frequent commentator on Middle East issues and analyst on the outcome of current events. He is now counselor of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Some of his articles have been published by both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian sources.[3][4] In their 2006 paper The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, John Mearsheimer, political science professor at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, academic dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, named Ross as a member of the "Israeli lobby" in the United States.[7] Ross in turn criticized the academics behind the paper.[7]

[edit] After politics
Currently, Ross is counselor and Ziegler distinguished fellow of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He is the first chairman of a new Jerusalem based think tank, the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, funded and founded by the Jewish Agency. Ross's involvement in the Institute led some to assume that he would not resume his role as Middle East peace envoy, M. J. Rosenberg of Talking Points Memo commented, "I had thought that former Middle East peace envoy Dennis Ross hoped to return to mediation when the next administration comes in. Apparently, he's had it. He is currently in Israel chairing a major Jewish leadership conference on the future of Israel and the Jewish people -- with Netanyahu, Zuckerman, top AIPAC leaders and many of the other 'usual suspects.' This is not the kind of thing one does if one intends to get back into the 'honest broker' business. This is like George Mitchell (a Lebanese-American) chairing a session in Beirut on the Arab future. If he did that, Mitchell could still work on Ireland but not the Middle East."[8]

In the fall of 2005, taught a class in Mid-East Peace at Brandeis University, and taught it again at Georgetown University in the fall of 2006. In Spring 2007 he taught Strategic Negotiation and Statecraft at Georgetown and is teaching a similar course in Fall 2007. In Spring 2008, he is teaching a course in statecraft at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.

Ross is a Foreign Affairs Analyst for the Fox News Channel in addition to being a frequent commentator in The Washington Post and The New York Times. Ross's first column at The New Republic, "Statecraft", was published on April 9, 2007.[9]

Ross was a noted supporter of the Iraq war, although he opposed some of the Bush Administration's policies for post-war reconstruction. [4]

According to the Wall Street Journal, Ross along with James Steinberg and Daniel Kurtzer are among the principal authors of Barack Obama’s address on the Middle East to AIPAC in June 2008 [10], which was viewed as the Democratic nominee’s most expansive on international affairs. [11] On November 10, 2008, blogger and professor Daniel Drezner reported that Ross has cancelled his scheduled classes at Georgetown for the Spring 2009 semester, with the implication being that he was preparing to take a position in the Obama administration.[12] But later that same day, a comment to Drezner's blog post made the counter-accusation that Ross had in fact canceled his spring classes before presidential election, with the implication being that perhaps he was not planning on taking a position in the Obama administration.

US Abstention Stuns Security Council

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/10/un-gaza-resolution-us-abstention

US abstention stuns security councilJulian Borger and Ian Black The Guardian, Saturday 10 January 2009 Article historyA UN resolution calling for an end to the fighting in Gaza was weakened at the last minute by a surprise US abstention, it emerged yesterday.

Diplomatic sources said the US was closely involved in the drafting of the security council resolution calling for a ceasefire and that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, had defended it in the face of pressure from Israel. The US abstention, at the final vote, stunned British and French diplomats.

The resolution, calling for a truce and a withdrawal of Israeli troops once a "durable" ceasefire had been achieved was passed 14-0, but the US abstention will soften its impact in Israel, where signals sent from Washington are carefully scrutinised and where an election is looming.

Ehud Olmert, Israel's prime minister, issued a statement saying the resolution was "not practical" and the offensive against Hamas in Gaza would continue.

Israel opposed the resolution on the grounds that it put the state on an equal footing with Hamas, and did not give a complete guarantee against further attacks from Hamas rockets.

Thursday night's call from Washington ordering an abstention appears to have come after an eleventh-hour appeal to the White House from Olmert.

Hamas also dismissed the ceasefire proposal and said that whoever tried to enforce it on the ground would be forced to deal with the Islamist movement, underlining its determination to be recognised as a key player in the conflict.

Musa Abu Marzouk, Hamas's deputy political leader, accused the US of wanting to give Israel more time to achieve its goals in Gaza.

"This resolution was discussed in the hallways of the United Nations," he told Hezbollah's al-Manar TV from Damascus. "The movement was not consulted. Our vision and the interests of our people were not taken into consideration."

Analysts say Hamas fears a settlement being imposed on it and, like Israel, wants to be able to show that it has improved its position as a result of the fighting.

"They [the US] want to give the enemy more time, said Abu Marzouk. But I assure you that they will not achieve any of their goals and they will withdraw in disappointment and they will be defeated."

The resolution was supported by the Arab League, which had wanted tougher language but was ultimately satisfied that the ceasefire call was in the form of a resolution, legally binding albeit not directly enforceable, rather than a weaker security council presidential statement, as Britain and the US had initially proposed.

"That's the most you are ever going to get out of the security council process," said an Arab diplomat. "They've sucked the marrow out of it."

The text "stresses the urgency of and calls for an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza".

It balanced a call for Israel to open the border crossings into Gaza with an appeal to UN members to police Gaza's border with Egypt to prevent arms smuggling.

In her remarks after the vote Rice made clear her backing for the resolution but said the US had abstained because it wanted to wait for the outcome of Egyptian and French mediation on the ground.

The incident marked the latest in a long line of issues on which the state department has been over-ruled by the White House, both under Rice and her predecessor, Colin Powell.

The hard line taken in support of Israel by George Bush and his vice-president, Dick Cheney, has been maintained until the last days of the administration.

A senior European diplomat said US abstention nevertheless represented a qualified diplomatic victory for UN consensus. "Before they were going to veto, so to go from veto to a vote for a resolution was maybe too far," the diplomat said.

David Miliband, the foreign secretary, who had delayed his return to London to draft the text, said it would help bolster peace efforts in the region.

Syria was said to be urging Hamas not to accept Egyptian-French proposals for a ceasefire, arguing it should hold out for a deal that enhances its position via-a-vis Israel and Fatah, its Palestinian rival.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/08/israel/index.html

Glenn Greenwald
Thursday Jan. 8, 2009 14:24 EST
Both parties cheerlead still more loudly for Israel's war
(updated below)

World concern over, and opposition to, the Israeli war in Gaza is rapidly mounting:

International pressure intensified sharply on Israel on Thursday, the 13th day of its Gaza assault, after the United Nations suspended food aid deliveries, the International Committee of the Red Cross accused the Israelis of knowingly blocking assistance to the injured, and a top Vatican official defended comments in which he compared Gaza to a concentration camp.

The Israelis have deliberately made it impossible to know the full extent of the carnage and humanitarian disasters because they continue to prevent journalists from entering Gaza even in the face of a now week-old Israeli Supreme Court order compelling them to do so. According to Palestinian sources, there are now 700 dead Palestinians -- at least 200 of them children -- and well over 1,000 wounded. Those numbers are not seriously doubted by anyone. By comparison, a total of 10 Israelis have died -- 10 -- almost all of them by "friendly fire." The unusually worded Red Cross condemnation of Israel was prompted by its discovery, after finally being allowed into Gaza, of starving Palestinian children laying next to corpses, with ambulances blocked for days by the IDF. Even with the relative "restraint" Israel is excercising (the damage it could cause is obviously much greater), this is not so much of a war as it is a completely one-sided massacre.

As a result, much of the world is urging an end to the war and acting to forge a cease-fire -- except the United States. Here, blind and unequivocal support for the Israeli attack is actually increasing almost as fast as the Palestinian body count piles up. Apparently, it isn't enough that we supply the very bombs being dropped on the Palestinians and use our U.N. veto power to prevent any U.N. action to stop the war or even to urge its cessation. The U.S. Congress wants to involve the U.S. further still in Israel's war.

This afternoon, the Democratic-led U.S. Senate did just that by enacting -- via a cowardly voice vote -- a completely one-sided, non-binding resolution that expresses unequivocal support for the Israeli war, and heaps all the blame for the conflict on Hamas and none of it on Israel. Harry Reid -- who jointly sponsored the Resolution with GOP Leader Mitch McConnell -- proudly proclaimed: "When we pass this resolution, the United States Senate will strengthen our historic bond with the state of Israel." On its website, AIPAC is already patting the U.S. Senate on its head for "for conveying America's unequivocal and steadfast support for Israel's right to self-defense."

The Senate resolution is here (.pdf). The very similar House version that was circulated earlier today was drafted by Israel-centric House Foreign Affairs Chairman Howard Berman (D-Calif.). It is here (.pdf), and is expected to pass early next week -- undoubtedly with overwhelming bipartisan support. ThinkProgess noted yesterday that Democrats took the lead in drafting the Resolution because they did not want to be "out-hawked by the Republicans," though it's hardly unusual for Democrats to march in lockstep with Republicans on Israel more than any other issue.

It's hard to overstate how one-sided this resolution is. It "expresses vigorous support and unwavering commitment to the welfare, security, and survival of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state with secure borders." Why should the U.S. maintain an "unwavering commitment to the welfare" of a foreign country? It "lays blame both for the breaking of the 'calm' and for subsequent civilian casualties in Gaza precisely where blame belongs, that is, on Hamas." It repeatedly mentions the various sins of Hamas -- from rockets to suicide attacks -- but does not mention a single syllable of criticism for Israel. In the world of the U.S. Congress, neither the 4-decade occupation of Palestinian land nor the devastating blockade of Gaza nor the ongoing expansion of Israeli settlements even exist. That may not be mentioned.

The Resolution demands that Hamas take multiple steps towards peaceful resolution but demands that Israel do absolutely nothing. It purports to call for a cease-fire in which the Palestinians make all the concessions and Israel makes none. Worst of all -- in light of the Red Cross condemnation, yesterday's slaughter at the U.N. school, and other similar incidents -- the Resolution disgustingly praises Israel's conduct of the war, claiming that "Israel has facilitated humanitarian aid to Gaza with hundreds of trucks carrying humanitarian assistance and numerous ambulances entering the Gaza Strip since the current round of fighting began on December 27, 2008."

This one-sided, ostensibly "pro-Israel" bipartisan inflaming of tensions by the U.S. is nothing new. Long-time Middle East negotiator Aaron David Miller, in Newsweek, earlier this week made one of the most startling revelations in some time -- that in all the time the U.S. has supposedly been attempting to forge a Middle East peace agreement over the past 25 years, it never once, in any meaningful way, raised with Israeli leaders the damage that comes from Israeli settlements. Specifically, said Miller: "I can't recall one meeting where we had a serious discussion with an Israeli prime minister about the damage that settlement activity — including land confiscation, bypass roads and housing demolitions — does to the peacemaking process."

Miller emphasized that by being so blindly supportive even of misguided Israeli actions, "the United States has allowed that special bond to become exclusive in ways that undermine America's, and Israel's, national interests." The only way the U.S. can play a constructive role in the Middle East, he argues, is if it is even-handed and, most importantly, willing to criticize Israeli actions when they harm American interests (and their own) and pressure them to stop. Matt Yglesias, in a new piece up at The American Prospect, makes much the same point.

Yet here we have, yet again, exactly the opposite behavior -- equally from both parties. At exactly the time that worldwide horror over this war is at its peak, the Democratic-led Congress steps up to announce to the world: "this is our war, too; we support whatever Israel does absolutely and without reservations." We thus make Israel's wars our wars; its enemies our enemies; its intractable disputes our disputes; and the hostility and anger it generates our own. And we embolden Israel to continue further.

Given that we endlessly hear from our political establishment that the first and most important obligation of our leaders is to "keep us safe" -- that's the justification for everything from torture to presidential lawbreaking -- what possible legitimate rationale is there for the U.S. Congress to act in unison to involve itself in Israel's war so emphatically, and to thereby re-direct the anger over Israeli actions even further towards the U.S. and American citizens? How are U.S. interests even remotely advanced by insinuating ourselves this way? As Juan Cole recounted this week:

In 1996, Israeli jets bombed a UN building where civilians had taken refuge at Cana/ Qana in south Lebanon, killing 102 persons; in the place where Jesus is said to have made water into wine, Israeli bombs wrought a different sort of transformation. In the distant, picturesque port of Hamburg, a young graduate student studying traditional architecture of Aleppo saw footage like this on the news [graphic]. He was consumed with anguish and the desire for revenge. As soon as operation Grapes of Wrath had begun the week before, he had written out a martyrdom will, indicating his willingness to die avenging the victims, killed in that operation--with airplanes and bombs that were a free gift from the United States. His name was Muhammad Atta. Five years later he piloted American Airlines 11 into the World Trade Center. . . .

On Tuesday, the Israeli military shelled a United Nations school to which terrified Gazans had fled for refuge, killing at least 42 persons and wounding 55, virtually all of them civilians, and many of them children. The Palestinian death toll rose to 660.

You wonder if someone somewhere is writing out a will today.

The U.S. does enough on its own to make itself the target of worldwide anger. Why must it take on Israel's battles as well?

The fact that this is a non-binding resolution makes it worse, not better. It achieves nothing other than rubbing in the world's face -- including the Muslim world -- that this is not just an Israeli attack on Palestinians but an American attack as well. As BooMan put it in explaining that virtually no mainstream U.S. politician would dare oppose this Resolution: "This, then, creates the false impression that there is near unanimity of support for whatever it is that Israel wants to do. And let me frank about this . . . sending such a message does more to put Americans at risk than it does it protect Israelis."

TPM's Elana Schor today wrote: "We're looking into whether any senator was bold enough to decline to co-sponsor the measure." It will be a surprise if there were any. Many members of Congress -- with some noble exceptions -- still remain pitifully afraid that the likes of David "Axis of Evil" Frum will accuse them of being anti-Semitic if they dare oppose Israeli actions, even in the name of U.S. interests, while others continue to be supportive of any war or proposed war waged on Muslims or Arabs -- regardless of the rationale for the war or its severity.

Whatever the motives, for America to blindly support Israel's self-destructive and unjustified behavior does not serve Israeli interests and -- most importantly -- does not serve America's. Blind support isn't "friendship," nor is enabling someone else's destructive behavior. It's subservience. And few things are as harmful or as unjust as the cowardly, lockstep behavior of both major American political parties when it comes to Israel.

UPDATE: Since the Israeli attack on Gaza began, the advocacy of J Street -- the new Jewish-American organization designed to break AIPAC's monopoly on speaking for American Jews -- has been superb. They have gone much further than any Jewish group that is taken seriously by the establishment, continuously expressing opposition to the Israeli offensive and infuriating those who want to maintain a neoconservative stranglehold over speaking for American Jews. Earlier today, I asked them for their position on the Senate Resolution and, just now, this is what they sent me:

Since the first days of the crisis in Gaza, J Street has consistently called for strong American leadership to reach a ceasefire that ends all military operations, stops the rockets aimed at Israel, institutes an effective mechanism to prevent weapons smuggling into Gaza, and lifts the blockade of Gaza. Since J Street's founding, we have consistently advocated for active American diplomacy to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

We support Congressional action that endorses these aims.

That statement -- by design, I would guess -- is unclear in the extreme. It seems intended to imply -- without actually stating -- support for the Congressional Resolutions. They say they "support Congressional action that endorses these aims," but -- conspicuously -- they don't actually say whether the Resolution passed by the Senate and to be passed by the House does so. It's hard to see how either of the two Resolutions could be deemed to do so, given that neither even mentions, for instance, a lifting of the blockade of Gaza. But that's the statement J Street issued.

On a related note, MediaBloodHound has the details on the very interesting story of how AP caused to vanish into thin air the tough questioning by its reporter of the U.S. State Department regarding Gaza.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Keynesianism

Military Keynesianism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (September 2007)

Military Keynesianism is a government economic policy in which the government devotes large amounts of spending to the military in an effort to increase economic growth. This is a specific variation on Keynesian economics, developed by English economist John Maynard Keynes. Instances commonly supplied as examples of such policies are Germany in the 1930s and the United States in the 1980s, although whether these assessments are accurate is the subject of vigorous debate.

Contents [hide]
1 Economic Effects
2 Criticisms
3 Examples of Military Keynesianism
4 See also
5 External links

[edit] Economic Effects
The economic effects advanced by supporters of Military Keynesianism can be broken down into four areas, two on the demand side and two on the supply side.

On the demand side, increased military demand for goods and services is generated directly by government spending. Secondly, this direct spending induces a multiplier effect of general consumer spending. These two effects are directly in line with general Keynesian economic doctrine.

On the supply side, the maintenance of a standing army removes many workers, usually young males with less skills and education, from the civilian workforce. This demographic group ordinarily faces an especially high level of unemployment; some argue that drawing them into military service helps prevent crime or gang activity. In the United States, enlistment is touted as offering direct opportunities for education or skill acquisition, possibly to target this demographic.

In this sense, the military might act as an employer of last resort – it is an employment opportunity which tends to hire from the bottom (least qualified) part of the workforce, provides a decent standard of living, serves a useful social purpose, and offers jobs regardless of the state of the general economy.

Also on the supply side, it is often argued that military spending on research and development (R&D) increases the productivity of the civilian sector by generating new infrastructure and advanced technology. Frequently cited examples of technology developed partly or wholly through military funding but later applied in civilian settings include computers, aviation (particularly regarding helicopters and supersonic travel), radar, nuclear power, and the internet.

[edit] Criticisms
The primary criticism of Military Keynesianism faults not its economic intuitions, but adverse social effects. Many assert that the maintenance of large peacetime armies and growth of military spending lead nations into war, while also encouraging militarism and nationalism. These critics often attack the argument that the military prevents young men from sinking into crime by claiming that many soldiers who return from war are worse off physically or mentally than they would have been as unemployed persons at home.

A similar critique is that military Keynesianism accelerates the growth of a military-industrial complex – industrial sectors largely dependent on military spending. Because the military-industrial complex is a large employer and constitutes a significant fraction of aggregate demand, it is politically difficult for the government to reduce deficit military spending. The end result of this, it is feared, is a cycle of constant war and continually high military spending.

Other critics point out that while military R&D can sometimes find later application in civilian industries, it is less efficient than simply researching civilian applications directly. Many point to the recent examples of Japan and Germany, economies which have had great success in developing new technology despite low military spending compared to nations like the United States.

One of the central economic critiques of Military Keynesianism is known as the broken window fallacy. Based on a parable by the 19th-century French economist Fredric Bastiat, it points out that if a person broke a window in a bakery then some people could argue that it was a benefit to the town, as it would provide a job for a glass maker, who would then buy more from the clothes maker and so on. Bastiat pointed out that this is deceptive and illogical reasoning, as it ignores what the baker would have bought had he not been forced to buy a new window - it ignores, in modern economic terminology - opportunity cost. Military Keynesianism fails to take into account opportunity cost - ie. what those soldiers would have been doing instead of being soldiers, and also what arms companies could have been making instead of war materiel.

Another economic critique of Military Keynesianism is based on a rather obvious observation - military spending comes from general taxation. It requires high levels of taxation to fund military spending, and that taxation must come from the productive sectors in the economy, thus being a long term drag on economic growth (this is one of the central criticisms of Keynesianism in general).

Some critics, and even some supporters, contend that in the modern world, these policies are no longer viable for developed countries because military strength is now built on high-technology professional armies, and the military is thus no longer viable as a source of employment of last resort for uneducated young people.

[edit] Examples of Military Keynesianism
There have been no clear-cut historical examples of military Keynesianism in action. The reason is that the theory of military Keynesianism requires that the increased military spending be intended to fulfill an economic goal (i.e. to enhance growth, or increase employment); however the goal of military spending has in all cases been to achieve some military, or political goal.

The Germany of the 1930s, which rebuilt a crippled economy with enormous military production under a National Socialist government, has been cited as an example of military Keynesianism; however the purpose of the increased German military spending was not to increase economic growth, but to prepare for the war of conquest that Hitler always intended to launch. This example illustrates both the potential positives of such policies - in generating rapid growth - and also the negative social effects presented by critics, since the aim of heightened German military production in the 1930s was preparation for the Second World War.

In today’s discourse, the term is most frequently discussed in relation to the United States, particularly the administration of President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Reagan’s administration pushed for significant tax cuts, while increasing military spending to confront the Soviet Union. This was in practice a policy suggestive of military Keynesianism, although Reagan defended it, arguing that military spending was necessary to combat Communism by outspending the Soviet Union.

For many in the United States worried about the adoption of these economic policies, their fears abated somewhat with the reduced military spending of the 1990s which was commonly described as the peace dividend of the end of the Cold War. However, the ongoing "War on Terrorism" and current Iraq War have made such worries again widespread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiite

Shia Islam
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Shiite)
Jump to: navigation, search
"Shia" redirects here. For other uses, see Shia (disambiguation).

Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf, Iraq, where Ali the first Shi‘ah Imam is buried.[hide]
Part of a series on
Shi‘ah Islam

Beliefs & Practices

Succession of Ali
Imamate of the Family
Mourning of Muharram
Light of Aql · Ismah
Intercession · Clergy
The Occultation

Views

The Qur'an · Sahaba
Mu'awiya I · Abu Bakr · Umar

Holy Days

Ashura · Arba'een · Mawlid
Eid ul-Fitr · Eid al-Adha
Eid al-Ghadeer · Eid al-Mubahila

History

Twelver · Isma?ili · Zaidi
The verse of purification
Mubahala · Two things
Khumm · Fatimah's house
First Fitna · Second Fitna
The Battle of Karbala
Persecution

Ahl al-Kisa

Muhammad · Ali · Fatimah
Hasan · Husayn

The Four Companions

Salman al-Farsi
Miqdad ibn Aswad
Abu Dharr al-Ghifari
Ammar ibn Yasir

This box: view • talk • edit
Shi‘a terms

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

Shi'a Islam
Moderate Shi'a
Real Shi'a
Shi'a of Ali
Shi'a of Uthman
Shi'a of Mauwiyah

Shia Islam (Arabic: ????? Shi‘ah, sometimes Shi'a or Shi'ite), is the second largest denomination of Islam, after Sunni Islam. Shi‘ah Muslims, though a minority in the Muslim world, constitute the majority of the populations in Iran, Azerbaijan, Bahrain and Iraq, as well as a plurality in Lebanon and Kuwait.

Shi'a Muslims attribute themselves to the Qur'an and teachings of the final Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, and in contrast to other Muslims, believe that his family, the Ahl al-Bayt (the People of the House), including his descendants known as Imams, have special spiritual and political rule over the community[1] and believe that Ali ibn Abi Talib, Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law, was the first of these Imams and was the rightful successor to Muhammad, and thus reject the legitimacy of the first three Rashidun caliphs.[2]

The Shi'a Islamic faith is vast and inclusive of many different groups. There are various Shi'a theological beliefs, schools of jurisprudence, philosophical beliefs, and spiritual movements. Shi'a Islam embodies a completely independent system of religious interpretation and political authority in the Muslim world. The Shi'a identity emerged during the lifetime of Muhammad, and Shi'a theology was formulated in the second century[3] and the first Shi'a governments and societies were established by the end of the third century (After Hijra).

Shi'a Islam is divided into three branches. The largest and best known are the Twelver (???? ????? i?na?ašariyya), named after their adherence to the Twelve Imams. They form a majority of the population in Iran, Azerbaijan, Bahrain and Iraq. The term Shi'a often refers to Twelver Shi'a only. Other smaller branches include the Ismaili and Zaidi, who dispute the Twelver lineage of Imams and beliefs.[4]

Contents [hide]
1 Etymology
2 Demographics
3 History
3.1 Origin
4 Concept of Imamah
4.1 The Occultation
5 Branches
5.1 Twelver
5.1.1 The Twelve Imams
5.1.2 Principles of the Religion (Usul al-Din)
5.1.3 Practices of the Religion (Furu al-Din)
5.1.4 Ja'fari jurispudence
5.1.5 Role of religious scholars
5.1.6 Guardianship of the Jurisprudent
5.2 Ismaili
5.2.1 Isma‘ili Imams
5.2.2 The Pillars of the Isma‘ili
5.2.3 Contemporary leadership
5.3 Zaidi
5.4 Ghulat
6 Persecution
7 Religious places & events
7.1 Calendar
7.2 Holy cities
8 See also
9 Notes
10 References
10.1 Further reading
11 External links

[edit] Etymology
Main article: Shia etymology
Shi‘ah, collectively, or Shi‘i, singularly, means 'follower', 'associate' or 'faction'. It has been used in the Qur'an in singular or plural forms with both positive[Qur'an 37:83] and negative[Qur'an 54:51] connotations.

"Shia" is the short form of the historic phrase ši?atu ?Ali (???? ???), meaning "the followers of Ali" or "the faction of Ali".

[edit] Demographics
Main article: Demographics of Islam
As stated above, an estimate of approximately 10-15% of the world's Muslims are Shi'a, which corresponds to about 130-190 million Shi'a Muslims worldwide.[5] Shi'a Muslims, though a minority in the Muslim world, constitute the majority of the populations in Iran, Azerbaijan, Bahrain and Iraq.

Shi'a Muslims also constitute over 30% of the population in Lebanon,[6] over 45% of the population in Yemen,[7] over 35% of the population in Kuwait,[8], 20-25% of the population (primarily Alevi) in Turkey,[9] 20% (primarily Bektashi) of the population in Albania,[10] 20% of the population in Pakistan and 18% of population in Afghanistan. They also make up at least 15% of the Muslim populations in India, the UAE, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Serbia/Montenegro & Kosovo.

Significant Shi'a communities exist on the coastal regions of West Sumatra and Aceh in Indonesia (see Tabuik). The Shi'a presence is negligible elsewhere in Southeast Asia, where Muslims are predominantly Shafi'i Sunnis.

A significant syncretic Shi'a minority is present in Nigeria, centered around the state of Kano (see Shia in Nigeria). East Africa holds several populations of Ismaili Shia, primarily descendants of immigrants from South Asia during the colonial period, such as the Khoja.

According to Shi'a Muslim, one of the lingering problems in estimating Shi'a population is that unless Shi'a form a significant minority in a Muslim country, the entire population is often listed as Sunni. The reverse, however, has not held true, which may contribute to imprecise estimates of the size of each sect. For example, the 1926 rise of the House of Saud in Arabia brought official discrimination against Shi'a.[11]

Shia population distribution in Middle East and South Asia Country Total population Shia population Percent of population that is Shia
Iran 68,700,000 61,800,000 90
Pakistan 165,800,800 33,200,000 20
Iraq 26,000,000 17,400,000 65
India 1,009,000,000 11,000,000 1
Azerbaijan 8,000,000 6,000,000 85
Afghanistan 31,000,000 5,900,000 19
Saudi Arabia 27,000,000 4,000,000 15
Lebanon 3,900,000 1,700,000 45
Kuwait 2,400,000 730,000 30
Bahrain 700,000 520,000 75
Syria 18,900,000 190,000 1
UAE 2,600,000 160,000 6
Qatar 890,000 140,000 16
Oman 3,100,000 31,000 1
Source: Based on data from numerous scholarly references and from governments and NGOs in the Middle East and the West.

[edit] History

[edit] Origin
There are three theories about the emergence of Shi'a Islam. One of them emphasizes the political struggle about the succession of Muhammad after his death and especially during the First Fitna.[12] According to this theory, early in the history of Islam, the Shia were a political faction (party of 'Ali) that supported caliphate of ?Ali ibn Abi ?alib and, later, of his descendants. Starting as a political faction, this group gradually developed into a religious movement. [13]

The other one emphasizes on different interpretation of Islam which led to different understanding about the role of caliphs and ulamas. Hossein Nasr has quoted:

Shi'ism was not brought into existence only by the question of the political succession to Muhammad as so many Western works claim (although this question was of course of great importance). The problem of political succession may be said to be the element that crystallized the Shi'ites into a distinct group, and political suppression in later periods, especially the martyrdom of Imam Husayn-upon whom be peace-only accentuated this tendency of the Shi'ites to see themselves as a separate community within the Islamic world. The principal cause of the coming into being of Shi'ism, however, lies in the fact that this possibility existed within the Islamic revelation itself and so had to be realized. Inasmuch as there were exoteric [Zaheri] and esoteric [Bateni] interpretations from the very beginning, from which developed the schools (madhhab) of the Sharia and Sufism in the Sunni world, there also had to be an interpretation of Islam which would combine these elements in a single whole. This possibility was realized in Shi'ism, for which the Imam is the person in whom these two aspects of traditional authority are united and in whom the religious life is marked by a sense of tragedy and martyrdom... Hence the question which arose was not so much who should be the successor of Muhammad as what the function and qualifications of such a person would be.[14]

[edit] Concept of Imamah

The Holy Kaaba in Mecca, Saudi Arabia.
Tomb of Muhammad in Madinah, Saudi Arabia.Main article: Status of a Shia Imam
Most of the early Shia as well as Zaydis differed only marginally from mainstream Sunnis in their views on political leadership, but it is possible in this sect to see a refinement of Shia doctrine. Early Sunnis traditionally held that the political leader must come from the tribe of the Prophet—namely, the Quraysh. The Zaydis narrowed the political claims of the Ali's supporters, claiming that not just any descendant of 'Ali would be eligible to lead the Muslim community (ummah) but only those males directly descended from Mu?ammad through the union of 'Ali and Fa?imah. But during Abbasid revolts, other Shia, who came to be known as imamiyyah (followers of the Imams) follow theological school of Ja'far al-Sadiq. They asserted a more exalted religious role for Imams and insisted that, at any given time, whether in power or not, a single male descendant of 'Ali and Fa?imah was the divinely appointed Imam and the sole authority, in his time, on all matters of faith and law. To those Shi?ites, love of the imams and of their persecuted cause became as important as belief in God’s oneness and the mission of Muhammad. [13]

Later most of Shia, including Twelver and Ismaili, became Imami. Imamis Shia believe that Imams are the spiritual and political successors to Muhammad.[13] Imams are human individual who not only rules over the community with justice, but also is able to keep and interpret the Divine Law and its esoteric meaning. The Prophet and Imams' words and deeds are a guide and model for the community to follow; as a result, they must be free from error and sin, and must be chosen by divine decree, or nass, through the Prophet.[15][16]

According to this view, there is always an Imam of the Age, who is the divinely appointed authority on all matters of faith and law in the Muslim community. ‘Ali was the first Imam of this line, the rightful successor to the Prophet of Islam, followed by male descendants of Muhammad through his daughter Fatimah Zahra.[13]

This difference between following either the Ahl al-Bayt (Muhammad's family and descendants) or the Caliph Abu Bakr has shaped Shia and non-Shia views on some of the Qur'an, the Hadith (narrations from Muhammad) and other areas of Islam. For instance, the collection of Hadith venerated by Shia Muslims is centered on narrations by members of the Ahl al-Bayt and their supporters, while some Hadith by narrators not belonging to or supporting the Ahl al-Bayt are not included (those of Abu Huraira, for example). According to the Sunnis, Ali was the third successor to Abu Bakr however, the Shia maintain that Ali was the first divinely sanctioned "Imam," or successor of Muhammad. The seminal event in Shia history is the martyrdom in 680 CE at the Battle of Karbala of Ali's son Hussein, who led an non-allegiance movement against the defiant caliph (71 of Hussein's followers were killed as well). Hussein came to symbolize resistance to tyranny.

It is believed in Twelver and Ismaili Shi‘ah Islam that ‘aql, divine wisdom, was the source of the souls of the Prophets and Imams and gave them esoteric knowledge called ?ikmah and that their sufferings were a means of divine grace to their devotees.[17][18][13] Although the Imam was not the recipient of a divine revelation, he had a close relationship with God, through which God guides him, and the Imam in turn guides the people. Imamate, or belief in the divine guide is a fundamental belief in the Twelver and Ismaili Shi‘i branches and is based on the concept that God would not leave humanity without access to divine guidance.[19]

[edit] The Occultation
Main article: The Occultation
The Occultation in Shi'a Islam refers to a belief that the messianic figure, the Mahdi, is an Imam who has disappeared and will one day return and fill the world with justice. Some Shi'a, such as the Zaidi and Nizari Ismaili, do not believe in the idea of the Occultation. The groups which do believe in it differ upon which lineage of imamate is correct, and therefore which individual has gone into the Occultation.

[edit] Branches
The Shi'a faith throughout its history split over the issue of imamate, with each branch supporting different imams. The largest branch are the Twelvers, to which over 85% of Shi'a belong. The only other surviving branches are the Zaidi and Ismaili. All three groups follow a different line of Imamate.

Twelver Shi'a believe in the lineage of the Twelve Imams. The Twelver Shi'a faith is predominantly found in Iran (est. 90%) , Azerbaijan (est. 85%), Bahrain (est. 75%), Iraq (est. 65%), Yemen (est. 45%), Lebanon (est. 35%) [20], Kuwait (est. 35%), Turkey (est. 25%), Albania (est. 20%), Pakistan (est. 20%) and Afghanistan (est. 20%).[21][22].

The Zaidi dispute the succession of the fifth Twelver Imam, Muhammad al-Baqir, because he did not stage a revolution against the corrupt government, unlike Zaid ibn Ali. They do not believe in a normal lineage, but rather that any descendant of Hasan ibn Ali or Husayn ibn Ali who stages a revolution against a corrupt government is an imam. The Zaidi are mainly found in Yemen.

The Ismaili dispute the succession of the seventh Twelver Imam, Musa al-Kadhim, believing his older brother Isma'il ibn Jafar actually succeeded their father Ja'far al-Sadiq, and did not predecease him like Twelver Shi'a believe. Ismaili form small communities in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, India, Yemen, China and Saudi Arabia[23] and have several subbranches.

[edit] Twelver
Main article: Twelvers
[hide] Part of a series on Shi‘ah Islam
Twelvers

The Fourteen Infallibles
Muhammad · Fatimah

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

The Twelve Imams
Ali · Hasan · Husayn
al-Sajjad · al-Baqir · al-Sadiq
al-Kadhim · al-Rida · al-Taqi
al-Hadi · al-Askari · al-Mahdi

Concepts
Fourteen Infallibles
Occultation (Minor · Major)
Akhbar · Usul · Ijtihad
Taqleed · 'Aql · Irfan
Mahdaviat

Principles
Monotheism
Judgement Day · Justice
Prophethood · Imamate

Practices
Prayer · Fasting · Pilgrimage
Charity · Taxes · Jihad
Command Justice · Forbid Evil
Love the family of Muhammad
Dissociate from their Enemies

Holy cities
Mecca · Medina · Jerusalem
Najaf · Karbala · Mashhad
Samarra · Kadhimayn

Groups
Usuli · Akhbari · Shaykhi
Nimatullahi · Safaviya
Qizilbash · Alevism · Alawism
Bektashi · Tabarie

Scholarship
Marja · Ayatollah · Allamah
Hojatoleslam · Mujtahid
List of marjas · List of Ayatollahs

Hadith collections
Peak of Eloquence · The Pslams of Islam · Book of Fundamentals · The Book in Scholar's Lieu · Civilization of Laws · The Certainty · Book of Sulaym ibn Qays · Oceans of Light · Wasael ush-Shia · Reality of Certainty · Keys of Paradise

This box: view • talk • edit
Twelver Shi'asm (???? ????? Ithna?ashariyyah) is the largest denomination within the Shi'a branch of Islam. An adherent of Twelver Shi'ism is most commonly referred to as a Twelver, which is derived from their belief in twelve divinely ordained leaders, or Imams.

[edit] The Twelve Imams
See also: Twelve Imams

The Twelve Imams are the spiritual and political successors to Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, in the Twelver or Ithna Ashariya branch of Shia Islam.[13]

According to the theology of Twelvers, the successor of Muhammad is an infallible human individual who not only rules over the community with justice, but also is able to keep and interpret the Divine Law and its esoteric meaning. The Prophet and Imams' words and deeds are a guide and model for the community to follow; as a result, they must be free from error and sin, and must be chosen by divine decree, or nass, through the Prophet.[24][25] Each Imam was the son of the previous Imam, with the exception of Husayn ibn Ali, who was the brother of Hasan ibn Ali.[13] The twelfth and final Imam is Muhammad al-Mahdi, who is believed by the Twelvers to be currently alive, and in hiding.[19]

Ali ibn Abi Talib (600–661), also known as Ali, Amir-ul-Mu'mineen (commander of the faithful) and Shah-e Mardan Ali (King of men)
Hasan ibn al-Ali (625–669), also known as Al-Hasan al-Mujtaba
Husayn ibn al-Ali (626–680), also known as Al-Husayn ash-Shaheed
Ali ibn al-Husayn (658–713), also known as Ali Zayn-ul-'Abideen
Muhammad ibn al-Ali (676–743), also known as Muhammad al-Baqir
Jafar ibn al-Muhammad (703–765), also known as Ja'far as-Sadiq
Musa ibn al-Jafar (745–799), also known as Musa al-Kadhim
Ali ibnu al-Musa (765–818), also known as Ali ar-Ridha
Muhammad ibn al-Ali (810–835), also known as Muhammad al Jawad and Muhammad at Taqi or only Taqi
Ali ibn al-Muhamad (827–868), also known as Ali al-Hadi and Naqi
Hasan ibn al-Ali (846–874), also known as Hasan al Askari
Muhammad ibn al-Hasan (868–?), also known as Al-Hujjat ibn Al-Hasan, Mahdi, Imam-e-Asr

[edit] Principles of the Religion (Usul al-Din)
Five basic elements of Islam according to Twelver Shi'a beliefs are:

Tawhid (Oneness): The Oneness of God
'Adaalah (Justice): The Justice of God
Nubuwwah (Prophethood): God has appointed perfect and infallible prophets and messengers to teach mankind the religion (that is, a perfect system of how to live in "peace" or "submission to God"). Prophets are Messengers which are appointed by Allah to bring the message of God to people and spread that message while the Imam (leader) is appointed by Allah to protect that message since ordinary people will fail to do so. Also, as Muhammad was the last messenger of God which means the message he brought was the last and final message to the people from Allah, none is supposed to bring a message from Allah after Muhammed, therefore, if people were left with the message alone, the true message could not survive long and would have undergone changes. Imams were therefore appointed to take care of the message and prevent people from going astray after the last prophet.
Imaamah (Leadership): God has appointed specific leaders to lead and guide mankind — a prophet appoints a custodian of the religion before his demise. Shi'a Muslims believe in Twelve Imams, eleven of whom were killed, but they believe their twelfth Imam is still alive. Their history says that he disappeared after performing rituals of the eleventh Imam's (his father's) death. He is still under "ghaybat" or "occultation" and will appear on the face of the earth to raise the truth and bring an end to tyranny and oppression
Qiyaamah (The Day of Judgment): After the annihilation of this world, God will raise mankind for Judgement.

[edit] Practices of the Religion (Furu al-Din)
Main article: Practices of the Religion
According to Twelver doctrine, what is referred to as pillars by Sunni Islam are called the practices or secondary principles. There are three additional practices. The first is jihad, which is also important to the Sunni, but not considered a pillar. The second is Commanding what is just (Arabic: ??? ?????????), which calls for every Muslim to live a virtuous life and to encourage others to do the same. The third is Forbidding what is evil (Arabic: ????? ?? ???????), which tells Muslims to refrain from vice and from evil actions and to encourage others to do the same.[26][27][28] Twelvers have five Principles of the Religion which relates to Aqidah.[29]

Salah (Prayer) – Performing the five daily prayers.
Sawm (Fast) – fasting during the Islamic holy lunar month of Ramadhan (Able to eat while the sun is hidden)
Hajj (Pilgrimage) – performing the pilgrimage to Mecca (once in a lifetime)
Zakah (Poor-rate) – paying the poor-tax (2.5% of your wealth every year should go to the poor)
Khums (One-fifth of savings) – paying tax to the Imam (??? ????) and poor/deserving saadat (descendents of Ahlul Bayt) - Saham-e-Saadat
Jihad (Struggle) – struggling to please the Almighty. The greater, or internal Jihad is the struggle against the evil within one's soul in every aspect of life. The lesser, or external, Jihad is the struggle against the evil of one's environment in every aspect of life. This is not to be mistaken with the common modern misconception that this means "Holy War". Writing the truth (jihad bi l-qalam) and speaking truth in front of an oppressor are also forms of Jihad.
Commanding what is just
Forbidding what is evil
Tawallá – loving the Ahlu l-Bayt and their followers
Tabarra' – dissociating oneself from the enemies of the Ahlu l-Bayt

[edit] Ja'fari jurispudence
Main article: Ja'fari jurisprudence
Ja'fari jurisprudence or Ja'fari Fiqh is the name of the jurisprudence of the Twelver Muslims, derived from the name of Ja'far al-Sadiq, the 6th Shia Imam.

The Ja'fari Shia consider Sunnah to be the oral traditions of Muhammad and their implementation and interpretation by the Imams who were all scholars and descendants of Muhammad through his daughter Fatima and her husband, the first Imam, Ali. There are three schools of Ja'fari jurispudence: Usuli, Akhbari, and Shaykhi. The Usuli school is by far the largest of the three. Twelver groups that do not follow Ja'fari jurisprudence include the Alawi, Alevi, Bektashi, and Ahl-e Haqq.

[edit] Role of religious scholars
Main article: The Shia clergy
Twelver Shi'a Muslims believe that the study of Islamic literature is a continual process, and is necessary for identifying all of God's laws. Sunni Muslims also believe that they can interpret the Qur'an and hadith with the same authority as their predecessors - that the door to ijtihad was never closed. However, the opinion of the 1st and 2nd century (7th and 8th century Gregorian calendar) scholars are given greater weight.

[edit] Guardianship of the Jurisprudent
Main article: Hokumat-e Islami : Velayat-e faqih (book by Khomeini)
Traditionally Twelver Shi'a Muslims consider ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib and the subsequent further eleven Imams not only religious guides but political leaders, based on a crucial hadith where the Prophet Muhammad passes on his power to command Muslims to Ali. Since the last Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi, went into "occultation" in 939 AD and is not expected back until end times, this left Shi'a without religiously sanctioned governance. In contrast, the Ismaili Imams did successfully gain political power with the shortly lived Fatimid Empire. After the fall of the Fatimid Empire Ismaili Shi'asm started to lean towards secular thought.

The first Shi'a regime, the Safavid dynasty in Iran, propagated the Twelver faith, made Twelver law the law of the land, and patronized Twelver scholarship. For this, Twelver ulama "crafted a new theory of government" which held that while "not truly legitimate", the Safavid monarchy would be "blessed as the most desirable form of government during the period of awaiting" for the twelfth imam.[30]

In general, the Shi'a adhere to one of three approaches towards the state: either full participation in government, i.e. attempting to influence policies by becoming active in politics, or passive cooperation with it, i.e. minimal participation, or else most commonly, mere toleration of it, i.e. remaining aloof from it.[31] Historically, Zaidi and Ismaili Shi'a imams functioned as both religious and political leaders, but later after the fall of the Fatimid Empire the Ismaili imamate became a secular institution. In general, Twelver Shi'a historically remained secular.

This changed with Iranian Revolution where the Twelver Ayatollah Khomeini and his supporters established a new theory of governance for the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is based on Khomeini's theory of guardianship of the Islamic jurist as rule of the Islamic jurist, and jurists as "legatees" of the Prophet Muhammad.

While not all Twelver Shi'a accept this theory, it is uniquely Twelver and the basis of the constitution of Iran, the largest Shi'a Muslim country, where the Supreme Leader must be an Islamic jurist.

[edit] Ismaili
Main article: Ismaili
[hide] Part of a series on Shi‘ah Islam
Isma?ilism

Concepts
The Qur'an · The Ginans
Reincarnation · Panentheism
Imam · Pir · Da‘i l-Mu?laq
‘Aql · Numerology · Taqiyya
Zahir · Ba?in

Seven Pillars
Guardianship · Prayer · Charity
Fasting · Pilgrimage · Struggle
Purity · Profession of Faith

History
Druze · Shoaib · Nabi Shu'ayb
Seveners · Qarmatians
Fatimids · Baghdad Manifesto
Hamza ibn ‘Ali · ad-Darazi
Hafizi · Taiyabi · Ainsarii
Sabbah · Hashshashin
Sadardin · Satpanth
Dawudi · Progressive Dawudi
Musta‘li · Sulaimani · Alavi
Abta-i-Malak · Hebtiahs
Nizari · Aga Khan

Early Imams
Ali · ?assan · ?usain
as-Sajjad · al-Baqir · a?-?adiq
Isma‘il · Mu?ammad
A?mad · at-Taqi · az-Zaki
al-Mahdi · al-Qa'im · al-Man?ur
al-Mu‘izz · al-‘Aziz · al-?akim
az-Zahir · al-Mustansir · Nizar
al-Musta'li · al-Amir · al-Qa?im

This box: view • talk • edit

The Isma‘ili (Arabic: ????????????? al-Isma?iliyyun; Urdu: ???????? Isma?ili, Persian: ?????????? Esma?iliyan) branch of Islam is the second largest part of the Shi‘ah community after the Twelvers. The Isma‘ili get their name from their acceptance of Isma‘il ibn Ja‘far as the divinely-appointed spiritual successor (Imam) to Ja‘far a?-?adiq, wherein they differ from the Twelvers, who accept Musà al-Kazim, younger brother of Isma‘il, as the true Imam. The Isma‘ili and the Twelvers both accept the same initial A'immah from the descendants of Muhammad through his daughter Fa?imah az-Zahra and therefore share much of their early history.

After the death or Occultation of Imam Mu?ammad ibn Isma‘il in the 8th century, the teachings of Ismailism further transformed into the belief system as it is known today, with an explicit concentration on the deeper, esoteric meaning (ba?in) of the faith. With the eventual development of Twelverism into the more literalistic (zahir) oriented Akhbari and later U?uli schools of thought, Shi‘ism developed in two separate directions: the metaphorical Isma‘ili group focusing on the mystical path and nature of God and the divine manifestation in the personage of the "Imam of the Time" as the "Face of God", while the more literalistic Twelver group focusing on divine law (shari‘ah) and the deeds and sayings (sunnah) of Mu?ammad and his successors (the Ahlu l-Bayt), who as A'immah were guides and a light to God.[32]

Though there are several sub-groupings within the Isma‘ilis, the term in today's vernacular generally refers to the Nizari community who are followers of the Aga Khan and the largest group among the Isma‘iliyyah. While many of the branches have extremely differing exterior practices, much of the spiritual theology has remained the same since the days of the faith's early Imams. In recent centuries Isma‘ilis have largely been an Indo-Iranian community,[33] but they are found in India, Pakistan, Syria, Palestine, Saudi Arabia,[34] Yemen, China,[35] Jordan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, East Africa and South Africa, and have in recent years emigrated to Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and North America.[36]

[edit] Isma‘ili Imams
Main article: List of Ismaili Imams
After the death of Isma‘ili ibn Ja‘far, many Isma‘ili believed the line of Imamate ended and that one day the messianic Mahdi, whom they believed to be Mu?ammad ibn Isma‘il, would return and establish an age of justice. One group included the violent Qarmatians, who had a stronghold in Bahrain. In contrast, some Isma‘ilis believed the Imamate did continue, and that the Imams were in hiding and still communicated and taught their followers through a network of da‘is "Missionaries".

In 909, ‘Ubaydallah al-Mahdi bil-Lah, a claimant to the Isma‘ili Imamate, established the Fatimid Empire, a political power where Isma‘ili Imams would rule for centuries. Egypt became the center of an empire that included at its peak North Africa, Sicily, Palestine, Syria, the Red Sea coast of Africa, Yemen and the Hejaz. Under the Fatimids, Egypt flourished and developed an extensive trade network in both the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, which eventually determined the economic course of Egypt during the High Middle Ages.

During this period, three lineages of Imams formed. The first branch, known today as the Druze, occurred with the Imam al-Hakim bi-Amrallah. Born in 386 AH (985), he ascended as ruler at the age of eleven and was feared for his eccentricity and believed insanity. The typical religiously tolerant Fatimid Empire saw much persecution under his reign. When in 411 AH (1021) his mule returned without him, soaked in blood, a religious group that was even forming in his lifetime broke off from mainstream Isma‘ilism and refused to acknowledge his successor. Later to be known as the Druze, they believe al-Hakim to be the incarnation of God and the prophecized Mahdi, who would one day return and bring justice to the world.[37] The faith further split from Isma‘ilism as it developed very unique doctrines which often classes it separately from both Isma‘iliyyah and Islam.

The second split occurred following the death of Ma'ad al-Mustansir Billah in 487 AH (1094). His rule was the longest of any Caliph in any Islamic empires. Upon his passing away his sons, the older Nizar and the younger al-Musta‘li fought for political and spiritual control of the dynasty. Nizar was defeated and jailed, but according to Nizari tradition, his son to escaped to Alamut where the Iranian Isma‘ili had accepted his claim.[38]

The Musta‘li line split again between the ?ayyibi and the ?afizi, the former claiming that the 21st Imam and son of al-Amir went into Occultation and appointed a Da‘i al-Mu?laq to guide the community, in a similar manner as the Isma‘ili had lived after the death of Mu?ammad ibn Isma‘il. The latter claimed that the ruling Fatimid Caliph was the Imam, and they died out with the fall of the Fatimid Empire.

[edit] The Pillars of the Isma‘ili
Main article: Seven Pillars of Islam (Ismaili)
The Isma‘ili Seven Pillars of Islam, including the Nizari, Druze and Bohra (Musta‘li) have three doctrines that are not included in the Five Pillars of Islam: Walayah, Taharah and Jihad. This would raise the total to eight, but the Bohra do not include shahadah, lowering it to seven. The shahadah is a prominent part of other Isma‘ili traditions, with the added inclusion of ‘Aliyun Amiru l-Mu'minin Wali Allah Arabic: ??? ??? ????? "‘Ali, the Master of the Believers, is the wali of God", at the end of the standard shahadah as recited by the rest of the Muslim Ummah.[39]

Walayah “Guardianship” denotes love and devotion to God, the prophets, the imam and the du‘at "missionaries". In Isma?ili doctrine, God is the true desire of every soul, and he manifests himself in the forms of prophets and imams; the appointed Missionaries lead believers to the right path. The Druze refer to this pillar as Taslim "Submission".
Taharah “Purity”: The Druze
Shahadah "Profession of Faith": The Bohra do not list this as a Pillar and hence have only seven pillars.[39] the Druze do not add the typical Isma‘ili phrase to the basic profession of faith.
Salah "Prayer": Unlike Sunni and Twelver muslims, Nizari Isma?iliyya reason that it is up to the current imam to designate the style and form of prayer, and for this reason the current Nizari practices resemble dua and pray them three times a day. These three times have been related with the three times that have been mentioned in the Qur'an: sunrise, before sunset, and after sunset. In contrast, the Musta?li maintain five prayers and their style is generally closely related to that of the Twelvers. The Druze believe that the meaning of prayer is sidqu l-lisan "speaking Truth (to/about God)" and do not believe in five daily prayers. They do sometimes attend prayers, which is the practice of the "uninitiated" (juhhal) and historically was also done for reasons of taqiyya.
Zakah "Charity": with the exception of the Druze, all Isma‘ili madhahab have practices resembling that of Sunni and Twelver Muslims with the addition of the characteristic Shi‘ah khums: payment of 1/8th of one's unspent money at the end of the year to the Imam. In addition to khums, Isma‘ilis pay 12.5% of their monthly gross income to the imam, which goes to the central accounts and then spent on welfare of the humankind like education and health projects. One of the major examples of these projects is the Aga Khan Development Network, that is one of the biggest welfare networks of the world. Thus, Isma‘ilis believe that as Mu?ammad was designated to take zakat from believers in the past, it is now the duty to pay the Imam or his representative. The Druze practice ?ifzu l-Ikhwan "Protection of One's Brothers" instead of paying a fee, a culturally complex practice of interdependence.
Sawm “Fasting”: Nizari and Musta‘li believe in both a metaphorical and literal meaning of fasting. The literal meaning is that one must fast as an obligation, such as during Rama?an, and the metaphorical meaning being that one is in attainment of the Divine Truth and must strive to avoid worldy activities which may detract from this goal. In particular, Isma‘ilis believe the real and esoteric meaning of fasting is avoiding devilish acts and doing the good deeds. Not eating during the month of Rama?daan has been considered as a metaphorical implementation of fasting and is not compulsory. The Druze emphasise the esoteric meaning, which they call tark ‘ibadat al-awthan "deserting idol-worship": that which detracts from communion with God is an idol (wathan).
Hajj “Pilgrimage”: For Isma‘ilis, this means visiting the Imam or his representative and that this is the greatest and most spiritual of all pilgrimages. The Bohra maintain also the practice of going to Mecca. The Druze interpret this completely metaphorically as "fleeing from devils and oppressors" and rarely go to Mecca.[40]
Jihad "Struggle": The definition of jihad is controversial as it has two meanings: "the Greater Struggle" and the "The Lesser Struggle", the latter of which means a confrontation with the enemies of the faith. The Nizari are pacifist and interpret "adversaries" of the faith as personal and social vices (i.e. wrath, intolerance, etc.) and those individuals who harm the peace of the faith and avoid provocation and use force only as a final resort only in self-defense. It is unclear what the Bohra believe. The Druze have a long history of military and political engagement, but refer to this pillar solely as Rida "Contentment" - the war to fight that which removes you from the ease of the Divine Presence, a meaning similar to that of the Nizari. In addition, the ?Uqqal "Wise Ones", the religious cadre of the Druze, are pacifists.

[edit] Contemporary leadership
For Nizaris, there has been less of a scholarly institution because of the existence of a present Imam. The Imam of the Age defines the jurisprudence, and may differ with Imams previous to him because of different times and circumstances.

However, divine leadership has continued in the Bohra branch through the institution of the "Unrestricted Missionary". According to Bohra tradition, before the last Imam, ?ayyib Abi l-Qa?im, went into seclusion, his father, the 20th Imam Mansur al-Amir Bi-Ahkamillah had instructed Queen Al-Hurra Al-Malika in Yemen to appoint a vicegerent after the seclusion - the Unrestricted Missionary, who as the Imam's vicegerent has full authority to govern the community in all matters both spiritual and temporal while he is in the Occultation. The three branches of the Musta‘li, the Alavi Bohra, Sulaimani Bohra and Dawoodi Bohra, differ on who the current Unrestricted Missionary is.

[edit] Zaidi
Main article: Zaidi
The Zaidi are a branch of Shi'a Islam named after the Imam Zayd ibn ?Ali. Followers of the Zaidi fiqh are called Zaidis (or occasionally, Fivers by Sunnis). However, there is also a group called the Zaidi Wasitis who are Twelvers (see below).

Since the earliest form of Zaidism was of the Jarudiyya group,[41] many of the first Zaidi states, like those of the Alavids, Buyids, Ukhaidhirids[citation needed] and Rassids, were inclined to the Jarudiyya group.

The first Zaidi state was established in Daylaman and Tabaristan (northern Iran) in 864 C.E. by the Alavids;[42] it lasted until the death of its leader at the hand of the Samanids in 928 C.E. Roughly forty years later the state was revived in Gilan (north-western Iran) and survived under Hasanid leaders until 1126 C.E. After which from the 12th-13th centuries, the Zaidis of Daylaman, Gilan and Tabaristan then acknowledge the Zaidi Imams of Yemen or rival Zaidi Imams within Iran.[43]

The Buyids were reported to have been Zaidi,[citation needed] as well as the Ukhaidhirite rulers of al-Yamama in the 9th and 10th centuries.[44]

The leader of the Zaidi community took the title of Caliph. As such, the ruler of Yemen was known as the Caliph, al-Hadi Yahya bin al-Hussain bin al-Qasim ar-Rassi (a descendant of Imam al-Hasan) who, at Sa'da, in 893-7 C.E., founded the Zaidi Imamate and this system continued until the middle of the 20th century, until the revolution of 1962 C.E. that deposed the Zaidi Imam. The founding Zaidism of Yemen was of the Jarudiyya group, however with the increasing interaction with Hanafi and Shafi'i Sunni Islam, there was a shift from the Jarudiyya group to the Sulaimaniyya, Tabiriyya, Butriyya or Salihiyya groups.[45]

Zaidis form the dominant religious group in Yemen. Currently, they constitute about 40-45% of the population in Yemen. Ja'faris and Isma'ilis are 2-5%.[46][47] In Saudi Arabia, it is estimated that there are over 1 million Zaidis (primarily in the western provinces).[citation needed]

Currently the most prominent Zaidi movement is Husayn al-Huthi's Shabab al-Mu'mineen, who have been the subject of an ongoing campaign against them by the Yemeni Government in which the Army has lost 743 men and thousands of innocent civilians have been killed or displaced by government forces, causing a grave humanitarian crisis in north Yemen. Shia Population of the Middle East[48]

[edit] Ghulat
Main article: Ghulat
This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (December 2008)

Ghali or Exaggerator is the adjectival form of Ghuluww means Exaggeration, a technical term mainstream Muslims use to describe the beliefs of minority Muslim groups who ascribe divine characteristics to a member of Muhammad's family, especially Ali) or the early companions of the Prophet such as Salman al-Farisi. The assumption is that the groups thus described have gone too far and have come to associate them with God (shirk). Some groups are commonly alleged to be exaggerator by Twelver scholars are:

Alawites (an-Nusayriyyah)
Druzes (This group is Ismaili and is accepted by the mainstream Nizari as a proper group)
Ahl-e Haqq
Most of these groups have some similarity with Shi'a such as belief that Ali is the rightful successor of Muhammad. In addition, most of them have accepted The Twelve Imams (hence falling under the Twelver category), but attribute some God-like attribution to them. Thus most of the Twelvers have negative view towards them and recognize them as heretics. Nowadays, they live in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey and Syria.

[edit] Persecution
Main article: Persecution of Shia Muslims
The dispute over the right successor to Muhammad resulted in the formation of two main sects, the Sunni, and the Shia. The Sunni, or followers of the way, followed the caliphate and maintained the premise that any devout Muslim could potentially become the successor to the Prophet if accepted by his peers. The Shia however, maintain that only the person selected by God and announced by the Prophet could become his successor, thus Ali became the religious authority for the Shia people. Militarily established and holding control over the Umayyad government, many Sunni rulers perceived the Shia as a threat – both to their political and religious authority.[49]

The Sunni rulers under the Umayyads sought to marginalize the Shia minority and later the Abbasids turned on their Shia allies and further imprisoned, persecuted, and killed Shias. The persecution of Shias throughout history by Sunni co-religionists has often been characterized by brutal and genocidal acts. Comprising only about 10-15% of the entire Muslim population, to this day, the Shia remain a marginalized community in many Sunni Arab dominant countries without the rights to practice their religion and organize.[50]

At various times many Shi'a groups have faced persecution.[51][52][53][54][55][56]

[edit] Religious places & events

[edit] Calendar

Shi'a Muslims in Bahrain strike their chests during the Remembrance of Muharram.Sunni, and Twelver and Mustaali Shi'a, celebrate the following annual holidays:

Eid ul-Fitr (??? ?????), which marks the end of fasting during the month of Ramadan and falls on the first day of Shawwal.
Eid ul-Adha, which marks the end of the Hajj or pilgrimage to Mecca, starts on the 10th day of Dhul Hijja.
The following holidays are observed by Twelver and Mustaali Shi'a only, unless otherwise noted:

The Remembrance of Muharram and Ashurah (???????) for Shia commemorates Imam Husayn ibn Ali's martyrdom. Imam Husayn was grandson of Muhammad, who was killed by Yazid ibn Muawiyah, the Sunnis' 6th Khalif. Ashurah is a day of deep mourning which occurs on the 10th of Muharram. Sunnis also celebrate Ashurah, but give it a different meaning (see Ashurah). On January 19, 2008, 2 million Iraqi Shia pilgrims marched through Karbala city, Iraq to celebrate Ashura. 20,000 Iraqi troops and police guarded the event amid tensions due to clashes between Iraqi troops and the cult which left 263 people dead (in Basra and Nasiriya).[57]
Arba'een commemorates the suffering of the women and children of Imam Husayn's household. After Husayn was killed, they were marched over the desert, from Karbala (central Iraq) to Shaam (Damascus, Syria). Many children (some of whom were direct descendants of Muhammad) died of thirst and exposure along the route. Arba'een occurs on the 20th of Safar, 40 days after Ashurah.
Milad al-Nabi, Muhammad's birth date, is celebrated by both Sunni (though not all celebrate as there is a dispute on this issue) and Shia on the 17th of Rabi al-Awwal, which coincides with the birth date of the sixth imam, Ja'far al-Sadiq.[citation needed]
Mid-Sha'ban is the birth date of the 12th and final imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi. It is celebrated by Shi'a Muslims on the 15th of Shaban. Many Shia fast on this day to show gratitude.
Eid al-Ghadeer celebrates Ghadir Khum, the occasion when Muhammad announced Ali's imamate before a multitude of Muslims. Eid al-Ghadeer is held on the 18th of Dhil-Hijjah.
Al-Mubahila celebrates a meeting between the household of Muhammad and a Christian deputation from Najran. Al-Mubahila is held on the 24th of Dhil-Hijjah.

[edit] Holy cities
Both Shia and Sunni Muslims share a certain veneration and religious obligations towards certain shrines and holy sites, such as Mecca (Masjid al-Haram), Medina (Al-Masjid al-Nabawi), and Jerusalem (Al-Aqsa Mosque). For a list of some of the holiest uniquely Shia shrines see Shia holy sites.