Wednesday, September 17, 2014

My Message to Scotland: Vote Yes to Independence. Let the Sun Set on the British Empire

In just a few hours, Scots will have the chance to do what their ancestors at the Battle of Bannockburn did seven hundred years ago: Win their nation's independence.  Fortunately this time, bloodshed is highly unlikely.  In a great exercise in democracy, Scots have been granted the right to choose their country's fate.  It's a right that most peoples seeking self-determination around the world can only dream of.  The fight for Scotland's future is very reminiscent of a struggle that I know all too well about as a Canadian: the question of Quebec's status.  Quebec has twice voted against independence.  The last referendum was in 1995, when I was still a teenager.  I can still remember my parents and I going to a massive rally in Toronto calling on Quebec to stay in Canada.  In my high school, we were even asked by our homeroom teacher to sign a petition calling on Quebec to vote against separation.  I signed that petition, but if I had the chance to do it all over again, I would not have signed it, nor would I have attended the rally in Toronto in 1995.  Quite the opposite.  I would have joined the campaign in favour of an independent Quebec, and I feel that should there be another referendum on the question of the province's status, I will definitely be on the side of the sovereigntists, which is why I am now on the side of those in Scotland who seek to regain their country's independence.


I have listened to the predictable arguments of those against Scottish independence.  They are very similar to the ones always used by those who are against independence for Quebec and they are almost all about the economy.  I'm not going to say that the "No" campaigners in Scotland are wrong about the economic consequences of Scottish independence any more than I would try to contradict the similar arguments of the federalist camp in Canada.  The truth is that there probably will be significant economic consequences for Scotland if they choose independence, just as their would be for Quebec if they decided at some point to go it alone.  But since when has freedom ever been free?  Indeed, there is always a price to pay when a people seek freedom.  It is usually paid in blood rather than money, and I would say that any economic costs borne by Scots after a "Yes" vote pale in comparison to the sacrifice made by their ancestors who bled on the battlefield of Bannockburn and the many other battlefields on which Scots gave their lives for their country's freedom.  Moreover, I cannot think of too many examples in which a newly independent country did not struggle during its first years of sovereignty.  So yes, in the short run there probably will be consequences for Scots to bear after they have voted for independence.  But in the long run, they will find that they made the right decision.

The Tyranny of the English Majority

It is true that way back in 1707, the Scottish parliament at the time decided to dissolve itself and delegate legislative power over Scotland country to Westminster in what is now called the Union of the Parliaments, so there was a degree of choice involved when the country joined the emerging British Empire - but only to a limited extent.  The Union of the Parliaments occurred well before universal suffrage; well before legislatures were elected by the masses rather than just by white male land-owners.  Then again, Scotland's accession to the British Empire was much more legitimate than that of Wales or Ireland, both of which were countries conquered by the English.  By the early 20th century, after centuries of bloodshed, most of Ireland managed to free itself from the yoke of British imperialism.  But Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland remain part of the United Kingdom, and they are all politically and economically dominated by the English.  Indeed, English domination has always been at the core of the British Empire and continues to be today.

Whatever Scotland gained from its domination at the hands of England will never make up for what it lost.  Centuries of English hegemony have made Scotland's Gaelic language nearly extinct.  The country's culture has become little more than a sideshow in the British melting pot.  And although Scotland's economy has developed significantly since the emergence of the British Empire, the country remains poor compared to England, even as oil has been pumping out of the Shetland Islands.  But instead of enriching Scotland, this oil has largely gone to where most precious resources in the U.K. have gone over the centuries: into the hands of the English.  The fact that Scotland and the other countries in the U.K. have gotten the short end of the stick while England has taken the bulk of the wealth and power shouldn't be a surprise, however, because after all, the United Kingdom, though largely a product of conquest, is a democracy, and in a democracy the majority rules.  So who is the majority in the U.K.?  Why the English of course!  So just as Quebec has been historically dominated by Canada's English-speaking majority, so too have the Scots, Welsh and Irish been dominated by the U.K.'s English majority.  In fact, Scotland and the other smaller countries of the U.K. are in an even worse situation because even together, they don't make up a very large counter-weight against England, whereas Quebec is Canada's second-most populous province and has been able to use its population's voting power to force significant concessions from the English-speaking majority, giving the province more power over its affairs and allowing it to reaffirm its distinct French identity.  It's time that Scotland said no to this tyranny of the English majority by saying "Yes" to independence.

Multinational Empires Have no Place in This World

The United Kingdom is what I often call a multinational empire - a country composed of two or more large ethno-national groups, but usually dominated by just one of them.  The U.K. is composed of four main national groups, but controlled overwhelmingly by one - the English.  It's story is the story of most multinational empires.  It begins when one group of people become so powerful that they conquer the territories of other peoples to eventually form an empire.  Rome, which was the greatest empire of the ancient world, began with the small Roman republic.  But of course, that republic grew more powerful, swallowed the territory of its rivals, and became an empire that stretched across Europe, North Africa and the Middle East.  It contained countless ethnic, linguistic and religious groups, though control remained firmly in the hands of the empire's founders, the Latin speakers of the Italian peninsula.  But of course, all empires eventually come to an end, as did the Roman Empire, which slowly lost control over the territories it had conquered until Rome itself finally ceased to exist as a state.  Fast forward centuries later to when England began to grow in wealth and power until she took control of her neighbours to form the Kingdom of Great Britain, which in turn spread throughout the globe conquering other peoples and their territory to forge the British Empire.  By the mid-20th century, the British Empire was a shell of its former self.  The British no longer hold vast territories overseas.  They have lost their empire.  And now, just as Rome itself was erased as a state, I believe so too will the British state cease to exist.  Whether this happens as a result of the Scottish referendum, or happens later on, it will almost definitely happen.  In fact, I believe that eventually all multinational empires, be they Canada, the Russian Federation or even the great United States of America, will come to an end.  It's just a question of when.  

     

Monday, September 15, 2014

Official Bilingualism is Good for Israel

Last week, I happened to come across an opinion piece on ynetnews.com that argued against a law proposing the annulment of Arabic as an official language in Israel (see: Let Israel's Arabs and their language be).  Supposedly, this bill "…will contribute to the social cohesion in the State of Israel and to the construction of the collective identity necessary for forming mutual trust in the society and preserving the values of democracy."  But the author argues that such a measure, if taken, will do the exact opposite by imposing the Hebrew language on the country's Arab minority.  Personally, I have mixed feelings about this issue.

Part of me believes that it would be hypocrisy for Israeli Arabs to accuse the country's government of trying to impose Hebrew on them, because that's exactly what their ancestors did to most of the peoples of the Middle East and North Africa during the Muslim Arab conquests of centuries past.  If anything, the Israeli government would simply be taking a step towards restoring the country's Hebrew heritage by reaffirming the language's supremacy in the State of Israel.  Moreover, I am usually of the opinion that if someone intends to live in a country in which the majority speaks a language that is different from his or her own, he or she must learn that language, no questions asked.  This is philosophy that I apply to immigrants who come to live in Canada, where I reside.  In Canada, our official languages are English and French.  So when someone comes to live here, they should be expected to begin learning one of these languages from day one.  If they refuse to do this, then they should pack up and go back to wherever it is they came from.  But for me, applying the same principle to Arabic speakers in Israel that I apply to new immigrants who come to live in Canada just doesn't make sense.  Why?  Because for the most part, Israel's Arabic speakers are hardly immigrants.  Many if not most of them have lived in Israel for generations, well before Jews began returning to their ancestral homeland.  Yes, it's true that Israel's Arabs are mostly a foreign population - the result of the aforementioned Muslim Arab conquests.  However, if we the Jewish majority try to impose our Hebrew language on the country's Arab minority, then we will be no better than the conquerors of the past who tried to impose their languages on us.

Official Bilingualism in Israel Should be Strengthened, Not Weakened

I am opposed to any efforts by Israel's leaders to try to reduce the status of Arabic versus Hebrew.  In fact, I would advocate strengthening Israel's status as a bilingual country, using Canada as a model.  For those of you who are unfamiliar with Canada's official languages policy, you may be interested to know that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which resembles Israel's Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty, enshrines the equal status of English and French in all national affairs.  This linguistic equality is further enshrined in Canada's Official Languages Act.  Indeed, Canada's laws on the use of both official languages can be quite strict.  For instance, if a product is not packaged with both English and French present, it is not allowed to be sold in Canada - and this applies to everything from a high-definition TV to something as small as the bottle of water that you purchase at a convenience store.  

Anyone who has travelled around Israel, as I have, knows that the country has already made great strides towards bilingualism.  There are signs in both Hebrew and Arabic everywhere, and Arabic does appear alongside Hebrew on some products sold in Israel, including that bottle of water.  We're certainly well ahead of other countries in the Middle East when it comes to respecting the languages of minority populations.  However, Israel still lags well behind Canada and other bilingual and multilingual jurisdictions.  We don't have a comprehensive official languages act, like Canada does, nor is the equality of Hebrew and Arabic enshrined in our Basic Laws - and I believe that this has to change.

The Case for Bilingualism in Israel

Now some of you folks reading this might ask me, why should we do even more than we already do to accommodate the Arabs when all they want to do is kill us?  My short answer is that strengthening and enshrining official bilingualism in Israel is not really about accommodating the Arabs, but rather accepting reality - the reality that one fifth of Israel's population speak Arabic as their first language; the reality that Arabic is the lingua franca of almost the entire Middle Eastern region of which Israel is a part; and the reality that whether the Jewish majority in Israel likes it or not, the Arabs and their language are part of Israel's heritage.  If we ignore this reality, we are deluding ourselves.  

So I think it's time that Israel's leaders accepted this reality and do what is necessary to make the country as fully bilingual in Hebrew and Arabic as possible.  This means enshrining the equality of both languages in law, enacting new measures to ensure the right of all of Israel's citizens to receive government services in both Hebrew and Arabic wherever they may be, and perhaps most importantly, making sure that Israelis themselves are fluently bilingual in both languages.  Indeed, I have met many Arabs in Israel who have taken the time to become fluent in Hebrew, yet I don't seem to find too many Jews who have taken the time to learn Arabic, unless of course they or their parents immigrated to Israel from a country in which Arabic is the primary language.  As a Jew, I've always felt bad about this double standard, which is why I took it upon myself to study the Arabic language and why I believe that every Israeli Jew should strive to learn the language of our Arab citizens, just as they make the effort to learn the language of their Jewish fellow citizens.

In fact, I would argue that official bilingualism in Israel makes even more sense than it does in Canada, because Israel is such a small country where Hebrew and Arabic speakers are very close to each other, while Canada is incredibly large and English and French speakers tend to be concentrated in certain regions that are often far away from one another.  In other words, bilingualism is much more attainable in Israel than it is in Canada, because let's face it; Jews and Arabs run into each other in Israel all the time, whereas Anglophones and Francophones in Canada do not.              

Friday, September 5, 2014

Building Israel in Judea and Samaria is the Best Response to Continued Palestinian Terrorism

Earlier this week, Israel announced that around 400 hectares of land in the Gush Etzion area of Judea and Samaria, a.k.a the West Bank, would be nationalized (see: Israel recognizes 4,000 dunam in Gush Etzion as state land).  Predictably, members of the international community protested, because unfortunately, the international consensus is that Jews should not live in their ancestral homeland.  Today, word also got out in the press that Israel plans to build just under three hundred new homes in the community of Elkana, located in the northwest of the so-called West Bank (see: Israel issues tenders for 283 homes in West Bank settlement).  I am actually very happy with these announcements because I believe that continuing to build Israel's presence in its Biblical homeland is a proper, Zionist response to the Palestinians' continuing terrorism.

Palestinians Shoot, Israel Builds

The bias against Israel's growing communities in Judea and Samaria is clearly outlined in the second article cited above.  Indeed, the article calls Israel's decision to nationalize land in Gush Etzion the country's "biggest land grab on Palestinian territory in three decades".  Personally, the use of the term "land grab" really upsets me, as does the article's defining Biblical Jewish land as "Palestinian territory".  Just once, I would love to see one major press outlet or world leader mention the land grab that the Arabs made centuries ago when they marched out of their native Arabian peninsula to conquer nearly the entire Middle East and northern Africa.  But believe me, I'm not holding my breath for this.  If Israel is grabbing land, it is simply grabbing it back from Arab conquerors.  Jews have every right to live in their ancestral homeland.  They have every right to establish communities there and rebuild the Jewish presence in the land that has been gone for centuries.  Furthermore, it is only fitting that Israel nationalize the territory in Gush Etzion as it was on this very land that three innocent Jewish teenagers were kidnapped and subsequently murdered in cold blood by Hamas terrorists.  Let this reclamation of Jewish land be a lesson to these terrorists and let the people of Israel say to them: Every time you shoot at us, injure us, or kill us, we will respond by continuing to build up our communities in the land of our ancestors.

Forget World Opinion!

Shortly after Israel announced its nationalization of land in Gush Etzion, one of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's coalition partners, Yair Lapid, who now serves as Minister of Finance, protested the decision, implying that it made Israel look bad in the eyes of world, especially in regards to the country's relations with the U.S. (see: Lapid: West Bank land seizure harms Israel).  My response to such concerns is simply to forget about what the rest of the world thinks.  History has shown that whatever Israel does, it is condemned.  The most recent example of this is, of course, the latest conflict in the Gaza Strip, where Israel took great strides to prevent the deaths of Palestinian civilians, even as terrorists shot rockets at Israel from civilian structures, including private homes, schools and hospitals.  But regardless of Israel's efforts to protect Palestinian civilians, the country was still condemned time and time again by the international community, the world press and countless anti-Israel and antisemitic protestors.  Let's face it; people just hate Israel and hate Jews, and nothing Israel does or doesn't do will change that.      

Saturday, August 30, 2014

Gaza Ceasefire: Did Netanyahu Make the Right Call?

The latest war in the Gaza Strip has finally ended, or so it would seem.  After nearly a dozen failed ceasefires, all of which were broken by the terrorists in Gaza firing rockets into Israel, this latest cessation of hostilities seems to be holding - much to the dismay of many Israelis, including myself, who wanted Netanyahu's government to finish off Hamas and the rest of the terrorist bunch in Gaza once and for all.  Immediately after the ceasefire was announced, polls showed that support for Netanyahu, who we Israelis sometimes call "Bibi", had taken a nosedive (see: Prime Minister's support plummets as fighting ends).  For those of you who have read my previous blogs regarding Israel's latest scuffle with terrorists in the Gaza Strip, you know that I favoured military action until every last vestige of terrorism in the coastal enclave was eliminated.

Gaza's Terrorists Choose Their Rockets Over Their People's Well-Being

Netanyahu: Don't Listen to Bleeding Heart Liberals Like Obama and Kerry.  Stay the Course

Hamas and All Other Terrorists in Israel's Midst Must be Exterminated

After hearing about Bibi's sudden loss of support, I think it's safe to say that many Israelis thought the same way that I did.  But even though I'm not happy that Netanyahu has allowed Hamas, Islamic Jihad and all the other terrorist scumbags in Gaza to survive, I still trust his judgement because he is the only person who can lead Israel in the current situation.

In Netanyahu I Trust

I've always thought of Bibi as Israel's own Winston Churchill, who also consistently and correctly warned the international community about the clear and present dangers of the time - and who was all too often ignored in very much the same way that leaders in the international community have ignored Netanyahu over the years.  People should know by now that they ignore Bibi at their own peril.  In fact, if we had heeded his warnings, Hamas and company wouldn't be in control of the Gaza Strip and Israel would not have lost many of its own civilians and soldiers trying to stop them from pelting the country with rockets up until now.  So even though I and many other Israelis may disagree with his decision to end our assault on Gaza's terrorists, we should nevertheless give him the benefit of the doubt.  I continue to place my trust in Netanyahu and I hope that my fellow Israelis will do so as well.  After all, he's been right so many times already, so it's very difficult not to trust in him. 

 


Wednesday, August 20, 2014

The Great Dog Debate

Today, I read a piece by The Toronto Star's Joe Fiorito discussing a potential solution to the problem of man's best friend doing their business on Toronto's lawns (see: Dogs have Toronto yards going to waste).  In his article, Fiorito recommends that dog owners in Toronto be required to walk their dogs alongside the curb to prevent them from urinating or defecating on the city's lawns.  For those of you who live in Toronto or any other big city where there are both a lot of people and a lot of dogs, you've probably had the misfortune of stepping in dog feces at least once or twice.  And if you're one of the folks in Toronto who is lucky enough to own a home with a lawn despite this city's crazy home prices, then chances are you've probably caught a dog owner, or two, or more using your delicately manicured grass for Fido to relieve himself.  Oh the frustration!  But of course, this frustration also exists amongst dog owners.

I am a dog owner myself and I too am frustrated by the behaviour of some of my fellow dog owners.  In fact, whenever I happen to step in dog poop, it's usually when I'm walking my own dog.  Believe me, I and many other dog owners who are responsible and pick up after their pets do not like seeing our beautiful lawns and parks fouled by dog waste any more than people who don't have dogs do.  So for those of you dog owners who think you don't have to pick up after your four-legged friends, my message to you is either wise up or don't own a dog because you're giving all of us dog owners a bad name.

Still, I believe that dog owners like myself have legitimate grievances that people who don't own dogs fail to consider.  For example, like a growing number of dog owners, I do not live in a single family home with a fenced yard.  Instead, I live in a condo on the 8th floor of a 20-story building.  And although my dog lives a happy life with me, not having my own personal, private lawn often means that my dog has to do her business outside on someone else's lawn.  This is a fact of life for many dog owners who happen to live in multi-unit buildings.  And it just isn't practical to expect everyone who owns a dog to have a home with a fenced yard, especially in Toronto where housing prices are through the roof.  Now of course, when my dog defecates, I pick it up, but there's nothing I can do when my dog needs to urinate.  Yes, I understand that dog urine can ruin a lawn and leave yellow stains on the grass, especially since my dog is a female and the urine of the female is more acidic and hence more harmful to grass.  But what else am I or any other dog owner in my situation supposed to do?  Should I train my dog to go on the concrete instead?  I don't think so.  People in Toronto or any other big city don't appreciate dogs fouling the streets and sidewalks any more than they enjoy them doing their business on public or private lawns. 

Unfortunately, however, many dog owners are in a worse situation than I am in that they may not even have any lawns nearby where their dogs can do their business.  Let's face it, green space is an increasingly rare luxury in big cities like Toronto, which is why there are frequent conflicts in public parks where dog owners illegally let their dogs off-leash to play because legal, off-leash parks are very hard to come by and creating new ones is a prospect that is often fiercely opposed by members of the public who don't understand or respect the needs of dogs and their owners.  In fact, even when new, off-leash parks are created, the results aren't always positive.  I still remember when an off-leash area was created in the park I used to go to with my dog.  It ended up turning into a mud pit and the soil became contaminated, so I stopped going there.

The fact of the matter is that both dog owners and people who don't own dogs feel increasingly under siege.  Dog owners like myself feel that there simply isn't enough space for our canine buddies and that our dogs are increasingly unwelcome in the city.  On the other side of the coin, people who don't own dogs are tired of unruly pooches running loose, making noise and even causing harm to people, not to mention the growing nuisance of dog waste left behind by irresponsible pet owners.

I think what is needed is for both dog owners and people without dogs to take a deep breath, step back a little bit, and take some small, easy steps that will help cool the tension a little bit.  For dog owners, the simple step of picking up after your pet will go a long way to lessening the frustrations of your fellow citizens.  For those of you who don't own dogs, please try to have some patience whenever Fido leaves his mark on your lawn.  Try to understand that sometimes, dog owners have no choice but to allow their canine friends to relieve themselves in the closest place possible.  Hey, when ya gotta go, ya gotta go.  And if your lawn does end up with a yellow spot, or two, don't make such a fuss.  It's just grass, and there are plenty of inexpensive products out there that can repair the damage done by pet waste.  Finally, both dog owners and folks without dogs need to chill out and climb down from their high horses.  If someone asks you not to let your dog do his business on their lawn, don't immediately flip them off and start shouting obscenities.  The same goes for when you see a dog defecate on your lawn.  Don't just scream at the owner using various four-letter words.  Instead, kindly tell him to pick up after his dog.  You can even offer him a bag.  Basically, if we all just mellow out and take some simple, tiny steps towards being more neighbourly, we will all feel a lot better at the end of the day. 

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Gaza's Terrorists Choose Their Rockets Over Their People's Well-Being

The late Abba Eban, a former Israeli diplomat and cabinet minister, once remarked that the Palestinians and their fellow Arabs "never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity," and it looks like they've done it again.  Not too long after Israel agreed to extend the latest five-day ceasefire by 24 hours, Gaza terrorists again fired their rockets.  In fact, just hours before I began writing this, terrorists fired a barrage of rockets into central Israel, with Tel Aviv and Ben Gurion International Airport amongst their targets.  Once again, optimism about the future of the Gaza Strip and its people has been replaced by the dread of continued conflict, more deaths and more suffering.  All because Gaza's terrorist leaders decided that their rockets and their ability to keep terrorizing Israel's citizens was more important than the well-being of their people.

What Could Have Been...

During the ceasefire discussions mediated by Egypt, a lot was offered to the Gaza Strip and its people if only the terrorists would agree to the territory's demilitarization.  The border crossings could be opened.  Goods could start moving into and out of the Strip again.  Homes and businesses could be rebuilt.  There would be trade and commerce again; a real economy again, where Gazans could return to a meaningful existence, instead of just trying to survive from one day to the next.  In short, demilitarization in exchange for economic prosperity and a better future.  But as we all know now, Gaza's terrorist leaders have decided that their rockets are more important than their people.  I'm not surprised.  Hamas and the rest of the terrorist bunch in Gaza feed on the misery of their people.  They need to keep their people miserable.  Why?  So that they can keep telling their people to blame Israel for their misery.  Just think of what would happen if the terrorists agreed to demilitarization.  There would be economic prosperity and they would lose the support of their people, because people who have the opportunity to earn a decent living for themselves and their families are far less likely to support terrorists.  In fact, Palestinians are beginning to realize that as long as Hamas and other terrorist groups in Gaza rule the roost, they will never be able to live meaningful lives.  See, for example:

Subtle voices of dissent surface in war-torn Gaza

After months of bitter fighting, Gazans said questioning Hamas decisions

Palestinian Leader Mudar Zahran: Hamas is killing my people

What Should Israel Do Now?

First, Israel must do whatever is necessary to put a permanent end to the rocket fire on its citizens from the Gaza Strip.  Second, Israel needs to make sure that it can end its blockade on Gaza so that Palestinians can once again start living meaningful lives, without compromising its own security.  The Israelis and the Palestinian civilians who have died during this conflict will have died in vain if these two objectives are not achieved.  But how can Israel achieve this?  Should its government keep trying to negotiate with the terrorists for a long-term ceasefire?  Absolutely not!


Gaza's terrorists have already shown time and again that they cannot be trusted to adhere to any ceasefire agreement, short-term or long-term.  Besides, a ceasefire is just what the terrorists need to recover their strength, rebuild their weapons arsenals and prepare for future conflicts where they can harm Israel again (see: Hamas: Ceasefire Allows Us to Prepare for Future Battle to Destroy Israel).  Some people just don't get it.  Terrorist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad are out to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth and will not stop until they achieve their objective - or until Israel destroys them first, which is exactly what I think Israel should do.  And this isn't the first time I've said this.  In fact, shortly after this latest conflict in Gaza began, I said that Israel should exterminate all of the terrorists in their midst (see: Hamas and All Other Terrorists in Israel's Midst Must be Exterminated).

I do understand that there are many folks out there who don't believe a military solution to Israel's conflict with Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups is possible, but they are just plain wrong.  Many people probably also thought that there was no military solution to the terrorist insurgency in Sri Lanka, where the Tamil Tiger terrorist group managed to take over a sizable portion of the country's north.  But in 2009, the Sri Lankan military finally defeated the terrorists and took back all of the territory that they had conquered.  Israel now has the opportunity to do what Sri Lanka did five years ago: to defeat the terrorists in its midst and drive them out of the territory that they've taken once and for all.  Bear in mind, of course, that the defeat of the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka did not end the conflict between the island's majority Sinhalese community and the minority Tamils, nor will defeating Hamas and the other Palestinian terrorist groups bring an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  But exterminating terrorist groups like Hamas will allow Israelis to live in peace without the threat of rocket fire or other acts of violence, while Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and elsewhere in the Holy Land can live their lives without obstacles to their economic prosperity and rightful pursuit of happiness.      

 


    

Sunday, August 10, 2014

World War I Began One Hundred Years Ago This Month. How Likely is Another World War? Unfortunately, Very Likely

People all over the world have been marking the 100th anniversary of the beginning of World War I, which began one hundred years ago this month.  As we mark this pivotal point in world history, some find themselves asking if another world war could take place.  I hate to be the harbinger of doom, but unfortunately, I believe the outbreak of a third world war is very likely.  And even more unfortunately, I think it will happen soon.

The Prelude to War

Today, I believe that the world is sewing the seeds for another world war.  One aspect of this is a re-assertive Russia.  Indeed, the behaviour of Russian dictator Vladimir Putin is very reminiscent of Hitler's behaviour leading up to WWII.  The former's seizure of Crimea and his attempt to take over eastern Ukraine is very much like Hitler's takeover of Austria and his subsequent annexation of Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland.   In the same manner exercised by Hitler, Putin is simply testing the waters and seeing how far he can go before having to take on the West militarily, which he is not yet ready to do, nor was Hitler when he made his first conquests.  Unfortunately, the West did not threaten Hitler with force for taking over Austria and the Sudetenland, nor have they threatened Russia with force for taking over Crimea and trying to conquer eastern Ukraine, so it appears that history will repeat itself and Putin will be allowed to grow stronger, just as Hitler was.

An increasingly assertive China is another factor that I think will eventually lead to war.  China is already the world's second largest economy and is on pace to eclipse the current 1st place economy, the U.S., before the end of this decade.  The Chinese military is expanding rapidly as is the country's sphere of influence.  China is now the leading investor in Africa, which will give it allies in the upcoming global conflict.  And in the last few years, China has begun to rattle its sabers, attempting to assert control over islands in the adjacent seas that are also claimed by other countries in the region.  Actually, China is claiming entire seas rather than just a few islands in them.

Another development that will characterize WWIII is the increasingly violent feud between Sunni and Shiite Muslims.  The recent emergence of the Islamic State and its growing list of atrocities is just one example of this feud, and I strongly believe that the Sunni-Shiite feud will become part of a wider global conflict.

The last thing I would like to mention is the growth of anti-Western regimes in Latin America.  These regimes currently control several countries in the region.  They will inevitably grow closer to the West's main opponents, Russia and China, and may even be launching pads for invasion of the U.S. itself in a future world war.

As what I have mentioned above comes to fruition, the world will edge itself closer and closer to the greatest conflict that humankind has ever seen.  I believe that we have around ten to twenty years before WWIII begins.  I base this timeline on the fact that two of the main players in the upcoming conflict, Russia and China, do not yet have the military strength to challenge the West directly, but I believe they will have it within the next decade or two.

The Competing Blocs:

As with the first two world wars, I contend that WWIII will be a competition between two alliances or blocs of states.  The first of these alliances will be NATO, overlapping with the European Union.  They will be joined by other non-Western countries, most notably Israel, Japan and the Sunni Arab states.  This alliance will be opposed by one led mainly by Russia and China, whose allies will include the Shiite-led states of Iran, Iraq and Syria, as well as other countries in Latin America and Africa.

What Sparks the Conflict?

My feeling is that WWIII will begin in very much the same way as the first two world wars; with one event starting a chain reaction that leads to country after country hopping onto the warhorse.  And I believe that it will be one of the countries in the alliance led by Russia and China that will initiate hostilities.  My sense is that one of these countries, perhaps Russia itself, will attack a country allied to the West over a dispute involving natural resources.  One possible scenario that comes to mind is Russia attacking Israel over the latter's plan to export gas to Europe, thus reducing or even eliminating the continent's dependence on Russian gas and thereby endangering the Russians' ability to influence European affairs.  By this time, of course, there will likely already be a lot of tension between the two blocs of countries that I mentioned above.  In any event, such an attack would immediately cause NATO to come to Israel's defense and declare war on Russia, leading the Russians to call on its own allies to join them in the fight against the Western-led alliance.  From there on, it will pretty much be all hell breaking loose.   

The Frontlines:

Almost all the main frontlines in WWI were in Europe, whereas the main frontlines in WWII spanned three continents: Europe, Asia and Africa.  During the two wars, and especially in WWII, significant battles also took place in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.  Both wars left much of the world untouched, which is one of the reasons that the United States emerged from WWII as the preeminent Western superpower as there were no battles on the soil of the Americas and so the U.S. was spared the kind of destruction witnessed by its allies in Western Europe.

In World War III, however, I believe that no continent or ocean will be spared a significant amount of devastation.  Indeed, some of the most ferocious battles may take place on North American soil, where no great battles have taken place since the 19th century.  I am almost certain that Russia and China will attempt an invasion of North America, but I don't think that this invasion will begin in Alaska as the Americans might expect.  Instead, I believe that Sino-Russian alliance will circumvent Alaska and invade North America through Canada.  Decades ago, when the impact of climate change was not as significant as it is today, this would not have been possible as ice would block an invasion force from entering northern Canada, even in the summer months.  Now, however, the waterways in Canada's north are almost ice-free during the warmer months, making an invasion possible.  My sense is that northern Canada will be taken quickly, and after just a month or two, the armies of Russia and China will have control of Alaska and a large part of Canada.  Their next goal will be to take the Canadian province of Alberta and its vast oil and gas reserves.  Indeed, the fight for oil and gas will shape many of the frontlines in WWIII.  Whoever is able to control the vast majority of the world's oil and gas reserves will likely win the war.  This is actually the reason why I support the Keystone pipeline that is meant to take oil from Alberta to refineries in Texas.  This pipeline may be key to America's survival, and if it isn't built, the U.S. may have a much harder time getting the oil and gas it needs to win the war.

The other main battle fronts will be in Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East.  The battle for control of the Middle East will be particularly bloody, perhaps worse than any other front.  In fact, I think that some of the war's worst atrocities may take place in this region, influenced mainly by the hatred that characterizes the Sunni-Shiite feud.  Of course, the oil and gas resources of the Mideast will be a major factor, but ironically the most important source of these resources that the Western-led alliance will need to protect may not be in the Arab states, but in Israel.  Today, Israel is certainly not a main hub for oil and gas, but this will change in the near future with the recent discovery of vast reserves of natural gas off the Israeli coast in the Mediterranean Sea.  I believe that in the future, these reserves will allow Europe to get rid of its dependence on Russian gas, and so the survival of Israel in WWIII may be the key to preventing Russia from taking over all of Europe.  Indeed, victory in Europe for the Russians may mean victory in WWIII altogether.  Hence, Israel itself may be the key to victory in the entire war.  As I already mentioned, it may even be the site of the attack that starts the war.

The Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction in World War III

During the Cold War, both the U.S. and the Soviet Union kept their fingers off the nuclear trigger because they knew that the use of nuclear weapons would mean mutually assured destruction, or M.A.D. as it was also known.  I believe that something akin to this concept will delay the use of nuclear weapons until later in the war when one side is on the cusp of defeat and desperation kicks in.  I also believe, however, that each side will resort to the use of other WMDs throughout the course of the war, including biological and chemical weapons.

Who Will Win?

I am a firm believer in the principle that good always triumphs over evil, and so I surmise that the West and its allies will ultimately emerge from WWIII victorious.  It will be very close though, just as it was in WWII when Hitler's Nazi Germany was on the cusp of the total conquest of Europe with only Great Britain standing in its way.  At the time, many believed that the British would not survive the Nazi onslaught and that it was only a matter of time before they were defeated.  But of course, Great Britain did survive and its survival ultimately allowed the Allies to stage the so-called D-Day invasion, which eventually led to the fall of Hitler and his tyrannical Third Reich.  I believe that this type of scenario will probably play out again in WWIII, and just as in WWII, the West will manage to stand their ground.