Talking about the threats to Israel's security usually means talking about terrorist groups like Hamas or rogue states like Iran that want to wipe the country off the map. But there is another security problem that gets little mention in the media outside of Israel itself: Israel's social security problem, or in other words, its poverty. In fact, the international media often mask this problem by talking about how much of an economic miracle Israel is. It's not that this assertion isn't true. Yes, Israel is a great economic miracle where deserts have been turned into vast fields of crops, modern cities have been built and great achievements in science and technology have been made. Nevertheless, Israel, like any other country, still has poverty and this poverty is endangering the future of the state.
Some Grim Statistics on Israel's Poverty
According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Israel has the highest rate of poverty in the developed world. More than one in five Israelis is considered poor, whereas the OECD average is just 11.3%. One out of every three children in Israel also lives in poverty.
The poverty rate in Israel is particularly high in two particular groups of citizens: Arabs and Haredim (ultra-Orthodox Jews). In fact, more than one in two Arab and Haredi citizens lives in poverty. Researchers attribute the high poverty rate amongst Israeli Arabs mainly to the low number of Israeli Arab women who work. According to statistics, less than one third of Israeli Arab women work. And although the number of Arab men who work is similar to the number of Jewish men who are employed, the wages of the former are significantly lower. In the Haredi sector, less than half of Haredi men are gainfully employed. And since Arabs and Haredim are more inclined, on average, to have more children than other Israelis, poverty has become more concentrated amongst Israeli families with many children.
To make a long story short, Israel may be an economic success story in many respects, but as in many other emerging economies, like China and India, the rising tide has not lifted all the boats - or at least it has lifted some very high while not lifting others high enough. So how should Israel go about alleviating the poverty within its borders? Here are some of my suggestions:
1. Arab Women and Haredi Men Must be Encouraged to Join the Workforce
I never like to blame the victim, but I will say in all honesty that certain people who are not involved in the workforce need to consider getting involved if they want to climb out of poverty. I am specifically referring to Arab women and Haredi men. Both groups are under-represented in the workforce for cultural and religious reasons. The idea that a woman's place is in the home still prevails amongst Israel's Arab citizens and in the Arab world as a whole. Clearly, Israel's government needs to take steps to encourage its female Arab citizens to work. The same goes for Haredi men, who would rather devote themselves to their faith than to an actual job. The problem of unemployment amongst Haredi men has actually gotten worse over time. In fact, before the 1980s, nearly 90% of Haredi men were employed as opposed to less than half today. Why? Some researchers say that it is because Haredi political parties have gained more power over time and have pushed for more aid to the Haredi sector in the form of subsidies, housing and exemption from military service. As a result, more and more Haredi men have decided to live off of government assistance rather than seek gainful employment. This coddling of the Haredim has angered many other Israelis, including myself. Many of the Haredim think they don't live in the real world, but rather God's world, in which the only contribution they need to make is in the form of study and prayer. But in fact, they do live in the real world and they must understand that in the real world, people must work to earn a living and contribute to society. Of course, if we do want Arab women, Haredi men, or anyone else in Israeli society to be gainfully employed, we need to make sure that they have the right skills, hence the need for improvements to education.
2. Educational Reforms
Ironically, researchers have indicated that despite Israel's history of scholarship and its world-renowned academic institutions, education is an area in which the country needs to improve immensely if it is to tackle the problem of poverty. The problems in Israel's education system are not unlike those faced by education systems in Canada or any other industrialized country - issues like overcrowded classrooms, under-performing teachers, high university tuition and lack of financial resources. These problems, like Israeli poverty, are more pronounced in the Arab and Haredi sectors. Arab students are less likely to graduate from high school than their Jewish counterparts. They are also forced to deal with a very Jewish-centric curriculum in which they do not see themselves, thus providing a disincentive for them to continue their education. Changes to the Israeli Arab school curriculum that would allow Arab students to learn more about their own history and heritage without negating the State of Israel's right to exist would significantly improve their educational and employment prospects. I would also recommend founding at least one university in the country in which Arabic is the main language of instruction, thus making it easier for Israeli Arab students to learn without language difficulties. One good thing I can say about the Arabic education system in Israel today is that at least students are taught the proverbial "three r's".
In contrast, the only three r's that many Haredi students are taught are religion, religion and religion. Math and science don't see the light of day in many Haredi schools, yet Haredi politicians insist that the Israeli government fund them. This obviously has to end if Haredi men are going to have any chance of entering the workforce in the future. Funding should only go to schools that teach practical subjects, whether they be Haredi schools or otherwise. And more funding for education in general will be needed if Israel wants to reduce the number of its citizens who live in poverty. That being said, more funding for education will probably mean less funding for other things, so how should Israel's government prioritize?
3. Prioritizing and Reallocating Resources
Israel, unlike most other countries, has the misfortune of having to allocate a large part of its budget to defense. This is not going to change until the country no longer faces an existential threat. However, there are still things that Israel spends money on that would be better spent elsewhere. One example that comes to mind is the government's recent splurge on Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria. Much of this spending is simply unavoidable as these communities have unique security needs. However, there is a growing sense amongst Israelis that much of this spending lacks transparency and is being undertaken to placate the ideological ambitions of certain politicians and interest groups. See, for example: MKs Push for Transparency on Rising Settlement Funding
The fact of the matter is that a lot of money is being spent to encourage Israelis to move to the newer communities in Judea and Samaria, and although I believe that Israelis should be entitled to live in their ancestral homeland, I think many Israelis would prefer that this kind of spending be dedicated to things like health care and education for all Israeli citizens, regardless of where they live. Still, I certainly would not like to see Israeli tax dollars being spent to uproot Israelis from their homes in Judea and Samaria as was done in Gaza, because doing so would not only be wrong, but expensive (see: Removing West Bank Settlers Would Cost $10 Billion: Peace Group)
Another big expense that should be reallocated is the large sum of money given every year to Haredi citizens and institutions so that they don't have to work and instead devote themselves to full-time prayer and study. As I said before, we live in the real world where people must work to live. If the Israeli government continues to pay the Haredim to pray and study all day, they will never have any incentive to join the workforce and poverty in the Haredi sector will persist.
The Carrot and Stick Approach to Poverty Alleviation
Alleviating poverty in Israel or anywhere else almost always depends, not only on giving, but also taking away. To be more specific, I recommend giving more funding to education in Israel, but I also recommend taking away the generous subsidies that the Haredim have enjoyed for many years. The reason is that sometimes throwing money at a problem can make it better, but sometimes it can make it worse.
Other References:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-16/startup-israel-suffering-most-oecd-poverty-as-poor-surge.html
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/06/israels-surprising-poverty.html
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/174923#.U7itqbGdsc8
http://www.jpost.com/National-News/Report-Israel-has-highest-poverty-rate-among-OECD-countries-345785
http://www.jpost.com/National-News/Annual-report-shows-17-million-Israelis-living-below-poverty-line-335255
Saturday, July 5, 2014
Thursday, July 3, 2014
Jordan: The Real Occupied Palestine
According to the Palestinian narrative, the Nakba, which translates as catastrophe or disaster in Arabic, began in 1948 with the founding of the State of Israel and the dispossession of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs from their homes. To this day, Palestinians still blame Israel for the fact that they do not have a country of their own. In my opinion, they are blaming the wrong people.
Those of you who have studied the Israeli-Palestinian conflict know that when the first Arab-Israeli war ended in 1949, Israel did not control all of what used to be the British Mandate of Palestine. Israel did control the vast majority of it; around 78%. But of course, there was still the other 22% that Israel did not manage to take during the war. This territory is what is known today as the West Bank and Gaza Strip. At the end of the war, the West Bank came under Transjordanian control, while the Gaza Strip was controlled by Egypt. The leaders of Transjordan and Egypt could very well have decided to grant the Palestinians in these two territories independence, but they had other ideas. Instead of giving this land to the Palestinians for a state, the Egyptians and Tranjordanians kept it for themselves. The Gaza Strip remained under Egyptian control, though Egypt never formally annexed the territory. In contrast, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem with all of its holy places, was formally annexed by Transjordan, whose Hashemite rulers subsequently changed the name of the country to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Palestinians in the West Bank were given Jordanian citizenship and the territory was fully integrated into the newly-expanded Hashemite realm. This annexation was not recognized by the Arab League, but up until 1967, when the West Bank was captured by Israel, there was no talk of a Hashemite "occupation". In fact, the real occupation today is not Israel's control over the West Bank. It is the Hashemite family's control of what used to be an integral part of Palestine which we know today as Jordan.
The Birth of an Illegitimate Regime
The origins of today's Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan go back all the way to the First World War. For centuries, the Hashemite family, descended directly from Islam's founder, the Prophet Mohammed, were the guardians or "Sharifs" of Mecca, Islam's holiest city. Once WWI began, it was this family, led at the time by Sharif Hussein bin Ali, which led the Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire. The flag that today represents the Palestinian people was originally the flag representing this revolt. In fact, today's Jordanian flag is almost exactly the same except for the white star representing the ruling Hashemite family that appears in the horizontal red triangle.
The British promised the Hashemites an independent state encompassing all the Arab territories of the Ottoman realm once the war had ended. But this promise was not kept. Instead, the British and their French allies secretly negotiated the partition of the Ottoman Empire amongst themselves in the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916. Nevertheless, the Hashemites were bent on claiming the independent state that the British had promised them and so in March 1920, a new Arab state encompassing what is now Jordan, Israel, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq was proclaimed in Damascus with bin Ali's son, Faisal, as its head of state. Four months later, however, French military forces crushed the rebellion and Faisal was forced out of Damascus.
The former Arab territories of the Ottoman Empire were ultimately divided into separate British and French mandates authorized by the League of Nations. The Hashemites were installed as the rulers of two of the British mandates: Iraq and Transjordan, the latter of which was originally part of the British Mandate of Palestine. In 1922, however, the League of Nations recognized it as a separate British mandate, which would be excluded from the Balfour Declaration and the British promise to the Zionist movement for a Jewish national home in Palestine. Hence, what should have been an independent Arab state in the eastern part of Palestinian was instead carved up and given to foreign rulers, whose original homeland was in Mecca. This was the first time that the Palestinian Arabs were cheated out of a country of their own, not by Jews, but by their own fellow Arabs. Unfortunately, it wasn't the last.
Hashemite Apartheid
After the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, and despite the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes, Palestine could still have been a country in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Palestinians could have had East Jerusalem as their capital. But the Egyptians and Hashemites decided to betray their fellow Arabs and kept the land for themselves. For their part, the Hashemites did grant the Palestinians in the West Bank full Jordanian citizenship. In fact, the Palestinians, even to this day, are the majority population in Jordan. However, it is the Hashemites that rule the roost. The parliament and elections are rigged so that disproportionately greater representation is given to the Hashemites' Bedouin supporters rather than the Palestinian majority. And even if this were not the case, it is the Hashemite King of Jordan, now King Abdullah II, who has the ultimate power. Basically, the Hashemites and their Bedouin supporters are a minority that rules over a Palestinian majority. There's a word for this kind of setup: Apartheid - the same kind of apartheid that saw a white minority rule over a black majority in South Africa. I find it ironic, then, that it is Israel and not Jordan that is called an apartheid state.
Eastern Palestine and Gaza: A Better Future for the Palestinian People
In my humble and honest opinion, the Palestinians are wasting their time trying to fight the Israelis for that tiny piece of land we now call the West Bank. They should instead focus their attention on bringing down the illegitimate Hashemite rulers of what is rightfully the eastern part of Palestine. The Palestinians already have the Gaza Strip back, but if they were able to regain control of eastern Palestine and drive the Hashemites out, they would have a country that would be bigger than Israel and that would have access to not one, but two seas, the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea, just as Israel does today. In contrast, even if the Palestinians managed to get control of the entire West Bank, they would only have access to one sea and have much less territory to make use of. Furthermore, if the Palestinians wrested control of eastern Palestine from the Hashemites, they would also wrest control of its state infrastructure and institutions. They would not have to worry about building a new state from scratch as is currently being attempted by the Palestinian Authority. Finally, a Palestinian state in eastern Palestine and the Gaza Strip would not face as many limitations on its sovereignty as would a state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, simply because Israel wouldn't insist on demilitarization or other limits on Palestinian sovereignty to protect itself in the same way it does now when faced with the prospect of another Arab state west of the Jordan river.
I am not saying that the Palestinians should forfeit whatever legitimate rights they may have in the the rest of the region of Palestine. But what I am saying is that for the purpose of founding a country of their own so that none of their people will ever have to languish in a refugee camp again, it would be more feasible for the Palestinians and their leaders to focus on liberating the part of their country that they seem to have forgotten about - the part occupied by the Hashemites, who unlike the Palestinians' Jewish enemies, have no legitimate claim to the land which they control, historical or otherwise.
Those of you who have studied the Israeli-Palestinian conflict know that when the first Arab-Israeli war ended in 1949, Israel did not control all of what used to be the British Mandate of Palestine. Israel did control the vast majority of it; around 78%. But of course, there was still the other 22% that Israel did not manage to take during the war. This territory is what is known today as the West Bank and Gaza Strip. At the end of the war, the West Bank came under Transjordanian control, while the Gaza Strip was controlled by Egypt. The leaders of Transjordan and Egypt could very well have decided to grant the Palestinians in these two territories independence, but they had other ideas. Instead of giving this land to the Palestinians for a state, the Egyptians and Tranjordanians kept it for themselves. The Gaza Strip remained under Egyptian control, though Egypt never formally annexed the territory. In contrast, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem with all of its holy places, was formally annexed by Transjordan, whose Hashemite rulers subsequently changed the name of the country to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Palestinians in the West Bank were given Jordanian citizenship and the territory was fully integrated into the newly-expanded Hashemite realm. This annexation was not recognized by the Arab League, but up until 1967, when the West Bank was captured by Israel, there was no talk of a Hashemite "occupation". In fact, the real occupation today is not Israel's control over the West Bank. It is the Hashemite family's control of what used to be an integral part of Palestine which we know today as Jordan.
The Birth of an Illegitimate Regime
The origins of today's Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan go back all the way to the First World War. For centuries, the Hashemite family, descended directly from Islam's founder, the Prophet Mohammed, were the guardians or "Sharifs" of Mecca, Islam's holiest city. Once WWI began, it was this family, led at the time by Sharif Hussein bin Ali, which led the Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire. The flag that today represents the Palestinian people was originally the flag representing this revolt. In fact, today's Jordanian flag is almost exactly the same except for the white star representing the ruling Hashemite family that appears in the horizontal red triangle.
The British promised the Hashemites an independent state encompassing all the Arab territories of the Ottoman realm once the war had ended. But this promise was not kept. Instead, the British and their French allies secretly negotiated the partition of the Ottoman Empire amongst themselves in the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916. Nevertheless, the Hashemites were bent on claiming the independent state that the British had promised them and so in March 1920, a new Arab state encompassing what is now Jordan, Israel, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq was proclaimed in Damascus with bin Ali's son, Faisal, as its head of state. Four months later, however, French military forces crushed the rebellion and Faisal was forced out of Damascus.
The former Arab territories of the Ottoman Empire were ultimately divided into separate British and French mandates authorized by the League of Nations. The Hashemites were installed as the rulers of two of the British mandates: Iraq and Transjordan, the latter of which was originally part of the British Mandate of Palestine. In 1922, however, the League of Nations recognized it as a separate British mandate, which would be excluded from the Balfour Declaration and the British promise to the Zionist movement for a Jewish national home in Palestine. Hence, what should have been an independent Arab state in the eastern part of Palestinian was instead carved up and given to foreign rulers, whose original homeland was in Mecca. This was the first time that the Palestinian Arabs were cheated out of a country of their own, not by Jews, but by their own fellow Arabs. Unfortunately, it wasn't the last.
Hashemite Apartheid
After the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, and despite the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes, Palestine could still have been a country in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Palestinians could have had East Jerusalem as their capital. But the Egyptians and Hashemites decided to betray their fellow Arabs and kept the land for themselves. For their part, the Hashemites did grant the Palestinians in the West Bank full Jordanian citizenship. In fact, the Palestinians, even to this day, are the majority population in Jordan. However, it is the Hashemites that rule the roost. The parliament and elections are rigged so that disproportionately greater representation is given to the Hashemites' Bedouin supporters rather than the Palestinian majority. And even if this were not the case, it is the Hashemite King of Jordan, now King Abdullah II, who has the ultimate power. Basically, the Hashemites and their Bedouin supporters are a minority that rules over a Palestinian majority. There's a word for this kind of setup: Apartheid - the same kind of apartheid that saw a white minority rule over a black majority in South Africa. I find it ironic, then, that it is Israel and not Jordan that is called an apartheid state.
Eastern Palestine and Gaza: A Better Future for the Palestinian People
In my humble and honest opinion, the Palestinians are wasting their time trying to fight the Israelis for that tiny piece of land we now call the West Bank. They should instead focus their attention on bringing down the illegitimate Hashemite rulers of what is rightfully the eastern part of Palestine. The Palestinians already have the Gaza Strip back, but if they were able to regain control of eastern Palestine and drive the Hashemites out, they would have a country that would be bigger than Israel and that would have access to not one, but two seas, the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea, just as Israel does today. In contrast, even if the Palestinians managed to get control of the entire West Bank, they would only have access to one sea and have much less territory to make use of. Furthermore, if the Palestinians wrested control of eastern Palestine from the Hashemites, they would also wrest control of its state infrastructure and institutions. They would not have to worry about building a new state from scratch as is currently being attempted by the Palestinian Authority. Finally, a Palestinian state in eastern Palestine and the Gaza Strip would not face as many limitations on its sovereignty as would a state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, simply because Israel wouldn't insist on demilitarization or other limits on Palestinian sovereignty to protect itself in the same way it does now when faced with the prospect of another Arab state west of the Jordan river.
I am not saying that the Palestinians should forfeit whatever legitimate rights they may have in the the rest of the region of Palestine. But what I am saying is that for the purpose of founding a country of their own so that none of their people will ever have to languish in a refugee camp again, it would be more feasible for the Palestinians and their leaders to focus on liberating the part of their country that they seem to have forgotten about - the part occupied by the Hashemites, who unlike the Palestinians' Jewish enemies, have no legitimate claim to the land which they control, historical or otherwise.
Monday, June 30, 2014
Kidnapped Israeli Youths Found Murdered. Do the Palestinians Really Want Peace?
After more than two weeks, the search for three Israeli teenagers, Gil-Ad Shaer, Naftali Frenkel and Eyal Yifrach, who were kidnapped by members of the Islamist terrorist group Hamas, came to a horrible ending when soldiers from the IDF found their bodies in a shallow grave near Hebron. Apparently, they were killed shortly after they were abducted (see: Security Forces Find Missing Teens' Bodies in the West Bank). Upon hearing of this atrocity, I asked myself as I have so many times: Do the Palestinians really want peace? After today, I have never been so adamant in answering myself with a firm no. But it's not just this cold-blooded murder of three innocent teenagers that has made me cynical about peace prospects over the last month or so.
A Pact Made With Terrorists
About a month ago, Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, announced that he had reached a deal for a unity government with Hamas, the Islamist terrorist group bent on destroying Israel, which has ruled over the Gaza Strip after pushing out Abbas' forces in 2007. For more than 20 years, Hamas has made a name for itself with a series of violent attacks that have targetted and killed mostly Israeli civilians. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu immediately condemned the new pact, saying that Abbas chose peace with terrorists rather than peace with Israel. But most of the international community disagreed with him. Instead, leaders from around the world, including the United Nations and the European Union, praised the new Palestinian unity government and asked the Israeli government to support it. They had bought into the Palestinian assertion that the new government would follow a path of non-violence and seek a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. See, for example:
UN Envoy Visits Gaza in Nod to Palestinian Unity
European Commissioner to Israel: Support Palestinian Unity Deal
Then, on June 12, 2014, three Israeli teens were abducted. The Israeli government immediately suspected Hamas and towards the end of the month, it named two suspects in the kidnapping, both of whom were Hamas members (see: Israel Names Two Prime Suspects in Teens' Abduction). Prime Minister Netanyahu found himself vindicated in the face of the naive international community. So much for the path of non-violence.
Polls Show Palestinians Don't Want Peace
Even before the kidnapping, there appeared to be little appetite on the part of the Palestinians for peace. In fact, earlier in June, a Palestinian research centre in the West Bank, known as the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion, released a poll that showed more than half of Palestinians surveyed said that they opposed restarting peace talks with Israel (see: Poll: 56% of Palestinians Oppose Renewing Talks With Israel). The poll did note that Palestinians opposed a renewal of talks based on Israel's refusal to release Palestinian prisoners and stop building in the West Bank. But why blame the Israeli government for not releasing prisoners when doing so often leads to fatal results for Israeli citizens? See, for example:
Israeli Killed on Passover Eve was Murdered by Palestinian Freed in Shalit Deal
In fact, as one Israeli journalist wrote, more than one hundred Israelis were murdered by ex Palestinian prisoners that were released in deals prior to the prisoner swap that saw Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit freed from Hamas captivity (see: Shalit Campaign was a Hysterical Surrender to Terror). So contrary to what the Palestinians tell Israel and the international community, freeing their prisoners will not lead to peace - it will only lead to more murdered Israelis. Freezing construction in Israel's West Bank communities will not lead to peace either. It certainly didn't when Israel evacuated the Gaza Strip and uprooted thousands of Israelis from their homes. On the contrary, the only thing Israel got for handing land back to the Palestinians was barrage after barrage of rocket fire on its peaceful towns and cities.
Many Palestinians even readily admit that they're no longer interested in a two state solution and a majority of them want their "resistance" to continue until they "liberate" all of Palestine from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean Sea (see: Poll: Most Palestinians Reject Two-State Solution - and Violence). This poll does indicate that most of the Palestinians currently don't support violence against Israel. And as we know, President Abbas did publicly condemn the kidnapping of the three Israeli teens. Meanwhile, however, the Palestinians don't seem to practice what they preach. Instead, they condone the terrorism perpetrated by Hamas, happily passing out candy to celebrate the kidnapping. Indeed, Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip view terrorists killed in attacks against Israel, not as villains, but as heroes. As for Abbas' public condemnations, they are little more than hot air and have just as little meaning as the late Palestinian leader, Yasir Arafat's condemnations did every time his fellow Palestinians committed an act of terrorism against Israeli civilians, killing and maiming as many as they could.
I have tried to remain optimistic about peace prospects, but time and time again my hopes and the hopes of countless others are dashed. Why? Because the Palestinians refuse to end their love affair with terrorism. And until they do, there will not be peace.
A Pact Made With Terrorists
About a month ago, Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, announced that he had reached a deal for a unity government with Hamas, the Islamist terrorist group bent on destroying Israel, which has ruled over the Gaza Strip after pushing out Abbas' forces in 2007. For more than 20 years, Hamas has made a name for itself with a series of violent attacks that have targetted and killed mostly Israeli civilians. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu immediately condemned the new pact, saying that Abbas chose peace with terrorists rather than peace with Israel. But most of the international community disagreed with him. Instead, leaders from around the world, including the United Nations and the European Union, praised the new Palestinian unity government and asked the Israeli government to support it. They had bought into the Palestinian assertion that the new government would follow a path of non-violence and seek a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. See, for example:
UN Envoy Visits Gaza in Nod to Palestinian Unity
European Commissioner to Israel: Support Palestinian Unity Deal
Then, on June 12, 2014, three Israeli teens were abducted. The Israeli government immediately suspected Hamas and towards the end of the month, it named two suspects in the kidnapping, both of whom were Hamas members (see: Israel Names Two Prime Suspects in Teens' Abduction). Prime Minister Netanyahu found himself vindicated in the face of the naive international community. So much for the path of non-violence.
Polls Show Palestinians Don't Want Peace
Even before the kidnapping, there appeared to be little appetite on the part of the Palestinians for peace. In fact, earlier in June, a Palestinian research centre in the West Bank, known as the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion, released a poll that showed more than half of Palestinians surveyed said that they opposed restarting peace talks with Israel (see: Poll: 56% of Palestinians Oppose Renewing Talks With Israel). The poll did note that Palestinians opposed a renewal of talks based on Israel's refusal to release Palestinian prisoners and stop building in the West Bank. But why blame the Israeli government for not releasing prisoners when doing so often leads to fatal results for Israeli citizens? See, for example:
Israeli Killed on Passover Eve was Murdered by Palestinian Freed in Shalit Deal
In fact, as one Israeli journalist wrote, more than one hundred Israelis were murdered by ex Palestinian prisoners that were released in deals prior to the prisoner swap that saw Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit freed from Hamas captivity (see: Shalit Campaign was a Hysterical Surrender to Terror). So contrary to what the Palestinians tell Israel and the international community, freeing their prisoners will not lead to peace - it will only lead to more murdered Israelis. Freezing construction in Israel's West Bank communities will not lead to peace either. It certainly didn't when Israel evacuated the Gaza Strip and uprooted thousands of Israelis from their homes. On the contrary, the only thing Israel got for handing land back to the Palestinians was barrage after barrage of rocket fire on its peaceful towns and cities.
Many Palestinians even readily admit that they're no longer interested in a two state solution and a majority of them want their "resistance" to continue until they "liberate" all of Palestine from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean Sea (see: Poll: Most Palestinians Reject Two-State Solution - and Violence). This poll does indicate that most of the Palestinians currently don't support violence against Israel. And as we know, President Abbas did publicly condemn the kidnapping of the three Israeli teens. Meanwhile, however, the Palestinians don't seem to practice what they preach. Instead, they condone the terrorism perpetrated by Hamas, happily passing out candy to celebrate the kidnapping. Indeed, Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip view terrorists killed in attacks against Israel, not as villains, but as heroes. As for Abbas' public condemnations, they are little more than hot air and have just as little meaning as the late Palestinian leader, Yasir Arafat's condemnations did every time his fellow Palestinians committed an act of terrorism against Israeli civilians, killing and maiming as many as they could.
I have tried to remain optimistic about peace prospects, but time and time again my hopes and the hopes of countless others are dashed. Why? Because the Palestinians refuse to end their love affair with terrorism. And until they do, there will not be peace.
Sunday, June 29, 2014
Harper Government Gets it Right on Canadian Citizenship
As we approach Canada Day, I thought it would be fitting to write a new blog post on the reforms to Canadian citizenship introduced by the Harper government. Canadian citizenship has lost its value over the last few decades, beginning with the late Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's reforms in the 1970s. These reforms watered down the requirements that prospective citizens needed to meet. Canada's doors were open to immigration from all corners of the world. While there is certainly no problem granting citizenship to someone regardless of where he or she comes from, there is a problem granting it to those who do not share Canada's values. Unfortunately, this is exactly what has happened under the guise of multiculturalism and so-called inclusiveness. In fact, Canadian citizenship seems to have lost so much of its value that some folks on the left want to give people who are not Canadian citizens the right to vote in municipal elections. See, for example:
Council Votes to Allow Permanent Residents to Cast Ballots
Give Permanent Residents Vote, City-Commissioned Report Says
Why Can't Permanent Residents Vote in Municipal Elections?
What's next? Will we be allowing permanent residents the right to vote in provincial and federal elections? Maybe the lefties want to start distributing voting cards to people as soon as they get of the plane. It's a scary proposition, but the lefties want and have always wanted to devalue Canadian citizenship for one reason: votes.
How Left Wing Politicians Use Immigrants
For decades now, new immigrants and prospective Canadian citizens have been pawns in the game that left wing politicians, especially those in the Liberal Party, like to play. Prime Minister Trudeau began playing this game in order to realize his personal vision of a multicultural Canada. But he also wanted to ensure the continued electoral success of the Grits by flooding Canada with new immigrants that he believed would be loyal to his party. He would bribe them by making it easier to become Canadian citizens, thereby giving them access to our generous social security system. This Liberal tradition continued well after Trudeau left office. The Grits made it easier than ever for new immigrants to not only become citizens, but also to bring their families into the country, whether or not they actually had something to contribute to the economy. But of course, the Grits and their fellow leftists don't care about whether or not immigrants benefit the country. They're willing to let anyone come to Canada so long as they think they can get their votes once they become citizens. This is the reason why the lefties are crying foul over the Harper government's reforms.
Harper Restoring Value to Canadian Citizenship
Earlier this year, the federal government introduced a new bill to reform the way new immigrants to this country become citizens, Bill C-24. Among other things, the bill will increase the amount of time immigrants must reside in Canada before they can become citizens. There will be additional measures to combat citizenship fraud and ensure that immigrants with a criminal past do not become citizens. The government will be able to revoke citizenship and deny it to persons convicted of terrorism or high treason. The bill also expands the ages of applicants required to prove their knowledge of Canada and their competence in English or French from between 18 and 54 years to 14 to 64 years. Along with the new bill, the feds have also introduced a new citizenship handbook with more emphasis on Canadian heritage, such as our country's proud military history, our respect for democratic values and our ties to the British monarchy.
I support the Harper government's citizenship reforms because I believe that these reforms will restore value to Canadian citizenship. But of course, the leftists are dead set against these new measures. To them I ask, why should a prospective citizen not have to physically reside in Canada for a reasonable amount of time to prove that he or she intends to live here? Why should they not be required to prove their knowledge of Canada's values and heritage? Why should we allow immigrants with criminal pasts, or even a terrorist pasts, to become citizens of our great country? And why should prospective new citizens not have to prove that they have at least a working knowledge of English or French? As always, the folks on the left will have an answer to all of these questions, but they won't give you the real answer: "Because we want their votes!"
The leftists in Canada don't care about criminals or terrorists coming into this country. They don't care if prospective citizens don't share our values. They don't care if there are new Canadian citizens who can barely speak English or French, and they believe that Canadian citizenship is a right, not a privilege that every new immigrant to this country needs to earn. Fortunately, we have a government in power that respects and honours the value of Canadian citizenship and wants to make sure that this value is maintained. But you can bet that if Justin Trudeau's Liberals or Thomas Mulcair's NDP ever takes power, they will follow their leftist tradition and water down the value of Canadian citizenship just so they can benefit from the votes that they think an easy path to becoming a Canadian will bring them.
Council Votes to Allow Permanent Residents to Cast Ballots
Give Permanent Residents Vote, City-Commissioned Report Says
Why Can't Permanent Residents Vote in Municipal Elections?
What's next? Will we be allowing permanent residents the right to vote in provincial and federal elections? Maybe the lefties want to start distributing voting cards to people as soon as they get of the plane. It's a scary proposition, but the lefties want and have always wanted to devalue Canadian citizenship for one reason: votes.
How Left Wing Politicians Use Immigrants
For decades now, new immigrants and prospective Canadian citizens have been pawns in the game that left wing politicians, especially those in the Liberal Party, like to play. Prime Minister Trudeau began playing this game in order to realize his personal vision of a multicultural Canada. But he also wanted to ensure the continued electoral success of the Grits by flooding Canada with new immigrants that he believed would be loyal to his party. He would bribe them by making it easier to become Canadian citizens, thereby giving them access to our generous social security system. This Liberal tradition continued well after Trudeau left office. The Grits made it easier than ever for new immigrants to not only become citizens, but also to bring their families into the country, whether or not they actually had something to contribute to the economy. But of course, the Grits and their fellow leftists don't care about whether or not immigrants benefit the country. They're willing to let anyone come to Canada so long as they think they can get their votes once they become citizens. This is the reason why the lefties are crying foul over the Harper government's reforms.
Harper Restoring Value to Canadian Citizenship
Earlier this year, the federal government introduced a new bill to reform the way new immigrants to this country become citizens, Bill C-24. Among other things, the bill will increase the amount of time immigrants must reside in Canada before they can become citizens. There will be additional measures to combat citizenship fraud and ensure that immigrants with a criminal past do not become citizens. The government will be able to revoke citizenship and deny it to persons convicted of terrorism or high treason. The bill also expands the ages of applicants required to prove their knowledge of Canada and their competence in English or French from between 18 and 54 years to 14 to 64 years. Along with the new bill, the feds have also introduced a new citizenship handbook with more emphasis on Canadian heritage, such as our country's proud military history, our respect for democratic values and our ties to the British monarchy.
I support the Harper government's citizenship reforms because I believe that these reforms will restore value to Canadian citizenship. But of course, the leftists are dead set against these new measures. To them I ask, why should a prospective citizen not have to physically reside in Canada for a reasonable amount of time to prove that he or she intends to live here? Why should they not be required to prove their knowledge of Canada's values and heritage? Why should we allow immigrants with criminal pasts, or even a terrorist pasts, to become citizens of our great country? And why should prospective new citizens not have to prove that they have at least a working knowledge of English or French? As always, the folks on the left will have an answer to all of these questions, but they won't give you the real answer: "Because we want their votes!"
The leftists in Canada don't care about criminals or terrorists coming into this country. They don't care if prospective citizens don't share our values. They don't care if there are new Canadian citizens who can barely speak English or French, and they believe that Canadian citizenship is a right, not a privilege that every new immigrant to this country needs to earn. Fortunately, we have a government in power that respects and honours the value of Canadian citizenship and wants to make sure that this value is maintained. But you can bet that if Justin Trudeau's Liberals or Thomas Mulcair's NDP ever takes power, they will follow their leftist tradition and water down the value of Canadian citizenship just so they can benefit from the votes that they think an easy path to becoming a Canadian will bring them.
Friday, June 27, 2014
To the Western Powers: Stop Imposing Colonialist Borders
As the crisis in Iraq worsens, the U.S. continues to insist that the country remain united. But why? As I said in a previous blog post, Iraq: A Country Never Meant to be Falls Apart, Iraq is an artificial creation drawn up by former European colonial powers without any concern for the wishes of the different sects and ethnic groups living in it. So why, then, is the U.S. trying so hard to keep this failed state together? The simple answer: the Americans fear the idea of self-determination. And they're not the only ones. To this day, the European powers have gone to great strides to control current borders, both in Europe itself and abroad. Essentially, the West never abandoned their colonialist desire to determine the borders of other countries so long as it suits them.
The Middle East: A Land of Broken Promises
After the First World War, it seemed as if the victorious Western powers finally wised up and realized that nation-states created by means of conquest rather than consent should not exist. Hence, they dismantled the Hapsburgs' Austro-Hungarian Empire and allowed its various peoples the right to self-determination. The end result was the emergence of some of the modern European states that still exist today, such as the republics of Austria and Hungary. The victors of WWI initially promised the peoples of the Middle East that they too would be given the right to form their own nation-states. Indeed, even before the war ended, the leaders of the Arab revolt in the Ottoman Empire had reached an understanding with the British that would have seen the Arabs achieve independence. The British also promised the Jewish people a homeland in Palestine, hence the Balfour Declaration in 1917. As we know, however, the Western powers did not keep their word.
In fact, at around the same time that they were promising the peoples of the Middle East the right to self-determination, the British and French governments were secretly dividing the region amongst themselves. Thus emerged the ultimate betrayal of the Middle Eastern peoples: the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, which eventually led to the division of much of the region into British and French territories. These territories were later granted independence, but the artificial boundaries that the British and French created remained, leaving peoples divided and creating new conflicts amongst different sects and ethnic groups that were forced together by the new borders. The British also attempted to break the promise they made to the Jewish Zionist movement when they decided to appease the leaders of the Arab world. In lieu of World War II, the British needed the oil that only the Arabs could provide, hence they curtailed Jewish immigration to the British Mandate of Palestine and reneged on the Balfour Declaration. It was only after WWII, when the horrors of the Holocaust were revealed, did the British decide to give up on their mandate in Palestine, turning the issue of Jewish independence over to the new United Nations, which eventually voted to partition Palestine and grant the Jewish people an independent state therein.
The Western Fear of Self-Determination
One hundred years after the Western powers carved up the Middle East, they are still trying to maintain the artificial borders that they created, hence the Americans' desperate attempt to keep Iraq together. The Kurdish people, who never asked to be absorbed into Iraq or any other bordering country, have the legitimate right to an independent state of their own. Even the leaders of Israel, America's most important ally in the Middle East, have tried to convince the Obama Administration that they should accept Kurdish independence (see: Israel Tells U.S. Independent Iraqi Kurdistan is 'Forgone Conclusion'). So why won't the Americans budge? Well, for the same reason that France wants to keep the countries in its former colonial territory together.
It wasn't too long ago that the French intervened in the west African state of Mali to push Islamist terrorists out of the country's north. After more secular Tuareg rebels seized northern Mali and proclaimed independence, the Islamists overwhelmed them and took over. The French pushed them out, but instead of doing the right thing and supporting the Tuaregs' right to independence, they instead began assisting the Malian government to reclaim the north without any concern as to whether or not the Tuareg people wanted to remain part of Mali. Just as the territory of the Kurdish people is divided by the borders of several countries, so to is the territory of the Tuareg. The reality is that the Tuaregs did not and still do not want to be part of Mali or any other country drawn up by French colonists. They want and deserve a country of their own on all of their territory. But of course, neither the French, nor any other Western power want this to happen, just as they don't want it to happen in Kurdistan. Why? Because if the West allows the Kurds or the Tuaregs to be independent, it would have to give peoples still under their control the same right.
First Kurdistan, Then...
The fact is that the Western powers are loathe to see any new states emerge from their former colonial territories, or anywhere for that matter, unless they can control what happens. Hence, it is very difficult for any people who desire a country of their own to actually achieve it. Say, for example, that France were to support an independent Kurdistan or a separate Tuareg state. Clearly, if they allowed either of these peoples the right to self-determination, they must also accord the same right to, say, the people of Brittany, Corsica or Alsace - all of which are now regions of France. Similarly, if the British government were to support Kurdish or Tuareg independence, they should have to support the aspirations of sovereigntists in Scotland and Wales, right? And how about the U.S.? If the Americans suddenly changed their tune and opted to support the aspirations of the Kurds and Tuaregs, then clearly they would have to acquiesce to the demands of Native Americans for a return of the lands that the U.S. stole from them. Yes, the fact is that the countries of the West will eventually have to comply with the demands of some of the peoples within their own borders for self-determination, but if they are truly democracies, then they should have no problem doing so.
Self-Determination: Resistance is Futile
The reality is that the West cannot stem the tide of self-determination. They can only slow it down, and by doing so they harm countless lives. There would be a lot less bloodshed if the West just allowed independence-seeking peoples, like the Kurds of Iraq or the Tuaregs of Mali, to go their own ways. How many people have to die before the West gives up its desire to control the borders of the rest of the world?
The Middle East: A Land of Broken Promises
After the First World War, it seemed as if the victorious Western powers finally wised up and realized that nation-states created by means of conquest rather than consent should not exist. Hence, they dismantled the Hapsburgs' Austro-Hungarian Empire and allowed its various peoples the right to self-determination. The end result was the emergence of some of the modern European states that still exist today, such as the republics of Austria and Hungary. The victors of WWI initially promised the peoples of the Middle East that they too would be given the right to form their own nation-states. Indeed, even before the war ended, the leaders of the Arab revolt in the Ottoman Empire had reached an understanding with the British that would have seen the Arabs achieve independence. The British also promised the Jewish people a homeland in Palestine, hence the Balfour Declaration in 1917. As we know, however, the Western powers did not keep their word.
In fact, at around the same time that they were promising the peoples of the Middle East the right to self-determination, the British and French governments were secretly dividing the region amongst themselves. Thus emerged the ultimate betrayal of the Middle Eastern peoples: the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, which eventually led to the division of much of the region into British and French territories. These territories were later granted independence, but the artificial boundaries that the British and French created remained, leaving peoples divided and creating new conflicts amongst different sects and ethnic groups that were forced together by the new borders. The British also attempted to break the promise they made to the Jewish Zionist movement when they decided to appease the leaders of the Arab world. In lieu of World War II, the British needed the oil that only the Arabs could provide, hence they curtailed Jewish immigration to the British Mandate of Palestine and reneged on the Balfour Declaration. It was only after WWII, when the horrors of the Holocaust were revealed, did the British decide to give up on their mandate in Palestine, turning the issue of Jewish independence over to the new United Nations, which eventually voted to partition Palestine and grant the Jewish people an independent state therein.
The Western Fear of Self-Determination
One hundred years after the Western powers carved up the Middle East, they are still trying to maintain the artificial borders that they created, hence the Americans' desperate attempt to keep Iraq together. The Kurdish people, who never asked to be absorbed into Iraq or any other bordering country, have the legitimate right to an independent state of their own. Even the leaders of Israel, America's most important ally in the Middle East, have tried to convince the Obama Administration that they should accept Kurdish independence (see: Israel Tells U.S. Independent Iraqi Kurdistan is 'Forgone Conclusion'). So why won't the Americans budge? Well, for the same reason that France wants to keep the countries in its former colonial territory together.
It wasn't too long ago that the French intervened in the west African state of Mali to push Islamist terrorists out of the country's north. After more secular Tuareg rebels seized northern Mali and proclaimed independence, the Islamists overwhelmed them and took over. The French pushed them out, but instead of doing the right thing and supporting the Tuaregs' right to independence, they instead began assisting the Malian government to reclaim the north without any concern as to whether or not the Tuareg people wanted to remain part of Mali. Just as the territory of the Kurdish people is divided by the borders of several countries, so to is the territory of the Tuareg. The reality is that the Tuaregs did not and still do not want to be part of Mali or any other country drawn up by French colonists. They want and deserve a country of their own on all of their territory. But of course, neither the French, nor any other Western power want this to happen, just as they don't want it to happen in Kurdistan. Why? Because if the West allows the Kurds or the Tuaregs to be independent, it would have to give peoples still under their control the same right.
First Kurdistan, Then...
The fact is that the Western powers are loathe to see any new states emerge from their former colonial territories, or anywhere for that matter, unless they can control what happens. Hence, it is very difficult for any people who desire a country of their own to actually achieve it. Say, for example, that France were to support an independent Kurdistan or a separate Tuareg state. Clearly, if they allowed either of these peoples the right to self-determination, they must also accord the same right to, say, the people of Brittany, Corsica or Alsace - all of which are now regions of France. Similarly, if the British government were to support Kurdish or Tuareg independence, they should have to support the aspirations of sovereigntists in Scotland and Wales, right? And how about the U.S.? If the Americans suddenly changed their tune and opted to support the aspirations of the Kurds and Tuaregs, then clearly they would have to acquiesce to the demands of Native Americans for a return of the lands that the U.S. stole from them. Yes, the fact is that the countries of the West will eventually have to comply with the demands of some of the peoples within their own borders for self-determination, but if they are truly democracies, then they should have no problem doing so.
Self-Determination: Resistance is Futile
The reality is that the West cannot stem the tide of self-determination. They can only slow it down, and by doing so they harm countless lives. There would be a lot less bloodshed if the West just allowed independence-seeking peoples, like the Kurds of Iraq or the Tuaregs of Mali, to go their own ways. How many people have to die before the West gives up its desire to control the borders of the rest of the world?
Sunday, June 22, 2014
The "Islamic" Inquisition
In Muslim history, the period from the seventh century up until the thirteenth century is generally regarded as Islam's golden age - an age of learning when scholars recovered and translated the knowledge of ancient civilizations, such as Mesopotamia, Greece and Rome. Had it not been for the work of various scholars during the height of Islamic civilization, the knowledge of ancient philosophers, like Plato and Aristotle, would have been lost to the dustbin of history. Islam's golden age was also a period of great advances in technology, astronomy, medicine and other sciences. The economy and international trade in the Muslim world flourished. In fact, some of the most basic foundations of early capitalism were built during Islam's golden age. And although my knowledge of the history of Islamic civilization is limited, I do know enough to safely say that without the knowledge acquired and re-acquired during Islam's golden age, modern Western civilization as we know it today would not even exist. Moreover, at about the same time that Islam's golden age occurred, Europe was in a period of violent upheaval and economic stagnation. But after the thirteenth century the tide began to turn, finally culminating in the fall of Granada, Islam's last kingdom on the Iberian Peninsula, in 1492 at the hands of Spain's Christian monarchs, thus ending the so-called "Reconquista". From this point onward, Muslim civilization began a sharp decline. Territory that was once part of vast Muslim empires slowly became European vassals or colonies. By the beginning of the 20th century, nearly the entire Muslim world was under the control of European powers. Perhaps, however, the tide is beginning to turn again.
Islam Emerges From Its Dark Age Just as the Europeans Did From Theirs - By Going Back Before Going Forward
By the mid-20th century, after centuries of colonization at the hands of the Europeans, most of the Muslim world regained its independence, though they became divided into many different states with borders largely drawn up by their former colonial masters. After they regained their independence, the Muslims undertook certain actions that very much resemble the actions taken by the Europeans after the Reconquista. Upon driving the Muslims from the Iberian peninsula, the newly-liberated European Christians began and orgy of persecution and slaughter. They brutally massacred, deported or forcibly converted the peninsula's non-Christian inhabitants as part of their attempt to "cleanse" Iberia and the rest of Europe of foreign influence. And so began the heydays of what became known as the Spanish Inquisition - a period of persecution for all things and people deemed by the powerful Roman Catholic church to be non-Christian.
Similarly, once the Muslim states threw off the shackles of their colonial masters, a widespread persecution of non-Muslim peoples began, culminating in a mass exodus of Christians and Jews from much of the Muslim world. What were, for example, large Jewish communities in places like Iraq, Yemen and Morocco are all but gone. At the same time, long-established Christian communities, some dating back to the earliest period of Christianity, have largely vanished from the Muslim world. Many of the aforementioned non-Muslim populations fled in the face of a growing Islamic fundamentalist movement, which as we should all know is still growing by leaps and bounds and continuing to scare or force both non-Muslims and more enlightened Muslims into exile.
There is also a persecution of modern ideas in the Muslim world, just as there was when Christian Europe was beginning to emerge from its dark age. Whereas the world of Islam once embraced modern science and education, it is now a world in which people are killed for distributing polio vaccinations and in which girls can be killed for simply going to school and trying to get an education. In essence, what used to be Europe's Spanish Inquisition is now the Muslim world's "Islamic" Inquisition. I use quotations with the word Islamic because any enlightened person who knows anything about Islamic history or thought knows that what is happening in today's Muslim world is the exact opposite of what Islamic is, or at least what it used to be.
Sparks of Enlightenment
Now for the good news. If we assume that Islam is going through the same process that Christian Europe did after emerging from its dark age, we can also conclude that the Muslim world will at some point become a more enlightened place, just as Europe eventually did. In fact, even during the dark times of the Spanish Inquisition, there were individuals that were courageous enough to raise their heads and challenge the fanatical, conservative religious establishment. We know, for example, that Italian explorer Christopher Columbus sailed to the so-called New World in the same year that Muslim Granada fell to the Spaniards and the Spanish Inquisition was still in its infancy, so that he could prove that the world was round. Columbus' discovery would of course be followed by the work of scholars like Copernicus and Galileo, who also lived during the time when new perspectives on anything were considered heresy and punishable by death.
And just as a handful of enlightened individuals arose during the Spanish Inquisition, so to have some enlightened Muslims emerged to challenge the rigidity of today's "Islamic" Inquisition - people like two of my fellow Canadians, Irshad Manji and Tarek Fatah, who have openly challenged their fellow Muslims (including each other) to re-examine and re-evaluate the way Islam is interpreted and practiced. They, like the scholars who lived in the time of the Spanish Inquisition, have also faced threats to their lives, but they have continued their work nonetheless. And if history is any indicator, they will be vindicated just as those who challenged the Spanish Inquisition were.
Sparks of enlightenment during Islam's current inquisition can also be found in the form of whole countries. History tells us that when the Spanish Inquisition was not even a century old, folks in some countries decided to go against the rigid Catholic doctrine that ruled over western Europe. One of those countries was England, whose leaders decided to break with the Catholic church in the early 16th century. For this, England was hated throughout much of Catholic Europe. In fact, England's defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 was a pivotal moment in European history as the Armada was in part an attempt to crush England's new faith and bring it back into the rigid fold of Catholicism. A Spanish victory in 1588 would have certainly meant the slaughter of England's reform-minded leaders and perhaps even an end to the growing Reformation that was sweeping parts of Europe at the time.
Fast forward to today's "Islamic" Inquisition and you'll find one country that, like England, is also a beacon of enlightenment in a region of ignorance and intolerance. I am referring here to Israel. Although not a Muslim country, Israel does lie in the heart of the Muslim world and is the only democratic country therein. As we all know, Israel is hated throughout the Muslim world, but contrary popular opinion, this hatred does not stem from the displacement of the Palestinian Arabs. The issue of Palestinian self-determination is actually just an excuse used by people throughout the Muslim world, particularly in the Arab states, to justify their hatred. In fact, the treatment of the Palestinians by fellow Muslims is often worse than the treatment they receive from Israel. The real reason is for Muslims' hatred of Israel is a general hatred of non-Muslims. So the fact that a non-Muslim state exists in the heart of the Muslim world is an abomination to Muslims who see the geographical area that encompasses the Muslim world as their exclusive domain. Israel's victories over the forces that have tried to destroy it on several occasions are not unlike the England's victory in 1588 over forces seeking to vanquish its Reformist regime because they saw all of Europe as the exclusive domain of their rigid and intolerant Catholicism.
There are also other countries in the Muslim world where progress towards modernity is being made, though this progress has mostly taken the form of economic growth in countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei and the Arab states of the Persian Gulf. Some social and political liberalization has also taken place in states such as these, but not to the extent that economic liberalization has. Up until recently, Turkey was the textbook example of what a modern, Muslim state should look like. After World War I, a new, secular republic of Turkey, founded by Kemal Attaturk, was born - a country where religion and state were completely separated and where the Turks sought to do away with all the vestiges of the Islamic Ottoman Empire, even changing the script of the Turkish language from Arabic to Latin. In recent years, Turkey has stepped back from Attaturk's modernist vision and Islamist doctrine has made a comeback with the support of a regime whose origins lie in the Islamic fundamentalist movement. That being said, it is very common for a country or even a whole civilization to move backwards before it moves forwards.
In fact, moving backwards and then forwards is exactly what Western civilization did when it emerged from the dark age, and is just what Islamic civilization is doing now. The West took several steps big steps backwards with the Spanish Inquisition and the persecution of modernity that it entailed, but slowly and surely began to move forward again until eventually reaching the point at which it became the world's dominant civilization. In the same respect, the Muslim world is taking very big steps backwards with it's own "Islamic Inquisition", where modern ideas are quashed and rigid religious doctrine reigns supreme. But even now, as I have said, some Muslim individuals and countries are making great strides towards modernity. It will take time, perhaps a long time, but the Muslim world can, once again, take its place amongst the more enlightened regions of the Earth.
Islam Emerges From Its Dark Age Just as the Europeans Did From Theirs - By Going Back Before Going Forward
By the mid-20th century, after centuries of colonization at the hands of the Europeans, most of the Muslim world regained its independence, though they became divided into many different states with borders largely drawn up by their former colonial masters. After they regained their independence, the Muslims undertook certain actions that very much resemble the actions taken by the Europeans after the Reconquista. Upon driving the Muslims from the Iberian peninsula, the newly-liberated European Christians began and orgy of persecution and slaughter. They brutally massacred, deported or forcibly converted the peninsula's non-Christian inhabitants as part of their attempt to "cleanse" Iberia and the rest of Europe of foreign influence. And so began the heydays of what became known as the Spanish Inquisition - a period of persecution for all things and people deemed by the powerful Roman Catholic church to be non-Christian.
Similarly, once the Muslim states threw off the shackles of their colonial masters, a widespread persecution of non-Muslim peoples began, culminating in a mass exodus of Christians and Jews from much of the Muslim world. What were, for example, large Jewish communities in places like Iraq, Yemen and Morocco are all but gone. At the same time, long-established Christian communities, some dating back to the earliest period of Christianity, have largely vanished from the Muslim world. Many of the aforementioned non-Muslim populations fled in the face of a growing Islamic fundamentalist movement, which as we should all know is still growing by leaps and bounds and continuing to scare or force both non-Muslims and more enlightened Muslims into exile.
There is also a persecution of modern ideas in the Muslim world, just as there was when Christian Europe was beginning to emerge from its dark age. Whereas the world of Islam once embraced modern science and education, it is now a world in which people are killed for distributing polio vaccinations and in which girls can be killed for simply going to school and trying to get an education. In essence, what used to be Europe's Spanish Inquisition is now the Muslim world's "Islamic" Inquisition. I use quotations with the word Islamic because any enlightened person who knows anything about Islamic history or thought knows that what is happening in today's Muslim world is the exact opposite of what Islamic is, or at least what it used to be.
Sparks of Enlightenment
Now for the good news. If we assume that Islam is going through the same process that Christian Europe did after emerging from its dark age, we can also conclude that the Muslim world will at some point become a more enlightened place, just as Europe eventually did. In fact, even during the dark times of the Spanish Inquisition, there were individuals that were courageous enough to raise their heads and challenge the fanatical, conservative religious establishment. We know, for example, that Italian explorer Christopher Columbus sailed to the so-called New World in the same year that Muslim Granada fell to the Spaniards and the Spanish Inquisition was still in its infancy, so that he could prove that the world was round. Columbus' discovery would of course be followed by the work of scholars like Copernicus and Galileo, who also lived during the time when new perspectives on anything were considered heresy and punishable by death.
And just as a handful of enlightened individuals arose during the Spanish Inquisition, so to have some enlightened Muslims emerged to challenge the rigidity of today's "Islamic" Inquisition - people like two of my fellow Canadians, Irshad Manji and Tarek Fatah, who have openly challenged their fellow Muslims (including each other) to re-examine and re-evaluate the way Islam is interpreted and practiced. They, like the scholars who lived in the time of the Spanish Inquisition, have also faced threats to their lives, but they have continued their work nonetheless. And if history is any indicator, they will be vindicated just as those who challenged the Spanish Inquisition were.
Sparks of enlightenment during Islam's current inquisition can also be found in the form of whole countries. History tells us that when the Spanish Inquisition was not even a century old, folks in some countries decided to go against the rigid Catholic doctrine that ruled over western Europe. One of those countries was England, whose leaders decided to break with the Catholic church in the early 16th century. For this, England was hated throughout much of Catholic Europe. In fact, England's defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 was a pivotal moment in European history as the Armada was in part an attempt to crush England's new faith and bring it back into the rigid fold of Catholicism. A Spanish victory in 1588 would have certainly meant the slaughter of England's reform-minded leaders and perhaps even an end to the growing Reformation that was sweeping parts of Europe at the time.
Fast forward to today's "Islamic" Inquisition and you'll find one country that, like England, is also a beacon of enlightenment in a region of ignorance and intolerance. I am referring here to Israel. Although not a Muslim country, Israel does lie in the heart of the Muslim world and is the only democratic country therein. As we all know, Israel is hated throughout the Muslim world, but contrary popular opinion, this hatred does not stem from the displacement of the Palestinian Arabs. The issue of Palestinian self-determination is actually just an excuse used by people throughout the Muslim world, particularly in the Arab states, to justify their hatred. In fact, the treatment of the Palestinians by fellow Muslims is often worse than the treatment they receive from Israel. The real reason is for Muslims' hatred of Israel is a general hatred of non-Muslims. So the fact that a non-Muslim state exists in the heart of the Muslim world is an abomination to Muslims who see the geographical area that encompasses the Muslim world as their exclusive domain. Israel's victories over the forces that have tried to destroy it on several occasions are not unlike the England's victory in 1588 over forces seeking to vanquish its Reformist regime because they saw all of Europe as the exclusive domain of their rigid and intolerant Catholicism.
There are also other countries in the Muslim world where progress towards modernity is being made, though this progress has mostly taken the form of economic growth in countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei and the Arab states of the Persian Gulf. Some social and political liberalization has also taken place in states such as these, but not to the extent that economic liberalization has. Up until recently, Turkey was the textbook example of what a modern, Muslim state should look like. After World War I, a new, secular republic of Turkey, founded by Kemal Attaturk, was born - a country where religion and state were completely separated and where the Turks sought to do away with all the vestiges of the Islamic Ottoman Empire, even changing the script of the Turkish language from Arabic to Latin. In recent years, Turkey has stepped back from Attaturk's modernist vision and Islamist doctrine has made a comeback with the support of a regime whose origins lie in the Islamic fundamentalist movement. That being said, it is very common for a country or even a whole civilization to move backwards before it moves forwards.
In fact, moving backwards and then forwards is exactly what Western civilization did when it emerged from the dark age, and is just what Islamic civilization is doing now. The West took several steps big steps backwards with the Spanish Inquisition and the persecution of modernity that it entailed, but slowly and surely began to move forward again until eventually reaching the point at which it became the world's dominant civilization. In the same respect, the Muslim world is taking very big steps backwards with it's own "Islamic Inquisition", where modern ideas are quashed and rigid religious doctrine reigns supreme. But even now, as I have said, some Muslim individuals and countries are making great strides towards modernity. It will take time, perhaps a long time, but the Muslim world can, once again, take its place amongst the more enlightened regions of the Earth.
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
Iraq: A Country Never Meant to be Falls Apart
It was bound to happen sooner or later. Iraq is now on the verge of full-blown sectarian warfare pitting religious sects and ethnic groups against each other in a country that was never meant to be. A country cobbled together by British and French colonial interests, using the remnants of the Ottoman Empire that they had captured during World War I and subsequently divided amongst themselves. As was usually the case when drawing colonial borders, neither Britain nor France cared about whether or not the different groups that were forcibly incorporated into Iraq wanted to be part of the new country in the first place. In fact, what is now Iraq was originally governed as three separate provinces under Ottoman rule: Mosul in the north, Baghdad in the centre and Basra in the south. These former provinces roughly correspond to the main ethno-religious divides in Iraq today: Kurds in the north, Sunni Arabs in the centre and Shiite Arabs in the south. This history was once referenced on the Saddam Hussein era Iraqi flag, which
featured three stars representing the three former Ottoman provinces.
There have been several regime changes since Iraq was first created, but they all had one thing in common: They could only keep the country together by force. Saddam Hussein was Iraq's last dictator. When the U.S. and her allies toppled him in 2003, they got rid of the glue that held the country together. Not surprisingly, the ethnic and religious tensions that had long simmered under Saddam's ruthless dictatorship resurfaced once he was removed from power. Only Western military might prevented the country from coming apart - barely. But now, there are no Western troops in Iraq. Now, the Iraqis are on their own and there's no one to stop the country's different religious sects and ethnic groups from going at each other's throats with the intent of ruthlessly slaughtering one another. So not surprisingly, Iraq's Shiite-dominated government is now fighting a brutal war with Sunni militias, the largest of which is ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, a group of Islamic extremists that some people describe as being more extreme than Al-Qaeda. In the meantime, the Kurds in the north are consolidating their de facto independence as Iraqi forces flee further south for what may be a final showdown with Sunni militias in Baghdad. There is only one way to stop, or at least slow, what will no doubt be a heinous bloodbath: Recognize that Iraq is a product of colonialism that was never meant to exist and allow Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds go their own separate ways.
Partition is the Only Solution:
As ISIS and other Sunni militias advance towards Baghdad, the international community is struggling to come up with some kind of solution that will keep Iraq united. But this is a futile effort. The only plausible solution is to partition the failed Iraqi state into three separate countries. The north for the Kurds, the centre for the Sunnis and the south for the Shiites. The exact borders will have to be determined through negotiation between the parties concerned, but ultimately, each of the main groups will have self-determination and one will not be able to control the other. This is the only way peace can exist, if only on a temporary basis, between the various religious and ethnic groups, for if they cannot live together in peace, then they must live separately. Besides, they never wanted to live together anyway.
There have been several regime changes since Iraq was first created, but they all had one thing in common: They could only keep the country together by force. Saddam Hussein was Iraq's last dictator. When the U.S. and her allies toppled him in 2003, they got rid of the glue that held the country together. Not surprisingly, the ethnic and religious tensions that had long simmered under Saddam's ruthless dictatorship resurfaced once he was removed from power. Only Western military might prevented the country from coming apart - barely. But now, there are no Western troops in Iraq. Now, the Iraqis are on their own and there's no one to stop the country's different religious sects and ethnic groups from going at each other's throats with the intent of ruthlessly slaughtering one another. So not surprisingly, Iraq's Shiite-dominated government is now fighting a brutal war with Sunni militias, the largest of which is ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, a group of Islamic extremists that some people describe as being more extreme than Al-Qaeda. In the meantime, the Kurds in the north are consolidating their de facto independence as Iraqi forces flee further south for what may be a final showdown with Sunni militias in Baghdad. There is only one way to stop, or at least slow, what will no doubt be a heinous bloodbath: Recognize that Iraq is a product of colonialism that was never meant to exist and allow Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds go their own separate ways.
Partition is the Only Solution:
As ISIS and other Sunni militias advance towards Baghdad, the international community is struggling to come up with some kind of solution that will keep Iraq united. But this is a futile effort. The only plausible solution is to partition the failed Iraqi state into three separate countries. The north for the Kurds, the centre for the Sunnis and the south for the Shiites. The exact borders will have to be determined through negotiation between the parties concerned, but ultimately, each of the main groups will have self-determination and one will not be able to control the other. This is the only way peace can exist, if only on a temporary basis, between the various religious and ethnic groups, for if they cannot live together in peace, then they must live separately. Besides, they never wanted to live together anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)