A BeLaboured Inquiry into Antisemitism – the Sequel

In my previous article, I was referring to Labour Party’s (then ongoing) ‘independent inquiry into antisemitism’, stating:

“I have zero confidence in this inquiry.  And not just because Mr. Corbyn’s past actions (such as calling members of terrorist organisations ‘friends’, sharing platforms with Holocaust deniers, patronage of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign) are questionable to say the least.  No, a desire to whitewash, rather than shed light, is obvious from the choice of the inquiry panel.”

So I was not surprised when a friend wrote to me, incensed by what he called ‘the whitewash Chakrabarti report’.  But what did amaze me was the report’s abysmal quality.  I expected a whitewash; but not such a poorly executed, inept one.

But, you know what… Let’s start with the positives.  The ‘report’ (I’ll explain the quote marks later in the article) says:

"’Zio’ is a word that seems to have gained some currency on campuses and on social media in particular. […] It is a term of abuse, pure and simple, and should not in my view have any place in the vocabulary of Labour members, whether online, in conversation or anywhere else.  I recommend that the word 'Zio' should have no place in Labour Party discourse going forward.“

Every third-grade teacher will wholeheartedly agree with this recommendation, which amounts to a sound ‘No name-calling, children!’

Ms. Chakrabarti has also determined that stereotyping people (among others, Jews) based on ethnicity or religion is not a good thing.  So far, so good.

Even better, the ‘report’ urges Labour members to

“resist the use of Hitler, Nazi and Holocaust metaphors, distortions and comparisons in debates about Israel-Palestine in particular.”

Not, however, because such distortions and comparisons are improper, slanderous and designed to produce unbearable pain – but for the sake of “kindness, politeness or good advocacy”.

These rather obvious principles are pretty much everything that can be called ’positive’ in the ‘report', even at a stretch.  And even those principles are expressed in hesitant voice and ballasted with disclaimers.

My problem with the ‘Independent Inquiry into Antisemitism’ is that it does not get the concepts of ‘independence’, ‘inquiry’ and ‘antisemitism’.  My problem with the ‘report’ is that… there isn’t one.  Other than that, everything is top class; the spelling is flawless and the cover page is a delightful tinge of red.

The ‘Independent Inquiry into Antisemitism’ was not independent

As mentioned before, Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn has assigned the ‘independent inquiry’ to a small team of very dependent (or dependable) Labour supporters/members/activists.  If he ever becomes Prime Minister, one must wonder whether Mr. Corbyn will put a Starbucks executive in charge of ‘independently investigating’ whether his/her company avoided tax.

The ‘Independent Inquiry into Antisemitism’ was not an inquiry

No investigation has been performed, there was no visible fact-finding effort.  The 'inquiry' apparently consisted of reading through the various submissions sent in by parties with an axe to grind (that is, I assume Ms Chakrabarti read them; it is impossible to tell, as the ‘report’ contains no clear references to specific submissions!)

If I complain of an ache, a competent doctor will want to run tests and investigate, not issue a diagnostic by asking people what they think about it.

Ms. Chakrabarti’s main conclusion (or was it the starting point?) is that:

“The Labour Party is not overrun by antisemitism, Islamophobia or other forms of racism.”

I’m not sure what ‘overrun’ means: 95% of the members harbouring racist prejudice?  5% of the members?  50% of the members?

But, even had Ms. Chakrabarti defined the term, it is not clear how she reached that learned conclusion.  Did she perform an opinion poll?  On what evidence did she (a lawyer) base that very important determination?  The ‘report’ offers that the Labour Party:

“is the party that initiated every single United Kingdom race equality law.”

That is without doubt commendable, but past opinions and achievements have no bearing on the assessment of the Party and its leaders and members in recent times and under the current leadership.  The US Republican Party was founded by people who championed the abolition of black slavery.  Yet I doubt that Ms. Chakrabarti would view this fact as very relevant in assessing – say – Donald Trump and his supporters.

The ‘Independent Inquiry into Antisemitism’ was not ‘into Antisemitism’

Formally, the terms of reference called for the Inquiry to provide

“guidance about antisemitism and other forms of racism, including Islamophobia.”

Thus formulated, the remit was impossibly broad and rendered even more unrealistic by the requirement that the Inquiry should

“report in two months (of its launch)”

Even if one accepts that the focus should have been on antisemitism, the inquiry made no attempt to use, adopt or refer to a definition of that particular form of racism.  How can one 'inquire' to what extent the Labour Party is infected (let alone ‘overrun’) by antisemitism, without defining what is antisemitism – and what isn’t?  That's like a judge sitting in a case of libel with no law defining what libel is.

The ‘report’ is not a report

According to the Oxford Dictionary, ‘report’ is

“An account given of a particular matter, especially in the form of an official document, after thorough investigation or consideration by an appointed person or body.”

Which is why it is customary for a report (especially a report on a formal inquiry) to present the methodology employed and to describe in detail the investigation undertaken.  Ms. Chakrabarti’s ‘report’ presents no methodology – because the inquiry did not have one; it describes no investigation – because no investigation was undertaken.

In lieu of a methodology, the inquiry appears to have taken literally the terms of reference injunction to ‘consult widely’ – i.e. to collect opinions; and that’s what it did in lieu of an investigation: it collected written submissions from interested parties.

Needless to say, opinions are not evidence and collecting them can hardly be called an investigation – let alone a ‘thorough’ one.  But the ‘report’ makes little effort to even describe in detail this thoroughly shallow ‘investigation’.  What was claimed in the submissions?  Which claims did the commission agree with – and why?  Which did it disagree with – and why?

It is not that the commission of inquiry did not do a proper inquiry; it appears to lack any understanding of what an inquiry is.  In fact, the ‘report’ does not even read like a report – it reads like a long and prolix op-ed, replete with Shami Chakrabarti's personal opinions, philosophical ruminations and recollections from the past; everything, it seems, but facts and evidence.

By the way, it is odd that the report is written in the first person singular and was signed by Ms. Chakrabarti and by her alone.  The Commission included two vice-chairs and it is customary for the report to be signed and presented in the name of all members.  One can only suspect (hope?) that the two others did not want their names associated with such a shabby piece of work.

Not serious

The overall impression is that the whole issue of antisemitism is not taken seriously.  The inquiry was not a serious inquiry and the report isn’t a serious report.  It is not even a serious whitewash.

The impression only accentuates when one reads in detail Ms. Chakrabarti’s recommendations.  Indeed, rather than recommending zero tolerance towards manifestations of antisemitism (as one would expect from a party that inscribes anti-racism among its main values), Ms. Chakrabarti’s recommendations seem to advocate a ‘lighter touch’ in identifying and eliminating such manifestations.

Thus, she recommends

“a moratorium on triggering new formal investigations (as opposed to informal discussions) on comments and conduct arising prior to my report.”

As if one needed Ms Chakrabarti’s ‘report’ in order to understand that antisemitism is bad.

Further, she recommends

“a ‘statute of limitations’ on the bringing of formal disciplinary proceedings in relation to the kind of ‘uncomradely conduct and language’ […] of no more than two years save in exceptional circumstances.”

In other words, if a newly-elected or newly appointed Labour official (say, for instance, an MP or even a cabinet minister) is found to have posted anti-Semitic comments on Facebook or Twitter more than two years ago, then… well… ‘let bygones be bygones’, opines Ms. Chakrabarti.  She sees no conflict between the Party’s anti-racist ethos and racist conduct by its leaders – as long as such racist conduct is more than two years old.

From Ms. Chakrabarti’s point of view, suspension from the Party (let alone life ban) is too harsh a punishment for racism; she prefers the use of warnings, the requirements for apologies and ”some other form of sensitive reparation”.

Insult to injury

As if the shallowness of both ‘inquiry’ and ‘report’ were not bad enough, Jeremy Corbyn has managed to add insult to injury – literally!

Jeremy Corbyn ‘launching’ the ‘report’

Politicians are not particularly immune to verbal blunders, but in his speech occasioned by the ‘launch’ of the whi… err… of the ‘report’, the Far Labour Leader has managed to push wrong buttons with almost every word he uttered.

“Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu government than our Muslim friends are for those of various self-styled Islamic states or organisations.”

The worst thing is, arguably, not that Corbyn said what he said, but that he and his supporters seem unable to comprehend what was offensive in that.  So let me try to spell it out for them – reeeealy slowly.

Given that Corbyn has in the past referred to leaders of terrorist organisations Hamas and Hizb’ullah as ‘friends’, Jews are unlikely to feel honoured by being included in the man’s circle of buddies.

Then came what sounded very much like drawing equivalence between Israel and another terrorist organisation – ISIS.  Corbyn denied making such comparison, though ‘self-styled Islamic State’ is the ‘Muslim-sensitive’ term commonly used by parts of the media to refer to ISIS.  Unidentified aids of Mr. Corbyn later said that the “organisations” he was referring to included IS and al-Qaeda, as well as Hamas and Hizb’ullah.

But, even if we are charitable enough to believe that Mr. Corbyn was not equating Israel and ISIS, what ‘self-styled Islamic states’ was he referring to?  Iran?  Saudi Arabia?  Sudan?  All those are just a notch less offensive.

The undeniable thing is that in Mr. Corbyn’s mind Israel is a symbol of evil – at best less evil than ISIS.  I have no doubt that, in his mind, he was being ‘progressive’, anti-racist and even generous by absolving Jews of responsibility “for the actions of Israel”.  But what Mr. Corbyn and his supporters seem unable to understand is that that is not what British Jews want.  Sure, they do not want to be held responsible for each and every action that Israel’s government takes – no more than Brits wish to be held responsible for every action of the British government.  But for the vast majority of British Jews Israel is central to their identity; they want it to be treated fairly, rather than being treated as the proverbial Jew among Gentile nations.  They find it offensive when “the actions of Israel” (a democratic state that deserves at least as much praise as it gets criticism) are cited as an embodiment of evil.  Mr. Corbyn’s ‘progressive’ pronouncement offered British Jews the chance to join the ranks of the ‘good Jews’ who are exonerated of the evil things that ‘bad Jew Israel’ does.  That is in itself offensive.

While much attention has focused on the Israel vs. ISIS component of Mr. Corbyn’s statement, there is another aspect, as well.  Mr. Corbyn also seems to compare “the Netanyahu government” to “various self-styled Islamic […] organisation”.

Former Israeli Foreign MinisterTzipi Livni’s reaction on Twitter

And it’s not just about the ill-chosen, abysmally offensive equivalence.  Let us not forget: Mr. Corbyn is the Leader of the Opposition, someone who aspires to be UK’s next Prime Minister.  If he ever gets that job, he will be expected to interact politically and economically with “the Netanyahu government”.  One does not have to like Netanyahu; one does not have to agree with him; in fact, one can legitimately loath him.  But he is the democratically elected leader of his nation; he heads not “the Netanyahu government”, but the Government of the State of Israel – a fellow democracy.  By referring to “the Netanyahu government” (i.e. in the same way one says ‘Assad’s regime’), Corbyn showed disrespect not to Netanyahu the politician, but to a nation and its democratic choice.  No wonder that his words have been condemned in no uncertain terms by Netanyahu’s political adversaries.  The Corbynistas will find that British Jews – including those who dislike Netanyahu –also found his words offensive.

Isaac Herzog’s reaction on Twitter.
Herzog is the leader of Israel’s Labour movement.

Worse comes to worst

Most reasonable people would say that things could not have gone worse for Corbyn.  Wrong – they could.  At the same ‘launching’ conference, Labour Jewish MP Ruth Smeeth was, in her own words,

“verbally attacked by a Momentum activist and Jeremy Corbyn supporter who used traditional antisemitic slurs to attack me for being part of a 'media conspiracy'.  It is beyond belief that someone could come to the launch of a report on antisemitism in the Labour Party and espouse such vile conspiracy theories about Jewish people, which were ironically highlighted as such in Ms Chakrabarti's report, while the leader of my own party stood by and did absolutely nothing."

Smeeth left stomped out in tears, lodged a formal complaint and called for Corbyn’s resignation.  Moments after Ms. Smeeth left, Corbyn was seen laughing with the activist who attacked her.

The only funny thing is that, under Jeremy Corbyn’s enlightened leadership, the Far Labour has not just attempted to whitewash antisemitism within its ranks; it has even managed to botch the whitewash…

As I was about to finish writing this, I glanced again in the Oxford Dictionary.  It turns out that the word ‘report’, has also a different meaning:

“A piece of information that is unsupported by firm evidence.”

The dictionary also gives an example of that meaning:

“reports were circulating that the chairman was about to resign.”

Perhaps that’s what Ms. Chakrabarti had in mind when she decided to call her text a ‘report’.

Don’t slam Islam; but don’t tolerate intolerance, either!

Paris is in shock again and with it the entire civilised world.  Although, truth be told, this has not come as a surprise.  Nor have the reactions of Western politicians and journalists.  On one hand, we hear again the predictable but oh-so-idiotic claim that acts perpetrated in the name of Allah and Muhammad ‘have nothing to do with Islam’; on the other hand, we are treated to the bigoted implication that believing in Allah and Muhammad counts as ‘fifth column’ membership.  Both approaches are cowardly populist; both are terribly wrong; worse – both are pathetically unhelpful.

No, we can’t start accusing or suspecting everyone who embraces Islam as his/her religion; or even as his/her main identity.  But neither should we stick our heads in the ground, close our eyes to reality and plug our ears with politically-correct cotton wool, denying that a certain strand of Islam has everything to do with terrorism.

There will never be a shortage of imbeciles eager to find excuses and to ‘explain away’ terrorism.  Yes, the West has made war in Iraq and Afghanistan; but then, Russia is making war in Ukraine – and yet Ukrainians don't blow themselves up in Moscow’s stadiums or in Sankt Petersburg’s concert halls.  Yes, Western colonialists have left a lousy legacy in the Middle East; but they did worse, much worse elsewhere.  Indians don’t try to blow up the Wembley Stadium.  Armenians don’t murder patrons in Istanbul’s restaurants and Israeli Jews don’t fly airplanes into Frankfurt’s office buildings.

There’ll also be bigots who will point to passages from the Qur’an and claim that there’s something inherently violent in Islam.  But I can equally quote passages from the Torah and from the New Testament that would seem to incite to violence.  What about the injunction to “blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven”?  And didn’t Jesus say “I came not to send peace, but the sword”?  Oh, and I can find for you Qur’anic verses praising peace – just like one finds in every scripture.

No, Islam is not a religion of peace; nor is it a religion of war.  Religions aren’t ‘of’ anything; people are.  There is no denying that acts of terrorism are currently more likely to be committed in the name of Islam than in the name of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism or Shintoism.  If a suicide bomber detonates himself tomorrow, it is more likely that he’ll be called Muhammad, rather than Paul, Moshe or Jitendra.  That is a fact.  Most Muslims are not radicals; it's just that there are more radicals among Muslims.

But why?  Islam is not fundamentally different from Christianity or Judaism.  It is just younger, much younger.  It appeared on the grand scene of history about 14 centuries ago.  Christianity is considerably older – more than 2000 years; Judaism is ancient.  Age is of consequence: religions (like all human endeavours) have a life of their own.  Just like human beings.  Youngsters are more impetuous; more impulsive; less patient and less tolerant.  Thankfully, they mellow as they grow old.  So do religions.  Want to understand radical Islam?  Violent Jihad?  Think 14th century Christianity, with its crusades and Inquisition.

In 14th century Europe, religion pervaded every aspect of human life; so it does these days in most parts of the Middle East.  14th century Europeans may have called themselves ‘French’, ‘German’ or ‘English’; but their primary identity was ‘Christians’.  Just as these days hundreds of millions of people will tell you that they define themselves first and foremost as ‘Muslims’.

Jihadis are nothing more – and nothing less, and nothing else – than the ‘modern’, Muslim version of medieval Crusaders.  They may be armed with assault rifles and grenades, rather than swords and maces; but they are just as blood-thirsty; just as self-righteous; just as ready to achieve martyrdom and earn their ticket to heaven.  Are you still wondering why they behead people?

OK, you’ll say; that may well be so, but how does this help?  Will we have to endure centuries of Jihad?  Well, not necessarily.  Things have changed somewhat from the real 14th century.

Think about it: why did so many people (not just kings and knights, but simple peasants and tradesmen) leave behind their homesteads, their families, their lives – to make war on the infidels?  To kill, maim, pillage and rape?  No, Popes did not use Twitter to stir up trouble – not in those times.  They used preachers.  That has not changed: it is still the preachers of hate that brainwash people into becoming butchers.

Wanna deal with Jihadi terrorism?  You can try to track all the tens of thousands that have already been radicalised – and the millions that will be; or you can go after a few thousand hate preachers. Those preachers may not practice violence themselves; but they kill, maim, pillage and rape – however indirectly.  Jail them if you can; kill them if you have to; or just prevent their odious message from reaching its target.  That means tighter border controls.  It means closing websites, monitoring social media, controlling school activities, raiding mosques, banning radical madrassahs.  If that implies changing our laws, so they protect the tolerant, rather than tolerating the bigot – then so be it; if it means making law enforcement more intrusive, then that’s a price we’ll have to pay, for our safety and that of our children.  Make no mistake: it’s the price we’ll have to pay to maintain rule of law; to avoid rule of the mob.  There will have to be limits to freedom: your freedom must end where you want to take away mine.

That won’t stop tomorrow’s terrorist attack; it won’t provide an instant solution.  But, in time, it will choke the flow of hatred.

The Torah says “I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, so that you and your offspring will live”.  I’m sure the Qur’an won’t disagree.

Nothing to do with Islam?

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is a basketball legend and, no doubt, a role model for tens of millions of young people around the globe.  Which is probably why, in 2012, then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appointed him Global Cultural Ambassador, with special emphasis on education to tolerance.  Add the fact that Kareem is a Muslim – and you'll understand why I read with extreme interest a commentary he penned for Time Magazine, in the wake of the recent terror attacks in Paris.

At first, I was thrilled: Kareem opened his article by acknowledging that “another horrendous act of terrorism has taken place”.  I was expecting some thoughtful analysis and well-pondered proposals on how to ensure that ’another’ will finally become ‘the last’.  But, soooo disappointingly, he proceeded to explain that “these barbaric acts are in no way related to Islam”.  And to complain that he even has to explain something so obvious.

Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi,
self-styled 'Caliph' of the 'Islamic State',
preaching to supporters in Mosul, Iraq

To claim that Islamist terrorism is “in no way related to Islam” is absurd, pointless and unhelpful.

It is absurd, because home-grown Jihadi terrorists do not come from Mars, they come from within our society; and more precisely, they come from within Muslim communities.

It is pointless, because reasonable people don’t blame Islam and Muslims en-masse; and Kareem’s ‘washing of the hands’ is unlikely to convince the unreasonable ones.

Finally, it’s unhelpful, because it attempts to slam shut the door leading to analysis and solutions.  Kareem is right when he argues ‘don’t look at me, I’m not to blame for this’; but he is wrong when he appears to say ‘it’s not my problem’.

I cannot repeat this often enough: Muslims cannot, should not be blamed – either individually or collectively – for the acts of a few extremists.  But nor can, nor should it be ignored that there are issues within Muslim communities, issues that enable extremism to grow in their midst like a cancer – wrongly tolerated, recklessly unchallenged until too late.  Muslims like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar are certainly free of blame; but that should not make them free of introspection.

US-born imam-turned-terrorist
Anwar Al-Awlaki

As mentioned in a previous article, 20% of US-born Muslims believe that suicide bombing aimed at innocent civilians is justified (whether ‘rarely’, ‘sometimes’ or ‘often’), in order “to defend Islam from its enemies”.  45% of European-born Muslims believe that “Jews cannot be trusted”.  Of course, not everyone expressing extremist, racist opinions will go on to commit acts of terror; but it’s from the toxic soil of fundamentalism and intolerance that those poisonous weeds draw their venom.

20%, 45%... These numbers may represent minorities; but not fringe minorities.  The sane majority of Muslims (to which Kareem Abdul-Jabbar belongs) cannot merely shrug them away and sanctimoniously intone “nothing to do with Islam”.  The toxic soil needs to be cleaned – and who if not that sane majority will do it??

Mr. Abdul-Jabbar does not appear to understand this; fortunately, other Muslims do.

In an article entitled “Only Muslims can change the world’s view of Islam”, Mohammed Wattad (a Visiting Professor at the University of California at Irvine), opines:

“Terrorism today stems primarily from Muslims in the name of Islam, and we cannot brush off accusations about our faith just by saying that the terrorists do not act in our name.”

In her acclaimed book ‘The Trouble with Islam Today’, Canadian activist Irshad Manji pleads:

“When he [the Prophet Muhammad] was asked to define religion, he reportedly replied that religion is the way we conduct ourselves toward others.  A fine definition – simple without being simplistic.  And yet, by that definition, how we Muslims behave, not in theory but in actuality, is Islam.  Which means our complacency is Islam.  It also means the power is ours to restore Islam’s better angels, those who care about the human rights of women and religious minorities.  To do that, though, we have to snap out of our denial.  By insisting that there’s nothing the matter with Islam today, we’re sweeping the reality of our religion under the rug of Islam as an ideal, thereby absolving ourselves of responsibility for our fellow human beings, including our fellow Muslims. See why I’m struggling?  By writing this open letter, I’m not implying that other religions are problem -free.  Hardly.  The difference is, libraries abound in books about the trouble with Christianity.  There’s no shortage of books about the trouble with Judaism.  We Muslims have a lot of catching up to do in the dissent department.  Whose permission are we waiting for?”

Whose, indeed?  “[T]he power is ours to restore Islam’s better angels…”  Someone should tell Global Cultural Ambassador Abdul-Jabbar that education to tolerance, just like charity, begins at home!

Terror in Paris: at war with... what?

The latest bout of jihadi terrorism has shocked the free world.  What people find most difficult to accept is that the perpetrators were not some oppressed and brainwashed Saudi, Iranian or Yemenite peasants, but European citizens, born and raised in ‘liberal’, ‘enlightened’ and ‘multicultural’ France.

Cognitive dissonance notwithstanding, this is by no means a new phenomenon: three of four perpetrators of the 7/7 London bombings were born and raised in the UK; all four were British citizens.  So were the two suicide bombers that blew up a bar in Tel Aviv on April 30, 2003.  So is ‘Jihadi John’, the ISIS terrorist responsible for the video-taped beheading of several innocent Westerners.  And while the 9/11 terrorists were all citizens of Arab countries, ringleader Mohamed Atta spent the last decade of his life in the free world.

With the initial shock waves beginning to wane, it is interesting to analyse reactions in the free world.  They tend to gravitate towards two opposite poles.

The extreme left position (espoused by the likes of Chomsky and parroted in various ‘diluted versions’ by left-inclining politicians, academics and media pundits) is that the Islamist attacks ‘have nothing to do with Islam’.  Depending on how far left a particular individual leans, s/he may also imply that such attacks are understandable (if not justifiable, excusable or just ‘marginal’, ‘desperate’, etc.) reactions to the free world’s ‘original sins’: colonialism, imperialism and support for Israel.  Left-wingers may add that Islam as such is a religion of peace; extremists are just a tiny minority, while most Muslims are ‘moderate’ (whatever that means), if not outright progressive and liberal.  Since for leftist ideologues capitalist economics are the source of all evil, it follows that extremists ‘find fertile ground for recruitment’ among Western Muslims, because of the latter’s socio-economic deprivation.

Conversely, the extreme right position (supported with a sympathetic wink if not overtly espoused by the likes of Marine Le Pen) implies that extremism is some sort of inherent manifestation of Islam, making all adherents of that religion suspect of harbouring terrorist designs.  For extreme rightists – whether they overtly say it or just slyly suggest it – Islam is a religion of war.

Frankly, I find both positions equally stupid.  They represent knee-jerk attempts to force reality into the rigid mould of pre-determined ideological convictions.  What is needed is a sober assessment of the reality, based on objective data, analysed with intellectual curiosity unpolluted by ideology or political correctness.

Dr. Ruud Koopmans is a Professor of Sociology and Migration Research at the Humboldt University of Berlin and Guest Professor at the Department of Political Science of the University of Amsterdam; he is also Director of the Research Unit "Migration, Integration, Transnationalization" at the WZB Social Science Center in Berlin.  Under his scientific guidance, the latter institution has funded a study of Muslim immigrants and Christian native views in six European countries: Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria and Sweden.

Researchers have assessed the level of ‘religious fundamentalism’ by asking 9,000 persons from a Muslim (Turkish and Moroccan) background whether they agree or disagree with the following statements:

-          “Muslims should return to the roots of Islam”

-          “There is only one interpretation of the Qur’an and every Muslim must stick to that”

-          “The rules of the Qur’an are more important to me than the laws of [survey country]”

The native Christian respondents have been asked whether they agree or disagree with the same statements, except that the references to Muslim(s). Islam and Qur’an have been replaced with ‘Christian’, ‘Christianity’ and ‘the Bible’.

The results are eye-opening: circa 60% of Muslims agreed that “Muslims should return to the roots of Islam”, as opposed to 20% of the Christians, who believe that “Christians should return to the roots of Christianity”.  75% of the Muslims agreed that “There is only one interpretation of the Qur’an and every Muslim must stick to that”; only 18% of the Christians believe the same about the Bible.  Finally, 65% of Muslims believe that religious rules are more important than the laws of the country; only 12% of the Christians shared that belief.  44% of Muslims agreed with all three statements, as compared to just 4% of the Christians.

Clearly, the levels of religious fundamentalism among European Muslims (as measured by this methodology) are not confined to a ‘tiny minority’.  They are held by a large proportion of that population.  Furthermore, this is in stark contrast to the Christian population, among which fundamentalist views do represent a tiny minority.

Next, Prof. Koopmans further analysed the data, to understand whether the discrepancy may be explained by differences in socio-economic parameters.  His conclusion is that

“regression analyses controlling for education, labour market status, age, gender, and marital status reveal that while some of these variables explain variation in fundamentalism within both religious groups, they do not at all explain or even diminish the difference between Muslims and Christians.”

So contrary to leftist lore, this has nothing to do with socio-economic status.

Moreover, the survey showed that in the case of Christians, fundamentalism was more frequently encountered among older people and was less common among the younger generation; but the younger generation of European Muslims was just as likely to exhibit religious fundamentalism as the older one.  In other words, not only has the West opened its gates indiscriminately, i.e. including to people who do not share its liberal values; more worryingly, it failed to impart those values to the next generation of Muslims, those born and raised in the free world.  And there is – at the very least – strong anecdotal evidence that, under the complacent noses of Western governments, fundamentalism is being instilled into yet another generation of young Muslims.

But should religious fundamentalism per se be considered a problem?  Surely not, some would say, unless these deeply held beliefs translate into some kind of anti-social attitudes.  To test the extent to which religious fundamentalism correlates with hostility towards ‘the other’, Prof. Koopmans’s team asked the respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with another set of statements:

-          “I don’t want to have homosexuals as friends.”

-          “Jews cannot be trusted.”

-          “Western countries are out to destroy Islam.” (Christians were presented with the mirror-image statement “Muslims aim to destroy Western culture.”)

While no less than 13% of Christians reject homosexuals as friends, that proportion is 60% in the case of Muslims.  45% of Muslims agree that Jews cannot be trusted, as opposed to 9% of Christians.  The presumption of ‘evil intentions’ by the other side is held by 54% of Muslims and 23% of Christians.  After studying the correlation between the two sets of responses, Prof. Koopmans concludes:

“[R]eligious fundamentalism […] turns out to be by far the most important predictor of out-group hostility and explains most of the differences in levels of out-group hostility between Muslims and Christians.”

In other words, religious fundamentalism is not just another innocent opinion; it is responsible for anti-social views and hostile attitudes.

What Prof. Koopmans did not measure is the propensity for such hostile attitudes to translate into violent acts.  Admittedly, this is difficult to determine using surveys.  However, we can gain at least an inkling from the results of a poll conducted by Pew Research in 2011.  Pew pollsters asked a sample of American Muslims whether they agreed that “Suicide bombing/ other violence against civilians is justified to defend Islam from its enemies”.  13% agreed (5% said that such violent means are 'rarely' justified, 7% said that they are ‘sometimes’ justified and 1% opined that they can often be employed.  Interestingly, that extremist opinion was more common among US-born Muslims: 20% justify suicide bombings aimed at civilians, as opposed to just 10% among foreign-born Muslims residing in USA.  This is, needless to say, further evidence of the West’s abysmal educational failure.  Of course, there is a difference between justifying acts of terrorism and actually committing them.  But it is also obvious that actual terrorists are recruited or recruit themselves from among the ranks of those believing that terrorism is justified (i.e. ‘just’ under certain circumstances).  Admittedly, 20% is a minority; by contrast, in the Middle East a majority of Muslims (according to Pew Research 78% of Palestinians, 62% of Egyptians, 60% of Lebanese) believe that suicide bombings aimed at civilians are justified.  Still, it is sobering to understand that one in five Muslims born in USA approves of indiscriminate violence directed against innocents, as long as it “defends Islam against its enemies”.

So, is Islam ‘a religion of peace’ or ‘a religion of war’?  Well, that’s a stupid question and a false dichotomy.  Islam is a religion – full stop.  A system of beliefs and precepts.  It cannot and does not make war.  Its followers, of course, can and do make war or peace – depending on how that particular group or that particular believer interprets/uses Islam’s beliefs and precepts.

“We are not at war with Islam” cried recently the Prime Minister of France, reiterating similar assurances given by the Presidents of the United States and Israel.  Indeed: we are not and have no reason to be at war with Islam.  If nothing else, that would place us inadvertently and foolishly at war with those Muslims who are not fundamentalists and certainly not extremists.  But they are not the enemy; on the contrary, they are natural allies.

So are we supposed to limit ourselves, instead, to a ‘war on terror’?  That would be just as foolish, because such a war cannot be won.  How is the free world – while remaining free – supposed to defend itself against the next attack, by an individual or cell acting in secrecy and isolation?

No, we cannot afford to combat (mostly post-factum) just the occasional bursts of extreme violence; we need to find and eliminate its root causes.  Which are not in Islam, but in Islamism.  And let no religious extremist and no right-wing propagandist fool you by conflating the two: Islamism is not Islam; it’s not a religion; it is an extreme, supremacist political ideology.  It is the enemy.

Let’s advocate against it; let’s legislate against it; most importantly, let’s educate against it.

Europe – never beyond recognition

The Arab world is in turmoil.  Several countries (Syria, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Somalia) have practically ceased to exist, as governments lost control of large swathes of their territory.  Others (like Kurdistan, the ‘Islamic State’, the Hizb’ullah-controlled South Lebanon and the Al-Shaba’ab-controlled Southern Somalia) exist in practice, whether they are recognised or not.  Throughout the rest of the Arab Middle East, dictators hang on by the skin of their teeth, using brutal force, bribery or both to prevent similar conflicts (which are boiling under the surface), from erupting.  Or, rather, to postpone their inevitable eruption.

The Middle East map as seen by caricaturist Dan Nott

Under the nose of an uncomprehending West, borders are re-drawn; populations are displaced by the million; world-changing ideologies vie for allegiance and support.  Nobody knows what ‘new order’ will emerge from the chaos; but one thing is clear: the old order has passed from the world.  Yet Western politicians and media (and, under their malignant influence, much of the Western public) continue to haplessly peddle the same old concepts, as if nothing had happened.  They continue to talk about ‘Iraq’, ‘Syria’, etc., as if those were real countries, rather than colonial contraptions temporarily held together by brutal dictators and now descended into a patchwork of warring fiefs.

But nowhere is that ignorance (aggravated by sheer stupidity and – at least in some cases – obvious malevolence) as strident as in Europe’s attempts at ‘intervention’ in the Arab-Israeli conflict.  No matter that that conflict – even considering this summer’s Gaza altercation and the recent terrorist attacks in Jerusalem – is by far less acute and less costly in comparison with the ones mentioned above; no matter that countless similar attempts at ‘intervention’ have only succeeded in making things worse.  No matter what, a bunch of European politicians (whose ‘knowledge’ of the history, culture and politics of the Middle East comes – at best – from watching news bulletins, reading a couple of propaganda books and spending a couple of days on some carefully choreographed tour of ‘the Occupied Palestinian Territories’) have decided that this is the perfect time to… recognise Palestine.  Now, that’s logical!  Given that it is so obvious that ‘Libya’, ‘Syria’ and ‘Iraq’ (add pretty soon ‘Jordan’ and perhaps Saudi Arabia and others) are fundamentally Western inventions turned by local despots into feudal-style fiefs, surely it is now time to recognise yet another made-up ‘country’ – this time boasting not one dictatorial regime, but two!!  And since arbitrary lines drawn on Middle Eastern maps boast such brilliant track records, it is surely sooo rational to base the recognition of ‘Palestine’ on ‘the 1967 borders’ – i.e. (for those interested in facts, not spin) on the front line held by Jordanian troops on a random day in 1949!

Don’t get me wrong: I fully support a ‘two state solution’; or rather an agreed, negotiated territorial partition resulting in a recognised and secure border between the Jewish State and the Arab World.  And if the latter wishes to establish, on its side of that border, a country called the Arab State of Palestine, then so be it.

What I reject with contempt, however, (besides ‘recognitions’ bestowed on as yet non-existent countries with arbitrary borders) is the foolish attempt to frame the solution within what activists have come to refer to as ‘historic Palestine’ – a.k.a. ‘from the (Jordan) River to the (Mediterranean) Sea’.

In passing, let me remark that in the English language ‘historic’ means momentous, important or famous.  The word those activists may wish to use is ‘historical’.  But I am less concerned with misuse of ‘historic’ and more with ignorance of history.

The problem is that ‘historical Palestine from the River to the Sea’ actually has a very short and rather artificial history: it has only existed during the quarter of century of British Mandate.  Never before, in 3 millennia of known human history, has the River Jordan been a political border, or even a de-facto ethnic boundary.

An acquaintance once told me: “As a soldier, my father served for a while in the British Mandate of Palestine.  It was called ‘Mandate of Palestine’, not ‘Mandate of Israel’.  This means that it belongs to the Palestinians, doesn’t it?”

Ludicrous as it is, this kind of ignorant judgement is quite widespread.  My acquaintance is just one of many Westerners who simply don’t know that, prior to the 1950s, the Arabs inhabiting that territory did not call themselves ‘Palestinians’; that before 1948 the term ‘Palestinian’ (on the rare occasions when it was used as a noun) was much more likely to refer to a Jew, not an Arab; and that the name ‘Palestine’ applied to the British Mandate did not stem from its 20^th Century inhabitants, but rather from Greek invaders gone for three millennia.

Let me make myself clear: I believe that it is the right of every individual human being to determine his or her identity – and call it anything s/he likes.  There are only two issues with that: whether or not that right is freely exercised; and whether or not it clashes with somebody else’s right.  In the latter case, an accommodation needs to be found.  When Yugoslavia split into nation states, one of those newly independent states claimed the name ‘Macedonia’.  But that led to a conflict with Greece, for whom the name belonged to a different historical entity – one that was Hellenic, not Slavic.  To accommodate both claims, the country was ultimately admitted to the UN under the rather convoluted name of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia…

But let’s go back to the Palestinian Arabs.  The unspoken assumption (even amongst those Westerners who know that the name is relatively recent) is that these people simply chose that name; one day, they just decided to call themselves ‘Palestinians’.  That assumption is, however, based on little more than anecdotal – and heavily politicised – evidence.  In reality, such choice is anything but obvious; for starters, since they never experienced democracy, the ‘Palestinians’ had so far no real opportunity to freely debate and decide whether they really agree with that name – bestowed upon them by external ‘advisers’ and internal tyrants.

In red: the area colonised by the Philistines,
from whom the name 'Palestine' derives.

‘Palestine’ is not an Arabic term; it is Greek.  The ancient Hellenes (and, following them, the Romans) used it – some would say in proto-colonialist fashion – to denote the general area whose shores had begun to be colonised by a Hellenic tribe called the Philistines (P’lishtim in Hebrew, Palastu in Accadian, Peleset in ancient Egyptian – hence the name ‘Palaistinē’ bestowed by Greeks on the entire region).  Since by-and-large Europe saw itself as the great-grandchild of ancient Greek and Roman culture, the name remained somewhat in use there; but it was very rarely employed in the Middle East before being once again imported from the West.

This is hardly a unique phenomenon: in fact, it is the rule, rather than the exception.  The name ‘Egypt’ is also of Greek origin.  It is still used by Westerners – but not by the Arab inhabitants, who call their country something entirely different: Masr – an old Semitic (rather than Hellenic) term.  ‘Syria’ is also of Greek (or perhaps Trojan) origin.  The ancient name of ‘Iraq has been revived by that area’s inhabitants, and has now been adopted, willy-nilly, also by the West; yet that territory was once known as the ‘British Mandate of Mesopotamia’ ('Mesopotamia' is yet another Greek name!).  As for ‘Jordan’ (from the River Jordan) and ‘Lebanon’ (from the Lebanon Mountains), these are Western names for Western-made countries; or rather – for countries drawn on the map to serve the interests of Western colonialists, and later those of local despots.  The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is named after the ruling dynasty – the ibn Sa’uds.  The United Arab ‘Emirates’ (i.e. Princedoms)… well, they’re just called ‘Arab’.

The ‘internal’ conflicts raging in ‘Iraq’ and ‘Syria’ (and before that in ‘Libya’, ‘Lebanon’, etc.) should dispel once and for all the blind, West-centric assumption that the Arab Middle East is populated by Western-style nations endowed with Western-style national identities and national aspirations.  Local dictators might strive to manufacture such ‘national’ identities; they often succeed in ‘selling’ them to naïve Westerners; but such temporary figments are held together by iron fists; their only 'social glue' is fear, not natural affinity and solidarity.  In the Arab Middle East, identity most often means clan, tribe, linguistic group and faith, not ‘nation’ in the Western sense.  It is only ideologies centred on those identities (such as pan-Arabism and Islamism) that have ever enjoyed anything approaching ‘popular support’.

That is not to say that Western-style nations might not emerge one day in the Arab world.  But it is foolish to believe that – if and when they do – they’ll be identical to those invented by Western colonialists and adopted by power-hungry local despots.  True identities are not created by lines drawn on colonial maps; nor can they be imparted by presidential decree.  The process of nation-forming is complex; and who – other than the Arabs themselves – is to say what those nations will ultimately look like, who will be included and who will be excluded from each of those identities??

Insofar as it exists, the ‘Palestinian identity’ is a political reaction to Zionism; it means hardly more than ‘not a Jew’.  Some will argue that most national identities (including the Jewish one) are formed in this way: by exclusion of ‘the other’, rather than by inclusion of the akin.  That may well be true; but, again, that nation-forming process is long and complex.  National identities are forged through centuries (rather than decades) of relatively insular habitation within defined territorial entities.

Westerners may – in their blissful ignorance – bestow ‘Palestinian’ identity, just like they attempted to do with the ‘Iraqi’, ‘Syrian’ and ‘Afghan’ ones.  But neither nations nor viable countries are created by politicised 'recognitions': the human beings subject to that decree will remain keenly aware of ‘internal’ differences and ‘external’ kinships.  Both distinctions and affinities will continue to stem from fundamental allegiances of clan, tribe, language and faith.  At least for a very long time to come, most ‘Palestinians’ will continue to differentiate internally between Muslim and Christian, Bedouin and Levantine (the former is of course a difference of faith; the latter ethnic and linguistic); they will continue to see themselves as an integral part of the Islamic Ummah and/or of a broader Arab culture.  Of course, such differences and affiliations will not easily be revealed (and certainly not to hapless Westerners!) while they run contrary to the ‘official narrative’ promoted by the despot-in-charge.  After all, as long as Assad ruled supreme, what Syrian citizen would have declared himself within Western earshot as anything but a most earnest and patriotic ‘Syrian’?  Both differences and affiliations only become visible when/where they can be expressed in relative safety.

In democratic Israel, for instance, ‘Palestinians’ are generally exempt from service in the army.  But some volunteer for it; and they ‘happen’ to be overwhelmingly Christian or Bedouin…

Between 1949 and 1967, West Bank ‘Palestinians’ were full-fledged Jordanian citizens.  They accepted Jordanian identity cards, applied for Jordanian passports, served in the Jordanian Parliament and as Jordanian government ministers.  There was no ‘intifada’ and no complaints against encroachment by Jordanian ‘settlers’.

Anwar Nusseibeh, father of prominent PLO leader
Sari Nusseibeh, served as Minister of Defence in
the Jordanian government.

As recently as 2008, a poll conducted by a West Bank University revealed that more than 1 in 4 Palestinian Arabs living in West Bank and Gaza supported a union with Jordan.  Given the lack of open political debate, the relentless ‘Palestinian’ nationalist propaganda and the fact that officially the ‘Jordanian option’ is not even on the table, that level of support is amazingly high.

And it’s not just the Jordanian option: in the not-so-remote past, various ‘Palestinian’ currents of opinion professed affiliation to a broader ‘Greater Syria’ (a territorial entity approximately similar to that described by the Western concept of Levant and – far more importantly – by the traditional Arab term Al-Sham).  I seriously doubt that anyone would want to join Syria now; but who knows what entity will ultimately arise from the ashes of that country?

Once the thick layer of Western ignorance and presumption is peeled off, why would anyone pre-judge what national identity (if any) people will develop for themselves, when allowed true freedom of choice??  Perhaps a narrow ‘Palestinian’ identity will indeed emerge; perhaps a broader ‘Palestinian/Jordanian’, ‘Al-Shamian’ or even pan-Arab one.  The name they’ll adopt for that identity will no doubt reflect its breadth.  If that name will be ‘Palestinian’, Israeli Jews might protest, just like the Greeks did in the case of ‘Macedonia’.  They may claim that they are just as entitled to call themselves ‘Palestinians’; or they might just shrug the fact off as unimportant.  Who knows?

Andrew Bridgen, MP, spoke in the UK Parliament about
"the power of the Jewish lobby in America".
The US Department of State determined that
"Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing,
or stereotypical allegations about [...] the power of Jews
as a collective —especially but not exclusively,
the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or
of Jews controlling the media, economy,
government or other societal institutions" constitutes
an example of contemporary anti-Semitism.

So, given that the Arabs themselves are yet to express their free choice, why are European politicians in such a hurry to recognise Palestine?  No, they have not developed a sudden and altruistic interest in Palestinian Arabs; who-knows-how-many thousands of the latter have only recently been butchered in Syria, without the issue attracting their attention.  No, European ‘statesmen’ are – as ever – propelled by a ‘healthy’ dose of good-ol’ anti-Jewish prejudice combined with narrow, ignoble political interest.

As proof of the former, I submit the following quote from a debate in the British House of Commons:

Andrew Bridgen, MP (Conservative, North West Leicestershire): “…the political system of the world’s superpower and our great ally the United States is very susceptible to well-funded powerful lobbying groups and the power of the Jewish lobby in America…”

As for the latter, I will illustrate it using… yet another quote (albeit an older one) from the British House of Commons.  In 1950, Great Britain recognised… no, not Palestine!  British political interests were different then – so the recognition was of... Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank.  Here is the relevant part of that parliamentary session:

Mr. Kenneth Younger (Labour, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs): “His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have been officially informed by the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan of the union of the Kingdom of Jordan and of that part of Palestine under Jordan occupation and control.  The Jordan Government, in this communication, have stated that an Act providing for this union was unanimously adopted on 24th April by the Jordan Assembly, which is composed of representatives of both these territories, and received the Royal Assent on the same day.  His Majesty's Government have decided to accord formal recognition to this union.  They take this opportunity of declaring that they regard the provisions of the Anglo-Jordan Treaty of Alliance of 1948 as applicable to all the territory included in the union.
This action is subject to explanation on two points.  The first of these points relates to the frontier between this territory and Israel.  This frontier has not yet been finally determined.  The existing boundary is the line laid down in the Armistice Agreement signed between Israel and Jordan on 3rd April, 1949, and is subject to any modification which may be agreed upon by the two States under the terms of that Agreement, or of any final settlement which may replace it.  Until, therefore, the frontier between Israel and Jordan is determined by a final settlement between them His Majesty's Government regard the territory to which the Anglo-Jordan Treaty is applicable as being bounded by the Armistice Line, or any modification of it which may be agreed upon by the two parties.The second point relates to Jerusalem. The part of Palestine which is now united to the Kingdom of Jordan includes a portion of the area defined in the Resolution on the internationalisation of Jerusalem adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 9th December, 1949.  His Majesty's Government wish to state that, pending a final determination of the status of this area, they are unable to recognise Jordan sovereignty over any part of it.  They do, however, recognise that Jordan exercises de facto authority in the part occupied by her.  They consider, therefore, that the Anglo-Jordan Treaty applies to this part, unless or until the United Nations shall have established effective authority there.”

So when did the House of Commons make a pathetic gaffe: when it recognised the independent State of Palestine, or when it recognised the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Jordan over the same territory??  When it determined that the “frontier has not yet been finally determined”, because “the line laid down in the Armistice Agreement signed between Israel and Jordan on 3rd April, 1949 […] is subject to any modification which may be agreed upon by the two States”, or when it talks about ‘the 1967 borders’??  For whatever it’s worth, my answer is ‘both times’.

The clash between Arabs and Jews will no doubt be resolved one day – like all struggles that plague mankind.  But when it is, it will not be thanks to, but in spite of the various ‘do-gooders’ who meddle in a conflict thousands of miles away from their cosy armchairs.

At sixes and sevens

In a recent novel entitled ‘I am Pilgrim’, British-born writer Terry Hayes describes a jihadist plot to smuggle deadly pathogens into the United States.  The plot is narrowly foiled by the modern version of super-hero: a brilliant secret agent, who saves the day – and the lives of tens of millions of Americans.

It’s fiction, of course; but it’s not far-fetched.  In fact, it's very likely that, somewhere in the Middle East, jihadists are busy plotting some version of a chemical or biological attack.  After all, 9/11 has proven that for jihadists mass murder is a worthy deed; and that they are capable of careful planning and executing complex operations.

Well, I guess we should not worry too much.  Bond-like secret agents may be fictional; but Her Majesty’s Government is diligently dealing with the challenge posed by jihadists.  Isn't it?

Six days of political wheeling and dealing; six hours of speech-making; six Tornado warplanes to attack ISIL in Iraq.  The other side of the equation is not known yet: will it be 600 dead civilians?  6,000?  60,000?

In a press statement, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu re-affirmed his support for UK’s right to defend itself against incessant rocket attacks coming from Iraq.  However, Mr. Netanyahu also expressed ‘deep concern’ for the large number of Iraqi casualties and called on the British government to do more to protect civilians.  The Israeli Prime Minister asked Britain to act in a proportional way, in strict compliance with International Law.  He called on both sides – UK and ISIL – to show restraint, avoid further escalation and negotiate an immediate ceasefire.  The Israeli leader has also expressed support for the mediation efforts by North Korea.  A British delegation is expected to arrive in Pyongyang, for indirect talks with a joint delegation of ISIL, Al-Nusra and the Mahdi Army.

One can and should joke.  But the only laughable thing is yesterday’s decision itself.

Firstly, because it is so ineffective as to merit the description ‘much ado about nothing’.  What exactly are six warplanes supposed to achieve??  How will they make a difference – ANY difference – against guerrilla fighters spread over a large territory and able to easily ‘hide in plain view’, being indistinguishable from the general population?

Secondly, because of the pathetic efforts to portray the decision as ‘ethical’ and ‘legal’.  Of course, nobody (not even Al-Qaeda!) disputes that ISIL are a bunch of berserk murderers and that the world would be a more habitable place without them.  Yet, to a weak leadership and a political class plagued by moral relativism, that’s not reason enough.

Hence, the pathetic efforts to ‘engineer’ a bit of ‘moral high ground’:

Like the ‘request for assistance’ issued by the ‘Iraqi government’.  Of course, that ‘government’ represents at most one religious and political faction in an artificial (and failed, and in practice non-existent) state.  The ‘government’ of the ‘People’s Republic of Donetsk’ has issued a similar request for Russian assistance against ‘Ukrainian aggression’.

Like the attempt to hide behind a ‘local coalition’ of Arab states which (nominally, at least) oppose ISIL.  Of course, those ‘states’ are in reality disgusting dictatorial regimes, some even more skilled in the ‘art’ of beheading than ISIL itself.  Not to mention that, even assuming those regimes were representative (they aren’t) and Iraq was a real state (it isn’t), it would still remain unclear exactly what right the former have to intervene in the internal affairs of the latter.

Like the ridiculous pretence of operating only in Iraq, not in Syria – ‘for now’.  This, surely, has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Iraq (like Libya) has oil, while Syria has not.  Nah, it can’t be that!  It’s only because, you see, the (factional) ‘government’ of the (artificial) ‘state’ of Iraq has ‘requested assistance’; while the (factional) ‘government’ of (the equally artificial, fellow colonial contraption) ‘Syria’ has not.  So, just out of curiosity, I ask: will the six warplanes taking off from bases in former British colony Cyprus make a long detour in order to ‘respect the sovereignty’ of former French colony Syria, before dropping their bombs somewhere in the former British Mandate of Mesopotamia?  Sweet ‘moral high ground’!!!

Thirdly, because of the way this decision has been taken.  What a display of weak leadership when a party in government – one elected by an uncontested majority in a democratic process – seeks to cover its quivering hinds by making a ‘deal’ with the opposition!

But fourthly – and most tragically – because the symbolic ‘gesture’ of six warplanes (or, rather, the larger operation that gesture is meant to ‘support’) is yet another short-term tactic reaction devoid of any long term, proactive strategy.  Throughout six hours of clueless ‘debate’, none of the six hundred and fifty MPs asked the six-million-dollar-question: ‘WHERE ARE YOU GOING WITH THIS?’  What’s the strategy?  How do you want ‘Iraq’ – and indeed the entire Middle East – to look like in ten or twenty years?  And how are you going to achieve that vision?  And please don’t bother answering ‘it’s none of our business, it’s for them people to decide’; why is tactical bombing ‘our business’, but political strategizing isn’t??

Her Majesty’s Government (along with the rest of the ‘political class’) has just wasted many thousands of taxpayer-funded men-hours to choreograph a ‘debate’ on sending six warplanes to ‘precision bomb’ (LOL!!) shadows, in the hope of hitting a few of the tens of thousands of operatives belonging to one terrorist organisation in one small corner of the Middle East; can we please have a debate on long-term strategies aimed at tackling that problem-region as a whole?  Can we please do so without much regard to ‘borders’ drawn decades ago by colonial interests?  Can we please aim to achieve not just selfish oil-enabling ‘political stability’, but also a bit of welfare, happiness and freedom to the hapless inhabitants of said problem-region?  And can we please have that debate sooner rather than later, preferably before the problem really rears its ugly head and kicks us in the nuts??  Thank you!

Nazism, Communism, Islamism: how to kill your way to the 'Perfect World’

The 20th century saw the rise and fall of two murderous ideologies: Hitler’s Nazism and the ‘Communism’ practiced by the likes of Stalin and Mao.  The former was (hopefully) eradicated by mass re-education, after a world war that cost the lives of 70 million human beings; the latter eventually collapsed from within, under the burden of its own profound immorality – but not before claiming the lives of around 100 million people.

These days, we see the rise of yet another vicious ideology – Islamism.  Why do I place it in the same category?  Quite simply: because it fits there.

True, despite being already guilty of horrendous crimes, Islamism has not – yet – caused tens of millions of victims; but neither had Nazism or Communism by the 1930s.

On the other hand, all three extreme ideologies share the same fundamental characteristics.

Firstly, all three are predicated on supremacist propositions – namely that a group of people is inherently superior to all the others.  What exactly that Master Group is depends on the specific differentiator that the particular ideology is centred upon.  Since Nazism saw the world through a ‘racial’ perspective, its fundamental proposition was the superiority of the ‘Aryan race’ (the Master Race or Herrenvolk); centred on ‘social’ differences, the Communists decreed that the ‘proletariat’ was inherently loftier than every other class; for the Islamists, whose particular angle is ‘religious’, it is the adherents of Islam that are ‘entitled’ to unquestioned, divinely-ordained supremacy.

Take for instance the following statement:

It is the duty of members of other races to stop disputing the sovereignty of the Aryan Race in this region, because the day these other races should take over there will be nothing but carnage, displacement and terror. 

Such statement sounds is surely reminiscent of early Nazi ideology, or of that espoused currently by neo-Nazi movements.  Yet it originates from neither; it simply paraphrases (by merely replacing ‘religious’ with ‘racial’ terminology) a paragraph from The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas).  The exact quote is:

It is the duty of the followers of other religions to stop disputing the sovereignty of Islam in this region, because the day these followers should take over there will be nothing but carnage, displacement and terror.

Initially, the Nazi ideology did not advocate the physical extermination of ‘other races’ – that came later.  For early Nazi ideologues, these races could be allowed to live, provided they accepted Aryan supremacy and did not attempt to ‘pollute’ the Master Race.  The Racial Tenet (Rassegrundsatz) printed on every Nazi-issued ‘Aryan Certificate’ declared:

In line with national socialist thinking which does full justice to all other peoples, there is never the expression of superior or inferior, but alien racial admixtures.

Hamas’s version is somewhat wordier, but fundamentally similar:

The Islamic Resistance Movement is a humanistic movement.  It takes care of human rights and is guided by Islamic tolerance when dealing with the followers of other religions.  It does not antagonize anyone of them except if it is antagonized by it or stands in its way to hamper its moves and waste its efforts.  Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam.

When groups like ISIS issue ultimata to Christians to ‘convert to Islam, accept its supremacy or die’, they express, in a more practical way, the same ideological tenet.

The Communist variety of supremacism is obvious, for instance, in the words of Trotsky:

When we speak of a labour government we mean that the hegemony belongs to the working class.  […]  Political supremacy of the proletariat is incompatible with its [current] economic slavery.  […] A Socialist revolution in the West would allow us to turn the temporary supremacy of the working class directly into a Socialist dictatorship.

Secondly, all three extreme ideologies promote a world view in which there is an inherent, perpetual and inevitable conflict between the superior or ‘Master Group’ (race, class or religion) and ‘the others’.  ‘The others’, needless to say, despite being fundamentally inferior, are intent on subjugating the Master Group.   The conflict (call it ‘Kampf um Lebensraum’, ‘class struggle’ or ‘jihad’) is fundamental not just to the ideology, but also to its practical implementation.  Conflicts (especially when portrayed as global and quasi-existential) represent ‘exceptional circumstances’ or ‘force majeure’; as such, they justify employing ‘exceptional means’.

Just like today’s Islamists, both Nazis and Communists made extensive use of torture and executions.  (Interestingly, Nazis practiced beheading as a form of execution, as do today’s Islamists; at times, Nazis also used the more expedient pistol bullet to the back of the neck, as did Stalin’s executioners and Palestinian Islamists against ‘collaborators’.)  All three movements sought to use terror in order to discourage dissent and weaken resistance.

Thirdly, all three ideologies have a similar ultimate goal: to do away with the extant ‘injustice’ and replace it with a ‘new global order’.  The end is thus, invariably, the ‘Perfect World’; so perfect, in fact, that that end justifies and even sanctifies the murderous means.  That ‘Perfect World’ – call it Millenarian Reich, Global Commune or Islamic Caliphate – will be achieved as a result of the Master Group’s final victory over ‘the others’.

Islamism belongs in the same category as Nazism and Communism; but what does that mean, in practical terms?  Does it mean that we will have to fight another world war?  Or wait for decades, in a horrendous equilibrium of terror, until this new murderous ideology will find its own way to history’s rubbish bin?

Well, not necessarily; not if we recognise the similarity and apply the lessons learned from dealing with the previous two forms of supremacism.

Given their ultimate goal (‘the Perfect World’), extreme ideologies are inherently expansionist.  They both desire and need territorial gain.  ‘Desire’, because expansion demonstrates success (‘the proof of the pudding…’); ‘need’ in order to supply the human and material resources for both survival and further expansion.  It follows that they need to be contained geographically – and not allowed territorial gains.  As explained in another article, resisting Hitler’s invasion of Austria and Czechoslovakia would not have led to a World War; tolerating those aggressions did.

But while geographical containment is a tactical imperative, it is not a strategy.  On its own, containment simply turns an acute ailment into a chronic disease.  Which may eventually disappear – but only after decades of suffering, and only if none of its acute outbursts succeeds in killing the patient.

Let us remember, however, that what eventually did away with Nazism was not the Allied victory in the Second World War; millions of brainwashed Germans, Austrians, etc. did not change their minds overnight, just because the Nazis lost the war.  The real solution was the process of mass re-education that followed the war and continued for years or even decades.   Similarly, while the Communist bloc collapsed from within, that did not happen while the West sat idle; nor was it the result of the containment policy alone.  There was intense Western propaganda activity; for instance, two radio stations – Free Europe and Radio Liberty – were transmitting uncensored news, education to democracy and other programmes.  The programmes were put together by dissidents and anti-Communist activists originating from the Communist bloc and were transmitted in Russian, Polish, Czech, Hungarian, Romanian, etc.   Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty had an important role in informing and educating people beyond the Iron Curtain and contributed to the weakening and eventual collapse of the Communist regimes.  In fact, those regimes perceived the radio programmes as so dangerous, that huge efforts were made to jam the transmissions.  And when jamming proved ineffective…  In 1981, Ilich Ramírez Sánchez (a Palestinian terrorist of Venezuelan extraction, nicknamed Carlos the Jackal) bombed the Munich headquarters of the two radio stations, causing heavy damage and injuring several of the stations’ employees.  Secret service documents found after the fall of the Communist regimes showed that it was Romania’s dictator Nicolae Ceaușescu who paid The Jackal to perpetrate the bombing.

One wonders why there are no similar propaganda efforts being made today?  Why are there no ‘Radio Liberty’-style stations transmitting unabashed pro-democracy and anti-Islamist programmes in Arabic, Farsi, Dari, Pashto and Urdu?  Better still, why not television stations, to counter the ‘official line’ decreed by Middle Eastern dictators and the more subtle propaganda conveyed by the likes of Al Jazeera?  A much stronger, much more assertive Internet-based propaganda is also a must.

To many in the West, the word ‘propaganda’ sounds pejorative; but what’s wrong with promoting the message of liberal democracy, human rights and progress, as an alternative to the hate, obscurantism and primitiveness pushed by the Islamists?  How exactly are the Middle East masses (who have never actually experienced liberal democracy) supposed to reject the Islamist brainwashing, when the only alternative they know is the brutal, incompetent and corrupt regime of ‘secular’ dictators?

Contrary perhaps to popular belief, there are Arabs, Iranians, Afghans and Pakistanis who believe in liberal democracy and oppose Islamism.  Let’s give them the tools needed, so they can make a difference.  It’s not weapons that they need – they need a voice.  Let’s give it to them NOW and in 10 years we’ll view this as the best investment we've ever made.