Why the settlements?

Israel’s many adversaries always refer to Jewish civilian presence beyond the Green Line as ‘the illegal Israeli settlements’.  I have often wondered why they feel the need to stress that ‘illegal’ attribute.  After all, nobody says ‘illegal theft’ or ‘illegal murder’.  Perhaps it’s a case of “the lady doth protest too much”: anti-Israel activists wish to persuade themselves – and others – that the settlements are indeed illegal.  Because that’s not at all obvious.

But even among those who are generally supportive of Israel, the settlements are controversial.  Just recently, over a dinner table, a friend (one who’s a staunch supporter of Israel) has expressed some sharp criticism of Israeli government’s latest bout of ‘settlement construction’.

So, even if legal, are settlements the smart thing to do?  Are they ‘good for the Jews’?  Why the settlements?

For some, the answer is trivial: Netanyahu is either himself an extremist, or is just a political hostage to extremist elements in his coalition.  Unfortunately for its promoters, this facile answer does not withstand serious scrutiny.  In reality, every Israeli government in history (left, right and centre) has expanded settlements.  And not because of ‘pressure from the settler movement’ – not really.  In truth, that movement is far from wielding the political power that some ‘liberals’ appear to attribute it.  Those self-proclaimed liberals often quote the number of ‘600,000 settlers’.  That sounds like a large number, before one realises it includes everybody who happens to live beyond the Green Line: non-Zionist charedim, run-of-the-mill families looking for affordable housing in some Jerusalem suburb, left-leaning Jordan Valley farmers…  600,000 is less than 7% of Israel’s population and ‘ideological settlers’ represent just a fraction of that.  Wanna know how powerful the settler movement really is?  Just look at its utter impotence when it comes to preventing evacuation of settlements: in Sinai in 1982, in Gaza in 2005, in the West Bank in 2017…

To starry-eyed ‘internationals’ who view ‘Palestine’ as some sort of primeval, pastoral Middle Earth, the reason for ‘settlements’ is a blatant ‘land grab’ fuelled by typical Jewish greed (shhh – don’t talk like that, say ‘Zionist greed’!)  The Jewish state just wants more land.  But – let's do away with the deliberately misleading numbers produced on request and in return for generous 'grants' by dishonest ‘NGOs’ – settlements occupy (after 50 years of ‘colonisation’) less than 2% of the West Bank.  Hey, that must be the most incompetent land grab in history!  Well, that's only surprising to ignorants and fools.  Sure, Judea and Samaria are cradles of Jewish civilisation; names like Hebron resonate deeply in Jewish consciences.  But most Israelis have never set foot in the West Bank, nor do they particularly wish to.  Kosovo may be the cradle of Serbian nationalism and Southern Slavic Christianity; but these days, it happens to be inhabited mostly by Muslim Albanians!

So why not ‘freeze’ the settlements?  Why continue to build in the West Bank homes (or ‘settlements’, or ‘settlement units’, as the anti-Israel crowd likes to call them), in the face of international opprobrium?

Well, the real answer is easy – just not easy to admit for any of the officials in charge.  The truth is that verbal condemnation of Israel has become an obligatory rite in international politics.  The ‘Arab World’ (nearly 400 million people and most of the global reserves of oil and gas) demands it; the ‘Muslim World’ (nearly a quarter of the global population, more than a quarter of votes at the UN General Assembly) expects it.

For many a third world dictator who happens to be Arab or Muslim, ‘Palestine’ provides a godsend opportunity to channel the population’s pent-up frustrations away from his fat behind and from the sumptuous throne it rests on; for many a politician in the rest of the world, condemnation of Israel is the key to Arab benevolence and to quiet among the growing Muslim minority at home.  Settlements are a win-win proposition for both Arab/Muslim despots and for more-or-less-democratic politicians: the former can point at ‘universal condemnation of…’ as an achievement, as evidence of both zeal and power; the latter can get away with the cheap sacrifice of condemning ‘settlements,’ while cultivating everything else that Israel has to offer.

But why should Israel collaborate in this farce?  Why play a part in that charade, why supply fuel to that fire?  Here’s why: were it not for ‘the settlements’, something else ‘Israeli’ would have to be condemned.  The truth may be disheartening, but it’s still the truth: what extensive parts of the Arab and Muslim population (spurred on by persistent religious incitement) object to is not really Israel’s ‘occupation which began in 1967’, but the ‘occupation and colonisation’ of ‘Muslim land’ which started in the 19th century and culminated with the establishment of the modern Jewish state on what is, doctrinally speaking, Dar al-Islam.  That’s why the need to perform ritual condemnations of Israel did not diminish when Israel evacuated Sinai and Gaza.  That’s why it wouldn’t diminish if Israel stopped ‘settlementing’ altogether, or even if it evacuated every single West Bank settler.  Simply, something else would need to be condemned – and that something is likely to be more harmful, more toxic in practical political terms for the Jewish state’s international standing.

Settlements are not just a win-win.  They are a win-win-win.  From Israel’s point of view, they perform the function of a lightning rod; they are a relatively benign sacrifice on the altar of international hypocrisy.  The settlement in Hebron may be a sore point on Israel’s public image; but it keeps Tel Aviv, Haifa, the Galilee and the Negev firmly in the realm of international consensus.

Yes, it’s a dishonest charade – but isn’t everything else in international politics?  Stop the settlements?  God no, that’d be a disaster!  Israel will keep ‘settlementing’ – at a slow, measured pace, but with much fanfare.  Settlements will continue to be the focus of lots of righteous indignation from many a holier-than-thou imbecil.  Peace – with all that it entails – will come eventually, when the Arab world gets rid, once and for all, of its real oppressors and of their toxic heritage.  Meanwhile, Israel will continue to develop and prosper.  By all means – criticise the ‘settlements’, folks!  Here’s a piece of ancient Middle Eastern wisdom: ‘the dogs are barking, but the caravan moves on'...

Chilcot, Israel and the Kiss of Judas

احذر عدوك مرة وصديقك ألف مرة فإن انقلب الصديق فهو أعلم بالمضرة

Beware of an enemy once and of a friend a thousand times, because a duplicitous friend will hurt you more. (An Arabic proverb)

I admit: I expected the Chilcot inquiry to be just another sop.  If nothing else, the inordinate length of time it took seemed to bode no great desire to reveal unpleasant truths.  So, had I been asked a couple of weeks ago, I would have expressed low expectations from that inquiry; and I would have been wrong.

Sir John Chilcot, Chair of the Inquiry

True, like the biblical Jacob, we had to wait seven years for this bride; it cost us more than £10 million.  In taxes, not in sheep, goats or camels.

But at least the bride is lovely and wise.  Sir John Chilcot and his team have done good, serious work.  That’s not to say that their report should be seen as The Ultimate Truth – far from it.  Inevitably, the assessments, judgments and conclusions are all subjective, coloured by the authors’ own experience, beliefs and ideological inclinations.  But a huge body of evidence has been uncovered; and the analysis (while far from infallible) is also quite useful.

The Chilcot Inquiry findings will no doubt fascinate people for years and maybe decades to come.  As usual, the honest historian in search of truth and understanding will be followed by the ‘revisionist’ seeking to justify preconceived ideas for the sake of publicity, royalties and tenure.

Even before that, an army of journalists and politicians will exploit the report – without reading it, of course – to further their own interests and careers.  The most unscrupulous ones have in fact already  started to do just that – before the ink has had a chance to dry on Sir Chilcot’s signature.

But there is one aspect revealed by the inquiry which has so far completely escaped attention; which has not even been touched by the journo-political Commentariat.  And yet, reference to that aspect was obvious even in John Chilcot’s public statement, which accompanied the release of the report on 6 July 2016.  Says Sir John:

“On 28 July, Mr Blair wrote to President Bush with an assurance that he would be with him ‘whatever’ – but, if the US wanted a coalition for military action, changes would be needed in three key areas.”

The Commentariat herd has focused its entire attention on Blair’s promise to support Bush “whatever”.  But it’s worth taking in the entirety of John Chilcot’s statement.

What was that “coalition for military action” that Blair was so keen to organise?  And why was he that keen?  A look at the written records gives us the answer: Blair wanted to cover his proverbial bottom, in case the sh** hit the fan (as it eventually did).  On 28 July 2002, Blair wrote in his message to US President Bush:

“The US could do it alone, with UK support.  [but]  If we win quickly, everyone will be our friend.  If we don’t and they haven’t been bound beforehand, recriminations will start fast.”

Blair’s message details the potential dangers:

“The danger is, as ever with these things, unintended consequences.  Suppose it got militarily tricky.  Suppose Iraq suffered unexpected civilian casualties.  Suppose the Arab street finally erupted, eg in {CENSORED}.  Suppose Saddam felt sufficiently politically strong, if militarily weak in conventional terms, to let off WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction].  Suppose that, without any coalition, the Iraqis feel ambivalent about being invaded and real Iraqis, not Saddam’s special guard, decide to offer resistance.  Suppose, at least, that any difficulties, without a coalition, are magnified and seized upon by a hostile international opinion.”

Throughout his message, Blair advocates a political and military coalition as an antidote against those “any difficulties”.  And not just any old coalition, but one that would include Arab countries; just like in Bush Senior’s First Gulf War.

On the face of it, this made sense.  After all, many an Arab dictator feared and loathed Saddam Hussein; his military might and (especially) popularity on the Arab street threatened their royal thrones and gilded presidential armchairs.  But Arab tyrants are good negotiators; their power and very survival depends on astutely playing other people’s ambitions and fears, hopes and worries.  Accustomed to play by the rules, Western politicians are no match for such predatory instincts.  Tony Blair was easily persuaded that the West needed to pay a price for the Arabs’ militarily ineffective but politically convenient cooperation.  What price?  Well, the Arab autocrats needed to throw their hapless subjects a bone; and in the world of tyrants, where power is admired as the supreme value, that means being able to declare a victory.  Not just against a fellow Arab dictator, but against the habitual scapegoat – Israel.  So the Arab dictators persuaded Blair that the West needed to pay for their cooperation and that the currency needed to be Israel’s security.  As usual, the entire thing was to be disguised under the euphemism ‘progress in MEPP’ – the Middle East Peace Process.  In Blair’s own words:

“The Arabs may support but are far less likely to do so, if MEPP is where it is now.  When I met {CENSORED} and said we would do Iraq, he said: ‘fine – just do it with total force’.  But when we started later to talk about MEPP, he said he was far more optimistic about it.  ‘Why?’, I asked.  ‘Because obviously, with Iraq coming up, the US will put it in a quite different place, he said.  When I said, we couldn’t guarantee that, he looked genuinely shocked.  Then Iraq would be a very different proposition, he said.”

For anyone familiar with Middle Eastern negotiation euphemisms, a deal had been offered: the West would be allowed to “do Iraq” if the Arab dictators could, to at least some extent, ‘do Israel’.  If we needed proof that ‘MEPP’ was all about imposing a "movement" that was "contrary to Israeli worries", we get that from another Blair-to Bush message, dated 11 October 2001:

“This is the huge undercurrent in this situation.  It is the context in the Arab world.  The trouble is it’s damn difficult, though your comments on a Palestinian state and {CENSORED}  […]  It will be very tough, but we need a big, new initiative.  I wonder if we could do as follows: pull out every stop to halt terrorist activity on the Palestinian side or at least have Arafat so clearly trying, that it’s obvious to all; then use this break in the weather, to launch a new talks process, effectively accepting at the outset that the outcome will be 2 states living side by side.  {CENSORED} involvement and it’s your call but, for what it’s worth, I have believed for 2 years now that the US just can’t take the strain of this alone; and that contrary to Israeli worries, the {CENSORED} into a reasonable deal.  After all, it’s the {CENSORED}.
If we showed movement here, the Arab moderates would regain the upper hand quickly.”

We do not know who “the Arab moderates” were in 2001.  Did they include Egypt’s President Mubarak?  The absolute monarchs of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE and Jordan?  Perhaps Muammar Gaddafi and Bashar al-Assad, the (then) newly enthroned President-for-Life of Syria?

But what is clear is that Tony Blair was in search of a "reasonable deal".  Only problem was – in his mind it needed to be reasonable from the point of view of the USA/UK interests in Iraq; and that meant disregarding "Israeli worries" to keep the "Arab moderates" happy.

Now, let us remind ourselves what was going on at the time – in 2001-2002, when Tony Blair was so nonchalantly advocating the brushing aside of those annoying “Israeli worries”.

The Camp David Summit (Bill Clinton, Arafat, Ehud Barak) had ended in July 2000, with no agreement.  In January 2001, Arafat was finally forced to put in writing the Palestinian official response, rejecting out of hand the so-called Clinton Parameters which had offered Palestinians a state in 100% of Gaza Strip and 95-97% of West Bank, plus 1-3% of swap land from pre-1967 Israel.

Arafat also refused to budge during the Taba negotiations, despite the offer being reiterated, detailed and expanded.

Even while the negotiations at Taba were going on, a campaign of terror against Israelis was unfolding.  It cost the lives of 207 Israelis in 2001 and 457 in 2002.  There were 40 suicide bombings in 2001 and 47 (i.e. roughly one every week on average) in 2002.

Memorial for the victims of the Dolphinarium suicide bombing. 21 Israeli youngsters (the majority teenage girls) were killed in June 2001 by a 22-year-old Palestinian terrorist. 

As his message to Bush proves, Tony Blair was well aware of the situation and of the basis for “Israeli worries”; he did not believe that Arafat was “clearly trying” to “halt terrorist activity on the Palestinian side”.  In fact, in yet another message to Bush (in December 2001), he was stating, in reference to the wave of Palestinian terrorism:

“The issue is not whether [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon takes tough action.  He is bound to and so would any of us in this situation.”

Needless to say, the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians had nothing to do with Iraq and Saddam Hussein’s regime.  So, was Tony Blair truly naïve enough to believe that this conflict (rather than, for instance, the lack of freedom and democracy) was “the context in the Arab world”?  Doubtful; he was just cynically willing to pay for Arab benevolence with Israeli blood and tears.

Nor was Blair’s attitude new and unheard of.  The cooperation of Arab dictators in the First Gulf War (among them Mubarak of Egypt and Assad Senior, father of the current Syrian president and a prodigious murderer in his own right) had been ‘rewarded’ with the Madrid Conference, in which Israel was forced to ‘negotiate’ (read: face in a public or semi-public showdown) simultaneously with Syria, Lebanon and a joint PLO-Jordanian delegation, under the watchful co-sponsorship of United States and the Soviet Union.

These days, Blair’s 2001-2002 cynical manoeuvre has become a typical Western (or at least European) approach.  Why else would the European Union still refer to the (stubborn, but low intensity) conflict between Israel and the Palestinians as ‘the conflict in the Middle East’?  Isn’t the conflict between Sunni and Shi’a Islam an infinitely more suitable candidate to that title?  Shouldn’t the EU seek to initiate (let alone progress) a Middle East Peace Process for that conflict, which is many centuries old, has resulted in millions of casualties, involves a huge swath of territory including at a minimum Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, and is a colossal threat to world peace?

Like Tony Blair in 2001-2002, current European politicians are keen to buy Arab dictators’ connivance at Israel’s expense.  In addition, they hope to ‘sweeten’ the bad taste left by their efforts to keep Muslim refugees out of Europe and to ‘endear’ themselves to their own already large and restive Muslim minority.

The problem with that tactic – besides, that is, its stench of advanced moral rot – is that it won’t work.  Despite what crypto-racist Europeans may think, brown Muslims are not stupid.  Sure, moved by a mistaken sense of Islamic solidarity and/or by anti-Semitic prejudice, some of them may raise their lips in praise for Europe’s cynical policies towards the Jewish state.  But, even when yelled at the top of the voice, such praise only comes from the lips.  In their hearts, many Muslims (both in the Middle East and in Europe) will be thinking: ‘if they do that to Israelis, whom they call their friends, how will they ultimately treat us?’

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.

How much, Mr. Osborne?

Imagine that tomorrow morning Israel amasses troops on the outskirts of Ramallah.  A plane carrying the Palestinian leadership regrettably crashes en-route to negotiations in Israel.  To avoid another unfortunate accident, a few Palestinian leaders ‘agree’ to ‘merge Palestine into Israel’.  The next day, Israel’s Parliament (the Knesset) declares the West Bank as the 'Palestinian Autonomous Region', an indivisible part of the State of Israel.  A regional government is appointed, made up of Jewish Israelis and ‘friendly Muslims’.  Civil servants are sacked if they ‘look Muslim’ (i.e., wear beards if they are men or veils if they are women, if they fast during Ramadan, etc.)  Hundreds of thousands of Jewish Israelis are settled in the Region, lured by better-paid government jobs, while the Region’s Muslim inhabitants are ‘encouraged’ to move elsewhere to ‘better assimilate’ into the Israeli society.  Any dissent is swiftly and brutally dealt with, the leaders being either executed or carefully ‘re-educated’ over a few decades in prison.

If you think that such scenario would cause a global uproar the like of which has never been heard before – you are certainly right.  But hey – don’t worry!  Just give it a bit of time, they’ll all get used to it.  Look forward to a visit from UK’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Right Honourable Whateverthenamewillbe, who will smile kindly and offer his country’s considerable expertise and entrepreneurial spirit to help develop the Palestinian Autonomous Region to its full potential.

What – you think that’s extremely unlikely?  Well, you may be right again.  But it has just happened elsewhere.

Situated to the north of Tibet, the territory of Xīnjiāng has been, for many centuries, inhabited by a Muslim population speaking Uyghur – a Turkic language.  Like many other territories, Xīnjiāng (pronounced Shinjang in Uyghur) has had a turbulent history – alternating between Mongolian, Chinese and Tibetan rule; occasionally, the Uyghurs managed to govern their own affairs – at some point even establishing an Uyghur Khaganate.  The latest such attempts occurred twice in the 20th century, when Uyghurs declared the territory’s independence under the name of East Turkestan Republic.  In August 1949, with the Chinese Communist Army approaching, five Uyghur leaders boarded a Soviet plane, to attend a conference in Beijing; they all perished in a mysterious accident.  It was thus left to three other leaders – who wisely chose to travel by train! – to agree to join the People’s Republic of China.  Communist China incorporated Shinjang as the Xīnjiāng Uyghur Autonomous Region.  Several Uyghur armed groups continued to resist the Chinese takeover, but were eventually defeated, their leaders either fleeing or being caught and executed.

Enticed with plush jobs, millions of Han Chinese have settled in the ‘Autonomous Region’ – causing the ratio of Uyghurs in the Region's population to plummet from 73% in 1955 to circa 45% in 2000.

Just like every other Chinese citizen, Uyghurs are required to learn Mandarin and use it in dealing with the authorities.  Overt displays of Uyghur nationalism – however peaceful – are harshly suppressed as ‘separatism’.  Muslim religious practice is ‘subtly’ and not so subtly discouraged.

Hundreds and perhaps thousands of people have been killed in the frequent bouts of violence that erupt in the Region, with Uyghur rebels clashing with Han settlers, as well as with the Chinese police and army.  Nobody really knows how many have been imprisoned and executed.

In May 2014, the otherwise ‘progressive’ New York Times reported that China’s leader, Xi Jinping,

has called for tighter state control over religion and for better assimilating Uighurs into Chinese society, including moving more Uighurs from Xinjiang to other parts of China, where they can live among the Han, the nation’s dominant ethnic group.

The paper further reported that Mr. Xi also announced that China will use “special measures” in Xinjiang to “deal with special things”.  No specifics were given.

Even Amnesty International – which usually treads as if on eggshells when it comes to criticising dictatorships – reported:

On 28 July [2014], state media reported that 37 civilians were killed when a ‘knife-wielding mob’ stormed government offices in Yarkand County (in Chinese: Shache) and that security forces had shot dead 59 attackers. Uighur groups disputed this account, putting the death toll much higher and saying rather that police opened fire on hundreds of people who were protesting against the severe restrictions placed on Muslims during Ramadan. Uighurs faced widespread discrimination in employment, education, housing and curtailed religious freedom, as well as political marginalization.

But all that did not stop the Right Honourable George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, from visiting China at the head of a large delegation, eager to increase the economic cooperation between the two countries.  Mr. Osborne has even visited Xinjiang – presumably to see how British firms can benefit from China’s investments in the Region’s infrastructure – an infrastructure that (so Uyghurs claim) is designed to serve the Han settlers.

By the way, words like ‘settlement’ or ‘settlers’ were never pronounced in the many speeches and interviews given by the Right Honourable on this occasion.  Nor are they to be found in any official UK declaration in the context of China.  There is clearly a big difference (though also a very subtle one, ‘coz I can’t see it!) between Han Chinese settling in Xinjiang and Jewish Israelis settling in the West Bank.  Because when it comes to the latter, Her Majesty’s Government does not mince words:

Our position on settlements is clear: they are illegal under international law…

Needless to say, none of the disciplined and ‘progressive’ mainstream journalists who interviewed Mr. Osborne was rude enough to ask why that exalted International Law applies to one case, but not the other.  Nor did Her Majesty’s Opposition – rendered even more ‘progressive’ by its new leader Jeremy Corbyn – raise any major moral objections to the idea of a closer relationship with the Chinese Occupation (‘occupation’ – either with or without the capital ‘O’) was yet another word blatantly absent from the whole UK-China conversation).

In case you wondered, let me reassure you that there are no plans to distinctly label Chinese products made by Han settlers in Xinjiang or Tibet – even though the UK Foreign Office wants to ‘expedite’ the implementation of such labelling for products made in Israeli settlements.

Nevertheless, some people and organisations did criticise Mr. Osborne’s visit and his eagerness to collaborate with China, pointing out that the Communist regime in Beijing is one of the world’s worst human rights violators.  But even that criticism was calm, measured and polite; there were no calls to ‘Boycott, Divest and Sanction’ China – that particular punishment appears to be reserved exclusively for use against the Jewish State.

Mr. Osborne has shrugged off even that light and mannered criticism, explaining that

I have raised the human rights concerns that we have with the Chinese authorities as part of the broader conversation.

The conversation must have been very broad indeed – or perhaps it was conducted in Chinese whispers.  Because the Chinese hosts don’t remember that part at all.  In fact, the Chancellor has been praised by Chinese government-controlled media for… not raising the human rights issue.  One Chinese paper called him

the first Western official in recent years who focused on business potential rather than raising a magnifying glass to the 'human rights issue’

The paper further opined that Mr. Osborne’s behaviour should be emulated:

It should be diplomatic etiquette for foreign leaders not to confront China by raising the human rights issue.  Keeping a modest manner is the correct attitude for a foreign minister visiting China to seek business opportunities.

Mr. Osborne may not be “foreign minister”, but he appears to understand why he is required to keep “a modest manner”:

Of course we're two completely different political systems and we raise human rights issues, but I don't think that is inconsistent with also wanting to do more business with one-fifth of the world's population.

And therein is – obvious for all but the wilfully blind to see – the double standard: China is a huge country – as well as an economic, political and military power.  Israel is almost exactly the size of Wales and its economy is on a par with those of Singapore and Hong Kong.  Her Majesty’s Government does not wish to upset China; it does not care if it upsets Israel – in fact that might earn it a few brownie points with Arab dictators who rule over half a billion people and command the majority of the world’s oil and gas reserves.

All of which does not make it moral.  In fact, it reminds me that, a few years ago, I was walking with a Jewish friend through the streets of Amsterdam.  All of a sudden, my friend – a happily married, moral-to-the-point-of-obsession man – knocked on a window and asked the woman inside ‘How much?’  ‘Eighty euros’ answered the prostitute, ‘do you want to come in?’  ‘No’, answered my friend, ‘I just wanted to know’.

And so, since the UK Government’s benevolent interpretation of International Law appears to be for sale – just like the body in the Amsterdam window – may I respectfully ask Mr. Osborn how much it is?  I just want to know…

A Tale of Two Agreements: what do Greece and Iran have in common?

Two important agreements have been concluded recently, almost at the same time: one dealt with Greece and its economy; the other – with Iran and its nuclear programme.  The former was said to remove a threat to the financial health of the Eurozone; the latter is purported to remove a danger to the security of the entire world.

The Supreme Leader smiles with satisfaction...

There are both similarities and differences between the two ‘deals’.  In both cases, negotiations have been long and difficult – though in the case of Iran brinkmanship was taken to an entirely new level: overtly or covertly, various wheeling and dealing has been going on for 12 years, until just 2-3 months separated the mullahs’ regime from its first nuclear weapon.  Both with Greece and with Iran, extreme economic pressures ultimately made the agreement possible.  Both countries were about to reach the end of the rope from a financial point of view – Greece through years of mismanagement and economic profligacy, Iran through the piling up of international sanctions.

A broken Greek Prime Minister on national
television: “I fully assume responsibility
for mistakes and oversights, and for signing
a text that I do not believe in, but that I am
obliged to implement... The hard truth is
this one-way street for Greece was imposed
on us...”

But a humbled Greek government was ultimately brought to its knees and – in return for a measure of financial relief – was forced to accept incredibly harsh terms negating its core ideological basis; in contrast, the mullahs’ regime will be granted full relief from nuclear-related sanctions, along with consent to continue its nuclear programme, although banned by six UN Security Council resolutions.  The democratically-elected Greek government has been forced to admit, in front of their own people, that all they could achieve was a “bad deal”, preferable only to an even-worse alternative; conversely, Supreme Ayatollah Khamenei could smilingly thank his negotiating team for its great achievement.  The Greek population – which only a few days ago voted to reject the terms – gloomily received the news of their country’s capitulation to European pressure; whether spontaneously or at the behest of the regime, Iranians celebrated in the streets.  Democratic Greece has been forced to accept blatant, colossal violations of national sovereignty – in practice relinquishing control over its own economic policy; the rogue ‘Islamic Republic’ has won recognition of its ‘sovereign right’ to enrich uranium under its own control, upon its own territory.

Barely a day after the signing of the Greek ‘bailout’ deal, none other than the International Monetary Fund (the ultimate financial experts) cried ‘the Emperor is naked’: in a publicly issued report, they basically conclude that the ‘deal’ has zero chances of being executed as agreed.  Similarly, nobody but a handful of starry-eyed naïves truly believes that the ‘Iran nuclear deal’ will ever be implemented as agreed.  In fact, not even the deal’s most enthusiastic supporters seem to entertain such illusions.  Writing about a month ago in the Time Magazine, one such supporter (a chap called Ian Bremmer) admited that

“The history of Iran’s nuclear program says it will cheat, and inspectors won’t catch every violation. In fact, Tehran may already have started, reportedly growing a nuclear stockpile it had promised to freeze.”

Still, Mr. Bremmer advocates the deal, on the basis that

“Even if Iran one day builds a nuclear weapon, it’s unlikely to use it…”

The rest of us, who are rather less cavalier and not endowed with Mr. Bremmer’s enviable clairvoyance, can only guess how “unlikely” that possibility really is; we can try to figure out what degree of ‘likelihood’ (that some jihadi finger will pull the nuclear trigger and obliterate our families) we are happy to tolerate.

You may wonder why anyone would conclude agreements that have – from the word ‘go’ – zero chances of being implemented.  And why was the mullahs’ regime (a rogue theocracy sponsoring global terrorism and regional sedition) treated so differently from democratic, tame Greece?

Some Western politicians (especially the self-appointed ‘progressives’ among them) appear to believe that non-Western or non-white people (especially if they are Muslims) must always be treated with kid gloves; that they have a God-given right to misbehave and that their misbehaviour must be treated with a degree of tolerance – like that of children.  Feel free to attribute that attitude to post-colonial guilt, to moral relativism, to some form of ‘Stockholm syndrome’ or to sheer stupidity; I think it stems from deeply entrenched (albeit carefully – perhaps too carefully – concealed) racism.

It’s called reverse racism.  Rather than viewing people as complete equals in rights and responsibilities, irrespective of faith or the colour of their skin, reverse racists tend to infantilise Muslims.  The latter are seen as having rights – even special rights, like children or disabled people; but, again like children, they are not expected to manifest complete responsibility for their actions.  In effect, reverse racists subliminally place Muslims (and less frequently other non-Western people) under some form of mental tutelage.

Reverse racist attitudes are manifest not just in the über-tolerant treatment of Iran versus the harsh handling of Greece.  They are visible everywhere: when ‘the government’ (i.e. a ‘paternal figure’) is expected to prevent young Muslims from being radicalised – rather than their own families and communities; when older men are allowed to take advantage of young girls simply because the men are Muslims and the girls white; when indoctrination and extremist propaganda in schools and mosques are seen as cultural peculiarity, rather than criminal activity…

And here is another, perhaps less obvious example of reverse racism: President Obama’s famous Cairo speech.  Made at the beginning of his first presidential term, the speech is full of nice words.  So nice, in fact, that they often stray far, far away from the truth:

“I am honoured to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar [a famous school of Sunni Islamic doctrine] has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress.”

“Harmony”? “progress”??  “advancement”???  Oh, pleeease!  There was, there is very little “harmony” in Egypt, a country ruled at the time – and now – by a ruthless dictator who imprisoned opponents and turned Al Azhar into just another propaganda tool; there was even less “progress” in a country where poverty was – and is – rife, where homosexuality is not even tolerated, let alone accepted, where one in every three women can't read and write.  Mr. Obama knew all this, just like every Egyptian knows it.  Yet he chose to ‘beautify’ the truth, rather than spell it out in its candid nakedness.  Some will say that he was just being courteous; but where does ‘courtesy’ end, at which point does it turn into brazen lie?  Why do tyrants deserve courteous lies more than their hapless subjects deserve the courtesy of being told the truth??  Would Mr. Obama have used such language, had he spoken to a Western audience?

The Cairo speech was made in the capital of a failed country – one that cannot feed its people, let alone develop and fulfil their natural abilities; yet one word could not be heard among the more than 6,000 uttered by the President: reform.

Yet Mr. Obama knows how to advocate reform.  Hear the tone of another speech – one made less than a year later, not at Cairo University, but at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia.  The topic was healthcare reform:

“… every single President has said we need to fix this system.  It’s a debate that’s not only about the cost of health care […].  It’s a debate about the character of our country – about whether we can still meet the challenges of our time; whether we still have the guts and the courage to give every citizen, not just some, the chance to reach their dreams.  […]  George Mason, the time for reform is right now.  Not a year from now, not five years from now, not 10 years from now, not 20 years from now -- it’s now.  We have had a year of hard debate.  Every proposal has been put on the table.  Every argument has been made…”

Question: when did the President sound like speaking to children who need to be placated and cajoled – and when did he seem to address mature, responsible human beings, who need to make crucial decisions about their future?

But let us go back to the Cairo speech:

“I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap and share common principles – principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings…”

Reading these exhortations about Islam and “Muslims around the world”, one may think that this was the Pope speaking, or perhaps a Chief Rabbi.  Yet Mr. Obama is neither; nor was he speaking in the name of Christianity.  So why did the leader of a nation (the United States of America) purport to speak not to the host nation, but to the followers of a religion??  Simply: Mr. Obama was trying to manifest ‘empathy’ with the concept of ‘Muslim nation’ (ummah).  But why?  That concept is one promoted not necessarily by Muslims, but by Islamists.  Surely Mr. Obama does not believe that followers of Islam (whether in the Middle East, South Asia, Africa, Europe or the Americas, whether speaking Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, Turkish or English) belong to one nation and should therefore aspire to reconstitute the Islamic Caliphate.  No, he was just cajoling, ‘making nice’ to his audience, just like one tends to do with children.

I don’t pretend to know how “Muslims around the world” feel, but I suspect that, like everybody else, they feel in various ways – as individuals rather than collective; and I know that, were I a Muslim, I would feel deeply offended by such patronising, paternalistic and ultimately racist attitude.  Perhaps that is why Mr. Obama’s speech, replete with such over-schmaltzed attempts at ‘endearment’, was ultimately received with coldness, as just another expression of Western hypocrisy.  Perhaps it would have been better if he spoke and acted towards Muslims with the same unadulterated conviction, with the same honest bluntness that he uses towards Western audiences.

Folks, there is nothing remotely ‘progressive’ about reverse racism.  It does not compensate for past wrongs, it perpetuates them in the present and exacerbates them in the future.  The key word in ‘reverse racism’ is ‘racism’ is ‘racism’ is ‘racism’.

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!