Burkini Ban, Burkina Faso & Israel

Mao Zedong decreed that everybody should dress the same in China. 

I don’t like burqas; just as I did not like the choke-collar suits of Maoist China, the black garb of Charedi Jews or the tophats City bankers wore until not that long ago.

I don’t like them, mostly because I feel that people should not be regimented.  Wearing a uniform is loss of freedom, just like being in the army or in prison.  Plus, people wearing that kind of garb seem to be yearning to go backwards – to 7^thcentury Arabia or to 17^th century Poland – rather than forwards.

In recent weeks, several municipalities in France have decreed a ‘burkini ban’ – meaning that women using public beaches are fined if they wear that ‘Islamised’ type of costume.  Even more recently, a French ‘administrative court’ – whatever that is – has banned the ban.  Yet, apparently, the story is not over yet: some of the mayors involved (and quite a few national politicians who jumped on the bandwagon) have vowed to overturn the suspension that suspended the ban that banned the burkini… you know how it goes!

Even some burqa-inspired garb looks
trendy when Italians design it! 

Well, I may not like burqas (or indeed burkinis); but the idea of a ban is wrong, stupid and – perhaps worst of all – a populist distraction from the real issues.

It’s wrong because, just as people should not be told what clothes to wear, they shouldn’t be told what not to wear.  It is even more wrong because one particular distinctive garb was singled out and banned.  Yes, I know there are ‘reasons’ – there always are; but no: there are no excuses for double standards.  Or, rather, there are only dishonest excuses.

The burkini ban is stupid, because it completely lacks purpose.  What exactly is it supposed to achieve?  Will it prevent the radicalisation of young Muslims?  How exactly?  Which of France’s recent terrorist attacks would have been prevented, had the burkini bans been in place?

Finally – and worst of all – the burkini ban is a populist distraction.  This trifle of an ‘issue’ deflects attention from the very real and grave concerns: the radicalisation of young Muslims, the religious extremism which begets intolerance and terrorism.

The ban is not just a golden opening for political demagogues – of every tinge – to burnish their credentials; it’s also a cop out for everybody: an excellent excuse to duck the real challenges, while furiously debating a marginal issue.  What a superb opportunity for doing nothing – with great determination!

Even worse – the motivations are, let’s face it, obviously racist.  Granted, there was no obligation for the French state to open its borders and its population registry to a wide variety of people – including some who have not exactly been raised up in the spirit of  ‘liberté, egalité, fraternité’.  But once they did let them in, once they recognised them as French citizens, they can’t tell them what they are allowed to wear, now can they?

‘Special laws’ for one category of people?  Haven’t we seen that before, somewhere?  A bylaw is still a law.  And singling out one particular category of French citizens deserves just one name: no, it’s not ‘love of nudity’ – it’s ‘naked racism’!

Nor am I particularly surprised: in the latest elections for the European Parliament, the far-right Front National won a third of the votes.  And those European Elections took place in 2014, before the latest bout of jihadist terrorism that hit France.  (Contrary to popular belief, the fully proportional European Parliament elections are the best indicator of people’s real political opinions, which are masked by plurality election systems based on geographic constituencies.)

So much for the far-right.  There is, of course, quite a bit of far-left racism in France (and elsewhere in Europe).  In the process of crowning them as ‘oppressed’ and hence in perpetual need of their rights being ‘defended’ by Good (Marxist) Samaritans, the far-left denies Muslims their God-given agency; it infantilises them.  When it comes to Muslims, far-rightists demand a higher standard than for anyone else; far-leftists set the standards lower than for anyone else.  Both positions are racist because both deny Muslims their status as equal members of the human race – with the same rights and obligations everyone else has.

Prefers not to wear hijab (but wouldn’t be fined if she did):
Noura Abu-Shanab, an Arab Israeli and captain
of the women football team Hapoel Petah Tikva. 

Sure, France has seen quite a bit of Islamist terrorism; but Israel has seen more.  Circa 7.5% of French citizens are Muslims; the proportion is roughly 3 times larger in Israel.  And yet, in Israel not even the far-right tries to control how Muslims dress.

If you are a Muslim in Israel, you are entitled to have your personal status matters (such as marriage and divorce) adjudicated according to Shari’a – the Islamic law.  The qadis (traditional Islamic judges) receive their salaries from the state budget, as do the dayanim – their Judaic counterparts; and the Jewish State will apply the decision of the Shari’a court just as it does with that of a Beth Din – the traditional Rabbinical court.  French Muslims can only dream of that level of freedom and consideration.

An Israeli beach: the way to heaven is a matter of opinion...

And yet, it is the French government that, every year, is paying a lot of money to far-left Israeli organisations dedicated to inspecting ‘human rights’ in Israel.  That money, it turns out, would be put to much better use, were it invested in France.  There is, it seems obvious, a lot to be done to root out extremism and racism from the French society – both Muslims and non-Muslims.  Perhaps Israel – a good friend of that troubled country – should weigh in to prop up the increasingly shaky French democracy?  Lest it becomes more like – say – Burkina Faso?

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.

The Complete Idiot’s Guide to ‘Comprehensible Terrorism’

Much (and much junk!) has already been written about the most recent wave of terrorism that shook Israel.  While random Israeli Jews were being stabbed and shot in the street, much of the Western media was busy, as usual, trying to put a ‘pro-Palestinian’ spin on the ‘story’.  This tendency manifested itself, among other things, in a keen effort to discover ‘reasons’ for terrorism.  That in itself may not be a bad idea; but for so many of today’s lazy, talent-less and politically regimented ‘journalists’, the term ‘discover’ does not mean ‘investigate’, but rather ‘speculate’.  To Israeli ears, such attempts to present ‘reasons’ sound very much like finding justifications for terrorism.

Stephen Sackur

That’s what Yair Lapid – a former Finance Minister who now leads one of Israel’s opposition parties – told BBC presenter Stephen Sackur, who was interviewing him for a programme entitled HARDTalk.  Sackur had said:

“The Palestinians are quite clear, as Mahmoud Abbas has said, ‘we are living’, he says, ‘under unbearable conditions’.  And when that is the case, you get the kind of desperation, particularly among nihilistic young people, who see no future, that results in violence on your streets.”

After Lapid accused him of justifying terrorism, Sackur countered:

“You use the word ‘justification’; I never used that word.  I’m trying to place what is happening in a context, trying to maybe explain it, not justify it.”

Sounds logical, doesn’t it?  He wasn’t justifying terrorism; just placing it in context, ‘explaining’ it.  Nothing wrong with that, surely?  Well, two things are very wrong with that, actually.

Firstly, such valiant attempts to use European logic in order to ‘explain’ Middle Eastern terrorism are only ever made when Israelis are its victims.  Mr. Sackur would not use a similar ‘logic’ to ‘explain’ 9/11, or 7/7.  When Muslim terrorists killed a random British soldier outside his barracks, no one at BBC ‘explained’ the act as “desperation, particularly among nihilistic young people, who see no future…”

Secondly, even assuming that ‘context’ and ‘explanations’ are necessary, why is it that, when Israel is involved (and only when Israel is involved) a particular ‘context’ is chosen, a particular ‘explanation’ is embraced as self-evident, with no attempt to actually investigate the reasons?  Where does such ‘explanation’ come from?  Mr. Sackur tells us in so many words: it comes from Mahmoud Abbas.  But is Abbas a credible source?  “The Palestinians are quite clear”, says Sackur.  Really, are they??  Who speaks for “The Palestinians”?  Abbas has become president 10 years ago, ‘winning’ stitched-up elections; there were no presidential elections since then.  The latest parliamentary elections (2006) were won by Hamas – Abbas’s arch-rivals.  Mahmoud Abbas speaks for the Palestinians just as Bashar Assad speaks for the Syrians.

Name: Jeremy Bowen; Occupation: anti-Israel militant masquerading as BBC's Middle East Editor 

Yet Sackur is not the only Western journalist adopting such irrational ‘reasoning’.  He is not even the only one at BBC.  Beeb’s Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen is also fond of ‘context’ and ‘explanations’ – when it comes to terrorism directed against Israel:

“Violence does not come out of the blue. It has a context. Once again, the problem is the unresolved conflict between Palestinians and Jews. It is at the heart of all the violence that shakes this city.

A big part of the conflict is the military occupation of the Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, that has lasted for nearly 50 years. It is impossible to ignore the effects of an occupation that is always coercive and can be brutal.

In successive Palestinian generations, it has created hopelessness and hatred. In some cases, that bursts out into murderous anger. Jerusalem this week is crackling with tension and hate, directed by both sides at each other.”

Again, if violence always has ‘a context’, then perhaps Mr Bowen should explain what was the ‘context’ of 9/11 and 7/7?  What ‘unresolved conflict’, what ‘coercive and brutal occupation’ caused that burst of ‘murderous anger’?  And, if that’s the ‘logic’ that he chooses to apply, shouldn’t the despicable murder of Drummer Lee Rigby be ‘explained’ as a consequence of the ‘coercive and brutal occupation’ of Iraq and Afghanistan – Muslim lands situated thousands of miles from British shores?

Karl Vick of Time Magazine: the face of Western comprehension 

It seems to me, however, that the award for The Most Stupid Comment in Years belongs by rights to Time Magazine’s Karl Vick.  After blaming the terrorist attacks on Israeli-induced Palestinian hopelessness, including of course an obligatory quote from Mahmoud Abbas, Vick calls Israel and ‘the Palestinian territories’

“the one part of the Middle East where the source of strife is comprehensible to Westerners: the aspiration–on the part of both sides–for a national home.”

The Middle East, of course, has no lack of conflicts: it’s Muslims against Christians, Muslims against Yazidis, Sunnis against Shi’a, Alawis against Sunnis, Kurds against Arabs, Turks against Kurds, Persians against Arabs, etc. etc.  All that, Mr. Vick confesses, is incomprehensible to the Western brain; the one conflict that is different is that between Arabs and Jews.  Why?  ‘Coz when it comes to Jews, Arabs only want a national home.

Given Karl Vick’s admirable comprehension of that 100-years-old conflict, I thought I’d ask him a simple question; one that none of the oh-so-knowledgeable Western journalists has yet asked: where are the Christians?

No, I don’t mean the hundreds of thousands of Christians that have been persecuted out of the Middle East; we know where they are.  What I mean is: why aren’t there any Christians among the terrorists?

Christians account for circa 2.5% of West Bank’s Arab population (they were 4% only a few years ago and circa 10% in 1948 – as they still are among Arab Israelis).  Yet none of the terrorists involved in the recent wave of attacks was a Christian.  And if you think that the number of those attackers is too small for reliable statistics, here is another fact: since 1993, circa 200 Arab Palestinians have blown themselves up in attempts to kill Jews; yet none of them was a Christian.

It’s not that Christians are uninvolved in the ‘Palestinian national struggle’.  They pay their dues.  God (or Allah) help them if they don’t!  Under the loving ‘guidance’ of their Muslim ‘brothers’, Christian ‘spiritual leaders’ (whose flock is increasingly fleeing that same tight ‘guidance’) lambast Israel at every possible opportunity, including appeals to foreign coreligionists to boycott the Jewish state out of existence.  Yet no Palestinian Christian has been involved – for decades now – in a serious terrorist attack against Jews.

This is understandable if, as Israelis assert, such acts of terrorism are the result of religious extremism, just as they are in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan and many other places.  But if, as Messrs. Sackur, Bowen, Vick and numerous other Western 'useful idiots' seem to believe, Palestinian terrorism is an expression of ‘desperation’ and frustrated ‘national aspirations’, then let them explain what makes Palestinian Christians less ‘desperate’; or why are Christians (who, historically, have been the flag-bearers of Arab nationalism) less keen to express their longing for a ‘national home’ – by stabbing, shooting or blowing up a few Jews.

Oh, he's just a bit frustrated...  It's because of the occupation... and the settlements...

It is Islamist fanaticism that begets stabbings, beheadings, suicide bombings and plane crashing all over the globe – from New York to London, from Madrid to Bali, from Moscow to Kunming, from Baghdad to Damascus and in many, many other places.  Not in Jerusalem, though – in that place terrorists are not Muslim extremists, but nice people who want a ‘national home’ and just got… well, a bit impatient waiting for it.  Welcome to Vick’s Planet!

Imagine... Gaza

Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one…
               (John Lennon)

I’d like to think I’m a sober pragmatist – I rarely indulge in flights of fancy.  Yet sometimes one has to pause, disconnect for just a few brief moments from the grim reality and imagine what could have been…  Call it a learning exercise.

Almost exactly 10 years ago, an Israeli government (one that much of the world viewed as ‘right-wing’ and ‘hawkish’) implemented the country’s ‘disengagement’ from the Gaza Strip.  That euphemism was used to describe a complete withdrawal: every single Israeli soldier was pulled out of the Strip; every ‘Jewish settler’ was evicted (occasionally by force); every ‘illegal Israeli settlement’ in the Strip was evacuated – even the dead Jews were dug up and moved to the Israeli side of ‘the 1967 border’.  As a token of further intentions, four ‘settlements’ in the West Bank were also dismantled.

It could have been, it should have been a momentous change: for the first time ever, Palestinian Arabs gained not just complete control over territory – but also freedom of movement: the Agreement on Movement and Access (concluded in November 2005 between Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the European Union) opened the Rafah Crossing, allowing Palestinian Arabs to travel freely between Gaza and Egypt, with only European – not Israeli! – supervision.  The Agreement also opened the Karni Crossing between Israel and Gaza to non-military exports and imports; it provided a ‘safe passage’ allowing Palestinian Arabs to travel between the West Bank and Gaza, crossing Israeli territory; it authorised the construction of a seaport in Gaza and initiated negotiations towards the building of an airport in the Strip.

Just a few months later – uniquely in the entire Arab World – Palestinian Arabs voted in free elections.  Amazingly given the bitterness of the conflict, Israel cooperated – enabling even residents of East Jerusalem to vote in the Palestinian elections.

It was exactly what the ‘international community’ had been asking Israel to do: concede ‘land for peace’; courageously assume risks by allowing ‘the enemy’ freedom of operation; take a bold step towards ‘the two-state solution’.

The rest is, of course, history: as is often the case in the Middle East, concessions were interpreted as signs of weakness, rather than desire for peace; they were met with harsher demands, rather than generous gestures in return; they emboldened additional extremism, rather than empowering the moderates.  To the great surprise of hapless Western supporters of ‘the Palestinian People’s right to self-determination’, the electorate in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusatook the power away from the ‘nationalist’ Fatah and handed it to Islamist Hamas – the local branch of the pan-Islamic organisation Muslim Brotherhood.

Hamas’s first ‘act of government’ was to repudiate the Agreement on Movement and Access, kick out the European supervisors and use its control of the border to smuggle in weaponry.  It used that weaponry to wrestle complete power from the rival Fatah and to subject Israeli towns and villages to a bombardment with mortar shells and ever-more-sophisticated rockets.  With Gaza Strip officially ‘enemy territory’, Israel declared a military blockade, a war tactic which interdicts the movement of people and all but essential goods.

Brainwashed Westerners usually describe Gaza Strip as ‘tiny and overcrowded’.  It is actually larger than European Union member state Malta; it is somewhat smaller but definitely less crowded than Singapore and Hong Kong…  But that is where any similarities end.

No, this is not Gaza City...  It's 'overcrowded' Singapore.

Ten years after the ‘disengagement’, Gaza remains yet another sore point in the Middle East.  Although movement restrictions for people and goods have been relaxed somewhat, they are still in place, driven by war and fear, rather than peace and hope.  There may be an affluent middle class in Gaza – but there is also huge unemployment; one may find markets abundant in products, but also lots of abject poverty…

Under the rule of Hamas and with the 'kind collaboration' of a few other terrorist organisation, the territory produces a more-or-less constant ‘drizzle’ of missiles which hit Israeli territory, disrupting, threatening and occasionally destroying life; whenever the ‘drizzle’ turns into a ‘rain’, Israel has to resort to military operations which – despite unprecedented precautions – cause death and injury also among innocents.  To most Israelis, ‘land for peace’ is these days a bitter joke; the belief in ‘two states for two peoples’ has made room to a fierce ‘us or them’ determination.

A by-now routine tweet from the Police Commissioner: another murder attempt
disguised as 'resistance' to 'occupiers in absentia'.

But it did not have to be like this.  Imagine…  Imagine an alternative history in which the ‘liberated’ Gazans cease to attack Israel, choosing instead to focus on developing their now un-occupied, ‘settler-free’ territory.  There is no denying their diligence and skill: imagine that the efforts put into digging hundreds of miles of smuggling and terror tunnels were used instead to build hundreds of miles of roads, of water conduits, of sewage pipelines.  Imagine that all that wealth of intelligence, creativity, passion and determination were placed in the service of happiness and life, rather than hatred and death.

Imagine that, instead of trading fire with Israel, Gaza traded goods: how many Israeli entrepreneurs would have leaped  to take advantage of that new opportunity?  Imagine scores of ships docking in Gaza Harbour and dozens of airplanes taking off from the newly-built Gaza International Airport.  Imagine European kids traveling to Gaza to get a tan on its golden beaches, rather than fraternise with terrorists.

And imagine Israel alongside this peaceful, stable, prosperous Gaza: who – other than perhaps a handful of fanatics – would not trade land to extend such permanent bliss to the West Bank?  How many Jewish mothers would choose to cling to a few more square miles of land, rather than ensuring peace, quiet and happiness for their children?

Imagine Gaza, in an alternative 2015: a positive model for the entire Middle East, rather than an epitome of violence and misery.

Imagine…  Yes, imagine.  Perhaps that is what’s lacking in the Middle East: a bit of imagination.

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.

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!