Bonobos: What We Can Learn From Our Primate Cousin. Video. 60 Minutes. CBS News, December 6, 2015.
Sunday, December 6, 2015
Jihadists Using Refugee Flows and Clueless Elites. By Walter Russell Mead.
Jihadists Using Refugee Flows? By Walter Russell Mead. The American Interest, December 6, 2015.
Mead:
Evidence accumulating that jihadi groups, including the one that planned the Paris attacks, are using the migration of hundreds of thousands of refugees to cover their own movements. The New York Times reports:
Mead:
Evidence accumulating that jihadi groups, including the one that planned the Paris attacks, are using the migration of hundreds of thousands of refugees to cover their own movements. The New York Times reports:
The investigation into the Paris terrorist attacks, previously focused on jihadist networks in France and Belgium, has widened to Eastern Europe, with a Belgian federal prosecutor announcing Friday that one of the people suspected of terrorism traveled in September by car to Hungary, where he picked up two men now believed to have links to the carnage of Nov. 13.
The disclosure of a Hungarian connection has not only dramatically expanded the scope of the investigation but has also put a spotlight on the question of whether jihadist militants have concealed themselves in a huge flow of asylum seekers passing through Eastern Europe.
A statement issued by the Belgian federal prosecutor on Friday said that Salah Abdeslam, a former Brussels resident who is the only known survivor from three terrorist squads that killed 130 people in Paris, had made two trips to the Hungarian capital, Budapest, in a rented Mercedes-Benz a few weeks before the Paris attacks.
Europe, which just a few years ago thought that it inhabited a post-historical universe in which nothing could ever go seriously wrong, is painfully waking up from the dream. It’s now crystal clear that one can’t combine a passive foreign policy with a legalistic adherence to absolutist ideals—that, for example, one can turn a blind eye to a disintegrating Middle East and North Africa while opening the gates to every refugee and migrant that the meltdown creates.On a drive back to Western Europe on Sept. 9, he was stopped during a routine check at Hungary’s border with Austria and found to be transporting two men using what have since turned out to be “fake Belgian identity cards.”
Not far
behind this lurks the realization that a cosmopolitan and tolerant society
can’t thrive if it admits millions of migrants who hate and despise
cosmopolitan values. Still obscure to most European elites (and to their
American counterparts) is the understanding that neither the values nor the
liberties of liberal civilization can long flourish if the religious and
spiritual foundations of that civilization are allowed to decay, and are
treated with scorn and neglect by society’s leaders.
Today’s
Western elites, in the U.S. as much as in Europe, have never been so
self-confident. Products of meritocratic selection who hold key positions in
the social machine, the bien-pensant
custodians of post-historical ideology—editorial writers at the NY Times, staffers in cultural and
educational bureaucracies, Eurocratic functionaries, much of the professoriat,
the human rights priesthood and so on—are utterly convinced that they see
farther and deeper than the less credentialed, less educated, less tolerant and
less sophisticated knuckle-dragging also-rans outside the magic circle of post
historical groupthink.
And
while the meritocratic priesthood isn’t wrong about everything—and the
knuckle-draggers aren’t right about everything—there are a few big issues on
which the priests are dead wrong and the knuckle-draggers know it. Worse, as the
mass of the people become more aware that the elites are too blind and too
wrapped up in the coils of elite ideology to deal effectively with society’s
most urgent problems, an age of demagogues is opening up around us. People need
leaders; when the meritocratic priesthood seems incapable of providing
leadership, people start looking elsewhere.
Anti-Muslim Rhetoric Isn’t Brave. By Fareed Zakaria.
Anti-Muslim rhetoric isn’t brave. By Fareed Zakaria. Washington Post, December 3, 2015.
Zakaria:
The most recent act of horrific violence in the United States — in San Bernardino, Calif. — was reportedly perpetrated by a Muslim man and woman. There are about 3 million Muslims in the United States, almost all of whom are law-abiding citizens. How should they react to the actions of the couple who killed 14 people on Wednesday?
The most recent act of horrific violence in the United States — in San Bernardino, Calif. — was reportedly perpetrated by a Muslim man and woman. There are about 3 million Muslims in the United States, almost all of whom are law-abiding citizens. How should they react to the actions of the couple who killed 14 people on Wednesday?
The
most commonly heard response is that Muslims must immediately and loudly
condemn these acts of barbarity. But Dalia Mogahed, a Muslim American leader,
argues eloquently that this is unfair. She made her case to NBC’s Chuck Todd.
“According
to the FBI, the majority of domestic terrorist attacks are actually committed
by white, male Christians. . . . When
those things occur, we don’t
suspect other people who share their faith and ethnicity of condoning them. We
assume that these things outrage them just as much as they do anyone else. And
we have to afford that same assumption of innocence to Muslims.”
Muslims
face a double standard, but I understand why. Muslim terrorists don’t just
happen to be Muslim. They claim to be motivated by religion, cite religious
justifications for their actions and tell their fellow Muslims to follow in
their bloody path. There are groups around the world spreading this religiously
infused ideology and trying to seduce Muslims to become terrorists. In these
circumstances, it is important for the majority of Muslims who profoundly disagree
with jihad to speak up.
But it
is also important to remember that there are 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet.
If you took the total number of deaths from terrorism last year — about 30,000
— and assumed that 50 people were involved in planning each one (a vastly
exaggerated estimate), it would still add up to less than 0.1 percent of the
world’s Muslims.
The writer
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a tough critic of Islam. She divides the Muslim world into
two groups: Mecca Muslims and Medina Muslims. (The Koranic revelations to
Muhammad made in Mecca are mostly about brotherhood and love; the ones in
Medina have the fire and brimstone.) She estimates that 3 percent of the
worldwide community are radical Medina Muslims, the other 97 percent
being mainstream Mecca Muslims. Now, 3 percent works out to a large number, 48
million, and that’s why
we spend lots of time, money and effort dealing with the threats that might
emanate from them. But that still leaves the other 97 percent — the more than
1.55 billion — who are not jihadists. They may be reactionary and backward in
many ways. But that is not the same as being terrorists.
While I
believe that Muslims do bear a responsibility to speak up, non-Muslims also
have a responsibility not to make assumptions about them based on such a small
minority. Individuals should be judged as individuals and not placed under
suspicion for some “group characteristic.” It is dehumanizing and un-American
to do otherwise.
It also
misunderstands how religion works in people’s lives. Imagine a Bangladeshi taxi
driver in New York. He has not, in any meaningful sense, chosen to be Muslim.
He was born into a religion, grew up with it, and like hundreds of millions of
people around the world in every religion, follows it out of a mixture of
faith, respect for his parents and family, camaraderie with his community and
inertia. His knowledge of the sacred texts is limited. He is trying to make a
living and provide for his family. For him, Islam provides identity and
psychological support in a hard life. This is what religion looks like for the
vast majority of Muslims.
But
increasingly, Americans seem to view Muslims as actively propagating a
dangerous ideology, like communist activists. It’s not just Donald Trump.
Republican candidates are vying with each other to make insinuations and
declarations about Islam and all Muslims. And it’s not just on the right. The
television personality and outspoken liberal Bill Maher made the expansive
generalization recently that “If you are in this religion, you probably do have
values that are at odds [with American values].”
What is
most bizarre is to hear this anti-Muslim rhetoric described as brave
truth-telling. Trump insists that he will not be silenced on this issue. Chris Christie says that he will not follow a “politically correct” national security
policy. They are simply feeding a prejudice. The reality is that Muslims are
today the most despised minority in America. Their faith is constantly
criticized, and they face insults, discrimination and a dramatic rise in acts
of violence against them, as Max Fisher of Vox has detailed superbly. And the
leading Republican candidate has flirted with the idea of registering Muslims,
a form of collective punishment that has not been seen since the internment of
Japanese Americans in the 1940s.
This is
the first time that I can recall watching politicians pander to mobs — and then
congratulate themselves for their political courage.
Blinded By ISIS. By Shlomo Ben-Ami.
Blinded By ISIS. By Shlomo Ben-Ami. Project Syndicate, December 4, 2015.
Ben-Ami:
MADRID – The general consensus emerging since last month’s carnage in Paris seems to be that the Islamic State (ISIS) can be defeated only by a ground invasion of its “state.” This is a delusion. Even if the West and its local allies (the Kurds, the Syrian opposition, Jordan, and other Sunni Arab countries) could agree about who would provide the bulk of ground troops, ISIS has already reshaped its strategy. It is now a global organization with local franchised groups capable of wreaking havoc in Western capitals.
Ben-Ami:
MADRID – The general consensus emerging since last month’s carnage in Paris seems to be that the Islamic State (ISIS) can be defeated only by a ground invasion of its “state.” This is a delusion. Even if the West and its local allies (the Kurds, the Syrian opposition, Jordan, and other Sunni Arab countries) could agree about who would provide the bulk of ground troops, ISIS has already reshaped its strategy. It is now a global organization with local franchised groups capable of wreaking havoc in Western capitals.
In
fact, ISIS has always been a symptom of a deeper malady. Disintegration in the
Arab Middle East reflects the region’s failure to find a path between the
bankrupt, secular nationalism that has dominated its state system since
independence and a radical brand of Islam at war with modernity. The
fundamental problem consists in an existential struggle between utterly
dysfunctional states and an obscenely savage brand of theocratic fanaticism.
With
that struggle, in which most of the region’s regimes have exhausted their
already-limited stores of legitimacy, a century-old regional order is
collapsing. Indeed, Israel, Iran, and Turkey – all non-Arab-majority countries
– are probably the region’s only genuinely cohesive nation-states.
For
years, key states in the region – some of them, like Saudi Arabia and Qatar,
darlings of the West – have essentially paid protection money to jihadists.
Yes, America’s wars in the region – as destructive as they were stupid – bear a
substantial part of the blame for the mayhem now engulfing the Fertile
Crescent. But that does not exculpate the Arab fundamentalist monarchies for
their role in reviving the seventh-century vision that ISIS (and others) seek
to realize.
ISIS’s
army of psychopaths and adventurers was launched as a “startup” by Sunni
magnates in the Gulf who envied Iran’s success with its Lebanese Shia proxy,
Hezbollah. It was the combination of an idea and the money to propagate it that
created this monster and nurtured its ambition to forge a totalitarian
caliphate.
For
years, the Wahhabis of Arabia have been the fountainhead of Islamist radicalism
and the primary backer and facilitator of extremist groups throughout the
region. As former US Senator Bob Graham, the lead author of the classified
Senate report on the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, put it earlier this
year, “ISIS is a product of Saudi ideals” and “Saudi money.” Indeed, Wikileaks
quotes former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accusing Qatar and Saudi Arabia of collusion “with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other terrorist groups.”
That
raises an obvious question: When regimes in the region collaborate with
terrorist groups, how can intelligence cooperation with them, let alone a coalition
to fight Islamic extremism, be credible? The so-called pro-Western regimes in
the Arab Middle East simply do not see eye to eye with the West about the
meaning and implications of the war on terror, or even about what violent
radicalism is.
That is
just one reason why an invasion of the caliphate, with local armies supported
by Western airstrikes, could have devastating unintended consequences – think
of George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Indeed, even if such a division of labor
could be agreed, a ground invasion that denies ISIS its territorial base in
Iraq and Syria would merely push it to redeploy in a region that is collapsing
into various no man’s lands.
At that
point, “Caliph” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, or some future would-be caliph, would
invariably fuse the region’s mounting governance chaos with a global jihadi
campaign – a process that, as we have seen in Paris and elsewhere, has already
started. The ideological and strategic rift between ISIS and Al Qaeda
notwithstanding, an alliance against the common enemy – the incumbent Arab
regimes and the West – cannot be entirely discounted. Osama Bin Laden himself
never ruled out the idea of establishing a caliphate. Indeed, his terrorism was
perceived as a prelude to it.
At the
same time, Syria and Iran might exploit the inevitable chaos to expand their
presence in Iraq, and all parties, including Turkey, would oppose a central
role for the Kurds. The latter have proven themselves to be tremendously
reliable and capable fighters, as the battles to liberate the cities of Kobani
and Sinjar from ISIS control have shown. But no one should think that they can
be the West’s tool for subduing the Sunni heartland of Iraq and Syria.
Nor is
it clear that the West is capable of compensating the Kurds with full-fledged
statehood. The geostrategic constraints that have prevented Kurdish
independence for centuries are even more acute today.
Some of
the consequences of a Western-backed Arab invasion of the caliphate are no less
predictable for being “unintended.” It would eventually stir up mass sympathy
for the caliphate throughout the region, thus providing ISIS with a propaganda
victory and further inspiration for alienated young Muslims in Europe and
elsewhere to fight the "Crusaders" and the Muslim
"traitors" aligned with them.
The
only realistic alternative is more – much more – of the same. That means a
constant and resolute effort to stop the caliphate’s expansion, cut off its
sources of finance, deepen and expand intelligence cooperation among credible
allies, end the oil-rich monarchies’ collusion with terrorist groups, and
encourage reform (without engaging in grand state-building projects).
The
Arab Middle East is not susceptible to quick fixes. It requires profound
indigenous change that might take the better part of this century to produce.
For now, turning the caliphate into yet another failed state in the region
seems to be the best possible outcome.
Mordechai Kedar: Americans (Still) Don’t Understand the Middle East.
 |
| Dr. Mordechai Kedar |
Americans (still) don’t understand the Middle East. This man wants to help. Mordechai Kedar interviewed by Michael Frank. Chicago Policy Review, July 28, 2015.
There is a partner. By Mordechai Kedar. Arutz Sheva 7, December 5, 2015.
There is a partner. By Mordechai Kedar. Arutz Sheva 7, December 5, 2015.
Frank and Kedar:
CPR sits down with Dr. Mordechai Kedar, an Israeli academic and veteran of IDF intelligence, to discuss the causes of conflict in the Middle East and what might resolve them.
CPR sits down with Dr. Mordechai Kedar, an Israeli academic and veteran of IDF intelligence, to discuss the causes of conflict in the Middle East and what might resolve them.
Mordechai Kedar is an Israeli scholar of
Arabic culture and a lecturer at Bar-Ilan University. He holds a Ph.D. from
Bar-Ilan University. Kedar is an academic expert on the Israeli Arab
population. He served for 25 years in IDF Military Intelligence, where he
specialized in Islamic groups, the political discourse of Arab countries, the
Arabic press and mass media, and the Syrian domestic arena. The Los Angeles Times’ Edmund Sanders
described him as “one of the few Arabic-speaking, Israeli pundits seen on
Arabic satellite channels defending Israel.”
What is the biggest misperception that
Western policymakers have about the Middle East?
There
are two basic problems. The first is that they think that peace between Israel
and the Palestinians will make all the other problems easier to solve. The
Sunni will cooperate with the Shia, the Arabs will cooperate with the Persians,
and the tribes of Libya will sit around the fire and sing “Kumbaya” together.
This theory is totally baseless. If there is peace between Israel and the
Palestinians, not a single struggle in the Middle East will become easier to
solve because all those struggles have absolutely nothing to do with the
Israeli-Palestinian problem. The second is that solutions that were tailored
for the culture of the West cannot work in the Middle East because the culture
of this region is totally different.
What are the fundamental causes of conflict
in the Middle East?
When
Americans think about the Middle East, they think from an American mindset:
that every person in the world can find a way to live with any other person.
This is what America is. America is a state, or a society, that was made by
immigrants who came from all over the world. All of them share the American
Dream together, they get together, they send their children to public school,
and the second generation or third generation of children marry each other.
This
scenario could not be farther from the reality of the Middle East. In the
Middle East, people are fighting each other to death because of differences in
ethnic groups, tribalism, religious issues, and sectarian issues. They are not
trying to live in peace with each other. The “Other” is always the enemy and
has to be exterminated because I don’t like him, he is not one of me, and we,
as a group, are not going to accept anyone who is different from us. This is
the mindset of the Middle East. And what you see today in Syria, in Iraq, in
Libya, in Yemen, in Sudan, is actually the result of this mindset: The Other is
my enemy, and there is no way for me to live in peace with the Other.
This is
why, in the Middle East, instead of living with each other, the solution is to
divide those dysfunctional states into emirates which will be homogenous. And
every group should live by itself and leave the others alone.
How do you see that process playing out?
Are some of these present struggles a move toward a peaceful Middle East, or
are the conflicts we see now not a sign of progress in the region?
You can
already see the beginning of the light at the end of the tunnel. You have,
first of all, two Kurdish districts, which emerged from the conflicts in Syria
and Iraq. The Kurdish district in northern Iraq, with its capital in Irbil, is
very stable and successful. It is the fastest growing economy in the Middle
East. Irbil has already, for 25 years, been marching on its way to independence.
The other Kurdish district, which emerged from the ruins of Syria, in the
Northwest part of Syria, is a calm, stable regime, which will never return to
any Syrian framework.
The
Druze in the South are also talking about their independence, which they enjoyed
under the Ottoman Empire. They may manage a stable, successful, and independent
state once more. This is the hope: that small, homogenous states will rise up
from under the ruins of these conglomerates, which never succeeded as
legitimate functioning states-neither in Iraq, nor in Syria, nor in any other
countries in the Middle East.
Is there a role for federalism within these
states?
You
have to convince the ruling elites to loosen the grip that they have on the
neck of other parts of the society. This is not easy. It's like asking the
administration in Washington, D.C., to give more independence to the states;
not everybody will agree to this. This is the problem, but people forget that
the best model for a good life in the Middle East is the emirates model. I’m
talking about Kuwait, Qatar, and the seven emirates of the United Arab Emirates
(UAE). These states are stable because each one is actually a state of one
single tribe that leads the country. All the other people are foreign
expatriates and have no political aspirations or expectations. The society is
homogenous-the ruling elite belongs to the society of the tribe. The tribal
system doesn’t have elections. They don’t need elections, as they have real
leadership—not politicians; they have real leaders from the tribe itself. This
is the only system that works in the Middle East, and this is why I promote the
establishment of eight Palestinian emirates.
How do these factors play into a potential
resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? What would a practical solution
look like?
The
idea of a Palestinian state is based on another idea that there is a
Palestinian nation for the Palestinian people. A Palestinian people exist just
like the Syrian, Iraqi, Sudanese, or Libyan peoples, which everybody today
understands do not actually exist. People in these countries are not loyal to
the state; they are loyal to the traditional frameworks of the tribe, ethnic
group, religion, and sect. The West invented these identities because this is
how the West works. They are imagined peoples who exist only in the discourse
of a very small and shallow elite that never retained the loyalties of the
people in the streets.
There
is no Palestinian people. There are clans, who are in the cities, who do not get
married to each other, people who do not move to live in other cities because
they are different in their mindset, dialect, culture. We see what can happen
in such a state that will follow, no doubt, in the footsteps of Syria, Iraq,
Libya, Sudan, and Yemen. This is why the two-state solution is a good wish but
not a realistic outcome on the ground. And don’t forget that, because of the
failures of [Syria and Iraq] to become nations, we have the Islamic State
today. People are more loyal to their religion than they are to the state.
Nobody in the world can prevent Hamas from taking over the West Bank just as
they did in Gaza, even by elections, which they won in January 2006, or by a
violent takeover as they already did in Gaza in June 2007. Hamas could take
over the Palestinian state only to be a preamble to another Islamic State, just
like ISIS. We would be doomed to live with such a state. This is why the only
solution that would give the Palestinians freedom and security from Israel is a
Palestinian Emirates solution.
With that in mind, what role should the US
play in the region in the near future, and what does an ideal long-term
engagement strategy look like?
The
United States, first of all, has to learn about the Middle East, about the
culture of the Middle East, about tribalism—the loyalties of people to their
religion and sect, before it intervenes in this region. Consider how a doctor
has to learn medicine first before treating a patient. For this, you have to
spend seven years in medical school, and who knows how many more years to be
specialized in whatever you want to do. First of all, people have to learn and
study. It takes time and effort. Nobody should come to this region to dictate
solutions without first knowing what are the problems that shake the region and
what are realistic solutions that are tailored to the culture of this region,
which is totally different from the culture of America and Europe.
I read an article you wrote, in which you
said, “Israel and the world must understand that, in the Middle East, one only
achieves peace through victory.” What does victory look like for Israel?
Victory
is achieved when one party successfully convinces the other party to leave me
alone, because the price of messing with me is too high. This is when peace is
achieved. I’m not talking about kissing and hugging and sitting around the fire
and singing “Kumbaya” together. In the Middle East, peace is achieved only when
one party succeeds to convince the other to leave it alone. Peace is something
which only the invincible can expect.
Kedar:
There is an alternative to establishing another failed state in the Middle East.
Last
week’s Israeli government cabinet meeting included a discussion of possible
scenarios for when the Palestinian Authority collapses. This would bring the
Jewish and Arab population of Judea and Samaria to where they were before the
Oslo Accords were signed, and leave Israel responsible for finding a way to
deal with the Arab population of the region. This is, of course, taking into
account that Gaza now has a stable and legitimate government, a Hamas
government, a fact Israel is willing to live with indefinitely.
The
important question is what Israel will do with Judea and Samaria, when the
world demands a two state solution. Does Israel have a partner to deal with?
The
first time Israel agreed to establish an official Palestinian Arab body was at
the Camp David Accords, the agreement reached between Israel and Egypt in 1978.
In these agreements, then Prime Minister Menachem Begin agreed to establish an
autonomous authority for the Palestinian Arabs in Judea, Samaria and Gaza with “a
strong police force.” This agreement was rejected by the PLO which saw it as “granting
Arab legitimacy to the Zionist entity and Egyptian abrogation of the right to
independent decision making by the Palestinian people.”
The PLO
did not agree to autonomy and demanded a Palestinian state on the ruins of the
state of Israel. It saw no way to recognize Israel as a legitimate state, even
if it took up just one square millimeter of “Palestine.” The Camp David Accords
led to peace between Egypt and Israel, but to no breakthrough on the
Palestinian issue. Since the 1980s, Israel has been searching for a recognized,
accepted Palestinian body that will take the responsibility for enforcing law
and order in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. In the early 1980s, Ariel Sharon gathered
a few people on the margins of Arab society, gave them Uzis and authority,
named them “The Association of Villages” and hoped they would enforce law and
order in their surroundings. The experiment failed, in large part because
Sharon did not depend on the heads of local clans, the large extended families
called hamoulot who form the
traditional leadership in Judea and Samaria’s cities, but whom he felt wielded
too much power. People who knew the situation well warned him not to give
weapons to these marginal people, but Sharon, who did not make a habit of
taking advice, did not listen to them.
Another
attempt to seek out Palestinian Arab leadership was towards the end of the
first Intifada, the uprising started in late 1987 and brought Hamas onto center
stage, to be followed soon after by Islamic Jihad. In 1992, then Prime Minister
Yitzchak Rabin tried to deal with the terror sown by these organizations by
exiling their leaders to southern Lebanon. However, Israel's Supreme Court
forced him to allow them to return, and this failure pushed the government to
search for another organization that would accept the responsibility for
dealing with Hamas and Islamic Jihad “without the [interference of Israeli]
courts and the Betselem [human rights]’ organization,” to quote the late prime
minister.
Several
months earlier, as a result of the October 1991 Madrid Conference, secret
contacts were initiated between several Israelis and PLO representatives in
Oslo, Norway. Those contacts led to the signing of the Oslo Agreements on the
White House lawn in September 1993. The agreements were based on the illusion
that the PLO had put down its arms, turned into a peace movement, given up its
plans to eliminate Israel, would change the PLO Covenant, recognize Israel and accept
the responsibility of creating something that is less than a state on the
territory Israel would hand over to PLO control. Everyone knows how that story
ended, but the signs were there from the beginning. It is simply a case of
there are “none so blind as those who will not see.”
The
Oslo Agreements created the Palestinian Authority, an entity which quickly
abrogated its first mission, that of fighting terror. Instead, it continued its
anti-Israel incitement in the media, the public sphere and the educational
system (whose budget was made up of overseas donations). Since then, the PLO
continues the battle against Israel on the international stage and pushes for
BDS.
The
establishment of the Palestinian Authority allowed terrorists wielding
kalashnikov rifles to take over its Legislative Council in the January 2006 elections and go on to
take over Gaza in June 2007. All the
polls taken so far point to a clear victory for Hamas in the next Palestinian
Authority elections – if there ever are any – and that includes capturing the
position
of chairman, so that the act of exercising democracy will turn Judea and
Samaria into a terrorist state.
This
leads to the generally accepted remark that “there is no Palestinian partner,”
since it has become clear to all that the PLO has no desire for a peaceful
state alongside Israel. In fact, it hopes to establish a terror state on Israel’s
ruins and the last twenty years have sufficed to convince most Israelis of the
futility of trying to change that. Much of the left has realized that the Oslo
Accords were a fatal mistake, but has not come up with an alternative to the
two-state solution, continuing to see the Palestinian Arabs as a “nation” with
the right to self-rule.
The
real truth about the Arab world has become obvious over the last few years. The
modern Arab state is a dismal failure that did not succeed in convincing its
own citizens that it is a better choice than clinging to traditional tribal
loyalties and ethnic groups (Arabs, Kurds, etc.), religious groups (Muslim,
Christian, Alawite, Druze, etc.) and warring groups within the same religion
(Shiite, Sunni, etc.). The nationalism offered by the modern state has failed
to create a Syrian, Iraqi, Libyan, or Sudanese basis for a national consciousness
and the proof of that is playing out in front of our eyes as we witness the
terrible civil wars that show where the real loyalties of each population
sector lie.
There
is no “Palestinian nation” either. The Arab residents of the land of Israel west
of the Jordan are really made up of tribes and clans with accepted tribal
leadership and binding social traditions. They live in demarcated areas and
enjoy active lives in their communities. The PA, a creation of the PLO, just
like Syria, Iraq, Libya and Sudan, has failed to find its way into Palestinian
Arab hearts. The only thing united them all is hatred of Israel, so that if a
state does get established in PA territory, it will, in all probability, turn
into another Gaza at best or into another Libya and Syria in the worst case
scenario.
Israel
and the rest of the world must not support the establishment of another failed
Arab state based on the illusory concept of a non-existent people which will
soon bring untold suffering on its citizens and their neighbors.
What is
that elusive alternative people keep on looking for? The alternative solution
exists. In the Middle East the right thing to do is to establish states on the
basis of tribal loyalties. That is the basis of the Gulf States: Kuwait, Qatar,
Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Ajman, Fujairah, Ras al-Khaimah, Sharqa, and Umm al-Quwain. These
are tranquil, stable emirates, each with a majority of citizens who are members
of a single tribe.
A
homogenous society creates stability, a legitimate legal framework and a
legitimate government. The citizens of an emirate do not fight each other
because they belong to the same tribe, and can turn their oil into prosperity.
Saudi Arabia and Oman are also countries that have tribal cultures that keep
them stable. Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Sudan are oil producing, but life in
those countries is short and bitter because of the endless fighting between
rival groups. These are fragile and illegitimate countries created by British,
French and Italian colonialist powers, all based on the Western model of a
nation.
This is
also the way we must address the Palestinian Arab problem, and instead of
creating another failed Western-model state that has no chance of succeeding in
the Middle East, create seven emirates in the Arab cities of Judea and Samaria,
based on the powerful extended families in each of those cities. Hevron can be
the emirate of the Jabri, Abu Sneineh, Qawasmi, Natsheh and Tamimi tribes,
Jericho of the Erekat tribe, Ramallah of the Barghouti tribe, Nablus of the al
Masri, Tukan and Shak’ah tribes and so on in Tulkarm, Kalkilya and Jenin.
Anyone
who has not yet noticed, is asked to look at Gaza where since June 2007 (eight
years!) there is a functioning state.
In
addition, Israel has to remain in control in the villages and surrounding areas
of Judea and Samaria in order to prevent the formation of a terrorist
contiguity uniting the discrete city-emirates, but.Israel can then offer
citizenship to the residents of these villages who make up only about 10% of
the Arabs in Judea and Samaria. The other 90% can stay in their independently
run city-states.
These
are the broad parameters of a program based on the “partner” to be found in
each city-emirate, the natural, traditional leadership of the large clans in
each city. Israel must negotiate with each emirate and reach an agreement with
each one on the issues of electricity, water, waste, roads, industry,
agriculture, traffic, security, the use of ports and airspace, and the boundary
lines of each. If the emirates wish to form a federation, so be it. That doesn’t
pose a problem as long as their territories are not allowed to be contiguous.
The
PLO, the organization that runs the Palestinian Authority, never agreed to the
existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish state, and is therefore not a
partner for peace. Israel, however, has a partner in each Judea and Samaria
city. Israel must bring about the
collapse of the PLO and PA, the two entities preventing a lasting peace
agreement with the residents of Judea and Samaria, who will then be able to
establish thriving emirates on the lines of Dubai, if not even better.
The
PLO, Hamas and Islamic Jihad want only wars, death and destruction, while peace
between Israel and the Emirates will lead to growth and prosperity.
Do Women Have a New Role In Radical Islam? By Raheel Raza.
Do women have a new role in radical Islam? Video. Raheel Raza interviewed on Fox and Friends. Fox News, December 6, 2015. Also at Yahoo! News.
MUSLIM REFORM MOVEMENT – for a better future for humanity – Dec 4. 2015. Raheel Raza’s Blog, December 5, 2015.
MUSLIM REFORM MOVEMENT – for a better future for humanity – Dec 4. 2015. Raheel Raza’s Blog, December 5, 2015.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)