My current understanding of the root of modern day Islamic Terrorism

This is my current understanding of the root of modern day Islamic Terrorism:

Hundreds of years ago on the Arabian Peninsula, the new ruling family, the House of Saud, made an arrangement with the leading religious family, the Wahhabs: The Sauds would rule, while the Wahhabs were given power and influence to propagate their version of Islam, which is called Wahhabism today. This ultra-conservative version of Islam was derided and condemned over many years by mainstream Islamic teachers and scholars.

Fast-forward to 1948 and the Sauds still rule the Arabian Peninsula (a country known as Saudi Arabia) while the Wahhabis still have a huge influence over Islam in that country. While the world is shocked and awed by the formation of modern Israel, geologists discover the Ghawar Field in Eastern Saudi Arabia - the largest underground crude oil reservoir ever discovered. Subsequent discoveries around the Persian Gulf in neighbouring countries creates the Middle Eastern oil boom.

Now fast forward to 1973. The world's economy has depended upon cheap oil for decades but the Arabic nations have remained opposed to Israel in that time. After the Yom Kippur war ended in Israel's favour, oil producing Arab nations (as OPEC) embargoed oil deliveries to nations they believed were helping Israel, including the US and many other western countries. The high price of oil resulting from the embargo and its aftermath led to these countries becoming very rich - especially the ruling classes and especially the house of Saud.

Because of the close relationship between the house of Saud and the house of Wahab, many prominent government positions were handed out to members of these families. The Wahabs were still very conservative and very extremist in their religious beliefs and were still being criticised by more mainstream Islamic leaders.

One of the more prominent families in the Saudi world was, and remains, the Bin Laden family. The Bin Laden family received all sorts of juicy government contracts to construct buildings throughout Saudi Arabia. One of the members of this family was named Osama. Osama was influenced greatly by the extremist Wahhabism and began planning his terrorism program in the 1980s.

Other extremist Wahhabis began using their power and influence within the Saudi government to fund the building of Wahhabi mosques around the world, including in Western countries. This is still going on.

The 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by Saudi Wahhabists. They were funded by rich members of the Saudi government at its lower levels. The attacks were planned by the well-connected Osama Bin Laden - a man with both extremist religious views and practical business training and experience.

The years following 9/11 have seen an upswing in Islamic terrorism. Most of these terrorists have been influenced by Wahhabi teaching, found either online or in their mosque. The presence of the internet has allowed the Wahhabist message to spread to disaffected Muslims around the world, creating an environment where formal structures (ie a terrorist network) are not needed to create terrorists.

A summary of my conclusions - Modern Islamic terrorism:

* is mostly Sunni (as opposed to Shi'a)
* is sourced from Wahhabism, a powerful but not dominant religious ideology within Sunni Islam.
* is mainly Arabic in nationality, with exceptions due to Wahhabi influence (eg Jemaah Islamiyah in Indonesia)
* is funded by well-connected families in Saudi Arabia and members of the Saudi government.
* has been funded for decades from the profits of the Saudi oil industry being distributed to powerful Saudi families.
* is angry at "the west" for a) the creation of modern Israel, and b) past aggressions against Arabic nations from colonial times up until today (including British and American oil companies taking their oil, but also aggressions like invading Iraq).
* can influence individual Muslims through the internet.
* is NOT a natural outworking of the Islamic faith.
* does NOT have any historical precedent prior to 9/11.
* needs to be addressed by Western countries through directly challenging and influencing Saudi Arabia.
* is unlikely to be propagated in mosques that are not Wahhabist.
* is opposed by the majority of Muslims and the mosques they worship in.

Random thoughts on population decline, economics and the Islamic hordes

One of the greatest errors made in modern studies of demography and economics is the assumption that population decline and an ageing population is somehow disastrous.

Behind this assumption are two further assumptions - that taxes are somehow bad and that a decline in GDP is bad.

It is true that many western nations will have a declining population by 2050. Many of these nations have old age pension systems funded by tax revenue, so the retired and aged people living in these countries will be supported by these taxes.

But of course the assumption is that increasing these taxes are bad. They're not. And the reason is that when a population declines, a country is spending less money in the following areas:

• Property: Less people means less demand for property.
• Infrastructure: Less people means less need for new water, electricity and telecommunications infrastructure to be built.
• Education: Less people at the younger age spectrum means smaller schools and colleges.

So for all the doctors and nurses and administration staff that is needed to support an ageing population, there will be a drop in demand for constructions workers and teachers to compensate for it. In other words, an increase in welfare spending on the aged is matched by spending decreases in other areas of the economy.

Ah, I hear you say, but constructions workers and teachers are essential for economic growth whereas nurses and doctors looking after retired people are a drain on the economy. Not necessarily - they are all producing goods and services. What you're worried about is GDP.

An increase in GDP is not necessary for good economic conditions. Economist Robert Solow's exogenous growth model proves that the natural state of an economy without any growth inputs is one of stabilisation. In other words, it is quite possible to have a stable state economy that provides workers with full employment.

Of course, when a population declines the effect upon the economy is negative. Yet that is not necessarily a bad thing. If an economy is in decline as a result of a population decline, the trick is not to aim for growth, but to focus on GDP per capita. In other words, so long as GDP per capita increases, total GDP can continue to fall. Another way of looking at it is to ensure that GDP decline is slower than population decline: If GDP declines by 0.5% in a year while population declines by 1% over the same period, then you have a good thing happening.

There is one final problem with people worried about population decline - they do not seem to understand basic demographics. "Populate or Perish" is one catch cry that sums it up - we must increase our population or else our nations will die out.

That's rubbish.

Take the USA. In 2009, the USA had just over 309 million people. If the population in the US begins to decline such that there would be 209 million people by 2109, is that such a bad thing? Population decline won't wipe a country off the map - no one is going to "perish". Unless, of course, people somehow think that Moslems will continue to have lots and lots of babies and take over the world - a common semi-racist belief amongst many. It is racist because it is based mainly upon ethnic assumptions and because it assumes that such ethnicity will not change. The reality is that many Moslem nations have exhibited a substantial drop in fertility rate over the last ten years.

Demographers have pointed out that when you take into account things like infant mortality rates, accidents and other conditions, the average woman must have 2.1 children in order for the population to remain stable (ie 10 women producing a total of 21 babies). If the average woman has less than 2.1 children there will be (eventual) population decline, while if they exceed 2.1 there will be (eventual) population growth. Of course, many western nations have fertility rates of 2 and below, which indicates population decline. But here is a list of nations with predominately Moslem people who are near or below 2.1:

• Bahrain: 2.29
• Lebanon: 2.21
• Kuwait: 2.18
• Indonesia: 2.18
• Turkey: 2.14
• Iran: 2.04
• Tunisia: 1.93

And all of those nations have declined from higher fertility rates in the past. This proves that there are Moslem nations that are not breeding children to take over the world, which means that Moslem nations which are having lots of children can also drop down to low birth rates.

In summary, population decline is not an economic problem, it will not cause economic and social chaos and it will not allow a horde of Moslems to take over the world.

Problems with immigrants?

Immigrants as percentage of national population:

USA: 12.81%
Australia:19.93%

UK: 8.98%
France: 10.18%
Germany: 12.31%
Italy: 4.29%
Spain: 10.79%
Portugal: 7.20%
Denmark: 7.16%
Netherlands: 10.05%
Belgium: 6.90%

Muslim immigrants taking over Europe? Hardly.

Source: UN.

The inevitable result of Islamophobia

From the department of publishing what people want to hear:

The Sun newspaper has come over a bit modest. Following a Channel 4 documentary about media reporting of Muslims, the paper accepts some of its stories were "distorted". But they're not doing themselves justice. They weren't distorted – they were entirely made up. For example, a story about a Muslim bus driver who ordered his passengers off the bus so he could pray was pure fabrication.

But if reporters are allowed to make up what they like, that one should be disciplined for displaying a shocking lack of imagination. He could have continued, "The driver has now won a case at the Court of Human Rights that his bus route should be altered so it only goes east. This means the 37A from Sutton Coldfield will no longer stop at Selly Oak library, but go the wrong way up a one-way street and carry on to Mecca. Local depot manager Stan Tubworth said, 'I suggested he only take it as far as Athens but he threatened a Jihad, and a holy war is just the sort of thing that could put a service like the Selly Oak Clipper out of business'."

Then there was a story about "Muslim thugs" in Windsor who attacked a house used by soldiers, except it was another invention. But with this tale the reporter still claims it's true, despite a complete absence of evidence, because, "The police are too politically correct to admit it." This must be the solution to all unsolved crimes. With Jack the Ripper it's obvious – he was facing the East End of London, his victims were infidels and he'd have access to a burqua which would give him vital camouflage in the smog. But do the pro-Muslim police even bother to investigate? Of course not, because it's just "Allah Allah Allah" down at the stations these days.

I have no politically correct notions that demand that I ignore racially motivated violence. I know that minority racial groups can often give rise to racially motivated violence - like Lebanese men in Sydney gang-raping white women.

What I can't tolerate is when the media, in order to capitalise on this fear, creates stories out of thin air in the same way in order to gain financial rewards (more newspapers sold, more advertising space sold). In this sense, the market rewards the media for distorting facts rather than reporting facts.

Much of our current debate about terrorism since 9/11 has been based upon fear and ignorance. While Islamic terrorism is certainly on the rise it has yet to impact us (since 9/11) in the West any worse than, say, the IRA bombing campaigns in Britain or radical leftist groups like the Red Army Faction.

And this means, of course, that 9/11 in the light of history is now appearing to be an exceptionally unusual event rather than the beginning of a new pattern of terrorism.

AAAAAAAAA

A blog post with every single category marked (I'm doing this for scribefire)

Iraq war breeding secularism amongst young Muslims

From the department of I-honestly-didn't-see-this-coming:

After almost five years of war, many young Iraqis, exhausted by constant firsthand exposure to the violence of religious extremism, say they have grown disillusioned with religious leaders and skeptical of the faith that they preach.

In two months of interviews with 40 young people in five Iraqi cities, a pattern of disenchantment emerged, in which young Iraqis, both poor and middle class, blamed clerics for the violence and the restrictions that have narrowed their lives.

"I hate Islam and all the clerics because they limit our freedom every day and their instruction became heavy over us," said Sara Sami, a high school student in Basra. "Most of the girls in my high school hate that Islamic people control the authority because they don't deserve to be rulers."

Atheer, a 19-year-old from a poor, heavily Shiite neighborhood in southern Baghdad, said: "The religion men are liars. Young people don't believe them. Guys my age are not interested in religion anymore."

The shift in Iraq runs counter to trends of rising religiousness among young people across much of the Middle East, where religion has replaced nationalism as a unifying ideology. While religious extremists are admired by a number of young people in other parts of the Arab world, Iraq offers a test case of what could happen when extremist theories are applied.

Well this goes counter to what alarmists have been saying about the spread of Islam.

The Muslim Car

From the department of Religious-Traffic-Jams:

The Malaysian carmaker Proton has announced plans to develop an "Islamic car", designed for Muslim motorists.

Proton is planning on teaming up with manufacturers in Iran and Turkey to create the unique vehicle.

The car could boast special features like a compass pointing to Mecca and a dedicated space to keep a copy of the Koran and a headscarf.

The idea came during a visit to the Middle East by a delegation of Malaysian politicians and businessmen.

Malaysian press reports say officials in Iran originally suggested the idea.

I remember John Chapman once telling us at Bible College that he found driving to and from work the best time of day to pray about things. He encouraged us to try it, but to make sure we kept our eyes open.

Prosperity Islam?

How about this from Cricinfo:

Mushtaq Ahmed, who took 13 wickets in the match and whose 90 wickets in the season were again instrumental in Sussex's success, said: "I had an extra pray and asked Allah to give us another Championship. If you give 100% then Allah will always favour you.

"The people here are so kind and lovely. It's a family club and I'd like to thank them. But you have to give 100% and the players cheer each other up and are united - when people are not doing well we back them up. You have to stay together when there are ups and downs. It's a very special moment for Sussex but we've had to work hard for our win."

Iran and terrorism

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of Iran, has decided that he will not "insist" on a visit to the WTC site. Yet, as a comment on a NY Times blog site says, "Why does anyone - even a visiting president of any nation, one we like or don't like - need permission to go to a public place?"

It is a measure of the success of terrorism and of the right-wing noise machine that has meant that most Americans now see Iran as a grave threat to them and to world peace.

I'm not arguing that Iran is somehow the paragon of all virtue and peace and love - of course they're not. Yet Iran is nowhere near as dangerous or as threatening as some people - read George W. Bush - make them out to be.

Consider the following facts:

• Iran has never invaded any other nations. Admittedly Iran tried to take over Iraq back during the Iran-Iraq war but that was in repsonse to Iraq invading them first. In all other respects Iran has been peaceful, both after the 1979 revolution and in the decades before it. Unlike Saddam and Iraq, they have no history of aggression towards their neighbours.

• Iran's beef with America goes back over 50 years. In 1953 the CIA engineered a coup that overthrew a democratically elected Iranian government and replaced it with a corrupt dictatorship. In 1979 Iranian nationalists and fundamentalists were responsible for the Shah's overthrow in their own revolution. Since the CIA used the US embassy in Tehran as a staging and co-ordination point during the 1953 coup, the new Fundamentalist government in 1979 took over the embassy. The resulting hostage crisis was regrettable, but, in the context of 1953, understandable. Iran wanted to prevent any US influence in their new nation.

• Ali Khameni, Iran's Supreme leader (pictured), is the official head of the armed forces. Any stupid or inflammatory comments that president Ahmadinejad made about destroying Israel need to be understood in that context. Ahmadinejad, for all his fiery rhetoric, has no power at all to use the Iranian military against another nation. Moreover, Ali Khameni publicly denounced the 9/11 attacks soon after they occurred, saying "Mass killings of human beings are catastrophic acts which are condemned... wherever they may happen and whoever the perpetrators and the victims may be". Sympathy towards America by ordinary Iranians resulted in candlelit vigils in memory of those who died on 9/11.

• Ahmadinejad succeeded Mohammad Khatami, who was Iranian president during the 9/11 attacks. In response to the terrorist attacks, Khatami said "On behalf of the Iranian government and the nation, I condemn the hijacking attempts and terrorist attacks on public centers in American cities which have killed a large number of innocent people. My deep sympathy goes out to the American nation, particularly those who have suffered from the attacks and also the families of the victims. Terrorism is doomed and the international community should stem it and take effective measures in a bid to eradicate it."

• There are about 25,000 Jews who live in Iran. Iran's first and most revered Supreme leader, Ruhollah Khomeini, issued a fatwa soon after the 1979 revolution which decreed that Iranian Jews should be protected (along with another minority religions, including Christians).

• Iran also has a large and influential reformist movement that has reacted against fundamentalism and likes women's heads uncovered and their rock music loud and heavy. Within this Islamic fundamentalist state there is a growing and important force of secularism that wants nothing but peace.

• Lastly, Iran is dominated by Shi'a Islam. While a minority in international Islam, Shi'ites are the majority in Iran. To fundamentalists who adhere to Sunni Islam, Shi'ites are essentially heretics. It makes no sense that Sunnis like Osama Bin Laden and Sunni terrorist groups like Al Qaeda would wish to support the Iranian government.

What to conclude therefore? As I said, Iran is not all peacefulness and light. No doubt there are some within the government or within the population who wish to bring terror to the world. Yet the evidence of history shows that Iran is much less threatening to the world - and to America - than what many might think. They have a history of non-aggression; various top politicians have publicly denounced terrorism; they offer deep sympathy to America in response to 9/11; they have acted peacefully towards religious minorities in their own midst, most notably Jews; they have a growing reformist movement that wishes dialogue and peace with America and other western nations.

I say Ahmadinejad should lay the wreath. It is to America's shame that they would not accord to him the courtesy of other world leaders.

© 2007 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/

FAQ about the author





This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Islam vs Secularism - who will win?

From the department of going against the grain:

A group of young Muslim apostates launches a campaign today, the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on America, to make it easier to renounce Islam.

The provocative move reflects a growing rift between traditionalists and a younger generation raised on a diet of Dutch tolerance.

The Committee for Ex-Muslims promises to campaign for freedom of religion but has already upset the Islamic and political Establishments for stirring tensions among the million-strong Muslim community in the Netherlands.

Ehsan Jami, the committee’s founder, who rejected Islam after the attack on the twin towers in 2001, has become the most talked-about public figure in the Netherlands. He has been forced into hiding after a series of death threats and a recent attack.

Al Mohler still wants us to have more babies

Here's the link, but I'm not going to quote anything.

Basically, Mohler makes the following assumptions:

1. Having less babies will inevitably lead to economic crisis.
2. Europe's birth rate is low while its Muslim population has high birth rates, leading to an Islamic Europe.
3. The choice to not have babies is essentially a selfish one.
4. That childlessness has at its basis a form of pseudo-science that originated with Hitler.
5. America's relatively high birthrate is because of altruistic efforts to make the world a better place.
6. Modern Europe will decline like the Roman Empire.
   

Let me point out some simple rebuttals, each numbered according to Mohler's assumptions above.

1. Countries with low birthrates (below 2.1 children/woman) will eventually begin to shrink. There are substantial savings to be made, especially in the area of infrastructure (roads, electricity, water, rail) and housing. With less people inhabiting the same space as a previous generation, there will be no need to build major infrastructure projects and housing will be relatively cheap.
2. First generation immigrants will often reflect the birth-rates of their land of birth. Thus women from a high birth-rate country will still have lots of babies in their new country (such as Europe). However, their children and their grandchildren will have babies at the same rate as the nation around them. Muslims in Europe now may be having lots of babies... but the next generation of European-born Muslims won't. (Iran, btw, has a low birthrate - below replacement level. Iranians are mainly Islamic and do not live in a rich country... yet their birthrate is low)
3. There is no passage in the bible which directly commands human beings to have a minimum of 3 children. Moreover, scientific studies into animal birthrates show that many animals choose to put off reproduction when times are "tough".
4. I won't even bother to argue this one. Mohler breaks Godwin so he loses.
5. *Choke*. America is wonderful and unselfish because the people have lots of babies? What sort of argument is that? Besides, US birthrates are on their way down... which, for Mohler, would probably indicate the growing godlessness of America. It's sad to see that the same guy who signed The Cambridge Declaration - which states that the inerrant Scripture to be the sole source of written divine revelation, which alone can bind the conscience - is binding the consciences of Christians with the unbiblical drivel he espouses here.
6. As I mentioned a few days ago, invoking the fall of the Roman Empire to bolster your argument is getting to be as bad as Godwin these days.
   

A good response to persecution?

From the Washington Post:

JAKARTA, Indonesia -- A dozen Christian men were convicted Thursday and sentenced to up to 14 years in jail for beating to death and beheading two Muslims to avenge the government executions of three Christians in Indonesia last year.

Five other Christians received eight-year terms for burying the pair, who were set upon by a mob as they drove though a Christian neighborhood on Sulawesi island a day after the Sept. 22, 2006, executions of Fabianus Tibo and two other Christian militants.

The three executed Christians had been found guilty of leading a militia that killed at least 70 Muslims during a 1999-2002 religious war on the island that led to the deaths of at least 1,000 people from both faiths.

Al Qaeda Supports the emerging church

Quite a few bloggers have pointed this one out. It's quite disgraceful. Here's a sample:

If the world is to be saved from Muslim conquest, it will be America who does it. And if America is to be saved, only conservatism can do it. And if conservatism is to be saved, it will be those Bible-believing patriots who do it–those conservative, evangelical Christians who are the bedrock of the American way of life.

Update:
Tom Ascol comments about this at his blog and some of the comments there are worth reading. From what I can see there is a unity amongst non-emerging types against this article. In other words, yes we disagree with the emerging church but no they are not terrorists.

I suppose it shows just how poor the situation has become in the US that people are so willing to call someone a deadly enemy based upon theological disagreements like this.

Bollywood singer dresses in Burqa and enters Mosque

Controversial? Yes. But he is a Muslim and wanted to pray at the Mosque without being recognised by fans. Only in India.

Ethnicity and Terrorism

One of the more obvious things that people seem to go on about is the linking of Islam to Terrorism - as though, somehow, there is a very easy merging of the two.

The problem is that ethnic differences between Muslims can and will make it harder for Terrorist-lining Fundamentalists to succeed in their supposed desire for international Jihad.

This struck me a few months ago when I discovered the Wikipedia article on Iranian Rock music. Iranain Rock bands look remarkably similar in their stage appearance to Western ones. They may sing in a different language and have facial features that are more "Middle Eastern" in appearance, but their style of music and dress seem quite similar to the West. And, of course, the big issue is - they are playing relatively freely in a country that is considered to be ruled by a Fundamentalist theocracy.

It's hardly the sort of thing we Westerners like to get our head around. It's far easier to describe them all as "Muslims" or "Middle Eastern people" and to make generalised assumptions about them. Not a good thing to do.

Osama Bin Laden, for example, is an Arabic speaking Arab. He is devout in his Sunni faith to the point of having head-dress and a long beard - the latter being a clear symbol of his religious faith. Saddam never had a beard like Osama's, and very rarely wore Arabic-style clothing. Instead he looked a bit like an Arabic version of Burt Reynolds with his moustache. He was secular, no doubt about it, and had little time to focus upon serving his religious faith. The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a Farsi-speaking Persian Shiite. His beard is short, an indication of his Shiite faith.

There are other ethnic groups arounf the Middle East. There are Kurds, there are Pashtuns, there are Tajiks and there are Turkic people. All have their own customs, religious peculiarities and language.

Even though Islam unites these people in their faith, it is exceptionally difficult to cross cultural backgrounds. It certainly happens, of course, but it is not endemic.

Islamic Terrorism is, therefore, not as much a danger as people think. The 9/11 Terrorists were Arabs. The Taliban are Pashtun. Iraqis are Arabs. Iranians are Persians. Iraq may break up over ethnic lines but it is unlikely that Arabic Shiite Iraqis would agree with joing the Persian Shiite Iran. Different language and culture. Like Australia being offered to join Greece.

These differences are real, no imagined. Muslims are not a monolithic, easily-defined group of people that we Westerners can demonise. There are certainly radical elements in all these groups, but their different languages and experience make it exceptionally difficult for a group like Al-Qaeda to move through.


© 2007 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/

FAQ about the author






This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Fred, Fred, Fred...

Now the guy wants Muslim Immigration stopped.

Look, as an Evangelical Christian I understand and believe that Muslims have a false belief and worship a false God. Any Christian who takes the Bible seriously has no alternative but to hold to an exclusionist belief system.

And I also understand that, since 2001, Muslims have been quite active around the world in terrorist activities. I won't go into the issue of who to blame for that (since 2003 the levels of terrorist violence perpetrated by Muslims increased markedly. Hmmm, I wonder what happened in 2003 that got Muslims upset?), but I will point out the following:

* There is a difference between Muslims who are culturally Muslim, and those who adhere to a Fundamentalist approach to it.
* The vast majority of Muslims around the world are culturally Muslim and want nothing more than peace and harmony and the ability to just get on with their lives.
* There is a small amount of Muslims who have decided to take the Koran literally and apply it to the world of unbelievers and use violence to achieve that end.

I have no problem if Muslims want to come to Australia who are not fundamentalist but simply cultural in their beliefs. These people will not cause us problems. I have taught classrooms where Muslims are present and they can be just as good or bad as any non-Muslim. I even got Christmas cards from two Turkish girls who came to school each day without headscarves and who didn't really know much about Islam.

Christians today seem to forget that Muslims do not all follow the one belief system. We see Osama declaring Jihad against the West and sending planes into buildings and we are rightly shocked. But these people who come to Australia are not like this. They have come here not to start up a breeding program and conquer the country through the eventual enforcement of Islamic law, but to escape poverty and live in peace.

And remember, Christians, that every unbeliever who comes to us from these countries may have the chance to hear the Gospel of Christ - something that they may not have heard in their home countries.

My take on Islamic Terrorism

I wrote the following comment at my favourite right-wing blogger - Carol Platt Liebau.

If you take 9/11 out of the equation, America has been spared pretty much any terror activities by Islamic terrorists.

One theory for this is that America has been able to engage them in Iraq rather than on American soil - but that argument seems to fall down when one considers terror attacks in places like London, Madrid and Bali.

There's no doubt that America's internal security arrangements since 9/11 have helped enormously. However, given the problems of illegal immigration and illegal drugs entering America, it is obvious that many holes still remain.

So why aren't the Islamic terrorists exploiting these security holes?

I would argue that the reason is because the Islamic terrorists were never as sophisticated or well planned as we would like to believe. They do not have the wherewithal to take advantage of America's security holes without being noticed.

Which means, of course, that 9/11 was actually a lucky event, rather than the beginning of a well planned assault on America.

Islamic terrorism has not been, and never will be, a threat to world peace in the same way as Soviet Communism was in the 1950s and 1960s.

Miami "terrorists" are not muslim

Well, according to Juan Cole they are not. They appear to be some quasi-religious group called "The Seas of David" and wear distinctly Jewish insignia (but are NOT Jews).

Israel and Palestine united (part one)

I've been trying to get my head around the whole Arab-Israeli conflict for years now. Back when I was a callow youth, I used to play a board game by Avalon Hill called "Arab-Israeli Wars". Back then I loved war games and saw the game as a US/Soviet match-up that consistently proved the superority of Americans and Israelis over Russians and Arabs. I still have the game somewhere in this room, but I will always remember that, while Israeli units were outnumbered often 2-1 in these simulations, they more than made up for it by the quality of the weapons available.

So naturally as a teenager I was very pro-Israel. It had nothing to do with my Christian faith since neither my church at the time nor my family ever exhibited anything close to Zionism or Dispensationalism. I was also very gung-ho for America in those days too, so obviously Israel was an outpost of freedom in a Soviet-controlled Middle East.

I then began to question the "goodness" of Israel when I was about 18 or 19. I'd seen footage of Arab civilians being shot at by Israeli soldiers and was apparently angry enough to write a poem that equated the Israeli oppression of Arabs to the Nazi treatment of Jews during the second world war. It would be an understatement for me to say that, in hindsight, I regret it now.

Let me be very clear at this point: I think Israel as a nation has a right to exist. Had I any involvement in the pre-1948 discussions though, I would do the best I could to dissuade them from creating Israel. This may sound contradictory but let me explain further.

Had I been around before 1948, I would have argued that to create an entirely new country with a whole bunch of European refugees was probably a good thing - so long as it didn't displace anyone who was already there. Had they created a Jewish nation in central Australia I wouldn't have minded. The problem was that to create a Jewish nation in Palestine - no matter how "justified" it might have seemed at the time - by displacing and disenfranchising people who had lived there for centuries was a bad thing. Had the Arabs in Palestine been consulted and drawn into the process then, who knows, they may actually have supported it. (very unlikely, but certainly possible)

But the fact that I don't think that the modern state of Israel should've been created in the first place doesn't mean that I wish the state to be dissolved now. Far from it. Millions of people have been born within the borders of the state of Israel and to them it is their home. Modern Israel is a sophisticated culture with a well-run political and social system. Even though I feel sympathy for the plight of Arabs in and around the state of Israel, to argue for the dissolution of such a nation would be stupid and immoral.

But I do want peace in that area. On the one hand I want citizens of Israel to be happy and prosperous. On the other hand I want anyone who has been disenfranchised and disadvantaged by the actions of Israel to be given freedom and support.

Well, that was supposed to be the introduction. Now onto what I'm really talking about...

The population of Israel is around 6.9 million people. Of these, around 1.3 million are Arabs and 5.3 million are Jewish. The small amount of research I have done on this shows that these Israeli Arabs have the same legal and political rights as any other citizen of Israel - ie they can vote, they can become members of parliament (Knesset) and they are protected by the laws that protect all citizens of Israel.

Moreover, while they are still relatively poor compared to Israeli Jews, Israeli Arabs seem to have a better standard of living than Palestinian Arabs, and also appear to be much more peaceful than their Palestinian cousins. I may be wrong here, but I think that the vast majority of terrorist attacks perpetrated upon Israel over the years have been the result of Palestinian Arabs - Arabs who are citizens of Israel have not, to my limited knowledge, created too much trouble for their fellow Jewish citizens.

This is not to say that there are problems. Israeli Arabs are not always looked kindly upon by Israeli Jews. In August 2005, an AWOL member of the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) named Eden Natan-Zada opened fire in a bus and killed four Israeli Arabs - two Christian men and two Muslim women. There also appears to be some discrimination in terms of funding between towns that are predominately Arab and those that are predominately Jewish. Some of the more dogmatic Israeli Jews, including Avigdor Liberman, have actually suggested that some towns (containing mainly Israeli Arabs) near the West Bank could be transferred over to the Palestinian Territories in exchange for keeping certain Jewish settlements. Liberman's voice does not represent a majority - but it is a voice that is heard in Israeli politics.

At issue here is a simple question - do you have to be Jewish in order to be a citizen of Israel? According to their constitution, no. According to the "Law of Return", yes. Certainly the constitution does not eliminate from citizenship Israeli Arabs, but the "law of return" allows for any Jewish person around the world to come and become a citizen of Israel - a law which obviously discriminates in favour of a certain religious and ethnic background (and one which is obviously controversial, but hardly unique).

It always struck me as odd, therefore, that whenever a Jewish settlement was built in the Palestinian territories, that Israel would assert its right to protect its citizens, grant them legal and voting status and (either fully or partially) control the Palestinian authorities to ensure their protection. If Gaza and the West Bank are not part of a sovereign nation that Israel has invaded then surely they are parts of Israel itself - and if they are part of Israel, then why aren't the Palestinian Arabs who live in these areas granted the same rights as Israeli citizens?

Obviously to do so would create a political and social mess. The Palestinian Territories have nearly 4 million people - most of whom are Islamic Arabs. To grant these people Israeli citizenship would create a massive Islamic bloc within the Knesset. The combined population of Israel and the Palestinian territories is around 10.81 million people, of which at least 5.27 million are Jewish. If this proportion was translated into voting power, Jews would control 48.8% of the vote. The amount of Islamic Arabs would probably be less than that, with the remainder (5-6%) being Christian Arabs.

A mess? Potentially. Yet, at the same time, I can't think of any better long-term solution to the problem.

I would like Israel to extend its boundaries to include the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza - while at the same time extending the right of citizenship to the Palestinian Arabs. This would mean that, while Palestine as a geopolitical entity would dissolve, the actual people losing their "nation" would have their citizenship transferred over. They would not be disenfranchised, nor would they need to be disadvantaged.

Of course, in order to do this both the Palestinians and the Israelis themselves would have to agree with it. Palestinians would have to lay aside their demand for their own geopolitical entity (which, for many, currently includes the destruction of the nation of Israel) while Israelis would have to accept the loss of political power that would naturally result from making the Palestinians into Israeli citizens.

Let me make it simple:

• The Palestinians give up their demand for a nation, but gain citizenship and political power in another.
• The Israelis give up a large chunk of their political power, but gain full control over Gaza and the West Bank.

At this point in history such an event would be impossible to achieve be impossible to maintain. Both sides are suffering from the hatred and violence of the other. I don't care which side is more "responsible" for this violence - I just want it to stop and for foes to become friends. I want all Arabs to enjoy the same rights and privileges as Israeli Jews, and for Israeli Jews to live happy and prosperous lives in a land that their distant ancestors once occupied, alongside Arabs who also have their roots in the land.

Peace, prosperity, freedom and order should be the goal - something that can best be created by uniting Palestine and Israel into one nation.

How can that be done? You'll just have to wait for part two.


From the One Salient Overlord Department

© 2006 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/

FAQ about the author




This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.