Gaza and Change

           

  The recent avalanche of studies, analysis, opinions, historic exploration, clarification missions and social media frenzy about the ever-so-popular and polemical topic of the Middle East all come against the backdrop of a brutal and senseless act of vengeance in the Gaza strip that is draped with a military façade of Israeli self-defence. The Arab world enunciated a Facebook war on the Israeli aggression and countless videos have been posted, shared and commented on by sympathizers. Newspapers, columnists, professors, journalists, scholars, bloggers and activists all had their share in the action. They all buttressed the same cause, that of saving innocent lives, but employed different angles to approach the issue. Some craftily penned their analysis of the situation only to reconfirm the status quo and the reasons behind this stalemate; others had better intentions at heart and tried to come up with explications to why things are the way they are. Interesting articles have been posted in prestigious publications, citing the example of The Economist, where a three-page-article explained why the Arab Spring failed and what has gone wrong in this region. This topic of course touched on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in general, going back in time to colonial days and moving on to modern days of patriarchal rule, the political-Islam wave and socio-economic factors that hampered democracy building. The historic aspect is almost always present in any article of the same nature. Other interesting articles explained how Muslims should not be blamed for Jewish suffering, one even referring to Albanian charitable acts when protecting and hiding Jews in their household in the thirties and forties of the past century. Other op-eds and analytical articles tried to shed light on Israeli expansionist plans and every intention to Swiss-cheese the Palestinian territories and annihilate the entire Palestinian population slowly, and then defend/justify what is happening in Gaza. Islam, Al Qaeda, ISIS, terrorism, Arab nationalism, Fateh, Zionism, holy war, Nazis, Hamas, Egypt’s Al Sisi, Arab reactionary states and of course international oblivious attitude were amongst the most popular themes covered when addressing the Israeli attack. Young, indignant and heated Arabs’ calls for death to all Jews and fully fledge jihad against the Israeli state have been employed as a let -off-some-steam consoling and solidarity activity, which, as expected, was completely void and reaped zero results (and thank God for that).

   So now what? After all the posted videos, all the historical aspects of the conflict explained and all the injustices done to Palestinians portrayed, what is the end result? As useful as these studies and angles of explaining the conflict are, and as equally important the sporadic acts of support (via charities, NGOs, government initiatives, international intervention) are,  I think it is about time to admit what many (especially Arabs) hate to admit:

1: Israel won. Game-over. No re-matches. The state of Israel exists, it is democratic, it is blooming economically, its population is growing, it has been accepted by the international community as a partner, it hosts industrial plants for international mega brands, international player in the financial market, and it is flourishing in arts, music, sports and technology. It is also willing and working on expanding and annexing more lands, just like many countries across the universe, albeit indirectly and under other pretexts.

2: The myth of Arab nationalism and collective action must die. Let us all announce jihad on that please. Arab states never acted collectively for any cause, and will never do. Needless it is to mention that this is also applicable to Islamic states. Palestinians must act alone. Completely alone. PLO was recognized in 1974 as the sole legal representative of the Palestinians for a reason, the reason is crystal clear: Palestinians must assume the responsibility of their lands. Arab states did their share in creating this mess, so perhaps asking them to stay out of it would reverse some of the bad done.

3: Point two applicable to the international community as well. Leave Russians and Americans alone. If they want to get involved, fine, but do not cry out for their help or interference.

4: History is history. No need to go back to Salahil Deen’s wars and restoration of an all-encompassing Palestine. Nor is it necessary to demonize Germans and their European accomplices in the Jewish issue, and fret over how everyone was conspiring against Arabs in WWII. The damage is done. Deal with it.

5: Hamas, whether a militant organization, a militarized party, an off-shoot of Muslim Brotherhood or a puppet organization controlled by regional regimes is a failure. It failed on all levels. It has not brought any solutions on the ground. Gazans still suffer, no economic alleviation, no political advances, no democratic practices and not one fulfilled promise has been achieved. From a purely political perspective, no one should vote for Hamas in any election, and the organization must die-off slowly.

     So now that we established that Palestinians must act alone, no need for historic grievances, absolutely no need for Arab aid, Israel’s evil plans and plots can be ignored for a while and Hamas must go, something must happen. That thing is the secret to the solution of the problem once and for all. Political awareness and democratization. New parties with educated leaderships must start leading Gazans and Palestinians in general. Educated, informed, pragmatic and calculated visionary political actors are needed. Those will carry the much much needed task of raising public awareness, of telling people the truth, of galvanizing support to a political and arms-free solution and to make people believe that change is only possible when change is in fact initiated. Gazans cannot expect to employ the same failing techniques over and over again and expect change. Justice and injustice are not the issue here. Whether Hamas' cause is moral and its acts stem from all the wrong that has been done to the Palestinians is also irrelevant at the moment. Whether Israel if the devil itself is also irrelevant (noting that many Israelis oppose thier government's actions). What is relevant is a solution. A solution that is sustainable, that is achievable and that can save what can be saved.

     It pains me to defend surrender, but maybe surrendering a little bit is needed. Should we be living in a just world, Palestine would be free, and Jews and Arabs should be sharing the land and jointly and fairly administering it. They would be no apartheid states. There would be no injustices, there would be no more hundreds of thousands of orphans nor just as many grieving mothers. There would be no separation walls, no check points, no suicidal training camps, no human rights violations and no war seasons. But these do exist, and are tolerated by the entire world. The proof to that is that nothing and no one is stopping them. That is the reality of the issue. Should the popular belief that Israel would not stop before it chases away all Arabs from West Bank, Israel and Gaza, then maybe now is the time to change the strategy long followed and try a new approach. Just because Israelis successfully won their land in the 1940s by employing guerrillas attacks against Great Britain to gain independence does not mean that this strategy will work today. Change is needed, and it has to come from within.

So back to political parties. Some hope can be pinned on a system that nurtures democracy. Israelis will not suddenly lift all embargos from the Strip, allow free movement, free political prisoners and ease procedures to access Gaza and create businesses in it, but it will have to admit that Gazans are following demcoractic and peaceful means to solve the historic crisis. The rhetoric of killing all Jews and vengeance to every dead Palestinian would stop, and a more mature and reasonable political discourse would follow. Slowly, the population will catch on, and with correct management of funds and resources, education and awareness building will make Gazans more innovative and tenacious in their quest for independence and dignified lives. This can never be achieved without collective action, and that action needs to be addressed via activists with a political identity: parties. 

It is not too late. Change is possible. But it is not miraculous. That is why the first step is to get rid of the dominating political force that has failed to achieve any real goal, and create new leaderships that can create change. From there on, the tradition must carry on, just as a Portuguese proverb says: Politicians and diapers should be changed frequently and all for the same reason. 

Where Can I Apply for an IS Visa for the Wife and Kids?

     

      The leader of the notorious Islamic State of Iraq and Syria has finally achieved the minimum requirements to establish his state: occupied areas in Iraq and Syria, controlled check points at regional borders, thousands of followers from salafists worldwide, access to oil and resources, decent weaponry confiscated from Americans and promised state/personal funding (controversial is the source). That is why the group’s leader’s announcement of his appointment as the khalifa of all Muslims, after having established/revived the Khilafa in the Levant, crowned the triumphant trajectory of the ISIS throughout the past year or so (as a fully independent group).

 

     The establishment of an Islamic State, led by the new Khalifa Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi, and the call for immigration to the new State should be very worrying as the idea does appeal to many. The foundations of a state are present: land, check; resources, check; army, check; philosophical base of founding the state; check; promises of guaranteed economic well-being and social justice with the enforcement of divine rules, check; a political system based also on divine revelations and interpretations, also check. ISIS, after all , managed to achieve what other salafist groups, mainly Al Qaeda, failed to. It founded an Islamic state (and is not worried about UN recognition) whose foundations appeal to the oppressed and the poor, a state that gives hope to the many who have been done injustice, and promises dignity of a nation that has long been suffering oppression, utilization, exploitation and humiliation.

 

     The Sunday call of the Al Baghdadi on all Muslims to immigrate to the newly established state should be taken very seriously by regional and international authorities; signs of actual support and allegiance to the group have already been demonstrated with the affiliation of thousands with the Group….having a state where they can call the shots and practice/enjoy full sovereignty should be just as popular.  But then agaon, how worried should these countries be? When Muslims in the UK, Spain, France, USA, Jordan, Chechnya, Indonesia and other countries across the globe  who sympathize with the ISIS hear the call, how will they react? Will they pack and leave?

    The main question is the following: how attractive would it be for a jihadist to uproot his family from a safe and stable country (despite economic woos and other complaints) and start anew in the new Islamic State? When it comes to the practicality of the issue, when all rhetoric fades, when the urge to kill and put mortal combat techniques in practice dwindles, and when fighters choose to take a rest and go back home for a while (as many do), will the Islamic State still be an attractive alternative to one’s won homeland? Nearly one hundred years have passed since the existence of an all-encompassing Islamic Empire, during which nation-states have been up and functioning…do these one hundred years not have any impact on the preference of citizens’ lifestyles? Is it not too early to tear down borders and mesh people together under the name of Islam? Are these questions considered by ISIS followers and their families?

 

    The ISIS perhaps did not take into account the psychological aspect of human behaviour, considering that rhetoric and heroic slogans - as attractive as they may be -  reflect differently on actual day-to-day life styles. Did they not see how miserably the Taliban movement failed and how many rejected its doctrine? A movement – no matter how supreme and idealistic and acceptable its slogans are – should separate what people say and believe and what they actually are ready to do.

 

     The few coming months are critical; immigration to the Islamic State is possible as the ISIS controls many border check points and can, for a while, sustain an economy and provide basic services. Perhaps regional countries' dilemma would be whether they should let these enthusiasts leave and never come back, where they can suffer from their own poor choices and what becoming an IS citizen means, or, as always championed in this blog, try to win their people back by carrying out promised political and economic reforms, guaranteeing a dignified life and therefore rendering IS completely unnecessary. If not, then please expedite the inauguration of an IS embassy or a consulate for visa services.

Ps: please note that I am very proud of my Islamic heritage. Many Islamic states today, and most Islamic empires before, have contributed generously to the world, serving as the heartland of science, philosophy and art. Islam was, is and will always be an elegant and peaceful way of life…a divine revelation that blessed us. These fundamentalists will never speak in the name of Islam and will never represent believers.