Arab Imperialism Unmasked: The Hypocrisy Behind the Anti-Israel Agenda

[rylah]

​

 

[rylah]

The Legacy of the Arab Slave Trade​

Did you know that the Arab slave trade has left a lasting legacy that continues to affect millions today, including those in Hamas ruled in Gaza.

The Arab slave trade, which began centuries before the transatlantic slave trade, was responsible for the forced migration and enslavement of millions of Africans. This dark chapter of history has left deep scars, not only in Africa but also in the Middle East.

• Fact 1: The Arab slave trade spanned over a millennium, with an estimated 17 million Africans enslaved and transported across the Arab world.
• Fact 2: The legacy of this trade is still evident today, with discriminatory practices and social hierarchies persisting in various Arab countries.

​

One striking example is the Al Jalla'a district of Gaza, where at least 11,000 Africans live in a neighborhood called “Al Abeed,” which means slaves in Arabic. This name starkly reveals the deep-seated racism driving the Arab-Palestinian agenda today that many prefer to ignore.

How does the historical legacy of the Arab slave trade affect modern-day perceptions of human rights in the Middle East? What does the continued use of names like "Al Abeed" tell us about the real agenda of those who exploit the African American narrative for Arab imperialism?

​

Kefala - Modern Slavery in the Arab World
​

"The sense of entitlement that these employers have that they fully have justified to themselves keeping her (domestic worker) working for months and sometimes years without paying. And even when we approached them, refusing to send her home, it's quite bewildering, to be honest."

​

 

[rylah]

Islamic and Arab Imperialism and Irredentism is driving the conflict between the river and the sea​

The prevailing paradigm concerning the conflict over the land from the Jordan to the Mediterranean runs roughly as follows. Israel is the last manifestation of Western imperialism and colonialism, the most pernicious and pervasive imperialism the world has ever known, something Western democracies renounced after World War II. They came in the 20th century, displaced the natives and stole their land. Palestinian violence against Israelis is fully justified in response to this terrible offense.

Michael Merriman-Lotze articulates it clearly in comparing the violence that comes from the Israeli and the Arab side:

in short it is my opinion that Israeli violence is the violence that must be exercised to maintain a neo-colonial military occupation and apartheid-like inequality. Palestinian violence is the inevitable response to that occupation and apartheid-like inequality. Violence therefore will only end when the occupation and Israeli apartheid end.

Although I think this narrative, and the justification it gives to some otherwise unimaginable behavior, is mistaken, both empirically and morally, I think it has every right to be articulated in the public sphere and taken seriously. I don’t, however, think it’s appropriate for this point of view to demand from its audience that they not familiarise themselves with alternative analyses. Here is my serious response.

Consider the imperial-colonial paradigm and the insight it offers us in understanding how imperial and colonial impulses have contributed to this enduring conflict. There is no question that the thirst for dominion and supremacy play a key role in many wars, usually resolved by a battle in which one side destroys the other’s military and establishes its dominion. The pattern of hardened warriors coming from the margins of a society, committed to a supra-moral solidarity (my side right or wrong), defeating an empire gone soft with success, becoming in a few generations soft in turn, and victim to another hungry tribe, inspired the social historian Ibn Khaldoun, to take it as a law of political behavior.

But empires are not merely militarily superior, they have a cultural force that is best observed in the colonial aspect of their activities, their day-to-day superiority over their conquered peoples. When Western progressives oppose ‘colonial imperialism’ they oppose cultures whose sense of superiority over others is so great that they have the right to subject them and exploit them under threat of destroying them. And as any progressive can tell you, these are things we categorically reject.

​

But were progressive anti-imperialists to acknowledge that their (‘Western’) culture is – so far – the only imperial culture to renounce the right of dominion, and to consider that observation’s implications, they would realise a fundamental conceptual error: in renouncing dominion, the West (at the height of its military hegemony), rejected an international norm that had governed international culture the world over for millennia. Thus, exotic ‘others’ like the populations and cultures of the Orient, have always, and still play by la raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure. Rule or be ruled. Do onto others before they do onto you.

​

ARAB-MUSLIM IMPERIAL-COLONIALISM​

However, thinking that the West is the only imperial force worth discussing (and condemning), progressive historians have a marked tendency to ignore the millennium and a half-long history of Islamic and Arab imperialism. And yet, that is precisely the path of thought and analysis that leads to a progressive resolution to the profound conflict.

Of all the ancient empires that rose and fell, the most enduring was the last, the monotheistic empire of Islam. In Muhammad’s day, Arabs were warrior tribes, primarily based in the Saudi peninsula. And yet, within a century of his teachings, Islam had spread and covered the area from Iran to Spain. For both extent and durability, it was the most stunning imperial conquest in the history of the world.

One of the most important indicators of the penetration of a conquest concerns its impact on language. Take England. When Angles and Saxons invaded in the 6th and 7th centuries, they chased out the Celtic inhabitants and replaced their tongue with a Germanic one (Anglo-Saxon). When Scandinavians invaded in the 9th-11th centuries, they had limited impact on the English tongue. When post-millennial Europeanised Normans invaded in 1066, the language war between their aristocratic French and native commoner English went on for centuries, eventually producing a marriage of tongues that made English one of the richest languages known.

In the case of the two extreme points of Muslim conquest, Arabic did not dominate. Shi’i Iran kept its language and much of its culture; and in Spain the conquest was turned around beginning in the 11th century, leaving a limited mark on the language of the natives. But from Iraq to Morocco something much more colonial and invasive occurred. Arabs came in as victorious Muslims, and dominated so thoroughly every aspect of this vast swath of cultures and languages that their language (and many mores) dominated everywhere, largely suppressing and replacing almost all the local ones (cf. Berbers).

I note this because it’s important to understand the remarkable continuity between this conquest and the Arab world today. Indeed, the similarity between the attitudes of Arabs in modern times, and in the early Middle Ages are remarkable on key points:

1. Tribal loyalties: the clan structure has shown great durability in Arab culture: us-them loyalties (my side right or wrong), self-help justice, vendettas.
2. Importance of Warrior Honor: one is not a man without killing another man, inflicting humiliation a source of honor, shame is social death, blackened honor is bleached in blood.
3. Alpha Male dominance: gender roles are governed by the male need to assert honor by controlling the sexuality of his women. According to some readings, Muhammad opposed honor-killings, and yet they prevail in most Arab and Muslim cultures (Pakistan, Afghanistan) today.
4. Strong horse politics: power and the ability to instill fear and inspire loyalty with violence are coin of the realm. Power relations constantly disrupted by power-challenges and vendettas.
5. Triumphalist Religiosity: a form of religious belief that insists on public displays of its superiority, it’s honor, over all other religions. Triumphalists feel the need for public signs of respect for their superiority over others. Right up to Westphalia (1648), Christian triumphalism had legitimated wars, including on civilians. The US constitution constitutes the first time in the history of Christianity, that the winners chose tolerance.
6. Monotheistic Imperialism: Triumphalist religiosity is a widespread phenomenon among the nations. Certainly, the Greeks had no doubt of their cultural superiority and expected everyone to acknowledge it in the places they conquered. But monotheism takes imperialism to new heights, with its political formula ‘One God, one ruler, one faith,’ and its doctrinal claims to a monopoly on salvation for all mankind.

The unimaginable success of the imperial expansion of the first century of Islam fed this triumphalist strain among followers of the Prophet. It led to the division of the world into dar al Islam and dar al Harb: where Muslims rule is the realm of submission, where they do not, is the realm of the sword where infidels who have yet to submit to Islam are harbi – destined to the sword.

Read more -​

Islamic and Arab Imperialism and Irredentism is driving the conflict between the river and the sea

Richard Landes is a historian of millennialism living in Jerusalem; his most recent book, Can “The Whole World” be Wrong?: Lethal Journalism, Antisemitism, and Global Jihad. Introduction: Rethink...

fathomjournal.org

​

 

[rylah]

Kefala - Modern Slavery in the Arab World
​

"The sense of entitlement that these employers have that they fully have justified to themselves keeping her (domestic worker) working for months and sometimes years without paying. And even when we approached them, refusing to send her home, it's quite bewildering, to be honest."

​

Arab slave trade and invasion of Africa

​

 

[rylah]

Mutabaruka On Arabs, Muslims, And Colonization Of The Continent​

In this reasoning Rastafari dub poet, musician, actor, educator,
and radio host Mutabaruka speaks about the impact
of the Arabic colonization of Africa.

​

 

[rylah]

​

 

[rylah]

Kikans - Tribes who defeated Arab Invaders​

​

12th Grade Bangladeshi Hindu Girl Writes Letter To PM Modi, ‘The Situation Is Worse Than What People Are Watching On Social Media’

A user on X named – Major Pawan Kumar who also received Shaurya Chakra shared the letter on X, he wrote that a he came across a letter from a 12th standard Hindu girl in Bangladesh. - Newsx

www.newsx.com

'Genocide of Hindus': Bangladeshi Islamists attack minority population, burn houses, kidnap women as the country descends into unholy madness - BusinessToday

The violence erupted as the country was already reeling from the resignation of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and the ensuing power vacuum

www.businesstoday.in

 

[rylah]

George Monastiriakos: Middle East was shaped by Arab colonialism, but some minorities survive despite the odds
​

Have you ever considered the impact of Arab colonialism on the Middle East and North Africa?

This insightful article by George Monastiriakos reveals the often-ignored history of how Arab imperialism shaped the region. Despite centuries of dominance, some resilient minority groups have managed to survive against all odds.

Prepare to be outraged by the historical double standards that have obscured the true diversity of the MENA region. It’s time to acknowledge the enduring presence and contributions of these minority communities.

​

​

 

[rylah]

​

 

[rylah]

Uddhav Thackeray urges PM Modi to ensure safety of Hindus in Bangladesh

Uddhav Thackeray is on a three-day visit to meet leaders of the I.N.D.I.A opposition bloc in New Delhi.

www.deccanherald.com

 

[rylah]

​

 

[rylah]

'Genocide of Hindus': Bangladeshi Islamists attack minority population, burn houses, kidnap women as the country descends into unholy madness - BusinessToday

The violence erupted as the country was already reeling from the resignation of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and the ensuing power vacuum

www.businesstoday.in

Uddhav Thackeray urges PM Modi to ensure safety of Hindus in Bangladesh

Uddhav Thackeray is on a three-day visit to meet leaders of the I.N.D.I.A opposition bloc in New Delhi.

www.deccanherald.com

Hindu houses, businesses attacked in 27 districts

Hindu houses and business establishments were attacked by mobs while their valuables were also looted in at least 27 districts yesterday.

www.thedailystar.net

 

[rylah]

Escaping modern slavery in Lebanon​

Modern Day Slavery: the Kafala System in Lebanon

"Two hundred and fifty thousand workers under the Kafala system in Lebanon are currently struggling to survive in an exploitative system."

hir.harvard.edu

Abolish Kafala Slavery in Lebanon

In this episode, Stephani takes on understanding the Kafala System in Lebanon with the insight and knowledge of This is Lebanon. Together, they dive deep into the history, policies and horrific stories of what we call today, the modern-day slavery, Kafala System.


​

 

[rylah]

Uddhav Thackeray urges PM Modi to ensure safety of Hindus in Bangladesh

Uddhav Thackeray is on a three-day visit to meet leaders of the I.N.D.I.A opposition bloc in New Delhi.

www.deccanherald.com

 

[rylah]

THE ROLE OF ARAB-MUSLIM IMPERIAL-COLONIALISM ON THE CURRENT CONFLICT WITH THE JEWS​

The reason why the Arab world, and the Muslim-Arab world in particular, find Israel categorically unacceptable goes back to the doctrine of Dar al Harb, Dar al Islam. The land between the river and sea became a key part of the exploding Arab-Muslim empire – Dar al Islam – in the 7th century. Fast forward some 14 centuries, and the dissolution of the Caliphate in 1924 (the first ‘Nakba’) put an end to Dar al Islam formally. In the eyes of the West, Islam, the millennia-long foe, had been put in its place.

But this triumphalist vision of a world ultimately entirely submitted to Allah (through Islam) lived on, taking on a more modern form, more powerful and effective than the Ottoman basket case. Hassan al-Banna formed the Muslim Brotherhood (1927), a multi-generational plan to revive true Islam, fight the forces of secular modernity making inroads in the Arab world whose progress al-Banna saw as a regression to the ‘Jahaliyya,’ i.e. the ‘Ignorance’ of the pre-Islamic Arab world. He sought a long-term, multi-generational goal of a new salvific and eventually global Caliphate in which Muslims ruled according to Sharia: Where there was Dar al Harb, there shall be Dar al Islam.

For al-Banna, his triumphalist followers and sympathisers, the demotion of Islam in the eyes of the nations that had occurred through the military and cultural success of Western imperial-colonialists, threatened the very religion itself: ‘a declaration of war on all shapes of Islam.’ For them, Islam must dominate. Few forces today that seek global hegemony are so open about their imperial ambitions.

In the minds of supremacists like al Banna, therefore, the creation of Israel was a further catastrophe in this long war on Islam, the loss of territory in the heart of what was and should be dar al Islam, and a denial of Muslim imperial claims. The core of the Arab-Muslim irredentist demand that Israel be destroyed, is a direct expression of this imperialist Islam from its first century. Free infidels are anathema to Islam’s triumphalist sovereignty. ‘We cannot concede a grain of sand to Jews.’ For Abul A’la al-Maududi, the most systematic thinker of modern Islam explained, Jews must exist in the state of submission. ‘The purpose for which the Muslims are required to fight is … to put an end to their sovereignty and supremacy.’[1] To have the dissolution of the Caliphate followed two decades later by a Jewish state in the heart of what should be Dar al Islam was a continuation of the same war ‘against all shapes of Islam.’ For triumphalist Muslims like al-Banna, Islam necessitated dominion. Its demotion on the world stage was an existential threat. Hence, losing the battle with the Jews threatened to be an unmitigated disaster, utter humiliation on a global scale in response to which, in complete confidence in their impending victory, the Arab League promised historic massacres. To lose would fatally wound triumphalist Islam’s need for visible dominion. To Muslims such as these, Israel was a blasphemy against the Prophet (PBUH). An intolerable degradation. Another nakba. Indeed, The Muslim Brotherhood, initially a weak movement, only came into its own in the fight against Zionism.[2]

THE NAKBA​

This hard zero-sum mentality – if you win (anything) I lose; in order for me to win you must lose (everything) – has characterised one of the dominant currents in Arab attitudes towards Jews in the modern period. It’s not that more egalitarian, mutually respectful relations didn’t exist. The large influx of both Jews and Arabs in the first half of the 20th century, with far greater growth where Jews and Arabs lived together (Haifa) than where Arabs lived alone (and dominant), attests to the possibility of civil, voluntary relations between the two populations.[3] The current situation in Israeli hospitals is a rare case of a large Muslim minority integrated into the workings of professional democratic institutions. Israel has better relations with its Arab-Muslim citizens than any European country currently, despite having twice as large a population as any other democracy.

The Zionists put great importance on that reciprocity, and unlike European imperialism (which they saw themselves as explicitly rejecting), they purchased and worked the land, and played by the prevailing rules rather than conquering and then settling the land of displaced populations. They understood that their ability to live in the (former) Dar al Islam (i.e. among Muslim-majority nations), depended on that civil, demotic model of non-coercive, contractual relations prevailing. Their declaration of independence makes it clear that they operated in the liberal-progressive tradition of egalitarianism and self-determination rather than authoritarian imperialism.

The Great Arab Revolt of 1936-39, in which the Muslim Brotherhood played an important role, asserted the hard zero-sum triumphalist position. People who participated in the assault on both the British imperialists and the Zionists, did so to restore Arab honor. The Peel Commission made a point of asking Arab rioters how come, if things had so dramatically improved since the arrival of the Zionists, were they attacking Jews? Responded one rioter: ‘You say we are better off: you say my house has been enriched by the strangers who have entered it. But it is my house, and I did not invite the strangers in, or ask them to enrich it. Better a mat of my own than a shared house.’ In other words, ‘I prefer poverty as a member of the dominant group, to sharing in wealth’. One might call it a lose-lose: I can only ‘win’ (live in poverty) if you lose.

What we have here is a good example of what, mutatis mutandis, became of the spirit of Muslim imperial-colonialism over the many centuries in the land between the river and the sea. By the later Ottoman period, this was a classic case of so many prime-divider societies where the ruling elites dominate the vast majority of commoners living in poverty, and the backwater of a failing system: Muslim peasants – fellahin – and other commoners were in dire shape, impoverished by natural conditions, Bedouin raids, exploitative absentee landlords, and heavy state taxation, living at the edge of subsistence.

Their condition was far from the glorious triumphalism of their ancestors, but that apparently did not mean they renounced the proud sense of superiority appropriate to the conquest, but now threadbare … A mat of my own. When the Muslim Brotherhood and the Arab Nationalists denounced Western imperial-colonial aggression, they did so accurately: both sides were engaged in la raison du plus fort. But what they opposed to that aggression was their own, robust, millennia-long, imperial-colonialism, the so-called ‘resistance’ was imperial competition for dominion.

This framework clarifies the Muslim stakes in Israel’s creation. Nothing could be more catastrophic than the Jews, historically the weakest and most cowardly of the dhimmi, establishing an autonomous state in the heart of (what should be) Dar al Islam. (Scholars of shame-honor cultures note that as long as a humiliating fact [e.g. a wife’s infidelity] isn’t made public, it is bearable.) A Jewish state in Palestine was just such a public announcement of Muslim impotence.

And yet, that is precisely what happened. And the response to the catastrophe was to imprison the refugees from Palestine in ‘refugee camps’ (where most still live) and swear eternal enmity to the ‘Zionist entity.’ Here one finds the key triumphalist response among Arabs to Israel’s inexplicable and blasphemous success, a response that has dominated Arab leaders with few exceptions, to present: make your own people suffer as a way to promote the war you won’t admit you lost. Hamas explains:

The day the enemies conquer some part of the Muslim land, jihad becomes a personal duty of every Muslim. In the face of the Jewish occupation of Palestine, it is necessary to raise the banner of jihad. This requires the propagation of Islamic consciousness among the masses, locally [in Palestine], in the Arab world and in the Islamic world. It is necessary to instill the spirit of jihad in the nation, engage the enemies and join the ranks of the jihad fighters.

Read more:

Islamic and Arab Imperialism and Irredentism is driving the conflict between the river and the sea

Richard Landes is a historian of millennialism living in Jerusalem; his most recent book, Can “The Whole World” be Wrong?: Lethal Journalism, Antisemitism, and Global Jihad. Introduction: Rethink...

fathomjournal.org

Proof The Israeli-Arab Conflict Is About Islamic Conquest Not "Freeing Palestine"​

​

 

[rylah]

​

 

[rylah]

The Legacy of the Arab Slave Trade​

Did you know that the Arab slave trade has left a lasting legacy that continues to affect millions today, including those in Hamas ruled in Gaza.

The Arab slave trade, which began centuries before the transatlantic slave trade, was responsible for the forced migration and enslavement of millions of Africans. This dark chapter of history has left deep scars, not only in Africa but also in the Middle East.

• Fact 1: The Arab slave trade spanned over a millennium, with an estimated 17 million Africans enslaved and transported across the Arab world.
• Fact 2: The legacy of this trade is still evident today, with discriminatory practices and social hierarchies persisting in various Arab countries.

​

One striking example is the Al Jalla'a district of Gaza, where at least 11,000 Africans live in a neighborhood called “Al Abeed,” which means slaves in Arabic. This name starkly reveals the deep-seated racism driving the Arab-Palestinian agenda today that many prefer to ignore.

How does the historical legacy of the Arab slave trade affect modern-day perceptions of human rights in the Middle East? What does the continued use of names like "Al Abeed" tell us about the real agenda of those who exploit the African American narrative for Arab imperialism?

​

How Slavery Persists in Arab Countries?
​

Slavery still persists in the 21st century in the form of the kafala system. The kafala system is a legal framework used to govern relationships between employers and employees in Arab countries, especially in the Persian Gulf. The kafala system in its modern iteration came about in the early 20th century pearl industry as a means of regulating the treatment of foreign pearl divers. In the Gulf Arab states, expatriate workers from other Arab countries, Africa, and South Asia make up a majority of the population. However, they are barred from obtaining citizenship and are treated little better than slaves.

​

 

[rylah]

THE ROLE OF ARAB-MUSLIM IMPERIAL-COLONIALISM ON THE CURRENT CONFLICT WITH THE JEWS​

The reason why the Arab world, and the Muslim-Arab world in particular, find Israel categorically unacceptable goes back to the doctrine of Dar al Harb, Dar al Islam. The land between the river and sea became a key part of the exploding Arab-Muslim empire – Dar al Islam – in the 7th century. Fast forward some 14 centuries, and the dissolution of the Caliphate in 1924 (the first ‘Nakba’) put an end to Dar al Islam formally. In the eyes of the West, Islam, the millennia-long foe, had been put in its place.

But this triumphalist vision of a world ultimately entirely submitted to Allah (through Islam) lived on, taking on a more modern form, more powerful and effective than the Ottoman basket case. Hassan al-Banna formed the Muslim Brotherhood (1927), a multi-generational plan to revive true Islam, fight the forces of secular modernity making inroads in the Arab world whose progress al-Banna saw as a regression to the ‘Jahaliyya,’ i.e. the ‘Ignorance’ of the pre-Islamic Arab world. He sought a long-term, multi-generational goal of a new salvific and eventually global Caliphate in which Muslims ruled according to Sharia: Where there was Dar al Harb, there shall be Dar al Islam.

For al-Banna, his triumphalist followers and sympathisers, the demotion of Islam in the eyes of the nations that had occurred through the military and cultural success of Western imperial-colonialists, threatened the very religion itself: ‘a declaration of war on all shapes of Islam.’ For them, Islam must dominate. Few forces today that seek global hegemony are so open about their imperial ambitions.

In the minds of supremacists like al Banna, therefore, the creation of Israel was a further catastrophe in this long war on Islam, the loss of territory in the heart of what was and should be dar al Islam, and a denial of Muslim imperial claims. The core of the Arab-Muslim irredentist demand that Israel be destroyed, is a direct expression of this imperialist Islam from its first century. Free infidels are anathema to Islam’s triumphalist sovereignty. ‘We cannot concede a grain of sand to Jews.’ For Abul A’la al-Maududi, the most systematic thinker of modern Islam explained, Jews must exist in the state of submission. ‘The purpose for which the Muslims are required to fight is … to put an end to their sovereignty and supremacy.’[1] To have the dissolution of the Caliphate followed two decades later by a Jewish state in the heart of what should be Dar al Islam was a continuation of the same war ‘against all shapes of Islam.’ For triumphalist Muslims like al-Banna, Islam necessitated dominion. Its demotion on the world stage was an existential threat. Hence, losing the battle with the Jews threatened to be an unmitigated disaster, utter humiliation on a global scale in response to which, in complete confidence in their impending victory, the Arab League promised historic massacres. To lose would fatally wound triumphalist Islam’s need for visible dominion. To Muslims such as these, Israel was a blasphemy against the Prophet (PBUH). An intolerable degradation. Another nakba. Indeed, The Muslim Brotherhood, initially a weak movement, only came into its own in the fight against Zionism.[2]

THE NAKBA​

This hard zero-sum mentality – if you win (anything) I lose; in order for me to win you must lose (everything) – has characterised one of the dominant currents in Arab attitudes towards Jews in the modern period. It’s not that more egalitarian, mutually respectful relations didn’t exist. The large influx of both Jews and Arabs in the first half of the 20th century, with far greater growth where Jews and Arabs lived together (Haifa) than where Arabs lived alone (and dominant), attests to the possibility of civil, voluntary relations between the two populations.[3] The current situation in Israeli hospitals is a rare case of a large Muslim minority integrated into the workings of professional democratic institutions. Israel has better relations with its Arab-Muslim citizens than any European country currently, despite having twice as large a population as any other democracy.

The Zionists put great importance on that reciprocity, and unlike European imperialism (which they saw themselves as explicitly rejecting), they purchased and worked the land, and played by the prevailing rules rather than conquering and then settling the land of displaced populations. They understood that their ability to live in the (former) Dar al Islam (i.e. among Muslim-majority nations), depended on that civil, demotic model of non-coercive, contractual relations prevailing. Their declaration of independence makes it clear that they operated in the liberal-progressive tradition of egalitarianism and self-determination rather than authoritarian imperialism.

The Great Arab Revolt of 1936-39, in which the Muslim Brotherhood played an important role, asserted the hard zero-sum triumphalist position. People who participated in the assault on both the British imperialists and the Zionists, did so to restore Arab honor. The Peel Commission made a point of asking Arab rioters how come, if things had so dramatically improved since the arrival of the Zionists, were they attacking Jews? Responded one rioter: ‘You say we are better off: you say my house has been enriched by the strangers who have entered it. But it is my house, and I did not invite the strangers in, or ask them to enrich it. Better a mat of my own than a shared house.’ In other words, ‘I prefer poverty as a member of the dominant group, to sharing in wealth’. One might call it a lose-lose: I can only ‘win’ (live in poverty) if you lose.

What we have here is a good example of what, mutatis mutandis, became of the spirit of Muslim imperial-colonialism over the many centuries in the land between the river and the sea. By the later Ottoman period, this was a classic case of so many prime-divider societies where the ruling elites dominate the vast majority of commoners living in poverty, and the backwater of a failing system: Muslim peasants – fellahin – and other commoners were in dire shape, impoverished by natural conditions, Bedouin raids, exploitative absentee landlords, and heavy state taxation, living at the edge of subsistence.

Their condition was far from the glorious triumphalism of their ancestors, but that apparently did not mean they renounced the proud sense of superiority appropriate to the conquest, but now threadbare … A mat of my own. When the Muslim Brotherhood and the Arab Nationalists denounced Western imperial-colonial aggression, they did so accurately: both sides were engaged in la raison du plus fort. But what they opposed to that aggression was their own, robust, millennia-long, imperial-colonialism, the so-called ‘resistance’ was imperial competition for dominion.

This framework clarifies the Muslim stakes in Israel’s creation. Nothing could be more catastrophic than the Jews, historically the weakest and most cowardly of the dhimmi, establishing an autonomous state in the heart of (what should be) Dar al Islam. (Scholars of shame-honor cultures note that as long as a humiliating fact [e.g. a wife’s infidelity] isn’t made public, it is bearable.) A Jewish state in Palestine was just such a public announcement of Muslim impotence.

And yet, that is precisely what happened. And the response to the catastrophe was to imprison the refugees from Palestine in ‘refugee camps’ (where most still live) and swear eternal enmity to the ‘Zionist entity.’ Here one finds the key triumphalist response among Arabs to Israel’s inexplicable and blasphemous success, a response that has dominated Arab leaders with few exceptions, to present: make your own people suffer as a way to promote the war you won’t admit you lost. Hamas explains:

The day the enemies conquer some part of the Muslim land, jihad becomes a personal duty of every Muslim. In the face of the Jewish occupation of Palestine, it is necessary to raise the banner of jihad. This requires the propagation of Islamic consciousness among the masses, locally [in Palestine], in the Arab world and in the Islamic world. It is necessary to instill the spirit of jihad in the nation, engage the enemies and join the ranks of the jihad fighters.

Read more:

Islamic and Arab Imperialism and Irredentism is driving the conflict between the river and the sea

Richard Landes is a historian of millennialism living in Jerusalem; his most recent book, Can “The Whole World” be Wrong?: Lethal Journalism, Antisemitism, and Global Jihad. Introduction: Rethink...

fathomjournal.org

Holding Arab Culture Accountable​

This is the first article in a two-part series. Next week, Prof. Mohammad Dajani presents the view that the region's challenges are primarily political rather than cultural.​

James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, recently claimed that the United States “can't fix” the Middle East region. Clapper is right on the money. The region’s fundamental problems are not political but rather cultural, therefore the United States and its military might is unable to fix them.

Culture matters because it is the foundation for the behavior and organization of any society. The current chaos in the Middle East has many roots, but some of the conflict’s deepest draw on an Arab culture and identity that lacks internal and external empathy, favors authoritarianism over autonomy, and opts for zero-sum solutions. Unless Arabs take a self-critical look at their values, violence in the Middle East will continue.

In establishing the tenants of a culture or set of cultures, it is vital to examine the culture’s sense of morality to determine the society’s behavioral ideals. The Arab moral code values revenge over compromise, men over women, and groups over individuals. Collective Arab identity is based on tribalism, submitting to paternalistic authority, a sense of honor linked to women’s virginity, and an ossified sanctification of custom and tradition. There is a glorification of the past along with a refusal to take responsibility for the present and the hope that the future will miraculously be better.

This is not to say that individual Arabs are a carbon copy of their culture. To the contrary, interaction with average members of Arab societies demonstrate a generally decent, generous, and tolerant demeanor. Nor is Arab culture without many positives. Nevertheless, these positives have not developed into a progressive sociopolitical belief system. The collective culture does not necessarily celebrate political freedom , personal autonomy, or respect for women.

The contemporary Arab world also often lacks self-reflection and self-directed criticism. Conversations with Moroccans, Egyptians, Tunisians, Jordanians, and Gulf Arabs repeatedly demonstrate an overall narrative of victimization and blaming the other. This most notably manifests into a plethora of conspiracy theories, such as the suspicion that ISIS is an American-Israeli invention manufactured to destroy the region, or that the Arab Spring was a Western plot to hand the region over to Islamists.

This type of thought process reveals a deep-seated aversion to accountability and responsibility that makes gestures such as the condemnation of terrorism against Christians, Yazidis, Jews, or Shia individuals perfunctory. Meanwhile the outside world—Iran, Israel, the United States, colonialism, or other Arabs’ failure to live up to "true Islam"—has become the bogeyman of any internal societal failures. This trend has lead to the ultimate irony: Arab troubles are constantly blamed on external forces, which are then expected to solve them.

This observation is not to exempt Western powers. The West’s continuous support of Arab dictators has certainly contributed to the perpetuation of antiquated priorities and democratic deficits. Nevertheless, continuously relying on emphasizing the West’s regional failures to avoid self-examination and reform is intellectually dishonest. Tribalism ‎and ‎disrespect for individual autonomy cannot be characterized and excused as a byproduct of colonialism and Western interventions.

By all measures, Arab countries have a statistically weak showing when compared to the rest of the world, factually documented in various UNDP Arab development reports. For example, a 2002 report highlighted a shortage in the Arab world of three traits recognized as essential by the international community: freedom, knowledge, and female empowerment. One can and should blame Arab governments and regimes for these deficits; but this only addresses half of the issue.

Individual liberty is not a cornerstone of Arab culture, learning is emphasized as a process of transmission rather than questioning, and women are often not seen as full citizens, regardless of their legal status. An anecdotal example: when an educated Arab acquaintance’s wife tried scheduling an appointment for a cesarean section, the hospital sought his approval. according to the 2015 Global Gender Gap Report, statistical evidence suggests that of the fifteen countries with the lowest rates of women’s participation in the labor force, thirteen are in the Middle East. The report further details that only 18% of working-age Arab women have jobs, and that in 2015 the unemployment rate among young women in Arab states was almost 44 percent, compared to 22.9 percent of male youth.

One can argue about the role that different strains of Islam have played in forming such values, or Islam’s attempt to root out tribalism and ethnocentrism to no avail. whatever the case maybe, the combination of tribalism and religion has been deadly, the chaos in the region being a case in point. For the time being, Arab obsession with Israel has expanded into an obsession with Iran, coupled with a rampant moral amnesia regarding the Syrian refugees’ catastrophe. There is no lack of financial resources in the Middle East, yet certain Arab states spend billions of dollars on weapons while unwilling to allow Syrian refugees in their countries, placing even greater burdens on the refugees themselves and the countries already hosting millions. Arabs are cheering the Saudi led coalition in Yemen, but make no effort to rebuild the country or settle the displaced Yemenis.

Today, Arab media, politicians, and the common people are busy condemning Iran and Shiites for the destruction in the region. Iran’s pernicious behavior is counterproductive; yet pretending Iran’s intervention in "Arab affairs" is the source of all ills in the region is a fallacy. Informed observers would argue the political turmoil has been in the making for decades, driven by a brutal combination of authoritarian leadership, limited social progress, and a dismal economic record. It is now time for Arab intellectuals to seriously examine the political, social, and economic circumstances that led to this state of affairs, in order to begin advocating for a real path forward.

Holding Arab Culture Accountable

Editor's No

www.washingtoninstitute.org

​

 

[rylah]

“Islam Has a Hate Problem!” Pro-Israel Arab STUNS reporter​

Yishai Reacts: Loay Al Shareef stuns interviewer on his answer to the obstacle to peace. He explains that this is really an ancient problem within Islam and their inability to accept that the Jewish people are connected to the land of Israel.

​

 

[rylah]

​