Monday, November 27, 2017

Minorities in the Middle East

I recently heard an Israeli-Palestinian law-maker being interviewed on the Voice of Israel radio station. He had just returned from an academic conference in France where it seemed that Israel's treatment of its Arab minority was compared to minority treatment in Western Europe.  This can easily be misleading, annd I thought it would be a good idea to also compare Israel with other Middle Eastern countries. My findings from a brief investigation:
I rounded figures as they are very rough. Mostly they come from

CountryKurdishLarge religous minoritiesLarge national minoritiesTotal populationPer capita incomeHuman development indexLife expectancy


Alawite 11%
Kurds 10 - 15%




Christian 10%
Iraq15-20%Sunni 30%Kurds 15-20%35m14,00012069
Iran7%Azeris 24%
Kurds 7%
Turkey18%Kurds 18%75m4,7009273
EgyptCoptic-christian 7%85m1,25011170
YemenShia 33%20m60015062
SaudiShia 15%25m11,2007672

10% Iraqi



50% Palestinian
IsraelMoslem 18%(or) Arab 20%9m37,5001982

As you can see the main minority in the Middle East are Kurds. The famous Sykes-Picot agreement, and the subsequent League of Nation's Mandates ignored the Kurds, giving control of their lands to "Arab" states. Defining a state solely by the language spoken by a large group of its populace is problematic: Ireland is not an "English" state and Austria is not a "German" state.

How minorities are defined varies between countries. In some countries minorities are "indigenous", in some they are "racial" and they can also be "religous".
The British do not regard indigenous people as minorities, for example the British don't consider "Scottish" or "Irish" as a minority status. European immigrants, such as Poles may be regarded as minorities but in most tables minority status is "racial" so only non-Europeans are tabulated.

In Spain, indegenous peoples such as Catalans (16%) or Galicians (5%) are generaly seen as minorities. Although Israelis refer to "Arabs", these days, religion is the primary mode of distinction. Discrimination in Israel tends to be Ethno-Religious which I suppose reflects the primarily Ethno-Religous nature of the Jewish majority and does not comfortably fit into "racial" based groupings.

Saudi Arabia and Israel are the only states (outside tiny Gulf states) with significant migration from outside the Middle East: In Israel,unusually, migrants and their descendants form the majority of the population, with most coming from other Middle Eastern countries.

Regarding the Kurds, I found this:
  • Syria - There was, prior to the civil war, forced "Arabization" leading to a ban on the Kurdish language and a ban on the use of Kurdish names. 300,000 native Syrian-Kurds were not recognized as Syrian citizens. 
  • Iraq - 200,000 Kurdish civillians were killed 1986-1989 (genocide) and 1.5 million fled their homes in 1991. Arabization forced many Kurds out of Kurdish-majority cities.
  • Turkey - There have been Kurdish language bans (not sure of the current status on this) and forced removal of villages (don't know how many).

I left Lebanon out of the table. There is no majority in Lebanon.

Israel does not easily compare with other countries, it has charecteristics of a Middle Eastern country, of a West European and of an East European country. A valid comparison needs to use a wider base. Binary comparisons are likely ot be misleading ro fail to see the wider picture.

Friday, July 28, 2017

Is Israel a colonial state?

This is taken from an answer I wrote on Quora to the question Is Israel a colony or the Jewish homeland?

  1. Israel is partially the product of internal Arab migration.
    Roughly half of Israeli Jews are from Arab countries, and as such, by migrating to Israel they have migrated within the Arab world. My great grand-parents migrated from Romania and Lithuania to England as internal European migrants I don’t think they were colonizers anymore then my co-worker’s Algerian grand father who migrated from Algeria to Israel is a colonizer.
  2. Jews are descended from aboriginal inhabitants.
    Jews regard migrating to Israel as a return to a homeland that their ancestors left for a variety of reasons. That means that they do not self-identify as colonizers. In this context it is worth noting that much of the population (both Jewish and non-Jewish) are descended from various types of colonizers including the Crusaders, Romans, Greeks and Arabs. It is generally accepted that Jews originated in this area and before the Second World War both European and American academia regarded Jews as Middle Eastern immigrants (of inferior stock). Now academia has shifted ground but the Jews are still seen as being on the “other” side.
  3. The Jewish God, language, sacred texts and religious holidays all originated in Israel.The Old Testament was written in Hebrew a Semitic language which originated in Israel. Religious holidays are timed to coincide with the weather in the Middle East and include harvest festivals, pilgrimages (to Jerusalem) and a lunar calendar which is useless in Europe where clouds cover the moon.
  4. No other independent entity has existed on this territory.Most of the independent countries to have existed on the site of modern Israel within the last 2,500 years are Jewish states. There has been one Crusader state created by the Normans which was independent. All Arab or Moslem rulers had their seat of government outside the country, as part of a wider Empire.
  5. The first European Jews who arrived in the 19th century identified as colonizers but arrived during Islamic rule .
    The first European Jews to arrive during the 19th Century (about 30,000) often called their settlements “colonies”. However the main ruler was the Ottoman Empire and most rejected their European origins, preferring to speak a local language (Hebrew rather than Yiddish). Israel’s first prime minister David Ben Gurion and second president (Ben Tzvi) both served in the Ottoman Army during the first world war and attempted to recruit American Jews to fight on Turkey’s behalf. In that sense they were asylum seekers and not colonizers.
  6. Zionism used colonialism as a tool.Those first European Jewish migrants were Zionists and the Zionist movement up until 1917 sought to settle the country under Ottoman rule (hence Ben Gurion’s support for Turkey). Early Zionists tried to setup universities that would serve the Turks while aiding migration. However when the chance arose the Zionists had no compunction about riding the British coat tails and using British rule to get their cause recognized. That I think is the base for the claim that Zionists were colonizers, but to some extent they were using the British and the relationship, which was always tense, eventually broke down (from 1938).
  7. The Arab population are also colonizers.Although colonialism is associated with modern Europe there is a case to be made that much of the Arab population arrived in Israel as Imperial colonizers. There are communities brought here by the Turks, by the Egyptians (under Muhamed Ali) as well as Bedouin Arabs who probably came with the conquest.
  8. The question is academic and not relevant.
    The Jews are here, they are blending in. In a few generations all Jews will be descended from Arab-Jewish migrants and European refugees from the Holocaust. Colonialism no longer exists and is not relevant to the modern world.

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

From Gaza to Belfast: My four weeks as an Israeli soldier in Gaza

In 1996, I did 4 weeks reserve duty with the Israeli army in Gaza. It was the only time I ever served in the occupied territories. I was posted as a medic attached to a field hospital, near the Palestinian town of Rafiah at the South end of Gaza. The field hospital was manned by fellow reservists who knew each other and a doctor who commanded them. I was not normally part of this field hospital, so the doctor who commanded it, placed me "in the field", supporting the soldiers.
Our unit was an artillery unit which had been sent to guard "the Philadelphi road". At the time it was probably the most dangerous place under Israeli control, outside of South Lebanon which was also occupied.
The Philadelphi road was a narrow strip of land running along the border between Gaza and Egypt.
Between 1967 and 1977 the Israelis governed Sinai and Rafiah spread into what had once been Egypt. After the Israeli withdrawal from Sinai, the city was spread across both sides of the border and a narrow road went through it, which was the new border. The width of the road varied at different points but it was mostly about 10 meters wide. There were Palestinian houses on either side and the road was lined with concrete barriers, placed there to protect the soldiers. A fence ran along the Egyptian side of the road, marking the boundary between the two countries and preventing infiltration (this was before the tunnels). There were also watch towers along both sides: Small Egyptian watch towers (about one or two floors high) and massive Israeli watch towers.  I no longer remember their height but they towered over the surrounding area and I would guess they were about 4 floors up. There was a ladder to climb up and the watch tower was like a boat made of inch thick steel floating above Rafiah. When the wind blew, you could feel it swaying. As you climbed the watch tower you could see all of Rafiah and it amazed me that nobody took shots at us.
I was the medic for the Philadelphi road. I sat in the back of a jeep and we drove up and down the border, patrolling it. The seats in the back of the jeep were benches running along the side walls (not car seats), designed to allow us to rapidly jump out the back and to carry more men. I was taught to sit with my rifle poking out the back of the jeep - so if I accidently opened fire, the resulting bullet would not bounce around the jeep and so I was already in place to attack anybody trying to assault the jeep.  When guards in the watch towers needed to go for a shower, I climbed the ladder and sat in the tower, replacing them until they returned, so I saw all the watch towers. They were horrible.
We didn't only patrol the border, we also drove around the surrounding areas. I remember sitting in the jeep on the first day and there were four of us: The driver was an Ethiopian immigrant, the jeep commander, who sat next to him at the front, was born in Israel and in the back was me - born in the UK, and next to me a Russian immigrant. Both I and the Russian sat with our rifles poking out the back. On our first day we were looking for the army petrol station and I looked up from a vague day dream to realize we were about to drive up a back road into Rafiah.  "We are going into Rafiah!  We are going into Rafiah!" I screamed several times.  The driver stopped and the commander paused, we hastily backed up. It was probably the most dangerous moment in the 3 weeks.  Had we gone into Rafiah we would have faced being lynched or shooting our way out.
I didn't see many Palestinians. We lived in a small fort right near the Philadelphi road, but on occasional visits to the field hospital, which was in a large secure military base, we went through a checkpoint used by Palestinian civilians. I remember an old lady loudly gasping in horror as she saw my rifle poking out the back of the jeep. Later I was in another jeep whose commander liked to drive down to the beach and gaze at the bathing Palestinians. It looked wonderful, I wryly reflected that had it been safe for Israelis we would have been down there in the thousands eating cheap Humous and enjoying the beach.  Eventually I told the commander that we had to stop doing it because we were spoiling their relaxation time. He listened and we stopped going.
On one occasion we were sent to protect a technician who was repairing the border fence with Egypt. We stopped the jeep and I got out and stood next to him like a bodyguard.  Most artillery men are small and unfit, that is why they are in artillery. I was the opposite, as a new immigrant the fact that I was tallish and fit got me into artillery even though I had little military training.  Most people were fooled, I looked very war like, especially with all my medical equipment (I routinely carried 2 or 3 litres of intravenous drip fluid, not to mention a selection of bandages). Eventually the commanders realized that I had little military training and moved me to a less exposed position, but it took a while. While I guarded the man fixing the fence, a Palestinian woman wearing nothing but a bath robe came out onto a balcony next to the road. She started motioning for me to come to her. An Egyptian border guard scowled at her and she scowled back. I hadn't seen a woman for 10 days and it was all I could do not to start running over. Fear of a trap stopped me.
There was another fort right up against the Egyptian border which we visited. It had a table with a bullet stuck in the wood, and they said that the backyard was an Egyptian tourist spot. Busloads of Egyptians would climb onto a little platform to ogle the Israeli soldiers. When I head this, I said that I has to see it. I went out and walked to the backyard, as I walked I heard loud gasps from the assembled tourists.
The unit that replaced us were full time soldiers (doing national service), not reservists. They had a massive tank-like armoured personnel carrier,  We were the last reservists on the Philadelphi road.

A few weeks later, I got a new job working for an Israeli phone company.  They sent me to Ireland to learn about their new billing system. On my first day at work, I was given 2000 dollars in cash and plane tickets. I flew to Galway in Ireland. After a few weeks in Galway, Southern Ireland, I decided to go see Belfast.
I hired a car and told the car hire man where I was going.  "Is it a problem?" I asked.  "No" he said and then "I have just the car for you". He rented me a metallic green Audi. As it happened I was wearing a green fleece. I didn't realized the significance of it.  In those days there were no motorways in Ireland, but there was outside Belfast and I drove into Belfast at 100 miles per hour. Children waved at me. I didn't understand why.
In Belfast I went to the notorious Falls Road area, there I saw British troops creeping between the houses, trailed by small children carrying stones.  It was like Gaza except that it was Europe and the houses looked lovely - though there was a noticeable lack of cars.
When it was time to eat, I found it very hard to find a restaurant (Belfast had little night life) but someone told me to try near the university. I found a massive 3 floor pizza place next to the university and had a good meal. There was a stag night party there and as I left the restaurant I saw what was clearly a stripagram - a woman wearing little but a fur coat - going into the restaurant.  I cursed my back luck at leaving the restaurant too early. At that second a British army jeep went by. A rifle was poking out the back in my direction.

Three months later, Netanyahu opened a tunnel that ran along the Western Wall in Jerusalem. There were massive riots and all hell broke out along the Philadelphi road. 17 soldiers died (shots came from both Egypt and Gaza) and an Israeli Colonel was killed in the fort on the border (the one with the bullet in the table). My reaction was massive relief: I was glad it didn't happen when I was there.

Wednesday, October 14, 2015

Do Israeli withdrawals lead to peace?

Since 1949, Israel has occupied and withdrawn from territories that are much larger than its internationally accepted area (which is about 21,000 square kilometers). Below I have drawn up a table of occupations.

Only two withdrawals have resulted in, or from, peace agreements: The 1979 withdrawal from Sinai was the result of a treaty with Egypt and the 2005 treaty with Jordan was the result of a partial withdrawal from the West Bank (in reality it was more of a ceding of control) resulting from the Oslo agreement.

Only once did Israel withdraw for very clear reasons of international pressure; In 1956 when it occupied both Sinai and Gaza. Most other withdrawals are the result of internal Israeli dynamics and/or military conflict, though international pressure may have play some role.

The key finding is that only if withdrawals were preceded by a peace treaty did they lead to (some kind of) peace. The imposed 1956 withdrawal actually made the situation more volatile: Nasser misinterpreted it as proof of his power leading him to overplay his hand in 1967.

If the objective of "BDS" (supporters of sanctions against Israel) is a forced Israeli withdrawal than that will mostly likely not lead to "peace".  Of course what BDS mean by peace is ambiguous: The extermination of Israel could be said to be a form of peace.

The Israeli withdrawal from Gaza has, arguably, not improved conditions there and it seems safe to assume that unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank would lead to exacerbated conflict.

Can you force Israel to talk to the Palestinians and then force the talks to lead to an agreement?
Pressure only on Israel would give the Palestinians an incentive to stiffen their conditions and could make agreement harder. BDS have never pressured the Palestinians (or condemned their anti-Semitism), which is one of the many reasons that BDS lacks credibility.

In 1938 the British forced Palestinian Arabs and Jews to negotiate in London. The Arabs refused even to use the same door as the Jews and would not sit in the same room. No agreement was reached, so the British imposed one of their own: The 1938 White Paper. It's hard to say how much the White Paper changed the future, except that it did make the Holocaust much worse.

Total Area in square kilometers
Date of Occupation
Date of Withdrawal
Cause of withdrawal
Did it lead to a peace treaty?
US & USSR demands
US & USSR demands
Peace treaty with Egypt
Israeli internal pressures / Hamas attacks
Golan Heights

West Bank
1993 Ceded control of 20%
Shared control of another 20%
Treaty with PLO
Yes (but with Jordan) 
South Lebanon
2,000 (estimate)
UN Security Council demand
South Lebanon
2,000 (estimate)
1982 (included brief occupation of Beirut)
 Israeli internal pressures / Hezbollah attacks

Thursday, July 2, 2015

Disproportionate responses: The UN Commission of Inquiry on the 2014 Gaza Conflict

It is ironic that UN reports on conflicts which involve Israel always accuse Israel of a "disproportionate response", ironic because that is a precise definition of how the UN handles Israel: For example, according to UN Watch, the UN General Assembly passed 25 resolutions in 2013, 21 of them condemning Israel.

The UN report on the 2014 conflict was commissioned by the UN Human Rights Council,  a body which from 2006 - 2015 issued over 100 resolutions of condemnation, over half addressed to Israel.

The latest report records Palestinian suffering and searches (with a magnifying glass) for possible evidence of Israeli war crimes. I think it is fair to say that no other conflict is subject to such tight inspection. Such inquiries have forced the Israelis to take increasing care during wars and conflicts and as a result, the Israelis probably take more care to avoid war crime accusations than any other army. So if you hate the Israelis you have more reason to hate them and if you love them, you have more reason to love them.

We can't really quantify how relatively bad - or good - we Israelis are, because other conflicts are not subject to the same scrutiny. We also can't tell if we are getting worse or improving because the report does not compare out behaviour with previous conflicts.

The report argues that war crimes are judged by the proportionality of the response and then assesses proportionality in terms of numbers killed, where there is a clear imbalance. However, that is only one way of assessing war crimes.  Intent to kill civilians would be another and persistence of behaviour needs to be taken into account (is it isolated or systematic abuse).
The Palestinians launched 5,000 missiles at Israel (paragraph 66) and the Israelis bombed them 6,000 times (paragraph 111), so there are other ways of measuring proportionality, and the death toll disparity is partially the result of extensive Israeli investment in protection, while Hamas frequently encouraged Palestinians not to seek protection and did not invest in the issue.

The lead up to the conflict, when the Israelis often did not respond to missiles and the Palestinians persistently fired missiles for no reason, is not discussed. The Israelis tend to accumulate anger and then vent. The objective of the venting is to discourage further attacks by causing a lot of damage. The war is thus a defensive-offensive war: offensive in terms of destruction, defensive in terms of objectives and the report is focusing on a narrow section of a longer conflict.

How you understand offensive vs. defensive hinges on what you think of the Israeli blockade and that is a serious problem with this report.  The report relies on a "Gaza is still occupied" formula, this is addressed in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the report. Gaza is still occupied because:

"...the law of occupation also applies in areas where a state possesses the “capacity to send troops within a reasonable time to make its power felt"."

Egypt has a border with Gaza which vilifiers of Israel find convenient to ignore. There is no reason why flotillas to Gaza should not go to Egypt and then cross into Gaza from there. The reason why the Palestinians had so many weapons was that the Moslem Brotherhood had been in power in Egypt and allowed a flow of weapons into Gaza. Precisely for that reason Israel does not have the capacity to easily re-occupy Gaza, as the report claims.  At the moment, it would be easier to conquer Damascus then to re-occupy Gaza.

The UN Security Council, which is the only UN body whose decisions are considered binding on all UN members, seems to accept that there was a full Israeli withdrawal in resolution 1860 but says that Israel retains some responsibility towards the population of Gaza and must continue to allow free flow of goods, water and electricity. Through-out the conflict Israel kept up these services and goods continued to flow in and out of Gaza. The Israelis can interfere with the flow of goods, but their ability to use these elements for control is restricted by the Security Council.  It is not an occupation but some other form of relationship.

It is probably a good idea to report on conflicts, but then all conflicts must be reported on, not just those involving Israel.

Saturday, May 2, 2015

The Arabs are almost strong enough to conquer Western Europe

The Roman Empire existed for some 1000 years before it fell. Modern Europe has dominated the world for far less time, perhaps since the reconquest of Spain and discovery of America in 1492: about 500 years. Since 1945, Europe has been weaker, but it has continued to exercise massive influence over the world.
The fall of Rome was not something one could have easily predicted.  Standards of living in Rome far exceeded anything that could be found in its neighbours. Roman army barracks on the borders had piped running water, fountains, baths with underfloor heating.  Slavery had been ended. All Romans were citizens.  And yet the Romans were no longer able to repulse invasions and their armies had become reliant on non-Roman troops and ineffective.

The Ancient Egyptian pharaonic kingdoms were undefeated for even longer than the Romans: some 2,000 years.  However it would appear that sometime in around 1600 BCE a group of tribes, possibly from Canaan successfully and unexpectedly conquered Egypt.

Western Europe is far more vulnerable than would appear from pure economic data. While it dominates the global economy and exercises massive influence everywhere, Western Europe has systematically neglected its military and simply relies on the USA to protect it from the outside.

To make this point, I have taken the four largest military powers in Western Europe and compared them to four large Arab states (all Sunni except Syria which has a Sunni majority), using data from the globalfirepower website.
I have not included Iran which is not Arab but has massive military power. Were Syria and Iraq to be combined they would be a formidable power and there are no European countries (except Russia) which can rival these countries in military terms. Turkey is arguably more powerful than any of the countries listed below but is Islamic and in NATO, so in a sense it keeps the balance of power.

For comparison purposes I have added Israel, which is almost as strong as Turkey (not in active military forces).

What you can see is that on land the balance is clearly shifting in favour of the Arabs.

GermanyFranceBritainItalyEurope 4IsraelArab 4AlgeriaEgyptSyriaSaudi Arabia
Soldiers (active) in thousands1802021463208481601391512468178233
Soldiers (reserve) in thousands1801958242499630179540080057025
Missile systems504442211574826011481481650322
Combat Planes29754024927013564841730188811340391
Combat Helicopters344665592044811735362818
aircraft carriers00123000000

What is missing in this chart is nuclear power which is a potential game breaker and economic power, with its implied military potential where Europe is more powerful than anyone.
Even so, it does show just how limited European military power is and that, if this trend continues, Europe could become vulnerable particularly if it loses its USA backing and its (possibly quite small) nuclear option is neutralized in some way.

If you think Europe can easily power-up then bear in mind that it takes a lot of time to train military personnel - especially commanders - and that the skills and know-how associated with warfare are gradually being lost.

Saturday, February 28, 2015

Ten paradoxes of the Israeli - Palestinian Arab conflict

I have long been struck by the many paradoxes of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I tried to make a list of them and have provided explanations below.  If you can suggest any others I would like to hear.

  1. The minority are a majority and the majority are a minority.
  2. Israel is more Arab than some Arab states.
  3. The Arabs will not be able to defeat the Israelis until they stop trying.
  4. Anti-imperialist Arabs are usually Arab imperialists.
  5. Palestinian cities are often built on the ruins of Jewish cities, while many Jewish cities are built on the ruins of Palestinian cities. 
  6. The more Israelis and Palestinians won't compromise the more they will lose.
  7. The conflict used to be between Socialist Jews and Social Arabs, now it's between Religious Jews and Religious Arabs.
  8. The "City of Peace" is the greatest cause of conflict.
  9. As many Arabs have migrated to Europe as Jews have migrated to the Middle East.
  10. European anti-racists are frequently both racist and anti-Semitic.

  1. The minority are a majority and the majority are a minority.
    In Israel Jews are a majority, but within the Middle East Jews are a small minority, perhaps 2% of the general population - the same as in the USA.  Arab complaints about Israel are often related to an unwillingness to accept minority status while Jewish fears reflect a sense of being a minority. 
  2. Israel is more Arab than some Arab states.
    About 40% of Israeli Jews were either born in Arab countries or have two parents who were born in Arab countries.  In either case, their ancestors have lived in the Arab world as long - or longer - than the Arab population. A further 20% of Israeli Jews have one parent who belongs in that category. In addition 20% of Israelis are "native" Arabs.  In other words 80% of Israelis are either fully or half-Arab.  In Iraq, at least 30% are Kurds and many other Iraqis may be considered non-Arab, so Iraq is less Arab than Israel.
  3. The Arabs will not be able to defeat the Israel until they stop trying.
    To defeat Israel the Arabs will need to develop societies that are open to Western Civilization and tolerant. Once they do that, they will have they strength to defeat Israel but may well lose the desire. Saladin was famously tolerant of other religions and the enemy of Moslem fundamentalists, he only fought the Crusaders after they attacked him.
  4. Anti-imperialist Arabs are often imperialists.
    Many Arab leaders who fought Colonialism and European imperialism strove to re-create an Arab Empire in the Middle East. It's still true. In contrast, the Jewish religion could be said to prohibit empire-building: Jews are allocated a specific territory and no more.
  5. Many Palestinian cities are built on the ruins of Jewish cities, including Bethlehem, Hebron, Arabeh, Jaffa and more. Many Israeli towns are built on the ruins of Palestinian towns or villages including Ashdod, Yehud and Be'er Sheva. In some cases there are multiple layers: Tiberias, Tzfat and Ramleh are predominantly Jewish cities that were built on Palestinian ruins which were built on Jewish ruins.
  6. The more Israelis and Palestinians won't compromise the more they will lose.
    The Palestinian refusal to compromise famously resulted in the Jews having a state while they had none. The Arab refusal to accept Israel led, in 1967, to Israel gaining possession of the entire land. Israeli lack of flexibility contributed to the 1973 war which was arguably very damaging to Israel. Today the settlers' unwillingness to compromise may be strengthening the Palestinian claim to the land internationally while making Israel weaker.
  7. The conflict which was once between Socialist Jews and Socialist Arabs is now between Religious Jews and Religious Arabs.
    Nasser described himself as an "Arab Socialist" and the Ba'ath parties that ruled Syria and Iraq defined themselves as Socialist, while the Labor Party which dominated Israeli politics until the mid-Seventies was Socialist and most senior Israeli officers were Kibbutzniks: Moshe Dayan was the second child to be born on a Kibbutz. (his mother was a former "Narodnik"). Now the conflict is led by Hamas, Hizbullah and Orthodox Jewish settlers.  Although Orthodox Jews don't yet dominate the upper echelons of the Army they are increasingly dominant in the officer corp and it may be just a question of time.
  8. The "City of Peace" is the greatest cause of conflict.
    Jerusalem's name in Hebrew is said to also mean the City of Peace, but it is anything but.  In the Middle-Ages it was the main focus of international conflict between Christians and Moslems  and today it arguably remains the most intractable part of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
  9. As many Arabs have migrated to Europe as European Jews have migrated to the Arab world
    About 3 or 4 million Arabs have migrated to Europe in the last 100 years, This is roughly the same as the number of Europeans who have migrated to Israel.  See
  10. European anti-racists are often both racist and anti-Semitic.
    Many Europeans who describe themselves as "anti-racist" believe that race theory is a valid way of seeing the world, that is that Jews and Arabs are separate "races". In fact, very few Jews or Arabs see themselves in terms of "Race", and most see themselves in terms of religion which is the principle method by which Middle-Easterners define themselves and practise discrimination.  This is as true of the Jews as it is among the Arabs. Because Europeans see the world in terms of race they tend to assume that others do so as well, and because they are prone to demonise Jews, they easily assume that Israel is racist. Having decided that Israel is racist, often for anti-Semitic reasons, they feel free to be anti-Semitic because they are "anti-racists" and because Israel (and with it most Jews) are racists.

Sunday, February 1, 2015

Graven images of God and the prophets

After the initial outrage at the killing of the cartoonists in France, I started re-assessing my attitude to Charlie Hebdo and found myself thinking that it is a very offensive publication.  Obviously I don't condone the use of murder to silence the magazine, but it is true that here in Israel many of its cartoons would be deemed racist and banned from publication.

There are plenty of depictions of Mohammed around if you choose to actually look for them. Take this compilation of Renaissance depictions of Mohammed:  Apparently Moslems also depicted Mohammed:
The murder of the cartoonists raises another issue: the status of Mohammed in Islam. Basically, Christians think that Jesus is part God, while Moslems assign a semi-divine status to Mohammed in which he remains human but apparently is so sacred that we mustn't even imagine what he looked like. And Jews? We barely mention Moses. The Passover Haggadah, which is all about the Exodus completely ignores him.  You might say that we are quite happy to insult his memory.  On that grounds at least Jews must count as better monotheists then Moslems and Christians: No one over-shadows God. Though, of course, each religion has its own oddities.  Jews ascribe magical sacred status to a building (the Temple).

If you object to depictions of Mohammed, its a bit odd to ignore depictions of God.  Christians depict God all the time.  The attitude would seem to suggest that Mohammed was more important than God, though it may be related to different ideas of the nature of God - Moslems are less likely to "humanize" God.
As for creating images of Mohammed, both orthodox Jews and Moslems make a big fuss about having no images while printing plenty of images of rabbis and imams. It seems to me that there is an element of idolatry in hanging up giant pictures of Khomeini or Rabbi Ovadiah, though perhaps it's better that religious zealots allow pictures if the alternative is that they allow none.