Open Integral

In some of my writings on the ME on Frank’s site I made the unhappy prediction that the Palestinians would descend into a civil war. Current events seem to be proving my prediction correct. I do not know how it will all end. It seems certain that Hamas will control Gaza, but I’m not confident that Fatah will control the West Bank. I expect Hamas to try and defeat Fatah altogether.

Unfortunately many people think that Israeli occupation has made the Palestinians desperate. I disagree. The actions of the Palestinians during the 20’s and 30’s indicates the ease at which they use violence to solve political problems. I believe the Israelis had to occupy Palestinian territory because of the propensity of a significant minority of Palestinians and Arabs to seek to destroy a Jewish presence in the region. The majority of Palestinians may be moderate, but it is not in the nature of moderates to use the gun, thus they are always victim of gun-weilding extremists. The current situation is a logical outcome of the use of political violence by the Palestinians.

It goes without saying that Isreal cannot accept a Hamas victory, but what I have not yet read in the analysis is that Egypt cannot afford a Hamas victory either. It is not impossible to conceive of Egypt attacking Gaza – it used to be under Egyptian control anyway. The reason is simple. Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood and the MB has caused many problems for Egypt. Egypt cannot allow Hamas to control Gaza because they will use it to train insurgents who will seek to overthrow the Egyptian government.

There is now an even greater possibility that the whole ME (and Islamic world) will begin to implode as the Hamas/Fatah conflict causes Muslims to polarize and to take sides.

In recent years I have come to believe that an independent Palestinian state would quickly become a failed state. It seems it will fail before it even begins. Make no mistake, this is what Hamas wants. Their objective has always been to establish an Islamist foothold and start an Islamist wildfire in the ME. It was never really concerned about Palestinian nationalism.

I’ve written quite a bit on the issue of Islam. I am highly critical of it, after writing on the subject of enlightened secular humanism I think it is fair to say I am highly critical of all ‘religion’.

I have also argued that the west is not the cause of the clash with Islam. I agree that some policy decisions have exacerbated the situation but overall I think the west has dealt with Muslim countries in the way that it deals with any other country, including other ‘western’ countries, with a kind of moderated, pragmatic self-interest – the way all countries treat other countries. The west has not singled out Islam for any special mistreatment. This is in the imagination of Islam which has always defined itself as the victim of conspiracies and in ‘opposition’ to Judaism and Christianity (well, to all other religions). Mohammed believed (or cynically spread the idea) that there was a conspiracy by the Meccans and then the Medinite Jews against the ‘truth’. His acts of aggression against the pagan Meccans and Medinite Jews are justified as a legitimate defence against conspiratorial aggression. This pattern is repeated today. Islamic aggression is justified as the legitimate defence against a ‘perceived’ conspiratorial agression by infidels. There is no such conspiratorial aggression – it is a figment of their imagination, the consequence of a flawed narrative.

I came across an interesting book yesterday, ‘Islamic Imperialism’ by Efraim Karsh. Okay, let’s be perfectly clear about this. Efraim Karsh is a Jew, even a Zionist. He is Professor and Head of the Mediterranean Studies Programme at King’s College, U of London. The book is published by Yale. Karsh has an impressive CV – but he is biased.

Biased? Well, he takes a strong position and would be aligned with the conservative side of politics, or at least favoured by them. He is also noted for his critique of the group known as the ‘New Historians’, a group of left leaning Israeli academics who have published highly critical histories of Israel. Karsh accuses them a bad history and of deliberately misreading the primary sources. His critique returns to the primary sources to prove the misrepresentation. The thing about this is that both the left and right distort history to fit their ideological inclinations. What we ought to be concerned about is the truth and I would suggest that both sides have bits of the truth. The question is really about the integrity of the historian and their ability and desire to seek the truth even when it is uncomfortable.

Karsh seems to make some very valuable points and so, knowing his position, I’m prepared to pay attention.

‘Islamic Imperialism’ doesn’t pull any punches. As far as Karsh is concerned Islam has always had, and still has, aggressive imperialist ambitions. The root cause of resentment in the ME is a frustrated imperialist ambition. Islam believes it is and must be superior and it is humiliated that it is not.

The book is a history of the Islamic imperialist project, from Mohammed to bin Laden. He starts the book with a series of quotes – a thematic repitition from Mohammed to bin Laden.

“I was ordered to fight all men until they say ‘there is no god but Allah” Mohammed’s final address, 632.
“I shall cross this sea to their islands and pursue them until there remains no one on the face of the earth who does not acknowledge Allah.” Saladin, 1189
“We will export our revolution throughout the world…until the calls ‘there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger’ are echoed all over the world.” Khomeini, 1979
“I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah, and his prophet Mohammed.” Osama bin Laden, 2001.

The original is a well known hadith, it is not found in the Koran. As hadith it is not followed by every Muslim, but it is clear that many understand what this hadith commands – endless jihad until all of humanity converts to Islam. This is the essence of Islamic imperialism, the drive to conquer the globe. Not all Muslims are involved in this project but enough have always been inspired by this ideal for it to be a persistent problem.

The book is an examination of the nature of this imperialist ambition and it contains some surprises.

I did not know that the early caliphs did not want conquered people to convert. If they converted they had to be treated equally and could not be taxed. The argument was put forward that to ensure the future flow of wealth back to the Muslim Arab tribes conversion should be resisted. If this isn’t imperialism then what is? Furthermore, there was a special category of non-Arab converts who were treated differently to Muslim Arabs, the ‘Mawali’. Mawali could not marry Muslims and had to pay special taxes. In short, they were discriminated against.

The positive Muslim spin is that all subject people freely converted to Islam. The reality seems to somewhat different. Many groups did not begin converting for at least two centuries and then slowly, as a way to avoid the discrimination against non-Muslims. The Mawali system was eventually reformed but it’s existance contradicts the positive spin put on the early Muslim conquests. Yes, they really did it for gain.

The other interesting point Karsh makes (I haven’t read it all yet) is that the British originally supported a pan-Arab state as the best outcome of the collapse of the Ottoman empire. He argues that the breaking up of the region into smaller states, the main cause of resentment today, was actually the result of Arab duplicity. The common story is that the British and French betrayed the Arabs. Karsh says that it was not a ‘betrayal’ but a necessary response to the failure of the Arabs to meet their part of the bargain. In fact Karsh says that the Arabs betrayed the British, dealing with the Turks behind their backs.

Again we see the ‘persecution’ narrative raise its ugly head. Just as the Meccans and Jews ‘betrayed’ Mohammed the British and French ‘betrayed’ the Arabs. Looked at in another way the Meccans and Jews were protecting their interests against an madman and aggressor and the British and French were protecting their interests against a duplicitous ally. The problem was that Sharif Hussein al Hashemi, the Arab leader, had imperialist ambitions of his own. As it turned out the British ended up handing Jordan and Iraq to Hussein’s two sons. Jordan is still in the hands the Hashemites but the other son was overthrown in Iraq (and then Syria). What would have happened if the British had given the Hashemites the whole of the Arabian penninsula? Peace and prosperity?

Karsh argues that the real reason for the situation in the ME is the internal rivalries. Dictators exist because only strong leaders can keep a lid on the tribal and sectarian differences, which have always erupted when the leadership is weakened. The violence we see in Iraq now was not ’caused’ by the invasion, it was latent, what the invasion did was simply lift the lid off the pressure cooker.

I’ll share one last quote from Dr Yusuf Qaradawi regarded as a leading Islamic scholar. He is talking about the hadith where Mohammed is asked which city will be conquered first, Hirqil (Constantinople) or Romiyya (Rome). History shows that Constantinople was conquered by Islam and Qaradawi says:

“The other city, Romiyya, remains and we hope and believe that it too will be conquered. This means that Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror and victor, after being expelled from it twice – once from the South, from Andalusia (Spain), and a second time from the East, when it knocked several times on the door of Athens”.

Karsh argues that whilst Christianity had its own (obvious) imperialist ambitions it has finally surrendered them. Islam has not. (Although I think Karsh neglects to mention that Christian imperialism has been revived amongst American evangelicals). Islamic imperialist ambitions are a fundamental aspect of the Islamic narrative. Al Qaeda is simply the latest manifestation of the eternal jihad.

There was an important point I missed yesterday and that is the culpability of the civilian population in creating their own situation. The term innocent civilian can be misleading because some of the civilian population are Hezbollah sympathizers who fully endorse Hezbollah’s beliefs and agenda. There are many fleeing Lebanon who curse Hezbollah, but there are others who share Hezbollah’s desire to destroy Israel and kill Jews.

I must admit to loosing a lot of sympathy for the Palestinians when they voted for Hamas. I know the reasons given were that Fatah was corrupt and ineffective. But here’s the thing – the Palestinians knew what Hamas stood for, it wasn’t a secret. The Palestinians knew full well that Hamas used terror tactics against Israeli civilians and they knew full well that Hamas was an Islamist political party that wanted the complete destruction of Israel. And knowing all this they still voted for them. What did they think would happen next?

The argument is put forward that Hamas were democratically elected and that Hezbollah have a clear mandate from the Shi’ite population of Lebanon. True, but so what? This doesn’t mean that the rest of the world has to co-operate. It is entirely conceivable for a population to elect a vicious fascist government into power. How innocent were the Germans during WW2? Evidence has emerged that shows just how ordinary citizens participated in and allowed Nazi atrocities. So, just how innocent are civilians?

I think it’s also worthwhile keeping in mind just what Hamas and Hezbollah want. For a start they don’t want an independent Palestinian state. That would only be a temporary goal on the way to the real objective which, in Hamas’ case is a Pan-Islamist state that includes much of the ME, absorbing Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, etc. They are not genuine Palestinian nationalists. Hezbollah wants to establish a unified Shi’ite theocracy which would unite all Shia under an Iranian style theocracy. They are not nationalists, they are Shi’ite theocrats. A unified Shi’ite theocracy would include Lebanon, Iran, Iraq and be allied to the Allawite minority that rules Syria (the Allawites are a sub-set of Shi’ism).

The disturbing reality is that if Hamas and Hezbollah were to succeed in defeating Israel then they would turn on each other over the spoils, just as Sunni and Shia are fighting each other over Iraq.

It is also worthwhile mentioning that the concept of ‘civilian’ does not mean much in Islam. Under the rules of jihad all Muslims are considered active participants. If they are not active combatants then they are expected to be active supporters. Similarly, all infidels are considered alike. There are a set of rulings under sharia law that permit civilians to be killed. The Western distinction between combatant and non-combatant does not apply. This is why Islamist jihadis have no moral problem in targeting innocent civilians – under their interpretation their victims are all culpable infidels. You are automatically guilty because you are not a ‘pure’ Muslim.

There has been an argument put forward that the Israeli attack is ‘collective punishment’, as if that were an illegitimate reason. There probably is an element of that, after all Hezbollah only succeeded because of popular support. Here we need to consider the principle of reciprocity and argue in return that if you do not want collective punishment applied to you then do not tolerate it being done to others. How then is the indiscriminate firing of missiles into Israel (one hit a hospital yesterday) not collective punishment? How is the deliberate targeting of civilians in suicide missions not collective punishment? Should we sympathize with Shi’ite civilians who applaud these types of actions against Israelis?

And on a final note – the cult of martyrdom arose within the Shi’ites during the Iran/Iraq war (the Iranians were content to allow young boys to become martyrs) and was initially used by Shi’ites in Lebanon and then used by Sunni Hamas. Under the cult of martyrdom it is permissable to allow your own civilians to be killed because they died in a jihad and will automatically ascend to paradise. It is therefore morally permissable to put civilians in harm’s way, even without their consent, because they will become martyrs – in other words, civilians are legitimate weapons.

I’ve had time to digest the news coming out of Lebanon. I like to survey all the reports, both left/right, immediate and considered. There’s the rush to be first with the scoop, the dramatic and shocking images. Reporters battle each other for a different angle or an image that seems to contradict official press releases. However, all too often these initial reports miss important detail. We have to wait for the second wave of more in depth journalism from those who are more experienced and know how to sift through the propaganda from all sides (not ‘both’ sides, because conflict is usually not between two sides, but multiple views).

Of course we can do a formulaic AQAL analysis of the conflict. I assume that most readers will be able to do so. Yes, there are all quadrant causes but what interests me the most is the divergent narratives being spread in regard to this conflict and how we might sort through those narratives and their biases to separate truth from myth/fiction and try to find a solution and predict likely consequences.

Israel seems to have lost the propaganda war. This is a great pity because I believe their action is fully justified – and I’ll explain why. They have lost the propaganda war because the immediate media response is to concentrate on the most dramatic images and the greatest loss of life. There is then a emotional public reaction to these graphic images and an immediate need to place blame. In this case it is against Israel because it appears that they have over-reacted and have caused the loss of ‘innocent’ lives. We are dealing here with perceptions and it appears as if Lebanon is the weaker victim of Israeli strength and aggression.

But now information is coming out that suggests that one of Hezbollah’s tactics is to intentionally draw fire towards civilians and UN peacekeepers. There is even mounting evidence that Hezbollah has forced civilians to act as human shields at gun point. This is a common guerilla tactic usually justified by arguing that the guerilla force has to resort to this because of the superior firepower of the enemy – they have to hide amongst civilians otherwise they will easily be picked off. What is less acknowledged is that it is a powerful propaganda weapon – particularly against the West because the Western public has a relatively low tolerance for the loss of ‘innocent’ civilian life. So insurgent forces dress as civilians and operate in densely populated areas (and in the ME hide in mosques) in order to cause as much of a propaganda advantage as possible. And in Lebanaon Hezbollah is doing exactly this, moving their missiles from town to town and firing from within so that if they are attacked there is high ‘collateral’ damage – and where there is a UN post they go toward it in order to draw fire. Of course, there is another very sound reason – and one I would use myself – there is a chance the enemy might not fire because the collateral risk is too high.

This last point is important because Israel and the West do consider the collateral risk and do pull back from certain actions. This is not a moral consideration that Hezbollah makes. Whilst Israel makes some attempt to distinguish between civilians and combatants and to target only combatants Hezbollah makes no such distinction – which is where we get into competing narratives. Hezbollah fires its missiles randomly toward non military targets. It regards all Israelis and Jews as enemies.

There has been considerable talk about proportionality. In the first days people were shocked that Israel would go to such an extent to recover two soldiers. But this conflict is not really about that – the kidnap was only the straw that broke the camel’s back. This conflict is about one thing – destroying Hezbollah. Israel would have known very early that there was a high probablity that their action could have seen their soldiers killed, so it’s not about their return. In which case the response has been proportionate, even measured – because it is now apparent that Hezbollah was better armed and better organized than Israel first thought.

Let’s be clear about this, both Hamas and Hezbollah want one thing – the complete destruction of Israel. Whilst both organizations hold this aim they cannot be trusted and any cease fire is temporary. Hezbollah may accept a cease fire but only if they are in a weak position, in which case they will use a cease fire to regroup and find other ways to undermine Israel.

And this is where we face another argument – that Israel is a bully that has the ‘unfair’ advantage of a large military (supplied by the US). But how easily people who hold this view forget history. Israel has always had to defend itself against powerful elements in the ME who want its complete destruction. This is not about the moderates on both sides who do reach out to each other and who do suggest solution after solution. It is about the extremists who undermine the moderates. In this climate the only way Israel has survived is through its ability to hit back and hit back very hard. Who is the bully? The person who does not want you to exist at all, or the person who demands they have a place and is prepared to fight back? Does Israel make mistakes, does it go overboard? No doubt – but who knows where the balance lies? Opinions vary widely. If Israel had not had the capacity to hit back hard does anyone seriously think that it would still exist?

Whether you accept this view depends on whether or not you accept that Israel has a right to exist. Of course, if you think as Hezbollah does, that the Jews have no right to Palestine then all of the Zionists actions have been acts of aggression. If you believe that Israel has a right to exist then you are likely to interpret aggression as justified defence.

We are now at a very perilous point. I think we’ve quietly slipped into WW3 – slipped quietly liked Iraq has slipped quietly into civil war. Al Qaeda has called for jihad in Lebanon. Just as the invasion of Iraq created an anarchic situation which Islamist insurgents, Saddamists and opportunists could exploit I believe this conflict will descend into a similar situation. I believe Israel knows this and it explains why they want to completely wipe out Hezbollah. If any there are any remnants they will carry on an insurgent war, regardless of whether the UN or NATO sends a peacekeeping force. Lebanon will become another unstable front in a global war against an aggressive brand of Islam.

But what about the many moderate Muslims? Indeed, what about them? Where the hell are they? This is the other unfortunate aspect of this global war. The extremists are advancing and the moderates retreating. I don’t know if people have been monitoring the global situation but Islam is turning further inwards, not outwards. Islamists have taken control of Somalia and are imposing harsh sharia law – and in the so-called ‘moderate’ Muslim nations conservatives are gaining ground. Indonesia is poised to introduce harsh censorship laws based on sharia, despite the constitution promoting the Panchasa system, the right of the five major religions to co-exist. There was a news report this week that at first seems trivial, but it is the sign of things to come. The conservative Muslim group the Islamic Defenders Front has filed a complaint against Indonesia’s Miss Universe candidate, Nadine Chandrawina, for indecency because she wore a swiming costume. She could face two to five years in prison. I hope it doesn’t succeed, but it might. A similar wave of conservatism is affecting Malaysia and Turkey (which now has full body swimsuits with built in hijabs so conservative Muslim women can go swimming – in time pressure will mount to ban bikinis).

The war in Lebanon will further polarize the Muslim world and it will inspire even more converts to extremism and conservatism. In which case it might be argued that it has been counter-productive. Yes, but I believe the Israelis knew this but had no choice. I’m trying to remember which movie this scene is in (I think it’s either Sinbad or one of the Indiana Jones movies) – the hero is attacked by a skeleton but every time he smashes the skeleton the bones grow into even more skeletons. If he continues the skeletons will eventually over run him but if he stops they will kill him. Hezbollah was building up arms with the sole intention of eventually attacking Israel. The longer Israel waited the better prepared and armed Hezbollah became. Hezbollah had become a state within a state and was growing in influence. Its state sponsors, Syria and Iran were making increasingly belligerent, anti-Israeli statements. Hezbollah saw an opportunity to create a second front as Israel attempted to stop
Hamas militants firing Qassim missiles from Gaza into Israel (a situation they had allowed to continue for some weeks in the hope there was a non-military solution).

This larger polarization will affect every Muslim population and only increase the move toward militantcy, including increasing the risks of home grown ‘terrorist’ actions.

What can we do? Not a lot, except defend ourselves. I’ve looked at this issue from all sorts of angles and I don’t believe that the bottom-line causes are within the West’s control. Peripheral issues certainly are. I think this is all about a perception of injustice as opposed to real injustice (besides, the idea of justice in Islam is different to the Western idea – the creation of the state of Israel is considered an injustice). We are ultimately fighting Islamic supremacists and triumphalists – people who fervently believe that this is a war between Islam and the infidels which Islam must and will win simply by virtue of the fact that it is the absolute and final word of God. There are many in the West who cannot grasp the relentless logic of this quest. The destruction of Israel is only an initial step. As Zarwahiri has just said, Islam must triumph from Spain to Iraq (yes folks, Spain must return to Muslim rule).

What about international law you say? Doesn’t matter. The Koran and sharia are understood to be the only basis for any law. If it ain’t Islamic law it doesn’t count and several jurists have declared that the reconquest of Spain was illegal. Which is why the West must inform itself about Islamic law and the Islamic narrative/view of the world.

And this is why Israel must have a powerful army because under Islamic law the Jews do not have the right to a separate state, they are meant to be subservient (as are all other faiths) to Islam. It was thus before the Zionist movement even conceived of the idea of a Jewish homeland. To a conservative Muslim it is simply an outrage that Jews and Christians (Hindus/Buddhists) even dare to assert themselves in anyway. Israel has always faced significant resistance from forces who never wanted it to exist.

Again, what of the moderate view? It’s there and they are as appalled by the hardline view as anyone, but they are in retreat. Someone help me here but I can’t think of a moderate gain in the last year anywhere in the Muslim world.