To say or not to say ? that is the question !

It’s been a while since my last post, and over the period of my hiatus, there have been developments across the world that has once again bought into foray the question of free speech. First, there was the arrest of a Bangalore based techie, who was reportedly operating a twitter account that sold ISIS propaganda. Next, we had the Australian Café attacks by an Iranian born nut who was provoked because” nobody” would listen to what he had to say and finally, the tragic events at Paris that killed the crew at Charlie Hebdo.

All of these incidents are instigated by the very notion that there is an unwritten rule in the history of this world where our species cannot communicate to one another if it intends to offend, hurt or ( taking a leaf out of Spielberg’s  ‘Minority Report’)- can cause a crime to occur. Essentially, these in my opinion collectively define aspects of ‘Right to Free Speech’. If the proponents of free speech feel so strongly about it, they should understand that it goes both ways- It allows a Charlie Hebdo to draw the Holy Prophet, while it also allows at the same time for ISIS to spell out their agenda freely. I therefore feel these self-styled liberals should think before taking to the world, the idea of free speech. 

They argue that the Holy Prophet was depicted in artworks very freely till the 13^th century and I agree to that. But where I beg to differ is to equate that with the shameful depictions of any belief as done by the likes of Charlie Hebdo to those 13^th century depictions.  I’m all for satire, but there is a line that needs to be maintained. It’s the same line that brings respect to communities and prevents lawlessness. Every religion in the world gives its definition to this “line” and I can therefore understand when atheists start talking about the irrelevance of this line. What I cannot tolerate are the hypocrites who have boundaries when it comes to religion but speak of no boundaries when it comes to speech. 

Accordingly, one of the most pressing concerns for free speech is very simply, who defines this line? While that’s an easy question to answer in communities that are strictly orthodox, it becomes a complicated issue when we attempt to answer this question for a world stage with multiple opinions, beliefs and principles. The solution in my opinion was summed up very crudely by a journalist I recently met: “Free speech is like farting. You do it in your personal space and people who like that sort of thing will follow you there. It’s not something to share in a public arena. “On the other side of the table, it is also essential for the people who get easily offended to understand that the world we live in is today governed by multiple ideologies. The only way to keep yourself shielded is to embrace the way the world is changing and build tolerance in your communities. If only both sides had understood this, the unnecessary killings over the last few weeks could have been avoided.

Zionism's saviour, Mr. Adolf Hitler

As the conflict in Gaza rages on, I write this post with a lot of anguish in my heart. Anguish, not because the people of Palestine are innocent victims of a conflict between two political ideologies (Zionism and Arab nationalism); After all, this is not the first conflict in the past few years where innocent civilians have been at the crossfire of war. No, my anguish is because unlike other conflicts in the world, here the people have no escape. On both sides of this narrow strip, border crosses have been mercilessly shut to avoid refugee influxes. Gaza was always in my opinion the largest prison in the world, and today it is the largest prison in the world that burns endlessly. The situation is a hopeless one, and thus I have always refrained about commenting too much on the issue due to it being ignored by the very people who caused it; but now I can only write in the hope that someone (Read leaders of Israel, Britain, Jordan, Egypt and Palestine) take inspiration from my opinions on the situation and look at implementing solutions which might bring some peace to this part of the world.

The U.N Plan from 1947-48      

(Click to enlarge)

The conflict has its roots on a summer in 1947, when a U.N mandate backed by the British stipulated that all Jews deserved a separate land, and of the two proposed locations; Palestine was chosen (the other being in Uganda, Africa). What many people are not aware of is that between 1925 and 1945, a sequence of events was responsible for the U.N mandate of 1947. Zionism had been on the rise since the early 1900’s, with demands to establish a Jewish state anywhere in the world, right from Russia to even Japan. However, the land of Palestine at the time was one that was ruled by the imperialists in Britain, who were being heavily opposed by Arabs fighting to drive the British out. It is therefore no surprise that the weakening British Empire favored a group of Zionists led by Theodore Herzl who took advantage of the situation.  There was also at the time, minor skirmishes between the Arabs and Jewish settlements owing to land disputes and other factors. The nail on the coffin against an Arab state came in 1938 when Hitler started his persecution of the Jews. When the war got over in 1945, widespread sympathy propelled the Jewish cause. Consequently, in his quest to exterminate the Jews, Hitler indirectly became the lone savior of the Zionists. A savior who switched world opinion to create the land that is today called, Israel.

The Original British plan of 1938-39
(Click to enlarge)

Since then, surrounding Arab Countries led by Jordan and Egypt have never acknowledged the creation of Israel having fought multiple wars to reiterate this fact. Attitudes changed by 1967, soon after the six day war, when the leaders of these nations decided that the war had caused too many displaced civilians to cross its porous borders and end up in either Egypt or Jordan. A ceasefire settlement was reached much to the dislike of factions within Palestinian lands, who were still opposed to the creation of Israel. The by-products of these factions are what we see today in Hamas, Fatah and the PLO in general. In my opinion, their cause is a just one since they were unfairly driven away from their own homes, yet I question their approach in the current context. It made sense to oppose and go to war with Israel in 1967 but today, Israel has established itself, so much so that it probably has a military capability that could rival even the United States. In such a scenario, would it not make sense to stop living in denial and acknowledge that Israel is here to stay and the only way peace could be reached is to look at a two state solution?

The solution

Ah!  But there lies another dilemma. How do you drive away people from their homes and then ask them to come back and share only part of their old home? And which part of their old home and how much? The solution according to me stems from a simple fact- Israelis and the Palestinians have fought too many bloody conflicts and will NEVER be capable of living side by side in peace. The solution needed in my opinion is a radical one; one that separates the conflicting parties by introducing non-state actors to serve as a neutral ‘protective shields’. My ideas here are for the most part idealistic yet can be thought provoking as it provides some means to move towards solving the current crisis. The ‘Zoltano proposal’ as I like to call it, requires huge sacrifices from all the players involved right from that summer in 1947- 

• For Israel, this means borders will have to be redrawn, with Israel going back to the original British proposed borders of 1939 (Somewhere between the original plan of 1939 and U.N mandated plan of 1947, the southern part of Palestine was given up completely in Israel’s favor).  Israel should accordingly remove all Jewish settlements from areas that are to be Palestinian Land. Tel-Aviv will be the new capital of Israel. 

• For Egypt and Jordan, their borders will be extended now into the Palestinian side such that they completely touch the proposed Israeli border. The Gazan Coast and its surrounding neighborhoods will now belong to Egypt and the population of this coast will be given the option of migrating to the newly formed Palestinian state or stay back. Similarly, on the Jordanian side, populations will be given the choice to move or stay back. To compensate for the land lost on the Palestinian side, the Egyptians and the Jordanians will sacrifice an equal area of land within their current borders. Furthermore, by covering up the borders of Israel as a protective shield, both Jordan and Egypt will secure their lands to ensure that Palestinians are not allowed on the Israeli side.

• Jerusalem will be a neutral, specially designated zone, controlled initially by the U.N for a 10 year period post which it will move to an independent monarchical type of setup where people of all faiths will be allowed to freely practice their religion without any restrictions. Governance will be led by a democratically elected mayor and democratically elected parties.

• Britain and its allies will for its part in unfairly causing all the mess that we see today, pay a ’compensation fee’ to the newly formed Palestinian state, by helping in building infrastructure and contributing in ways to boost the economy. 

• And at last the Palestinians will finally have their newly formed state by making the ultimate sacrifice-acknowledging that they lost their chance to “destroy Israel” when they lost the war in 1967. Instead, they will stop living in denial by accepting that Israel is here to stay, and now strive to look forward to the future. Extremist elements within the ‘State of Palestine’ will be dealt with harshly, and to help their cause, other Arab countries will contribute. Hebron will be the new capital of the Palestinian state.

Do I really see this proposal ever getting implemented? Quite frankly No; Arabs and Israelis have too many highly egoistic cooks who spoil this beautiful broth called ‘Peace’.  That said, I can no longer bear to see the suffering children and another generation of hate brewing. I see it as my obligation (as a problem solver in real life) to at least put to paper my thoughts on possible ways to end this bloody conflict. My hope is to finally see a day when half of the world’s conflicts that stem from the Israeli occupation, end forever.

Middle Eastern Mess

Early in 2010, I ran a research assignment via internet sources to figure out the most prominent countries featured in news headlines over the past 10 years (2000-2010). Given that the decade was most remembered for Sept 11 and its aftermath, and the steady economic growth of China, it was of no surprise that the results yielded U.S and China in the top 2 spots.

Among the top 5 however, were also Israel/Palestine and of course Iraq and Afghanistan among others (Full results here). At the time, there seemed to be a sense that something big was around the corner for the Middle East and the people in that region hoped for something positive.

Cut to 2013, the Middle East is still in the news with changes expected thanks to the Arab Spring. Yet in spite of expecting things to be better, sectarian violence continues in Iraq and Syria, Administrative issues continues to plague Egypt, Tunisia and Libya and a gloom of uncertainty hangs over Lebanon, Jordan and Saudi Arabia among other countries. It begs the question- What went wrong?

The reasons in my opinion are many and solutions unfortunately too few. That said let me try to tackle a few. Gaddafi, Saddam, Ben Ali and Mubarak are no longer in power yet the regimes that took over from these nepotistic leaders seem to be no better. Leaders like Assad and his Bahraini counterpart Khalifa are walking on a tightrope held together by the delicate thread of sectarian peace. Assad and his forces are already in the midst of war and will soon reach the breaking point. I predict Bahrain will be the next in line.

If you analyze the structure of countries in the Middle East, there are two main factors that make up stability – Good (or fair) leadership and Sectarian tolerance.  Take away one or more of these, and you end up with an explosive situation. Good leadership translates to happy citizens and sectarian tolerance translates to enlightened citizens.

Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Turkey, Qatar, Oman, Iran, Israel and Morocco have minimal sectarian divisions and thus good leadership is the only Achilles heel that they should be concentrating on. To some extent Yemen falls in this category too. Egypt, Libya and Tunisia have a new threat in the horizon i.e. the Salafi movement which is steadily taking control and is feeding into the politics of these countries thus fuelling a leadership war. As long as the competition is healthy and with their old leaders gone, at least there is HOPE of a more organized and efficient government.

My assessment is that the worst countries in Middle East currently would be the ones that have both the leadership issue and the sectarian issue namely Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Bahrain. Among these, Bahrain is so far relatively calm but my gut feeling is that the largely Shia dominated population governed by a corrupt Sunni leadership is a catastrophe waiting to take place.

Most unique among the countries in the Middle East is the tiny nation of Lebanon. After years of sectarian conflict, for a very brief period till the Syrian crisis began, they seemed to have found a ‘eureka ‘moment where-in sectarian violence was at an all-time low and the government seemed to be stable and efficient. It’s not a perfect solution, but it was a solution where for the first time in so many years, a troubled Middle Eastern country was in the news for right reasons. Tourism was at an all-time high, trade was booming and the people where ecstatic.  Other Arab countries especially the ones with the dual problem of leadership and sectarianism should take a leaf out of Lebanon’s note book to analyze how they did it. Who knows it could lead through to a breakthrough in peace for the Middle East.