Mr. Ettefagh manages to shoot himself squarely in the foot.

Mr. Ettefagh manages to shoot himself squarely in the foot.

The satanic verses is very much a story of Muslims in the west, it's about the struggle to live in the UK and adjust to the liberal mindset and often the incredible decadence present in a liberal society (such as reality soaps) such as the UK. Mr. Rushdie helps to give the British Muslims a perspective, you can be British AND Muslim, and there doesn't have to be a contrast because you are a citizen of a western democracy and what is between you and Alllah is what is between you and God.

The Satanic Verses perhaps wouldn't have become famous without the Ayatollah Khomeini giving it his reverse recommendations, and in doing so Mr. Khomeini has helped raise this work of literature into an edifice that has become central to the struggle of Muslims in this globalist world; it is also about how one retains, thinks about and strengthens ones religious conviction in the onslaught of so many different voices. This is about individual people making up their own minds with the strength of their own convictions of what is right or wrong, their choices run the entire gamut of all that one can achieve in a free nation such as the United Kingdom. Sir Rushdie has done his fatherland a great service; the UK is a multicultural society and there is freedom or religion; his indelible contribution amplified by the Fatwa is deserving of knighthood, lesser men received the same title for lesser accomplishments.

And yet Mr. Ettefagh chooses to see this event not as a British event honouring a cultural prodigy, but as "a desperate attempt to polarize and rally around differences."; "an aimless desire for more violence". But it was the Ayatollah Khomeini who sentenced not just Mr. Rushdie to death in his fatwa: "all those involved in its publication who are aware of its content are sentenced to death"; and in fact Hitoshi Igarashi, the Japanese translator, was killed. Mr. Ettefagh sees fit to blame Pakistani extremists for the whole ordeal, as if the Ayatollah Khomeini's desire was only to issue a sad proclamation of hurt feelings that was misinterpreted by those nasty radical Pakistanis. Gosh Mr. Ettefagh, can you see the hole in your foot you just made or do I need to show it more clearly?

Mr. Ettefagh writes that "Gremlins that thrive on division are trying to drag out a dead issue and warm it over, even after the Iranian government officially agreed to a closure and buried the hatchet with its British counterpart some ten years ago."

Gremlins? On feb. 14th, 2006; just over a year ago, the Iranian press reported that the Fatwa still stands. "All those involved in its publication who are aware of its content are sentenced to death", the Ayatollah Khomeini said. The Iranians agreed to a closure ten years ago only to slice it open just over a year ago? Mr. Ettefagh, you really don't understand freedom, do you.

In case you were wondering what I responded to:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/ali_ettefagh/2007/06/truly_ill_conceived.html

Gaza: Who's to Blame? / Washingtonpost postglobal

During the 2nd world war, the colonies established by the UK and France in the Middle East following the collapse of the Ottoman empire themselves collapsed and Muslim, Jew and Christian alike sought to establish nations of their own. The British mandated Palestine was divided by the establishment of Jordan in 1947 and Israel in 1948. After the 1948 war, Egypt held onto Gaza and Jordan kept the West Bank. Some 650.000 Arab Palestinians moved or were forced to move out of their homes in Israel and most continue to be refugees to this day. Some 800.000 Jews moved or were forced to move out of their homes in the Arab world and Iran but the bulk of them were welcomed into Israel.

Who can we blame that the Palestinians to this day do not have a state? Or that barring that they were never welcomed, as the Jewish refugees were, to a new home? It's justifiable to blame the Arab states for not allowing those refugees citizenship; Arab nations except for Jordan (which constituted the largest part of the British Mandate territory) do not grant Palestinian refugees citizenship even if they were born within their borders while many other minorities (such as the Kurds or Shia) do have such rights. It's justifiable to blame Arab nationalists or Muslim extremists for trying to create a Middle East without a Jewish Israel and a Christian (dominated) Lebanon and using the Palestinians as a tool to create havoc in both and other nations. It's justifiable to blame Israel for evicting Palestinians and to blame Arabs for encouraging them to leave. It is justifiable to blame the West for providing aid to the Palestinians so that they didn't have to develop an economy or practise birth control and could survive in ever more densely populated camps. It is justifiable to blame the Palestinians for believing terror is the solution and it is justifiable to blame both them and Arab states for the racism and antisemitism that to this day is in the curriculum of schools, that can be found in the media and that engenders the persecution of Jews but also of the Muslim people of Darfur. It is justifiable to complain that most parties do not seek to understand the basic problem and play politics with it.

The 2nd world war and its related conflicts saw millions of people dislocated; for example, some 15 million Germans were forced out of their homes and forcibly moved to the two new Germanies; anywhere between half a million and 3 million died in the process. The survivors were welcomed in either of the two Germanies. All such large postwar refugee problems except the Palestinian one were solved by giving the refugees a new place to live, not by trying to alter the events that lead to the problem. To this day, after 60 years, groups of Germans demand the return of their property or compensation for their losses; however very few of them question the position of the new Polish-German border or the legitimacy of the nations that once formed the Habsburg empire. Even fewer expect to be able to return to an enlarged Germany. Why do today, after 60 years, so many still keep the dream alive that there is a return possible to a Palestine that knows no Israel?

It really is pointless to seek blame, but it is vital that all parties accept the history of this conflict and that they do their best to approach the solution rationally. What is helpful is to educate everyone involved in this history and for the media to use it as a background and hold those accountable that seek to paint a picture that isn't justified by it.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/2007/06/gaza_whos_to_blame/comments.html#1107159

Financial times discussion - the world in 2020

I like to post on the blog of Gideon Rachman, he is an intelligent and funny fellow and the discussion makes up for its lack of participants by being somewhat more engaging than the average political blog is. I thought I'd post this here as well and save it. You can read this particular discussion here


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/cd8ffb5a-f14b-11db-838b-000b5df10621.html

And the 800 pound gorilla is sold to the eminent Sir James Lovelock of Gaia fame; his book 'the revenge of Gaia' is an extrapolation in depth of climate change trends currently in evidence not unlike in the Guardian article linked above. It does take a scientist of a more generic Newtonian tradition such as Dr. Lovelock to reach a wider superdisciplinary view of how we will develop over the coming decades; specialists feel ill equipped to sketch a future in which the numerous trends are extrapolated to a united view. But it really isn't all too hard. And it is sorely disappointing to see this discussion being held without climate change being a key factor.

China is on a collission course with devastation. Carelessness, corruption, migration and economic growth but above all climate change are causing humanity to develop, pollute and overexploit an ever decreasing amount of arable land. The city of Beijing itself is facing desertification and increasingly severe sandstorms and by 2020, could be covered in sand; The spread of deserts in just the north of China threatens 400 million people (some 30% of the entire population). Somehow China needs to continue to feed, educate and employ not just climate change refugees but also economic migrants who seek to better their prospects in the industrializing zones. Industrial growth is achieved by ever greater emissions of CO2 and SO2 which contribute to the devastation itself. China isn't the only area with problems, but given its population they will play out on a much grander scale. Expanding deserts and rising sea levels will cause mass migrations globally; we'll revert back to worse than just isolationism and protectionism to where autarkist and xenophobic views become the justification for people living in the remaining arable areas to keep the refugees out.

Predictions such as that China can somehow magically become a global power on a par with the US over the next years expose the blinders of those espousing the view. Somehow in 13 years we will still live in the same world; the wide variety of very possible global hazards (there are a couple more besides climate change such as a nuclear war between Iran and the Arabs) is conveniently forgotten. I certainly hope that globalism and internationalism will be stronger forces in 2020 but it seems ever less likely.

Why bother with definitions of "Civil War"

As long as US forces are present the situation can't turn into a "war" because the US presence will keep any force from substantiating territorial gains and will inhibit any militarily from operating in larger organizations than the company level (say beyond 100 men), you won't see tactical operations involving any such a force because they are almost immediately detected and inhibited (by US forces).

But what you can see is groups participating in terrorist (against civilian populations) operations in a guerilla style war: all sides must at all times be able to retreat and mix with the civilian population in order to escape destruction which, considering the mobility of US forces, is almost immediate, so they cannot operate effectively over long distances.

If US forces were to leave and the Shia and Sunni Arabs cannot reach a peaceful settlement that's when we'll see a (civil) war with current guerilla groups quickly consolidating in order to organize into more classical military hierarchies. The group (Sunni or Shia) that first achieves tactical superiority will most likely be the one winning the (at that point extraordinarily vicious) war. Neighbours (Iran, Sunni countries, Turkey) will most likely interfere once the side they support appears to be on the losing side and such support from oil rich nations could sustain this war for a very long time; national Iraqi unity no longer will be anyones objective in that war.

The guerilla forces combating each other now do not distinguish between military and civilian targets and they most likely will not gain that distinction as they consolidate into military hierarchies. I would guess that upon US departure the Baath hierarchy and the old Sunni Iraqi army can quickly achieve tactical superiority against the relatively divided Shia groups and if they can obtain armor they can start isolating Shia areas. The subsequent flood of refugees will so overwhelm Iran that they will invade.

Likely scenario? You tell me. The US has to stay the course, the international community is in a humanitarian sense obligated to help the US stabilize Iraq and reach a peaceful solution to its problems.

Moral failures

In the conflict in Sudan, where over the last few years 400.000 people, mostly Muslims, have been killed by a government sponsored militia, Muslim nations have found their moral waterloo. According to the Coalition for International Justice, 500 people, mostly if not exclusively Muslims, are being killed daily in Darfur.

It only takes two days in Darfur to achieve one thousand civilian deaths. Only two days to eclipse the entire Lebanon war so far. Where is the "proportional" outrage? The silence is stunning!

From my perspective it is easy to doubt the veracity of the outrage against Israel and the United States. In fact, it seems amazingly hypocritical. But unlike in Israel and the United States where public discourse is free and protected by first amendment rights, the focus of public opinion in the Islamic world is not on ones own failings, it is directed against the failings of the other, the "Crusaders and the Jews".

Why blame Israelis for trying to defend themselves against murder, kidnapping and incoming rockets? An Iran bankrolled militia is employing a blatantly antisemitic terrorist strategy that causes Israeli counterstrikes to kill civilians. How difficult is it to acknowledge that that is the condensed truth many people see? It's the other side of the medal, free debate turns that medal.

Hassan Nasrallah apologizes to Israeli Arabs when his missiles fall and kill amongst them, he warns Israeli Arabs to flee Haifa, he might as well say it out loud: we intentionally target civilians but only mean to kill Jews. He is a man that represents not a third of the Lebanese nation, he is a totalitarian usurper that seeks to murder Jews. Where is the rage against him? The silence is stunning!

Instead when Jews are killed by his rockets, radicalized Muslims rejoice. Having been spoonfed the antisemitic line for thousands and the anti-crusader line for hundreds of years by their own authorities, they know no better than to hate the "Crusaders and the Jews".

On a global scale, we need to have a gradual synchronized withdrawal, the mainstream of Muslims must seek to contain and inhibit radicalism, must end the preaching of hatred and racism. Israel and Lebanon are the microcosm of the entire planet. The west can only gradually withdraw from it's south lebanon as long as the Muslims seek to disarm their Hezbollah. Yes the west must disengage from the Muslim world when that Muslim world can police its own and prevent them from striking out across the border and across the world. Right now, the Muslim world depends on the Crusaders and the Zionists to clean up after them.

Violent radicals attempting to own the public domain.

What has caused so many young people to sign up a suicidal campaign to kill thousands of civilians? What makes them target "us" and our political economy, society and entire culture?

Listening to the leaders that incite them, the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon only serve as examples of our decadence. It is western decadence that they reject. The mass media in the western world issue forth a deluge of sex, violence, emotional exhibitionism, moral relativism and idolatrous consumerism. Conservatives in liberal democracies have always railed against what they feel is the absense of common values and against what they see as abuses of liberal freedoms such as pornography and the desecration of religious icons.

Yet these very first amendment rights afford western conservatives their own freedom of expression, thought and religion. The vast majority of conservatives realize that living in a liberal democracy requires that one is confronted with the quirks and vagaries of others, because no single religion or ideology owns or should ever own or lay claim to the public commons. It is a testament to the strength of their faith and flexibility that they can keep their values alive and well from generation to generation and yet still support first amendment rights. Because this respect for and love of freedom is the essential shared value.

Decolonization brought a great influx of people from former colonies to the colonial European motherlands, most of these immigrants have created their own niche in their host societies and have not only integrated successfully but also have greatly enriched the host culture; the positive example of Indonesians and Surinamese in the Netherlands and the (sub continental) Indians and Jamaicans in the UK stand out, the subcultures of Irish Americans and Italian Americans are comparable to these. Generally, they have subscribed to the notion that nobody owns the public domain so they have added their distinctiveness to the host culture. The cumulative value of shared culture is the greatest wealth of liberal democracies, anyone privy to the culinary options available to the Londoner will heartily endorse this perspective.

What has gone wrong with these young people though? The Indonesians that moved to the Netherlands in the 1950s and 1960s were and are mostly Muslim too but they have integrated and secularized so well that the net cast by radical Islam has entirely failed to catch them. The benefits of living in a liberal democracy are so obvious that they immediately and almost intuitively feel and react negatively whenever any group tries to lay claim to the public domain.

And that is what radical Islam is doing, like conservatives they reject many of the apparent decadent freedoms that liberal democracies bring. But unlike western conservatives they lay siege to this public domain and attempt to own it, to legislate it according to religious law and to purify it. They say: do not make cartoons of the prophet, do not abuse the Koran, do not write devil's verses, do not make movies critical of Islam. In short: do not use any element we are uncomfortable with in your public discourse and in the public domain, we will define exactly what it is that offends us and will ask you to act accordingly. Radical Islam is claiming what cannot be claimed: control over the ingredients of culture,

Radical islam is waging a frontal assault on the first amendment rights that are the foundation of liberal democracies. Young, disenfranchised individuals are caught in the nets, people that feel rejected by their host culture find the elements of rebellion freely shared in that very culture, they find the ingredients for their crude bombs freely shared in the free economy. The 9/11, Madrid, and London bombers, Hamas, Al Quaeda, Hezbollah, Jemaah Islamiyah and other such groups all are part of the forces that abuse and fight to undermine the first amendment-type freedoms and rights that are the foundation of liberal democracies. They fight because they never tasted the benefits of freedom, never went to any London restaurant but their own. All these groups, however diverse they may be, are united by the urge that President Ahmedinejad of Iran expressed: to "experience a world without the United States and Zionism", to experience a world without the curses and blessings that they never accepted.

The significance of this particular event is minor because it fits into the historical development of radical Islam over the centuries, it is simply yet another attempt to undermine the capitalist engine that operates in the freedoms provided by globalist, liberal democracy. In our current political economy, capitalism, globalism and liberal democracy are intertwined to great depth, because the free market is the very embodyment of the public commons and it cannot survive without the freedoms it helps to uphold.

Hence there is a war on terror, a war for our hearts and minds, a war that seeks to isolate the (antiliberal) fascist radicals from the population at large. Due to the failure of many leftist liberal democracts to recognise Israel as one of their own, and due to the failure of many onservatives on the right to sustain the first amendment rights of all citizens equally, the first amendment foundations beneath liberal democracy are being undermined from within.

We must hold the center and end the war victoriously, we must endorse and cultivate liberal democracy around the globe because without it, 60 years of amazing liberal progress that now is starting to flourish even in China will be undone. To hold this central and yet liberally moral ground with the idea that freedom is the essential shared value is the only way to end terror because any compromise will inevitably lead to the corrosion that radical Islam seeks.