#All India Muslim League | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

psychologeek · 2 months ago

Text

Jewish History and Zionism.

Or: why you gotta be so difficult about that tiny piece of land?

Ft. Britain, Ottoman empire, the Age of Enlightenment, and helll lot of racism.

(But like. That was obvious.)

ToC:

Britain, shortly (or: the problem with "but they created Israel!!")

Indigenous

Jews in the 19th century

The ottoman empire (pt.1 - geography and maps)

Bibliography (cited articles)

Edit: I changed/removed things that were spesificly for the person I had this discussion with, as they show understanding of what was problematic with their og comment, and regrets it.

A. This was not about you personally. It was about the way Jewish pain is constantly generalized and turn into something for "the world". Somehow, Jewish tragedies are either ignored or "a lesson for the world".

B. My problem with the term was that by saying "as a FELLOW JEW" you claim relationship to the community and kinship which you later use to dismiss cultural and community issues. You are Jewish (as your mother). My issue is that the only usage you seem to have is to make claims. This is... disturbing, seeing claimed made while ignoring the historical background. (AKA 2,000 years of exile, enslavement, oppressions and murders).

1. Britain:

The British were involved in the creation of The Jewish State, Israel by the “Balfour Declaration”. The League of Nations is a predecessor to the United Nations.

Yes, the British were involved in the creation of the Jewish state. As well as the Emirate of Trans-Jordan (1921-1946) - later became "Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan" (est. 1946). Also in the creation of India, Pakistan, and many other countries no one seem to have an issue with.

Also the france were involved in the creation of Lebanon, Algeria, Lybia, etc.

(The world was mostly controlled by EMPIRES. So yes. When an empire fall apart, sometimes there is an involvement in what happens next.)

Focusing on a certain group and judging them and their actions by different standards then others is. Uh. Pretty racist view, you know?

Britanica:

Alarmed by the extent of Arab opposition, the British government issued a White Paper in June 1922 declaring that Great Britain did “not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded in Palestine.” Immigration would not exceed the economic absorptive capacity of the country, and steps would be taken to set up a legislative council. These proposals were rejected by the Arabs, both because they constituted a large majority of the total mandate population and therefore wished to dominate the instruments of government and rapidly gain independence and because, they argued, the proposals allowed Jewish immigration, which had a political objective, to be regulated by an economic criterion.

This is the area of the "British Mandate of Palestine". Brits had separated it and gave 2/3 and claimed it a different reign.

As for governing - The Hashemite emir Abdullah, elder son of Britain's wartime Arab ally Hussein bin Ali, was placed on the throne of Transjordan.

Yet, for some reason, no one ever said anything like "from the river to Iraq, all the land will be back."

Hi, guess what is it called when there are laws that forbid and heavily reduce members of a spesific group from living in certain areas?

(Strangely, no such boundary was set on the immigration of Muslims, Christians, or any other kind of people. Only jews.)

Source: Israel embassy

In 1920, the Council of the League of Nations appointed Britain as the Mandatory entrusted with the administration of the Land of Israel. The borders of the land, as a separate country, were defined for the first time in many centuries. Until then, under the Ottoman Empire, the land's boundaries had not been defined because it was part of other large Ottoman districts like the district of Damascus and was not a distinct political unit. The term name "Palestine" that was chosen for this Mandate was based on the term name "Palestina" that was given to the country by the Roman Empire in the second century CE. The territory of the British Mandate included land on both sides of the Jordan River, encompassing the present-day countries of Israel and Jordan. About 77% of this Mandate was east of the river Jordan River, and in 1921, Great Britain created there a separate administrative entity called Transjordan. The changed mandate took effect in 1923

2. Indigenous

Here's another part I want to dig in deeper:

"(the arabs) constituted a large majority of the total mandate population" -

The Arabs. Notice the name? I wonder how they got there. A true mystery. Green: Arab Peninsula. Red: area in question.

Hebrew was spoken in the area long before Muhammad and the Muslim empire.

I grew up near a 2,000 year old burial cave. The stories I learnt about my heritage happened in places I knew, with names I understood the meaning of.

This is the equivalent of calling for land back in Pennsylvania in the name of Pennsylvania Dutch.

3. Jews in the 19th century

Part of the reason for low Jewish population in the area was that unlike any other people, Jews were legally prohibited from living in the area. Now, some background: in general, the Ottoman empire was a pretty descent place for Jews, comparing to other places. Sure, had to pay extra taxes and not allowed to live in places, but you can mostly know you won't be exiled once the authorities felt like (looking at you Britain, Yemen, Spain, Morocco, and more). The 19th century had marked a rise in nationalism (results to the Fall of Empires in the 20th century). It also saw the coin of a new term: "antisemism".

This came to describe Jew-hatred that isn't focused on the religious part ("they killed Jesus"/"They kept faith for themselves"), but seem to have a more "neutral" reason. Even scientific, as "they are naturally inferior" (see "the race theory", Eugenics, and more.) If you see similarities with Romanis in Europe and Black people in America - yes. This wasn't just about Jews - it was a general trend due to the so called "Age of Enlightenment" in Europe.

Part of the things that happened to/in the Jewish Community in the 19th century including:

1860: Foundation of "Alliance Israélite Universelle" an international Jewish (charity) organization.

First mass Aliya (immigration to Israel) of Yemeni jews in 1882/Jewish year of תרמ"ב (aka "אעלה בתמר")

1827 (Russia): the "cantonists' Decree"

The "okaz" (regulation, instruction) of the emperor from the end of August 1827, which imposed an obligation on the communities to provide the monarchy with a fixed quota of rookie soldiers, stunned the Jewish population. The terrible tragedy of the kidnapping of Israeli children (from the age of twelve according to the law, but actually even from the age of eight) for military training is known in the history of Russian Jews, and has even been commemorated in literature. The service in the Nikolai army, which lasted twenty-five years, was counted from the age of eighteen, and the years of "education" of the minor abductees, the "cantonists", were not included in it, as these years were out of the calculation. The purpose of the government in this decree was to convert the Jews to their religion and to mix them with the Pravoslav Christian Russian population.

(translated from: Maor, Y., 1981)

1881-2: Sufot Banegev - mass Pogroms of jews in south-east Russia (Ukraine, Poland) after Tzar Nikolai's murder. The Jews were accused of the murder. I was unable to find any information in English, but here's one in Hebrew ("today in history"). (I might be able to get one in Russian if you know that.)

May Laws (link to online version of the Jewish Encyclopedia.)

During the 1880s - founding of multiple "Lovers of Zion" organisations in Russia.

The assassination of Tsar Alexander II in 1881 ushered in a painful new era. The pogroms after his death were followed by the notorious 'May Laws' of 1882 which stepped up economic discrimination against the Jews. The stirring among the Jewish community, both physical and intellectual, was heightened. Many more of them started to leave, mainly for America, and not a few began to think seriously about Jewish nationalism, with the result that the 'Lovers of Zion' Movement gained momentum. Some of them, whether for reasons of sheer physical safety or nationalism or a combination of both, thought of finding a home in the Ottoman Empire. (Mandel, 1974)

1894 (France): The Dreyfus affair

Theodore Herzl, a Jewish Journalist, was there as a reporter. He said this was the moment he realised jews As a journalist in France, Herzl became extremely upset during the Dreyfus affair, in which a Jewish army officer was falsely accused and convicted of espionage. The only solution to the problem of the Jews, he decided, was to create a Jewish state. Although Dreyfus was ultimately pardoned (in 1906), the episode revealed that emancipation would be an incomplete and ongoing process.

1896 (Vienna): Theodore Herzl published his book "Der Judenstaat: Versuch einer modernen Lösung der Judenfrage" (The Jews’ State: An Attempt at a Modern Solution to the Jewish Question)

Herzl published this work, Der Judenstaat, to galvanize his fellow Jews into action. He asserts that emancipation itself caused antisemitism, since it failed as a movement. He concludes that Jews cannot continue to live among other nations since their presence inevitably gives rise to hostility. Herzl’s answer was for Jews to organize a mass migration to a territory of their own.

1897: the First Zionist Congress of the Zionist Organization. The official goal of Zionism (Basel Program) read: "Zionism seeks to establish a home in Palestine for the Jewish people, secured under public law."

As we can see, the 19 century wasn't good to jews, especially in Russia (and I mean Russia of that time - which included the area of Ukraine, and parts of Poland). Starting with a legal forced children-kidnapping. During the 80s, massive pogroms, on long time and area, had spread terror among the Jewish communities. The authorities' refusal to assist and victim blaming weren't uncommon, but not in those masses. 2.4 million jews had left Russia during those years, mostly to the USA, Canada, and Argentina (115.000 ppl). 3% (~73,000 ppl) had immigrated to Israel.

Also a worldwide rise in nationalism*, that was also used as a reason for jew-hatred (bc what bring ppl together better than having the same enemy?). In France, the Dreyfus affair made Herzl realise that the emancipation (jewish semi-autonomous areas, a-la Reservations in usa) wouldn't work. It won't help to prevent the systematic and cultural discrimination. Eventually inventing *modern day* Zionism - secular consept. (not to be confused with Hibat Ztiyon/"Zion Loving" - which was an old Jewish consept since the first exile, 6th century BCE.

*Nationalism, as itself, wasn't a bad thing. It was a big part of decolonisation (as different groups in the empire demanded to have their own autonomy.)

4. Ottoman empire (Geography and MAPS)

Let's skip a few thousand miles away, to the Ottoman empire.

First thing we need to know is - how the map looked like, back then?

The empire was divided into different areas, that all had sub-areas, et al. For better understanding, think about it like USA's country vs. state. Vs. reign.

The empire was divided into different EYALETS (aka beylerbeyiliks. after 1860s- Vilayet), that contained several Sanjcks, that contained several Kazas.

This is a map of the empire in 1875, as it already started to fade:

Two more maps for better understanding of spesific areas

The Damascus Eyalet in 1795 (red):

(the north-west (top-left) is Sidon/Beirut/Sefad Eyalet. Do you see the Sea of the Galilee? It's the little dot in the middle).

1896:

Authority areas kept changing. This is another map, showing Vilayets (Syria, Beirut, Aleppo) and their Sanjaks (+independent Sanjak of Jerusalem).

I'm pretty sure that this one is the simplified version:

Why do I show it?

Well, first of all - definitions. Making sure we all know what area we're talking about. During the years, "Filistin"/"Palestine"/"Paleshet" used to refer to many areas: from almost all the southern levant to a coast reign, about the size of modern-day Gaza Strip.

Secondly? Our next part, about the Jews and the empire. Especially the 1881 declaration by the Council of Ministers that

"[Jewish] immigrants [would] be able to settle as scattered groups throughout Turkey, excluding Palestine".

(Mandel, 1974)

I wonder why..

I've been working on it for days, so I'll post this now and add the second part, in which I'll explain this last bit and continue, later.

Next part: immigration, Zionism, and the breaking point in the Jewish-Arab relationship (no, not 1948. It was 1929.)

Bibliography:

Mandel, Neville J. ( 1974). "Ottoman Policy and Restrictions on Jewish Settlement in Palestine: 1881-1908: Part I" (PDF). Middle Eastern Studies. 10 (3). Taylor & Francis, Ltd.: 312–332. Retrieved 29 March 2024.

Maor, Y. (1981). The “Sufot Banegev” as a Factor in the Rise of Nationalism among the Jewish Intelligentsia / ה"סופות בנגב" כגורם להתעוררות התודעה הלאומית בקרב המשכילים היהודיים. Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies / דברי הקונגרס העולמי למדעי היהדות, ח, 1–12. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23526296)

10 notes · View notes

kuch-toh-garbad-hai-daya · 5 months ago

Text

Indian Elections (Part 2)

Part 2 of the result and campaign opinions is here!

I know I said that Rajasthan was Congress's biggest comeback, well I take it back because INDIA alliance won in Maharashtra with Congress getting 13 seats, Shiv Sena (og one) with 9 and NCP (again, og one) with 8. With BJP getting 9 seats, Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde one) and NCP (new one) getting 7 and 1 seats respectively, NDA lost 28 of its seats. And honestly, what a banger. Sharad Pawar probably deserves credit for this, that man is a shrewd politician. Also, the Congressi responsible for campaigning in Maharashtra also deserves credit, because Congress performed well and beyond the expectations here.

Tamil Nadu my beloved. Major INDIA sweep! DMK (22) and Congress (9) while BJP remained on the zero mark. As expected of the Tamil public. Everyone say thank you to DMK's campaign and BJP's incompetency to get the Tamilians on their side.

Chhattisgarh is an almost BJP sweep, with BJP getting 10 and Congress getting 1. Expected for Congress, given the Vidhaan Sabha results last year.

Another almost BJP (25) sweep is Gujarat, again, as expected. It is, after all BJP's garh, as my mother calls it. Very heavy campaign that paid off for BJP. Hats off to the Congressi who won 1 seat, probably worked very hard on his own.

Things get tricky in Karnataka, where BJP won with 17 seats and Congress got 9. Again, not much familiar with Karnataka politics, but BJP did lose 8 of its seats, so I guess a part of the public is losing trust in the government but it's not a majority yet. A Rajasthan like situation.

TDP shines in Andhra Pradesh with 16 seats, BJP with 4. Congress remained on its zero mark. Chandrababu Naidu come to the INDIA bloc you can be deputy PM

Congress (14), Muslim League (2) and CPIM (1) lead INDIA alliance to an almost sweep in Kerala, BJP getting 1 seat. I'm so glad that Shashi Tharoor won from Thiruvananthapuram, he is a delight to watch.

Things are perfectly balanced as all things should be in Telangana, with both Congress and BJP winning 8 seats each. I guess the public has major divide on issues and opinions.

That's it for this part, I thought this will be done in 2 parts, but guess not.

#indian elections #indpol #election 2024 #anti bjp #anti modi #desiblr

10 notes · View notes

bajoop-sheeb · 8 months ago

Note

I can't help but notice that all of the people in your anti-colonialism by "marginalized people" book rec list are people who were born and grew up in either the US or, in one or two cases, another white Anglophone country. I.e. the imperial core.

As a non-American I wonder whether, due to the cultural hegemony of the US and other Anglophone countries, the perspectives of people who have spent their whole lives in the Imperial core (even if marginalized in other ways due to their race or some other attribute) can be considered "authentic" depictions of the effects of colonialism in the way that you are presenting them. I find that people from the US, even POC people from the US, are often pretty incapable of understanding non-US perspectives on social justice issues because they're rarely exposed to them and because they grew up brainwashed with media that treats the US as the center of the world, so they overlay the US framework over everything.

I would perhaps have liked to see more recs for authors writing about colonialism who actually grew up in countries that have been affected by colonialism, or at least in countries that aren't as rich and powerful as the US and are therefore heavily dependent on the political whims of powerful Western ones. I'm sure there's a bunch of people in South America writing SF/F, for example, considering their long tradition of awesome magical realism. Or South Africa. Or India (I note that Salman Rushdie is not on your list, for example). I'm not writing this to be pettish, because I don't know enough about it either and would actually like to know, I just feel like perhaps we should all be a bit humbler when talking about this since a strictly US-centric perspective is still a VERY limited one when talking about colonialism (by definition an international, intercultural phenomenon), even when written by POC.

I also wonder about your definition of "marginalized" and if it doesn't fall into the same US-centrism that I talked about in my previous paragraph (even if we assume that "marginalized" means "marginalized as it relates to colonialism" and ignore other forms of marginalization). Is a person from, say, the Balkans, marginalized enough to write about anti-colonialism, or are they exactly the same as a white American in your perspective? Does it matter where from the Balkans? Does it matter if they're Muslim or Christian? How about a Ukrainian person? How about a Ukrainian Jew? Is a person from Bosnia or Ukraine, who went through a war in their lifetime, less qualified to write about war than Kuang, who grew up middle class and went to an Ivy League school (and honestly did a really shitty job of portraying a war in The Poppy Wars), just because they're "Caucasian"?

Also, people are allowed to acknowledge flaws of books written by POC without being automatically labeled as racist, you know. Finding Babel too heavy-handed or on the nose has nothing to do with finding POC characters annoying or unrelatable and sorry but, yeah, IMHO it's really on the nose and annoying about it. It's the writing style that's the problem, not the themes. Also the central metaphor, IMHO, makes it completely useless as a colonialism allegory because if you can destroy colonialism by destroying one magical uberpowerful whatsit, your book is kinda not serious enough about nuanced representation of sociological and political forces to be considered impactful anti-colonialist literature. Saying that as someone who loves Butler and Jemisin. Thea Guanzhon, for example, is a Filipina born and raised in the Philippines and still lives there, which makes her book way more of an "own voices" account of colonialism than Kuang's could ever be in my accounting, but that doesn't mean that her account of colonialism has any particular nuance to it (so far it's just the backdrop for the enemies to lovers romance). So even assuming that Kuang's account is resonant enough with enough people (which I know it is because her book is super popular), who is more deserving of being on your "own voices" list, Kuang or Guanzhon?

I also wonder why white women in particular?

The simple response to all of this is that the post you're referring to broke containment.

I debated replying, because I can't help but feel your message was written in bad faith. But I'm going to try to give you the benefit of the doubt.

You are absolutely right about the limitations of the original list. I truly didn't expect it to reach so many people, and I am not nearly as well-read as I'd like to be when it comes to literature written outside of the West. Please take a look at the reblogs, where a bunch of awesome people have done incredible work filling the gaps I left.

I struggle with the rest of your message. I explicitly stated that I do not expect people to enjoy specific books written by BIPOC authors, simply that I've noticed a very frustrating pattern. And yet you suggest I'm saying that if someone doesn't like Babel or The Hurricane Wars, I'm saying they're racist. Be serious.

Even as a child of multigenerational immigrants, I'll freely admit that I personally have a very US-centric perspective on social issues that I need to work on, but it's wild of you to say that all POC people born in the US are "pretty incapable of understanding" global issues.

When I wrote "marginalized" in the original post, what I really meant was "BIPOC and BIPOC queer people.” I should’ve been more careful about the wording.

Why white women in particular? When it comes to anti-colonial and anti-imperialist fiction (written by Anglophones) the authors that I see most highly and frequently praised are white women. I'd list the specific ones I'm talking about here, but 1. I don't want to be hunted for sport by their fans, 2. I've actually enjoyed some of their work, and 3. they're only a small part of the problem and I think people should be allowed to write whatever they want as long as they can handle the criticism. But I'm sorry, white women. I'll do better next time. I also want to use this moment to apologize to all the dumbasses complaining about my tone/me being "shouty." Reverse racism is real, and we must all stand vigilant hahaha miss me

You telling me to be humble feels a tad hypocritical, but sure, I'll take that under advisement.

#science fiction #fantasy #babel #the hurricane wars #the poppy war #books #asks

13 notes · View notes

citruscloudsandmoon · 1 year ago

Note

Hi sis!

As someone who supports Palestine, I think I can share this with you as an Indian. Most of the Indians are saying that India should support Israel because it helped India during dark times. Yes, I appreciate it but how can I even bear to see them destroying a nation? So, should Indians support a a genocide where over 5000 children got killed in the past one month? Does it mean that I should consider someone as a close friend even if they are harming others? Just because they helped another nation, it doesn't give them the right to destroy another.

I'm a Hindu girl, but as a human being it's pathetic to see another nation crumbled regardless of what religion they are.

(Sorry for the long rant 😔).

Hello ❤️

Before religion, comes humanity. So it doesn't matter if you are Hindu or not; right is right and wrong is wrong. And what Israel is doing is beyond wrong; they are basically raising hell by torturing civilians in every way for more than 70 years.

Quoting your words 'Most of the Indians are saying that India should support Israel because it helped India during dark times'. There are different ways of viewing this statement. The political view would be that India should definitely support Israel because it always aided them in times of trouble and havoc. The socioeconomic view would be that India should support Israel because it has all the power and the backing of strong nations hence India supporting them means it will come under the big leagues.

But if looking at the said statement from moral perspective; India shouldn't support Israel because what they are doing is large scale genocide. And considering India's own past who had once been colonised by white rulers for about 89 years….it should know well enough about the pain and the suffering of Palestinians because their own ancestors went through it.

So Hun, don't feel bad. Don't feel guilty for supporting Palestinians. It just shows you value humanity above everything and that you are empathetic and have a very kind heart. And I know a lot of Indians that are supporting Palestinians and they aren't even Muslims. Americans, Latinas, blacks and browns all are supporting Palestinians despite their home nations vocally supporting Israel like US, UK and Canada. Should they be counted as traitors?! Absolutely not!

#Ask me?#You don't have to be a Muslim to support Palestinians #Palestine #Pro Palestine #Anti Israel #Never ever lose sight of the right path #And lastly... don't pressure yourself Nika 🥺#What you are doing is more than enough 🫶🌼

11 notes · View notes

blackswaneuroparedux · 2 years ago

Photo

كن التغير الذي تريد أن تراه في العالم. *

- Mahatma Gandhi

Be the change you want to see in the world.*

As an irate and highly Western educated Qatari business friend of mine put it she is so looking forward to watching the World Cup in the USA in 2026 then she can return the favour and moralise to white liberal Americans about their societal shortcomings.

As she put it since Americans love to moralise to the world it’s only fair to point out their sins: from genocide of its Indian natives to the evil of the slave trade as well as the killing 60 million babies in their mother’s wombs to the mutilating and cutting off body parts of little children just so they can delude themselves into believing that can be a boy or a girl (terms they can’t even define) based not on biology but feelings, and to their hatred and active break up of the nuclear family unit as the foundation of society.

Or that Obama authorised more strikes in his first year than Bush carried out during his entire presidency. A total of 563 strikes, largely by drones, targeted Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen during Obama’s two terms, compared to 57 strikes under Bush. Civilians killed in those countries resulted in the deaths of over 3797 people, including 542 civilians. Black Lives Matter but not so much non-American Muslim women and children slaughtered. Let’s not even talk about the history of American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And so on and so on.

But she won’t because she has manners and she understands she is a guest in a foreign country and has to respect its laws and customs, even those one might strongly disagree with.

As much as I could take issue with her arguments, and as much as I dislike the authoritarian nature of Qatar, it is a sovereign Islamic state like any other Islamic country in the Middle East and the other Muslim majority states in the world. Having said that it’s not in the same league as truly oppressive states like Putin’s Russia or Xi’s China. If it was then there would be no large Western and and even greater non-Western presence of people here (greater than the Qataris themselves), living and working quite happily for years.

As for labour abuse there is a case to answer for but it’s no different than any other country where labour are often screwed. All the contracts for buildings are done by Western and Chinese companies and they are meant to enforce strong labour laws - but inevitably they find ways around it or are too slow to do so. The Qataris are guilty for not cracking down on the abuse by these companies of labour laws it passed after intense outside pressure (and rightly so). Many of working migrants - mostly from India - have housing and food paid for them and they earn far more than they would back in their home countries. Of course there are documented cases of migrant labour abuse but not on the industrial scale that some Western media outlets are falsely reporting.

If you go to any stadium here in Qatar, you will inevitably hear a lot of people speaking in Hindi - which I speak too from my childhood in India. That’s because the Indian presence at this World Cup is very strong. The hyped up labour abuse of migrant workers hasn’t stopped Indians coming out to enjoy the World Cup. In fact, statistics published by the Qatar establishment show that Indians constitute 9% of the fans who have come for the World Cup. Saudi Arabia, which has a land border with Qatar, accounts for 11% and sits at the top. India is in the second position, and surprisingly followed by the US who make up 7% of visitors.

For the droves of visiting Americans here they are truly shocked how futuristic, slick, and modern Qatar is in contrast to the urban decaying of their cities. The standard of living is higher than anything they are used to. They are also overwhelmed by the sincere and friendly hospitality of Arab people here.

The hand wringing and sheer nonsense written in some parts of the Western media about Qatar is embarrassingly untrue. It’s a caricature of the truth in the same way Qataris have a caricatured impression of the West only just obsessed with sex and alcohol. One is confronted here at the World Cup of genuine footballing fans from England, Wales, the US, and other European countries apologising to their Qatari hosts for the misinformed - sometimes bordering on outright racism - press articles on life in Qatar.

You can drink here - just not at the stadiums itself. Previous World Cups have done the same and no one kicked up a fuss. Most fans have said it made for a better and cosier atmopshere for opposing fans and for families especially. Opposing fans mingle freely and have a good laugh together in a safe and well run World Cup. There are well catered fan zones. Plenty of beer is on tap here in the bars and hotels, though it will set you back around £14 a pint.

You can have sex with whomever you want - just don’t do it in public. Laws are not targeted specifically to gays but equally to hetrosexuals e.g. no public displays of affection like kissing or holding hands. Whatever you decide to do in your hotel room is up to you.

In truth everyone looks the other way.

Is the World Cup corrupt. Of course it is. Every World Cup has been. FIFA has been shown to be corrupt from almost its inception. Qataris are not immune to corruption but as many Qataris have said to me the Qataris just learned everything from the West. They observed carefully how we do business in the West. Money and power talks. This is how the game is played.

But I will say this in FIFA’s defence that over the last twenty years, FIFA has demonstrated a commitment to open its product up to a wider audience and take its premier sporting contest, the World Cup, to new heartlands. 

The USA saw the benefit of this initiative in 1994, before Japan and South Korea became both the first Asian nations and the first co-hosts for the historic competition in 2002. In 2010, the World Cup arrived at a fifth continent (Africa) and a new heartland was reached with the contest being taken to South Africa. In 2022, after a return to Brazil and a sojourn to Russia, the Islamic Middle East now becomes the next bright destination for the Modiale bandwagon, as Qatar benefits from the truly global game.

The Middle East region is among the fastest growing areas for football in the world and promises to be an endless stream of young, passionate football fans for years to come. And with football one hopes social progress follows. But if it happens it will be on their terms, and not ours.

#gandhi #quote #social change #society #qatar #qatar world cup #lusail trail #femme #arabic #football #wordl cup 2022 #islam #muslim #politics

29 notes · View notes

udo0stories · 8 months ago

Text

Sana Shayin, a third-year student studying international relations at King's College London, has been exposed to a lively and thought-provoking atmosphere on a regular basis. Her passions for human rights advocacy and diplomacy have grown throughout this degree. Given the current and rapidly changing political landscape of the region, she is thrilled to be a part of International Relations Today as the Editor for South and Central Asia and contribute to the academic discourse in the field. India is home to about 200 million Muslims, making it one of the world's largest Muslim populations, despite being a minority in the nation that is predominantly Hindi. Despite constitutional protections, Indian Muslims frequently experience violence, intolerance and discrimination since the country’s independence in 1947. Experts claim that anti-Muslim sentiment has surged since Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power in 2014 and began promoting a Hindu nationalist agenda. The government has enacted divisive policies that opponents claim will disenfranchise millions of Muslims and blatantly disregard their rights since Modi was reelected in 2019. Since Modi assumed office, there has been a rise in violence against Muslims. The acts have sparked protests in India and drawn criticism from all around the world. According to several analysts covering India, Modi’s reelection in 2024 would probably increase religious conflict in the nation. The Demographics India is a diverse nation in terms of religion, ethnicity, and language. The majority of its Muslims, who identify as Sunnis, make up roughly 15% of the population, making them by far the largest minority group. Hindus make up about 80% of the population. Similar to the Hindu population, the Muslim population in the country is diverse, with differences in caste, ethnicity, language, and access to political and economic power. Partition's Impact on Hindu-Muslim Relations Scholars claim that the animosity between Muslims and Hindus in India stems in part from the 1947 partition of British India and the schisms that happened during the British colonial era. The British decided to abandon the subcontinent after World War II because their economy was destroyed and they could no longer maintain their empire. Before the country was divided, Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi led the Indian National Congress in organizing massive protests and acts of civil disobedience against the British government in an effort to gain independence. Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s political organisation, the All India Muslims League, demanded a separate state for Muslims. In 1947, a British judge arbitrarily drew the boundaries between a Hindu-majority India and a Muslim-majority Pakistan, which included what is now Bangladesh. The Partition resulted in widespread migrations of Muslims to Pakistan and Hindus and Sikhs to India, as well as deadly riots and horrifying intercommunal violence. Survivors remember villages burning to the rubble, dead tossed in the streets, and blood-soaked trains transporting refugees from one nation to another. Historians estimate that between 200,000 and 500,000 people died. It is unclear why groups of people who had lived together for hundreds of years fought one another. The British "divide-and-rule" policy, which gave the Muslim minority—roughly 25% of the population—some electoral advantages, has drawn criticism from some analysts. Others highlight disputes between political movements that organized followers of the Muslim and Hindu faiths. Nearly 35 million Muslims still lived in India after Partition. The Religion Factor The nation’s 75-year-old constitution upholds egalitarian values such as nondiscrimination and socioeconomic equality. The Constitution does not specifically require the separation of church and state, despite the word "secular" being added to the preamble in 1976. Congress party leaders who fought for

India’s independence promoted a country that treated all its people equally, regardless of their religious beliefs. Gandhi, who championed a unified India free from discrimination, was assassinated by Nathuram Godse, a Hindi nationalist, in 1948. The first prime minister of India, Nehru, considered the greatest threat to the country as those seeking to split the country along religious lines, particularly among Hindu factions. He felt that secularism was necessary to create a harmonious society and prevent another tragedy similar to what happened after Partition. Hindu nationalists contend that since Hindus’ sacred territories are inside India, whereas Christian and Muslim holy territories are outside, Hindus are the “true sons of the soil.” Generally speaking, they support laws meant to convert India into a Hindu state. Even though the majority of Indian Muslims are sprung from Hindus who converted to Islam, many regard them as foreigners. Founded in 1980, the BJP traces its origins to the political wing of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a Hindu nationalist paramilitary volunteer group. The BJP secured a single-party majority in the Lok Sabha—India’s lower house of parliament and most powerful political body—for the first time in 2014, electing party leader Narendra Modi as Prime Minister. In 2019, the party won a majority once more following a contentious campaign packed with anti-Muslim rhetoric. What type of discrimination do Indian Muslims face? Muslims have faced prejudice in the workplace, in the classroom, and in housing. Many face obstacles in their pursuit of riches, political influence, and limited access to essential services, including healthcare. Furthermore, even with constitutional protections, people frequently have difficulty obtaining justice after being the target of prejudice. Muslims’ presence in parliament has stagnated over the past 20 years; following the 2019 elections, they controlled only 5% of the seats. This is partially because of the BJP’s ascent; by the middle of 2022, the party had zero Muslim Members of Parliament. In the meantime, a 2019 report by the NGO Common Cause, situated in India, discovered that half of the police polled exhibited anti-Muslim prejudice, which decreased their likelihood of stepping in to prevent crimes against Muslims. Analysts have also noted widespread impunity for those who attack Muslims. Recently, state and national courts and government bodies have often reversed convictions or dropped prosecutions against Hindus accused of participating in violence against Muslims. States are passing more and more legislation that limits the religious freedoms of Muslims, such as laws that forbid wearing headscarves in public places and prohibit conversion. Additionally, in a move critics refer to as “bulldozer justice,” authorities have punished Muslims extrajudicially. Authorities in multiple states demolished people’s homes in 2022, claiming the buildings didn’t have the necessary permits. Critics countered that they mainly targeted Muslims, some of whom had recently taken part in demonstrations. Although the practice has persisted, India’s Supreme Court responded by ruling that demolitions “cannot be retaliatory.” What controversial policies has the Modi government imposed on Muslims? The Citizenship Amendment Act was passed by the parliament in December 2019 and signed by Modi. It permits Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan to obtain citizenship more quickly. Critics claim that because the law excludes Muslims and applies a religious standard to citizenship for the first time, it is discriminatory. The Modi government claims that the law was made to protect these three countries' mostly Muslim vulnerable religious minorities from persecution. Simultaneously, the BJP pledged to finish the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in its 2019 election manifesto. The NRC was created in the 1950s

specifically for the state of Assam in order to determine whether the residents of that state were immigrants from what is now Bangladesh's neighbor or Indian citizens. The Assam government revised its registry in 2019, leaving out about two million Bengali Hindus and Muslims. Assume that this process is implemented across the nation. Critics contend that in that scenario, a sizable Muslim population might become stateless because they lack the necessary documentation and are not qualified for the Citizenship Amendment Act's expedited citizenship process. Meanwhile, Jammu and Kashmir, the only Muslim-majority state in India, has seen its political stature eroded under Modi. The state, located in the mountainous border region under dispute with Pakistan, was divided into two parts and its special constitutional authority was taken away by the government in August 2019. Since then, Indian authorities have repressed the people’s rights in the area, frequently in the name of preserving security. In 2021, they detained well-known political figures and activists, harassed and arrested journalists, and shut down the internet 85 times. The government maintains that security has improved, yet since the division, armed groups have killed dozens of civilians. In December 2023, the Supreme Court, upholding the government’s decision, ruled that the territory should regain statehood in time for local elections the following year. "Muslims' status will change more the longer Hindu nationalists are in power, and it will be harder to reverse such changes," says Ashutosh Varshney, a Brown University expert on Indian intercommunal conflict. Maintaining India's Secularism Although there is an increase in anti-Muslim sentiment among Hindus, experts say it is wrong to assume that all Hindus and BJP supporters are against Muslims. Muslims and Hindus have resisted the BJP's attempts to weaken secularism in India in the form of activists, law scholars, and students. For instance, following the passage of the Citizenship Amendment Act, some state chief ministers declared they would not carry out the law, and about 2,000 academics and professionals signed a declaration condemning it for violating the spirit of the Constitution. Global Reactions Numerous foreign governments and international organizations have denounced the BJP's discriminatory policies towards Muslims, highlighting specific concerns with the Citizenship Amendment Act, the BJP's actions in Kashmir, and anti-Muslim rhetoric. The UN human rights office described the Citizenship Amendment Act as “fundamentally discriminatory.” Iran, Kuwait, and Qatar were among the Muslim-majority countries to file formal complaints against India in 2022 over public officials’ Islamophobic remarks. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), comprising fifty-seven member states, has demanded that India cease the “systematic practices against Indian Muslims” and the “growing spate of hatred and defamation of Islam.” Nevertheless, Modi has succeeded in deepening India’s relations with the Gulf countries dominated by Muslims, including the United Arab Emirates, where he presided over an event for Indian expats and dedicated a brand-new Hindu temple in Abu Dhabi. Since they have strengthened ties with India, successive U.S. administrations have been hesitant to denounce the country’s atrocities openly. For instance, in February 2020, President Donald Trump visited India and complimented Prime Minister Narendra Modi on his support for religious liberty while remaining silent on the violence that had broken out in Delhi. Instead of openly criticizing the BJP government or Modi, the Joe Biden administration has opted to strengthen the strategic partnership between India and the United States. It is believed that Biden has privately voiced concerns about human rights. India, however, received its lowest ranking of “country of particular concern” in the 2020 report from the independent U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom—a designation it has held since 2004.

The most recent reports have upheld that classification and pushed for the US government to impose sanctions on Indian officials who are accountable for mistreatment. Some members of Congress have also expressed concerns.

#Politics #community #increasingly #Indian #marginalized #Muslims

3 notes · View notes

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 1 year ago

Text

By: PTI

Published: Jun 18, 2023

LAHORE: Succumbing to the demands of a radical Islamist party, the Pakistan government has agreed to try blasphemy suspects under terrorism charges in addition to the other sections of the country's penal code. The Tehreek-i-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) ended its 25-day-long march protest at Sarai Alamgir, Gujrat district, some 200 km from Lahore, on Saturday after signing a pact with the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N)-led federal government. Federal Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah said the government has accepted "all legitimate" demands of the TLP, especially on blasphemy laws. In a 12-point agreement signed on Saturday with the TLP, the federal government agreed to book those accused of committing blasphemy and charged with Section 295-C (use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet) of Pakistan Penal Code under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), 1997, too. "Besides, speedy trials of the blasphemy accused will be ensured. For the first time, a Counter Blasphemy Wing (CBW) will be established under the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA)," Sanaullah said, adding the government would ensure steps to block blasphemous content on social media. The radical Islamic group gained political capital as the federal government agreed to issue a letter declaring that the TLP was not a terrorist organisation, the Dawn newspaper reported. The government also conceded to lift the ban on the coverage of TLP on broadcast and social media while agreeing to withdraw all political cases filed against TLP workers and leaders. Sanaullah said the TLP leaders whose names have been taken off the Fourth Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, will have the freedom of movement, and the federal government will issue directives to provincial governments for it. According to Amnesty International, Pakistan's blasphemy laws are often used against religious minorities and others who are the target of false accusations. The addition of terrorism charges will make the blasphemy suspects more vulnerable.

https://theprint.in/opinion/security-code/pakistan-is-being-run-by-its-very-own-ayatollahs-but-this-time-jihadists-arent-to-blame/1635385/

Even if it doesn’t call them by their name, Pakistan is being quietly run by its own Ayatollahs, who negotiate with the State on behalf of a higher sovereign. They are laying the foundations for turning the country into a Shari’a-run Islamic State, more surely than jihadists who have escalated violent operations across Pakistan.

Pakistan is becoming the new Iran.

#Pakistan #blasphemy #blasphemy laws #islam #radical islam #prophet muhammad #muhammad #religion #theocracy #islamic regime #islamic republic of pakistan #sharia #shari'a #islamic state #religion is a mental illness

8 notes · View notes

ruminativerabbi · 9 months ago

Text

Rage and Regret

Dear Friends,

One of the surprises Jerusalem offered up to us shortly after we bought our apartment and began to explore the neighborhood was a peaceful cemetery just a few blocks from our street in which are interred 79 Indian soldiers who served with the Egyptian Expeditionary Force during the First World War, as well as the bodies of 290 Turkish prisoners-of-war who died while in British captivity. So it is a strange place, that cemetery: a Hindu burial ground in which are also buried hundreds of Muslims who fell far from home and who had to be buried somewhere. There are no individual graves; the British apparently decided to bury the dead in two mass graves, one for the Hindus and one for the Muslims. Facing stone monuments record the names of the dead.

We’ve walked by many times; Joan’s cousin Rina used to live just down the road. It’s a peaceful place, a quiet place. But it never fails to strike me how strange the whole concept is: hundreds and hundreds of young men who died in a war fought basically over nothing at all in a distant place and who were then shoveled into a common pit (why do I think white soldiers would have been buried in separate graves?) and left to sleep in the earth in a place that none of them would ever have thought to call home.

Walking by that place never fails to re-awaken in me my recollection of Joan’s and my visit to the Beersheva War Cemetery, the resting place of more than 1200 soldiers from the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, and India. It’s also a peaceful place, well-tended, verdant, and well watched over by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. But what is shocking about the place are the stones themselves: row after row after row featuring the graves of young men, some just teenagers, who died on the same horrific day in 1917. It was a terrible day, too. By the beginning of October in 1917, the British forces under the leadership of General Edmund Allenby were well entrenched along the Gaza-Beersheba road with the intention of seizing Beersheva from the Turks. By the end of the month, all was ready. And on October 31, the battle was joined. The attack was led by the 800 men of the 4th Australian Light Horse Brigade, brave souls who leapt on horseback over the Turkish trenches and continued on into Beersheva, while other branches of the army attacked the Turkish legions from the side. In the end, the attack was successful and the Turks were soundly defeated. In many ways, in fact, the tide of war turned against the Ottoman Turks at Beersheva. And, indeed, before a year passed, the war was over and Turkish Palestine, wrested from the Ottomans, was handed over by the League of Nations to the British.

But the cemetery has its own story to tell. Now shady and peaceful, the silence is more ominous than calming as you enter through the shady gate and come across row after row after row of young men who died, all of them, on October 31, 1917. The place is well worth visiting, but what the experience yields, or at least what it yielded in me, was a deep sense of sorrow, of loss, of the true tragedy of war. Young men who should have been planning their lives, their weddings, their careers, their futures…instead dead as part of the incomprehensible madness that was the First World War and planning nothing at all other than an eternity of moldering far from home in someone else’s soil.

That many of the dead at Beersheva were veterans of Gallipoli only makes the story even more tragic and more poignant. (I saw Peter Weir’s film, Gallipoli, when it came out in 1981 and still remember the harrowing effect it had on me. If any readers are still laboring under the delusion that war can be glorious, Gallipoli really is a must-see.)

And that brings me to Gaza. To most, Gaza is a strip of land that has been ruled over by too many different foreigners since its glory days as ancient Philistia. The Romans, the Crusaders, the Mamelukes, the Turks, the Egyptians, and the Israelis all tried their hand at governing the place; I get the sense from my reading that all of the above couldn’t leave fast enough once the opportunity presented itself. (And, yes, I know there are people in Israel now demonstrating in the streets in an attempt to provoke the government into re-establishing Jewish settlements in Gaza. Those people, with all respect, are living in a self-generated dream state fully divorced from reality.)

But Gaza has its own Jewish dead to consider. And I do not mean by that to reference the fallen of the current IDF campaign.

There was a very touching piece in the paper the other day about Israeli troops coming across Jewish graves in Gaza. And, indeed, the Gaza War Cemetery, established in 1920, contains the graves of over 3000 British and Commonwealth soldiers who died in the First, Second, and Third Battles of Gaza. And some of those soldiers were Jewish, which fact was duly recorded on their tombstones. I suppose the idea was that the IDF soldiers felt a sense of kinship with the Jewish soldiers buried in that place, which is almost an ordinary thought, but somehow the story—by Troy O. Fritzhand, which I read in the Algemeiner (click here)—affected me in a less expected way as well.

I understand the logic behind the Israeli war against Hamas. I have no trouble with Israel going to war with the forces of evil, with people whose hatred of Israel and its Jews expressed itself on October 7 with almost unimaginable barbarism and Nazi-style brutality. Nor do I have any trouble with the notion that, when fighting a war against evil, the only true sin is to lose. I hate the thought of civilian casualties. But I also understand that the fact that the hostages have been held now for more than 120 days means that time is running out. All that, I get. But part of me feels the weight of tragedy pressing down as I read the news day after day.

I hate Hamas for having started this war. I grieve daily for the 1200 Israelis murdered, maimed, and raped on October 7. I can’t stop thinking about the 225 IDF soldiers who have died so far in this terrible war. And I think about the Hamas soldiers too—each a victim of his own fanaticism and willingness to die as part of an army of terror, but each also once an innocent babe who could have grown up to live a peaceful, productive life, who could have brought joy instead of unimaginable misery to the world. And, of course, I think also of the civilians of Gaza, people who, yes, put Hamas into power and who are now paying the awful price for that colossal error of judgment, but the large majority of whom could surely not have imagined October 7 and its aftermath.

To know with certainty that you are on the right side of a war does not make the war less tragic. Nor does it make it any less crucial that you win. But the tragedy feels overwhelming. I wasn’t alive when the Allies carpet-bombed Germany, but I think I would have felt the same way about the 600,000+ civilians who died during those bombing campaigns, which number includes about 76,000 children. The Allied leadership did what they perceived to be necessary to win the war, which they did. But my response to the civilian death toll is not censorious outrage, but deep sadness. How can the Germans have made us do that to them? How can the Japanese have created a situation in which Hiroshima was imaginable, let alone actually doable? And how can Hamas have created this situation in which the only way to rescue our hostages is to go in on foot to find them and liberate them from their captors’ control? The civilian deaths in Gaza are, in my opinion, all on Hamas. But that doesn’t make them less tragic.

And those are my emotions this week: weariness (because I am so tired of this burden of worry and anxiety), outrage (because what kind of people can have thrust this upon us?), terrible sadness (because of the children of Gaza, all innocents, who are paying the terrible price for their parents’ bad decisions), resolve (because if not me, then who?), and, despite everything, hope (because the God of Israel neither slumbereth nor sleepeth, and surely, at least eventually, light always wins out over darkness). I continue to pray, even more fervently than in the past months, for peace, for resolution, and for victory. I’m feeling the burden of it all. I suppose we all are. But the mitzvah of pidyon shvuyim, of redeeming those held in captivity, is key here: defeating evil is the means, but bringing the captives home is the goal. And that’s what I’m praying for, day in and day out.

#Battle of Beersheva #Gaza War Cemetery #Hindu-Muslim Cemetery

2 notes · View notes

news365timesindia · 25 days ago

Text

[ad_1] “We can’t change our neighbours, neither can Pakistan nor can India. We should live like good neighbours,” former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif said during an interaction with Indian journalists on October 17. The prime minister’s remark comes after the recent visit by Indian Foreign Minister S Jaishankar. The three-time prime minister and president of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League (N) urged both nations to engage and move forward collaboratively, according to media reports. “This is how things should go ahead. We would have liked PM Modi to come, but it was good that the Indian foreign minister came. I have said before that we must pick up the threads of our conversation,” Sharif was quoted in the media. Jaishankar became the first Indian foreign minister to visit Pakistan in the last nine years amid continuing strained ties. The minister had visited Islamabad to attend a Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) conclave. “Bury The Past” “We have spent 70 years in this way (fighting), and we should not let this go on for the next 70 years. We (PML-N governments) have tried hard to work on this relationship to let it go this way. Both sides should sit down and discuss how to go forward,” the 74-year-old was quoted. Sharif considered Jaishankar’s visit as an “an opening and must be taken forward.” “We should not go to the past and should look at the future. It would be better if we bury the past so that we can use the potential between the two countries,” Sharif said. “I think it (Jaishankar’s visit) is an opening and must be taken forward,” he said. Good Ol’ Days! Reminiscing the old times when PM Modi made a surprise pitstop in Lahore on his way back from Kabul in December 2015. “When PM Modi called me from Kabul and asked to wish me for my birthday, I said he was very welcome. He came and met my mother. These are not small gestures, they mean something to us, especially in our countries. We should not overlook them,” he said. Sharif recalled not just PM Modi’s visit but also the visit of then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to Lahore in 1999. “He is still remembered for the Lahore Declaration and his words at the time. I watch the videos of that visit as it feels great remembering the pleasant memories,” Sharif was quoted. The Lahore Declaration was signed on February 21, 1999, following talks between then-Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee and his Pakistani counterpart, Sharif. On Gentleman’s Game- Cricket But apart from politics, something greater connects the two nations: the love for cricket. Sharif admitted that he would like to travel to India if the two teams play in the final of any major tournament in the neighbouring country. “What do we gain by not sending teams to each other’s countries? They play all over the world, but it is not allowed in our two countries,” he said. When a reporter asked if India should consider sending its team to the Champion’s Trophy, which will be held in Pakistan in February, he said, “You have spoken what is in my heart.” On Trade Ties Sharif wants to resume trade ties between the two countries, not just cricketing ties. “Maybe my thinking is different from others, but I believe we are a potential market for each other. Why should Indian and Pakistani farmers and manufacturers go outside to sell their products? Goods now go from Amritsar to Lahore via Dubai — what are we doing, who is benefitting from this? What should take two hours now takes two weeks,” he said. [ad_2] Source link

0 notes

news365times · 25 days ago

Text

0 notes

ebelal56-blog · 2 months ago

Video

youtube

The Man Who Drew the Line: The Untold Story of the Radcliffe Line

Imagine, if you will, a world teetering on the brink of change. The year is 1947, and the British Raj is finally coming to an end. The air is thick with anticipation, hope, and, let’s be honest, a palpable fear of the unknown. People are yearning for independence, but with that independence comes a monumental decision that will shape the lives of millions: the partition of British India into two distinct nations—India and Pakistan. What’s fascinating, and frankly quite alarming, is the man tasked with this monumental job—Sir Cyril Radcliffe. Now, let’s take a moment to unpack who this man was. A British lawyer, not a politician, not a sociologist, not even someone who had ever set foot in India before. Just picture it: he’s handed a map and told to draw a line. A line that would determine the fate of entire communities, families, and lives. And he had just five weeks to do it. Five weeks! That’s barely enough time to plan a decent vacation, let alone to tackle something as complex as the religious, cultural, and social fabric of a nation. Radcliffe was put in charge of the Boundary Commissions for Punjab and Bengal. These were the two provinces most affected by the partition. He had to consider the religious majorities—Muslims on one side, Hindus on the other—but it was never that simple. Imagine living in a village where your neighbor, your best friend, suddenly becomes a citizen of a different country overnight. It’s like being in a movie where you wake up to find the world has changed while you slept, and you’re left trying to make sense of it all. The commissions were made up of representatives from both the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League. Sounds balanced, right? But here’s the catch: everyone had their own agenda, their own vision for the future, and Radcliffe was caught in the crossfire. He had to navigate through a minefield of political aspirations, communal tensions, and historical grievances—all while armed with little more than a stack of maps and some population data.

#youtube

0 notes

head-post · 2 months ago

Text

Middle East crisis: Gaza, Libya, Iran

The Middle East continues to be riven by crisis: while Israel pursues its military offensive on Gaza, the Arab League discusses developments in Libya and ways to resolve the current conflict.

Fresh Israeli attack kills 20 Palestinians

At least 20 Palestinians were killed in an Israeli bombardment in Al-Bureij refugee camp in central Gaza on Tuesday.

The homes of the Al-Tarturi and Abu Shouk families in the camp were bombed, Al-Arabi Al-Jadeed Arabic service reported. Five people were also killed in an Israeli bombing of a gathering on Salah al-Din Road in the Al-Zeitoun neighbourhood of Gaza City, Palestinian media reported.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken will travel to Egypt on Tuesday to discuss with Egyptian officials a ceasefire in Gaza and the release of prisoners, the State Department said.

He will discuss efforts to reach an agreement “that will ensure the release of all hostages, alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people, and help establish broader regional security,” the State Department said in a statement.

The US ambassador to the UN accused the Israeli military of targeting schools, aid workers and civilians in Gaza, signalling growing American disillusionment with its close ally as the first anniversary of the war approaches.

US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield spoke unusually harshly against the Israeli military at a UN Security Council meeting, saying many of the strikes in recent weeks that have injured or killed UN staff and aid workers “could have been prevented.”

Libyan crisis

The Arab League discussed with the US developments in Libya and ways to resolve the current crisis in the country.

This came during a meeting between Arab League Assistant Secretary General Hossam Zaki and US Special Envoy for Libya Richard Norland, the Arab League said in a statement issued on Tuesday.

After the meeting, Zaki said he reviewed the Arab League’s position and standing principles, among which the preservation of Libya’s unity and territorial integrity comes first, and outlined the League’s efforts and contacts with the parties in recent months.

He emphasised that the Arab League stands ready to support the Libyans in reaching solutions acceptable to them.

For his part, the US envoy spoke about his efforts to resolve the Libyan crisis, stressing his desire to consult and coordinate with the Arab League and to hear its assessment of efforts to reconcile views.

Iranian leader criticises treatment of Muslims

India has lashed out at comments made by Iran’s supreme leader over the treatment of the country’s Muslim minority.

India’s foreign ministry said on Monday that Ali Khamenei’s remarks in a post on website X were “misinformed and unacceptable.” While India and Iran generally enjoy close relations, the Hindu nationalist Indian government’s approach to minorities has been divisive in the past. The statement from New Delhi read:

Countries commenting on minorities are advised to look at their own record before making any observations about others.

The brief message followed Khamenei’s social media post on Monday, which said:

We cannot consider ourselves to be Muslims if we are oblivious to the suffering that a Muslim is enduring in Myanmar, Gaza, India, or any other place.

India and Iran enjoy good relations, as evidenced by strong economic ties. In May, they signed a 10-year contract to develop and operate Iran’s Chabahar port, located on Iran’s southeastern coast.

India is developing the port as a gateway for exports to Iran, Afghanistan and Central Asia, which would allow it to bypass the ports of Karachi and Gwadar in rival Pakistan.

However, Khamenei has in the past been critical of issues concerning Muslims in India and the troubled Muslim-majority region of Kashmir.

Human rights groups blame it all on Modi

Human rights groups have alleged that under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who took office in 2014, there has been an increase in the mistreatment of Muslims. Since then, attacks on Muslims and their livelihoods have increased in the country. Incidents of hate speech have also increased.

Mob lynchings under the pretext of protecting cows, which some Hindus consider sacred, and the destruction of homes and properties have increased during Modi’s rule.

In March, the Indian government announced rules to implement the Citizenship Amendment Act, a controversial law that opens the path to Indian citizenship for non-Muslim refugees from neighbouring countries.

The Act declared that Hindus, Parsis, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and Christians who fled to India from predominantly Muslim Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan before December 31, 2014 are eligible for citizenship.

The law has been labelled “anti-Muslim” by several human rights groups for not bringing this community under its purview, questioning the secular nature of the world’s largest democracy.

Meanwhile, critics have also accused Iran of discriminating against minorities. A UN report last month said ethnic and religious minorities, particularly Kurds and Baluchis, have suffered disproportionately from Tehran’s crackdown since mass protests in 2022.