Wednesday, October 4, 2017

The Ignorance of Amer Zahr

Amer Zahr, of the University of Detroit-Mercy, is foolish.

I had the displeasure of watching Mr. Zahr spew ignorance as Tucker plowed him over like a bulldozer.  While on the show, Zahr claimed the media has a bias against non-Caucasians when they commit crimes.  Clearly, he was most concerned with how Arabs and Muslims are portrayed.  He insinuated it was wrong to assume terrorism when Muslims commit crimes such as mass shootings, bombings, etc.  Well, Mr. Zahr, let's take a look into why, shall we?

The fact of the matter is the overwhelming majority of terrorism stems from Muslims, and the religion is by far the most fundamentalist [1].  To add to this, there is a deep support for extremism.  According to data from Pew Research, there are 680,030,000 radical Muslims in Muslim-majority countries and nations with large Muslim populations - meaning the research does not cover the world as a whole, so the number is lower than it should be [2].  Some highlights from the research includes:

Pakistan - 76% of the people want strict Sharia Law in all Muslims countries
Bangladesh - 2/3's support honor killings of women
Turkey - 32% state honor killings of women could be justified
Egypt - 70% hold a positive or mixed view on Osama bin Laden

Perhaps this is the reason we are able to understand why Muslims committing such crimes have a motive, or maybe it's the fact the perpetrators yell "Allahu akbar" ("God is the greatest) and/or make claims their actions are for various terror organizations. 

On to the conflation of religion and race/ethnicity.  For a man who is a law professor at the University of Detroit-Mercy, you sure seem to be void of common sense and logic.  First and foremost (as Tucker so clearly pointed out), Islam is a religion, not a race/ethnicity.  There are Muslims from all walks of life, ethnicities, and races.  To add to your ignorance, you asked Tucker what he considers the Boston Bombers.  The Boston Bombers were Muslim - no one cares if they are Arab or Chechen.  Their ethnicity is irrelevant.  When focus is taken from the true root of the problem the problem grows and remains unsolved.  This is not a race issue, it's an ideological issue.  You've put yourself at the same level as the Huffington Post who publishes false headlines such as:


Mr. Zahr, I suggest you use a bit more logic in the future.  No one is falling for the "we are the victim card" in regards to Islamic extremism.  The use of terror by Islam is not something of new, but something of old - let us not forget events such as the Muslim invasions of the Levant, Armenian Highlands, and Europe.  Let us not forget the Armenian Genocide, Greek Genocide, Assyrian Genocide, and others.  It's time for Islam to address itself, as Christianity had to do so long ago. 

You've done a massive disservice to the university you instruct at.  Stick to comedy, Amer, because you're clearly inept to be involved in academics.

Wednesday, April 5, 2017

U.N. Resolution 181: Why it matters

The resent passing of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 has created both celebration and resentment. The resolution, which condemns Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, is receiving a massive backlash from Israel and her supporters; however, pro-Palestinian states are applauding the result. Both sides of the battle have been pointing the finger at each other since 1946, but could this all have been avoided by a resolution passed in 1947?

Resolution 2334 was passed due to the United States of America's abstention, which has damaged relations with Israel. The U.S., being a permanent member of the Security Council, does hold veto power - a power the U.S. has used 49 times in Israel's favor. Ironically, if all sides, including the U.N., enforced Resolution 181(II) (adopted in 1947) this whole situation would have been avoided.

The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (U.N. Resolution 181(II)) set out a two state plan for Mandatory Palestine (map below) and conditions for Jerusalem. Under the plan Jerusalem, including Bethlehem, is to be a separate entity or corpus separatum which is to be "under a special international regime and administered by the United Nations." Under this international regime citizens from either state are allowed freedom of movement and access to the city; people residing in the city would apply for citizenship in either Palestine or Israel.



It is abundantly evident the amount of land granted to what would have been the second newly-created Arab nation (khaki colored area) was substantially more than that of today (even without Israeli settlements), and the battle over the location of holy sites would have been almost completely avoided - both of which play into the arguments for and against U.N. Res. 2334.

The Temple Mount

According to the resolution all of East Jerusalem is "occupied territory as of 1967", which means not only is the Temple Mount within Palestinian Territory but all of the "Old City". Calling East Jerusalem "occupied territory" is one of two things - a lie or a complete lack of historic knowledge. On May 15th, 1948, just after Resolution 181(II) was passed, Israel was attacked by the Arab League along with other forces [1]. Jordan, known as Transjordan at the time, attacked Israel from the west taking full control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Eventually, in 1950, the gained territory was annexed and officially made part of Transjordan; a move the Arab League deemed illegal and invalid. Interestingly enough Pakistan, Iraq, and the United Kingdom recognized the annexation, which lasted nearly 20 years until Israel's victory in the Six-Day War. In 1988, Jordan gave up all claims to the territory, but maintains stewardship of holy Muslim sites within Jerusalem. In 1994 the two countries signed a peace treaty normalizing relations.

So, why is this important? One of the most pressing arguments against the resolution is that it places the Temple Mount within Palestinian territory. The Temple mount is Judaism's holiest site and the third most holy site for Muslims. The site, which would have been part of the corpus separatum, was illegally occupied by invading Arab forces, then taken by Israel in a war nearly two decades later. Resolution 181(II) was not "violated" by the Israelis, it was "violated" by the Arabs. Now, nearly 70 years later, the land should be "returned" to the very people who "violated" the resolution - a resolution which was reluctantly accepted by the Israeli side.

This isn't the first time Jewish claim to the site was attacked - most recently UNESCO voted in favor of a resolution which attempts to deny Judaism's connection to the Temple Mount; a blatantly dishonest rewrite of history (...but that's a topic for another blog post).

Settlements

Israeli settlements are no secret to the world. Since 1972 settlement population has grown from approximately 10,500 to almost 547,000 (2013) in the West Bank [2], with other claims at 385,900 (2015) [4] The settlements, which number over 200 [3], are peppered throughout the West Bank creating a web of checkpoints. Many suggest these settlements are strategically placed to prevent free movement of Palestinians from one location to another. One such settlement is Har Homa, which is placed between East Jerusalem and Bethlehem cuts access between the two cities. The settlement, which now has 25,000 residents, was approved in 1998 by Netanyahu; the move received intense backlash from the west. The layout of the settlements has caused major disruption in Palestinian life having been placed in a way which creates a network of checkpoints, making life for the average Palestinian extremely complicated - it's not uncommon for a Palestinian to cross at least 2 checkpoints while en route. It's also important to note the widespread home demolition which plagues the Palestinian people.

Not surprisingly, natural resources - primarily water - is also a sources of conflict between the two parties. According to various sources, Israeli settlements take the overwhelming majority of water from underground aquifers within the Palestinian territories, then sell the Palestinians desalinated water [5]. Also, according to the UN, Palestinians have been regularly prevented from accessing their farmland [6].

The primary issues with the settlements is they are deemed illegal under international law and also the perceived intent of annexation, which isn't too far fetched in light of a recently passed law in Israel. Israel is doing itself no favors with this practice both in terms of its people and their image on the international stage. Creating unnecessary suffering is never excusable, which is what these settlement networks are doing. When Israel portrays itself as a model country - which it is in many ways - it should be sure to reflect that portrayal in its actions - something it is not doing with its settlement policy.

This was all avoidable


Circling back to Resolution 181(II), it's clear all of this could have been avoided. This resolution provided a sound plan for the partitioning of lands and gave the Palestinians much more than what they have today. For the Palestinians it was a proposal delivered on a golden platter, and I am not the only one who believes this way. In 2011, Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas stated the Arab's refusal to accept the resolution was a mistake he was working to "rectify" [
7]. 

In this case the Arabs shot themselves in the foot, plain and simple. If it were not for the concessions made by the Jewish side, the current borders of Israel would reach to Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and Amman would be an Israeli city. Although both sides have their faults in this conflict, it seems the U.N. has completely disregarded the past actions of both parties, and the language contained in Resolution 2334 clearly shows this.

References:
1. "The Arab-Israeli War of 1948", United States Office of the Historian, accessed 28 February 2017, <https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-war>
2. "Statistics on Settlements and Settler Population", B'tselem, accessed 7 March 2017, <http://www.btselem.org/settlements/statistics>
3. "Netanyahu and the Settlements", The New York Times, accessed 7 March 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/03/12/world/middleeast/netanyahu-west-bank-settlements-israel-election.html?_r=0>
4. "Settler Population was 385,900 by the end of 2015", Jerusalem Post, accessed 5 April 2017, http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Settler-population-was-385900-by-end-of-2015-469607
5. Hass, Amira, "The Israeli 'Watergate' Scandal: The Facts About Palestinian Water", Haaretz, accessed 5 April 2017, http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/1.574554"
6. "Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the Occupied Syrian Golan", United Nations Human Rights Council, accessed 5 April 2017, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session28/Documents/A_HRC_28_44_en.doc
7. Eldar, Akiva, "Abbas Should Change His Locks Before Next Wave of Palestinian Prisoners Freed", Haaretz, accessed 5 April 2017, http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/abbas-should-change-his-locks-before-next-wave-of-palestinian-prisoners-freed-1.399760