European Freedom and the Extremism

Introduction

The transformation of Europe from the age of religious domination to secularization and modernity was anything but smooth. Many battles and confrontations took place in the path of this transformation. This violent history allows us to argue that Europe, even when it was moving toward liberalization, was still fell prey to ideological extremism.

Before and during the process of secularization and modernization, Europe paved the way for extremism to appear by adhering to violence in defending and spreading ideologies and thoughts. Liberal thinkers and authors mistakenly argued that spreading freedom and civilization through violence is justified. However, any action will stimulate a re-action; and violent actions will provoke counter violent reactions, and a cycle of violence starts and it is very hard to stop.

Many political parties and leaders adopted the concept of violence in order to spread their ideologies, and created many torture and killing instruments for the same reasons. The inventions, science and the advanced technology also promoted the violent actions, even when it were invented for the humans good.

This paper argues that the use of violence in the cause of freedom led to ideological extremism. The Church by using force encouraged the need for reformation. The Reformation begun by Martin Luther divided Europe and promoted religion extremism. The French Revolution, led to a contradictory result because of its cruel methods. Extreme Ideologies such as Fascism and Nazism mainly appeared because of the vicious action of World War I and much more.

Pre-Reformation Era

Christianity was leading the European world, dominating every element in human life, from birth and marriage until death. The Church at that time prevented people from learning how to write and read, since it considered it a very dangerous and a threatening element against its role.

For many years, unknown numbers of opponents were considered atheists and their actions and discourse were considered heresy which required punishment. Copernicus was chased, Fu Bruno was executed, Galileo was condemned and many others were tortured and killed.

It was Louis IX, who began the first Inquisition, which was designed to punish the rogue Christian members, not only by burning their books, but also by burning hundreds of them at the stake. The Inquisition was not limited only to Christians, but also extended to other religions, such as the Muslims of Andalusia.

It is very true to consider such era as “Dark Ages”, because no voice was heard then, except that of the Church and the Aristocrats. Rulers played the role of God, even in punishing and selling forgiveness “Indulgences”. Ages full of fear, torture, grief and violence, poverty, ignorance and insecurity. Many men were sent to their death in the name of “Crusades” to gain “Heaven”, but in reality they were increasing the Church’s and the king’s power and wealth.

Except, it is also true, that the Renaissance was also deeply Christian and most of the Christianity heritage re-formed the European civilization and even created its own opposition; the secularization. However, the torturing and cruelty in dealing with opponents and in spreading ideologies, led to the anger and to the sense of injustice, which caused the resistance and the revenge actions and most importantly the arising of new extremist.

“Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law”. Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

The Reformation Era

Martin Luther, believed in liberating the Christians from the Pope and the Church dominance; and sought tolerance, justice and peace in the Christian world. However, contrary to this vision, Europe was divided, battles and ugly confrontations were spreading. Peace and justice were violated and Christianity went to Extremism.

Many who adopted Luther’s doctrine altered the aims and the directions of the Reformation in order to fit their aspirations and dreams. New Political, economic, individual and religious justifications were given for such reformation.

Thus, after the translation of the Bible into German and publishing it throughout the whole region, the rebellion started by the educated class and reached the common whom started their revolution; by killing and burning numerous churches and monks in revenge of unjustified suffering they lived before.

Moreover, many other reformists separated themselves from the original doctrine “Protestant”, like the “Calvinist” whom transformed into Ideological extremist and conducted a bloody “Thirty years war” between 1618-1648 which ended in Westphalia conference.

What facilitated the spread of Luther’s Reformation was the invention of the printing press, in addition to the dreadful and the unjust situation which the common were suffering from, in addition to Luther’s personal qualities and skills. The need for reformation was a necessity but the means were violent and cruel albeit Martin’s opposition to this approach, he couldn’t prevent it and Europe was divided.

The Enlightenment Era

Europe on its way to liberalization and secularization, killed, burned and exiled many reformists; both Lutherans and Calvinists, several massacres took place during the Reformation age in France, Netherlands and even Germany. Afterwards, France started new age; the Enlightenment.

One can argue that this particular period of time wasn’t more than “Enlightenment”, a period of James Maxwell, Charles Darwin, Immanuel Kant, Jean Jacque Rousseau, Voltaire, Isaac Newton and John Locke and others. One can argue also that all the concepts of liberalization, individual rights, human rights, scientific thought, rational thinking, tolerance, compassion, democracy and modernity appeared in this period, which cannot be denied. However, by admitting and permitting the usage of violence to attain the secularization and freedom by many Enlightened thinkers stimulated such usage. Many political leaders and rebels were justifying easily the usage of cruelty to expel and vanish the “Others” in name of “Enlightenment”. Moreover, the refusal and the resentment of royal absolutism, was one of the Enlightenment ideals, which have been used by the revolutionaries’ in a very violent scheme.

The French revolution is a clear example which can be explored and examined in such an issue, which started in 1789 and lasted until 1799. This revolution passed many stages, the Constitutional monarchy stage, the beginning of the republican system, the return of the moderate bourgeoisie and the Napoleon Bonaparte dictatorship.

In order to understand the real situation at that moment, the novel “A Tale of two cities” of Charles Dickens can be a proper start point; “Killing innocents, destroying and stealing properties, greediness, injustice, cruelty, madness and the unsecured society”. Hence, between 18,000 and 40,000 people were executed during the Reign of Terror and the guillotine became the symbol of a string of executions.

Arguing that, all these sacrifices were necessary and could be justified, since it led to the secularization and modernity is only justifying more violence. Besides, if this argument was factual, then this revolution should have been the closure, which was certainly not. Even more, the end result of the French revolution were quite the contrary because the Elites returned to the power and an era of dictatorship began.

European Liberal thinkers such as John Locke, Jean Jacque Rousseau and others, accepted the use of violence to spread liberty and modernity and to force it against the Native American Indians, and such ideas seem still alive, which assures that the violence is an continual action and hardly can be stopped. While they assumed that modernity will flourish and life will be enlightened, on the contrary; more wars and conflicts appeared and different ranks of extremisms emerged.

The Contemporary Era

The colonial period, the World War I and World War II, all can be pointed out as an extreme violent actions which were emerged in the name of freedom, saving identity and nationalism. More reasons were also behind these wars, the economic and political situation, the advanced technology specially in the rearmament field and also the violence itself, as the World War I started after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914, by a Bosnian-Serb student.

Of the 60 million European soldiers who were mobilized from 1914 – 1918, 8 million were killed, 7 million were permanently disabled, and 15 million were seriously injured.

World War II was partially a continuation of the supremacy struggle that was never completely resolved by the First World War; actually, it was natural for Germans in the 1930s and 1940s to justify acts of international aggression because of perceived injustices imposed by the victors of the First World War.

Fascist, Nazi, and communist totalitarian Stalinian political parties were all violent ideologies flourished in Europe, connected to the ideas of modernity, secularization and nationalism. All these political parties, despite the differences of methods and ideologies used the same element, the violence, to spread their ideas and norms. 60 million people died in the war, including about 20 million soldiers and 40 million civilians. Many civilians died because of disease, starvation, massacres, bombing and deliberate genocide.

Hence, the extremist in the international relations occurred and played a great role in increasing and firing the clashes. Counter extremisms, such as the Islamist, the communist, and socialist are a reaction to such ideas that were justified by liberalism and freedom.

The beginning of the 21 century gives a clear image how the grown violent Liberalism is still responsible for spreading extremism. The Neo-cons in the George Bush administration (2001- 2009), used concepts such as “Benevolent Hegemony”, and “war of democracy and freedom”, to justify the war in Iraq, and to justify the cruelty the world watched in Abu Gharib prison. Both Neo- Cons and Islamist Jihadists believe in spreading ideas through violence and stimulating many violent reactions in return.

“There has never been a good war or a bad peace”. Benjamin Franklin

Conclusion

The roots of ideological extremism can be easily traced within the ages of “violent freedom” and can certainly proves the usage of ultimate violence to extend ideologies and thoughts, as the previous selected scenes confirmed.

“People have murdered each other, in massive wars and guerilla actions, for many centuries and still murder each other in the present, over Ideologies and Religions which, stated as propositions, appear neither true nor false to modern logicians– meaningless propositions that look meaningful to the linguistically naive.” Robert A. Wilson (Quantum Psychology, 1990)

One can argue that cruelty is the nature of the human being, but certainly that is contradict with what Rousseau assuring, when he pointed out that Man is good in nature and he just reacts according to the environment, while he adapts himself to the surroundings. According to that, all the reactions can be considered as “self-defense” and natural acts intended for survival.

Others can justify the need for cruelty and violent acts, arguing that, it is a necessity in order not to condemn the ruler by being coward, weak or permissive which may lead to the rebellion and lack of obedience and that surely will lead to chaos and will undermine security in the society. Nevertheless, from different perspective, sentiments of exclusion, injustice fear and humiliation have always been influential forces in politics and primary movers for change.

Many may argue that because of such “sacrifices” many lives were saved, properties were secured and countless achievements were accomplished. However, numerous lives were already lost; countless properties were already destroyed and burned. And many of the extreme movements and organization justifying their violence and terrorism to historical acts and campaigns. As Mario Cuomo assured; “We know that the price of seeking to force our beliefs on others is that they might someday force theirs on us”.

Political ideologies and Religious have been the cause of interpersonal violence during history, and provoked the others to deal with them in the same way, by force.

All of the above assured that using violence in the path of Freedom led to ideological extremism, in religion, political or individual extremist. So the aims surely should not justify the means in this case, because it will gain the violent opponent and the opposite result in various fields.

الاتحاد الأوروبي والاعتراف بدولة فلسطينية

تناقلت وسائل الإعلام في الفترة الأخيرة العديد من الأخبار عن الاعتراف بالدولة الفلسطينية المرتقبة على حدود عام 1967. وآخرها كان عن مطالبة بعض السياسيين الاتحاد الأوروبي الاعتراف بالدولة الفلسطينية وهذا تماما ما يحدوني لكتابة هذا المقال عن تركيبة الاتحاد الأوروبي، حتى يتسنى لنا التأكد من ضعف احتمالية تحقيق هذه المطالبة السياسية. يتشكل الاتحاد الأوروبي من العديد من المؤسسات الفاعلة التي تكونت بفعل اتحاد 27 دولة أوروبية (حاليا)، وأكثر هذه المؤسسات أهمية هي: أولا: المجلس (The Council) وهو يتكون من 27 عضوا وكل عضو يمثل دولته ومصالحها في المجلس. يحضر اجتماعات المجلس وزير الدولة الممثلة فيما يختص بشأن محدد في كل مرة. أي في اجتماعات المجلس الخاصة بالعلاقات الخارجية، يحضر وزراء خارجية هذه الدول ويمثلون مصالح دولتهم. أما إذا كان الموضوع يختص بالبيئة فيحضر وزير البيئة لكل دولة من الدول الأعضاء هذا الاجتماع وهكذا. وعادة ما يكون التصويت في المجلس بالإجماع. والمجلس هو أحد طرفي متخذي القرارات في الاتحاد إلى جانب البرلمان الأوروبي. ثانيا: البرلمان الأوروبي ( European Parliament) وهو يتكون من 736 عضوا يمثلون 500 مليون مواطن أوروبي في 27 دولة. وقد حقق البرلمان الأوروبي بناء على اتفاقية لشبونة الأخيرة عام 2009 على بغيته كواضع للتشريعات ومصادق عليها تماما كالمجلس. حيث يجب موافقة البرلمان والمجلس سواسية حتى يتم التصديق على القرارات والمشروعات الصادرة عن الاتحاد، ولكن كل هذه القوانين تخضع لمعايير ومقاييس محددة متفق عليها. ويكون التصويت في البرلمان الأوروبي عادة بالأغلبية، حيث تتمثل كل دولة ( حسب حجمها وعدد سكانها مع مراعاة الصغيرة الحجم منها ) بعدد محدد من المقاعد وبالتالي عدد الأصوات. ثالثا: المفوضية الأوروبية (The Commission) وهي تتكون من 27 عضوا من الدول الأعضاء وهم لا يمثلون مصالح دولهم وإنما المصلحة العامة للاتحاد الأوروبي. علما بأن عدد المفوضين خاضع للتغيير والتقليص تحديدا في العام 2014 إذا كان هنالك إجماع من المجلس على ذلك. والمفوضية الأوروبية عادة ما تقوم بالتصويت بنظام الأغلبية البسيطة. والمفوضية الأوروبية تمتاز بأحقيتها شبه الحصرية في تقديم مشاريع القوانين التي يتم المصادقة عليها من قبل متخذي القرارات، ما عدا في مجال السياسات الخارجية للاتحاد فهي لا تملك هذا الحق حاليا (بناء على اتفاقية لشبونه)، ولكن من يملكها هو الممثل السامي للاتحاد لشؤون السياسة الخارجية والأمن والتي تترأسها حاليا السيدة كاثرين آشتون. إن استعراض أهم مؤسسات الاتحاد الأوروبي يساعد على فهم طبيعة عمل هذا الاتحاد وتحديد ماهية وكيفية العلاقة التي يجب أن تنشا معه. ويفيد أيضا في معرفة مراكز صنع القرار الأوروبي وتحديدا في أية مجالات. فالاتحاد الأوروبي ما زال يأخذ كافة قراراته فيما يختص بالسياسات الخارجية للاتحاد عن طريق الإجماع الكامل. فأي دولة من الـ27 دولة ترفض أي قرار سياسي، عليه لا يمكن لهذا القرار أن يمرر. لقد خضع الاتحاد للكثير من التغييرات فيما يختص بآلية اتخاذ القرارات وأيضا المجالات التي تؤخذ فيها وقد تم إخضاع العديد من المجالات الهامة لسلطة الاتحاد الحصرية، ولكن الراسخ الوحيد لغاية الآن والذي تقره اتفاقية لشبونة الأخيرة، هو بقاء السياسة الخارجية للاتحاد بيد وزراء الخارجية ودولهم وليس بيد الاتحاد نفسه. حيث أن العلاقات الخارجية تعتبر من المصالح الحيوية الخاصة بكل دولة على حده والتي لا يجوز المساس بها حتى من الاتحاد نفسه. فلقد حرصت العديد من الدول الأوروبية وخاصة الكبرى منها على بقاء هذه السياسات ضمن مبدأ الإجماع أولا، وثانيا تحت رعاية وعناية الدول الأوروبية الكبرى. وإذا نظرنا بشكل دقيق إلى آلية اتخاذا القرارات وكيفية عملها، نجد أنه من الصعوبة بمكان على الاتحاد الأوروبي أن يقوم باتخاذ قرار مصيري في تحديد سياساته الخارجية كالموافقة على إقامة الدولة الفلسطينية على حدود عام 1967. حتى إن كان الممثل السامي يؤمن بذلك أو غيره من وزراء الخارجية. فهذا القرار من الصعب عليه بمكان أن يحصل على إجماع 27 دولة وتحديدا بريطانيا العظمى، فبريطانيا دولة تفاخر بتاريخها السياسي وعلاقاتها الخارجية الممتدة، وهي أيضا لا تخرج بتاتا عن العباءة الأمريكية. إلا في حال قررت الدول مجتمعة على إلقاء هذا العبء السياسي على الاتحاد بعيدا عن سياساتها الخارجية وتجنبا للحرج المتمثل في مواجهة أمريكا منفردين، وهذا احتمال بعيد المنال. بناء عليه نجد أنه من الصعب جدا على الاتحاد الأوروبي أن يقبل على مثل هذه الخطوة، وبالتالي سيكون لزاما علينا التوجه إلى سياسة العلاقات الأحادية، أي التوجه إلى كل دولة على حده حتى نتمكن من التأثير على سياسات الدول. وربما يكون البدء بالدول الصغيرة التي اندمجت في الاتحاد عام 2004 بداية جيدة. فهذه الدول مازالت تصارع لتصل إلى مكانتها في الاتحاد وهي دول فرضت عليها الكثير من القيود والقوانين قبل الموافقة على دخولها إلى الاتحاد، مما شكل عبئا حقيقيا على كاهلها وأيضا أكسبها دافعا قويا لتحقيق ذاتها. وقد يكون التوجه إلى الدول الاسكندينافية تحت بند حقوق الإنسان كافيا لمحاولة انتزاع حق الاعتراف المطلوب، فهذه الدول تعتبر أكثر الدول فاعلية فيما يختص بحقوق الإنسان في المجتمع الأوروبي، وهي تسعى دائما لاتخاذ قراراتها تحت هذا البند. أيضا كما لا يمكننا تناسي فرنسا الدولة شبه الرافضة للسياسات الأمريكية والتي تسعى جاهدة لاتخاذ قراراتها منفردة، حيث أنها دولة تعتز بميراثها التاريخي بدءا بالثورة الفرنسية وانتهاء بسياسات الاندماج الخاصة بالمهاجرين. هذه الدولة التي تعتبر من أكبر دول الاتحاد وأكثرها فاعلية والتي سيرت عجلة الاتحاد بالتعاون مع ألمانيا تحديدا، يمكن أن تكون البداية المميزة والفعالة لإنشاء الدولة في حال ضمان الحصول على صوتها. وربما يكون التحرك نحو الجماهير الإيطالية والأسبانية أفضل من التحرك نحو رؤساءها في محاولة لتشكيل جماعات ضغط تقوم بهذه المهمة نيابة عنا. ودعونا لا ننسى النمسا فهي دولة تمتاز بالحيادية الجادة والواعية، وهي دولة تربطها أواصر صلة وثيقة بالعالم العربي والإسلامي وهي تشكل مجمع الثقافات العالمية. إن معرفة السياسات الخارجية لكل دولة من دول الاتحاد الأوروبي وآلية اتخاذ القرارات يسهم في بناء رؤية حقيقية وواضحة المعالم لواقع الأمر، وأيضا يسهم في وضع آليات العمل اللازمة والفاعلة في محاولتنا لإنشاء الدولة وانتزاع اعتراف المجموع الأوروبي بها. إن مطالبتنا يجب أن تنحصر حاليا على الدول منفردة وليس على الاتحاد بحد ذاته، ويجب علينا البدء بتقوية أواصر العلاقات الدبلوماسية والتحركات الرامية لنيل هذا الاعتراف. ولكن هذا لا يعني أبدا إغفال أهمية دور الاتحاد الأوروبي وتحديدا فيما يختص بالعلاقات الاقتصادية والاجتماعية والتبادل الثقافي. فالاتحاد يعتبر المساهم الأول في ميزانية السلطة الوطنية الفلسطينية وهو يشكل الأداة الرافعة للاقتصاد الفلسطيني في الوقت الراهن. كما أن كافة القرارات الاقتصادية والمالية تؤخذ على مستوى الاتحاد وبدعم وتوجيه منه، وعليه ربما الأجدر بنا أن نطالب الاتحاد بإنزال العقوبات الاقتصادية على إسرائيل وتحديدا فيما يخص بضائع المستوطنات وليس فقط إبقاء الجمارك على هذه البضائع. كما يمكننا مطالبة البرلمان الأوروبي بإصدار قرار عقوبات اقتصادية على إسرائيل بناء على مخالفتها للعديد من القوانين الخاصة بالاتفاقية الاقتصادية الموقعة بينها وبين الاتحاد وخرق مبادئ حقوق الإنسان. ولعمل هذا تحديدا يجب علينا أن نتوجه إلى الاتحاد الأوروبي والبرلمان تحديدا بقوة رجل واحد وصوت واحد، فالأصوات المتعددة والمختلفة وتشتت الآراء، يمنح إسرائيل الأسبقية والقدرة على التفوق في المحافل الأوروبية. إن التمثيل الواعي للدولة الفلسطينية قد يسهم بشكل فعال في تحقيق غايات وأهداف الدولة، وأولها انتزاع الاعتراف بالدولة الناشئة. والتمثيل الواعي يكون باندراج كافة الأصوات الفلسطينية في الداخل والخارج، العامة والخاصة تحت بندي النظام والمساءلة.

Reshaping our identity (Part I)

Starting from the beginning; when there were only a few people living in this huge land, Man and woman managed to survive various conditions and obstacles. Together they managed to build the society, which we live in now. But these obstacles and conditions reshaped their identity accordingly; their justifications and motivations. The threats they faced long time ago reshaped their perceptions, especially to their own identity. The Man faced the threat by fighting and challenging these threats; sometimes he lost but other times he won.  The woman had to hide – almost all the time – apparently, to protect her own children or because she tried several times to fight and failed. So their perception for themselves changed in that era; and consequently their perception of each other changed as well.  Then Man became the strong masculine part who can feel proud according to his continuously winning in front of the nature. On the other hand, Woman became the weakest part who just keeps the children save and waits for her worrier to come back home in order to please him; and above all felt shame. At that time woman thought and felt that without the men she cannot survive or live and she needs him to protect and guard her. 

This environment of threats and feeling proud or/and shame, combined together to reshape the identity of Man and Woman. Hence, until this moment we still buy it and think that men are much stronger than women; unfortunately, not only that, we also think that they are the ultimate thinkers and creators. Therefore, the masculine rule still controls all our aspects of life. Despite that, the threats that have been facing the human kind at that time were totally different. The tools and mechanisms to face and challenge these threats were also totally different. Nowadays, you can kill someone without even combating with him, also you can hide from the nature in solid houses and you do not have to face it anymore. All the old methods and ways have changed according to the technology progress and the industrial revolution.  Nonetheless, the thoughts, feelings and perceptions are still the same; with some modifications.

The unbelievable thing that how Man became the woman’s guardian not only physically but also mentally! Man came and introduces his ways of thinking and his methods  to be the ultimate right; his way in writing, thinking, analyzing, feeling, perception, talking, walking and much more. And he considers anything else just feminist or weak, especially when it does not fit with his own standards and understanding. Hence, the Man became the thinker, the creator and the leader; on the other hand, the woman became the follower. The Man feels strong and proud and needed to protect that pride; but the woman feels week and shame and she needs to hide. Man related his pride with dignity and provided himself with the noble identity, while the woman related her shame and weakness with ethics and honor and provided herself with the moral identity.

Both perceptions were inherited generation after another, also were strengthened until it became a rule that controls and justifies our actions, our judgments and our basic roles.

Nationalism …..

Nationalism distinctively is a modern political ideology which arose late 17th century, first in Europe and America, then everywhere else, and it reached its apex at the time of World War I and World War II. Besides, it’s directly related to the nation-state formation which became more obvious Late Middle Ages. The nation which represent typically a group of people who share a common history, cultural or language and have a sentiment of national unison and affirming a distinct ethnic identity. Whereas, the state is a part of land whose people have an independent government. Thus, the nation-state appears if a nation and a state have the same boundaries. Nation-states began to expand during the 17th century since the communication enhanced at that time. Thus, people became increasingly aware of the part of their nation that rest outside their own community. Loyalty to local and religious leaders began to decline, and dedication to kings grew stronger. At that time of history, England, France, Spain, and several other countries had become nation-states. The nation manifestation in particular had either economic or ideological causes and the state had its political agenda and view, when one or both of the conceptions arise; the Nationalism appears. Nationalism is an ideology where the nation supposes it possesses distinct allegations to virtue. Nationalism is based both on group fancy and as the product of Industrialization, Modernization and in less content, Capitalism. In the Industrial phase, from the mid-19th century to World War I, the concept of common sovereignty took fire among secondary classes mobilized by the spread of industry, commerce and commercialized agriculture. Also, as noticed, the nationalizing expansion at work was elite-driven processes to create relatively autonomous, territorially bounded political and economic units, by creating horizontal and vertical homogeneities and overcoming internal cleavages. Whilst in the process reshaping the social groupings within those boundaries into “national people”, and thus push not just industrialization and the market economy forward, but also strengthen and enlarge the power base of the nation-state in the making both domestically and in the larger world. So, these states were becoming more representative and more national, whereas, it is often affirmed that in the industrial phase the whole population began to recognize their interests and their sense of honor with those of their state opposed to other nation-states. Hence, the nationalist emotions of citizens and the state nationalist activities merged and produced the Extreme Nationalism. Reaching the Military era and the race for rearmament between nation states; violent nationalism had widen its demand, but this was mainly in a specific and “statist” means. Hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats, teachers and public sector workers now depended for their income on the state; hundreds of thousands of young middle class men passed through its institutions of higher education; while millions of young men of all classes were disciplined by a military cadre into the unusual moral, forced yet emotionally attached, that is the hallmark of the modern mass army. These three bodies and their families provided most of the fervent nationalists as studies of pre war pressure groups revealed. They were “extra-loyalists” or “nation-statists”, with an imaginary loyalty to what they conceived to be the morality of their nation-state, where these state ideals were mixed. But since all states were militarist, their servants were generally mobilizable at least to an allegedly “defensive” militarism as in WWI. Seeing that, the military merits were still a valued part of masculine culture; hence, women were appreciated as the carriers and nurturer of future warriors only. The period of World War II; common sovereignty was totally achieved. Thus nationalism and ethnicity were extremely harmful. Politics, not ethnicity, generated most of the odd emotional intensity, the barbarity conducted in the name of morality, of the modernist period. Many nation-states maintained the group solidarity by creating cultural and ethnicity as bonds. Besides, the discrimination and the political oppression led to larger degree of unity and group recognition. Accordingly, nationalism was based on fear and self sense, which required sanctuary in conformity, homogeneity and uniformity. In addition, after World War I states began to legitimate terror and nation-states became to use extreme violence to achieve its aims which created the “Extreme Intolerance of Nationalism”. Extreme nationalism may result in racial hatred and in persecution of minority groups. The ideology of modern extreme in tolerance of nationalism made genocide possible, in others words; the genocide is a product of extreme nationalism. By creation of “Us” and “Others” as real danger, by the feeling of superiority produced from success lead to extreme intolerance of nationalism. Hence, it was a political decision behind the genocides and massacres, killing thousands of people under the Nationalism motto. The propaganda, national schools, stimulating emotions and mass communication allowed for the creation of extreme intolerance of nationalism. There is no differences between we are patriotic citizens and they are nationalist, it is just propaganda, nationalist is the same everywhere and should be replaced by democracy and humanism.

The differences!!

I wanted to write several times regarding the differences between the Palestinians and the Israelis. However I always had a second thought that I don’t have the empirical facts to support my ideas. However, this time I will do so, since I think I have the enough material and the experience I need. As a Palestinian woman; maybe it is hard to think that I can analyze the whole situation; accordingly, I am not going to do so. I am going to analyze just a sole difference between these two people; the acceptance.

First I called it the acceptance because it refers to the mental process that it takes place in our heads, and then it leads us to the way to accept others. To accept what other people say, think, act or even argue about. Acceptance may sometimes lead to the adaptation of other’s ideas or way of life or at least it leads to feel relief living and talking to them. Acceptance means, in way or another, the ability to argue in good manner, to talk in humble way and to feel secure while chatting with others.  To accept others; we have to open our minds and hearts and to feel what other people talk about. To accept what people have to say, is to increase our level of knowledge and to analyze; what and why they have to say so! After a while, the acceptance leads us to change, as well as to adaptation in its final process, or at least to think.

This difference between the Palestinians and the Israelis can be demonstrated by several proofs and evidences. The Israeli leaders for example refuses the negotiation process and consider it useless one, while the Palestinians insist on the negotiation as a peaceful way to achieve fair settlement. The Israeli mentality is very hard to break through; it is a military mentality, which means it depends on orders not facts. It is easy for the Israeli to follow orders and not to think too much of the outcomes or the consequences.  On the other hand, the Palestinians, usually, review their ways and methods in order to reach the ultimate goal; as an example they changed from violence to non-violence struggle. Despite that the Israeli still insists on occupying 1967 land, building more settlements and expanding the old ones. To be an Israeli citizen is the hardest thing ever and to transfer your religion into Jewish is the same. This can be examples on the political level, but what about the common or public level!!

Back to my empirical experience and many other (non-Palestinian) people experiences, I can demonstrate that it is almost the same situation unfortunately. It seems that the common people too are still soldiers and have the same military mentality. It is not easy at all to convince an Israeli student to argue or chat with a Palestinian one about the recent situation. Also, it is not easy to break through the minds of the Israeli students or to change their way of thinking. The structure of the Israeli personality is well-built and it is so secure and immune from any outsider’s thoughts or ideas. You may talk to an Israeli students and argue too, but it doesn’t mean in any way that he accept what you say or do,  also, it doesn’t mean that he thinks about you or your words. You can argue as much as you want, but still when the Israeli goes back home, he enjoys the military as a great choice to him. You can argue about the human rights, justice, change and any human issue; still he goes back and serves in the army to fight and kill you. You can try to convince him that you have the right to live and to have a land to live on; nonetheless, he goes back home and totally forget about you. Socialization is the thing that Israeli love just to show, but negotiation is what the Israeli most hates because it forces him to think and to accept. We can go together, we can eat together, we can laugh together and anybody can see us together but we can’t accept each other; this is the Israeli way. We can talk, negotiate and demonstrate together but no one should see us laughing together; this is the Palestinian way.

US, Europe and Palestine. Woman … is another property

One may jump and say; what are you talking about? USA and Europe!! Maybe in your country but never in ours! What if I say that I have an excellent proof concerning my theory! You just set back and let me lead the way to enlighten people. Many people assure that Europe and the USA are one of the most leading countries, especially in the fields of human rights. I may argue and say; only within their own societies. Also, I can argue and guarantee that they are trying to spread the concept of human rights amongst many other societies, even sometimes; they oblige other governments to respect and implement these concepts. Except, they overlooked something within their own societies; the woman’s right.

Woman‘s right means to be in equal footstep and position as same as the man. The equality and the impartiality should be one of the most important concepts among the guardians of woman’s right.  Treating woman as a fully responsible person, as a fully legal entity and as human, is also the other side of the coin. Woman should have the fully right to speak, to live, to choose and the right to be herself. Also it means that the woman should have the same salaries as men. She should attain the same treatment in acquiring a job or a position, with respect to the biological differences as a mother. All of that means that woman can choose her own lifestyle and her own destiny.

Many now will jump again and argue that the USA and Europe respect all of these obligations, and they do implement and encourage such orientation. But, nevertheless, I will show you that this is not the whole truth. I have one simple example to show that …. It is Mrs. Salama. Woman as property moves from her father’s custody when she gets married to her husband custody. Within this movement, the woman’s family name has to change according to her new custodian. I have moved from being Baddar to Salama according to this property moving.  Of course I am here in Palestine, but it is the same rule in Europe and in the USA. Yet, it is even a purely American practice. Woman, when she get married have to change her family name according to law; the masculine law. And by doing this kind of changes, they do proof to everyone that we are still men’s properties.  Despite the legal and security issues that may men argue about, it is just moving the property of men.

No male can imagine how it is hard, at least for me, to drop my family name. It doesn’t mean in any how that I don’t respect my husband’s family name, not at all. But no one can feel the injury that I experienced whenever I achieve something and it have to be registered in my husband’s family name. It is not easy to imagine the harm it did and still doing during the life cycle. Each day you feel confused about your last name and can’t get used to it. To feel that you are a thing moves between two main elements that you surely love. To be called in a different name, in one of your rare momentum.

Now some people will again raise their voices and say; it is optional! I have been informed by a friend of mine that it is an optional procedure here in Palestine, but I am not sure if it is optional in Europe or in USA. Accordingly, maybe it was my fault back then, but it is two-way road. It was my fault not to ask and it was the government fault not to tell. Maybe I can change it since it is optional, but unfortunately, it is a very hard and long procedure here in Palestine, since we are still related to the Israeli computers under the security alibi. Finally, the only one who suffers from being another property is me … the woman.

Blame ME … for not being YOU

Not belonging … is another problem we face, especially in the third world countries. Many people have some kind of presumption, when they first meet you; accordingly, you will fit or you don’t. People here judge you for not being … them!! Maybe it is strange, but it is true. Various examples can show us this ugly reality.

She is outgoing woman and love to live her life. She doesn’t care about the societies values and conditions, because she thinks it is old fashion and don’t fit in our modern life. She wears differently and speaks in different way too. She has her master degree now and looking to continue her study. She is a creative person and so successful in her work. She attend parties and share her friends their good and bad moments. She is a supportive and a cooperative woman but unfortunately, she doesn’t fit. The society judged her as out-of-place person, can’t be treated as respectful woman too. She is condemned to be indecorous woman; accordingly, she shouldn’t be allowed to inter the family’s houses, in order not to spread her outgoing thoughts. Simply … she doesn’t belong.

He is a very respectful person; he believes that life is the most precious thing we have. Lands are just another kind of properties and what matters is the people who live on this land. He supports the non-violation actions against occupation; also he believes and supports the human rights. He treats women as they should be treated, because he is gender oriented. He writes about all kind of rights and the most important thing for him is the right to choose. He is condemned to be weak and unfaithful to the case, as well, he is judged to be US oriented. Ultimately, he is out and doesn’t fit the society he lives within, so he doesn’t belong.

An employee works hard to feed his family; he can’t take a breath even. He loves almost everyone and knows what it means to be a team player. He is creative and self motivated, also he is loyal and sincere. One day he was asked by some colleagues to go and pray with them the Friday’s prayer (as it is known by that) but he replied that he doesn’t pray at all. The shock and the dismayed can be seen obviously on their faces. They couldn’t believe that he doesn’t pray and also he never thought of that. He was condemned by them and they told him that he doesn’t belong. He can stay at work and can do his job but he can’t be one of them because of his thoughts and ideas; which they never heard!

I have a lot of stories that shows this kind of attitude, which is captured by the societies, individuals and even the states. Not belonging is the easy way to say that we are against anything that is different. It is the easy way to condemn instead of being creative and innovative. Judging people for their thoughts, color, attitudes, religion and gender and even for their choices of music and movies; it seems easier than thinking why they are different??

Change is coming despite everything, nobody can stop changes and of course we don’t want to stop it; we need to moderate it and control it. We shouldn’t leave the change to take place without having our words towards it. We need to control the change and orient it in order to reach our ultimate goals. Don’t stand in front of the change and condemn because you have an earlier presumption! Go for the change and negotiate and argue … maybe you can convince or been convinced.

You can be … what you hate most

So many people think that there is a huge difference between them and what they hate most; this, maybe, can be true. But the most astonishing thing is to become what you hate most; even without noticing that.

Once I was attending a student party and I managed to get involved with some fresh new students. This party was a little bit different, because it was a richly student party. Almost, more than half of the students have special attitudes and somehow, funny – at least for me – behavior. Suddenly, one of the new students, approached me and introduced himself in a very tidy way, and then we start chatting concerning the students and their attitudes. He spent most of the time complaining and expressing his disgust from the richly student behavior. He just kept talking and explaining to me this fake society. He explained to me how they don’t care about poor people, and they even don’t know that there are poor people out there. He told me that they know only what they read in books, which is a fantasy world and every week they prepare a party to associate. They don’t know anything about the real life or the practical one because their jobs are waiting for them when they finish. They don’t have even to search for one because their families have their own organizations and companies. He complained that they pretend to be human while they do not act as one and what they care about is only their own pleasure and appearance.

It was really shocking, but what I can clearly recall, that I was observing him very closely because of his way of moving and waving his hands. Since, in the first place, I thought that he was one of them. Observably, when he approaches anyone, he just starts smiling in a very fulsome way. Also he waves his hands in a very hasty and delicate way too. Besides, he was walking and moving, by shaking his backside like a dancer.  The way he talks and makes jokes, made me so sure that he was one of them. After we had our long discussion, I discovered that he only became what he mostly hates. Maybe he doesn’t know that, but unfortunately, he became just like them and even more.

This was one story, but when I looked up through my previous life history, I found out that I know a lot of people just like him. People despite the pessimistic ones and suddenly you find out that they are the most disappointing people in your life. People disgust stealing and thieving and rapidly starts to steal and lie. Ladies criticizing the plastic surgeries but when they have extra money they spend it on face lifting. You will also find very educated people criticizing and condemning the peace process, while they work in the authority and having their salaries because of this process. Also, when they gain a higher position they become the most defendable people. Citizens condemning their president or their electoral for one position and on the next day they adopt the same position. Deprived people odium rich people for their actions but they gain money, they do just much worse.

So many pictures can prove to us that it is easy to be what we hate most, especially if we kept criticizing and condemning without even stoping for a moment and think; what we really want? Just to criticize or to change?? It is just jealousy or just things we can’t reach? Is it a true thing or just our imaginations?   

Inside – Outside Palestine

Two important phases I have examined during my life; to be inside and outside Palestine. Both phases possess various colors, smells and feelings, but both phases contradict each other, maybe, not in a very conflicting manner. Nevertheless, it shows the red lines between dreams and reality, at least for the same person who experienced both of them.

Outside Palestine, we are the dreamers, the nationalist and the extremist. We weep and cry on tinny things and laugh on implausible things.  We scream for freedom and liberty, call for the removals of checkpoints while living in secure houses and traveling all over the world. Demanding for the whole land (1948) and the return of refugees while securing ourselves in the cities we live in and refuse even to visit; in reference to the normalization argument.

Outside Palestine, we demand the people inside Palestine to struggle more and fight back more. We ask them to sacrifice themselves to gain freedom, just to die in order to free the land. And when the citizens inside Palestine have a rest; they are convicted of being traitors or at least thwarters.  The negotiations are condemned to be an act of losers and surrenders by the dreamers too. Another side of the dreamer’s story is the rift between Fateh and Hamas. Since we are the Muslims and the gate keepers, nevertheless, Hamas also are in the same position; so we are in the same side. Despite all the facts and figures which showed and assured that Hamas is looking for the power and not for God. Then Hamas should be the right side to support and be loved.

Inside Palestine; we are the realistic, the patriots and the moderates. We weep and cry on the disasters we live in and we smile for hope and the future.  We activate the freedom route and we sacrifice everything, even ourselves or children. Sometimes, even, without being asked or sometimes even, in an obligatory manner. We live under the occupation; we suffer in daily basis from the checkpoints and the humiliating way of dealing with us, but we hope for the better. We agreed among ourselves to accept the reality of 1967 land and we hope to get there. We demand for help and support to build schools and university, to live in prosperity and in moderate way in order to live only.

Inside Palestine, we have to deal with the occupation in daily basis, that’s why we talk and communicate with it. We have to arrive to our work stations and to our schools and universities. We have to be treated and get treatment from the occupation himself. We have to trade and share our economic with him in order to eat and survive. We are obliged to give all the information needed to the occupation in order to have an ID or passport. We are obliged to stand in fixed lines in order to pass the checkpoints to reach the hospitals. We are obliged to understand the reality we live in and the rigid methods that we have to deal with. Accordingly, we believe in peace and freedom, we believe in teaching our kids in sequence to gain better life and better future. We cry for human rights, childe rights and women rights. Besides, we ask for more understanding for our situation, the exact situation. We are not traitors and we didn’t forget our case but we need to live like others. We need to rest in order to restart our mission in convenient way.   We struggle to live not to die, we fight to gain hope not to lose it and certainly, we require liberty even by negotiations or by civil struggle. We are Muslims and Christian and we believe in all religions; we are Palestinians and so, we trust that we all should live in harmony. We know the whole truth about Hamas and no one represent God on earth, especially them. Who kills for power doesn’t deserve the power. Both, Fateh and Hamas have their own mistakes and failures, but having blood in their hands; Palestinian blood are not acceptable for the people inside.

Dreams are amazing, but living the truth needs more courage. The redlines between both phases or images can be just an illusion, nevertheless, it can shows the frustration that the people inside Palestine live in because of the believes of the people outside Palestine live with.

Inside and outside Palestine it just and exchangeable image that can transform within both sides. If you want, you can be a dreamer or you can be a realistic! It is just the difference between talking about or/and living the story

Why we need to harm!!

I have always asked myself this question … why we need to harm each other!! Is it our nature !! Or is it just another way of saying “Here I am”!! Is it kind of victory?? Or just to be as our grand grandfathers … animals!! There is various means of harming others, physically, mentally, emotionally and even spiritually. Some times we claim that we didn’t mean it, but the truth … that we did. Always there is something inside us wish just to harm someone’s feelings or pride. We don’t like to see someone happy, or even sad. We don’t like to see someone good or feeling healthy. We don’t like to see someone having a really good life or family.

It seems crazy but, unfortunately, this is the truth that we should face. We come, especially in the Arab world, from a dramatic backgrounds. We think that we are more brilliant than others, we are the leaders of the world and even we act like this. We feel so happy when we hurt each other because we don’t know how to live in happiness or to be honest with ourselves. We just ignore the reality … that we are sick and we need treatment.

Of course am not talking about all the people living in the Arab world, but at least about the high majority. We are defeated, from our countries, from our societies and most likely, from our families. We lived and still living under a huge pressure from all kind of authority, which we maybe refuse, but sadly, keep in circling it. In order to stop that, we have to look in the mirror and to say “That’s enough”.

We have to stop feeling that we are defeated, even if we are and to look to the future with different eyes. We have to share and care and ignore the inequitable treatment that we use to obey or to apply on others. We have to stop harming each other for no reasonable, ever, reasons. We have to start to act like human again and refuse all kind of harm.

Many describe the arabs as emotional people and only act upon reactions for some kind of actions. Sometimes, it is true, but on the other hand, we can be so mean and numbness, especially when it is related to each other not to foreigners. We are so good with foreigners, but for our people; we are full of hate and anger. Why?? Why we need to harm each other why??