Islamophobia is a form of racism – let’s stop playing semantic games

We have all heard or seen the following claim before, especially when wading through the cesspit of the Internet – “Islam is not a race, so how can I be racist?”  This meme is usually deployed by those trying to answer, and deflect, accusations of racism. It is worth examining this claim in further detail, because it provides us with a window into the state of cultural and political debate in our own society.

First, let us be clear – Islam is a religion, not a race. But Islamophobia is a form of racism mixed with cultural intolerance. Demonising an entire religious community on the basis of a stereotypical and allegedly shared racial identity is racism.

The title of the current article comes from an article by Miqdaad Versi, the assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain. Versi correctly observes that claiming ‘Islam is not a race’ is a semantic game, to provide an escape clause for a person espousing racist viewpoints.

We all recognise the dictionary definition of the term Semitism. That refers to a linguistic and cultural groups, including Arabs and Jews. However, we also have a clear definition of the term anti-Semitism – bigotry and hatred against Jews. The anti-Semite does not care for semantic definitions – we can recognise the anti-Jewish racism directed against an ethno-religious group.

Sociologist Dr Craig Considine calls Islamophobia a form of racism based on cultural intolerance. His work, examining the racialisation of the Islamic identity, provides a necessary antidote to the purely dictionary distinction between race and religion. Religion has been used and abused as a basis to construct a fictional racialised identity, as has happened with the Jewish community in the past.

Orientalism rejuvenated

Islam is not a race, but Muslim people have been racialised. Orientalism is the historical source of the modern-day incarnation of Islamophobic prejudice. Islamophobia is the updated version of the old Orientalist bigotry; we are the ‘civilised’ West, and our mission is to control and uplift the Muslim outsider.

Khaled Beydoun, law professor and author of the book American Islamophobia, has noted how the United States has defined Islam, along with being black, as the perpetual outsider, incapable of assimilating and inherently opposed to ‘Americaness’. While Muslims have been present in American society since the earliest days of European settlement – there were West African Muslim slaves in the south of the US – Muslims were banned and excluded from the political and cultural life of the Americas since the 16th century.

Long before September 11 and the so-called ‘war on terror’, the American ruling establishment adopted a racialised exclusion of Muslims from the life of the emerging nation. Beydoun states that today’s Islamophobia has its roots in the perspective of Orientalism. The latter, discussed at length by the Palestinian Professor, the late Edward Said, is the cultural and historical lens through which the imperialist powers defined and perceived the Muslim Middle East.

Islam, according to the Orientalist view, is inherently violent, regressive, incapable of change and fixated on sabotaging the West. African blackness became the racial antithesis of American whiteness; the Islamic world was transformed from a religion into a racialised enemy – the eternal Arab/Muslim outsider. In this regard, we should note that from the late 1700s until 1952, the Naturalisation Act stipulated whiteness as an essential criterion of American citizenship.

Using the pathetic excuse of “Islam is not a race” is the standard preface to a racially-charged tirade demonising the Islamic community. It is perfectly true that Islam is not a race, but a faith-based religious group, whose followers share a set of beliefs and philosophy. But the Muslim identity has been racialised, and the ubiquitous “Middle Eastern appearance” is a loose, flexible descriptor that stigmatises a wide cross section of  Muslim and non-Muslim non-Anglo communities.

Let us avoid trotting out the simplistic and deceitful semantic exercise of “Islam is not a race” to evade any allegations of bigotry. In a decidedly similar way to anti-Semitism, the Islamic community has been categorised as a racialised identity, imbued with social characteristics that allegedly makes the religion’s practitioners unassimilable and unresponsive to the societies they inhabit.

While the adherents of Islam come from a diverse range of ethnic and racial backgrounds, it is the conflation of Arab-Muslim and the narrow racial framework of ‘brown’ persons that has dominated definitions of Islam. The multiracial and ethnically diverse reality of the American – and Australian – Muslim community is lost amidst this racially-exclusive categorisation of the Muslim as the perpetual outsider and potentially treasonous element in Western society.

Religious discrimination occurs when a particular group is targeted because of their religious beliefs. Racialisation occurs when that is identified and stigmatised based on what the racist wants to see – and then behaves according to that viewpoint. Cultural intolerance evolves into a form of racist practice.

The Islamophobic brand of hate is unconcerned with dictionary distinctions between religion and race. In the United States, hate crimes against Muslim persons has increased, especially since the initiation of the ‘war on terror’. The saddest part of this increase is that non-Muslims have been victimised. Sikhs, a group that practices a religion entirely different from Islam – have been the targets of Islamophobic hate crimes. Bigoted rhetoric from political candidates have real and dramatic consequences for ethnic and religious minorities. Racist attacks are motivated, not by an opposition to a religion, but by what the racist views as the racialised ‘Other’.

Travelling while being of Middle Eastern appearance

At this point, I have a confession to make. I am guilty of a crime. I have been committing this crime for decades, and will continue to do so into the future. What is my crime? Traveling while being of Middle Eastern appearance. It does not matter that I am not Muslim, or that Christianity can be a portal into whiteness. Traveling while possessing a Middle Eastern appearance is a serious offence in Australia.

Randa Abdel-Fattah, writer and lawyer, and academic at Macquarie University in Sydney, wrote about this precise subject. Being Australian and Muslim (or perceived as a brown person) are often viewed as mutually exclusive. This dichotomy is not confined to Australia – in the United States, being a ‘patriotic’ American and being Muslim are viewed as diametric opposites. Muslims – and by racialised extension, people from the Middle East – are the new enemy on the streets. Never matter that, for instance, Muslim Americans have served in the US military for decades. They have fought in all of America’s wars, including Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is not so much a clash of civilisations, but a clash of racialisations. Islamophobia is not a distaste for particular Muslim beliefs, rituals or cultural practices. It is a a pervasive, mainstream racism that targets the Muslim community, and reduces them to racially distinctive, Orientalist stereotypes.

Yes, we are all aware of the human rights abuses and repression in Saudi Arabia. Yes, we know about the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Yes, we know about the repressive regimes in the Middle East, the harsh punishments carried out in the name of Sharia, the problems of patriarchy. If you want to help Muslim women, just listen to them here.

It must be made clear that Islamophobia does not include criticism of religion, disagreements or arguments about the role of religion in public life. It is equally important to note that the term secularism does not provide an escape valve for the regurgitation of racially-charged tirades against the Muslim communities. It is dishonest to pretend that anti-Muslim racism does not exist because ‘we focus on cultural or religious practices’. While the Islamic faith consists of many colours, Islamophobia has one unmistakable racial colouration.

There is a well-known quote which originated from the early days of the socialist movement in Germany – ‘Anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools.’ This was a response to anti-Semitic smears doing the rounds among the workers movement. Using this quote as a template, we can update it by stating the following – Islamophobia is the secularism of fools.

Do I regard Muslim people as super-fantastic worthy of special privileges in the society? No, I do not. Am I unaware of the atrocities committed by fundamentalist groups such as Al Qaeda and Islamic State? I am very aware of these groups and condemn them in the strongest possible terms. Do I intend to write screeching denunciations of the burqa or the hijab? No, I do not – because that is none of my business. Muslim women are standing up for themselves, and do not need idiot-men like me to speak on their behalf.

I strongly agree with Rabia Siddique, when she writes that we must stop the normalisation of relentless Islamophobia in Australia. The first step on the way to confronting Islamophobia is to stop playing semantic games in order to fool ourselves into thinking that the problem of racism does not exist.

The US/UK complicity in the ongoing criminal war in Yemen

The ongoing war on Yemen (since March 2015), led by the forces of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), has been waged with the active support of the United States and the United Kingdom. The aerial and ground assault on Yemen has resulted in a human-induced catastrophe, causing famine, malnutrition and horrendous loss of life, especially among Yemeni children.

Over the month of August, Saudi air strikes have killed Yemeni schoolchildren, and all the consequent trauma that these attacks engendered will take years for the survivors and their families to overcome.

Professor Moustafa Bayoumi, from Brooklyn College, City University of New York, rightly points out that it is US bombs that are killing Yemeni children, and the corporate media maintains a deafening silence on the issue. US defence contractors, such as Lockheed Martin, have built and sold the bombs and weapons used by the Saudi-UAE forces to kill Yemenis.

This war has gone largely under-reported, and so is shrouded in a number of myths. Let us address these misconceptions, and in this way, untangle the complexities of the Saudi-UAE war on Yemen. The New York Times, in an article in June this year, examined the humanitarian catastrophe that is enveloping the people of Yemen. This photo-essay is very moving and heart-rending, and contains a helpful map of Yemen delineating the territories controlled by the various parties.

However, this NY Times digital essay recycles a number of convenient misconceptions that whitewash the active complicity of the United States (and Britain) in this conflict. These myths are regurgitated by the corporate media when they (rarely) discuss the Saudi-UAE war on Yemen. What are these myths?

Firstly, that the Houthis are a Yemeni version of Hezbollah……..not the case. Secondly, that the primary reason for this conflict is the Shia-Sunni split in Islam, making the Yemeni war another stage in a prolonged religious dispute. Thirdly, the conflict in Yemen can be understood as a proxy war between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shia Iran. Let’s untangle these falsehoods, and relate the relevant historical and political background.

The Yemen war is political in origin, not religious

Firstly, let us dispense with the often-recycled myth that this war is a proxy one between Iran and Saudi Arabia – this is pure nonsense. Professor Sheila Carapico, an expert in political science at the University of Richmond, explains that misrepresenting the conflict in Yemen as a proxy war is not only a product of outdated Cold-War thinking, but also diverts responsibility for the criminal nature of the Saudi-UAE war onto multiple parties. The Saudi-Emirati assault on Yemen is an unprovoked act of aggression, and the New York Times published an editorial slamming the Saudi and Emirati forces for committing war crimes.

The Houthis, or more correctly, the Ansar Allah (Helpers of God) are a grassroots political-religious militia that has waged successive rebellions and uprisings against the corruption and injustice of the Yemeni government, formerly led by the late President Ali Abdullah Saleh. Between 2004 and 2010, the Houthis staged a series of armed risings against the government, maintaining that Saudi influence was increasing in the country.

In the 1990s, the Saudis began to make investments and inroads into the newly reunified nation of Yemen. (I realise that is a lot of background to take in, but please bear with me). The Houthis viewed this as an attempt by the Saudi regime to exert undue influence in the economic and political life of the country. Yemen reunited in 1990, under the President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who maintained his grip on power for 33 years – first as the President of the North Yemen and from 1990 the leader of the reunified nation.

The Houthis are Shia, but they are more correctly Zaydi Shia – which is a entirely different denomination to the main Shia religion practiced in Iran. President Saleh was himself a Zaydi Shia. The main body of Shia belong to the Twelver Shia denomination – and this branch rules in Iran.

The Zaydi Shia, are a distinctive sect with their own theological and religious beliefs. For a Zaydi Shia to convert to the main Twelver Shia in Iran would have the same impact as say a Russian Orthodox Christian converting to Catholicism. The weight of historical schism and the threat of family ostracism would bear heavily on such a move.

The Houthis have their own religious and political genealogy, distinctive from Iran, and the Hezbollah militia. While Iran has expressed support for the Houthis, their assistance has been limited and sporadic. This stands in stark contrast to the unstinting support for the Saudi-Emirati offensive supplied by the United States and Britain.

The Saudi-Emirati goal in Yemen

The Saudis and Emiratis, by invading Yemen, want to prop up their preferred political candidate, the internationally recognised government of President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi. The former Vice President until 2012, Hadi was Saleh’s deputy until the latter was removed in the wake of the 2011 Yemeni protests.

Saudi Arabia, ever watchful of the political changes taking places in the nation to their south, organised a transition process which saw Saleh removed. The Houthis claimed that this change was simply cosmetic, and did nothing to resolve the longstanding issues of poverty, corruption and unemployment plaguing the country.

In the 2000s, former President Saleh tried to suppress the Houthi rebel militia with the backing of Saudi Arabia. The latter failed numerous times – and the Houthis acquired experience in battle. The Saudis, along with their Emirati counterparts, have a long history of influencing the developments in Yemen, and from the early 1990s invested in that country.

Interestingly, while the Saudis and the UAE have been cooperating militarily in their offensive in Yemen, both have been pursuing rival economic objectives. The Emiratis have also invested heavily in Yemen, in particular in Southern Yemen – that portion of the country controlled by the socialist-oriented Southern Transitional Council. South Yemen was until 1990 a Marxist republic until its reunification with the north. The Emiratis have made a strong move into southern Yemen, hoping to turn Yemen into an economic reservoir of their own.

The Emiratis have largely taken the lead on the ground in Yemen, and have employed foreign mercenaries as well to beef up their military commitment. Interestingly, the chief of the Emirati Presidential Guard, an elite fighting force, is an Australian, Mike Hindmarsh. The Emiratis have also grabbed the island of Socotra, an ecologically-rich Unesco-protected island off the coast of Yemen.

A subset of the war on terror – now allying with Al Qaeda

The Yemeni government of Ali Abdullah Saleh joined with the United States, from 2001, the global war on terror. Saleh allowed the United States to launch drone strikes against purported Al Qaeda targets in the country. The Houthis, an overtly nationalistic militia, strongly opposed the 2003 American invasion of Iraq and Yemen’s approval of that invasion. There are current reports that the Saudi-Emirati forces have been quietly arranging secret deals with Al Qaeda fighters, employing them to join the battle against the nationalist Houthi militia.

As Al Jazeera reported:

In one conflict, the US is working with its Arab allies – particularly the UAE – with the aim of eliminating al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). But the larger mission is to win the civil war against the Iran-aligned Houthi rebels.

And in that fight, al-Qaeda fighters are effectively on the same side as the Saudi-led coalition and, by extension, the US.

“Elements of the US military are clearly aware that much of what the US is doing in Yemen is aiding AQAP and there is much angst about that,” said Michael Horton, a fellow at the Jamestown Foundation.

Shifting and fluid alliances are nothing new in Yemen. Saleh, a wily politician whose career was marked by knowing when to change sides, tacitly supported the 2014-15 Houthi takeover of the Yemeni capital Sanaa. Saleh turned against his former Houthi allies in late 2017, stating his willingness cooperate with Saudi Arabia. That proved to be his last opportunistic betrayal – in December 2017, Saleh was assassinated by the Houthi movement.

The pipeline of arms

The Saudi-Emirati war on Yemen would not be possible without the uninterrupted pipeline of armaments, military, logistical and intelligence support from the United States and Britain. The insatiable drive for corporate profits is resulting in the deaths of Yemeni people, famine and malnutrition in that nation, and ongoing war crimes.

The United States and the UK are not bystanders, but rather active participants in this war.  The carnage in Yemen is not the result of ancient tribal feuds, or historic religious schisms, but the product of current political and economic priorities. It is time to change these priorities to relieve the suffering inflicted by a socioeconomic system that puts corporate profits ahead of people’s lives.

 

The ‘Irish were slaves’ myth is a toxic falsehood

Liam Hogan, Irish historian and writer who works at the Limerick City Library, has been working feverishly over the past six years to debunk a pernicious falsehood that has been circulating social media – that the Irish were white slaves. He was interviewed by Pacific Standard magazine about his work, and you may read his comments here. Let us  examine this harmful nonsense about how the ‘Irish-were-slaves too’, why it is a dangerous, and why we should exert efforts to combat it. In fact, let’s take the last part first.

If something is patent nonsense, then surely by just ignoring it, it will eventually disappear? Unfortunately, this is not possible in this case. Why? The Southern Poverty Law Centre provides the answer. In an article entitled ‘How the Myth of the “Irish slaves” became a Favorite Meme of Racists Online”, the author of the essay states that:

Propaganda is cheap to produce on the web. And a purposeful lie in an age of “viral content” not only can race around the world in a day but resurface time and time again with surprising resiliency.

The article continues:

Such is the case with the myth of “Irish slaves,” an ahistorical reimagining of real events weaponized by racists and conspiracy theorists before the Web and now reaching vast new audiences online.

It is not entirely surprising that this toxic myth of ‘Irish-were-slaves’ has attracted the support of white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and Holocaust deniers on the Internet. This claim of Irish-white-slavery has gained prominence since the emergence of anti-racist movements in the United States, such as Black Lives Matter. The purpose of this meme is not to unify, but to divide. This myth serves to derail current conversations about race, racism, ethnicity and slavery.

When African American organisations raise the issues of racism, police brutality, the legacy of slavery, current economic inequalities – there will be an army of online trolls who will divert the conversation into the blind-alley of ‘but the Irish were slaves too, and they got over it.’ You may see an example of such a claim here, in an article written by Liam Hogan. The statement is ‘when was the last time you heard an Irishman bitching about how the world owes them a living? You won’t……The Irish are not pussies looking for free shit.’

In 2015, at a neo-Confederate rally to support the continued flying of the slave-owning flag in Mississippi, one white supremacist demonstrator said that “There were a lot more white Irish slaves then there were blacks. And the Irish slaves were treated a lot worse than the black slaves.”

Indentured servitude versus perpetual racialised chattel slavery

Let us be clear on what we are talking about. This is not a matter of debating semantics. This is not a matter of quibbling over the meaning of words. Granted, academics can spend an excessive amount of time and energy debating the meanings of this or that word. However, we can examine the historical record and find the falsity of the ‘Irish were slaves too’ meme.

In daily conversation, we use the word ‘slavery’ to mean any kind of forced labour. There have been many types of slavery throughout history. Various empires – the Assyrians, Romans, Greeks – used slaves in their economies. The British, in their conquest of Ireland, were brutal, vicious and unrelenting. The Irish, mainly Catholics, were shipped off to Barbados, Montserrat and other British colonies as indentured servants.

Here is where the duplicity and deceitfulness of the ‘Irish were slaves’ myth becomes apparent. There are significant, qualitative and vast differences between indentured servitude and racialised hereditary slavery. The myth of the ‘Irish were slaves’ deliberately conflates the two different forms of forced labour. Indentured servitude involved a fixed contract, usually between four-to-seven years, and the servant was recognised as a legal person with rights. It was a harsh existence, brutal and exploitative to be sure – but it was a different form of forced labour than slavery.

The transatlantic slave trade was racialised; black Africans were kidnapped as property. They had no rights whatsoever – they were slaves in perpetuity. Their slavery was hereditary – their children were slaves, their grandchildren were slaves. Families could be sold off, and children separated from their parents. The African slaves were treated as livestock. The legal architecture of the British colonies, such as in the North Americas and the Caribbean, relegated the black African to that of a sub-human, soulless, beast of burden who could be worked to death.

Irish in Barbados and Montserrat

The deliberate conflation of indentured servitude and the transatlantic racialised slave trade does not have any foundation in the historical record. The British, when first settling the Leeward islands, such as Barbados and Montserrat, established a legal system for distinguishing the rights and responsibilities of indentured servants as opposed to African slaves. The indentured Irish included prisoners of war, the poor, vagrants, any Irish Catholic deemed undesirable – and they were transported to a harsh existence in the Caribbean, working in the sugar plantations. Many died during their term of service.

The transatlantic slave trade however, involved the transport of millions of black Africans, who were worked to death in the sugar and tobacco fields. The island of Montserrat became the one place in the British empire where the Irish were the majority of white settlers – and they participated in the slave trade. The Irish became slave owners and slave traders. They participated in the economic ascendancy of the white planter class in the Caribbean. It was not only in the Caribbean where the Irish were slave owners and slave traders.

In the slave-owning states of the United States, Irish planters had established themselves and gained their wealth through the slave trade. Since the beginnings of the transatlantic racialised slave traders, Irish entrepreneurs established themselves in Liverpool, Bristol and other cities to take advantage of this slave trade. Former Irish indentured servants, having survived their servitude, took up the slave trade and acquired their own wealth after their servitude contract expired.

Bonded servitude was a form of labour used by the British empire to get rid of persons that were deemed undesirable by the English ruling class. Irish political prisoners, among others, ended up transported to Barbados, Montserrat – and eventually the British penal colonies in Australia. None of this is to deny the brutal reality suffered by the Irish indentured servants. Our purpose is not to diminish the suffering of those transported to the colonies.

This system of indentured servitude was a world apart from the the transatlantic African slave trade. Indentured servants had recourse to the courts to challenge any mistreatment; the African slave had no standing because they were not considered a human being. Black African slaves could be worked to death, even killed, without any consequences to the slave owners. When Britain formally abolished the slave trade in 1834, former slave owners including Irish, were compensated for their ‘loss of property’ by the British government.

Harmful memes

Australia today has millions of citizens claiming to be of Irish background – and every March 17 – Saint Patrick’s Day – the shamrock and green colours are prominent in the many ‘Irish pubs’ in Australia. The Irish in Australia have a long and proud history. Wearing the shamrock, decked out with a green shirt and drinking green beer – these are harmless pursuits, and so we say good luck to you. If you wish to engage in the Paddy Whackery that accompanies Saint Patrick’s Day, then that is your pleasure.

These are harmless passtimes. However, the ‘Irish were slaves too’ myth is a toxic meme, recycled and regurgitated whenever there are conversations about racism and racial issues today. Not only does this poisonous nonsense deceitfully equate indentured servitude with racialised perpetual slavery, it is also serves to remove the guilt of white supremacy. If the racial component of African slavery is removed, then the crimes of white supremacy can be written out of the historical record.

When Kanye West, American rapper and serial egomaniac, stated earlier this year that slavery was just a lifestyle choice, he was – whether intentionally or not – removing the culpability of white supremacy and white racism. When the current Housing Secretary in the United States, Ben Carson, refers to slaves as just immigrants, he not only demonstrates his woeful ignorance of American history. He is removing the racial guilt attached to white supremacy. In this day and age of social media, millions read these comments and follow them.

Debunking this myth is not merely an academic exercise. To use an expression even Trump-supporters can understand – this is fake history, weaponised in a modern context against the struggle of African Americans. This false and deceitful equivalence of suffering only serves to validate the viewpoint of the racist Alt-Right; if the Irish were slaves too, and they got over it, why can’t the blacks? The ‘Irish were slaves too’ meme originates from a position of division, not from empathy or solidarity in suffering.

The emphasis of the ‘Irish were slaves’ myth is to divert attention from the crimes of white supremacy and promote a pseudo-historical narrative of ‘white victimhood’. The rise of ultra-rightist white nationalist anti-immigrant politics and rhetoric has provided a renewed platform for toxic memes such as the ‘Irish were slaves’. It is no coincidence that the ‘Irish were slaves’ meme has spread in those societies built on white settler-colonialism, such as the United States and Australia. Stories of ‘white victimhood’ only poison current discussions and moves towards combating racism and anti-immigrant xenophobia.

 

 

UK police and intelligence are using children as spies

The Guardian newspaper reported, in July this year, that British police and intelligence agencies are using children (under 18s) as undercover operatives in their efforts to gather information on drug gangs, terrorist groups and sexual trafficking networks. The Home Office, the department responsible for intelligence gathering and policing, has requested that the use of covert human intelligence sources (CHIS) – a fancy title for spies – be extended from one month to four months in the case of juveniles.

This practice of using children as spies came to light because the House of Lords legislative scrutiny committee – tasked with reviewing changes to existing legislation – raised concerns about the use of children in such dangerous and criminal environments. While the UK police and intelligence authorities have asked for an extension of the period in which children can be deployed as spies, there was no explanation as to how an authorising officer would assess the psychological risks to the welfare of such children.

One of the main reasons that we in the West feel revulsion for militia groups such as Islamic State, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram and others is their reputed willingness to use children in combat situations. Whether directly in the field as soldiers, or as backup in logistics and intelligence operations, these kinds of groups stand condemned in our sensibilities because of their ruthless capacity to subject juveniles to violent and brutalising environments. The practice of recruiting and using child soldiers is provided as evidence of the shocking brutality of our opponents – rightly so.

That is quite interesting, because Britain has its own problems with regard to the recruitment of child soldiers. The UK government has come under heavy criticism for its drive to recruit disaffected and marginalised teenagers into the ranks of the military. Exposing children to violent environments and intimidation have lasting and adverse psychological impacts.

Children are used by narco-trafficking networks in order to ostensibly fly under the radar of the law enforcement authorities. UK police are arresting ever-greater numbers of under-16s for heroin, crack and/or cocaine dealing. Such groups use violence and intimidation as a daily tactic to ensure the loyalty of their members, and intimidate outsiders and civilians into fearful submission. The British government authorities intend to return such children into these kinds of violent subcultures.

Former UK undercover police officer Neil Woods, spoke of his experiences as an undercover operative. He now runs the company Leap – Law Enforcement Action Partnership. Woods, in describing the environment of a drug trafficking network, elaborated that one tactic that these groups use to keep people in line is rape. The latter was used against the female relatives of those in the gang who were suspected of disloyalty or of being informants.

Keeping children in such environments only increases the risk of psychological harm to the juvenile CHIS. The Home Office thus far has not explained what criteria are used to evaluate the risks of maintaining a child inside such an organisation, as opposed to the value of the intelligence gathered. Lord Trefgarne, who headed the legislative scrutiny committee, has asked for information on how many juvenile informants have been deployed, and what assessments, if any have been undertaken to assess their psychological state.

Let us briefly set aside the ethical considerations in using children as undercover spies – and let us adopt a practical point of view. Can a child, however intelligent or resourceful, provide useful intelligence about a drug trafficking or sexual exploitation network? Psychologists and experts who have examined this area are – at a minimum – highly critical of the value of such information-gathering. Do children have the social and emotional intelligence to handle the changing dynamics and shifting loyalties of a drug gang? Can they handle the trauma of witnessing terrifying violence on a daily basis?

Joseph Pistone, former FBI agent and undercover operative, wrote of his experiences infiltrating Mafia networks in the United States. His book about his life as an undercover operative was dramatised in the film Donnie Brasco. A trained professional, he wrote of the daily stresses, anxieties and tension of posing as a ‘jewel thief’, all the while keeping his social antennae attuned to the fluid dynamics of rival factional loyalties. He did this for the purpose of gathering meaningful intelligence about the criminal operations of the Mafia family he infiltrated.

Pistone detailed the backstabbing, duplicity, deception and violence that were part of the daily life of being involved in a criminal enterprise. It took a toll on his family life and well-being. Can a juvenile, however excellent their academic skills, handle the unique pressures of being an undercover informant? Michelle Jones and Dustin Johnson, two scholars who work in the field of child psychology, wrote that:

Quality, accurate information that can be acted upon quickly by security forces is vital in covert operations. A child doesn’t have the cognitive abilities to recall or collect the kind of nuanced information that is likely to offer significant benefit to the investigation. So if the child is only providing low-level intelligence or information, is it really worth risking their safety to get it?

Just Security, an online forum based at New York University School of Law, published an article about the use of child spies in the UK. Authored by two practicing barristers, Shaheed Fatima QC and Hanif Mussa from Blackstone Chambers in London, the writers elaborate on what the use of juvenile undercover operatives says about British society. They quote the words of Nelson Mandela, who said that “There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children.”

Rights Watch (UK) commented on this issue, saying that:

Enlisting children as foot soldiers in the darkest corners of policing, and intentionally exposing them to terrorism, crime or sexual abuse rings — potentially without parental consent — runs directly counter to the government’s human rights obligations, which demand the interests of children be placed at the heart of decisions which affect them. It’s also an affront to the government’s own safeguarding guidance, which requires our public authorities to help children escape crime, not become more deeply embedded in it

The Guardian newspaper, in its editorial commentary back in July, made a telling observation. It noted that years of neoliberal austerity have undermined social services to the point of breakdown, leaving children, among others, particularly vulnerable:

Years of austerity have stretched services to breaking point. Youth and social services and educational provision cannot meet the demands. This, as well as broader social and economic marginalisation, is the context of the frightening rises in knife crime and gang violence.

If the economic programme of a society leaves children vulnerable and marginalised, then it is high time to ditch that economic platform for one that prioritises the needs and welfare of the society’s most precious citizens.

Israel’s nation-state law is an open declaration of apartheid

In late July 2018, the Israeli parliament – the Knesset – passed a contentious nation-state law that explicitly defines Israel as an exclusively Jewish state. This law was passed narrowly after a heated debate. The Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, along with his ultra-right wing Likud coalition government, has been pushing for the approval of such a law for a long time.

This nation-state law basically entrenches Jewish ethnic supremacy as the main legal foundation of the Israeli state. It is an open declaration of apartheid, making the Arab minority in Israel second-class citizens. You may read the full text of the nation-state law here.

For instance, the law states that national self-determination in the state of Israel is exclusive to the Jewish people. The Arabic language is demoted from the status of an official state language, and supports the exclusion of Arabs from the building of Jewish communities and state institutions.

The Arab minority citizens inside Israel, the descendants of those who were left within the borders of Israel proper at the conclusion of the 1948 war and Nakba, are never mentioned in this law. Arab lawmakers in the Knesset loudly protested the passage of this law, and one was forcibly ejected from the parliament. The main head of the Joint List Alliance, the combination of Arab political parties in the parliament, denounced this law as the death of democracy. It is arguable whether Israel ever was a democracy, and we shall return to this point later.

Stating the obvious

This law, a frequent hobby horse of the Zionist right-wing parties, was hailed by PM Netanyahu as a historic milestone in Israel’s history. There is some merit in this description, because the passage of this law undermines the claim, frequently made by Israeli government figures and its Zionist supporters, that Israel is a democratic state that welcomes all its citizens regardless of ethnic background.

However, Professor Waxman from Northeastern University, states in an article that this law is merely stating the obvious – Israeli lawmakers have passed a series of laws establishing and entrenching Jewish ethno-supremacy in all areas of economic, political and social life in Israel.

From its inception, the Israeli ruling class has implemented a series of laws designed to exclude the Palestinians – and the Palestinian Arabs left behind inside Israel – and construct the edifice of an apartheid state. The 1950 Law of Return, for instance, automatically grants citizenship to any Jewish emigrant moving to Israel. Palestinians, and advocates of Palestinian refugees, have pointed out the basic contradiction in claiming to be a democratic state for all its people, but then establish the automatic supremacy of one ethno-religious group above all others.

The new nation-state law stipulates that building Jewish settlements is of ‘national value’. The construction of such settlements is encouraged with the passage of this law. Escalating Jewish settlement construction in the occupied Palestinian territories will only entrench the existing trend of state-segregation of Palestinian communities. As Ramzy Baroud, author and editor of Palestine Chronicle, states in his article:

Apartheid is not a single law, but a slow, agonizing build-up of an intricate legal regime that is motivated by the belief that one racial group is superior to all others.

Not only does the new law elevate Israel’s Jewish identity and erase any commitment to democracy, it also downgrades the status of all others. Palestinian Arabs, the natives of the land of historic Palestine upon which Israel was established, did not feature prominently in the new law at all.

Israel was never a democratic state

Baroud wrote that “While it would be accurate to argue that the Jewish Nations-state bill is the officiation of Apartheid in Israel, this realization should not dismiss the previous reality upon which Israel was founded 70 years ago.” This is an important observation, and should be kept in mind when examining the foundations of the Israeli state. The ruling class in Israel, and its supporters in the United States and Australia, claim that while there are faults, Israel is at its base a liberal democratic society.

A variation on this claim is that while the 1967 war, resulting in the Israeli military occupation of the Palestinian West Bank and the Gaza Strip, corrupted the basic essence of Israeli society, prior to that war, Israel from 1948 was constructing a standard Western liberal democracy. These claims have no foundation, and it is important to examine these in order to understand how the nation-state law was passed as ‘icing on the cake’ so to speak.

At first glance, Israel appears to be a liberal democracy. The Arab minority in Israel, comprising about 20 percent of the population, enjoy certain civic rights, can vote, form their own political parties and have consistently pushed for greater representation in Israeli state institutions. The Balfour Declaration, while pledging British government support for the construction of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, did state that the rights of the non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine should be respected. The 1948 Israeli Declaration of Independence does state that the Arab residents of Palestine are welcome participants in the building of the fledgling nation.

These declarations have been consistently undermined by the actions of the Israeli ruling class and its political representatives. Since 1948, the Israeli state has been conceived of, and constructed as, an ethnocracy, a state based explicitly on Jewish national supremacy. A multi-ethnic democracy was never on the cards when constructing the new state of Israel.

The claims of Israel to be the only democracy in the Middle East are undermined by two interrelated developments; the discrimination against the Arab minority in Israel, and the foundation of Israel by Labour Zionism as an exclusively Jewish state. Kim Bullimore, writing in Red Flag magazine, wrote that:

Since its founding in 1948, Israel has used both legal discrimination and military force to ethnically cleanse and oppress the indigenous Palestinian population, imposing an apartheid system inside both the Zionist state and the Palestinian territories seized in 1967.

Ilan Pappe, an Israeli historian, has written extensively on how Israel used military administrative measures against the Arab minority population inside Israel from 1948 onwards. The Palestinian Arabs, left behind after the 1948 Nakba, were subjected to a low-intensity type of warfare, banished into ghettos, and villagers driven off their land by the Israeli military governors. Ironically, the type of martial law used to deprive Palestinian Arabs of their citizenship was based on the British Mandate regulations implemented during the time of Mandatory Palestine.

For Palestinian Arabs, life in pre-1967 Israel was an experience in being subjected to the harsh regime of martial law. Subjected to military checkpoints and travel permits when travelling, the Israelis also used the tactic of home demolitions to target Arab families who resisted the Israeli authorities. This tactic is still being used by Israeli military forces today.

The Arab minority

The Arab citizens of Israel have been continuously subjected to forms of racial and ethnic discrimination in all facets of life. Adalah, the legal advocates for the Palestinian Arabs in Israel, have documented systematic discrimination against Palestinian Arabs in housing, education and employment. It is interesting to note that the kibbutzim, widely hailed as a socialist experiment, were founded on confiscated Arab lands. Rather than constructing a socialist utopia, the kibbutzim movement is an extension of the colonial project of Zionism, uprooting and excluding the Palestinian Arabs from economic life.

None of this is to suggest that the Arab minority in Israel have been passive victims, quietly acquiescing to a life of marginalisation. They have organised and fought back in various ways. However, since Netanyahu came to office in 2009, his government has done its utmost to erect further barriers to restrict the economic and political life of the Palestinian Arabs. Foreign Affairs magazine examines the plight of the Arab citizens of Israel and their struggle against the intricate legal structures of apartheid.

The International Crisis Group published a paper in 2004 that elaborated how the Palestinian Arab minority are cut off from the mainstream Israeli economic and political structures. The ongoing marginalisation of the Arab minority touches the very heart of the Israeli polity – a Zionist state or a democratic state. For the large part, the Arab citizens occupy separate, ethnically homogenous towns and villages distinct from the wealthier, and commercially successful Israeli Jewish population.

It is a historic irony that Labour Zionism, while taking great pains to portray itself as advocating a socialist vision, ended up constructing an ethnically separatist state. The socialist Zionists had to choose – either side with socialism and its definition of a multi-ethnic, egalitarian ethos, or with Zionism and its exclusivist Jewish nationalism. Interestingly, the white supremacist and Alternative Right spokesperson Richard Spencer has spoken of his admiration for Israel, and his support for the passage of the nation-law.

Spencer, and his co-thinkers, the European ultra-rightist and anti-semitic parties, have long admired the state of Israel as an example of the ethno-supremacist state they wish to see in their own countries. Netanyahu can count on numerous ultra-right friends in politically powerful positions in Europe.

The nation-state law is another, significant step in constructing an apartheid-type state in Israel. The Morning Star newspaper stated that this law indicates a further deterioration into fascistic treatment of a national minority, and undermines any claim about establishing democracy. In the wake of this law, the Middle East Monitor suggests that it is high time to restore the United Nations resolution 3379, which defined Zionism as a form of racism. This resolution, revoked in 1991, helped to bring the Palestinian question to the attention of the international community. Given the discriminatory practices of the Israeli government, its description of Zionism as a form of racism was ahead of its time.

 

The ultra-right resurgence, free speech and Brexiteer nationalism

In June this year, in central London, there was a rally of ultra-rightist and neofascist demonstrators in support of one of their own leaders, Tommy Robinson. At least 10,000 marched in the demonstration, and some estimates put the crowd numbers at 15,000. Robinson, (whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) is a long-term racist and Islamophobic activist. The details of his court case are irrelevant here, and you can easily find the particulars of his legal drama by Googling the relevant search terms.

What concerns us here is the rally itself, its international dimension, and the attempt by the far right to present Robinson as a martyr for ‘free speech.’ First of all, let us be clear about the nature of the June rally – it was arguably the largest gathering of neofascistic and ultra-rightist nationalists since the end of World War Two. Secondly, there was no mistaking the international significance of the protest. A number of European far right politicians and political activists sent greetings to the London rally. Dutch ultra-rightist Geert Wilders addressed the rally, and greetings were sent by the French National Front.

Richard Burgon, Labour MP for Leeds East and Shadow Justice minister in Britain, wrote that this march places Britain in the epicentre of attempts to resurrect the European ultra-right. Burgon wrote that openly Islamophobic parties are gaining not only votes, but powerful friends in high places in European politics. Steve Bannon, President Trump’s former campaign manager and adviser, also sent greetings to the London protest, highlighting the ability of the ultra-right to build a cross-national network.

We must be ever vigilant against the resurgence of far-right parties and their ideology. But do not mistake the English rally as a purely foreign importation. As the activists from the English group Socialist Resistance wrote, the demonstration was striking for the number of Union Jacks, St George crosses and English nationalist symbolism on display. English neofascism has domestic roots, and the ultra-nationalists who marched on that day have been reinvigorated by the anti-immigrant outpouring that characterises Brexiteer nationalism.

Brexit and the far right

The Brexit referendum in June 2016 provided a platform to rejuvenate the anti-immigrant far-right parties. While the major players of English capital wanted a Remain vote to emerge victorious (the Bank of England, the major British financial institutions, and so on) the Leave vote achieved a narrow victory on the basis of anti-immigrant opposition. Gary Younge, columnist for The Guardian, wrote that while there are perfectly valid reasons to leave the EU, the Brexit referendum was not fought on those grounds.

Younge wrote that it was anti-immigration, coupled with fantasies about resurrecting a mythical version of British Imperial greatness, formed the primary motivation for the Leave campaign. This is not to suggest that every single Leave voter is racist – by no means. The reaction of the corporate media to the Leave victory is instructive. For the first time in decades, the mainstream media discovered racism among the working class. Strange, seeing that the British financial elite have routinely deployed racism for electoral gain over decades.

Glenn Greenwald, writing in The Intercept, states that the Brexit vote is a stark repudiation of the seeming wisdom and political judgement of the ruling elites in Britain. Having offered neoliberal policies and austerity under the veneer of cosmopolitan multiculturalism, British voters responded with rejection. However, the anti-austerity message, promoted bravely by the Lexit campaign (Left Leave) was drowned out by the overwhelmingly anti-immigration message of the Leave campaign.

Before we quickly dismiss the influence of the anti-immigration platform of the Leave campaign, let us remember one important fact – former Labour MP Jo Cox was murdered on the eve of the Brexit referendum by an ultra-rightist terrorist, motivated by the white supremacist and xenophobic ideology of the British neo-fascist Right. The killer, Thomas Mair, had circulated among ultra-right circles in the years leading up to the murder of the late Jo Cox. Mair made clear his motivation in carrying out the killing by shouting the slogan of ‘Britain First’ – a statement that is a staple of the anti-immigrant far right.

Tory Brexit provided the far right with the political confidence to brazenly demonstrate their message of hate in London. Let us not forget that London has become a very multi-ethnic city. Minority communities are frequent targets of hate crimes by ultra-right terrorists. It is no coincidence that the neo-fascist march was held in central London. It was intended as an arrogant display of violent British nationalism.

Far right wants free speech – to spread its bigotry

The Tommy Robinson rally was significant not only for the number of its participants, but also for the rationale used the organisers to justify it. Tommy Robinson was upheld as a proponent of ‘free speech’. What could possibly be wrong with defending free speech? Is not the hallmark of a mature society the ability to uphold its core values, one of them being free speech?

The far right parties in Europe and America have used the mask of ‘free speech’ to disguise their hateful bigotry. This is not a new tactic – in the past, Holocaust deniers, such as David Irving, have promoted their racist and anti-semitic views by portraying their work as scholarship free from partisan political influences. This misuse of ‘free speech’ or ‘free thinking’ is a clever ruse to disguise attacks on the rights of others.

Owen Jones, writing in The Guardian newspaper, states that the far right are the “victimisers who clothe themselves in the garb of victimhood”. The use of the slogan ‘free speech’ is a political ploy to deliberately spread hatred against ethnic and oppressed minorities. While ultra-rightist parties and politicians have complained that their right of free speech is violated, they have no hesitation in denying free speech to others; specifically advocating the closure of mosques, banning the Quran, and suppressing Islamic community organisations.

Jones goes on to write that:

There is a chasm separating the right to free speech and the privilege of being given a platform to make your views known. No one has a right to a platform. If I offer you a megaphone, and then take it back off you, you can continue to say what you like, just not with my megaphone.

In this day and age of social media, digital content creation and viral marketing have exponentially increased the reach and spread of media content. Anyone with a social media platform can now write, comment and disseminate their views on a vast scale. But this is not free speech – this is simply viral content. Freedom of speech is not derived from the generosity of wealthy benefactors who generously provide a platform for ordinary people.

As Jeff Sparrow writes, freedom of speech was won through uprisings and struggles by working class people in the context of revolutions, and must be defended from being monopolised by the large multinational corporations. Free speech is an industrial issue, Sparrow writes. It is easy to have a social media platform, but when these platforms are owned and operated by an increasingly narrow financial layer of elite corporations, then it is all the more difficult for minority groups to have their voice heard.

Indeed, the assertion of the far-right that their activities defend free speech is a perverse allegation. Racist attitudes and beliefs that were once acceptable, have been driven out of the mainstream by the organised political campaigns of racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQ people, refugees and immigrants. The misuse of the label ‘free speech’ is a tactical contrivance deployed by the far right to push back the gains made by minority communities.

Owen Jones wrote that while the ultra-right claim to be opponents of the capitalist order, they are very much the bastard children of it:

The mainstream press endlessly propagate myths, distortions, half-truths and outright lies about Muslims, immigrants, refugees, LGBTQ people, women and benefit claimants.

It is the ongoing and steady normalisation of hate and bigotry in the corporate media that has given rise to the bastard children of the ultra-right and white supremacy. Jacobin magazine commented on this very issue, examining the relationship between the the media, government and political circles, and the growth of the far right. Since the September 11 attacks and the ‘war on terror’, railing against Islam and Muslim communities has become acceptable and normalised in the media.

Islamophobic hatred and fear of Muslims has become a standard feature of political discourse in the Western nations. We will examine this issue in greater detail in the next article – stay tuned.

For the moment, we would do well to remember that the ultra-rightist resurgence is a threat to the entire labour movement. We must reject the message of racism that they disseminate, and oppose the austerity-driven capitalist system that provides willing recruits for their ranks.

American support for Israel is based on fanatical religious extremism

The title above is not my own creation, but is derived from an article by Asa Winstanley, investigative journalist and associate editor of Electronic Intifada. In that essay, Winstanley is examining the reasons why support for Israeli policies in the halls of the US congress is resolute and unwavering. He provides a convincing account of how the American religious right, namely, the Evangelical Christian Right, are the most steadfast supporters of Zionism.

For the purpose of the current article, we will elaborate on how Winstanley’s contention fits into the context of current events in the Middle East. Christian Zionism, while being taken to a new level by both US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has deep roots in the American political system. The opening of the new US embassy in Jerusalem – relocated from Tel Aviv – highlights the importance of the supportive role of the Evangelical Christian Right – the most fervent lobby for Zionism inside the US political system.

New embassy opened amidst violence against Palestinians

The opening of the American embassy in Jerusalem in May this year coincided with the killing of at least 60 unarmed Palestinian protesters at the Gaza wall. The Palestinians have been peacefully protesting this isolation for several weeks by holding rallies and protest actions at the militarised Gaza border with Egypt. Israeli forces have responded with systematic and lethal violence, killing and wounding scores of Palestinians during the Great Return March.

The juxtaposition of these killings, along with the opening of the relocated US embassy in Jerusalem, has prompted a series of questions as to why the United States is so unstinting in its support for Israel. One explanation that is put forward to explain this enthusiastic convergence between Washington and Tel Aviv is the existence and activity of an Israel lobby. It is more accurate to say Zionist lobby, but the former expression will suffice.

There is an element of truth to this description – there certainly is a powerful Israel lobby in the United States. However, there is one mistaken assumption at the heart of this observation. The main proponents of this Israel lobby are assumed to be Jewish. This belief is inaccurate. The primary warriors of Zionism in the United States are the Evangelical Christian right, the conservative religious fanatics of the Rapture-apocalyptic-welcoming camp.

Right wing Evangelical Christian Zionism

It is fair to say that the US embassy move to Jerusalem would not have been possible were it not for the unswerving support of and aggressive lobbying by the Evangelical Christian right inside the United States. The official opening of the new American embassy was attending by, among others, Pastors Robert Jeffress and John Hagee, two fervent supporters of the Zionist cause. They are leaders of the fanatical Christian movements in the US, who enthusiastically promote the cause of the Israelis. Why do they do this?

They view the foundation of the state of Israel, and the move by Jews worldwide to live in that state, as ongoing fulfillment of Biblical prophecy, and the coming of what evangelicals see as the end-times: the Rapture.  The latter is an integral part of evangelical Christian belief, where the final apocalyptic battle between the forces of good and evil will take place. Pastors such as Hagee and Jeffress have long preached that those who do not conform to their vision of Christian literalism will be consigned to the fiery pits of hell – and that includes Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Mormons – among others.

The pastors and groups that promote this ideology – such as the Christians United for Israel (CUFI) – are also the advocates of the ‘prosperity gospel’. This is the trend among evangelicals that Biblical teachings and following the literal inerrancy of the Bible will result in personal wealth creation. Pastor Hagee is one of these practitioners, who praises the pursuit of individual wealth as a goal in line with Biblical teachings. You may listen to him speaking directly about this topic if you wish.

The origins of Zionism – a political movement to create an exclusively Jewish state in the land of Palestine – has its origins not so much in Jewish tradition (important as it is) but in the teachings of Protestant millenarian Christianity. European Christendom, with its long track record of anti-Semitism, has taken numerous steps to expel the Jewish population from its midst.

Expulsions, conversions and pogroms have all played a role in pushing the Jews out of Europe. However, it was Zionism, with its religiously-based demand of ‘Righteous Return’ that has promoted Jewish emigration to Palestine.

It is no secret that European politicians, such as Arthur Balfour – author of the Balfour Declaration – were strongly Christian and anti-Semitic. By portraying the movement of European Jews into Palestine as a Biblically-sanctioned return of an ancient people to their ancestral land, the colonial-settler nature of Zionism has been effectively disguised. This is not to suggest that every single religious person holds harmful beliefs – far from it. But when religious belief is used to deliberately inflict pain and suffering on another people – in this case, the Palestinians – then we must speak out.

Deploying archaeology as a weapon

The following section of the article is probably going to upset Christian readers, and I will likely be unfriended by many on social media – so be it. My intention is not to offend anyone, but to uncover the uncomfortable realities that lay hidden behind layers of hypocrisy. When religion is used as a weapon to disguise political objectives, then the religious rationales offered to achieve political goals must be examined critically.

One of the main narratives that political Zionism has used over the years to justify its conquest and subjugation of Palestine is the notion of ‘righteous return’. According to the Israeli leaders and its supporters, the Jewish people have had a historic presence in Palestine, stemming from the Exodus of enslaved Hebrews from captivity in Egypt thousands of years ago. There is one problem with this story – the Exodus, as it is told in the Old Testament – did not happen.

Rabbi David Wolpe, writing in the BeliefNet magazine, stated that there is no archaeological evidence for a mass escape of Hebrew slaves from Egypt. In fact, the Hebrews never were slaves in ancient Egypt. While that pseudohistory makes for great Hollywood epics, it has no basis in archaeology. Brian Dunning, writing in Skeptoid magazine, says that it was privileged workers who built the pyramids in Egypt, but the story of Hebrew slaves gained traction due in part to Hollywood, but also due to the efforts of Israeli leaders.

Staks Rosch, writing in the Huffington Post magazine, states that while Jews have derived, and continue to draw, spiritual solace from the Exodus story, it is not a literal or historical account. Israeli leaders since 1948, especially former Army general the late Moshe Dayan, scoured the land of Palestine for archaeological evidence, and have found none. Uri Avnery, long-term Israeli dissident, wrote that once Zionism focused on Palestine, the ancient history of that land took on modern significance.

Archaeology and ideology became intertwined, according to Avnery. The historicity of the Exodus and the Old Testament stories had to be established, as another ideological prop to support the colonisation of Palestine. Archaeologists – and Egyptologists, that branch of archaeology directly impacted by the Exodus narrative – have closely examined Palestine for any kind of shard of evidence – and have found nothing.

In face, Israel has weaponised archaeology – an expression that is obtained from an article by Kathryn Shihadah. Israeli authorities, since 1948 but especially after the 1967 war, have sought to expunge the rich archaeological history of Palestine in order to boost its own false claims of ancestral return. The archaeological artifacts of the Romans, Byzantines, Crusaders, Ottoman Turkish, Persians – all these are to be scrubbed in favour of an exclusively Israeli nationalistic narrative of ‘righteous return’.

These developments are nothing new – back in 2008, Jonathan Cook wrote about how the Palestinians living in Jerusalem are being subjected to a politically-motivated campaign to drive them out. One of the ways the Israeli authorities do this is by using archaeology for modern political purposes. Building new settlements, redrawing boundaries, destroying Palestinian artifacts, and seizing antiquities – these are some of the tactics the Israeli occupation authorities are using to remove any Palestinian presence in the territories they deem to be ‘Judea’ and ‘Samaria’. These are the biblical names for the West Bank.

Belief in a particular religion is a decision that every adult makes on their own. They do so for their own reasons, and that is that. However, when a religious belief is used to airbrush out the historical connection and presence of an entire nation – in this case, the Palestinians – in order to construct an occupying authority, then it is time to protest. As Israel adds another chapter to the Nakba, it is time to reject the ideas that buttress the colonisation and occupation of Palestine.