Ibis of Palmyra, a poem



Dhwty, sing ancient voices

searching stars for meaning,

eyes upon gleaming

crescent, lunar forces,

black and white film still,

a curved ibis bill.


Lunar forces hauling wine-dark

oceans across inky skies,

bewitching ancient eyes,

who saw an ibis stark

against the starry night,

wings raised in flight.


Mighty mediator, Thoth,

calculator on high,

weaving papyrus sky,

sun-kissed pith-cloth,

bill dipped in ink,

father of those who think –


think and write in words

with winged helms, hurled

from world to world,

the free and vital birds

flying with bills sharper

than needles of fir.


But now black feathers

shimmer in moonlight

setting desert alight,

littering a city in fetters:

Geronticus eremita,

prisoner of Palmyra.


Single sunset eye burns

in darkness, searching,

seeking, lurching

swish hrump through ferns

and shrubs of steppes

steeped in silence-webs.


Soft in silky quiet

ibis pauses and prowls

when wind howls

and hosts of stars riot,

alone with pillars of stone

and towers of bone.


Last to give way to howling

hurricane, first to emerge

when hell subsides, scourge

of darkness, prowling

ibis, Noah’s charm

survives unharmed.


Echoes haunt dhwty city,

voices of forgotten empires

ravaged by time’s fires,

soaked in world’s pity –

and the ibis stands,

silent in the sands.


It was the silk road – once.

Conduit for ivory, porcelain,

salts, spices, gold, cotton…

but ibis hears no response

to her hrump and hyoh calls,

just echoes from empty halls.


Temples of lost gods,

buried Roman blades,

and corinthian colonnades

stand now in muddy bogs,

pale phantoms frozen

in the blaze of erosion.


Yet still the ibis lays

her spotty blue-white eggs,

as blue as her legs are red,

in the rocky maze

of the northern dunes

above the Valley of Tombs.


But where ibis prowl

hatred-seeds be strewn,

and around our crescent moon

barbarian shadows crowd,

for murderers cage worlds

as rhyme shackles words.


So murderers return

to carve out Palmyra’s doom,

to destroy and exhume –

a band of thugs armed

with the sordid black rag

they call their flag.


Ibis eradicated by plague,

crescent neck snapped,

by barbarians entrapped,

rage staining papyrus page,

silence slammed

onto the waste land.


Now all that remain

are the tortured ghosts

haunting the outposts,

and the inexpressible pain

of a land locked in fetters,

littered with black feathers.

Jungian synchronicity. Dhwty city.

Dhwty  dhwty  dhwty



“If you fear high-handedness from your wives… hit them” (Qur’an 4:34): Right-wing extremism in Islam and the voices it silences



As fearless Egyptian ex-Muslim activist and writer Nawal El Saadawi told The Guardian last October of the spectacular “refusal to criticise religion”, “this is not liberalism, this is censorship”.

More and more the fear of being labelled Islamophobic has begun to censor the discourse in the UK around terrorism and Islam, or more broadly violence, repression and Islam. In a particularly scathing article for The Spectator earlier this month, Nick Cohen identified the rise of this trend in universities: “the idea of a university as a free space rather than a safe space is vanishing.” And the student interviews he cites rather resonate given the following article was refused publication by UCL’s biggest student magazine due to its potential to offend. Of course there is a dominant misconception about and distrust of the Muslim faith in this country, and a propensity to perceive the barbaric terrorist attacks around the world as acts perpetrated by Muslims because they are Muslim.

But it remains a fact in the context of religion that terrorism, along with violence against women and other human rights violations, seem to proliferate most frequently in Islam. Why does this happen?

These are of course all caused by a combination of geopolitical factors, among them economic depravity, low or non-existent social mobility, and chronic unemployment, especially for those with degrees in engineering. Religion is not a direct cause of ideological and resource-driven conflict but a “terrific force multiplier”, as Christopher Hitchens argued. And in fact, radical Islamism is more often than not an extreme right-wing ideology in religious garb.

Consider for instance the similarities between the American Tea Party and the Taliban: ideological purity, the view that compromise is a weakness, a fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism, severe xenophobia, severe misogyny, the need to control women’s bodies, the denial of science, a rejection of pluralism, a hostile fear of progress, a demonisation of education, tribal mentality, intolerance of dissent, and a pathological hatred of the US government.

However, there is undoubtedly a question around the correlation of such violence with Islam, with Islamic countries, and with the refugees fleeing Islamic countries.

One could argue the answer lies in the Qu’ran itself and in the manner with which it is presented, particularly by online radicalisation programmes, not as a compilation of moralising stories that allows for the possibility of the free-will defence, but as a code of law to be enforced by the government that plays on our deepest fears, vulnerabilities and dreams. The blind hope for a utopian world that places us and our beliefs at its centre.


Article proper:

“We are all atheists about most of the Gods that humanity has ever believed in, some of us just go one God further,” said Richard Dawkins. And with just one sentence, he perfectly encapsulated the paradox of faith; simply put, that each religion is a claimant on absolute truth, authority and morality, and so either only one of them is right, or none of them are. And given there has been no empirical evidence to prove the former theory in over two hundred thousand years of human existence, I would argue in favour of the latter.

Let us begin with the most sordid aspect of theology. In December 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was written, of which Article 19 is arguably the most important. Without it, all the others are obliterated: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers.”

Carved, however, into the scripture of every religion on the planet is the refutation of this most fundamental of human rights. And it is this intolerance that has formed and fuelled the pyre upon which the world burns.

One need only look to the Bible, which preaches: “He that keepeth his mouth keepeth his life: but he that openeth wide his lips shall have destruction” (Proverbs 13:3). And the Qur’an only echoes this sentiment: “Those who insult God and His Messenger will be rejected by God in this world and the next – He has prepared a humiliating torment for them” (Qur’an 33:57). Have you ever read anything so outrageously manipulative? These lines follow the account of the Battle of the Trench in 627CE, when Muhammad massacred nine hundred men of the Jewish Qurayzah tribe, before enslaving the women and children, confiscating all their property, and taking yet another wife. Not only is the fear of God described as the beginning of all knowledge, but also blasphemy is punishable by death. It just defies reason, it just defies it. As Salman Rushdie put it:

“What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.”

It is important to clarify that the following is not an attack on the peaceful practicing Muslims of moderate Islam, but rather a critique of religion as a whole, of theology itself, and a quixotically impassioned defence of free speech. If I had been writing in the 1930’s the emphasis of this article would have been on the Roman Catholic Church, whose open alliance with anti-Semitism and fascism made it the most dangerous religion in the world and inflicted damage that our culture will most likely never recover from. Today, however, in light of the religious fractures in the societies of the Middle East, the rise of Daesh and indeed global jihadism, as well as the refugee crisis across Europe, my attention lies with the Abrahamic religion articulated by the Qur’an.

The greatest problem lies in the fact that the single proven cure for poverty is explicitly forbidden by the teachings of Islam. This cure is of course the empowerment of women, universally acknowledged as the one surefire means with which to alleviate suffering. But unsurprisingly the Qur’an advocates for exactly the opposite. Just look at the laws spelled out in the Al-Nisa’ section, in which a woman’s inheritance is decreed as exactly half that of a man’s: “God commands you that a son should have the equivalent share of two daughters” (Qur’an 4:11). Indeed, the whole chapter is filled with toxic rhetoric about temptation, ownership and abuse. It is written by men, for men, and women are spoken of like property with an intellectual and emotional capacity only just above that of livestock: “If you fear high-handedness from your wives, remind them of the teachings of God, then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them” (Qur’an 4:34).

Defendants of Sharia law are quick to argue that the Qur’an preaches nothing but equality, justice, chastity and mercy, but please notice when you peruse its pages that all of those fine qualities are entirely dependent on absolute obedience to both men and to God. They completely exclude unbelievers, war captives and sex-slaves.

You are also still considered chaste if you are unmarried and only have sex with your slaves. So essentially if you are female, atheist, and believe in absolute equality in all areas of life, then rape, enslavement, abuse and murder are all fine in Allah’s book: “You are forbidden to take as wives […] women already married, other than your slaves. God has ordained all this for you. Other women are lawful to you, so long as you seek them in marriage […] If you wish to enjoy women, give them their bride-gift – this is obligatory – though if you should choose mutually, after fulfilling this obligation, to do otherwise, you will not be blamed” (Qur’an 4:24). It would be blindingly naïve to claim that this is anything other than a blatant sanction of rape. Look to the Sahih Hadiths of Abu Dawud, Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim (chapter 29 in particular) for confirmation.

It is a worldview founded on these very principles that is now being brought to Europe by the refugees fleeing Daesh and Assad. One cannot possibly deny this when met with stories like that of the Syrian refugee who, as payment for his family being trafficked to Europe by people smugglers, allowed and took part in the daily gang rape of his wife.

And such a mentality does not magically stop when they reach their destination. Last year a 20-year-old woman was unearthed from a grave in the small German town of Dessau who had been stabbed to death by her father and brothers after being raped by three men – her mother had demanded the killing to restore the family’s honour.

This all articulates a growing problem that remains unaddressed by governments and media alike due to the cowardly fear of being accused of racism and Islamophobia: in essence, the treatment of women by Muslim men. It is an issue that has been met with spectacular silence in recent times, most inexplicably by feminists themselves. Times columnist Melanie Phillips put it bluntly earlier this year: “Of course Muslim men don’t all behave towards women with such violence and contempt, but it is worse than idle to pretend there is no cultural factor fuelling such sexual pathologies.”

The sheer extent of this silence was demonstrated by the violent New Year’s Eve sexual attacks across German cities, with dozens being carried out in Cologne in particular, by North African and Arab men. The initial analysis laid fault with uneven sex ratios attributing the rise in sexual violence to the fact that more than two thirds of refugees reaching Greece and Southern Italy are male. Indeed, Sweden’s sex ratio of 16-17 year olds one year into the crisis now favours males more heavily than China’s, despite the latter’s decades of selective abortion. Sweden is also now the rape capital of Europe, with an incidence of rape ten times that of the other European states (The Times).

The deduction that some have made from this, that sexual crime abounds where there are too many young males, is supported by the 1995 study carried out by German social scientist Gunnar Heinsohn, who found that 60 out of 67 countries in which people aged 15-29 made up more than 30% of the population were racked by civil war or mass killings. He concluded that violence from El Salvador to Palestine was linked most closely not to poverty or religion but to a failure to provide a critical mass of young men with employment.

So this is the conclusion we are left with. Sexual violence proliferates where young men have nothing to do. Though there is an element of truth to this, unemployment indeed breeds crime, it is both unfair to men and staggeringly naïve in its denial that religion is not the most important factor.

There is a demonstrable silence around criticising Islam; not jihadism, which is almost universally condemned, but the theology itself that Muslims follow. Of course we must separate followers from what they are following, and indeed the claims that terrorists represent Islam are met with outrage, but this does not negate the fact that its followers would not exist to the same extent without the theology itself. And, like it or not, anyone who advocates and quite literally broadcasts an interpretation of it contributes to its perception.

Part of the problem is because “Islam” itself is an umbrella term for such a fractured array of groups, countries, and belief systems. So much of the animosity erupting into violence in the Middle East is due to the hatred between Sunnis and Shiites that has spawned conflicts from Iraq, Egypt, Afghanistan and Pakistan to Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. Indeed, the only time the ancient schism seems to come remotely close to unity is in its deep distrust of Zionism. And the battle lines are as nuanced as ever.

Perhaps most recently demonstrative of the deep internal conflict Islam faces has been the rapid breakdown of relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Triggered by the execution of Shia Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr on 2nd January, a vocal activist for free elections, Shia rights, and “the roar of the word” over violence, it has once more brought the appalling human rights violations of Saudi Arabia to the world stage. Their most unforgivable crime? Silence.

Ashraf Fayadh

A self-portrait by Ashraf Fayadh, Palestinian-Saudi Arabian artist and poet

Consider Ashraf Fayadh, a Saudi Arabian artist and poet of Palestinian origin. His career has included art exhibitions across Europe and the Levant, including an active role in the British-Arabian arts organisation Edge of Arabia. Last November he was sentenced to death for apostasy. Originating in his arrest after a trivial argument with a fellow artist at a football game in 2013, this barbaric sentence claims to be based upon his promotion of atheism in his 2008 book of poems Instruction Within, while his supporters suspect it is actually a response to his posting of a video showing a man being publicly lashed by the religious police in Abha. Either way, this is just one of many examples of the total disregard for international law practiced by the Islamic kingdom. And what’s worse, it goes unchallenged by governments worldwide due to the sole reason that the totalitarian dictatorship in question controls the world’s second largest oil reserves.

Indeed, it is a country defined today by flogging, crucifixions, beheadings, amputations as a means of torture, a total lack of freedom of speech, and worst of all, a treatment of women akin to that of medieval slaves. But this fundamental belief in women’s status as an inferior species is not just contained to the cesspool of Saudi Arabia. Nor is their xenophobia and chronic conservatism, characteristics so dominant in Islamic governments.

It seems inexplicable, for instance, from a moral standpoint, that the likes of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, or the United Arab Emirates, oil-rich and able to help, have refrained from sending aid or offering shelter to the millions of refugees fleeing Iraq and Syria in the same way Israel did for the persecuted Jews in Ethiopia throughout the 1980s and 90s. Prime Minister Menachem Begin initiated the mass exodus in 1977 as well as sending in El Al 747s to literally fly as many people as possible back to Israel the following decade in daringly covert government-led airlifts. Though they then failed spectacularly to humanely integrate the Ethiopian Jews into Israeli society, at least the effort was made in the first place.

For a religion that so prides itself on its values of fellowship, community, and brotherhood, Islam is staggeringly devoid of any of this unifying sentiment, and the answer lies perhaps in the factions that have corroded it from within, to say nothing of the extremist groups that have destroyed any political and social equilibrium there may have been. And of course, these divisions were exacerbated by the savage Catholic Crusades of the Middle Ages and rampant European imperialism that sowed the seeds of resentment against the “West”. Indeed, “because they hate the West” is such a frequent cop-out for the explanation of terrorism, an easy, ignorant answer that enforces this “us” and “them” rhetoric. Because of course when you start talking about the arming of rebel groups, the funding of insurgencies, the meddling, oil interests, imperialism, the Crusades… quite simply the further back you go, the further back you need to go.

And yet, even the brief states of equilibrium in the Middle East and North Africa were maintained through oppressive dictatorships that operated under models of stringent control. Despite suffocating levels of repression, extensive infringements of rights and freedoms, sectarian discrimination, corruption, and appalling and medieval attitudes towards women, they did, for the most part, have a warped kind of stability.

From Gaddafi to Saddam Hussein, it took the shoddy dynamite of Western intervention to bring them crashing down, thereby tearing open catastrophic power vacuums that have led to today’s chaos. And what has it really achieved? Tens of thousands of people have died at the hands of Daesh, and women’s rights have been set back centuries.

Whether these regimes should have been left to transition to democracies in their own time through an osmosis of enlightened ideals is a question we will never know the answer to. Even that sounds like a thoroughly Eurocentric and elitist sentence. The world has become an increasingly more secular and tolerant place, but when a country has been forced to change through foreign intervention and invasion, the result has been something no one would have thought possible: regression.

Indeed, the whole concept of a nation has its origins in imperialist Europe, deriving from Latin “natio” for “people” or “tribe”, though its literal meaning is, rather significantly, “birth”, forcing us to challenge the nature of our nationalities and the ultimately arbitrary boundaries decided by chance and circumstance over the years. Boundaries, after all, are utterly human constructs. Israeli political scientist Azar Gat argues that Ancient Egypt was the world’s “first national state”, but after millennia of evolution, and in the wake of the shattering forces of imperialism, statecraft seems to have sown only seeds of violence.

This brings us to a developing school of thought, governance in areas of limited statehood, and the fundamental question of whether “Arab state” is simply an oxymoron. Where such states do appear to retain a semblance of stability, their skeletons are composed not of mechanisms of democracy, pluralism and tolerance but stringent economic and social control, enforced with a divine mandate.

No rational person could disagree that Islamic-ruled countries like Saudi Arabia are truly terrifying places. “The spiritual savage caged within my skeleton,” wrote Elinor Wylie in her 1921 poem Full Moon, articulating the force of her rage in a world of moral corruption where she felt utterly suppressed by the sheer level of materialism and conformity. This is the kind of rage I feel when thinking about the horrors that women face in Islamic countries on a daily basis: the expectation of total subordination to men, the constant threat of physical violence, the utter objectification, and above all the ingrained cultural belief that they are inferior beings, that this is just how life works, Allah’s bidding, what they deserve. Call me ignorant, an outsider, lofty and moralising, I don’t care.

And yet Saudi Arabia, due to reasons entirely to do with economics, has remained free of that sententious Western dynamite. If it wasn’t so rich in oil, if we didn’t rely on its cooperation to such an extent, would we have at some point cried “WMD” and removed the Saud dynasty? One can imagine a parallel universe out there where exactly this happened, and where yet another jihadist group rose from the ashes of the dismantled kingdom to declare war on the world.

Is this then what we face when it comes to Islamic countries?

There is of course a place for Muslims in secular democracies where religious tolerance is unimpeachable law. And of course refugees should be unconditionally welcome. But the New Year attacks in Germany, the child sex-trafficking horrors in Rotherham, the shocking leap of rape incidents in Sweden, none of them were due to gender ratios, to one-dimensional economic facts. It is not that there were more young men, but that there were more young Muslim men. This is a contrarian view indeed, one that is almost impossible to posit without being ferociously condemned as backward, racist and Islamophobic, especially when such a standpoint was so toxified by the BNP and European neo-Nazis.

But there is a silenced truth that I would dare to voice.

We cannot expect a peaceful and progressive marriage of cultures and religions when the countries these abusive men in particular are coming from operate on the fundamental belief that women are inferior. Just take a look at those passages from the Qur’an and consider them in conjunction with the fact that Islam is followed by 90% of the population of Syria, 74% of those being Sunni Muslims whose society still closely adheres to four different schools of Islamic law (statistics from the U.S State Department).


We live in a fragile world. Nuclear weapons are allegedly being tested and developed in North Korea, Putin’s Russia looms like a spectre behind seemingly all worldwide conflicts, a violent culture of crime rages almost unopposed among the gangs of Latin America, political relations balance on a knife-edge between the likes of Taiwan, Tibet and China, child trafficking, poverty and civil war still reign across vast swathes of Africa, and fascist factions are rising in the political wings from France to the US.

But the one conflict that dominates parliamentary debates and headlines worldwide, the single most controversial topic of discussion, is the conflict with radical Islam, one that has been so polarised by the refugee crisis. It seems like there have only been one of two fates for Islamic countries in recent times, either a collapsed regime that has bred medieval extremism, or a stable yet toxic state where peaceful human rights activists are flogged and beheaded and women are not even free to drive a car.

Part of me thinks that a country bound by one religion is simply not one with a model conducive to equal rights, and that we should never have interfered in the first place with regimes founded on their ancient principles. But then again it is these very regimes that seem to lead inevitably to human rights violations. And where Article 19 in particular is broken, we have a moral imperative to help, which I say subjectively of course given there is no such thing as objective morality. But to me “help” means emergency aid, humanitarian missions, political and economic sanctions, loans for medicine and infrastructure, and open doors to fleeing citizens, not ill-informed military campaigns.

Bombing Iraq and Syria is like bombing a prison filled with thousands of innocent men, women, and children to kill a handful of guards. How will Daesh ever be defeated then, you ask. The answer to that is that there is no answer.

The UN’s ‘Blue Berets’ are free to offer military support to the nation in question’s armies while individual Western countries should be sending in food and medical aid in modern-day Operation Manna-style operations (when the RAF dropped food supplies on the starving Dutch in 1945), as well as focusing on improving their own security and intelligence procedures to prevent terrorist attacks through cross-border police collaboration, intelligence sharing, Anonymous-style hacking, and a crackdown on social media and radicalisation websites inciting racial hatred and jihadism.

But that’s it.

By all means help refugees, we’re human, they’re human, but don’t be scared to break political correctness and blame Islam for any violence that may take root as a result. It is a religion that is an amalgamation of many different interpretations given the sheer number of sects that exist within it. Not only are these sects failing to co-exist in peace, they all seem to claim absolute authority over the others, from the Shi’ites, to the Sunnis, to the Salafis, to the Sufis, to the Ibadis, to the Ahmadis, and so on. This does not mean blaming individual Muslims who live and work beside us, who befriend and marry us as we do them. Indeed, rhetoric like “us” and “them” itself is half the problem in our bigoted little worlds.

But Islam on the whole is a religion that still has to evolve to accommodate basic human equalities that have only been realised by the males of our species in the last few decades, in particular those around women’s and LGBTQ+ rights.

And so that should be our ultimatum to faith: evolution or extinction. This is not a demand of peaceful moderate Muslims, but one of the very theology of Islam itself. Its followers either have to admit that a two thousand year old code of law should be subject to the natural amendments that time and reason bring, or it should be binned altogether.

Islam is not alone in this of course. It is a tenet of all monotheistic religions that they hold a monopoly on morality and basic decency, and it is a delusion that is doing far more harm than good, resulting in the justification of truly immoral crimes. But the Qu’ran is less a collection of myths and legends than it is a rulebook, the words of the Prophet that should be taken as unimpeachable instruction, disobedience of which means eternal damnation.

This is what is so terrifying about Sharia law. While most Christian-dominant countries clearly have either an official or unofficial separation between church and state in place, Islamic governments base their laws on the Qur’an, thereby making atheism illegal. This is why the US, still 80% Christian, is able to be so liberal, because the Bible is perhaps, crucially, second in importance to that one document so fundamental to the identity of the American citizen: the Constitution.

But that’s no excuse for the misogynistic homophobes of the Republican Party and the 50% of the electorate who don’t bother to vote. Funnily enough these tend to be the most religious people.

And so once again I can only echo Hitch. Those of faith must realise that “human decency is not derived from religion, it precedes it.”

Charlie Hebdo

Je Suis Parisienne: Today, we all are, but barring refugees and waging impossible wars is not the answer

Outside the French consulate in Montreal, Friday, Nov. 13, 2015. Graham Hughes/AP

Outside the French consulate in Montreal, Friday, Nov. 13, 2015. Graham Hughes/AP

“Solidarity is an attitude of resistance, I suppose, or it should be,” Christopher Hitchens once said. Illuminating buildings, posting statements of sympathy and defiance, lighting candles… it can all seem so vastly inadequate in the face of such a brutal massacre that, on a peaceful November Parisian evening, left at least 127 innocent people dead and scores more injured.

But there is perhaps no greater form of resistance than showing friends, family, strangers on the other side of the planet, that we stand with the victims and their loved ones. It is often these understated acts of solidarity and defiance that are the most fiercely powerful in fighting back, not for the sake of vengeance, but for that of resistance.

In a statement earlier today, Angela Merkel told Germany, “those who we mourn were murdered in front of cafes, in restaurants, in a concert hall or on the open street. They wanted to live the life of free people in a city that celebrates life, and they met with murderers who hate this life of freedom… This attack on freedom is not only aimed at Paris. We are all targets, and it affects all of us… We know that our life of freedom is stronger than terror. Let us answer the terrorists by living our values with courage.”

But rhetoric like Francois Hollande’s, labelling the attacks as an “act of war“, only adds fuel to a pyre of hatred and intolerance on the brink of raging into a wildfire that will consume the world. Bush’s “War on Terror” following the 9/11 attacks saw the panicked launch of an international campaign to destroy al-Qaeda and other militant Islamist organisations that has resulted in no less than catastrophic failure and hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, possibly contributing to the rise of ISIL itself. It has lacked a coherent objective from the very beginning and more often than not allowed participating governments to not only repress civil liberties but get away with shocking human rights infringements.

And now we’re back to where we started, with a brutal terrorist attack igniting calls for military intervention in Iraq and Syria. The whole situation could not be more precarious. With Putin pledging support to France in their quest for retribution, while remaining a close ally of Bashar al-Assad, and the US doing the same, while still carrying out deadly drone strikes on Syrian territory, it is quite possible to lose all sense of morality in the alarming propensity to act without thought for the nuances of such a situation, not to mention the long term consequences. Violence is never the answer when diplomacy can do so much more. And how can we possibly justify sending hundreds of troops into a distant country when we so lack an understanding of their cultural and historical contexts? Yes, we can sanctimoniously wave the banner of human rights but when we breach human rights in the attempt to safeguard them, what then?

With ISIL claiming responsibility for yesterday’s attacks in Paris, citing French bombing of Syria as the justification, and the recent reports that one of the Bataclan concert hall attackers was a Frenchman, the reality of the tragedy is irrefutable.

Further military intervention would be catastrophic.

It remains a fundamental fact that a nation or union of nations physically cannot wage war on a terrorist organisation. These extremist groups have no borders, they do not exist on a map. They operate in the shadows, and most terrifyingly of all, in our homes. The vast majority of these attacks are carried out by radicalised citizens of the very country they are attacking.

This makes the calls to ban refugees all the more outrageous. US Republican Presidential candidate Ben Carson led the way in this stupidity yesterday evening when he demanded that the US should block all Middle Eastern refugees and asylum seekers, “If we’re going to be bringing 200,000 people over here from that region — if I were one of the leaders of the global jihadist movement and I didn’t infiltrate that group of people with my people, that would be almost malpractice.” Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee have also tweeted their willingness to support France in the “war on terror“.

The hundreds of thousands of young families fleeing the carnage in their homes, risking their lives at the remotest chance of finding a better one, are running from the very same terrorists setting off bombs in Paris and Beirut. The sheer inhumanity of politicians like Carson is disgusting.

In the aftermath of these heinous attacks one can only hope that leaders around the world focus on improving security procedures at home and tackling these online radicalisation programmes, not on waging impossible wars.

Paris 6

The landmark CN Tower is lit blue, white and red in the colors of the French flag following Paris attacks, in Toronto November 13, 2015. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Friday it was too soon to say whether the deadly attacks in Paris would prompt him to reconsider his pledge to withdraw Canada from airstrikes against Islamic State militants in the Middle East. REUTERS/Chris Helgren

REUTERS/Chris Helgren

REUTERS/Stephen Lam

REUTERS/Stephen Lam

Ethan Miller/Getty Images

Ethan Miller/Getty Images

Martin Ollman/Getty Images

Martin Ollman/Getty Images

Cameron Spencer/Getty Images

Cameron Spencer/Getty Images

“The rarer action is in virtue”: Israel and Palestine’s Only Chance at Peace

gaza 1

Though with their high wrongs I am struck to th’ quick,

Yet with my nobler reason ‘gainst my fury

Do I take part. The rarer action is

In virtue than in vengeance.

The above words are from what is possibly the most powerful moment in all of literature.

It is a moment that takes place in Shakespeare’s The Tempest, the Bard’s last play and final word on the riddle of man. It is set on an enchanted island where Prospero, the former Duke of Milan and now a powerful sorcerer, resides in bitter exile. When he conjures a violent tempest and wrecks a ship carrying all his enemies just offshore, he makes a decision that truly defines what it is to be human. He has all the reason in the world to take revenge on the architects of his many years of sorrow. He also has all the power to do so. The men who ruined his life stand frozen before him, trapped by one of his spells. But Prospero realises how blind and cruel his magic has made him, and that to be human is to show mercy.

He does not destroy his greatest foes. He forgives them.

As news headlines across our world are dominated by the ongoing tragedy in Israel and Palestine, I find myself thinking back to the moment when I first read the ending of The Tempest. After giving us the violent and heartbreaking tragedies of Macbeth, Othello, Hamlet, King Lear… Shakespeare’s final play is one of reconciliation and redemption. He tells us that it is not just violence, hatred and vengeance that make us human, it is kindness, compassion and above all, mercy.

My first thought when I read Prospero’s extraordinary act of humanity was almost a sense of pride. Doesn’t it just restore your faith in our race to think that such an act is possible, not just possible, more natural? I look to the mutual and bitter hatred and prejudice of the ruling parties, Hamas in Palestine, Likud in Israel, and I ask this… can they find it in their hearts to forgive?

The land has been so fraught with conflicting religions, cultures and ideologies for as long as we have roamed this planet so peace seems so hard to envision but the solution is clear. They must co-exist as two separate and free states.

Once known as the Land of Canaan, from 1600BC during the late Bronze Age it was a disputed area where the notorious Egyptian, Hittite, and Assyrian Empires converged. It was not until 1209BC, that the name “Israel” actually first appeared. Inscribed on the stele of the Egyptian Pharaoh Merneptah, were the words, “Israel is laid waste and his seed is no more”. It was near the end of the Iron Age in 1020BC, that under extreme threat from surrounding powers, the Israelite tribes joined forces to form the United Kingdom of Israel. It endured for almost a century, until, in 931BC, it split into the northern Kingdom of Israel, and the southern Kingdom of Judah.

The Kingdom of Israel predominately followed YHWH. This is a Tetragrammaton, meaning “four letters” in Greek, derived from the Latin verb “to be”. It is pronounced “Yahweh” or “Jehovah”, considered in Judaism to be a God of Israel cited in the Hebrew Bible (in modern Hebrew it is written YE-HO-VAH). Jews are forbidden to say or write it in full, and so when reading the Torah, they use the term “Adonai” (Hebrew for master). In Christianity, translations of the Bible use “Lord” in the place of the Tetragrammaton, after the Hebrew Adonai. And so Christianity and Judaism have close ties, indeed both worship a single God and share values such as the Ten Commandments revealed to Moses. In fact, Judaism influenced not only Christianity, but also Islam (however, Islam believes Jesus to be a prophet not the son of god). So, it was Judaism that flourished in Israel, before it was conquered by the Neo-Assyrian Empire in 722BC. The region we now know as the conflicted modern-day Israel was then passed through the hands of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, the Achaemenid Persian Empire, the Seleucid Empire, the Roman Empire, and the Byzantine Empire over the next millennium, marring its heritage with a vast array of cultures and regimes.

It was in 636AD that the region was conquered by the Arabs. This was the first time the religion of Islam really came into dominance in the land and it was to remain under Muslim control for the next 1300 years. The Ottoman Empire conquered Palestine (which was “Jund Filastin” until 1260) in 1516, and this would not change until 1918 when Britain defeated the Ottoman forces and set up a military administration across the former Ottoman Syria after WWI. The territory was divided under the mandate system and the area named “Mandatory Palestine”. It is useful to note the movements of the Jewish people over this millennium under Muslim control. The Jewish Diaspora began when Israel was ruled by the Babylonians, but the first wave of modern Jewish migration was to the Ottoman-ruled Palestine in 1881 as Jews fled the countless pogroms in Eastern Europe. This was known as the First Aliyah where thousands of Jewish families fled anti-Semitism across the Russian Empire, elevating the Jewish Question to the international plane.

The fluctuating periods of anti-Semitism throughout the world saw an influx of Jews returning to what they saw as their homeland: Israel.

After WWII, Britain was placed under enormous pressure from the nationalistic Jewish community, and an armed struggle was born within Mandatory Palestine. Hundreds of thousands of Holocaust survivors fled back to Israel and after the hell they had already endured at the hands of the Nazis, they were actually denied entry by the British. It was in 1947 that the British Government announced it would withdraw from Palestine, and the Mandate was set to officially expire on 15th May 1948. The General Assembly of the newly formed United Nations proposed a plan (ironically originally conceived by Britain, who then abstained from the vote) to establish “an independent Arab State, an independent Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem”.

This was known as the UN Partition Plan. How devastating it turned out to be.

The ludicrous and ignorant plan carved out a large portion of Palestine to become the new Israel, with the Palestinians being left with only 43% of their original country (which included today’s Gaza Strip and West Bank). The Jewish leaders accepted the proposal, however, the leaders of the Arab community rejected it immediately, claiming all of Palestine as their own. The Plan was voted on in November 1947, and from that day right up until the expiry date, civil war raged between the Jewish and Arab communities of Palestine. This was the first phase of the conflict, but would in no way be the last.

Of the minority thirteen UN states that opposed the plan, twelve of them were the countries that surrounded Israel. There couldn’t have been a more obvious sign that the whole thing was an utter recipe for disaster.

And sure enough, on 15th May 1948, the very day the Mandate was lifted, the Arab countries of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq invaded the new Israel. The brutal war lasted a whole year, with Israel eventually coming out as the victors and forcing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to flee. Over the next decade, Israel was accepted as a member of the UN and its Jewish population more than doubled. President Kennedy voiced America’s support of Israel in a speech in 1960, stating: “Israel is the child of hope and the home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralised by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honours the sword of freedom.” But this merely fuelled the divide between the two nations and no doubt probably contributed to the rise of jihadism. By 1970, over one million Jewish refugees had relocated to Israel but Palestinian terrorist attacks continued throughout this period, with Egypt banning Israeli trade from the Suez Canal, the Arab countries attempting to divert the Jordan River to deprive Israel of water, and Egypt blocking Israel’s access to the Red Sea. But this was just the beginning.

It was in 1967 that the next phase of the conflict took place. A number of Arab states began to mobilise their forces, and so Israel launched a pre-emptive strike. In the Six-Day War, they once again demonstrated their military superiority and successfully captured the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, the Sinai Peninsula, and Golan Heights.

Israel has occupied this territory ever since.

Conflict ignited once more in June with the killing of three Israeli teenagers. Israel launched an offensive on 8th July and despite the many aborted ceasefires almost two thousand people have lost their lives, most of which have been civilians, including 500 children.

The thing about forgiveness is that everyone deserves it. Something I once read has always stayed with me, the words of author Jodi Picoult in her wonderful novel about a survivor of the Holocaust, the story this survivor wrote that gave her the strength to go on, and her granddaughter in the present day, confronted with one of her grandmother’s torturers, begging for forgiveness and her help in his suicide.

If you can’t learn to forgive then all your anger and desire for vengeance will grow like a weed in your heart until it entangles itself forever within, slowly suffocating you. The only person who suffers when you bottle up all that hatred is you. Forgiving isn’t something you do for someone else. It’s something you do for yourself. It’s saying, you don’t get to trap me in the past. I am worthy of a future.

The rarer action is in virtue.