You can view the article in its original location here. Or, alternatively, continue to read it in this same post:

Websites and the Publication Law: The Hour’s Reality and What Should have Happened Instead

Perhaps the talk of the moment in the Jordanian blogosphere is the decision of the Court of Cassation of Jordan (also known as the Supreme Court) ^[1] to categorize Internet websites as a type of “publication” thus extending the controversial Press and Publication Law to govern websites as well. The decision was met with fierce opposition in the Jordanian Blogosphere; the Jordanian free and alternative media was now to be under the same governing legislation that many believe brought Jordan’s traditional media to its supposed demise. Indeed, it is a common view that the Press and Publication Law restricts journalists in exploring alternative news sources, as well as voicing their opinions freely in editorials.

The Court’s ruling, however, occurred in a different light. The ruling was a result of a court case by journalist Ahmad Salameh, currently an advisor for the crown prince of Bahrain, against Samir al-Hiari and Sakher Abu `Antara, who operate Internet news websites, over a case of public defamation. ^[3]

(See Ammon’s article on Salameh’s case against Omar Kallab, listing Salameh’s accusations against Mr. Kallab as well as the Ammon website: http://www.ammonnews.net/article.aspx?articleNO=13047)

The ‘Press and Publication Law’ provides clear anti-defamation codes for journalists, and thus was used by Salameh to argue for his case. In that case, the writers as well as the editor-in-chief of the publication are accountable; and false information or personal attacks on individuals are prohibited. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, and the verdict was appealed until reaching the Court of Cassation, which had to establish whether the basis of the case was lawful to begin with, and thus, establish whether the Press and Publication Law can be a governing document for articles on the internet.

Supporters of the ruling also view ramifications in the same light: writers on the internet are accountable to what they say, baseless attacks are prohibited, and information integrity is promoted.

While such view is well-founded, supporters are perhaps oblivious to the other ramifications of using the law as it stands to websites. For instance, the law prohibits writings offensive to religion, prophets, or other people, which might prove to hinder some of the healthy debate going on.

(View the Entire text of the Press and Publication Law in Arabic in its current form here: http://www.lob.gov.jo/ui/laws/search_no.jsp?no=8&year=1998 (Law initially passed in 1998, with major amendments in 2007))

Additionally, concerning questions come to mind; if a website is found to contain writings or expressions that are contrary to the Press and Publications Law, what happens? Are the writers held accountable? Or will the internet-equivalent of forcing a periodical to cease publication – website blocking – be implemented (which would be horrible, to say the least)?

Laws that limit personal attacks as well as offensive statements are not exclusive to Jordan, however. Anti-defamation jurisdictions are actually internationally accepted; Article 17 in the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, for instance, explicitly refers to defamation:

1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.

2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm#art17

The problem in Jordan, however, is that defamation law is closely tied to the press, media, and publications, and the prohibition of defamation occurs primarily in the Press and Publication Law. Thus, when people like Ahmad Salameh took a defamation case to court, the case’s success was contingent on the characterization of internet websites as “publications” and recognizing them as falling under the controversial Press and Publication Law.

When viewed in that light, the ruling seems like a well-intentioned move to allow integrity to extend to the Internet, as well as the extending rights of citizens for protection from attacks on their image to apply on the Internet. The problem is, as mentioned before, other stipulations arise due to remaining portions of the law.

Personally, what I think would have been a better alternative, was to emphasize that defamation is a crime independently, irrelevant to the realm of media, the press, or publications. This is actually what most countries have in place; laws stress that if false claims producing a negative image are communicated to any person other than the defamed himself, the defamed has the right to seek retraction and/or compensation.

The reason I think a better alternative is to stress only on anti-defamation laws is because: their negative implications are narrower, yet they guarantee the personal right of protection against defamation on a broader scale. For instance, if one is to send several letters to CEOs claiming that individual XYZ is fraudulent, then it should be the right of individual XYZ to seek retraction and compensation, despite the fact that such defamation occurred in communications that are not categorized as “publications”. Similarly, a person’s own writings on the internet form a natural extension of his own communicated claims, and thus in the event of the defamation, a person can seek retraction naturally.

Extending anti-defamation laws to the internet is natural, and does happen in European countries and the United States (albeit with minor stipulations). It is based on the simple expectation that what you do in the “cyber world” is entailed by what you do in the “real world”.

Reserving individuals’ rights for protection against false claims and attacks on reputation in the internet is highly important. However, such protection of rights should not be done in the frame of media, press, and publication legislation, as that would hinder the openness of the web as we know it.

References

1. kinghussein.gov.jo/government4.html#The%20Judicial%20Branch
2. alghad.com/?speical_section=81&news=476677
3. alghad.com/?news=476359
4. alghad.com/?news=476631
5. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

Share

This one has been on my mind for a while. The current political situation in the Middle East is one of the topics I’m truly interested in, and I’ve been writing numerous posts related to the issue. One thing that caught me attention was that I was addressing a lot of Arab concerns against Israel and its regime (which I firmly believe in), and in so forgot to address my personal concerns about Arabic politics when it comes to the conflict.

I also decided to write this after a long conversation I had with a friend (whose also Arab) who believes that Jordanian politics regarding the issue, especially the 1994 Wadi `Araba Treaty, indicates that Jordan (or the government/king) has – in a sense – betrayed The Cause and other Arab countries.

I think that’s a completely wrong approach, and I believe the truth is that Jordan is a pioneer in seeking peace, and a Just Solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Had other Arab countries followed Jordan’s footsteps in large, then Arabs would’ve done their part in promoting a just peace, and stability in the region would’ve been a much more probable reality.

Since I think such belief that Jordan went against the Palestinian Cause (and Pan-Arab Values, fraternity, and unity) is utterly misconceived on numerous levels, I find it hard to find where to start. This is why I’ll divide the post into separate arguments that will hopefully complement each other.

(The outline is basically as follows: 1: Jordan was not alone in pursuing peace in the 1990′s, 2: Jordan did not go against Palestine, 3: While Jordan has peace, Jordan is not a neutral nation, 4: Other Cases of Jordanian Commitment to the Pan-Arab Cause).

1) Jordan was not alone in pursuing peace in the 1990’s

King Hussein of Jordan had Middle East peace aspirations even before the war of 1967. That did not stop him, or the country, from being properly aligned with the Arabs in the war of 1967, where Jordan, lead by King Hussein, entered a full-force war against Israel, and lost a considerable amount of land from the West Bank, which, at the time, was part of the Kingdom of Jordan. (Many people have doubts about Hussein’s intentions in the 1967 war, these will be discussed in future articles). As a matter of fact, while King Hussein talked to Israelis (as did Egyptian, Lebanese, and Syrian officials), he only allowed such talks to translate into a treaty much later on.

While Anwar El-Sadat was alone in signing a peace treaty with Egypt in 1979, King Hussein’s 1994 treaty happened in a different light that Arabs of today forget:After Egypt’s 1979 treaty, Egypt’s membership in the Arab League was suspended, along with diplomatic relations between Egypt and many other Arab States. In 1989, however, the Arab League restored relations with Egypt, which was readmitted into the league. (Timeline: Arab League, BBC News.  2008)

Even more importantly, is the Madrid Conference of 1991 which involved official representations from Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, and Palestine, to negotiate peace.

Even in the 1993 Oslo Accords, Syria was invited to participate, and only refused participation due to the PLO’s participation (per “Oslo Accords: Background” on Wikipedia). I.e. Syria refused pursuing further negotiations of peace with Israel not due to its reservations towards Israel, but rather, the PLO (due to tensions in the Gulf War).

In any case, post 1989, there was a new direction across all Arab countries that aimed to put an end to the conflict. The general direction of most Arab states was, indeed, peace negotiations.

Jordan did not go out of its way in signing the treaty, it is only different from other Arab countries in that it was successful in reaching a treaty.

2) Jordan did not go against Palestine

Then, in 1993, Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat sign the Oslo Accords, which at the time was seen as the end for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Since the Oslo Accords announced an ‘end of hostility’ between PLO (the “sole representative of the Palestinian Peoples”) and the State of Israel, a ‘framework of solutions’ have been laid out.

King Hussein has said that any peace treaty he would sign with Israel would not go against the Palestinian Cause. Since, in 1993, “the Cause” appeared to have been solved (or begin to be solved), the king had no reason not to pursue his country’s own peace with Israel.

Indeed, Oslo is seen to have given the king the green light to pursue signing a treaty.

How could Jordan have gone against Palestine with its treaty of peace, if the Palestinian Authority itself signed its own treaty of peace first? Whatever grievances and grudges held by Arab States against Israel are there as a result of compassion and fraternity towards the Arab Palestinian population. Once the population’s representation (meaning, the PA) expresses its aspirations for settlement and compromise, it is the duty of sister Arab states to stand by the Palestinians in ending the conflict, just as it were their duty to stand by the Palestinians in defending their land in 1948 and 1967.

Some might comment that I refer to the Oslo Accords as if it were a successful treaty, when, in fact, its outcome indicates immense failure. However, I am describing the Oslo Accords as they were seen at the time, by King Hussein and other Arab leaders. Furthermore, the failure of the Oslo Accords, in my view, is not to be attributed to deception on either side, but rather, the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995, and the consequent election of  fundamentalist ^{(disclaimer: personal opinion)}, right-wing Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996, running the country in an opposite direction, against the principles agreed upon in Oslo.

3) While Jordan has peace, Jordan is not a neutral nation

I repeat: Jordan is not a neutral nation. Policies of Jordan since 1994 have been consistently pro-Arab and pro-Palestinian.

It is frustrating to see that many thing Jordan has deserted the Palestinian Cause, because as I open my Jordanian newspaper every day, and see developments in Jordanian foreign politics, out efforts regarding Palestine are all I read about.

“Jordan will continue to fight for Palestinian rights — King” says one front-page headline in December, 2009[1]. “Time running out on Mideast” says another, clarifying: “In comments published Monday, His Majesty King Abdullah warned that the window of opportunity for resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is very limited”[2].

In checking the front page of The Jordan Times between December 22nd, 2009 and January 1st, 2010, I have not found a single case where the Palestine did not occupy front-page headline news. More often than not, headline news regarding Palestine is not detached, and often covers government initiatives, speeches by the King, diplomatic visits by the king and government, talks with Abbas, the Israeli government, etc., regarding reaching a solution to the conflict.

When did the last time any non-Jordanian, non-Egyptian Arab diplomat take the time to speak of Palestine instead of his own country on official state visits and speeches? The are a few exceptions, but at large, Jordan is one of the very few countries that is genuinely deeply interested in a Just Solution for the Palestinians.

Or how about this one? In King Abdullah’s Speech to the Congress in 2007, the words “Jordan”, “Jordanian”, etc. were uttered a total of 7 times, compared to the 15 times Palestine was mentioned! And I’m not being silly and just counting words, go ahead, click the link above, and read the speech. This is our king’s speech on a state visit to the U.S. You would think it’d be in Jordan’s best interest to talk about foreign aid, economical reform, cooperation (as do the leaders of the rest of the Middle Eastern countries), but he – representing the position of Jordan in the conflict – chose, and continues to choose the issue of Palestine, making it Jordan’s main mission, in terms of foreign policy. Go ahead, give it a read, this is what Jordan stands for, advocating peace in the Middle East, and a Just Solution for Palestine.

In official state visits to Japan, the EU, and the U.S., the general attitude of news items is along the lines of: “the King stressed the importance of a viable Palestinian state… oh, and by the way, they agreed on economical cooperation”, or something.

Also, Jordan openly denounces and condemns Israeli settlement expansion, as well as Israeli military moves against other Arab nations. In the 2006 Lebanon war, a statement from the Jordanian government denounced Israel’s actions (yes, even though we signed a peace treaty with them):

“Jordan stands against whoever exposes the Palestinian people and their cause, Lebanon and its sovereignty to unexpected dangers. Israel’s use of force against unarmed civilians and the outcome in terms of the human loss and destruction of civil institutions.”

BBC NEWS

As for the Gaza War:

SALAH BASHIR, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Jordan, said his country felt deep pain and grave concern at the escalation of violence and deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Gaza, […]  The military operations were a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law and the Fourth Geneva Convention.

un.org/News/Press/docs//2009/sc9563.doc.htm

I’m not asking anyone to commend Jordan on such quotes, because that’s Jordan’s duty. The point of showing such quotes is to emphasize that Jordan continues to criticize Israel – and harshly – whenever it feels compelled by Arab duty to do so. While Jordan engages in full normalization with Israel, it does not engage in neutralization. Please, do not confuse the two; the feelings, emotions, views, and motivations of the Jordanian people and their leadership remain the same: in full support of the Palestinians, we discovered, however, that our pro-Palestinian message and efforts are best conveyed in an atmosphere of peace and dialogue.

Point is, foreign politics of Jordan is centered around the Palestinian Cause. Saying Jordan deserted Palestine or other Arab States because of its peace with Israel insults the very foundation of Jordanian policy.

4) Other Cases of Jordanian Commitment to the Pan-Arab Cause

Also among Jordanian Efforts, are King Hussein’s interference in the Wye River Memorandum of 1998 (will be discussed in a future article), and his facilitation of the Hebron Agreement that lead to the pulling back of the “IDF”, out of Hebron. Jordan’s aid to the Gaza strip, and continuous donations to Palestine are also among these.

In the Lebanon war in 2006, Jordan’s Queen Alia International Airport was the first and only airport to be used to send aid/relief aircrafts to Lebanon during the war. Countries like the UAE used Jordan as a medium to send its own relief planes soonafter,  taking advantage of the safe air passage opened by Jordan to Lebanon, based on negotiations with Israel. Also, In the Gaza War in 2008-09, relief as usual, and a huge blood donation campaign, in which the king was one of thousands to donate blood.

An important example, that shows Jordan’s commitment to the Arab cause, and its proper prioritization of Arab interests above Jordanian interests is the following story:

On 25/09/97, Khaled Mashal, a prominent Hamas leader, suffered an assassination attempt by Israeli Mossad agents, while presiding in Jordan (where he lived between ‘91-‘99).  King Hussein threatened to cut diplomatic relations with Israel, and nulling the 1994 treaty of peace if an antidote is not given to Mashal, and indeed, an antidote was supplied. Jordanian authorities also captured the Mossad agents, and released them in exchange of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, founder of Hamas.

Over and out.

Share

As such, I’ll be writing a series of articles under the category of “Jordan – Know More!“, of which this is the first part.

Jordan and Democracy: Know More

Recently, on November 23rd, King Abdullah issued a Royal Decree calling for the dissolution of the 15th Jordanian Parliament, and carrying out early elections, previously slated for 2011. Following news of the Royal Decree, 85% of Jordanians rejoiced from across the political spectrum,while almost every non-Jordanian I have encountered used this as ‘tangible evidence’ of oppression of democracy and exploitation of power. Why? Why the discrepancy? Alas, they just don’t know any better.

Throughout this post, I’ll go through several misconceptions about this recent event, perhaps such discussion will make a difference.

Who wilt it?

Granted, the direct translation of Royal Decree (إرادة ملكية) gives ‘Royal Will’ or ‘Royal Wish’, a rather straightforward indication that it is the King’s wish that is being executed here. But ‘Why’ is a much more interesting and qualitative question; why is it that the king would wish for a parliament to be dissolved? I’ll quote a couple of sources.

Jordanian newspaper Alghad writes (translated):

“Furthermore, politicians confirm that the poor performance of the Council of Representatives, both legislative and regulatory framework, was the most important reason for issuing the Royal Decree to dissolve it, expecting carrying out the coming elections under a new law.”

Jordanian blogger Naseem Tarawnah quotes the same poll I linked to above, saying:

“The poll [...] revealed that 78% of respondents believe the reason for the decision to be due to incompetency of the MPs. Interestingly enough, 90% strongly support early elections, 69% strongly support a new election law, and 88% strongly support establishing an independent body to administer the elections.”

Poor performance. Incompetence.

Sure, the king is dissolving a parliament elected by the people, but here’s an undeniable fact: the people are very keen on seeing the parliament they elected dissolved. Very.

For those of you wondering about the reliability of the poll, it was conducted by Ammonnews, an independent, non-governmental, alternative media website and seld-described news agency based in Jordan. The poll addressed 200 individuals, amongst them (translated) “leaders, polititians, party members, media activists, academics, tribal leaders, and members of civil institutions in an effort to reflect public opinion trends”. Check out the details yourself if you can read Arabic.

An ‘Incompetent Parliament’ Says a lot about Your Democracy

No, it doesn’t. An incompetent parliament only says a lot about the social and socio-political structure and atomsphere within Jordan. It just so happens that we have a fragmented majority supporting the government (with countless political parties), and a unified, centralized, minority forming the opposition (with a single dominant political party: the Islamic Action Front, IAF). Such societal structure, combined with our flawed electoral law, leads to poor and biased representation within the government, and promotes tribal leaders and non-intellectuals, giving them the upper hand in voting. Indeed, the Jordanian Parliament often stood in the face of progress, barring numerous proposed bills, including Women’s Rights bills.

Aha! So your flawed electoral law has been forged by your autocratic leaders to hijack your liberties!

Again, not really. Assuming people who make such arguments refer to the King as the ultimate autocratic figure (who, indeed, is the single most powerful  individual in Jordan), such argument fails for one basic reason: the overrepresented groups in the parliament are those who are the most responsible for hindering the King’s effort in this country.

Indeed, the previous partliament (also elected under the same Electoral Law), were responsible for failing a bill suggested by the Queen herself, pertaining to the status of women in Jordan.

So how was the 15th Parliament ‘incompetent’ to the people?

Those unfamiliar with internal Jordanian politics would be quick to assert that words such “incompetent”, “dysfunctional”, and “poor performance” are in reference to the King’s Agenda. In other words, many might assume that anything that opposes the King’s agenda, whatever it may be, is deemed incompetent by our biased media.

In fact, that cannot be further from the truth. Incompetence of the 15th Parliament is a result of the outcry of the people, not a biased decision by the king.

Indeed, for the 15th Parliament,  Jordan Times writes:

“[...] in the last extraordinary session, lawmakers approved only 13 laws out of 29 listed on their agenda, which included laws of interest to the public.

The extraordinary session was adjourned while deputies were still discussing the income tax draft law, having only finished 11 articles of the 70-article law.

The government also withdrew the energy draft law and the income tax draft law to amend them in accordance with developments in these two sectors.”

Doesn’t this prove that the King has the ultimate power in this country?

Yes and no. On the one hand, yes, there is great power that can be abused into a so-called ‘ultimate power’, but on the other: no, there is no intention of having it abused, and any possibility of such event ever occurring is too remote such that, for all practical purposes, is considered nonexistent.

For instance, while the parliament can be dissolved, the constitution makes sure such dissolution is never abused Musa Alshuqairi quotes a Jordan Times article:

“According to Article 73 of the Constitution, if the Lower House is dissolved, a general election will be held, and the new chamber has to convene in an extraordinary session no later than four months from the date of dissolution. The same article stipulates that if no elections have taken place by the end of the four months, the dissolved House will assume its full constitutional powers and assemble as if its dissolution had not taken place.”

So yes, temporary laws can be enacted during these 4 months, but some parliament will need to pass them as soon as a parliament is decided on. And if the parliament is not elected, the consitution commands that the old parliament be re-summoned and restored, thus giving it a say in passing or failing all temporary laws that have been enacted for the previous four months.

Kapish?

So what powers does the Jordanian-elected Parliament have?

The parliament is responsible of passing laws, so that any law – whether pushed by the government or the king – needs to go through the Parliament, in both its chambers, before being passed. The parliament is also responsible for the provision of the government, and can, after the formation of every government, voice their opinion and express their blessing or ‘distrust’ in the government. In the case that the Parliament expresses contempt towards the newly appointed government, the government itself is dissolved and a new one is appointed. The King himself appoints the Prime Minister, who, in turn, appoints the rest of the government. This nascent government will have a short period before it is evaluated by the parliament. So, while the King has the power of appointing and pushing the Prime Minister to create a certain government, the King does so in a way as to go hand-in-hand with the wishes of the people and the government.

We’re a constitutional monarchy, not an absolute monarchy. Jordan is governed by a solid constitution that gives power to the people to voice their concerns and direct the political process of the country. Are full powers given to the people? Not yet. The parliament did, for instance, attempt to revoke the Jordanian-Israeli Peace Treaty of 1994 as a reaction to the Gaza War. Luckily, while our parliament can be insane, our monarchy is not; such wishes within the government were given no legitimacy. (I’ll be working on an upcoming post about Jordan and the 1994 treaty with Israel).

So yes, I understand the importance of Democracy, but any “limitations” existing in Jordan in these times are doing us good. The king expressed, multiple times, his wishes of increased democracy (which contextually implies increased power restrictions on his part), but such top-down modification in the system must be handled with the utmost caution.

So, what are your King’s intentions?

Glad you asked. In reference to the dissolution for the parliament, the Jordan times says:

In a letter to Prime Minister Nader Dahabi, the King stressed that these elections “should be a model of transparency, fairness and integrity, and a promising step in our process of reform and modernisation, the aims of which are to achieve the best for our nation and to expand the horizon of progress and prosperity for Jordanians”. [...] He also directed the government to develop the electoral process “in such a manner that the next legislative elections will be qualitatively improved and all Jordanians will practise their right to campaign and to elect their representatives in Parliament”.

While referencing a 2005 article by  The Washington Institute of Near East Policy, a Wikipedia article states:

King Abdullah also decreed that journalists would no longer be imprisoned in Jordan and he called for the liberalization of Jordan’s press. He has given his support to the human rights organizations operating in Jordan to conduct investigations on any human rights misdemeanors and called on the government to correct these problems. King Abdullah was commended on his political reform strategies.

Above are the relevant examples on the intentions of the Jordanian leadership in the scope of political and democratic reform. Other efforts in foreign policy, education, economy, poverty elimination, refugee admission, energy, Arab nationalism, and cooperation are equally, if not more, commendable. Such efforts cannot be discussed in this article, however, because they do not correspond to today’s core topic. They will, however, be discussed in relatively more detail, in future posts.

Conclusion

As I said, I find it disturbing that Jordan is oftened misunderstood, even by fellow Arab states, who underestimate our liberties, marginalize the efforts of our leadership, and wrongly view the entire Jordanian political process. While 60 years ago things may or may not have been different, fellow Arab countries today need to recognize that the Jordanian leadership, ranging from the monarchy to the active youth, is not only working together internally, but is also a magnificent and legitimate force of great intentions and visions. The Jordanian leadership already works closely with several Arab governments, but vocal groups within society in the Arab states must realize the viabilityo f the Jordanian leadership as well.

Share

More often than not, it may seem to many as if the world, historically, evolved under the leadership of Europe. As Europe went ‘dormant’ in the Dark Ages, many believe that, with it, History stood still. Certainly this can be witnessed in science and technology as well, where the history of knowledge, invention, and innovation almost consistently begins in Europe with Newton and his local contemporaries. Moving further into the past, one would mainly come across the Ancient Greeks, who, widely, are alone recognized as the “intellectual precursors” to the more recent European intellectuals.

In fact, however, such approach to world history neglects invaluable contributions of the rest of the world in shaping itself. Far East, African, and Islamicate Civilizations all advanced knowledge, culture, and politics, paving the way for the Renaissance, Industrialization, and Global Development.

Consequently, an approach where non European contributions and achievements are downplayed is known as a Eurocentric approach. Eurocentrism stems from ethnocentrism, a perhaps-widespread belief in past eras, where one possessed the belief of preeminence of one’s own culture and civilization over that of the ‘insignificant other’. Eurocentrism, as a prominent and unified belief, started as a response to Europe’s achievements during the Renaissance, Scientific Revolution, and Enlightenment (Goody, 1995, p. 2), which began in the fifteenth century, and lasted well into the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.

Ethnocentrism in Europe in general, however, saw various significant peaks well before the fifteenth century. The prominent form of Eurocentrism referenced above indeed stems from such beliefs, common in Europe centuries ago. The Church’s doctrine constructed a hierarchy of peoples, where those of Europe would “dwell in the tents of” Asians, while Africans were designated as “servant[s] of servants” (Lockman, 2004, p. 18). Such belief was designated by the Church to be the Word of God, a long-lasting attitude used both to espouse and stimulate conquest of other nations (Lockman, 2004, p. 19), but also invigorating a “culture of dominance” in Europe that persisted until modern colonization periods.

The arrival of Islam to Europe was the first major threat to the established doctrine of The Church, and, as such, was eventually portrayed as a blasphemous religion practiced by infidels. Indeed, Pope Urban II said, in his famous speech that fueled the First Crusades in the eleventh century, that Muslims were an “accursed race […] utterly alienated from God”, and designated them “[God’s] enemies” (Munro, 1895). Such descriptions indicate the beginnings of the development of a distorted view of understanding the Middle East and Islam; such misunderstandings are formed as direct implications of a Eurocentric approach. Accordingly, primary European historical accounts often viewed the Middle East as an inferior region with a backwards and stagnating culture and values. It is a common misunderstanding of Middle East history to deem Europe as the savior of the Middle East and Arabia, exporting values, ideals, and systems, such as capitalism and bureaucracy and ‘modernizing’ the region.

Reality, however, is contrary to such views; the Islamic Civilization realized ground-breaking achievements that, not only shaped World History, but also explains the subsequent Renaissance and Enlightenment in Europe. Islamic achievements in thought, philosophy, the scientific method, natural sciences, mathematics, and engineering exported to Europe through trade and conquests constitute the direct foundations of the European intellectual movement. Certainly the Islamic Civilization has contributed heavily to the development of the world, and must be taken into account to understand the global propagation of Human Knowledge historically, and the subsequent evolution of civilization and society. Throughout the rest of this paper, the role of Islam in shaping both the history of Europe and the World’s will be discussed.

To achieve an understanding of the role of Islam in shaping history, some distinguishing features of Islam as a religion and Islamicate culture must be illuminated. The majority of these features are associated with a Muslim’s duty to strive for knowledge, as well as the geographical characteristics of the Islamic Ummah.

“Read! And your Lord is the Most Generous. Who has taught (the writing) by the pen. He has taught man that which he knew not.” Quran, 96: 1-5 (Al-Hilali & Muhsin, 1997)

Francis Robinson explains that knowledge was needed in Islam to “gain salvation”, a concept which eventually encompassed any type of knowledge “which might give power in the world” (Robinson, 1996, p. 208). Thus, the endeavor of attaining knowledge was increasingly being viewed in Islamicate culture as a religious duty commanded by God.

Another feature of the Islamic Ummah was its vast geographic expansion, which unified, under the rule of the Umayyad Caliphate, sizable lands of Arab, Greek, Mediterranean, African, and Persian cultures. Particularly important for our argument are the previously-Greek lands, which gave Muslim scientists the opportunity of having direct access to Greek manuscripts that scrutinized the world and developed various early scientific theories of explaining day-to-day natural phenomena.

Due to the aforementioned religious duty of learning in Islam, Muslims – and others living in Islamdom – actively read, translated, critiqued, commented on, enhanced, and debunked vast amounts of Ancient Greek texts, many of which exist today only in their Arabic translated forms. Indeed, the Islamicate State saw much stake in science, and supported it by funding various scientific efforts from translation and critique to publishing scientific works. The vast cultural variation within the Islamicate State also lead to the definition of natural sciences and intellectual thought as “the sciences shared among all nations”, making the pursuit of science “culturally neutral”, with the widely known Arabic language as the universal language of the scientific community (Dallal, 1999, p. 157). Such reasons will thus make it no surprise that the level in which science was practiced in the Islamic society was “unprecedented” when it unfolded, and remained unparalleled “until the rise of modern science” (Dallal, 1999, p. 155).

So, how did the enormous growth and development in the act of “learning” contribute to World History? Various areas of knowledge were improved, which, in turn, facilitated developments that took numerous faces. We will examine some of the improvements in knowledge and then link them to respective consequent developments in history both in Europe and globally.

First, Mathematics was greatly advanced, with depth on series, number theory, the decimal system, geometry, trigonometry, algebra, quadratic equations, and algorithms (Robinson, 1996, p. 228). Such achievements lead to improvements in engineering and architecture. Islamic mathematics was quickly adopted by the west, were a decimal system with a zero-digit was introduced, facilitating easier calculations, and a new area of mathematics: algebra, upon which the vast majority of complex mathematics developed in Europe, was to be based (or consult with).

In astronomy, Islam’s need for locating the Qibla to indicate the direction of prayer lead them to develop accurate compasses and astrolabes that would later revolutionize travel and navigation, eventually and indirectly allowing Europe to conduct various exploratory movements, chief upon them is the discovery of the Americas. Muslim scientists also critiqued Ptolemy’s theory of interplanetary motion and published comprehensive observations (Robinson, 1996, p. 228). Such manuscripts were the main reason allowing Copernicus to develop his comprehensive theory on planetary motion, leading him to utter the daring truth: the Earth is not the center of the universe.

Medicine also flourished, with Ibn Sina’s “al-Qanun fil-tibb”, a book sometimes considered “the most influential work in the history of medicine”. Work on medicine also included researching circulation (Robinson, 1996, p. 229). Arab physicians lead to the introduction and expansion of various fields in medicine, including anatomy, pharmacy, and surgery. The concept of Hospitals as well was most likely established in the Islamicate Civilization around the times of the crusades. For instance, George Sarton states:

“We have reason to believe that when, during the crusades, Europe at last began to establish hospitals, they were inspired by the Arabs of near East…. The first hospital in Paris, Les Quinze-vingt, was founded by Louis IX after his return from the crusade 1254-1260”
(Sarton, 1927-31)

Consequently, the spread of hospitals is another way in which Islam left its print on world history.

Optics is another important science developed in Islam. The idea of light as rays travelling in straight lines was proven with an early form of the scientific method. Light was acknowledged to have a finite speed, much larger than that of sound. Refraction was understood and described quantitatively and lenses that achieve specific effects can be calculated and created (Dallal, 1999, pp. 191-192). Such discoveries lay the foundations of more recent European technologies including the telescope and the microscope, themselves leading to huge reformation within Astronomy and Biology (and eventually medicine), respectively.

Engineering and Technology also thrived, allowing Islamic societies to maximize the production of “raw materials, as well as finished commodities”. Similarly, mechanical devices, hydrodynamics, water-transport and irrigation systems, shipbuilding, mining, metallurgy, military industries, and paper and textile manufacture (Dallal, 1999, pp. 193-198).

Such technologies were exported to Europe through various means. First, through the continuous cultural exchange that occurs in trade, where European merchants can often bring back observations as well as information that existed in the Islamicate civilization. Second, through Andalusia; being in direct contact with Christian European states, it often saw its own texts, as well as other Islamic scientific texts, being copied and eventually taught by neighboring Europeans. And finally, through the Crusades, occurring in a period of 200 years, where Europeans would capture cities possessing Islamic culture and living bounded by Islamic regimes from all directions.

Thus, arguably, it can be said that, through the achievements, developments, and engineering technology mastered in the Islamicate Civilization, Muslims actually exported to Europe the recipe for its own success, and, ironically, the eventual European domination over the Middle East and Africa. Indeed, developments within Islam help us understand a lot about European history. When it was dared to say that the Earth was not flat, it was not the product of a single European thinker’s individual intellect, but rather the sum of the efforts of those before him as well. Similarly, the Scientific Revolution was only enabled by the abovementioned Islamicate achievements in science and Ibn al-Haytham’s work on the Scientific Method.

In addition, Islam can be thought to have improved various institutions that eventually came to shape world history; Islam’s Madrasa, or, theological college, for instance, is the direct precursor to the modern concept of schools and universities. Islamic interpretations of the Shari`a can be seen as great milestones in legal thought, while efforts in verifying the Sunna lead to a more scientific and systematic method of recording, preserving, and passing on history.

In conclusion, it can be seen that the features of the Islamicate Civilization as well as those of the Islamic Religion (which includes the unified pursuit of knowledge) paved Europe’s brighter future in terms of subsequent cultural, philosophical, intellectual, and scientific uprising that lead to major historical milestones including discovery of the New World, colonization, and industrialization. Exporting its science and knowledge freely, and adopting the idea of “cultural neutrality” of science, allowed never before-seen openness, collaboration, and eventually, developments within the world. Certainly the world could not have been the same without this civilization; and perhaps Europe’s own uprising would not have been witnessed.

Works Cited

Al-Hilali, M. T.-u.-D., & Muhsin, K. (1997). Rough Translation of the Meaning of The Noble Quran in the English Language. Riyadh: Dar-us-Salam.

Dallal, A. (1999). Science, Medicine, and Technology: The Making of a Scientific Culture. (J. L. Esposito, Ed.) The Oxford History of Islam , 155-213.

Goody, J. (1995). The East In the West. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lockman, Z. (2004). Contending Visions of the Middle East: The History and Politics of Orientalism. West Nyack, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Munro, D. C. (1895). Urban and the Crusaders. Original Sources of European History, Vol: 1:2 , 5-8.

Robinson, F. (1996). Knowledge, its Transmission, and the Making of Muslim Societies. The Cambridge Illustrated History of the Islamic World , 208-249.

Sarton, G. (1927-31). Introduction to the History of Science.

Share

Israel cannot rely on a right of self‑defence or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall.  The Court accordingly finds that the construction of the wall and its associated régime are contrary to international law.

International Court of Justice ^[1]

Why is it so that a structure proclaimed illegal (or in breach of international treaties) by the General Assembly, the Red Cross, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Israeli human rights groups continue construction for nearly a decade?

The “Israeli West Bank Barrier” (also known as the “security fence” by the Israelis, and the “segregation wall” by Arabs), has been in existence since the Oslo Accords in 1993. However, such barrier only transformed to be a threat to the very existence of Palestinians after the al-Aqsa Intifada in 2000.

According to the Israeli story, the logic behind the barrier is obvious: security. The wall is aimed at reducing “Palestinian violence” and protecting citizens of the Israeli states.

That’s all fine and dandy, until we get to one stipulation: the path and structure of the wall is simply irrelevant to security. Instead of having the wall be built on the 1949 Armistice Lines (more commonly known as the Green Line), you will find the wall divergent in multiple areas, continuously annexing land from the Palestinian West Bank, essentially rendering it Israeli de facto.

The wall goes through unbelievable lengths, with its past east of the Israeli settlements (that have also been deemed illegal by the international communities), engulfing them and their surrounding areas as Israeli land and leaving nothing to Palestinians.

To put things into perspective, the wall’s length is 723 km, while the Green Line between the West Bank and Israel is only half the length. ^[2] Furthermore, only 14% will be built on the Green Line, with the remaining 86% built inside the West Bank.^[2]

The existence of the walls means that thousands of schoolchildren can’t get to school, hundred of thousands surrounded by the wall and can’t travel elsewhere in their own territory without elaborate procedures, and many others with no place to work, no land to grow, and no crops to gather.

Here are some interesting tidbits from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs’ report on the West Barrier route, published in July 2009 (full document will be listed in further readings section):

• The Bethlehem governorate is 660 km². Only 13 percent of Bethlehem’s land is available for Palestinian use, much of this fragmented
• The Barrier cuts off West Bank Palestinians and care providers from specialist and tertiary health care in the six specialist hospitals in East Jerusalem.
• The Barrier cuts off Muslims and Christians from religious sites in Jerusalem.

Israeli peace group Peace Now adds (report will also be added to further readings list):

• The fence has created many Palestinian cities (i.e. Kalkiliya), villages and Jerusalem neighborhoods to completely cut off and caged without any freedom of movement.
• The current route of the fence will annex de-facto around 8-10% of the West Bank land

Peace Now continues to add:

the actual fence continues to be constructed deep within Palestinian territory. The current route of the fence is intended to destroy all chances of a future peace settlement with the Palestinians and to annex as much land as possible from the West Bank. Thus the method of creating facts on the ground by annexing land to existing settlements continues, this time by using the route of the fence.

The wall is simply not a just solution, and cannot be rationalized by waving the good old “security” banner. Not this time. Institutions internationally have stressed the unlawfulness of this structure over and over again. International leaders have acknowledged that the wall is a problem, both for the existence of a viable Palestinian state, and even further: any sustainable peace effort to begin with. In his time, U.S. President George W. Bush affirmed the illegality of the wall, and today, President Barrack Obama explicitly states that settlements (and their by-products) are a problem that hinders the cause of peace.

What I’m trying to say here is: the world knows its wrong, the have for the past 8 years; the reason no one is doing anything about it, and the reason the Security Council has stood mute for the past 5 years (even after an ICJ ruling), is because no one seems to care just enough to do anything about it. So much for humanity.

To the west of these concrete blocks, life is perfectly fine. News of the Palestinian mother whose unborn child’s first sight is a hostile soldier alertly holding a gun towards its mother and young father are nowhere to be heard. As far as the Israelis know (or would like to believe), school children are not denied education, and lives are not being destroyed. But alas, they are.

What happened to accountability? Israel: you do not only have a responsibility towards your own citizens, but a global responsibility towards humanity, just as every other country in the world does. And that responsibility simply involves allowing others in the human race to live in peace. Just because you are the country of the chosen people doesn’t exempt you from your human duty of honoring human rights of your neighbors.

Moving up the ladder of politics, we get to the current minister of Israel, Benyamin Netanyahu. A man who stood defiant to peace efforts, genuinely supportive of completing the wall, and incredibly encouraging to the process of continued settlement expansion. But I (and any other Arab) welcome any genuine efforts towards peace, regardless of their source. Mr. Netanyahu, if you want to be serious about peace, if you want to show the world a gesture, a real gesture, that you are as committed to cherishing the human rights of your neighbors as you do to your people, then Mr. Netanyahu, tear down this wall.

____
1: Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 9 July 2004, International Court of Justice.

2: Palestine Monitor Factsheet – The Wall, Updated 16 December 2008, Palestine Monitor.

Further Readings

• UN OCHA West Bank Barrier Report, July 2009
• Peace Now – Positions on the Wall
• Palestine Monitor Wall Factsheet
• Map of the Separation Barrier, as of February 2008

Share

10) Arabs live in tents, ride camels, and wear different clothes

Just because Native Americans used to live in teepees doesn’t mean they do now, its as simple as that. Arab tradition – dating from a few hundred years ago – revolves around utilizing camels for transportation and tents as an ideal way of living. That doesn’t mean that this applies now; we have technology as do others and thus have access to all resources that can improve our living conditions. Even outside the capital and main cities, Jordanian villages are far from the form that some people in the west imagine. If you were planning to visit an Arab state in hope of exploring an Aladdin-esque world, think again .

In desolate areas of the desert, we still have native tribal Jordanians who – by choice – decided to remain following their traditional Bedouin lifestyle. Even these people, though they might appear closest to the western image of Arabs, still blend in quite well if/when they need to visit the city for errands, etc.

9) Arabs are rich, own oil wells, and control the world

I WISH! I really do … First of all, I need to reiterate that some countries (like Jordan over here) have absolutely no oil. Second, lets take a look at the figure to the right:

This is a list of countries sorted by their GDP (Gross Domestic Product) per annum, courtesy of Wikipedia. It is quite clear what I’m trying to point out: in the top 25 GDP countries, only one Arab state exists: Saudi Arabia, with a rank of 25. The U.S., Italy, Mexico, Australia, Indonesia, and Norway, among many others, exceed Saudi Arabia. So, considering that the Arab country with the highest GDP is rather “average”, I guess that points out how we measure with other countries. You can check the full list, too.

To further emphasize my point, we may want to see the Gross Domestic Product per person and the rankings of countries accordingly. This list on Wikipedia shows this; when sorting all countries by Rank, we see that the United Arab Emirates is ranked 17-19, Saudi Arabia is ranked39-44, and all Arab countries have even lower ranks.

I’m not doing this to negatively describe the standards of livings in Arab states; a GDP per capita ranking of below 44 is still quite fine, but surely does not reflect that Arabs are – in any way – in financial control of the world.

8 ) Sunnis and Shiites are fighting because their beliefs differ

The Sunni and Shiite sects are more similar to one another than are Catholics and Protestants (fact). Different “varieties” of Islam aren’t causing any conflict in the region directly; all internal conflict we have is purely political.

The reason Westerners hear a lot about Shiites and Sunnis fighting is because many political parties often adopt certain religions (or religious schools of thought) as a marketing technique to encourage more people to join them.

For instance, the main difference between Hezbollah and the Future Current isn’t their religions, but rather their views on regional foreign policies, especially concerning how to treat Israel and how to approach the issue of “resistance of occupation”.

7) A veil is a proof of weakness and ignorance of women

I’m not a big fan of the veil, to be honest. But that’s just my opinion. Still, when seeing veiled women, I refuse to associate that with any type of ignorance. Women do not wear veils because the think they are inferior; it is simply a matter of their own beliefs, feeling that – by wearing a veil – they become more devoted to god.

Why is it that nuns are not viewed as weak, oppressed, and ignorant? We tell ourselves: sure, they chose a certain path of life and committed themselves to it. Why is it so hard to associate the same thought with a Muslim woman wearing the hijab? Its simply a personal choice, that anyone may or may not agree with. Like Queen Rania of Jordan states, don’t judge a woman by what is over her head, but rather what is in her head.

6) The Quran encourages ‘Terror’

Say what?! No it doesn’t! While I’m not Muslim to know everything about Islam, I know enough to know that this is a bunch of nonsense. Sure, we’ll have people quoting individual verses of the Quran and showing how these ‘encourage’ killing or manslaughter, but:

1. The Quran is really as gory as the Old Testament in the Bible. Descriptions of killing or slaughter are really in the same context (if not a more peaceful one).
2. All of these verses are taken out of context. All Islamic scholars agree that such verses are aimed at offenders, and specifically mentioned in the Quran to assure Muslims of ~600 AD that they are allowed to fight back against the offending polytheists at the time, who greatly oppressed Muslims at that time.

Furthermore, the concept of Jihad is also targeted at those who oppress Muslims directly; jihad is really more about defense: self defense, defense of one’s ‘dignity’, religion, and beliefs. It is not targeted at people of other religions or people who disagree with you.

So why does terror exist? Because certain groups decided that the best way to achieve their own goals was to employ religion to do so. They have their own extremist scholars who misinterpret the teachings of the Quran and try to spread such teachings and mislead young Muslims into thinking they are doing the right things. When targeting the right places: poor and uneducated (just like dangerous gangs form in the states), they can garner a lot of support.

5) All Arabs are Terrorists

Again: say what?! Arabs are not terrorists and do not need to be. Terrorist attacks occur in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UK, India, and the U.S. alike. Terrorism doesn’t belong to a particular nation or a particular school of thought, it is a result of random groups, sticking with extremism to their own radical ideologies, and committing such ‘acts of terror’. I further explained the irrelevance between Islam (and on a winder scale, Arab culture) and terrorism.

4) Your leaders suppress your rights and force you into poverty

A couple of weeks ago, I was in a conversation about Jordan’s leaders and how they supposedly suppress the people. The talk was mainly regarding the Queen, but here is what he told my anyways:

When you’re a monarchy, you ARE stealing! You have imposed your rule on a country without a vote and without any reason other than to say “I’m better than you because I’m royalty”. And all the money spent on her clothes alone would benefit the poor in her country, and there are poor in Jordan. I can’t tolerate someone who lives off of the sweat of others preaching about giving.

To which I replied:

As a person who knows enough about his surroundings, I know what is going on. Now we can argue about how the system of leadership actually occurred, but the undeniable facts are: the king (and queen) are popular, they are benefiting the country, the money they make is not from the taxes, it is from their own business ventures, etc. etc. We have an elected parliament like everyone else does. We have a voice like everyone else does. Do we have poverty? sure. But its the same as any other country who has poverty. And no one criticizes Bush, McCain or Obama for selling their suits or giving away their campaign money for the poor (not enough, at least). I don’t criticize them either, because I know one thing: the money they got, they worked for and earned, they didn’t steal it. Just because in Jordan they’re called a King and a Queen doesn’t mean: a) they are the government, and b) they steal.

And it would be great if you check out Queen Rania’s “giving” efforts. She (as an individuals) have been improving schools all over Jordan, making international women’s rights campaigns, and is part of many other organizations all over the world and supports them (Seeds of Peace being an important one of them). What about our king (the man who actually IS the monarch)? Well, he personally donated blood to Gaza [not the biggest thing he did, but shows that they ARE involved in giving], started the “Dignified Housing for Dignified Lives” Initiative to provide FREE or VERY CHEAP housing for the poor, and regularly donates sums of money to those serving in the army, or working people, or other demographics.

I don’t see anything wrong with this. And if you ask me where would Jordan be this time if it wasn’t for the monarchy we have, we would be in conflict like every other neighboring country, we would have internal issues, a segregated population, few investments, and a poor status of living.

So I hope that’d be an answer to the generalized misconception as well. Note that other Arab leaders are also active in similar ways. Are some corrupt? Yes, sure we have some. But these have the same chance of being in the Arab word than in anywhere else around.

3) You do not treat your women well (Or: Your women are not given enough rights)

To make sure my reply is centralized and organized, here are the main areas that people often accuse Arabs of being abusive to their women:

1. Honor crimes are acceptable;
2. Domestic violence is acceptable;
3. Women are socially viewed as a weaker counterpart;
4. Women are not allowed to be viable members of society.

So first, to reply to the first two points regarding honor crimes and domestic violence.

I have to clear up some facts about honor crimes:

• Honor crimes in Jordan exist as offenses against both male and female
• Honor crimes exist everywhere around the world

Regardless of these two points, of course, we must agree that the mere existence of honor crimes is wrong.

The reality of the matter is, honor crimes rarely go unpunished recently. Our courts are very active in convicting anyone known to have committed “honor crime” against someone else. But it is true that in the past (about 19 years ago), honor crimes did go unpunished. Why is that? Contrary to popular belief it has nothing to do with sexism in the Jordanian legislation but something else.

You see, many countries’ judicial systems discuss “temporary insanity”, and those deemed to be ‘temporarily insane’ at the time of a wrongdoing are cleared of any punishment. Similarly, the Jordanian constitution contains something called (نزعة غضب) that can be translated as “a rage surge” or “an anger surge” and is virtually identical to the concept of temporary insanity. In the past, Jordanian judges cleared charges or made them ‘lighter’ based on this, because the murderer uses such plea in court. I said that honor crimes occur for both men and women, but unfortunately men are angrier and more aggressive by nature, and thus more honor crimes exist against women in Jordan.

In recent years (about 15 years ago), Jordanian journalists started to publically talk about and criticize the existence of honor crimes and that they go unpunished (freedom of expression, we have that too!), and since then, many nationwide initiatives were launched to combat that. In recent years, the number of honor killings have dropped dramatically, and those that do occur are punished severely.

As for “3.”, the best way to show that women are socially respected is to also disprove “4.” and se how women are encouraged viable members of society.

We have female judges, cab drivers, construction workers, driving instructors, plumbers, doctors, surgeons, and pilots. We have equality at the workplace too; for instance, Orange Telecom, a cell phone provider in Jordan (now purchased by Orange, previously called MobileCom) has a woman CEO.

We have women ministers too: the minister of Tourism and the minister of social-something are women, from the top of my head. We also have women members of the parliament. And women can vote and campaign.

Unfortunately, not all Arab countries have the same degree of women’s rights. But I know one that all Arab states do have in common: progress in women’s rights issues.

2) Arabs do not value their lives (Or: Arabs value land over life)

It seems to be a recurring fad (especially for Israelis) to view Arabs and Palestinians as individuals with a weird prioritization, where land – among other things – is valued greater than their lives.

Land and other insignificant things are never valued for an Arab more than his or her life. True, many Arabs value causes more than their lives and decide to ‘sacrifice’ for the sake of a certain cause, but that exists in all humanity and can be witnessed again and again in the history of the world.

Palestinians who blow themselves up do not:

1. Do it because they think freeing land is more valuable than their lives
2. Do it because their hate of Israelis overcome their love of their lives

But rather, they do it as a result of continued suppression, deteriorating living conditions, occupation, and psychological suffering. Because of such conditions, Palestinians feel they already lost their lives and do whatever they do as a way of acting out.

Surely none of us can appreciate the amount of mental strain and pressure that one can go through living their entire lifetime under occupation and oppression, but we should try to understand that actions taken by such individuals – as radical as they might seem to us – are the only option they perceive. Instead of labeling these as terrorists and potential terrorists and bombing them all in an airstrike, how about actually alleviating the suffering of these people, perhaps something good might come out of them?

1) Human Rights are Severely Violated in Arab Countries

They are not.  Arab states might not be the perfect place for human rights, but we have no major human rights violations. Freedom of speech, expression, religion, transportation, and having an appropriate status of living – among others – are entitled to Arab citizens as they are entitled to anyone else.

With that in mind, I will agree that some civil rights in some countries still need work.

Share