Oh, I See.

My best wishes to those who celebrate Christmas.  To those who read The Young Diplomat, we are also (coincidentally) celebrating our one year anniversary!
Speaking of religions...and now for something completely different.

The Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) has proposed a controversial resolution at the United Nations that has raised the hackles of those concerned for human rights, specifically freedom of speech.  Though last week they announced on International Human Rights Day that they are “deeply committed to the Human Rights and in upholding the noble principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948”, they are nonetheless embarking on a veritable crusade against perceived anti-Islamic speech worldwide.  The resolution put through the UN’s Third Committee—which passed by a 76 to 64 margin with 42 abstaining—aims to internationalize the prohibition of speech critical of religion and inhibit free speech.

The draft resolution “Combating Defamation of Religion” was put to vote on 24 November 2010 and was presented to the General Assembly on Tuesday.  Critics of the proposal object to its treatment of religion as an entity entitled to protection—at the cost of human rights.  The document

“urges all States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection  against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from vilification of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general”

and makes specific mention that “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism”, highlighting the resolution’s underlying agenda.  No other religion is mentioned with such specificity.  American Deputy Representative to ECOSOC John F. Sammis spoke out against the resolution because it

“still seeks to curtail and penalize speech. The changes that have been made from the original tabled version, while representing an important gesture, unfortunately do not get the heart of our concerns - the text's negative implications for both freedom of religion and freedom of expression.”

Nevertheless, the draft resolution was passed by the General Assembly on 21 December 2010 with 79 favoring, 67 opposed, and 40 abstentions.  

A more seditious and conniving measure against the fundamental principles of human rights has never been passed by a UN body.  The motion aims to arm non-democratic states against those they deem religious dissidents and clad them in international legalistic armor of the most deceitful kind.  Under this malicious resolution, OIC states—the overwhelming majority of which are despotic—can justify the continued persecution of non-conformist Muslim communities (Ahmadis, Allawis, etc.) and non-Muslim minorities under the UN’s aegis. 

Having been brought before the Third Committee each of the past five years, each successive vote has brought an ever-increasing number of countries to the “nay” side.  (For last year’s vote tally, follow this link.)  Various island nations —The Bahamas, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, St. Lucia, The Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, and Vanuatu—changed their votes from abstentions to nays in the 2010 committee vote.  Former advocates of the resolutions, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Republic of the Congo, and Honduras, changed from yeas to abstentions.  One fence-sitter, Sri Lanka, opted to vote yes, while Argentina, who had formerly supported the motion, fell in with the Western states who voted unanimously against the motion.  Notably absent from the list of democratic nations voting against the proposal, India stands among the non-aligned amidst this cold war, too.  By changing its vote to nay, India, the world’s most populous democracy and home to numerous religions and the largest Muslim minority population, could inspire other states to do likewise. 

There is little doubt that the OIC’s commitment to human rights and democratic values is strictly lip service; in practice these states are among the most repressive on the planet.  Their hijacking of the UN’s Third Committee is a disgrace to the organization and the values for which it stands.  With voting records on resolutions like these, one has to wonder which pillar of the Declaration of Human Rights will fall next.  Those critical fence-sitters from Europe, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Albania, as well as much of South America, could have swung the vote to a decisive nay, but, alas!  
Let us hope the definitive proposal is quashed once and for all.  

Merry Minority

One of the smallest minorities in Israel is Christians. Christmas is the time of the year in which we enjoy the spotlights and the glamorous atmosphere of Christmas. This is also a time to think things over.
A press release issued today by the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) outlines the following statistics; definitely worth taking a look.
According to the Central Bureau of Statistics, the Christians in Israel are a little bit over 150,000 making up 2% of Israel's population. Looking a bit closer on the stats, reveals that 80% of the 150,000 are Arabs/Palestinians. The remaining 20% are mainly immigrants from former USSR. In this post, I will not discuss the non-Arab/Palestinian Christian population.
The majority of the Christians live in Northern Israel - 71.5%, while 13% live in the Haifa region and 9.5% in the Jerusalem district. I am assuming that Ramleh-Lid-Jaffa is considered Jerusalem district, let's hope my family didn't answer that long questionnaire/interview by the lovely CBS interviewer in vain. The top 3 largest communities are to be found in Nazareth (22,300), Haifa (13,700) and Jerusalem (11,500).
The Christian population growth rate is the lowest in Israel; 1%, while it is 1.7% amongst the Jewish population and 2.6% amongst the Muslim population. This phenomenon is also common in other Middle Eastern countries amongst the Christian population, especially in Lebanon. It seems like with the never ending "demographical battle" in Israel, mainly between extremists, the Christians play an insignificant role.
Assuming you're running for parliament and you would dedicate 365 days to attending Christian weddings in Israel, you would have to write a check for 806 couples. The median age of a Christian groom is 29.1 (the Jewish groom is a year and a half younger, the Druze groom is 2 years younger and the Muslim groom is three 3 younger) and the Christian bride would be 24.5 years old (the Jewish bride is a year older, the Druze bride is 3 years younger and the Muslim bride is 4 years younger). This basically means I will get married somewhere around Dec/Jan 2012 and my bride would be born in the summer of 1987.
In the year of 2009, exactly 2009 Christian newborns started their life in Israel. The Christian women will give birth to 2.2 children (knock on wood) while the Druze, Jewish and Muslim will give birth to 2.5, 2.9 and 3.7 respectively (also, knock on wood).

As for the economic aspect, the Christians form 33,400 households which constitute 3% of the total Israeli households. The Christian household includes 3.8 residents while the Jewish household is 3.1 and the Muslim household is 5 members. Single membered households (or with unrelated members) amongst the Christians are 14% while it's 5% amongst Muslims and 22% amongst Jews. I would think this is related to the common movements of students out but there's more than just that.

As for the unemployment amongst the Christians it is 5.5% , 6.6% amongst men and 3.6% amongst women.
This report seems very trivial to me, but it gives us a little more perspective about a minority in Israel and where changes are possible to create a more equal society with a better future to everyone. I was impressed with the preciseness of the details that CBS are looking into, yet I would also take into account few alterations and distortions.

Greek Catholic Church of Annunciation in Mi'ilya, Israel

Cross post from 20:40

Shankaboot

I was introduced to Shankaboot, the first Arabic web drama, through a friend from Haifa University. The show is a huge success in the Arab world and worldwide, I am personally a fan. The show is broadcasted in Arabic with English subtitles allowing the coverage of broader audiences. Shankaboot is produced and funded by Batoota Films, The BBC World Service Trust and The Welded Tandem Picture Company.

Suleiman is the main character, also known as the king of delivery – Shankaboot. His adventure in the reality of Lebanon includes meeting Ruwaida, fleeing the life of abuse and oppression and her dream of freedom and becoming a star. The drama also includes Suleiman’s journey with his best friend Chadi and his dark and ambiguous past. Running away from Beirut with Chadi and Ruwaida, they meet Teta (Grandma in Arabic) and her granddaughter Yara. Suleiman falls in love with Yara but later, worried Teta sends her off to Brazil for a better future. Amongst all the characters, the show also stars Doulica, the migrant worker from Sri Lanka and the humiliating treatment from her employer Mme Najem.

Shankaboot’s most interesting method of delivering its social agenda is not just through its episodes but also through the ‘behind the scene’. An interview with Mme Najem for example about migrant workers in Lebanon is broadcasted in a sarcastic way, criticizing the Arab world and the stereotypes towards foreigners. One of my favorite ‘behind the scene’ is the interview with Teta in the airport in regard to sending away her granddaughter Yara to Brazil, away from her first love and the life she knew. Teta also criticizes Twitter and Facebook in her own special way. Let’s not forget her Portuguese carnival singing and dancing.

The show is a must for the average Israeli revealing the hidden world of the daily life in Lebanon, just a few kilometers away from Israel. It also fits just right with our modern uncommitted lifestyle to television drama.

This post is a cross post from 20:40

Hannukah, O Hannukah, Let's Not Repress Religious Freedom

Hanukkah's placement around the end of the olive harvest celebrates the seasonal production of the oil necessary to light up the lengthening, darkening days of winter ahead.  That alone would be a wonderful purpose to celebrate the holiday, and one I wholly embrace (as someone who revels in sunlight and most certainly suffers from a touch of seasonal depression in these drearily dark days).  As Avi Taranto, writer for this blog, noted, for most Jews Hanukkah's modern incarnation is one of "presents, and latkes, and just eating together with family and friends".  Not everyone shares this sentiment.  A strong cultural current celebrates the Maccabean victory over the Seleucid Greek empire from whence the holiday originated.   

They commend and commemorate the rededication and re-purification of the temple in Jerusalem (חנוכה "Hannukah" means just that-- dedication) and the suppression of Hellenistic culture and society.  They perceive the historic events as a "triumph of light over darkness (in the metaphorical more so than the literal sense), of purity over adulteration, of spirituality over materiality," according to the Chabad website.  Ynet contributor Howie Mischel wrote today: "We have much to be thankful for and to celebrate in our land as we find inspiration in what occurred here more than 2,000 years ago."

What does Mr. Mischel find so inspirational about the Hanukkah story?  Let's take a look.  Jewish day school taught me that the saintly, religiously fastidious Judaeans were all upset about Greek oppression, they revolted, and everyone lived happily ever after once the temple was cleaned of its pagan adornments (check out this vomitrocious modern spin on the story).  Not exactly.  The Maccabees were rabble-rousing religious fundamentalists comprising a small contingent of the Judaean population.  A large portion of Judaeans were contently secularized and enjoying the best of both cultures and they were actively harassed, persecuted, and killed by the Maccabees for embracing Hellenism, emphasizes historian Solomon Zeitlin in The Rise and Fall of the Judaean State. 

Like Mr. Mischel, many of the religiously inclined are juvenilely infatuated with the heroism of the Maccabees and the cause they stood for.  They approve of the "down with Hellenism and assimilation" message interpretable in the holiday and laud Judah Maccabee--a man whose sole accomplishment was leading a ragtag band of armed bandits around the highlands, killing Greeks and those who approved of their culture (which means he's a rare Jewish equivalent of  Tomás de Torquemada, Osama bin Laden, or Henry VIII).  They place radical nationalism and xenophobia on a pedestal and trod on cultural pluralism.  They adhere to the tenet found in the Mishna Torah that claims 

"It is a mitzvah...to eradicate Jewish traitors, minnim, and apikorsim, and to cause them to descend to the pit of destruction, since they cause difficulty to the Jews and sway the people away from God, {as did Jesus of Nazareth and his students, and Tzadok, Baithos, and their students. May the name of the wicked rot.}" 

and celebrate the Maccabees for doing so.  

I may not go so far as Christopher Hitchens to say that "the display of the menorah at this season...has a precise meaning and is an explicit celebration of the original victory of bloody-minded faith over enlightenment and reason", but some certainly view the holiday and its paraphernalia in that manner.  That does not mean we should let them ruin a celebration of illumination and enlightenment--however you prefer it-- in these dark times.  I don't advocate stamping out Hanukkah altogether, but I do agree that the message imparted by modern religious nationalists is detrimental for our diverse society.  Let's keep it to a celebration of luminescence and fatty foods like it should be.

!חג אורות שמח : Happy Festival of Lights!