A World of Hurt: The Israel-Palestine Debate

Hello again, my readers!



Now that the religious holidays are over, I have decided to put my monthly large post up today. As noted in the title, I will be explaining my views on the widely known Israel-Palestine debate. It is a very controversial topic (at least around here it is), and therefore requires special attention. This week's quote comes from the novel A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess, a wonderful book about a world dominated by youth crime where a character known as Alex is taken into a "reform" program. I won't say more, but it has an amazing language scheme, and is well worth anyone's time. To avoid trouble, I should note that it is a very mature book, and nobody of young age should be anywhere near it. And that is all I have to say on that.



To start with, we need to examine the very origins of the debate before I go further on how I feel about it. I view the problems as starting in the 20th century, and coming into focus through the two world wars and the time between them. During the First World War, anti-Semitic treatment of Jews by Axis powers became apparent, as well as by some Allied and neutral powers (http://www.jewishhistory.org/world-war-i-and-the-jews/). While barely noticed then, taken into context this was the beginning of the proposed need for a safe Jewish homeland. Between the wars, most of my readers should know the world went to hell. The 1920s may have been nice for America, but not for everyone else. Nothing got better for global populations when the US economy tanked. As huge pressures rode on multiple societies to find solutions to the economic crises, an overwhelmingly right-winged authoritarian response took place. While the US chose to elect a left-winged leader four times who rode on the principle of fixing the laissez-faire structure of the economy to blame for the crisis, the rest of the world wasn't so lucky. We must remember that these were desperate times, and that other places had it even worse than us. Many countries chose to blame groups of people rather than accept that their systems, which they had designed, may have had some fault to them. And after World War 1, some places had the deck stacked in favor of radicalism anyway; the Treaty of Versailles punished Germany harshly for the war, putting resentment in place of each dollar paid (deutschmarks, in this case). At this point, anti-Semitism was already a lurking force, so blaming Jews was no problem in central Europe. While not as rampant in Italy, after a fascist leader rose to power and brought down the Weimar Republic (Hitler, duh), the propaganda sprang up all over the place, with little internal opposition that had any power. While Hirohito Japan didn't have this problem, they also had no Jews, and didn't do anything about the Holocaust. After World War 2 ended, 6 million Jews had died, approximately 60 to 65 percent of all Jews at the time (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/holocaust.htm).



And here is where the Palestinian place comes into play. While most people concern themselves with the amount of Jews dead, a larger total estimate of Muslims was killed. While not as huge percentage-wise, it is a significant point. Both religions suffered harshly in the war. When it was over, it became increasingly obvious to world powers that in order for Jews to even survive in this world, they needed to have some country to call their homeland and someplace to be safe. After the UN was formed, the organization gave the UK a Middle East mandate to occupy much of the region for a few years until everything was stabilized and ready for the formation of states. And in 1948, both Israel and Palestine were formed. It was believed that the division of lands would suit both peoples and allow for a long-awaited peace that the world had lacked for decades. The world got no such peace. Upon creation of the two states, Palestine and other Middle Eastern countries rejected the right for a Jewish state to exist, and shortly afterward small attacks on Israel began.



World powers were shocked. They had assumed the two religious groups would get along at least with tolerance (at this point, most anti-Semitism came from Christians and/or Europeans). They assumed this hatred of the Jews as the main sticking point for the new problem. While certainly not the main root of the problem, it is undeniable that hatred exists on both sides and drives the struggles along. As remaining British-mandate countries gained independence, most sided with Palestine strongly on the issue. The UK and US swore to protect the tiny state of Israel and its denizens from attacks, with America providing the brunt of weaponry and economic support to the resource-dry country. Palestine didn't react well, to say the least. At this point, small numbers began the practice of Jihad upon Israel, a well known practice in modern society. The push for liquidation of Israel continued to build until the Arab-Israeli War in 1967, known commonly as the Six Day War. Egypt, Syria, and Jordan formed a military alliance and launched attacks on Israel in the hopes of "liberating" Palestinians and destroying the country altogether. Other countries of the Middle East declared support for the aggressors. What follows is the reason this debate still exists. During the war, Israel had pushed into Gaza and the West Bank against enemy troops, both for defensive and offensive reasons. When the war ended, the occupation didn't.


Arab nations were infuriated. Not only had the effort to wipe Israel out failed, but now Palestine appeared to no longer exist. It was undeniable that the problems had only just begun, and that the situation was more serious now than ever. Things improved slightly when Israel withdrew from the Gaza strip in 2005, but the issue remains. The two sides are currently as follows: the "pro-Israel" side, which advocates an eventual creation of a Palestinian state, but not at the current time for various reasons. Extremists here often call for a permanent Israeli state that envelops Gaza and the West Bank, as well as its current territory. The other side, the "pro-Palestine" side, calls for an immediate creation of a democratic Palestinian state in wake of decades of poor existence. Extremists here still call for the end to Israel and the takeover of lands by Palestinians. And now, what you all have waited for, my side.



In an earlier post, I noted that I am pro-Israel. To be more specific, I do believe that a Palestinian state must be created due to the conditions endured by its people. I see a need for a country named Palestine if there is ever to be long-lasting peace in the region. And currently, I am fine with the PA (Palestinian Authority) leadership in the West Bank. The reason I don't see a Palestinian state rising soon is due to Hamas. As is well known, Hamas is a militant political faction which won majority power in the Gaza strip during elections in 2005 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4214375.stm). Hamas is also known for being the main source of suicide bombers towards Israel, along with being hard-lined towards the very country at certain times, generally when pressured. While it may have support there, I fear the omen they bring with them. Were Palestine to become a state, both leadership from the West Bank and Gaza would take over the new country. And with a faction that bears the brunt of current attacks on Israel in a true leadership role, the hope for peace would be slim. It's hard to know exactly what would happen due to speculation, but I have fear about the worst. In a good scenario, Palestinian leaders would hold true to peace between the two countries and the world could move on from one of its most tantalizing issues. On the other hand, upon independence Palestine could also declare war on Israel, receiving support from Arab allies and others. The US and some other powers like the UK would side with Israel, forming another horrible war in the Middle East this world really can't handle. Things could get progressively worse from there. While racial and religious hatred would once again brew between the two original combatants, the war could bring tensions between the US and its adversaries to surface, possibly leading to a third world war. While this is not my main fear, I am a pacifist, and any war at all is unfavorable to me.


While I know most people would say it is a bad thing to live in fear, it is something that drives my opinion, at least in this issue (and rarely in others). Until I see better prospects in Gaza leadership, I cannot endorse the creation of Palestine due to trepidation over war. The last thing I want to hear about these days is that wholesale military efforts are being taken between Palestine and Israel. Believe me; I want nothing more than peace. And the day Hamas loses majority, you can count me pro-Palestine. However, until that day comes I will favor those who oppose immediate Palestinian independence. And while I don't always agree with the arguments my peers make for my side, I have little choice until the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip put a less militant, more negotiable party into strength. As such, this is my view of the issue.



That is all for this week, and I hope I have given a comprehensive analysis that fulfills all of what my readers desired from me on this topic. If you feel that you have a question, comment, et cetera you can leave it in the comments here. I also have a Facebook, an email (zerospintop@live.com), and a twitter if you would prefer those modes of communication instead. This is SuperJew McLovin signing off, and Happy New Year!

Blood for Oil: The U.S. Role in the Middle East

Welcome back again, my readers!

This week's topic, as obvious in the title, is the role of the U.S. in the broad Middle East region, from past actions to what needs to be done now and in the future. This week's quote was inspired by me, who upon falling while walking on the sidewalk on Friday, tried to make myself look better to my peers by saying that. It did garner a laugh, so I view my efforts as a success.

Now, to the topic at hand. The USA has played a big part in developments in the Middle East for a long time, mostly since the state of Israel was created in 1948. Ever since then, our two countries have maintained strong economic and diplomatic ties, for a bilateral benefit. The relationship benefits Israel by giving it strong, ensured trade, easy technological access and advancement opportunities, and military backing from a large, powerful country. For the US, it gives a foothold in an important geographic region, as well as making the US look good for protecting the homeland of one of the world's smallest religions, Judaism. For those that are blind and deaf, this does cause problems for both parties as well. Countries that oppose Israel take harsh stances against the US, sometimes causing war. Decreasing favor for American policy rides strong in the Arab-dominated region. And aid to Israel is a burden on the US every year. But no matter what, it is obvious by now that this relationship won't be changing too soon. The US will consistently support Israel and an eventual two-state policy in the foreseeable future. And while Israel depends on the US, because the relationship is fairly static there is not too much I can say on it, other than I support it. I also support the two-state policy, although I'm not entirely sure that now is the time for it to be enacted. But more on that belief next week.

As for the rest of the region, there is much to cover. I'll start with our wars in the Middle East. Currently, we still retain troops in Afghanistan because our war there is not yet over. Our troops in Iraq will all be pulled out by the end of the year, officially ending our operations there. Drone strikes continue in Pakistan and Yemen, along with spying missions done on Iran. I'm pretty sure that all this shows that we like having military presence in the Middle East. Whether we deny it or not, we always maintain some shadow in the region. In times of peace, that specter is present in the military support to Israel. At other times, it shows in our attacks on suspected terrorists or dissidents in different countries. Unfortunately, this doesn't garner us any good tidings. The constant watchdog effect our military pressures on Middle Eastern countries only serves to hurt our image in the eyes of the populace. Who among us would feel safer with troops on the streets and army aircraft overhead? I do believe that our pulling out of Iraq is a good idea, but we need to do more. We need to leave Afghanistan. It's also become obvious recently that Pakistan probably doesn't want us in their airspace (http://www.digtriad.com/news/national/article/203331/175/US-Troops-Vacate-Pakistan-Airbase). And while Yemen struggles to consolidate civilian power now that Saleh has stepped down, I'm sure that soon enough they'll want us to end drone strikes in their country too. However, we still have conservatives who always maintain a stance saying that we must stay in Afghanistan, and that drone strikes are the only way to get rid of Al-Qaeda operatives effectively. But does that truly matter? You cannot kill off an idea like terrorism. It's impossible, and it has been proven. Despite our best efforts, we could not kill off communism, even after decades of trying. We also cannot kill off terrorism. As such, no matter how many drones we fly we will never destroy Al-Qaeda outright. Even if we did, terrorism would still exist. It simply wouldn't have a brand name. And why do we need a presence in Afghanistan? It's pretty clear that our army does not ensure peace in the country, whether we wish it would or not. Sure, if we leave they may adopt a government that we don't completely love. But honestly, it is not our place to control them. If it has the support of the people, then who are we to tear down their system?

Should we stay to maintain a foothold in the region? Hell no. I seriously doubt us taking action in China, India, or Turkmenistan. We have no real reason to do so. As for Iran, if we really wanted a stable place to attack from we could just ship missiles to Saudi Arabia. We are, after all, allies. If we are going to take action on Iran, it is best made from a place that already hates them to some extent and has a relatively stable, powerful system. Also on Iran, we have had some serious tensions for a long time. The main reasoning for this hatred was the US support of the Shah of Iran (http://www.fff.org/comment/com0501i.asp) during most of the 1950's through the 1970's. An instigated coup against Mohammad Mossadegh, a democratically elected Iranian leader, was the start of this. Afterwards, the Shah took power, beginning a harsh reign that was in US favor at the time, mostly due to the Shah's opposition to communism. This was the Cold War, after all. Unfortunately, this was the biggest mistake the US has ever made in the Middle East. Growing resentment towards the Shah and the US peaked in 1979 when a massively popular Islamic revolution gripped the enormous country. The Shah fled, allowing Ruhollah Khomeini to sweep religious conservatives into power. Soon, the Iranian hostage crisis followed, deepening the hatred and mistrust further. Nothing got better during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980's, when Reagan provided support for both sides in a "double containment" effort (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melody-moezzi/the-debris-of-dual-contai_b_203920.html) that showed both countries just how much we were a threat to them. It's no wonder Hussein didn't like us. This made things with Iran just worse and worse. Things got no better when Khomeini died and the even more conservative Khamenei took the reins, conducting Iran to where it is today. My stance on what has happened between us is that we are to blame for Iran's hatred of us. We have done terrible things there for a long time, and there is no way to repay Iranians for our sins against them. And for any Iranians reading this, I know my apology doesn't mean much, but I can ensure its sincerity. Someday, perhaps, we'll learn to treat Iran a little better, and maybe things will start improving there and towards the US.

Lastly, I'd like to address US support of dictators and the Arab Spring in the Middle East. We've got a bad record on the former account. Believe it or not, we supported Gaddafi for a time (http://links.org.au/node/2179), while also bombing the crap out of Libya simultaneously. But when people started rioting just this year, we declared support for rebel groups. A similar case applies to Egypt (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/01/201113020265198814.html). We have propped up what we considered beneficial to us in the Middle East, claiming often that it was in the name of democracy. For those of us familiar with history, you should know that the Middle East got little democracy for most of the 20th century. Not much changed with the new century, either, until the Arab Spring. This is something I view as a high note. While I hate what we've been doing in the Middle East for decades, the fact that we supported the Arab Spring is a good thing. When the people finally did start calling for true democracy we stood with them, an accomplishment on our part. We rarely stand for anything that threatens our power in the region. Yet when faced with a choice, I'm glad we made the right one this time.

Well, that is all for this week, and I hope you enjoyed reading. If you want to leave a comment, question, or anything else you can do so in the comments section. You can also contact me using Facebook, twitter, or my email at zerospintop@live.com. This is SuperJew McLovin, signing off.

Godless Heathenism: Why I Choose Atheism

Happy greetings to my readers!

This week, I take another personal issue to the people, one that many have asked me about over the years. Namely, that I am an Atheist. As such, I endure questions and even attacks about why I don't believe in God, along with why I believe religion in general is not a good idea. I have decided to take a break from the political, and attack the philosophical and religious side of my interests. I plan to explain to you all the logical fallacies I see in religion, as well as why I think that religion is just another thing that screws with our daily lives. On a side note, this week's quote is taken from a photo on tumblr.com, of some Iranian protester with bread sticks tied to his hat. While I can't remember who posted it, it struck me as funny, so there you go. I have no affiliation to tumblr (although I do have an account) and take no responsibility for the quote.

Alright, let's begin. I'll start with an obvious question that many people ask as they get older: Why does God allow so many terrible things to happen in the world, like human trafficking, terrorism, violence, death, disease, the list goes on and on. When you ask a religious person or authority, many times they will respond with time honored responses like "everything happens for a reason," or because "it's part of God's plan." Because most religions don't allow God to be questioned, it is a perfect response, within the limitations of religion. But once this response is taken out of the bounds of religion, it is exposed for what it truly is; avoiding the question. Or so I view it, anyway. Whenever people who are religious cannot answer a question that destabilizes the foundations of their faith, they turn to God, and questioning God is a sin. Right? No, that is wrong. "Questioning God" is not a sin, at least not anymore. For those that haven't noticed, the Dark Ages ended centuries ago, and religion no longer holds that kind of power. Just like politicians are held responsible today, so too is religion. The goal of all religions is to answer all of life's questions, be they easy or hard. When a religion cannot answer all questions, it has failed in its purpose and is therefore null and void.

My answer to the above question is simple, although somewhat pessimistic: All these terrible things happen because we allow them to happen, not because of some phony God. We kill each other, and we commit crimes against each other of our own volition. It doesn't occur because God wants it to. It happens because we choose it to happen. We bring most of life's horrors upon ourselves. It's a sad fact of humanity, but we must face it. And the faster we realize that we are the problem and not God, the faster we can come up with solutions.

Another thing that I don't like about religions is that they all treat people unequally. Christianity says that Gays are to be put to death. Islam does it similarly. Both treat women as lesser beings than men (though not to the extent you may be led to believe). Even Judaism, my favorite one, requires that women and men be separated in synagogue and other social interactions. This may be just Orthodox Judaism, but the fact of the matter is that all religions divide people. One question I like to ask is this: if all people can get into heaven, why do certain people get better lives on earth? What have they done to deserve stronger rights than their peers? Once again, religion has no true answer, with most clerics of my youth simply replying that "it is tradition." Yeah, well witch trials were a tradition for a while in the USA. That doesn't make them right, and it doesn't mean things can't change like they did with witch trials. My view is as follows: because we die and simply rot in the ground, we have all the more reason to make our lives here better. We need not separate people to ensure salvation, if salvation doesn't exist. We don't need to hurt, kill, or ostracize our brethren to make ourselves appear better to a nonexistent God. We need to bring ourselves together to make our lives better. Life is all we get, or so I believe. Why waste it with hate?

That is my biggest beef with religion: the hate it inspires. Ever since the start, religion has done nothing but divide people and cause racism and violence. The Dark Ages were characterized by harsh scientific repression by the Catholic Church, which used religious authority to control the people for centuries. At the same time, hundreds of years of holy wars were waged during the Crusades out of hate for Muslims by the same groups. And while Christianity may have inspired Renaissance art, that doesn't make up for those crimes. Nowadays, radical Islamist fundamentals wage attacks on Jews and Christians alike in the name of Jihad, in order to achieve an afterlife in heaven. Even in modern America, a place where the constitution decries a bond between religion and politics, religion holds political clout. I'll address that soon, but first I'd like to note the hate religion still inspires here. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and all minority religions get bullied across the country simply because they are different. Especially now, Muslims receive the brunt of our hate. For example, the Ground Zero Mosque, remember that? We all lost our shit because local Islamic leaders wanted to build a Mosque near Ground Zero (note: not directly on it, like assholes claim). Don't believe that? Well here you go: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-sledge/just-how-far-is-the-groun_b_660585.html. Conservative leaders at the time claimed that they believed strongly that Muslims had the full rights to build a Mosque wherever they pleased with proper legal framework. But simultaneously, they asked this question: should they? This religious hatred allowed political figures to both defend and attack religious rights, sometimes in the same sentence. This is bullshit. The fact that we can even tie the September 11 bombers' religious fanaticism to the simple building of a mosque is astonishing. It just exposes the extreme hate we suffer from. Who's to blame? Religion.

And religious hate screws people over in other places, too. Saudi Arabia and Iran have strongly theocratic governments which repress their people, especially Iran. In Saudi Arabia, at least they have some support for their system. Iran? No, not quite as much. And while radicalism may persist in Iran, the truth is that most Iranians today hate Ahmadinejad and Khamenei. They are completely unrepresentative leaders that restrict their country. Saudi Arabia is not necessarily any better. Women can't even drive there. They can't leave the house without a man. Sure, they may be able to vote soon, but the steps are small and far too slow. A HUGE amount of religious hate surfaces on the Palestine issue, with small groups on both sides becoming indifferent to the other over religious intolerance. Additionally, for those that don't know Baha'ism is also persecuted in Iran without real reason. Europe, while a much safer place religiously speaking, is overwhelmingly Christian. The European Union has laws in place that make it illegal to pronounce statements delegitimizing or denying the Holocaust (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/19/world/europe/19iht-eu.4.5359640.html). The fact that they even need these laws in place sickens me. What makes it worse for me especially is that in America we don't have these laws. We allow the American Nazi Party to exist. And don't give me bullshit about their right to free speech. Those people DESERVE to die. The fact that Nazism is still a force fills me with dread. All this religious hate of all different people only serves to cause violence and divide along lines we don't need.

And so, my atheist beliefs come into place. We can prove that the universe has been created absent of a God (with the Big Bang Theory, which is also a hilarious TV show). And if it was, then how would the Garden of Eden worked out? There were only two people, meaning that no matter how many kids they had eventually Adam and Eve would have died. Meaning that in order for humanity to survive, there is going to be a ton of incest. The genetic disorders would have killed us off early on if the story was true. But, obviously, it is not. If we can see that we have the ability to make this world a better place, maybe we would be a little more active in doing so. Many people say "hey, let God handle it." No. You must be the one to make a change. It doesn't require much. Recycle a little, if you get a pet get it from the shelter, donate a little cash to charity. Help the homeless with a little change when you pass by instead of ignoring the dying person you see. If everyone did this, we could start to progress a little faster, and maybe things would be a little bit easier on everyone if religion never existed at all.

Well, that sums up this week, and I hope everyone enjoyed my response. If you have questions, comments, or whatever, post in the comments section. Or, you can send me something on Facebook or Twitter. My email is still zerospintop@live.com, so that is all. This is SuperJew McLovin, signing off.

Let My People Rule: The Arab Spring and the Fall of Despotism

Greetings to all my wonderful viewers once again!



This week, I tackle the issue of the Arab Spring in the Middle East and North Africa. As most of you should know by now, the Arab spring refers to the series of movements across the Arab world that has been occurring since protesting began in Tunisia. They represent the will of the people rising up against autocrats and poor governance in the region that has not reflected the desires of the majority, sometimes for decades. Because the movements cover a total of 21 countries, I cannot do each one individually, so I'm splitting them into 4 categories: successes and failures, and North Africa and the true middle east (because technically, the Middle East begins at the Sinai Peninsula). These successes and failures span all the countries, and they are not absolute. A success signifies that the people have begun to push reforms in the region, and that the rights/freedoms of said people are increasing. A success means progress towards a stronger system, and a fairer system. A failure means that the people either couldn't create necessary reforms or governments repressed them enough to end or suspend movements. It means that progress has yet to be made, but still can be. Also, this week's quote is from the How It Should Have Ended (HISHE) series on YouTube, the harry potter one specifically. I do not take ownership or any claim to the quote, as it was produced by HISHE and is their intellectual property. Alright, let's begin.



We start my analysis in North Africa, an Arab dominated region that in some cases has been plagued by autocracy for a long ass time. This is where in December 2010 protests over high unemployment, corruption, widespread poverty, and high food prices began against the then Ben Ali led government, according to this site: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ts.html. By 2011, Ben Ali dismissed the government, allowing a national unity system to be swept into power under Fouad M'bazaa. After the success of these protests, those in Egypt began, leading to decade’s long dictator Hosni Mubarak being forced from the reigns in favor of the military leaders. Further protests and demonstrations took place in Morocco, Algeria, Libya, and Sudan against a multitude of issues depending on the country. This forced the powers that be in North Africa to take a look at how rule of the region had been made, and sometimes forced action in the positive. Other times, in the negative. Overall, I will vote for North Africa as a success in the context of the Arab Spring.



Here's why: as time has passed, each and every North African country touched by these movements has actually been forced into some action due to the strength and numbers of dissidents in the region. Reforms have been made, from simple constitutional reforms/elections like that of Morocco (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mo.html) to complete secession in Sudan and wholesale revolt in Libya and Egypt. And while problems still remain, like Bashir's Islamist repression of secularists in Sudan (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/su.html), most of them have been at the very least addressed. For a very long time, military leaders and despots controlled the North African Maghreb. Now, the power of the people has finally been forced forth, and progress is soon to follow. The trouble, however, is now the transfer of power. While Algeria and Morocco do not have to deal with this problem, the other countries (Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and South Sudan) have now been thrust into new governance, with little idea of how to truly run a country. While the idealism is certainly great, there is the constant omen of possible repression looming on these peoples. The situation is different for all of them. For Libya, it means shaking off the effects of a 40 year long dictatorship by a dude crazier than Lady Gaga. For South Sudan, it means building a brand new nation after years of Islamist repression. For Egypt and Tunisia, it means removing military rule for true civilian will. As such, it is most certainly going to be difficult to rebuild now that most of these countries have experienced sufficient instability in the past months. It is already obvious that the transfer of power is difficult and dangerous; the Egyptian military holds power most likely because it fears populist conservative movements that will attack the country's secular liberals. While I cannot say whether this fear is rightly founded, I can say this: whether they like it or not, the majority must rule, and if that means liberals and ultra-conservatives are going to share power, then so be it. It has become clear that both groups have the main goal or removing military control, and with that banner they are united. With now stabilized countries like Algeria and Morocco leading the pack, it's time for freedom in the region, no matter what it takes.



Alright, now I will address the true Middle East. Just as a note, Israel is excluded from this, mostly because it remained untouched by uprisings. Because Israel has long had a stable state with a strong, effective system, it has not experienced populist attacks. As such the Arab Spring did not truly change it, though it most certainly changed Israel's neighbors. Anyway, the true Middle East includes: Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. It is most certainly a larger region, affected deeply by the Arab Spring and separate crises of power. From Assad in Syria to Saleh in Yemen, the region suffers under harsh, repressive leadership, and has for a long time. Much of the movements here have both against corruption, as well as removal of crap leadership. And while it pains me to say this, I have to give the Middle East an overall failure of change and progress. Why? Because, despite some changes and progress, the Middle East has yet to free itself from numerous powerful autocrats, and for many countries deep problems remain. While a portion of the countries have made progress, like Jordan (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/jo.html), most have been repressed into keeping their wills quiet. For example, let's look at places where unrepresentative government plagues the populace, namely Syria, Lebanon, Iran, and Yemen. In Lebanon, Hezbollah, a recognized terrorist organization, has retained a presence and power in the country for several years, impeding progress and violently demonstrating their views against that of the majority in response to the Arab Spring (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/le.html). In Syria, President Assad has retained a tight grip on his country, using strong military force to back himself against increasingly angered protesters demanding his ouster. In Yemen, despite 33 year long leader Saleh "stepping down," he still has a huge control over the Yemeni system, leading to a continuation of his policies (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ym.html). In Iran, large scale protests against the long ultra-conservative, repressionist government were met with harsh military strikes that quickly silenced the people, not of their own volition but of fear of retribution, leaving the control of the country to Supreme Leader and Ayatollah Khamenei, who has ruled since Khomeini died in 1989 (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html). All these governments and others continue to shut out the voices of the majority in favor of those in power. They attack all those that threaten their positions, and retain strength in their respective countries no matter what. As such, on a full scale the Middle East still has much to do in terms of giving power to the people, and making the Middle East a free system for its people.



And, that is all for this week. I hope my inclusion of sources with each fact this time has made you all consider my positions a little more openly, and I also hope that soon peace in the Middle East and North Africa will prevail. Progress has been made, but it must continue. In order for freedom to win, repression must fail, and poor leaders must be replaced to reflect majorities in the regions. In time, I believe this is possible. Until that time, my heart goes out to all those suffering, in the hopes that justice will be swift and soon. Well, I'm done here, and if you wish to express something to me/the community leave a comment. You can also check my Facebook or my twitter, or my email at zerospintop@live.com. This is Superjew McLovin signing off.