Bet definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary
Arabic Names - Behind the Name
BET | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
define bet in arabic
define bet in arabic - win
B'tselem withdraws from Israel
Today, B'tselem, the most prominent Israeli NGO dealing with Palestinian human rights, made the single most important declaration in its 31 year history: Israel is an Apartheid state. Not the West Bank, let alone merely Area C of the West Bank. All of it. This revelation made a few headlines, but so far, nobody seems to be rattled. Both pro-Israelis and pro-Palestinians view it as just another leftist organization that denounces the "Zionist entity". Both the rage the pro-Israelis and center-right Israelis feel about it, and the joy the pro-Palestinians feel, is rather limited. But for me, it's an end of an era, and a sad letter of surrender.
B'tselem and the left-wing Zionist narrative
Without going too much into the history of how that happened, the Israeli Zionist left-wing since the 1990's was guided by a pretty clear narrative:
Israel being a Zionist, Democratic and Jewish state is possible, desirable, and more or less describes the situation today.
Like many other democratic nation-states, Israel has an issue with discrimination against its minorities. It has to work tirelessly to end that discrimination. This lead to the creation of several key laws against discrimination and segregation, ending some long-standing discriminatory policies, and measurably improving the lives of non-Jewish, but also non-Straight, and non-Male people in Israel.
"Apartheid" is if Israel decides to revoke civil rights from its non-Jewish citizens, and primarily, their right to vote, be elected, and serve in the government. We must do everything we can to not become "Apartheid".
The 1967 occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is problematic and must end. Ending it will usher a new era of peace, security and prosperity for both Israelis and Palestinians alike. If Israel doesn't end it, and annexes those territories, it would either become a non-Jewish state, or a non-democratic, Apartheid state.
The settlements and settlers are a huge problem, mostly because they make #3 far too hard.
B'tselem fit like a glove within that narrative, and played a key role for people who believed in it. It documented the injustices of the occupation proving point 3. It meticulously documented the settlements project to promote point 4. All in the service of a just, secure, and democratic Jewish state. Because it was so important in that narrative, left-wing Israelis would ignore its flaws. From hiring Holocaust deniers, to repeating untruths, and even using the Apartheid analogy before. As long as it was in the service of proving just how awful the occupation is, it's all in the service of the greater good. With their statement, B'tselem spit in the face of that narrative, and the people who believe in it. No, the old left-wing Israeli adage of "the occupation corrupts" is not true. Israel is already deeply corrupt from its very inception. The occupation, and the difference between it and Israel proper, is not difference between just and unjust, permanent and temporary, pride and shame. It's a mere calculated ruse, a "different package of rights" given to some Palestinians, to "divide an conquer".
Using "Apartheid State" was a choice
Before we tackle the question of why B'tselem made that choice, and whether it was wise to make it, we must deal with the obvious question: maybe they're just telling the objective truth? After all, we can't fault an organization dealing with climatology declaring climate change is real, or Yad Vashem declaring the Holocaust was a genocide. But that's pretty obviously not the case. B'tselem refused to acknowledge that "obvious fact" for thirty years of its existence, and instead aligned itself with that standard left-wing Israeli narrative. And by their own admission, nothing really changed recently, that turned Israel from a non-Apartheid state, into an Apartheid state. The only thing that happened is that some things have "proven", to B'tselem's management, that Israel was always an Apartheid state, even before its occupation of the 1967 territories. And that in fact, it being an Apartheid state is written into the very core of its existence as a Jewish state. B'tselem argument itself, is no stronger than the average "Apartheid" accusation, and in some ways weaker. Since they decided to not tell overt lies, they begrudgingly admit the core weakness of their own argument, while making it. Israeli Arabs can vote and get elected. They served in all branches of government. They served as doctors, lawyers, and soldiers, alongside Jews. Discrimination and segregation are not the law of the land, but rather a criminal and civil offense. Even racist speech is illegal. Those are not cosmetic differences between Israel and South Africa. Not "visual components", as their spokesperson put it. Those are the very core of what we understand as Apartheid today. And this is all waved away with the claim that the only thing that's important is the "organizing principle" of "systematically promoting the dominance of one group over another and working to cement it". How is that fundementally different from any ethnic nation-state with a racism problem, that often have similar "discriminatory" immigration policies, budgetary discrimination and so on? Or for that matter, with the concept of occupation under international law, which "cements" this dominance as a matter of binding legal principle? They don't seem to dwell on those questions. Highlighting just how precarious that argument is, and everything but the obvious objective truth, that was staring at us all along. To summarize, despite their claims of "acknowledging a reality", it's pretty obvious that B'tselem made a decision to change course, and change its guiding narrative. And it was not because Israel became an Apartheid state during that time, or because it's an objective, undeniable truth that they - an organization literally devoted to documenting Israeli human rights abuses, somehow failed to notice.
What it means for B'tselem's narrative
Like with every major narrative shift, B'tselem previous positions must be re-examined. In an interview with the far-left blog +972 magazine (and their Hebrew version, Sicha Mekomit), their spokesperson pointed out that their commitment to the Apartheid narrative doesn't negate the Occupation narrative, but in fact, somehow strengthens it. This is obviously a difficult proposition. How can belligerent occupation, a legal framework that officially legalizes and formalizes "dominance of one group over another", allows a group to control another without giving them citizenship, can co-exist at the same time with Apartheid, which is basically the same thing, but without the military context? Most proponents of Apartheid chose to abandon that notion, call the Israeli occupation a "de-facto annexation", and therefore immediately flipping the switch from legal occupation to illegal Apartheid. So far, they didn't disclose what that argument might be, but I'll just say that even if it makes any legal sense, the potlicial strength of their argument is still gone. How can you obsess over the settlements, and not building in, say, Tel Aviv, if it's just a "single regime"? You certainly can't cry about it "entrenching the occupation", when you admit that it's an Apartheid state even without the occupation, and that the occupation itself is more of a dirty trick by Zionists to divide and conquer, than some aberration that corrupts Israel from within. How can you speak out against annexation, when it's merely giving a better "package of rights" to Palestinians? Or at the very most, a non-issue, since this "single Apartheid regime" is already entrenched and all the peace talks, and discussions of its temporary nature are mere charades? What are you going to say, if Israel revokes the citizenship of its Arab citizens tomorrow? For left-wing Israelis, it's a defining bright-red line. The moment we all agree Israel turns from a normal democracy with issues, to an Apartheid state, that can only be dismantled. But if it's already an Apartheid state, and it's merely a "different package of inferior rights", you don't really have a rhetorical leg to stand on.
Why B'tselem doesn't care
In the same interview with +972, B'tselem's Orly Noy talks about how difficult this decision was. How their leadership realized that this is a loaded term among the Israeli public. But it still has to make a brave choice, and admit reality. And that it's ultimately not a white flag of surrender but a call to action. I disagree. Reading that text as an Israeli, makes it very clear that this is a repudiation of Israel as a state, and of the Israelis as a meaningful force for change within it. The basic idea of it being "Apartheid", while not offering any solution, implies a single Palestinian-ruled state, which no mainstream Israeli leftist would agree to. The low-key repudiation of the Law of Return as key in Apartheid oppression, undermines the single holiest principle all Zionists agree with. And even the language, belies treating Israel as not their own state, but an evil "other". The document consistently uses the term "the Israeli regime" to describe Israel's governments, within Israel proper, even in Hebrew. They're clearly not talking the language of the Israeli left here. Or a language any sizable portion of the Israeli population would agree with. They're talking to Israel's enemies, mostly abroad, and calling to find a place among them. This declaration is not a brave statement, but a cowardly withdrawal from the Israeli discourse, and the novel idea of trying to change Israel from within. And escaping, with their tail behind their legs, to the already-overcrowded corner of anti-Israeli leftist organizations, that desire to dismantle the hated "Zionist entity", that existed well before B'tselem was founded. Why? The answer is pretty simple, if you look at the current election polls. The Israeli Zionist left, has been reduced to nearly nothing. It bet big on the Oslo accords and the Gaza withdrawal, and both blew up in their faces. With the latter being the most humiliating, proving every single right-wing prediction right, and every single left-wing prediction wrong. Ultimately, they don't really have a base to speak to within Israel. While of course, there was never a shortage of people who hate Israel, and the very idea of a Jewish state, abroad.
Why most Israelis won't care
B'tselem hasn't shifted to that position in a day. They've been on that path for a while. Similar organizations, like Breaking the Silence, made a similar move. If you ask a right-wing Israeli, or even a centrist Israeli, what they think about B'tselem, it would probably be something along the lines of "anti-Zionist treasonous organization using lies to harm Israel". And B'tselem's declaration of Israel being an Apartheid State, rather than merely "acting in an Apartheid-like manner in the occupied territories", is basically meaningless. In fact, I bet most of the Israelis replying here, would say something to that effect. But for me, it's another nail in the coffin of the Israeli left-wing narrative, and along with it, the most realistic way to achieve peace and prosperity for both Jews and Palestinian Arabs. B'tselem is throwing out the narrative of a "democratic state", that lead to so many actual improvements in the equality and quality of life of the Arab Israelis. They're throwing out the narrative of an "occupation" in favor of some muddled, weird argument. In favor of a pipe dream of a one-state solution, that very few Israelis, and even fewer Palestinians, would accept. And they're doing both at a key juncture, where both are under direct attack. They're removing themselves from the Israeli political equation, willingly delegitimizing themselves, proving all of their detractors wrong, and ultimately doing more damage to their cause than simply dissolving themselves as an organization would ever do. Most Israelis won't even notice they're gone, let alone miss the kind of politics they represented. But I will.
The History of Ritual Circumcision Part 1: Pre-History to 800 CE
Genital cutting is an ancient ritual practice. In fact, it is so ancient, it predates recorded history. It is impossible to pinpoint exactly when, how, or why it originated (or who came up with the idea in the first place). It exists in many cultures across a very large expanse of time. But the history of genital cutting is far from stagnant and by piecing together a timeline of events, thoughts, and cases it begins to shape a cohesive narrative of these practices and the body parts in question. The prepuce (or foreskin) evolved with Homo sapiens hundreds of thousands of years ago. This body part is present in nearly every mammalian species (species such as the platypus and echidna have a preputial sac. Regardless, all mammals have an external protective structure for their reproductive organs). Circumcision most likely does not have a single origin point, but following it back far enough indicates two areas in particular where the practice can be traced to: Sub Saharan Africa and Australia. On the Australian continent, circumcision is practiced as a coming of age ceremony among certain Aborigine tribes, some of which practice further genital cutting such as subincision where the underside of the urethra is split open. While ancient, the practices here have remained largely isolated to the continent. Sub Saharan Africa may very well be ground zero where circumcision across the continent and the Middle East can trace their roots to. Similar to the Australian version, it seems to have also begun as a coming of age ritual and tribal marker. Other possibilities are punishments for enemy prisoners, reduced punitive measures from death or castration, sacrifices to deities, and alternatives to child sacrifice. (Glick, 2005) The first people to practice some form of genital surgery on boys and young men lived somewhere in the region extending from northern Africa and the northeastern shore of the Mediterranean to the eastern shore of the Black Sea. The practice appears to have reached the Egyptian people by 3000 bce, but employed for many centuries principally as a badge of initiation into the priestly caste. The operation probably consisted of a simple longitudinal cut into the upper surface of the foreskin, creating an apron-like opening. There is no evidence of more radical surgery resembling our own version, and nothing to suggest that anyone ever performed genital surgery on infants. c. 2400 BCE A relief in the Necropolis of Saqqara contains what is probably the oldest reference of genital cutting. It shows two youths (one of which is restrained) as they are undergoing some form of genital cutting by priests. The inscription reads:
"Hold him and do not allow him to faint" ”Thoroughly rub off what is there” ”I will cause it to heal”
c. 2300 BCE An Egyptian named Uha boasted that he and his peers faced the ordeal with stoic calm
When I was circumcised, together with one hundred and twenty men. There was none thereof who hit out, there was none thereof who was hit, and there was none thereof who scratched and there was none thereof who was scratched."
Circumcision is now so closely associated with Jews because, while many Middle Eastern peoples, including the ancient Hebrews, genitally altered some boys or youths as a custom usually done at puberty, it was not until around 500 bce that the Judeans defined circumcision as an obligatory ritual practice for all male infants. In pre-Yahwist times, circumcising a son (not necessarily an infant) was probably a personal offering to the gods in support of a request for a special favor or forgiveness. (Glick, 2005) It may also have originated from the agricultural practices. Pruning is an important part of cultivating grapes and olives. Perhaps some believed that “pruning” the male organ would also help with men’s fertility. In fact there are even comparisons written later within the Torah regarding this
“When you enter the land and plant any tree for food, you shall regard its fruit as its foreskin. Three years it shall be uncircumcised for you, not to be eaten. In the fourth year all the fruit shall be set aside for jubilation before the Lord; and only in the fifth year may you use its fruit—that its yield to you may be increased.”
Assembled in the sixth century bce, this is where circumcision starts becoming more familiar with most westerners as the Jewish ritual performed on boys. Within the Torah, the Five Books of Moses, which makes up the beginning of the Old Testament of the Bible, circumcision is mentioned numerous times. However, only twice is it declared as a ritual requirement to be performed on boys. First in the story of Abraham, then in Leviticus.
“When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared before Abram and said ‘I am God almighty. Walk with me and be blameless. And I make my covenant between me and you, and will make you exceedingly numerous.’ Then Abram fell on his face; and God said to him ‘As for Me, this is My covenant with you: You shall be the father of a multitude of nations. And you shall no longer be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of you; and kings shall come from you. I will establish my covenant between me and you, and your offspring after you through their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. And I will give to you, and to your offspring after you, the land where you are now alien, all the land of Canaan, as a perpetual holding. I will be their God.’ “God said to Abraham, ‘As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you, throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. Throughout your generations every male among you shall be circumcised when he is eight days old, including the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring. Both the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money must be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.’”
“The Lord spoke to Moses saying: ‘Speak to the people of Israel saying: If a woman at childbirth bears a male child, she shall be ceremonially unclean seven days as at the time of her menstruation; she shall be unclean. On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.’”
[Leviticus 12:1-3] A few points to make on these texts. First: no single individual wrote the Torah. Biblical scholars have shown that the Five Books consist of a number of texts, composed over several centuries by authors with distinctive mentalities and styles, and eventually assembled sometime shortly after 500 bce. Most scholars recognize four texts, labeled J, E, D, and P. The earliest, J, stands for Jahwist— that is, the text in which Jahweh (or Yahweh, ‘‘Jehovah’’) appears as the deity; in E he is often called Elohim (literally, ‘‘gods’’). These two, probably composed during the tenth and ninth centuries bce, include parts of what are now Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers. The text called D, constituting most of Deuteronomy, was composed in the seventh century bce by religious reformers intent on eliminating polytheistic worship of local deities. Last of all, P was the work of the priestly class that emerged into prominence in the late sixth century, after the return from Babylonian exile. Also a composite text, it includes nearly all of Leviticus and much of Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers. All the various texts were combined into a single Torah in the fifth century bce by an unknown author or authors known as Redactor. Genesis 17 is part of P, the last text to be composed but the first to mention circumcision. This was written over a thousand years after the figure of Abraham would have existed. 586 BCE The Babylonians conquer Judea, destroyed the Temple, exiled the Israelites for the next sixty years, and destroyed the Hebrew monarchy. Upon their return, the newly established priestly caste assumed control of the small region and it’s population establishing what was effectively a theocracy. (To clarify, these are priests, not rabbis. Rabbis will take a larger role later on.) It fell on the priests to establish a rigorously tight knit tribe as well as a degree of independence from their neighbors. This can be seen in many of the laws within Leviticus and Deuteronomy such as forbidding intermarriage, temple centered sacrifice, ritual bathing, strict control over male ejaculation, and, of course, circumcision. The holy covenant, or bris milah (literally ‘covenant of cutting’) performed on male children on the eighth day of life (the day they are born counts as 1) was a new invention. Circumcision was performed by other Semitic tribes at the time, sometimes as ritual blood sacrifice, sometimes on slaves, sometimes on prisoners of war. But this invention by the priests worked as an initiation to the father, not the son. Judaism existed as an intensely patriarchal culture. And a man’s sons represented his future lineage, especially his son’s penis. As the priests devised it, it was the father who performed the operation. In this way, the father was forced to submit his sons, his future lineage, to the will of the tribal elders as he cut into the flesh of his foreskin, the blood being a ritual sacrifice to the Lord as symbol of the covenant. If the father refused, he would be cut off from his people, which in ancient times was akin to a death sentence. Similar to the psychological effects of hazing, after sacrificing part of his child to ensure his place in society, it is very difficult to turn away from it. Those who have studied economics may recognize this as the sunk cost fallacy. “Well, I’ve already put in so much money/time/effort into this, if I left now it would all have been for nothing. I should keep putting into it to salvage my investment rather than quitting to prevent further loss.” What better way to promote such social cohesion in an ethnically exclusive tribe in hostile territory? It should be noted that the version of circumcision being discussed is much less severe than what most of us are familiar with today. The original brit milah removed only the very end of the foreskin that overhang past the glans at birth. Howard Eilberg-Schwartz (a rabbi and anthropologist) has shown that for ancient Judeans the trimmed penis was a symbol not only of patrilineal social organization but of male reproductive prowess and male social supremacy. He points out that in verse 11 of Genesis 17 (‘‘that shall be the sign of the covenant’’), circumcision is called ot, which may be translated as either ‘‘sign’’ or ‘‘symbol.’’ No great imagination is required to understand why the circumcised penis was an ideal symbol of the Lord’s covenant, and of everything that the priests intended to promote with their new rite of initiation: male reproductive success, continuity in the male line, male-defined ethnic identity and exclusiveness, acknowledgment of patrilineally legitimated priestly authority. (Schwartz, 1990) A commonly made claim is that ancient circumcision originated as a hygiene measure. There are several problems with this. First, this claim is entirely modern, only arising in the twentieth century by circumcision advocates in the American medical community. Second, there is no mention in the ancient texts themselves regarding hygiene in connection to circumcision. This combines the western idea that people did not bathe “back then” (another myth, hygiene habits of ancient people are well-documented) and an Americanized misunderstanding of normal penile anatomy which leads to the cultural myth that the foreskin is inherently dirty and difficult to wash. In fact, the texts explicitly mention bathing must be performed by men and women who became “unclean” (meaning spiritually unclean) on a frequent basis. [Exodus 30:17-21, 40:30-32, Leviticus 6:27, 11:24-28, 13:6, 13:58, 14:8-9, 14:43-47, 15:4-13, 15:16-18, 16:26-28, 17:15-16, Numbers 8:5-7, 19:10, 19:17-19, 31:24, 19:7-8, Deuteronomy 23:9-11]. The modern form of circumcision where the entire foreskin is excised did not evolve until centuries later, meaning the ancient Hebrews still had the majority of their foreskin to wash regardless. Not to mention the majority of cultures never practiced circumcision from Inuits to Semites with no issues with their hygiene. And lastly, the doublethink required to believe that the environment made it impossible to maintain basic hygiene, yet was sterile enough to perform a surgery on a newborn’s or slave’s genitals makes the idea that circumcision was done for hygienic reasons absurd to say the least. There is one more point to consider as to why the Jewish priests decided on this body modification in particular. The Torah has very strict rules regarding when and where a man may not ejaculate. Leviticus 15:1-18, 32 is a prime example, as well as Leviticus 22:4 and Deuteronomy 23:10. This line from Leviticus clearly shows the authors' thoughts on sexuality:
“If a man lies with a woman and has an emission if semen, both of them shall bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening.” [Leviticus 15:18]
As will be shown throughout this timeline, sexual control of males is a recurring theme of ritual circumcision. It is no accident that a sexually repressive society included a partial amputation on children’s genitals as part of it’s practice. Circumcision was not implemented as a hygiene measure, but rather as a tribal marker and a method of psychosexual control of members of the ancient Hebrew tribe. 333 BCE Alexander the Great annexes all of Palestine. In the now Greek controlled Mediterranean, Jewish emigrants begin trading and moving across the Hellenistic world seeking greater economic opportunities. c. 200 BCE Some Jewish men, looking for more acceptance in the greater Hellenistic culture, begin the practice of stretching their foreskins to regain the lost tissue. Key features of Hellenistic culture were athletic exercises in gymnasia and athletic performances in public arenas, where men appeared in the nude. A penis sheathed in an intact foreskin was an acceptable sight, but a circumcised penis was another matter entirely. Jewish men, with their shortened foreskins and semi-exposed glans, were mocked and ridiculed for their indecency. But, by applying tension wither with a cord or weight, the skin would stretch until they had a socially acceptable coverage.
“They built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, according to Gentile custom, and removed the marks of circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant.”
“And now I announce unto thee that the children of Israel will not keep true to this ordinance, and they will not circumcise their sons according to all this law ... and all of them, sons of Beliar [Belial, the Devil], will leave their sons uncircumcised as they were born. And there will be great wrath from the Lord against the children of Israel, because they have forsaken His covenant and turned aside from His word, and provoked and blasphemed, inasmuch as they do not observe the ordinance of this law; for they have treated their members [i.e., penises] like the Gentiles, so that they may be removed and rooted out of the land.”
[Charles, Jubilees 15.33–34] 170 BCE Antiochus outlaws circumcision on penalty of death 167 BCE The Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes, a determined Hellenizer, forcibly entered Jerusalem, plundered and defiled the Temple, and instituted widespread repressive measures. Antiochus is said to have demanded that the Jews ‘‘leave their sons uncircumcised.” 125 BCE John Hyrcanus conquered Idumea. The Idumeans were required to convert to Juadism and to be circumcised as a token of their acceptance
“Hyrcanus took also Dora and Marissa, cities of Idumea, and subdued all the Idumeans; and permitted them to stay in that country, of they would circumcise their genitals, and make use of the laws of the Jews; and they were so desirous of living in the country of their forefathers, that they submitted to the use of circumcision, and the rest of the living Jewish ways of living; at which time therefore this befell them, that they were thereafter no other than Jews.”
[Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews] c. 100 BCE Approximately 3 million Jews live within the Roman Empire. First Century CE The historian Strabo, in his Geographica, composed early in the first century, describes the ‘‘successors’’ of Moses as having acted righteously for a time; but eventually, he says, ‘‘superstitious’’ and ‘‘tyrannical’’ priests gained control and the culture took a downward turn:
‘‘From superstition arose abstentions from foods, such as are customary even now, and circumcisions and excisions and similar usages.’’
[Strabo, Geographica 16.2.37] The first-century historian Tacitus also describes Jewish culture in hostile language, citing circumcision as one of the ‘‘base and abominable’’ practices characteristic of Judaism. [Tacitus, Histories 5.1] First-century biographer and historian Suetonious, who had once served as Hadrian's secretary, recalled that
“In the days of Domitian the collection of the Jewish tax was carried out with especial severity. .. . I myself remember a scene from my youth, when the Procurator, surrounded by a host of his assistants, subjected an old man of about ninety to a physical examination, in order to determine whether or not he was circumcised."
[Suetonius, Domitian 12.2, in Lives of the Twelve Caesars.] 30 CE Philo of Alexandria lived outside of Judea and received a classical Greek education. As a Stoic-Platonic philosopher, he wrote apologetic pieces on Judaism as he sought rational explanations for Jewish customs, hoping to vindicate Judaism as a civilized religion. On the topic of circumcision:
“I will begin with that which is an object of ridicule among many people. Now the practice which is thus ridiculed, namely the circumcision of the genital organs, is very zealously observed by many other nations ... . And therefore it would be well for the detractors to desist from childish mockery and to inquire in a wise and more serious spirit into the causes to which the performance of this custom is due, instead of dismissing the matter prematurely and impugning the causes to which the performance of this custom is due, instead of dismissing the matter prematurely and impugning the good sense of great nations.”
“One is the excision of pleasures which bewitch the mind. For since among the love-lures of pleasure the palm is held by the mating of man and woman, the legislators thought good to dock the organ which ministers to such intercourse, thus making circumcision the figure of the excision of excessive and superfluous pleasure, not only of one pleasure but of all the other pleasures signified by one, and that the most imperious. “Two is that it is a symbol of a man’s knowing himself, and discarding that terrible disease, the vain opinion of the soul; for some men, like good statuaries, have boasted that they can make the most beautiful animal, man; and then being puffed up with arrogance, have deified themselves, hiding from sight the true cause of the creation of all things namely, God.”
[Philo, Special Laws, 1.8–12, 104–7.] And why perform it on infants, rather than at least on boys who will understand the significance of the operation?
“It is very much better and more farsighted of us to prescribe circumcision for infants, for perhaps one who is full-grown would hesitate through fear to carry out this ordinance of his own free will."
[Philo, Works of Philo] Contrary to the Greeks and Romans, who believed in keeping the glans covered to show sexual control, Philo argued that removing the foreskin was what allowed Jewish men even greater control over their sexual passions. But why circumcise only males? In a volume entitled Questions and Answers on Genesis, Philo’s answer is that
‘‘the male has more pleasure in, and desire for, mating than does the female, and he is more ready for it. Therefore Herightly leaves out the female, and suppresses the undue impulses of the male by the sign of circumcision. [So] it was proper that his pride should be checked by the sign of circumcision.’’
[Philo, Questions and Answers 3.47, 241–42.] 50 CE At the Council of Jerusalem, or Apostolic Council, the early Christian church declared circumcision was not necessary for Christians 52 CE The Apostle Paul recruits followers to the new Christian religion. He also criticizes the practice of circumcision heavily
“Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to everyman who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. ... For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love.”
[Galatians 5:2–4, 6] Paul’s teachings begin to be the defining core for separating Christianity as it’s own religion rather than a subset of Judaism and also the question of whether converts would have to convert to Judaism first before becoming a Christian. Beyond the theological reasons for nullifying the holy covenant, there was a practical reason as well. Early Christianity needed converts badly. And the prospect for an adult man to have to go through a genital cutting ritual is an obvious turn off to potential recruits. So, for the sake of marketing as well as divinity, circumcision was not included as a Christian tradition. 70 CE The Romans capture the city of Jerusalem during the First Jewish Revolt and destroy the second Temple. With it’s destruction cam an end to the priestly era. Leonard Glick describes the transition from a centralized authority to decentralized communities led by studious men who took up the mantle of social and spiritual leaders within the local communities
“Priestly Judaism was a sacrificial religion, appropriate to a settled agricultural economy. Ordinary people brought animals and crops to the Temple for sacrifices conducted by priests, either as communal offerings or offerings by individuals seeking absolution for sins and transgressions. This way of life persisted for more than five hundred years, through the Hellenistic period and into the era of Roman rule. But, as I’ve noted, by the second century bce large numbers of Jews had left Judea and settled throughout the eastern Mediterranean, particularly in such urban centers as Alexandria, Damascus, and Antioch. Since these emigrants could attend sacrificial rituals in Jerusalem seldom, if ever, they developed their own version of Judaism, centering on synagogues, where they met for everything from communal prayer and Torah study to family celebrations and casual socializing. Men rose to leadership in these communities not through patrilineal descent, and obviously not through claims to priestly authority, but because their fellow Jews recognized and respected their learning and wisdom. It was these men who were called rabbis: ‘masters’ or ‘teachers.’” (Glick, 2005)
c. 90 CE A head tax, the Fiscus Judaicus, is levied against Jews in the Roman Empire. 95 CE The Roman Emperor Titus Clemens is executed for circumcising himself after converting to Judaism Second Century CE During the Rabbinic period, the rabbis, now attempting to maintain a dispersed Jewish population, reevaluated many Jewish traditions including circumcision. Particularly, they addressed the issue of men “uncircumcising” themselves by stretching their remaining foreskin, effectively undoing the holy covenant. Around 140 ce is when circumcision transformed from the original form to what it is recognized as today. In order to prevent the obliteration of the seal of the covenant, rabbis instituted brit peri’ah (that is ‘covenant of tearing’) which lay bare the glans. The mohel (traditional circumciser) would grasp the remaining foreskin and underlying mucosal tissue, forcibly separating this from the glans (using sharpened thumbnails), and tearing it away. Failure to remove all of the mucosal foreskin tissue, the rabbis ruled, rendered the circumcision invalid. This made the mark of the covenant both irreversible and a stronger marking of Jewish identity. Probably at the same time they added metsitzah b’peh (sucking) where the mohel would place the freshly circumcised penis in his mouth and suck away the blood from the wound. 132 CE Hadrian outlaws circumcision in the Roman Empire under penalty of death and reiterated the ban on castration. The fact that circumcision received the same penalty as castration attests to the views Romans had on the subject [Scrpitores historiea Augustae: Hadrian 14.2] 140 CE Emperor Antoninus Pius modified the ruling of Hadrian allowing only Hebrews to circumcise their children, while upholding the legal protection for all others
“Jews are permitted to circumcise only their sons on the authority of a rescript of the Divine Pius; if anyone shall commit it on one who is not of the same religion, he shall suffer the punishment of the castrator.”
“Roman citizens, who suffer that they themselves or their slaves be circumcised in accordance with the Jewish custom, are exiled perpetually to an island and their property confiscated; the doctors suffer capital punishment. If Jews shall circumcise purchased slaves of another nation, they shall be banished or suffer capital punishment.”
[Paulus, 5:22:3–4, in Linder, *(n. 64), pp. 117–20. 67. Ibid., pp. 138–44.]
The Mishnah
The Mishnah (completed around 200 ce) serve as an ongoing dialogue between rabbis across generations. This text is an organized summary of every precept on social, economic, and ritual behavior that for centuries had been discussed, argued, and interpreted. Circumcision is mentioned several times throughout with some sections devoted entirely to the practice. Rabbinic explanations of circumcision are not concerned with the philosophical and medical rationales claimed by later sources, but with the sanctification of a divine commandment.
“19.2 They do prepare all that is needed for circumcision on the Sabbath: they cut, tear, suck [out the wound]. And they put on it a poultice and cumin. If one did not pound it on the eve of the Sabbath, he chews it in his teeth and puts it on. If one did not mix wine and oil on the eve of the Sabbath, let this be put on by itself and that by itself. And they do not make a bandage in the first instance. But they wrap a rag around [the wound of the circumcision]. If one did not prepare [the necessary rag] on the eve of the Sabbath, he wraps [the rag] around his finger and brings it, and even from a [the necessary rag] on the eve of the Sabbath, he wraps [the rag] around his finger and brings it, and even from a different courtyard.
Here is a discussion piece in the Mishnah between several rabbis on the term “uncircumcised” and it’s interpretation:
"R. Eliezer b. Azariah says, ‘‘The foreskin is disgusting, for evil men are shamed by reference to it’’ ... R. Ishmael says, ‘‘Great is circumcision, for thirteen covenants are made thereby.’’ R. Yose says, ‘‘Great is circumcision, since it overrides the prohibitions of the Sabbath, which is subject to strict rules.’’ R. Joshua b. Qorha says, ‘‘Great is circumcision, for it was not suspended even for a moment for the sake of Moses, the righteous’’ ... Rabbi says, ‘‘Great is circumcision, for, despite all the commandments which Abraham our father carried out, he was called complete and whole only when he had circumcised himself as it is said, Walk before me and be perfect (Gen. 17:1).’’ ‘‘Another matter: Great is circumcision, for if it were not for that, the Holy One, blessed be he, would not have created the world, since it says, Thus says the Lord: But for my covenant day and night, I should not have set forth the ordinances of heaven and earth (Jer. 33:25).’’
210 CE The special value attributed to the prepuce in Greek culture is mirrored in the medical literature when Galen singles it out as being among the most brilliantly useful adornments of the body
“Nature out of her abundance ornaments all the members, especially in man. In many parts there is manifest ornamentation, though at times this is obscured by the brilliance of their usefulness. The ears show obvious ornamentation, and so, I suppose, does the skin called prepuce at the end of the penis and the flesh of the buttocks.”
The Talmud (completed around 500 ce) is made up of the continued dialogue among rabbis after the writing of the Mishnah. According to rabbinic legislation it is a Jewish father's duty to have his son circumcised (Sh. Ar., YD 260:1). the penalty of non-observance being "karet," excision from the people. Should he neglect to do so, it devolved on the bet din (ibid., 260:2). It is not a sacrament, and any child born of a Jewish mother is a Jew, whether circumcised or not (Ḥul. 4b; 'Ab. Zarah 27a; Shulḥan 'Aruk, Yoreh De'ah, 264, 1). Although circumcision may be performed by any Jew (including a woman, if no man is available: Maim. Yad, Milah, 2:1), in the first instance it is desirable that the operator, called a mohel, be a loyal adherent to the tenets of Judaism (Sh. Ar., YD 264:1). Even in talmudic times, he was described as a craftsman. In most modern communities, he has been specially trained in the principles of asepsis and in the technique of circumcision and has received rabbinic recognition. The operation must be performed on the eighth day, preferably early in the morning (YD 262:1), thus emulating Abraham in his eagerness to undertake a divine command. Should the child be premature or in poor health, the rite must be postponed until seven days after he has recovered from a general disease or until immediately after recovery from a local disorder (262:2–263:3). Should a child for any reason have been circumcised before the eighth day or have been born already circumcised (i.e., without a foreskin, aposthia), the ceremony of "shedding the blood of the covenant" (hattafat dam berit) must be performed on the eighth day, provided it is a weekday and the child is fit (263:4). This is done by puncturing the skin of the glans with a scalpel or needle and allowing a drop of blood to exude. If the eighth day is a Sabbath or festival, the circumcision must nevertheless take place (266:2) unless the child is born by Cesarean section, when it is postponed to the next weekday. Here is a line referencing the later addition of periah
"The commandment of periah [uncovering and laying bare the corona] was not given to the Patriarch Abraham."
[BT Yevamot 71b] In a Talmudic passage that relates the Hebrew word “uncircumcised” with “unclean”
“‘the uncircumcised male, like the tumtum [one with incomplete genitals], is a person of ambiguous sexual identity. ... One who is uncircumcised is not only not fully Jewish but also not fully male. ... the uncircumcised Jewish male is not only barely a Jew— he is also, from the Jewish perspective, barely a male”
[Yebamot 70a–72a] Interestingly, the Talmud also includes exemptions of boys from being circumcised if the parents had lost previous sons to the operation
“It was taught: If she circumcised her first son and he dies, and her second son and he died, she should not circumcise her third son, so taught Rabbi. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel stated that she should circumcise her third child, but [if he died] her third son, so taught Rabbi. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel stated that she should circumcise her third child, but [if he died] she must not circumcise her fourth… Rabbi Yochanan said there was once a case in Zippori in which four sisters had sons: The first sister circumcised her son and he died, the second sister circumcised her son and he died, the third sister circumcised her son and he died, and the fourth sister came to Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel and he told her ‘You must not circumcise your son.’”
Islam, the third Abrahamic religion, was founded in the early seventh century by Muhammad ibn Abdullah. Despite being the most recent major religion, it is the currently the largest circumcising culture in the world. The Quran, made up of Muhammad’s divine revelations, says nothing about circumcision. Only in the Hadiths, his sayings, is it mentioned. It is also within the hadiths that circumcision is a practice for women as well (female circumcision meaning excision of the clitoral hood, defined today by the WHO as type Ia FGM). In the most widely accepted tradition, he is supposed to have taught that "circumcision is a sunnah (ordinance) for men and a makrumah (honorable) for women. Although the Muslim code of religious law (shariah) recommends performance of circumcision at the age of seven days, this is seldom followed. Genesis 17 says that Abraham circumcised Ishmael, the putative ancestor of Arab peoples, at age thirteen, and this age is generally taken as the latest acceptable date (though it is still done later). Most Muslims circumcised young boys, with considerable age variation. Muhammad himself has two conflicting stories regarding his own circumcision. The first is that he was circumcised on his seventh day by his grandfather, Abd al-Muttalib. The second, later version is that he was born circumcised (aposthetic). This seems to be a reflection of the rabbi’s retroactive edits that the Jewish patriarchs were born circumcised (and, by extension, perfect). Circumcision at the time was a common practice in the Arabian peninsula by both Jews and pagans (pagans practiced on boys and girls), so including the practice into the new religion would not be a difficult feat. Differing accounts within the Hadiths sometimes include circumcision, and other times do not.
“Five things are fitra [acts considered to be of a refined person]: circumcision, shaving pubic hair with a razor, trimming the mustache, paring one’s nails, and plucking the hair from one’s armpits.”
[Abu Hurayra, one of the companions of Muhammad]
“Ten are the acts according to fitra: clipping the mustache, letting the beard grow, using toothpicks, snuffing water in the nose, cutting the nails, washing the finger joints, plucking the hair under the armpits, shaving the pubic hair, and cleaning one’s private parts with water. The narrator said: I have forgotten the tenth, but it may have been rinsing the mouth.”
[Aisha, one of Muhammad’s wives. The Book of Purification.] While the scriptural evidence in support of female circumcision is weak, it is still heavily practiced in Islamic and Islamic adjacent countries to this day. For those who follow the practice, hadiths can be found to support their beliefs:
“A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet said to her: ‘Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.’”
[Sunan Abu Dawood] During the rise of Islam and it’s spread, the act of circumcision rose and spread with it. While female circumcision was inconsistent, male circumcision was prominent and undoubtedly considered mandatory by early Muslims. The myth that circumcision was implemented by the ancient Hebrews for environmental or hygienic purposes follows the origins of Islamic circumcision as well. And just like it’s ancient predecessor, these claims are easily debunked. There are no mentions of hygiene or sand being problematic at the time. Bathing is mentioned so frequently it could not be considered a rare occasion for people of the era. Circumcision is only mentioned in regards to submission of oneself to Allah and to follow the way of the prophet Muhammad. There are some arguments to be made that circumcision is not prescribed by the Quran. The prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) is not circumcised in the Qur'an, or if he is, no mention of it is ever made in the 67 times that his name is written. A covenant sealed with circumcision, as it is described in the Bible, is also never mentioned. Some quotes even seem to speak directly against the practice
Brazilian Nukes fall on Libya as chaos erupts in North Africa and the Maghreb.
May 20, 2051 WRITTEN BY Anthony H. Cordesman Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy "Two paths diverged in an Arabian land, And sorry I could not travel both."
-Clive Hamilton
The Night of Blood December 28th, 2050 (17:11)
On the evening of the 28th, the United Arab Republic and it's amassed armies which had remained in a stand-off against a Tunisian Loyalist Faction of the Army would finally make its move. UAR soldiers having received their marching orders, would with significant equipment and numerical advantage - move to surround the various factions of Tunisian army personnel. Demanding "total surrender" of what was being called "disloyal" forces, the UAR would be met with gunfire in response. The opening exchanges across Tunisia would light up the night sky as the extremely close-quartered nature of the combat began to evolve. It was the UAR's original plan, to create security cordons around the bases in question, Tunisian commanders - unwilling to be surrounded without a fight would meet UAR forces head-on. Beginning the Night of Blood, as it has been named in Tunisia. While battle-hardened, the UAR troops ultimately found themselves facing off against a group that they had left with no other options. And as such the fighting was fierce, brutal, and overwhelming. In what has been called the "Night of Blood", casualties would begin to amass on both sides as the UAR struggled to mobilize its large quantities of armored vehicles into what was effectively, extremely dense areas of fighting. The UAR forces hearing word across their extensive surveillance and intelligence networks throughout Tunisia, that some previously assumed UAR-loyalist soldiers which had remained off their respective bases had begun to mobilize, quickly began to mount further pressure on UAR commanding officers. Attacks by these previously unaccounted for soldiers quickly became more violent and effective as UAR administration, communication, and back-line logistics found themselves under consistently growing pressure. And with their advance against the Tunisian Army becoming bogged down due to the close-quarter fighting, UAR commanding officers, aware of the mounting casualties, chose the Russian Option. At roughly 19:34 on December the 28th, forward-placed Jobaria-II MLRS systems, previously used to threaten the Tunisian Loyalist Army, opened fire alongside further targeted artillery strikes on the bases still putting forward a defense. The Tunisian Army without any true air defense systems, found themselves slaughtered like fish in a barrel. However as UAR forces entered the now destroyed bases, they expected the dust to have settled. Little did they know, that assumption couldn't have been further from the truth.
The Assault on Fortress Algiers December 28th, 2051 (22:03)
Looking back, geopolitical experts had expected tensions to continue rising between the two spatting P6 members - a spreading of "proverbial wings" in both cases, as boundaries got tested between would-be great powers. However, what geopolitical experts failed to expect was a complete first-strike and assault by the UAR against the nation of Algeria and ultimately, against Brazil. While Brazilian forces had arrived and established themselves in bases, the initial response by the UAR to simply "prepare for a potential Algerian attack while issuing stern warnings, was expected to be the climax of tensions. However, whether it was due to inexperience among the lower ranks of the UAR command structure which has continued to expand as new nations have joined - or panic among the upper-echelons, one thing became clear - the UAR had been the one to strike first. Despite the ongoing ground combat in Tunisia, the UAR would send its eclectic collection of modern and antiquated fighters alike to strike at the heart of Algeria. UAR commanders meanwhile are reported as having been "supremely confident" in the lead-up to the strikes, trusting in "total numerical superiority" as their fighters crossed the border between Libya and Tunisia and then into Algeria. However, leaked documents would later give insight into a Supreme Command system not becoming of a true Great Power. Documents from within the UAR command network - had revealed that the original plans had assumed Brazilian planes and equipment had either just landed, or that the UAR maintained some ability to still intercept said aircraft in transit. Furthermore, UAR intelligence had disregarded the possibility that their actions to heavily militarize the Algerian border would have been noticed by Brazilian and Algerian military radars and intel - causing Algeria to launch its patrol-sorties over its air space and have its air-defense pre-activated. These oversights would cause perhaps the greatest UAR air-defeat in history, coming to resemble the Six-Day War. As several hundred UAR fighter pilots flew over the Tunisian Skies expecting an unprepared foe to await them in Algeria, they instead found themselves almost immediately engaged by Algeria's aging yet functional fleet of Mig-29s and Su-30MKAs. Little did the UAR know at the time, but Brazilian air-defense radars and systems had long been activated and established providing a clear forward-warning to the patrolling Algerian aircraft. What ensued was a chaotic first engagement over the Tunisia-Algerian border, as UAR air-defense systems not previously expecting a serious air-engagement began to rapidly activate in Tunisia despite having been hampered merely hours ago by insurgent forces. While initial casualties sustained by Algeria would be high, the tables began to turn as the UAR pushed further into Algerian controlled air space. The mission, no longer defined by what the UAR High Command had considered "clear-cut targets", quickly devolved as the UAR's aging yet numerous fleets of F-15E Strike Eagles and original Delta Dart I begin taking the brunt of UAR losses. The UAR which found themselves striking opposition that had a significant home-field advantage was forced to fight for every inch of Algerian air space. Initial casualty estimations streaming through UAR command networks had reportedly placed total air-casualties at nearly 108 total lost manned aircraft during the opening engagements as older Algerian aircraft and a network of layered air-defense operated by Brazil (some veterans of the Alkebulan War) ate away at the UAR's numerical advantage. However while the aging Strike Eagles and Delta Dart I's had led the initial strikes, heavily armed Delta Dart II's in increasing quantities began their missions as the Algerian air force supported by Brazil's now defending F-35A Mk7s from Ain Oussera and various wingman UCAVs were kept busy by the UAR's still large fleets of dated aircraft. The first UAR strikes would reach Ain Oussera which had put up a brave defense, yet despite valiant acts by Brazilian air-defense operators, the base itself would be struck by a series of attacks from Delta Dart IIs and the JH-9 Fighter Bomber. And while many of the successful JH-9s found themselves shot down on their return trips. It would later be revealed that the JH-9s had been shot-down by other UAR delta-darts when the JH-9s of Chinese origin had attempted to send communications to nearby Delta Dart IIs for escort back to the UAR, with the Delta Darts assuming they had just come under attack. The successful strike on Ain Oussera would still nonetheless be the first sign that the playing field was beginning to balance out. While it wouldn't be until after the dust had settled, Brazilian command was shocked to hear that inspections of the Ain Oussera facilities had verified an earlier suspicion. The UAR had targeted Brazilian air-defense launchers, but had neglected to prioritize radar systems. And so, when Brazilian officers re-entered the ruins of Ain Oussera, a resounding laughter could be heard as several Brazilian radar systems where found to be operational while the nearby launchers had been destroyed. Nonetheless, despite the UAR's clear numerical advantage, the casualties on the UAR's side had "leveled-out" the air war as opening engagements and Brazilian-led counter-attacks came to an end and a stalemate of continued smaller skirmishes began being fought over Algeria and Tunisia. While the UAR began preparing a larger force of primarily Delta Darts which had remained in air-bases across Northern Libya, the Brazilians began repositioning and resupplying their fatiguing air-men. Yet Brazilian military commanders were still acutely aware that should another air-assault by the UAR of the prior magnitude be launched - the dwindling Algerian and Brazilian air forces would be unable to hold. And with the air-base at Ain Oussera having been destroyed, Brazil was left to rely on pre-planned reinforcements. At the same time, military experts would look back and note a critical mistake, the UAR had failed to notify its sole ally in the region the Imperium of Laurentia, until the end of the opening engagements. With the Imperium engaged in Korea and Alkebulan alike, the lack of communication from the UAR would mean that Laurentia would be unable to muster any significant assistance - promising satellite support when possible, but that for the time being that support would be the end of it.
The Stand of Wath December 29th, 2051 (04:03)
Understanding their significant numerical disadvantage, Brazilian Supreme Command was quick to call upon reinforcements from Angola even before the fall of the defenses at Ain Oussera. And by no later than 04:03 of the 29th, the first wave of F-37 and F-30X B4 passed the point of no return entering Chadian air-space nearly uncontested due to Alkebulan's own destroyed air force. Brazilian fighters were quick to come upon what appeared to be a stray UAR E-3 flying patrols along the Libya-Chad border, a perfect opening target that fell directly into what Brazilian command had laid out in the priority matrix. However, appearances can be deceiving and as a Brazilian F-37 moved to enter into stand-off range, the UAR Military Base of Wath opened fire, destroying the Brazilian F-37 and its accompanying MQ-350. The heavily defended Wath Base would activate all defenses as UAR Delta Darts II having resupplied in Egyptian bases due to overcrowding in Libya would stream in from the East. Soon Brazil found itself fighting a not so dissimilar battle that the UAR had just fought prior, as their numbers began to dwindle having already been stretched to the upper-ranges of combat operations and now being pressured by relatively modern Delta Darts II and aging yet functional air defense systems. Brazilian sortie-rates from Angola would only continue to plummet as aircraft where forced to make the long-trek back to bases in Angola. Brazilian military command would later come under heavy criticism for opting to force modern and numerically superior aircraft to return to Angola for resupply, forcing them to make lengthy return trips over Akebulan airspace and stretching the limits of Brazilian logistics and aerial refueling. Wath Base would prove to be a significant obstacle for the Brazilian sorties, as the base itself, situated in a central position along the Chad-Libyan border allows for coverage of a significant area, forcing a confrontation regardless of Brazilian desires. And with losses mounting in the Northern combat-zones and southern reinforcements proving untenable, Brazil would be forced to rush forward it's final warning.
Line in the Sand December 29th, 2051 (06:34)
With UAR and Brazilian naval assets now in-position, staring each other down from across opposite ends of the Gibraltar Strait, two lone F-37s having taken a longer route through Niger after refueling with air tankers being increasingly pushed further South, would draw Brazil's line in the sand. And in a matter of moments, the entire Algerian-Tunisian air war would come to a standstill as two nuclear explosions were recorded east of Sabha in the open desert. Two warning shots were made clear from Brasilia. At the same time, a lone MTB-135 ICBM armed with a nuclear warhead was launched - although was intercepted before reaching its target, the Arabian sea. Brazil had made clear its resolve, its line in the sand. The Brazilian nuclear strike despite clearly targeting areas that would result in no loss of life, still sent shockwaves through the UAR high command as officers began to freeze - having never faced such a scenario. The UAR which had never maintained a public or otherwise credible nuclear escalation policy had found itself frozen - unsure of how to respond. Brazil meanwhile, sat nervously, awaiting a response from the Imperium of Laurentia - who they had just reached out to encourage a cease-fire and negotiations. Brazil had hedged its bets, hoping that the Imperium would not retaliate despite existing defense ties with the UAR. Ultimately, however, it wouldn't be the Imperium of Laurentia which ensured no further fighting would occur.
Two paths diverged in Arabian Lands December 29th, 2051 (09:00)
Brazilian High Command would find itself shocked when at exactly 9 AM on the 29th, the UAR regional command in Libya would send a request for a cease-fire while elements of the UAR high-command could be seen on live-state television announcing plans for a continued assault. These conflicting messages, a continuation from the night prior - would leave Brasilia in a state of confusion as numerical superiority clearly laid in the hands of the UAR. This was especially the case now that the full might of the quantity-heavy UAR navy had been brought to bare in the Mediterranean. However moments later Brasilia would face a tsunami of local reporting and social media activity from within the UAR. Protests had erupted throughout the Arab nation and the broader region. And while Brasilia still must determine if the local-ceasefire holds legitimacy or is itself a ruse, the wave of local reporting would point in a clear direction. Flipping through a variety of sources, both on international news media and social media from the locations themselves, the gravity of the situation soon began to manifest itself. For Brazil, it was a welcome sight. However, in the UAR - it was anything but. Protestors outside the UAR Embassy in Algeria had stormed the building and while the Ambassador had fled some hours ago, the broadcasts throughout Algeria showed only the burning Embassy, the UAR flag turning to ash on live television. In Tunisia, similar protests had erupted as the violence of the Night of Blood came to light, mothers, sisters, brothers, and fathers took to the streets - protesting what they considered a "wholesale massacre" of Tunisian soldiers who had only been doing what they believed to be right. Video footage of the Jobaria-II systems being fired and hitting their targets, along with the subsequent violent imagery was bombarded across Tunisian social media platforms. The public opinion was shifting, and shifting dramatically. In Libya and the Arabian Gulf States, similar protests against the war with Brazil took form, although being largely peaceful rallying, the message was still clear. The UAR, a nation who's governmental policy over the past several decades has been one of "Arab Unity, brotherhood, and democracy" had done the unthinkable. They had launched first-strike attacks tantamount to an air invasion of Algeria - simply because Algeria had been hosting Brazil as part of what an official statement called "military exercises." This action only compounded what was an existing 30-40% of the Algerian population which upheld an ideology of Algerian Independence, further the population of Algeria which had been initially supportive of the UAR's non-violence approach quickly found themselves switching sides as the UAR launched what they saw as an unprovoked attack on the Algerian people. At the same time, the UAR had in the eyes of the Tunisian public and international media - slaughtered out-gunned opposition, trapped in Tunisian bases. And despite what the confirmed casualty reports would showcase, there was nothing the UAR could do to combat the massed wave of reporting. The UAR which had brought into union nearly the entire Arab world through peace and democracy, had by attacking Algeria outright - finally allowed the mask to slip. However, the end-result was not as clear-cut as political experts had expected. Throughout the UAR, a divide in opinions exists, as large populations throughout the UAR (regardless of home-territory) support what they see as "a necessary transformation" of UAR policy as the country squares off against "subversive foreign elements". While at the same time, large groups (primarily in Tunisia and Libya - and among some* of the gulf states) have disavowed what they see as a "fundamental breaking" of UAR policy and Arab brotherhood. This would only be further reinforced when part of a transcript of a conversation between the Imperial Foreign Minister of Laurentia and the President of the UAR began making waves online. "The UAR has come upon its crossroads of destiny. A choice will need to be made, and consequences should be expected as a result. But to continue ignoring the issue at hand, would by our estimates - be unwise." ~ Imperial Foreign Minister of Laurentia (Paulette Jordan) Many have likened the UAR's attack on Algeria - to the Laurentian invasion of New Zealand, drawing parallels between Laurentia which have openly embraced its foreign policy of Socially Just Imperialism and the UAR who has - until now refrained from "aggressive action". And while Brazilian "geopolitical experts" have remained hyper-critical of the UAR on Twitter, it is not just the UAR who has faced backlash.
False Legitimacy December 29th, 2051 (10:00)
The UAR is not alone in backlash, Brazil has ultimately faced increasing scrutiny internationally as they once again wield the power of the Atom. Most critics point out "Brazil's trigger finger" and a perceived "light attitude" towards WMDs - surpassing even the Imperium of Laurentia. Vocal critics have also pointed out that Brazil's use of nuclear weapons in defending a nation with which they had no ties until just recently, lends continued legitimacy to China's errant use of nuclear weapons. Furthermore, it is seen as a direct erosion of International Law and the United Nations. While Brazil had championed itself as a rebuilder of the international system following its rise as a P6 member, its actions have ultimately served only to erode this public persona. And while a line has been drawn in the sand, it is unknown ultimately whether the UAR will respect such an ultimatum - given their continued numerical superiority. What is clear, however, is that the battle cries will echo across the Maghreb for decades to come.
Algerian populace does not support the UAR given the outright air invasion.
Tunisia population is rapidly turning against the UAR, this can be managed.
Libya population is extremely nervous and while support hasn't ceased - there is hesitance among the population.
Smaller protests throughout UAR either in favor of policy transformation or against.
The UAR will need to handle the ongoing crisis revolving around their contradictory foreign policy. Naïve ideas on "Democracy Building" has led to an invasion of Algeria under the belief of "public support will exist". Instead the result is a violent war.
There are parallels being drawn between Laurentia's transformation - and the UAR's current predicament.
UAR ultimately continues to have a numerical advantage, and a proximity advantage. Further strikes against the under-supplied Brazil could prove fatal. However, despite maintaining a larger air force in theatre, the UAR air force's rival regional commands and their hardware's lack of interoperability will severely limit it's ability to operate at full strength, with continued attacks potentially having unforeseen consequences.
For Brazil
International criticism is being provided over Brazil's use of nuclear weapons.
Force degradation has greatly reduced Brazil's ability to defend Algeria - reliant on the ongoing fractures in the UAR's westernmost provinces.
International criticism over Brazil as a P6 member, "eroding international systems" through the use of nukes.
This will not significantly hamper future interactions.
Popular support in Algeria - now in favor of Brazil.
Relevant to both parties
Laurentia - while pinged, did not have time to "respond" or become active in the conflict from a chronological standpoint.
CASUALTIES BRAZILIAN LOSSES
Ain Oussera Deployment
Air Defense: All
Aircraft: 35% Attrition
Aguenar - Hadj Deployment
Air Defenses: 10%
Aircraft: 25% Attrition
Pointe Noire (RoC) Deployment
Aircraft: 39% Attrition
Luanda (Angola) Deployment
Aircraft: 31% Attrition
Menongue Deployment
Aircraft: 21% Attrition
Follow On: Luanda
Aircraft: 10% Attrition
ALGERIAN LOSSES
Air Defense: All
Su-30MKA: 63
Mig-29: 31
UAR LOSSES
Tunisia Ground Deployment
Infantry: 32,000 (out of 250,000)
Vehicle Attrition: 25%
Air Defenses: 39% Attrition in Tunisia/Libya
Tunisia/Libya Air Deployments
Aircraft: 50% Attrition (largely F-15s, Chinese equipment, First gen delta darts, E-3s)
TUNISIA LOSSES
Tunisia Infantry: 70,000 (20-40% from the strikes)
The structural/moral problem of Economics and Ahmadiyya Islam
“It should be remembered that some of the defects that are associated with economic competition are rooted in certain selfish streaks in human nature. For example, a person may set his heart upon accumulation of wealth, and this passion may shut his eyes to the suffering caused by hunger, want and penury. His sole wish may be to accumulate maximum amount of wealth. Selfishness and indifference to tyranny and oppression are the result of certain incentives, which are mentioned in the Holy Quran...” [1]
The passage quoted above shows that Mirza Basheeruddin, like any sane human, understood that the competitive, self-interest based economic system we exist in causes systemic and structural problems. It hints at the very possibility that human nature may be deeply affected by it. I plan to review the booklet I extracted it from, “The Economic System of Islam” [2]. It is part of my pursuit to discover whether religion provides a comprehensive and robust solution to the economic woes of mankind. My quest for economic justice took me from the Quran to Hadeeths and Ahmadiyya literature, but none of it has satiated that thirst. What bothered me even more was that religion often spoke against economic injustice, yet thousands of years of religious training have caused little difference to economic injustice or attitudes towards material possessions in religious societies. As I thought over this condition, I realized that the disease is systemic. Academic research in the field is at a fledgling level, but it has already gone beyond the simplistic suggestions laid out by religion. This is a brief attempt at unpacking the moral dilemma with the prevalent economic system and the inadequacy of the solution proposed by the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. I remain interested in engaging on the topic as long as the conversation is intelligent and insightful. The flow of this post is such: First I shall describe the relationship between economics and ethics. I’ll move on to what has been wrong with the way human beings have conducted their economic transactions throughout history. In the final sections, I shall discuss Mirza BasheerudDin Mahmood Ahmed’s proposed Islamic solutions in his booklet “The Economic System of Islam” and their inadequacy. Ethics and Economics Boulding [3] said:
“Adam Smith, who has strong claim to being both the Adam and the Smith of systematic economics, was a professor of moral philosophy and it was at that forge that economics was made. Even when I was a student, economics was still part of the moral sciences tripos at Cambridge University. It can claim to be a moral science, therefore, from its origin, if for no other reason” [p1]
The study of economics began as an attempt to understand exchange transactions in search for fairness. Even in the Muqaddama by Ibne Khaldun [4], much before Adam Smith, we can find a discussion on economics from both an inductive scientific approach and a concerned ethical viewpoint. This is why economists often turn towards religion to obtain some fruitful solution to end their dilemmas. However, as we shall see in this discussion, religion has not been a fruitful avenue to eradicate economic problems. The Ethical Dilemma of Prevalent Economic Transactions The prevalent manner of conducting economic transactions globally is through the market. Buyers and sellers are supposed to meet and agree upon an exchange value for a good or service. Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations describes the principle of survival and prosperity in this system as "uniform, constant, and uninterrupted effort of every man to better his condition"[WN II.iii.31]. This means that the buyer and the seller in the market would both attempt to maximize their exchange value while minimizing the cost at which they can attain it. Once the buyer reaches a maximum possible exchange value [for example, maximum desired quantity of a good at a low price], the buyer would complete their transaction and move on. Similarly when the supplier reaches maximum possible profit, they will wrap up for the day. This seems like a reasonable, rational meeting with an optimal result. However the notions of “maximum possible” vary from market to market and various issues involving information asymmetry, moral hazard, etc are endemic to this structure. So the buyer’s objective of achieving maximum value at lowest possible cost gives rise to the possibility of a buyer surplus. Let’s call buyer surplus an unfair accumulation of wealth/value by buyers at the detriment of the supplier. This is very interesting with respect to a recent phenomena this year, where Canadian crude oil prices went negative[5]. This removes any doubt that buyers of Canadian crude oil purchasing the crude oil at negative prices would accumulate some extraordinary surplus wealth to the detriment of the crude oil producers. Clearly, this transaction seems harsh and unjust to the crude oil producers, but such is the way of the current economic system. Beyond this very obvious buyer surplus scenario, certain large buyers have enough negotiating power to twist the arms of producers into reducing prices or increasing quantities. This often happens in the Pakistan sugar market for example where sugarcane farmers deal with exploitative sugar mills. Since sugarcane can survive only so much time out in the sun before drying out and becoming useless, farmers often have to take whatever price they can get from the sugar mills. Similar occurrences can be observed in so many other economic transactions that an exhaustive list would be much beyond the scope of this post, if not impossible. While buyers sometimes accumulate buyer surplus, large suppliers/ producers/ corporations also accumulate massive amounts of surplus wealth in their transactions. Individual consumers are less aware of the total cost incurred to produce most items. The producer is also usually free to set their own price, as should be in a free market. The trade off for the producer is that the volume of demand may decrease depending on price increase, but this problem is less prevalent with consumer goods that are deemed essential and with consumer groups that have little to no bargaining power. This can be illustrated with the price surges for life-saving personal protective equipment in the on-going corona virus pandemic [6]. However, even if one looks at consumer goods in a supermarket, the typical buyer has no option to bargain or negotiate the price of the goods they are purchasing. It is the producer’s prerogative to demand whatever price they wish for the products they produce, and the buyer’s prerogative to not purchase said product, such is the nature of all market transactions. Market transactions are based on negotiating power. Negotiating power in turn depends on market conditions, market structure and the importance of said transaction to the buyer or seller. Those who have more bargaining power end up with more surplus and wealth accumulation. Economic literature has discussed market structure problems at length. For example problems arising from competition concerns like Monopolies, Oligopolies, etc are extensively covered. Policy measures emphasized in academic literature include the role of governments to monitor and foster competition in industry. The literature realizes that the economic system itself cannot fight back monopolies or oligopolies because of the inherent nature of incentivizing surplus accumulation. Hence, external forces are required to repair faults in the system. Market based economic systems ends in injustice through selfish pursuit of surplus value/wealth. Can it be overcome by good intentions? Definitely not. Consumers who are willing to give up their surplus in favor of producers end up beggars and producers who are willing to give up their surplus in favor of consumers end up bankrupt. One cannot be an infinitely benevolent being, or benevolent being at all in this system without disincentive. One has to accumulate surplus in order to obtain any savings at all, or to be charitable. Living a life of luxury or comfort without obtaining any surplus is an impossibility. There can be economic transactions where the consumer surplus is equal to the producer surplus, however, the economic system does not motivate this balance. It is the hope of the economists that such a balance happens somehow. Sometimes they hedge their bets on the trickle down of surplus, sometimes on government intervention. What is clear on all ends is that the system is broken and a reliable, consistent and self-sustaining fix is so far beyond our reach. The prosperity and even the survival of human beings in this economic system requires acts of heartless selfish pursuit. Every person for themselves. Now that we are clear on the dilemma and conflict in the economic arena, let’s focus on what religion, Ahmadiyyat in particular, has to offer us. Ahmadiyya Economic system For no reason other than convenience, I shall be quoting passages directly if I find some argument interesting and mentioning headings where I wish to attack the entire concept. As mentioned before it is all from the 2nd Caliph of Ahmadiyya’s lecture converted into a booklet. I could not find any other authoritative text on Ahmadiyya Economics. At times I compare the assumptions of the 2nd Caliph of Ahmadiyya with empirical economics literature such as an extensive review study by Basedau, Gobien and Prediger in 2018 was published in the Journal of Economic Surveys which is a high ranked academic research journal.[7] Nature of Economic Agent in Ahmadiyya Economics Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood Ahmed, Second Caliph of Ahmadi Muslims, said in his booklet The Economic System of Islam:
“When a person is made responsible for a specific task, or is entrusted with something of value, he is answerable to the one who entrusted him with those responsibilities; but a person who regards himself free and unanswerable to anyone would be inclined to do whatever he pleases. This verse of the Holy Quran is a reminder that all worldly governments, kingdoms and powers are under God’s command and are granted to human beings only as a trust. Man must not consider himself unaccountable just because he has the power and ownership of material wealth that he is given in this world. He may appear to have authority and ownership on the surface, but in truth he is only holding a trust from God. Human beings are answerable before God that they rightfully discharged the trust that was reposed in them.”[8]
This passage starts with the assumption that humanity is inherently bad, that perhaps the natural state of being for people is to lie, cheat, steal, etcetera. Supervision is alluded to as a possible suppressor of dishonesty, however, we know that no matter how many bosses or accountability commissions are made they are unable to eliminate corruption completely. This is in contrast with the argument that human beings are inherently good, but have to adapt dishonesty, corruption etcetera because the economic system they survive in incentivizes such practices. Basedau et al. [7] found no study conducted on atheism compared to religion, but in comparison between religions Protestant and Asian ethno-religions fared well with regards to corruption. Catholicism, Islam etcetera correlated with higher corruption levels. I’ll try to skip the rest of faith correlating with economic practices for the sake of brevity. Readers can confer with Basedau et al. [7] or any other academic review of the topic for scientific facts. One interesting finding from Basedau et al. [7]’s review of numerous studies is that high prevalence of religion in a society correlates with high income inequality. The review presents various causes for this as well. Types of Economies Mirza BasheerudDin Mahmood Ahmed moves onto a description of types of economic systems in his opinion:
“These are the three basic economic systems that exist in the world today. The first system is not bound by any definite laws or rules; the second system is nationalistic in its approach, while the third is driven by individualism.” [9]
This goes on to “As I have already mentioned, Islam does not recognize a system that is not based on law. Instead, Islam presents a path that is a combination of the other two systems (nationalistic and individualistic).” [10] So Mirza Basheerud Din rejects the first type that he stylized, and proposes Ahmadiyya economics based on the remaining 2 types of economic systems. Role of Charity
“We are thus taught that if we are holding some unfortunate people, whom the vicissitudes of life had deprived them of the power to stand on their own feet, they should be given the benefit of a portion of our resources, which really belong to God and in which every creature of God holds a share… Firstly, according to Islam, the world’s wealth belongs to all mankind. Secondly, the real master of all wealth is only God Almighty. Man is therefore not free to dispose of his wealth in any way he deems fit; what he can do is circumscribed by God’s prescribed limits.” [11]
“Everyone should collectively work to improve the nation’s well-being and support each other in that effort. The next stage is that, despite all the good works, they are still left feeling that nothing has been done. And in that spirit, they must continue to remind one’s fellow beings the importance of helping and caring for the weak and the poor and continue such exhortations up to the last breath of their lives.”[12]
This is in reference with the system of Zakat and alms. It does not provide a coherent mechanism to attack prevalent economic exchanges in any practical manner as I discuss later. Exploitation of Slaves
“Role Played by Slave Labour in World Economy”[13]
There are parts of this section that I wholeheartedly agree with. Yes, exploitation of slaves has been a competitive advantage for the economies who employed slave labor. This can simply be explained as a surplus where the slave owner had all the negotiating power and the slave had little to no negotiating power. Hence, the slave owner was able to get away with most of the surplus, most of the time. I am skipping over the discussion on enslaving prisoners of wars because that seems counterproductive to the main thesis of my concerns. Hence, I do not agree with enslaving prisoners of wars, but that’s a discussion for another day. An outline of the economic system
“The Islamic Economic System… Upholding Individual Enterprise… Voluntary Efforts to Rectify Inequities… Wealth Created by God for the Benefit of All… Balance Between Individual Freedom and State Intervention” [14]
This part outlines the vision of an ideal Islamic economy by Mirza Basheerud Din. In no way does his vision radically rethink the exchange relationships between market participants. The survival of market participants remains deeply dependent on self-interest based surplus accumulation. Surplus accumulation that can be termed an immoral pursuit due to the inherent exploitative aspects of it. The reader may say that he is suggesting voluntary efforts as a balance between individual freedom and state intervention. This is entirely inadequate. The problem is not the amount of donations. The fact that charitable donations have to be made in the first place shows that someone in a better negotiating position was able to deny someone else fair compensation. The entire charitable pursuit, in this way, causes moral dilemmas, while Mirza Basheerud Din wishes to fix the system in this manner. Measures for wealth redistribution
“It is clear that a person who follows the Islamic teachings would shun above motivations. Any wealth that he might accumulate would be devoted to noble causes that help to bridge the gulf between the rich and the poor, instead of widening it. Such a person has little reason to covet wealth for selfish ends. A man’s desire to earn money arises out of basically three impulses. 1) To meet his own legitimate needs; 2) Beyond meeting the personal needs, he might desire money with a view to helping mankind and earning God’s pleasure; or 3) He might seek money to fulfil vain desires described above i.e., personal pleasure, self-indulgence, pride or plain greed. It goes without saying that only persons driven by the third impulse would stoop to unfair and foul means, and would exploit others. This situation would be avoided if the first two reasons for earning money were dominant. Anyone who earns just enough to satisfy his own needs or who spends the excess wealth for helping others and other good deeds would not hurt other Individuals or his nation in general.” [15]
I had high hopes from this section given the title. However, there are a few key problems with this passage. Religion has seldom made much of a difference in this. The Ahmadiyya Jamaat, for example, does not dedicate all it’s funds to bridge the gulf between the rich and the poor. If we suppose that the Ahmadis were to use all their funds to gulf this divide, even then it is impossible to do so. This reminds one of the story of Mansa Musa. Mansa Musa was a very rich King. He decided to perform pilgrimage to Makkah. On the way he distributed alms most generously. This had the opposite effect from what he probably intended as gold prices crashed in the region causing inflation of all other commodities [16]. On his way back from pilgrimage, Mansa Musa saw the plight of people due to his charity and tried to ameliorate the situation by attempting to borrow back the gold he had spent as alms. Nevertheless, the region continued to suffer for a decade. I am only using the case of Mansa Musa because it is so vivid. In a number of cases, charitable contribution can create more problems than it solves. Concept of Riba/Interest in Ahmadiyya
“Prohibition of Interest (Riba)… Islam adopts a rather broader definition of interest. According to the Islamic definition, certain transactions, which are generally not considered to fall within its purview, nevertheless fall within its domain and are therefore prohibited. Islam defines interest as any transaction where the profit is guaranteed. Therefore all trusts, [local monopolistic arrangements] which are set up to guarantee profit by destroying competition, are to be considered un-Islamic. For example, suppose fifteen or twenty large businesses in a country got together and formed a monopoly that fixed prices and restricted competition. Then a commodity that sells for (say) two rupees in a competitive market could sell at an artificial monopolistic price of (say) five rupees. Since everyone would be colluding to sell the commodity at five rupees, consumers would not be able to shop around for the best price and would have no choice but to pay the higher price.” [17]
Some of the transactions where profit is guaranteed, but are obviously overlooked by Mirza BasheerudDin because he is looking at interest as beneficial to rich people only, include salaries due for employees. Employees are not generally hired with a flexible profit contract. Even piece rate workers are guaranteed a revenue without material cost for finishing a piece. Lawyers are often given retainers. Land owners often obtain rent. Rental properties were not haram in Muhammad’s time, so it would be interesting to inquire Mirza BasheerudDin how he reached this unique definition of interest. This is perhaps the most radical aspect of his lecture, and yet it seems hurried. It is clear that he believes in a free market where bargaining is possible. What he seems to have missed out is that collusion can happen to protect weaker market participants from more powerful participants. Take labor unions for example, their purpose is to protect the weak laborer from the exploitative tendencies of large industries. However, according to Mirza BasheerudDin’s theory they would be doing haram by raising and fixing the price of labor for the large industry. In the initial part of the passage Mirza BasheerudDin mentioned:
“If one were to examine the list of the world’s richest men, it would be found that it was made up of mostly people who owe their rise to interest. They start with a small amount of capital but soon establish a reputation of creditworthiness, which allows them to leverage their small personal capital many times over via bank borrowing and overdrafts, thereby becoming super-rich in just a few years.”[17]
This is most interesting because Islam does not forbid debt. If the Islamic debt system of Qarz-e-Hasana was used by a person of means, or some sort of crowdfunded qarz-e-hasana was employed, one could get away with massive growth while paying no interest on it. Similarly, ability to obtain properties and equipment on lease/rent acts in a similar fashion to what Mirza BasheerudDin mentions about interest. However, we do not see him denouncing any of that. Inheritence as wealth redistribution “Islamic Law of Inheritance”[18] Somehow Mirza BasheerudDin thinks that the Islamic method of distribution of inheritance leads to more equitable wealth distribution. His arguments here do not make any sense to me. If a person has only one child [as family sizes in more developed and economically prosperous nations are getting lower], how does Islamic Law of inheritance help wealth redistribution? Perhaps he has the idea of more than 5 children per family that used to be the case in the subcontinent a century ago. Even though the argument doesn’t appeal to reason, it is better to provide evidence as well. So while Mirza BasheerudDin says:
“The reason for the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few rich people in Europe and the United States is that, under the British law, the eldest son can inherit the entire property, and in the United States, a person may pass on his entire wealth to just a single son. Thus, other children, parents, brothers and sisters, or the spouse may be left with nothing.”
We have the example of the Rockefeller family that didn’t deny their estate to any offspring. They are united and super rich now in their seventh generation [23]. Governments should pay clergy
“Responsibilities of the Government… Therefore, dhil-qurba refers to people dedicated to the service of religion and according to Islam this class of people has a definite claim on the State’s resources.”[19]
It is obvious from here that Mirza BasheerudDin wants countries to support his cause, but what’s the economic benefit of it? The passage is silent on that. Zakat
“Islam introduced the system of zakat, which is a 2.5% annual tax on wealth that is held in the form of gold, silver, currency or other assets for a period of more than a year. The proceeds of this tax are used to promote welfare of the poor.”[18]
mood “The UAR shall not stand idly as the Zionist entity slaughters our people, destroys our sacred sites, and tramples upon our honor. The UAR has launched a strike on the Zionist menace to punish them for desacrating the sanctity of the holy city. Jerusalem is to be free and open to people of all faiths. We can no longer tolerate fascism in the region. The last vestige of colonialism in the Middle East shall soon be eradicated. Let it be known that the UAR will fight for what is right, and we will do what we must to liberate Palestine once and for all. Israel will immediately withdraw from the occupied territories, and the lands will be restored to their rightful owners. Be warned, for our use of nuclear weapons was limited, and intended to reduce the blood shed by this war. We do not aim to eradicate the Jewish people, who are innocent bystanders born into fascist rule, but we seek to eradicate the power structures which have led to the oppression and subjugation of an entire nation, culminating in a direct attack and insult on both Arabs and Muslims across the world. Should we not act quickly, St. James’s Cathedral, and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre would be next. Be warned, we will no longer tolerate such behaviour, and while we do not wish to harm civilians, we warn Israel that any nuclear retaliation would be grounds for a ten-fold response. The Falcon has awakened, and now soars with the Phoenix.” - Prime Minister Al-Zaidi, hours after the initial attack The UAR, already in a state of high alert, and already mobilized due to the previous Iranian war, can afford to quickly mobilize its troops and move forward, providing it with a decisive advantage over its Israeli counterparts. The “military exercise” was but a ruse, and the UAR now seeks to liberate Palestine and establish a one-state binational solution by force, ending the Israeli occupation of lands stolen almost 90 years ago. The destruction of Al-Aqsa and the planned “temple” has galvanized public opinion to a point where most muslims would consider joining the fight against Israel. It will thus be easy to recruit additional auxiliary units both from Palestine and from the Islamic world as a whole. As plans enacted by Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, and the UAR, come to fruition, one statement is becoming a reality, Jerusalem will be freed!
Opening Phase - Operation Hotamah
Woe to every backbiter, slanderer, Who amasses wealth and counts it over and over. He imagines that his wealth will make him immortal. Nay! he shall surely be cast into the "hotamah". And what should make thee know what the "hotamah" is? Allah's fire as preserved fuel, Which will leap suddenly on to the hearts. It is locked up in outstretched pillars to be used against them. 1 - Quran 104-2
The Land-Based Missiles With troops deployed in Jordan, and on the Zionist-UAR border, the UAR is poised to make a surprise first strike on the enemy’s most prized possession. Their nuclear weapons. Israeli nuclear weapons are located mainly in one site, warehouses near Sdot Micha. While they may be potentially rated against conventional airstrikes, they would be unable to withstand a direct hit from a nuclear weapon, let alone a ground penetrating nuclear bunker buster. Israel’s other nuclear weapons are located on submarines that would presumably be located thanks to the UAR’s established hydrophone network in Lebanon.. Thus the main objective would be to overwhelm the enemy’s air defenses. This will involve 5 different sources and directions forcing them to defend territory in 360 degrees in addition to a suter attack by EC-130 ELINT to paint the false picture of a clear sky prior to the attack:
Utilizing the wide array of missiles inherited from the Hezbollah militia numbering in the 100-150,000, 75,000 missiles will be fired at various bases around Israel, with 20,000 targeting the nuclear facility at Sdot Micha from Lebanon and Syria once the order is given. These missiles serve to distract the enemy air defenses that would frantically attempt to intercept all 75,000, distracting them from the real threat. This would nonetheless be particularly damaging, as noted by Israel’s own assessments that “Precision-guided missiles like those now in Hezbollah’s possession can also “paralyze the civilian and military infrastructures of entire countries, thus paving the way to their defeat in war,” This compares to 4,000 missiles fired in the 2006 war. Shorter range missiles will be fired at other cities to cripple/preoccupy the ADS on the approach
The UAR’s Ships in the Mediteranean sea, namely the Tomohawks onboard of the Arleigh Burkes and Ticonderogas will fire a salvo of 1,500 cruise missiles
Hamas, which boasts its own missile capabilities, will launch is own salvo of rockets from the west of roughly 7,500 missiles
UAR Troops in Jordan via TEL will launch 2,000 Qiam-1 SRBM missiles at the site
The coup de grace in this coordinated operation however will be air strikes at standoff range. Firing cruise missiles which were difficult to intercept, as noted in the Azanian surprise attack, a total of 5 INTIQAM-2TAA Air launched cruise missiles that are designed as 400kT nuclear bunker busters. These will be launched from the F-5C Delta Darts which would be difficult to detect by the IDF. The UAR would similarly be deploying an additional 100 F-15Es, which have a far higher radar signature that would also drop 200 JASSM munitions on the strike zone.
Between the 75,000 rockets (including precision munitions), Hamas’s missiles, 1,500 cruise missiles, 2,000 ballistic missiles, and 200 JASSMs, it is highly unlikely that the Israelis will manage to intercept specifically the 5 INTIQAM-2TAAs that would be dropped on the area. A few cruise missiles alone are hard to intercept if taken by surprise, let alone thousands. The fireball would likely vaporize the neighbouring moshav of Sdot Micha, as well as Sdot Micha Airbase. The largest settlement that would be affected by the detonation would be Bet Shemesh which would suffer from the shockwave. The Negev Nuclear Research Centre in Dimona would similarly be targeted as well. This would effectively render Israel nuke-less and unable to retaliate. Objective:
Fire a ridiculous amount of munitions from all directions, land, air, and sea, as well as use EW to facilitate the nuclear first strike on the Israeli nuclear arsenal in Sdot Micha, destroying it in its entirety through the use of 400kT bunker busters.
The Sub Hunt The UAR Hydrophone network should reveal the locations of the submarines in Israel’s control. The UAR will deploy its fleet of ASW aircraft and ships to hunt the subs that are located to prevent them from firing. This will occur simultaneously with the attack to bring the UAR’s sub hunters within range to destroy the Israeli submarines within minutes of the initial salvo firing, faster than the time it takes for the news of a nuclear strike to travel to the 5 isolated subs. Knowing vaguely where they are, ASW helicopters can be used to pinpoint their direct locations and thus allow them to be neutralized by torpedo fired either by helicopter, submarine, or surface the Sea Hunter Autonomous ASW ship designed specifically for this purpose. The limited range of fire of the enemy’s cruise missile systems used for nuclear weapons delivery dramatically reduce the search range. The following units will be deployed for this purpose: Sub Hunter Group 1: 3 Arleigh Burke Flight II Destroyer 3 Ticonderoga Class Cruisers 2 Sea Hunter Autonomous ASW Ship 1 Sea Fighter LCS 5 Silorsky ASW Helicopter 1 Los Angeles Class Submarine Sub Hunter Group 2: (First searches Tiran, then moves back to the Med.) 3 Arleigh Burke Flight II Destroyer 3 Ticonderoga Class Cruisers 2 Sea Hunter Autonomous ASW Ship 1 Sea Fighter LCS 5 Silorsky ASW Helicopter Sub Hunter Group 3: 3 Arleigh Burke Flight II Destroyer 3 Ticonderoga Class Cruisers 2 Sea Hunter Autonomous ASW Ship 1 Giuseppe Garibaldi-class ASW Carrier 15 AS332 Super Puma ASW Helicopter Sub Hunter Group 4: 3 Arleigh Burke Flight II Destroyer 3 Ticonderoga Class Cruisers 2 Sea Hunter Autonomous ASW Ship 1 Independence Class LCS 5 Silorsky ASW Helicopter Sub Hunter Group 5: 3 Arleigh Burke Flight II Destroyer 3 Ticonderoga Class Cruisers 2 Sea Hunter Autonomous ASW Ship 1 Independence Class LCS 5 Silorsky ASW Helicopter An additional 25 Sayeh Naval Drone (clone of ScanEagle), with ranges of up to 100 km, will be launched to help in the detection of enemy submarines. Objective:
Use naval intel obtained prior to the first strike to position in a way that the Israeli nuclear submarines in the mediteranean can be neutralized
Hotamah Phase II
After the nuclear strike which would end Israel’s nuclear arsenal, which would last in the order of minutes, followup strikes would be ordered on their airbases as a horde of UAR Aircraft begin dropping JASSM and SEAD munitions on Israeli air defense in the area, targeting aircraft believed to be nuclear capable while still on the ground. With UAR Air Defenses featuring quantum radar technologies obtained from China, and the UAR’s newest aircraft featuring advanced stealth suites and EW, it is hoped that the enemy’s air defenses would be promptly suppressed and enemy aircraft that do manage to take off shot down. Operating the Arrow 3 as an ABM, the David’s Sling as an air defense system, and the iron dome as an anti-rocket system, the Israelis have a decent air defense system… for the 2010s. Extensive use will be made of EW aircraft to scramble enemy defenses during the attack, as well as simply strength in numbers as the Israelis cannot hope to intercept the large barrage of missiles fired from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Gaza, the air, and the Mediterranean sea at the same time 5 F-16CJ ELINT will be used for this purpose in addition to the 2 EC-130 ELINT aircraft mentioned earlier. The UAR will also fire 20 conventional Mudafi’ missiles, designed to counter the Arrow III, the schematics for which were generously provided by our allies in Laurentia. Combined with further tomahawk strikes on airbases and air defenses, as well as mass JASSM strikes and artillery barrages where applicable, the airbases and the air defenses presumably deployed at the [following sites]()https://i.imgur.com/zJqN5y5.png will be destroyed, hopefully with much of the IAF as well. Emphasis will be placed on the early destruction of Nevatim Air base due to the presence of F-35s in that airbase. The UAR has deployed a total of 180 5th generation aircraft, aircraft that are more advanced than the F-35 which defeated the F-15 with 20:1 odds. With experience in Iran, the UAR’s capable fighters will attempt to destroy much of the Israeli Air Force while they're still on the ground following the first wave of coordinated SEAD strikes on enemy air defense systems. Israeli air bases will also be hit by a further salvo of 100 Tomahawk missiles each while the SEAD strikes are ongoing. Continued suppressive fire from Hezbollah and Hamas missiles will further augment the chances of the more sophisticated missiles hitting their mark. Fortifications in the Golan Heights as well as Lebanon and the West Bank of the Jordan river will be struck in subsequent strikes and neutralized. Aircraft deployed:
75 F-5C Delta Dart 5th gen++
80 F-31 Shenyang 5th gen
25 F-35 Block V 5th gen
150 Skyborg companion aircraft (for the 5th gens)
6 JH-9 Fighter-Bomber
75 F-15E Eagle 4th gen
50 Eurofighter Typhoon 4th gen
40 Panavia Tornado 4th gen
29 Mig-29 mainly for CAS once air superiority is reached
50 Mig-21 mainly for CAS once air superiority is reached
Once Phase 1 is complete and the Israeli air defense network is suppressed, the 580 aircraft deployed will assist with CAS operations and will bomb enemy supply lines. The above aircraft will be supported by the Turkish deployment of F-16s that would perform similar strike operations, as well as friendly B-21 bombers from friendly Laurentian bases. Objective:
Moments after the nuclear first strike which disabled the Israeli arsenal, further SEAD strikes and air force decapitation strikes will be ordered
Destroy the IAF while its on the ground, focusing on Nevatim AFB to eliminate the F-35s which pose the most threat
Eliminate the Israeli air defense network through the use of munitions specifically designed with Israel’s systems in mind, as well as numerical superiority with respect to the number of munitions fired.
Perform further strikes on airbases to neuter Israel’s air capabilities. This will be done with help from allies.
Once the air-bases are destroyed, use the aircraft for CAS support and naval support, neutralizing enemy fortifications
The UAR currently operates several satellites such as the Yaogan series which can be used to determine the bulk of Israel’s positions and bases prior to the attack. In the initial attack, the Jobaria MLRS systems will provide firepower to demolish much of Israel’s fortifications in the Golan heights, feigning an attack from the Syrian side. However, knowing that the Syrian side is the most fortified compared to the Lebanese side, the UAR’s main northern advance will come from Lebanon. The intention is to pin down as many Israeli troops in the Golan Heights as possible while sending troops pouring southwards towards a line established from Haifa to Tiberias. Cutting off the bulk of the Israeli troops that would eventually run out of supply, the offensive would hopefully see the Golan and much of the Galilee fall to the UAR. In the Golan Heights, extensive use of Nazir UGVs and Heydar Autonomous Swarm Vehicles will be used to combat minefields. Controlled from a distance, and with support from drones, the vehicles would be able to clear minefields with a minimal loss of life. The Jobaria strike, each of which fires 240 missiles per salvo, will assist in the destruction of minefields and defenses in the area. One Jobaria is said to cover an area of 4 km2, 8 would cover far more. The Golan contingent will represent 2/5ths of the total force, with 3/5ths being deployed to Lebanon. The UNFIL will kindly be asked to leave/step aside. The Arabs in this section, which make up 53% of the population, will be encouraged to rise up, and Arab localities will be given small arms via airdrop. Seeing as they are actively discriminated against, and saw their holy sites destroyed, they would be more than willing to assist the UAR in liberating their homeland. Of the 700,000 Arabs in the territory, it is expected that some 70,000 would assist. They will be used to police the area and maintain the occupations of villages and towns liberated by UAR forces. This includes the Golan heights where a large number of Israeli troops would be stationed. UAR forces boast a multitude of drones, partially deployed by S.A.U.D drone vehicles (ie a successful version of the Dakotan slaughterbot project) which release swarms that can be used to provide full battlefield awareness to soldiers via their personal helmet augmented reality HUDs. This would drastically reduce the cost of urban warfare and when combined with the larger UCAVs and UAVs flying overhead, helps integrate air, land, and sea combined firepower. Extensive use of the UAR’s superior artillery and aerial intelligence will be used to target armored columns and harass enemy supply lines, ensuring that the UAR is well supplied in comparison to the Israelis. Close air support from helicopters as well as support air strikes from the aircraft deployed to the skies will help speed up the advance. Furthermore, the UAR’s experience in urban warfare, owing to its abilities in the Syrian, Lebanese, Saudi, and Iranian wars will provide its professional army with an edge over the conscription based Israeli army who’s dated combat experience is largely based on waving guns at unarmed protestors and Palestinian children. Objectives:
Feign an attack into the Golan Heights, the real attack is a large deployment via Lebanon which is only fortified enough for Hezbollah, rather than an attack from a real army with large numbers.
Utilize advantages in drones, artillery, and MLRS firepower to advance up to a line from Haifa to Nazareth and Tiberias, hopefully encircling troops trapped in the Golan.
Arm local partisan groups who would presumably be upset at the Al-Aqsa situation and the rise of a government that actively discriminates against them… more than before… (this region is 53% Arab))
Operating over 50 bridges, and with air cover from Jordanian based air defense systems, the UAR will cross the Jordan River with three main thrusts, north, central, and south, which would be of equal size. This will involve the destruction of Israeli forces on the other side of the river through mass artillery. With what can only be described as the largest artillery barrage in history the entirety of the West Bank of the Jordan that is fortified by Israel will be struck by 471 Artillery units in addition to salvos fired by 50 MLRS systems with salvos of 3600 rounds per strike. This will be supplemented by air strikes from UCAVs and friendly aircraft. In the north, defined as the West Bank to the Golan Heights, troops will attempt a push forward with similar tactics to that mentioned in the previous section towards Umm Al-Fahm to Nazareth. The pressure put on the Golan front will pin down troops that do not wish to forgo the high ground, as the unexpected large bridge crossing would occur. Once again, urban areas will be dealt with using the UAR’s drone tactics. 2/5ths of the Jordanian force will be deployed here. In the West Bank, the objective in sight is Jerusalem, as troops will attempt to seize much of the West Bank with support from artillery and air units. Liberated Palestinians who would be more than willing to fight will be provided with AKM rifles and shall act as auxiliaries. In the West Bank, with a population of approximately 4 million people (estimate based on 2%), at least 400,000 men would be willing to join. The destruction of the holy sites would see nearly every eligible man join the fight, and as such 400k is extremely conservative and a figure of closer to 2 million would be likely. The West Bank should already be in open revolt given the actions at Al-Aqsa, and as such the advance would be facilitated by Israeli troops being largely bogged down by the fighting . Friendly units in the region will work to sabotage Israeli military positions and supply lines and shall assist the advance, particularly in Jerusalem proper. 2/5ths of the Jordanian force will be deployed here. Once the troops reach Jerusalem, special care will be taken to prevent the destruction of additional holy sites, and prevent Israel from destroying sensitive Holy sites important to Arabs such as the Church of the Holy Sepulhcre and the St. James Cathedral. Jerusalem’ population, which is 38% Arab despite Israeli ethnic cleansing, will be instrumental to assisting the UAR’s advance. In the south, along the Negev Desert, troops will establish a land connection to Egypt by Seizing Eilat. The Negev is sparsely populated, and relatively open, allowing large armored units to be targeted from the skies and by missile. Urban combat is similarly less of a concern as the towns are notably smaller, and easier to place under martial law. UAVs and UCAVs will be used extensively to destroy armored columns, as the battle becomes one of range and maneuvering. Friendly Bedouins, Muslims who make up 25% of the Negev’s population, will be used as local auxiliary units, with some 20-30k out of the 400k strong population (estimate based on 1%) willing to assist. With 1/5th of the Jordanian force deployed here, the objective is to push forward and control Highway 40 (Line from Eilat to Beersheeba to the West Bank) by attacking from the east. Once again, given the range of the UAR’s air defense systems in Jordan, the troops should be reasonably protected against Israeli incursions as the Quantum Radar batteries should be able to easily pick up the few F-35s that may have survived the original blast, and most certainly the F-16s that survived. Objectives:
Three pronged attack seeking to take advantage of Israel’s spread out forces by attacking the entire eastern border.
Utilize advantages in drones, artillery, and MLRS firepower to advance up to a line from Eilat in the south, to beersheeba, to the West Bank border, to Nazareth in the north.
Arm local partisan groups who would presumably be upset at the Al-Aqsa situation and would likely already be in open revolt after the destruction of the holiest Islamic sites.
Air Defense
The UAR boasts some of the tightest air defense systems in the world, with numerous layers of Radar tested specifically against the type of aircraft Israel is expected to deploy with successful tests. The Quantum radar within the chinese designed, UAR produced HQ-90 ABM and Air Defense System provides the UAR with protection against stealth aircraft and ballistic missile threats within 600 km [Analogous to an upgraded S-500]. The Ramah-II Quantum Systems provide 100 km of coverage [Analogous to an upgraded Patriot] and protection from cruise missiles and stealth aircraft. The LPD-I laser point defense batteries provide laser point defense within 20 km against smaller munitions. Additionally, THAAD, and Patriot batteries have been deployed across the country as well as HQ-19 batteries, integrated with the quantum radar suites elsewhere. While the UAR already has a vast array of air defense systems deployed, it shall be deploying additional systems to key sites including:
Mecca
Medina
Jeddah
Riyadh
Dammam
Baghdad
Mosul
Tikrit
Damascus
Hasakah
Aleppo
Latakia
Beirut
Tyre
Suwayda
Rutba
Basra
Hafar Al batin
Jazan
Tabuk
Each site will be protected with 3 HQ-90 Batteries, 2 Patriot Batteries, 2 Ramah-II Batteries, and 1 LPD-1 Batteries. 2 THAAD Batteries will be placed at Medina, Damascus, and Beirut and 1 THAAD Battery will be placed in Baghdad. This layout ensures that cruise missiles fired from the mediteranean will have ample time to be detected and intercepted by the Ramah-II batteries designed specifically for this purpose, with multiple layers of security should a missile fail to be intercepted. With each HQ-90 battery being able to intercept and track up to 20 missiles at a time within 3 seconds of firing, each deployment should theoretically be able to protect against the entirety of the Israeli nuclear arsenal which is estimated at 80-120 nuclear weapons. With 60 HQ-90 systems deployed, as well as redundancies and overlapping coverage, the UAR should be able to intercept anything that Israel may have been able to save. The UAR has not forgotten its allies, as it has already deployed 5 HQ-90 Quantum ABM/ADS Batteries, 10 Patriot-3 Batteries in the above cities, 30 LPD-1, and 15 Ramah-II in Amman, Irbid, Ma’an, Ajloun, and Russeifa. Jordan’s location between Israel and much of the UAR means that these systems would intercept missiles headed for the UAR as well. The Egyptian deployment similarly consists of 5 HQ-90 ABM Systems,10 Ramah-II ACM Batteries, and 10 LPD Laser Point Defense Batteries deployed to Alexandria, Asyut, Cairo, Aswan, and Port Said. To further improve interception chances, 10 KJ-3000 AWAC, 6 Boeing E-3s, and 2 Saab 2000s will be used to provide round the clock airborne warning and control to track potential hostile airborne threats. Lastly, the Arleigh Burkes currently deployed in the Mediterranean theatre are equipped with an AEGIS SM-2 system that would be capable of intercepting missiles fired from the Mediterranean sea within range. This provides yet another layer of protection from enemy missiles. Note that the deployment of batteries in Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt, allow for the UAR’s air coverage to include the entirety of Israel greatly affecting the enemy’s abilities to field aircraft. Objective:
Survive
Naval Deployment
The naval deployment intends to neutralize Israel’s submarine based nuclear arsenal by deploying various “Sub-hunter Groups” that would utilize intelligence about submarine positions in the relatively shallow Mediteranean (compared to the open sea). These groups would neutalize the submarines and then work towards eliminating the Israeli surface fleet, be it in port or in the water. The bulk of the force will be in the mediteranean, with Sub Hunter Group 3 clearing the Straits of Tiran prior to moving back to the Meditereanean. Sub Hunter Group 1: 3 Arleigh Burke Flight II Destroyer 3 Ticonderoga Class Cruisers 2 Sea Hunter Autonomous ASW Ship 1 Sea Fighter LCS 5 Silorsky ASW Helicopter 1 Los Angeles Class Submarine Sub Hunter Group 2: 3 Arleigh Burke Flight II Destroyer 3 Ticonderoga Class Cruisers 2 Sea Hunter Autonomous ASW Ship 1 Sea Fighter LCS 5 Silorsky ASW Helicopter Sub Hunter Group 3: 3 Arleigh Burke Flight II Destroyer 3 Ticonderoga Class Cruisers 2 Sea Hunter Autonomous ASW Ship 1 Giuseppe Garibaldi-class ASW Carrier 15 AS332 Super Puma ASW Helicopter Sub Hunter Group 4: 3 Arleigh Burke Flight II Destroyer 3 Ticonderoga Class Cruisers 2 Sea Hunter Autonomous ASW Ship 1 Independence Class LCS 5 Silorsky ASW Helicopter Sub Hunter Group 5: 3 Arleigh Burke Flight II Destroyer 3 Ticonderoga Class Cruisers 2 Sea Hunter Autonomous ASW Ship 1 Independence Class LCS 5 Silorsky ASW Helicopter An additional “Fleet Destroyer” Group which would destroy the Israeli surface fleet while the other groups hunt for submarines, in port on on the water, the enemy’s ships will be destroyed. This will be made up of: 3 Arleigh Burke Flight II Destroyer 3 Ticonderoga Class Cruisers 2 Medina Class Frigates 3 Badr Class Corvettes Extensive use of Naval UAVs such as the Sayeh Drone and the Fotros Drone will be used in eliminating the enemy’s naval capabilities. Munition drones, specifically, some 400 LJ-2 drones, will target Israeli warships during naval engagements to increase the odds of a direct hit. Aircraft mentioned in previous sections, once air superiority is achieved, will assist in dropping AshM munitions on the enemy. Once the enemy’s fleet is destroyed, naval assets will provide shore bombardment support to attack Israeli Army positions. Objective:
However, Arabic numerals have ten basic symbols, 0-9, making it a base ten system or decimal system. Decimal systems were probably in place throughout the world as soon as there was a need to 1 : an agreement requiring the person who guesses wrong about the result of a contest or the outcome of an event to give something to the person who guesses right. 2 : the money or thing risked in a bet. 3 : a choice made by considering what might happen It's a safe bet that they will win. ABU أبو m Arabic Means "father of" in Arabic. This is commonly used as an element in a kunya, which is a type of Arabic nickname. The element is combined with the name of one of the bearer's children (usually the eldest son). In some cases the kunya is figurative, not referring to an actual child, as in the case of the Muslim caliph Abu Bakr. Anwars (arabic name) rabbit jumped into Anwars court. One fat man with a big fat belly, met another fat man with a big fat belly, he said "Do you have a big fat belly?" The man replied: "I don't think so! There is a tarboosh, that we have set up, and a tarboosh, that we have not set up. Mysteries of Bet In Kabbalistic literature, Bet represents otherness, duality, paradox, creation, a dwelling place in lower reality. Since the three Vavs close off view above, below, and behind the Bet, we are left with mystery about the nature of plurality coming from oneness. The three Vavs add up to 18, the same value for chai, or life. The house of creation is then the life of the universe. bet. 1. n ante, gamble, hazard, long shot, pledge, risk, speculation, stake, venture, wager. 2. vb chance, gamble, hazard, pledge, punt (chiefly Brit.) put money on, put one's shirt on, risk, speculate, stake, venture, wager. English Collins Dictionary - English synonyms & Thesaurus. See also: Basic Arabic Words. UAE is an Arabic country. However, it is very sad to notice that most of the majority of expatriates living here do not know how to converse in basic Arabic.In one way it can be viewed as a tolerance of the UAE and its rulers to allow foreign language to be dominant and on the other hand it can be viewed as lack of interest from expatriates. One of the world's leading online gambling companies. The most comprehensive In-Play service. Deposit Bonus for New Customers. Watch Live Sport. We stream over 100,000 events. Bet on Sportsbook and Casino. bet definition: 1. to risk money on the result of an event or a competition, such as a horse race, in the hope of…. Learn more. bet in British English. (bɛt ) noun. 1. an agreement between two parties that a sum of money or other stake will be paid by the loser to the party who correctly predicts the outcome of an event. 2. the money or stake risked. 3. the predicted result in such an agreement.
