AZERBAIJAN VS ARMENIA 

WAS AN OIL WAR

The Emerging Nakhchivan Corridor – Analysis

Detail of map of Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic, the landlocked exclave of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Credit: Wikipedia Commons

November 23, 2020 By Emil Avdaliani



As the details of the Karabakh deal are being fleshed out, the stipulation on the new corridor through Armenian territory has caused great debate. Beyond the signatories of the deal, Iran and Georgia are particularly worried as any meaningful change to the connectivity patterns in the South Caucasus could harm their transit capabilities.

The 2020 Karabakh war ended with major Russian diplomatic success on November 9 when a tripartite agreement between Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia was signed. The surrounding seven regions were to be returned to Baku, while Russian peacekeepers would guarantee the security of the truncated Nagorno-Karabakh. Though the exact role is yet to be confirmed, based on the rhetoric from Ankara and Baku, some sort of direct Turkish military involvement on Azeri soil is likely to materialize.

More importantly, however, Turkey gained a land corridor to Azerbaijan’s exclave of Nakhchivan. The stipulation in the document reads: “Armenia guarantees the security of transport links … for unimpeded movement of citizens, vehicles, and cargo in both directions” between mainland Azerbaijan and the exclave of Nakhchivan, which are separated by Armenian territory. Moreover, “Transport control is exercised by the Border Service of the Federal Security Service of Russia. By agreement of the parties, the construction of new transport communications connecting the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic and Azerbaijan’s western regions will be provided.”

The stipulation is a major breakthrough for Turkey as it would allow the country to anchor its influence on the Caspian Sea and perhaps, in the longer term, look even further towards its Central Asia kinsmen.

This would create a major dilemma for Iran and Russia, as Tehran and Moscow have historically perceived the Caspian Sea as a condominium between themselves (plus the littoral states since the end of the Soviet Union). Potential Turkish involvement could disrupt this equilibrium and especially Iran’s standing. However, this is highly hypothetical. After all, it would need years if not decades for this scenario to be realized and even then Turkish influence could not be as large as Chinese or Russian – two major forces in the region.

What bothers Iran is a potentially major shift in the region’s transportation routes. For decades Azerbaijan has been dependent on Iran for transiting energy and other supplies to Nakhchivan. The new Karabakh deal could change it. Armenia will now guarantee the opening up of a corridor through its territory to allow Azerbaijan to transport goods directly to Nakhichevan. Quite naturally, this limits Tehran’s leverage over Baku.


However, Javad Hedayati, who heads transit operations in the Iranian transportation ministry, announced that Iran is likely to stay a favorable route for trade despite the planned opening of the new corridor. “It is likely that this corridor will merely accommodate local traffic between the Republic of Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan,” said Hedayati.

Ankara has long been working on using the Nakhchivan corridor for geopolitical purposes. This is proved by the quickness with which the Turkish government announced the plans to build a railway to Nakhchivan following the November agreement. This comes on top of an earlier announcement of a gas pipeline construction to the exclave, and underlines the seriousness behind the Turkish intention, at least regarding the section from the Turkish territory to the exclave itself.

Much, however, remains unclear about the new corridor on the Armenia territory itself. First of all, will the road be used by the Turks and Azerbaijanis only? Considering the level of mistrust in Ankara and Baku towards Moscow, whose forces will be controlling this corridor, it is highly unlikely that Azerbaijan and Turkey will be willing to commit large financial resources to rebuild links on the Armenian land. After all, will the corridor be the Armenian territory, or will it fall under the tripartite administrative regime? These are arguably the defining questions which remain unanswered. One could also imagine constant incidents along the corridor as Armenia will remain unhappy with the stipulation. Transit fees could soften Yerevan’s position, but why should Russia be interested in the operation of the corridor? If the corridor is operational, these troublesome questions will have to be managed between the two sides sharing no trust in the other. These dilemmas were well summed up in the words of the Iranian official Hedayati. He stressed that Armenia could prevent Turkey’s access to the corridor for transfer of freight or passengers through Nakhchivan to Azerbaijan and further to countries to the east of the Caspian Sea.
Georgia is worried

One country which is particularly worried with the potential development of the new corridor is Georgia. Various pipelines, roads and a major railway transit the country from Azerbaijan on to Turkey. This has been a backbone of Georgia’s regional importance since the end of the Soviet Union and indeed served as a major attraction for larger players such as Europe and the US.

Quite naturally many in Tbilisi have begun to think whether this enviable position could be challenged. The consensus thought is that in the short and medium term no reshuffling in the region’s connectivity patterns is likely to take place. Even in the longer term, if the above mentioned uncertainties around the new corridor are resolved, many still believe that Baku and Ankara would not trade the already built and functioning railway and pipeline infrastructure, which runs through Georgia, for the Nakhchivan alternative. Perhaps the corridor will serve for ensuring local connections, perhaps limited trade (though highly unlikely).

After all, Georgia has been officially engaged in the trilateral partnership with Turkey and Azerbaijan for nearly a decade. The endurance of the format has been tested by changes of governments and region-wide geopolitical transformations over the last decade. Each country of the three needs the others. Turkey wants a more stable Georgia with deeper economic and energy relations, while Azerbaijan needs Turkey’s backing. Georgia, under pressure from Russia and, given that it is located between its two fellow members of the cooperation, dependent on transit, in turn needs both Turkey and Azerbaijan.

Georgia also sees its position as straddling between two large regions – Europe and Central Asia. The 826-kilometre Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway unveiled in 2017 enables the delivery of cargo between China and Europe with a haulage duration of approximately two weeks. Up to eight million tons of cargo may be carried via the railway by 2025.

Abandoning this transit corridor would undermine the efficacy of the South Caucasus transportation and energy corridor. This makes the extent of the Nakhchevan corridor quite limited. Perhaps, what the region is likely to see is the growing interconnectedness of the exclave with the Turkish territory. The emergence of a major corridor through the Nakhchivan is likely to happen if, at minimum, a meaningful improvement of Turkey-Armenia relations takes place.


Home » The Emerging Nakhchivan Corridor – Analysis

Emil Avdaliani has worked for various international consulting companies and currently publishes articles focused on military and political developments across the former Soviet sphere.

The Danger To Our Democracy Is The Republican Party – OpEd

November 25, 2020 By TransConflict

As for me, I still have strong faith in the American enterprise. We have fought civil and world wars, faced depressions, corrupt administrations, social unrest, and costly foreign misadventures, but then, we have emerged stronger and an inspiration to other nations. As long as we remain committed to the democratic values that we have cherished and for which we have sacrificed so much, a brighter and better future will await us.
By Dr. Alon Ben-Meir*

While I cheer Biden’s victory in the presidential election, I lament the state of the union Trump is leaving behind. Sadly, Biden’s victory has not been a repudiation of Trump, as he received more votes than any Republican candidate before him, which shocked millions of Americans. Why? Trump is a creature of our own making. He may be seen as an aberration, but he is not. Unless we pay more attention to the tens of millions who voted for him, among many other despairing Americans, and address their grievances and frustration, a hypocrite just like Trump will rise and feed on the public discontent—another rebel in Trump’s image who appeals to the masses sickened by being ignored, another demagogue who personifies Trump and thrives on hatred, division, and contempt.

Our democracy is broken, as faith in our constitutional system and culture that guided us has been all but shattered. If we continue to ignore this reality, a very ominous future will await this nation. We are witnessing the rise of bald-faced authoritarianism and if an increasing number of Americans cease to embrace our revered democratic norms, our Republic as we know it will cease to exist. It will be replaced by an authoritarian regime that will rise by a popular vote and gradually stamp out our democracy and revoke the will of the people.
The betrayal of the Republican party

The danger to our democracy comes chiefly from the Republican Party. Trump is the product of the Republicans’ fantasy that only they should rule, which is befitting a party that has long since lost its moral compass. The Republicans are terrified of losing their ability to rule because of the steadily-increasing diversity of America, the continuing evolution into a minority-majority country, the expansion of liberalism throughout the country, the growing disenchantment of women with their policies, and the disillusionment of the youth with the stubbornly growing extreme Republican conservatism.

The Republicans did not shy away from resorting to any sinister scheme to hold onto the levers of power. They have aggressively pursued voter suppression, fought tooth and nail to keep gerrymandering in place, viciously clung to the Electoral College, stacked the courts with conservative judges, and catered to white supremacists. But when all has failed to change the outcome of the fairest and freest elections, they follow their self-possessed leader claiming that the election was fraudulent, stolen, and rigged.


They refuse to validate the result of the election, knowing full well that nothing is more injurious to democracy than defying the will of the majority and preventing the peaceful transfer of power. The majority of top Republican officials still refuse to acknowledge Biden’s victory, delaying the transition (which prevents Biden from accessing vital information, especially in connection with the pandemic) while thousands continue to die; every single death during this delay is on their hands.

This is the party whose leaders bask in conspiracy theories. To them facts do not matter; they believe in magic and miracles while disparaging scientific truths, belittling political opponents to cover for their innate political hypocrisy. Worst yet, they have surrendered to a would-be dictator who has his claws around their neck and is determined to dismantle the fundamentals of our democracy, and who has brought the nation to the precipice of disaster.
Restoring the values of our democracy

If nothing else, the election has proven that America is in desperate need of an expansive re-education in civility and responsible citizenry to instill and cement the values that have sustained it in the past. We need to reform the electoral systems and legislative processes. We must prevent political polarization and mismanagement of our constitutional democracy on which demagogues like Trump can thrive, and restore our global leadership role.

Regardless of how misguided Trump followers’ belief in him may be, they and millions of other Americans do have legitimate concerns and needs that must be addressed. Biden is facing monumental tasks, starting by tackling the coronavirus (as economic recovery is closely tied to controlling the epidemic). Our democracy, however, will remain vulnerable to the same morally debased elements of Republican politics that nearly tore our democracy apart.

If we are to survive the onslaught of disinformation, demagoguery, falsehood, inequality and treachery that Trump perpetrates, which is cheered by his Republican sheep, we must shut tightly the cave in which demagogues like Trump hide. We must diligently undertake the needed socio-political and economic reforms to prevent an imposter like Trump from returning in four years and ravaging once again our democratic way of life, plunging us anew into ominous social and political strife.

Biden’s victory provides us with a small window of opportunity to repair some of the damage that Trump and the Republican party have inflicted on our democracy. Indeed, democracy can be the breeding ground that allows of demagogues like Trump to rise. To save our democracy and prevent that from happening and deny the Republicans minority rule again, we must develop an inclusive social and economic agenda to meet the needs of the people.
Repairing America’s socio-economic erosion

Democracy cannot be sustained when the gap between the rich and poor grows ever wider, when thousands of small towns and villages are crumbling, especially in rural areas, when more than 12 million children go to sleep hungry and when a half a million people are homeless roaming the streets.

Democracy rings hollow when tens of millions of citizens live in abject poverty and have no healthcare, when Blacks and Latinos are the victims of discrimination and inequality, when schools are decaying and teachers are underpaid, when dropouts from school are multiplying and jobs are scarce, and when two and a half million people are languishing in jails and prisons, the majority for non-violent offenses.

Democracy fails when drug addicts are incarcerated instead of being treated and healed, when 40,000 American are killed by firearms every year, when the judiciary is becoming increasingly biased, when climate change is wreaking havoc on the country from coast to coast and people are displaced, when police brutality is commonplace.

Over the past four years in particular, the Republicans wrote one of the darkest chapters in American history. History books will recall how their moral bankruptcy allowed them to sacrifice the well-being of the nation and betray the most principled experiment in democracy in human history. Their defeat in this presidential election may well be the harbinger for worse days yet to come.

As for me, I still have strong faith in the American enterprise. We have fought civil and world wars, faced depressions, corrupt administrations, social unrest, and costly foreign misadventures, but then, we have emerged stronger and an inspiration to other nations.

As long as we remain committed to the democratic values that we have cherished and for which we have sacrificed so much, a brighter and better future will await us.


*Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

TransConflict was established in response to the challenges facing intra- and inter-ethnic relations in the Western Balkans. It is TransConflict’s assertion that the successful transformation of conflict requires a multi-dimensional approach that engages with and aims at transforming the very interests, relationships, discourses and structures that underpin and fuel outbreaks of low- and high-intensity violence.

The Great American Outdoors Act – OpEd

November 25, 2020

By Duggan Flanakin*

To the surprise of most Americans, and the consternation of many in the “mainstream” media, Vice President Mike Pence highlighted the Trump Administration’s environmental record during the recent VP debate. Citing the President’s signing of the historic bill, Mr. Pence lauded the Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA) as “the largest investment in our public lands and public parks in 100 years.”

The Associated Press said the GAOA is the “most significant conservation legislation enacted in nearly half a century.” The National Parks Conservation Association called it “a conservationist’s dream.”

Harvard Business School professor Linda Bilmes agreed, calling the GAOA “the biggest land conservation legislation in a generation.” Bilmes, who served as Assistant Secretary of Commerce in the Clinton Administration, marveled that the Trump Administration won broad bipartisan support in a polarized Congress, after the President reevaluated his own stance on this groundbreaking environmental and conservationist initiative.

Bilmes explained that the new law has two major effects. First, the new National Park and Public Lands Legacy Restoration Fund will provide up to $9 billion over the next five years to address deferred maintenance issues in national parks, wildlife refuges, forests and other federal areas, with $6.5 billion earmarked specifically to the 419 National Park units. Second, the GAOA guarantees the statutory maximum of $900 million per year in perpetuity for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).

Bilmes explained that Congress has been stingy with parks funding, despite a doubling of annual park visitors since 1980 (excluding the COVID-marred 2020 season). Thanks to the GAOA, the $12 billion backlog of maintenance to repair roads, trails, campgrounds, monuments, fire safety, utilities and visitor center infrastructure will finally be addressed. Similarly, the LWCF, established in 1964 with an annual maximum authorization level of $900 million, has typically received less than half of that amount.

The flagship LWCF conservation program is paid for with royalty payments from offshore oil and gas production in federal waters. It helps fund the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management. It also provides grants to state and local governments to acquire land for recreation and conservation. Yet many self-described environmental advocates want to shut down offshore oil activities.


An early beneficiary of the GAOA is the state of California, which will benefit from GAOA funding that provides the 50% federal share of a new program aimed at reducing wildfire risks. Both California and the U.S. Forest Service will treat at least half a million acres of forest land per year under a 20-year plan for forest health and vegetation – by reducing the fuel buildups that lead to monstrous conflagrations.

The Agreement for Shared Stewardship of California’s Forest and Rangelands, lauded by President Trump and California Governor Gavin Newsom, is a joint state-federal initiative to reduce wildfire risks, restore watersheds, and protect habitat and biological diversity. Sadly, Congressional bickering delayed its passage such that it came too late to help mitigate this summer’s wildfires, which caused major damage to endangered and threatened species and their habitat in California and other Western states.

The California-federal agreement requires prioritizing public safety, using real science to guide forest management, coordinating land management across jurisdictions, increasing the scale and pace of forest management projects, removing barriers that slow project approvals, and working closely with all stakeholders: local and tribal communities, environmental groups, academics, timber companies and others. Additional activities under the agreement include recycling forest byproducts to avoid burning slash piles, improving sustainable recreation opportunities, and stabilizing rural economies.

Bilmes credited the strong bipartisan support (3 to 1 margins in both houses of Congress) to the political and economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. She noted that in normal years park visitor spending contributes about $40 billion to the U.S. economy and supports nearly 350,000 jobs. The GAOA will give a huge shot in the arm to communities struggling due to the loss of tourism-related jobs and income, by creating over 108,000 new jobs for repairing park infrastructure, including lodges, trails, access roads and bridges in the adjacent communities.

Bilmes estimates that the American people value national park land, waters and programs at $92 billion per year – at least 30 times the annual budget they receive from Congress. Yet, like many critics of other Trump land management decisions, she fails to appreciate that reopening small sections of public lands with lower aesthetic value to income producing activities will provide the revenue needed to pay for the increased budgets for these national treasures.

Similarly, cutbacks in offshore oil and gas activities would drastically shrink the very federal revenues needed to pay $900 million per year to the LWCF, to support federal land management programs.

Critics of Trump policies also ignore the fact that the United States is reducing carbon dioxide emissions at an annual rate of more than 2% and has lowered emissions of criteria pollutants by 7% since the beginning of 2017, primarily because fracking is producing low-cost natural gas to replace coal in generating electricity, Mr. Pence pointed out during his debate.

Reducing wildfire infernos is another excellent way to reduce CO2 emissions, as well as real pollution like smoke and fine particulates (soot). Emissions from these forest fires are astronomical and can travel hundreds or even thousands of miles from the fires.

Pence also cited a record number of completed Superfund cleanups during the four years he and President Trump have been in office, along with a record number of recovered endangered species.

Reflecting the President’s view that parks are for the people, the Vice President also lauded the Interior Department’s opening of over 4 million acres of Fish and Wildlife Service lands for hunting and fishing, and relocating the Bureau of Land Management headquarters to Grand Junction, CO, much closer to the vast majority of the vast federal lands it administers, nearly all in the western states.

Lastly, Pence cited the Modern Fish Act, signed in January 2019, which for the first time in federal law recognizes the differences between recreational and commercial saltwater fishing. The act also adds more appropriate management tools for policymakers to use in managing diverse federal recreational fisheries.

The popular legislation “provides an opportunity for significant, positive change on behalf of millions of recreational anglers who enjoy fishing in federal waters,” noted Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation president Jeff Crane.

Despite the bipartisan nature of these major accomplishments, and their importance to America and its magnificent natural heritage, media coverage of the GAOA signing made it quite clear that mainstream reporters were loath to give any credit to President Trump. That’s sad but not unexpected.

Whether acquiring more and more federal land is a good thing, in view of the often less than stellar way existing landholdings have been managed in recent years, only time will tell. But these new laws and joint federal-state-local-tribal land management initiatives are a solid step in the right direction.

* Duggan Flanakin is Director of Policy Research at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org)

Future Of American Democracy: On Inequality, Polarization And Violence – OpEd

November 24, 2020
By Ramzy Baroud

In January 2017, the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU)’s Democracy Index downgraded the state of democracy in the United States from “full democracy” to “flawed democracy”.

The demotion of a country that has constantly prided itself, not only on being democratic but also on championing democracy throughout the world, took many by surprise. Some US pundits challenged the findings altogether.

However, judging by events that have transpired since, the accuracy of the EIU Index continues to demonstrate itself in the everyday reality of American politics: the extreme political and cultural polarization; growing influence of armed militias, police violence; mistreatment of undocumented immigrants, including children; marginalization of the country’s minorities in mainstream politics and so on.

The EIU’s Democracy Index has, finally, exposed the deteriorating state of democracy in the US because it is based on 60 different indicators which, aside from traditional categories – i.e. the function of government – also include other indicators such as gender equality, civil liberties and political culture.

Judging by the number, diversity and depth of the above indicators, it is safe to assume that the outcome of the US general elections this November will not have an immediate bearing on the state of American democracy. On the contrary, the outcome is likely to further fragment an already divided society and continue to turn the country’s state-run institutions – including the Supreme Court – into a battleground for political and ideological alliances.

While the buzzword throughout the election campaigns has been ‘saving American democracy’, the state of democracy in the US is likely to worsen in the foreseeable future. This is because America’s ruling elites, whether Republicans or Democrats, refuse to acknowledge the actual ailments that have afflicted American political culture for many years.


Sadly, when the campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders, former Democratic presidential nominee, insisted that massive structural adjustments were necessary at every level of government, he was dismissed by the Democratic establishment as ‘unrealistic’, and altogether ‘unelectable’.

Sanders was, of course, right, because the crisis in American democracy was not initiated by the election of Donald Trump in 2016. The latter event was a mere symptom of a larger, protracted problem.

These are some of the major issues that are unlikely to be effortlessly resolved by the outcome of the elections, thus will continue to downgrade the state of democracy in the US.

The Inequality Gap: Income inequality, which is the source of socio-political strife, is one of the US’ major challenges, spanning over 50 years. Inequality, now compounded with the COVID-19 pandemic, is worsening, affecting certain racial groups – African Americans, in particular – and women, more than others.

According to a study conducted by the Pew Research Center in February 2020, “income inequality in the US is the highest of all the G7 nations,” a major concern for 78 percent of Democrats and 41 percent of Republicans.

Political Polarization: The large gap between the wealthy few and the impoverished many is not the only schism creating a wedge in American society. Political polarization – although, interestingly, it does not always express itself based on rational class demarcation – is a major problem in the US.

Both Republicans and Democrats have succeeded in making their case to enlist the support of certain strata of American society, while doing very little to fulfill the many promises the ruling establishments of these two camps often make during election campaigns.

For example, Republicans use a populist political discourse to reach out to working-class white Americans, promising them economic prosperity; yet, there is no evidence that the lot of working-class white American families has improved under the Trump Administration.

The same is true with Democrats, who have, falsely, long situated themselves as the champions of racial justice and fairer treatment of undocumented immigrants.

Militarization of Society: With socio-economic inequality and political polarization at their worst, trust in democracy and the role of the state to fix a deeply flawed system is waning. This lack of trust in the central government spans hundreds of years, thus, the constant emphasis on the Second Amendment of the US Constitution regarding “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

Indeed, US society is one of the most militarized in the world. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), two-thirds of all local terrorism in the US is carried out by right-wing militias, who are now more emboldened and angrier than ever before. According to an October Southern Poverty Law Center report, there are about 180 active anti-government paramilitary groups in the US.

For the first time in many years, talks of another ‘American Civil War’ have become a daily mainstream media discussion.

It would be entirely unrealistic to imagine that democracy in the US will be restored as a result of any given elections. Without a fundamental shift in US politics that confronts the underlying problems behind the socio-economic inequality and political polarization, the future carries yet more fragmentation and, possibly, violence.

The coming weeks and months are critical in determining the future direction of American society. Alas, the current indicators are hardly promising.

Home » Future Of American Democracy: On Inequality, Polarization And Violence – OpEd

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com

Biblical Anthropomorphism (Tashbih)

 And Islam – OpEd

November 23, 2020 By Rabbi Allen S. Maller

The Qur’an teaches: Say, [O believers], “We believed in Allah and what has been revealed to us [the Qur’an] and what has been revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants [of Jacob] and what was given to Moses and Jesus and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him.” (2:136)

While Christians, Jews and Muslims should make no disrespectful distinction between any of their prophets or their sacred scriptures, we cannot help but notice that the circumstances and style of each of the three written revelations are very distinct.

The Hebrew Sacred Scriptures are a vast collection (305,358 Hebrew words) of books written over a period of almost a thousand years, by more than two dozen different named Jewish Prophets, plus many more anonymous inspired Historians, Poets, and Philosophers.

The Greek New Testament is much shorter (a total of 138,162 Greek words); and was written over a period of less than 70 years, by four biographers plus maybe a half dozen other writers who all wrote in a language (Greek) that Prophet Jesus and Prophet John never spoke.

The Arabic Qur’an is still shorter (a total of 77,934 Arabic words) recited only by Prophet Muhammad during a period of less than two dozen years and written down by his own disciples.

The most shocking thing that a rabbi notices when reading the Qur’an is that Allah continually refers to himself as “We”. This reiteration of the pronoun ‘We’ referring to God; occurs over 2100 times in the Qur’an.


In the Hebrew Scriptures the royal “we’ is very rarely used for God, except most noticeably in the creation narrative. All the Jewish Prophets declare God’s words using ‘I’. Of course, I know that ‘we’ in the Qur’an never means that God is plural or Trinitarian. It is a matter of style that might also be meant as an important correction to the error that many of Prophet Jesus’ disciples entered into.

Many disciples of Jesus took Prophet Jesus’ use of “my father in heaven” literally when it was of course meant metaphorically. They also misunderstood the statement of Prophet Jesus: “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.” (John 10:11)

The metaphor of a shepherd describes both God and a human ruler. Jesus was saying that a good leader puts the good of the flock ahead of his own good. John understood that “I” [God] will sacrifice [My Son] to save all humanity.

In the same way, many Muslim readers of the Hebrew Bible are shocked by the frequent use of metaphors to describe the Divine One. The Jewish People were the only on-going monotheistic Ummah in the world for more than a thousand years; so using anthropomorphic descriptions of God were minor compared to the on-going religious struggle (Jihad) to eliminate the polytheism and idolatry that many Jews engaged in, from within the Jewish nation.

As the Qur’an states: “They are not all alike. Some of the People of the Book are firmly committed to the truth. They recite the Verses of Allah during the hours of night, and remain in the state of [prayer] prostration before their Lord.” (3:113)

God created Man in His own moral image meaning that He wished humanity to live a life marked by justice, equality, fair dealing, mutual respect, sympathy, love, compassion, and charity etc. Many humans on the other hand chose to violate some or even many basic moral commandments of God, including their creating God in Mankind’s own physical image.

The first three of the Ten Commandments state: (Verse 3) ‘Thou shalt have no other gods’…. (Verse 4) ‘Thou shalt not make for yourself any graven image, or any likeness (picture) of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath’…. (Verse 5) ‘Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor serve them’… (Torah Exodus 20:3‑5)

All Biblical Anthropomorphism (tashbih) are not to be taken literally. They are only metaphors or poetic expressions. For example, the metaphor of stubborn uncaring people as having an uncircumcised heart can be found in several different Biblical verses: Deuteronomy 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn; Leviticus 26:41 …if then their uncircumcised heart is humbled and they make amends for their iniquity; Jeremiah 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD; remove the foreskin of your hearts, O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; Jeremiah 6:10 To whom shall I speak and give warning, that they may hear? Behold, their ears are uncircumcised, they cannot listen.

These are all like the Qur’an’s statement: “And do not invoke Allah with another deity. There is no deity except Him. Everything will be destroyed except His Face. His is the judgement, and to Him you will be returned” (28:88). Face is a clear metaphor for God’s presence.

The rabbinic Tafsir/midrash (Ecclesiastes Rabba 1:16) actually gathers 50+ different metaphors of the heart that are implied by various verses in the Hebrew Bible. The list begins describing that the heart: sees (Ecclesiastes 1:16), hears (I Kings 3:9), speaks (Ecclesiastes 1:16), walks (2 Kings 5:26), falls (I Samuel 17:32), stands (Ezekiel 22:14), rejoices (Psalms 16:9), cries out (Lamentations 2:18), is consoled (Isaiah 40:2), is pained (Deuteronomy 15:10), is hardened (Exodus 9:12), fears (Deuteronomy 28:67), breaks (Psalms 51:19), is prideful (Deuteronomy 8:14), refuses (Jeremiah 5:12), imagines (Deuteronomy 29:18), feels (Psalms 45:2), thinks (Proverbs 19:21), desires (Psalms 21:3), strays (Proverbs 7:25), desires sin (Numbers 15:39), eats (Genesis 18:5), convinces (Genesis 34:3), and errs (Isaiah 21:4). All of these are clearly intended metaphorically.

The issues of anthropomorphism (tashbih) in Islam are over the very few anthropomorphic descriptions of God in the Qur’an, or the more frequent aḥadith al-ṣifat – traditions that depict God and His attributes in an anthropomorphic language (God’s hand, God’s laughter or God’s sitting on the heavenly throne) and are well known to Muslim scholars.

In the verse: ‘There is nothing like unto Him; and He is All-Hearing and All-Seeing.’ Allāh first negated that something could be like Him and then affirmed that He does have many attributes and that some of the creatures of creation also have these attributes. “And (the unbelievers) plotted and planned and Allah too planned and the best of planners is Allah.” (3:54) And “Send not away those who call on their Lord morning and evening seeking His Face.” (6:52)

And in the aḥadith al-ṣifat: “Narrated Anas ibn Malik Allah’s Messenger said: That his bier (that of Sa’d) and the Throne of the most Compassionate shook.” (Sahih Muslim Hadith 6035)

And Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 5.147 Narrated Jabir: I heard the Prophet saying, “The Throne (of Allah) shook at the death of Sad bin Muadh.”

These few anthropomorphism, like the much more frequent anthropomorphism in the Hebrew Bible are all to be understood as metaphors that should never be taken literally.

The Hebrew Bible uses frequent anthropomorphic descriptions of God because the Jewish minority that worshipped idols did it not as a metaphor but in a disgusting reality. After the exile to Babylonia this party disappeared.

Then came the Gospels using not verbal anthropomorphisms, but the disgusting reality of a Divine embodied sonship and reintroducing human statues and paintings into places of prayer.

The Qur’an rebukes the Christian style of worship using pagan style art work and concepts of Divine incarnation; and since the Christians defended their actions by pointing to the frequent use of metaphors to describe the Divine One in the Hebrew Bible, the Qur’an very rarely uses metaphors for God at all.

Home » Biblical Anthropomorphism (Tashbih) And Islam – OpEd

Rabbi Allen S. Maller

Allen Maller retired in 2006 after 39 years as Rabbi of Temple Akiba in Culver City, Calif. He is the author of an introductio

The Coming Cyber-Industrial Complex: A Warning For New US Administration – OpEd

November 25, 2020 

Geopolitical Monitor

By Benjamin Verdi*

Sixty years ago an outgoing, conservative American president warned both his more liberal successor and his fellow citizens to guard against a worrying trend he saw emerging during his time in office. President Eisenhower’s farewell address made infamous the term “military-industrial complex” as a summation of the rapidly increasing reliance of a peacetime economy on government contracts to develop military-grade machines, weapons, and information systems. He worried that the short-term benefits brought on by increased military investment in the private economy could blind public decision-makers and American society to the perverse incentives of greater, even continuous, involvement in violent conflict. Bidding adieu, Eisenhower asserted “the technological revolution during recent decades” was “akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture.”

Ike’s concerns remain relevant at this moment of transition, but in a new domain. Cybersecurity – cyber “defense” – presents a seemingly obvious need in this digital age. As the need for bigger, more connected, and integrated digital systems rises, so too will the risks associated with our reliance on those globally interconnected systems. Responsible governments must develop, promote, and maintain robust capabilities and sound approaches for deploying digital weaponry to defend themselves and their citizens from malicious actors, and they must rely on the aid and leadership of the world’s most innovative companies to do so.

Yet we must ask ourselves what kinds of cyber creatures we are comfortable introducing into the digital ecosystem, and whether those are preferable to more traditional forms of deterrence. Fear of vulnerabilities and the risks associated with interconnected networks is understandable, but governments and industry leaders need to take a longer-term view of the implications new cyber capabilities might hold for the future digital landscape.

Such a sustained and steady increase in cyber defenses has led to creeping calls from leaders in government and industry for what many trendily term cyber “offense.” Eisenhower might have predicted that those shouting loudest for the advancement of cyber offensive capabilities are the same institutions that view these tools as fundamental to their operational and tactical missions, as well as their budget lines.

It should be clear that these short-term motivations are entirely logical, but solutions to near-term problems should not be our only guides when it comes to strategic decisions about the cyber-industrial future.


A truly global cyber war would be more devastating than any traditional war ever could because it would not be confined to a physical battlefield. It might literally be waged on the devices in our pockets. Encouragingly, some thought-leaders are already pushing back on the race toward cyber “offense,” or are calling for a more intentional balance between the two functions. That said, their arguments are not necessarily any more tailored to the cyber realm than those they might normally make to oppose interventionist strikes on land, air, or sea. Framing the discussion of cyber “offense” along these familiar lines loses sight of what Eisenhower called “the total influence – economic, political, even spiritual” that peacetime economic dependence on wartime machinery could hold in “every city, every state house, every office of the federal government.” And, ironically, the very desire to pivot toward increasingly diversified digital security capabilities may ultimately leave militaries with fewer tools at their disposal to handle future conflicts. Cyberwarfare may someday become the best option for ensuring national security, but it should never become the only option.

Lest this concern be cast as an esoteric matter of federal budgetary priorities, we should return to Eisenhower’s warning that without national attention “public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” While eyes may roll at the thought of a five-star general and two-term president worrying about the advancement of any too-powerful elite, his worries could just as easily apply to the tools of cyberwarfare as to guns and bombs.

While Eisenhower forcefully noted the necessity of military-funded innovation, he also reminded us of the correct order of operations for policy making. We ought to build the tools we want to ensure the security we need, not settle for the best security policy for which our tools allow.

Geopolitical strategy aside, the biggest problem with the enthusiasm for cyber “offensive” tools to complement those on cyber “defense” is a technical one. Words like offense and defense make as much sense in cyberspace as they do describing the relationship between a plug prong and an outlet.

Many if not most of the world’s most devastating cyber attacks have been propagated by bad actors who used tools initially developed for defensive purposes in offensive ways. A standard “ransomware” attack, for instance, involves a bad actor (often depicted wearing a black or red hat) using a form of encryption to steal data and hold it “ransom” from its rightful owner. Encryption in this case is an “offensive” capability, but it is generally a form of “defense” in most contexts. That is, encryption is the primary way in which systems prevent data from falling into the wrong hands. Thus even the simplistic, familiar dichotomy of “offense versus defense” breaks down in cyberspace, where tools are perpetually utilized beyond their intended purposes. Indeed, the internet and computers themselves – originally military innovations – are now used to perpetrate more heinous global crimes than any other tools in existence.

Foraging through other traditional frameworks to formulate global strategy is similarly unrewarding. Isolationism versus interventionism, realism versus idealism, and all the other lenses through which we might consider national security, allude to, but fall short of, a clear framework for the cyber age. Without picking sides, and more to illustrate the uselessness of these outmoded spectra, a true cyber “isolationist” would need a lot of home-grown servers to simply get through the day, and a cyber “idealist” would make a most juicy target for any number of phishing or social engineering hacks and scams.

And yet, perhaps the best guide to governing our current acceleration of cyber capabilities is still the sage advice of a 20th century president who was born in the 19th. In the same address in which President Eisenhower cautioned against the influx of military funding into US manufacturing and academia, he also noted: “Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

If digital weaponry cannot be so easily classified into the formal categories of offensive or defensive, good or bad, then we must begin with labels like “understood,” or more simply, “accounted for.” Moreover, if cyber tools are the world’s newest weapons, then cyber talent is the world’s newest, most valuable resource. Only through the education and cultivation of prepared, informed, and responsible digital citizens will the future of cyberspace be the secure, liberated, and prosperous world so many have fought so hard to make this one.

*Benjamin Verdi is YPFP’s 2020 Cybersecurity & Technology Fellow, and a Global Innovation Manager with Grant Thornton International Ltd.

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect those of Geopoliticalmonitor.com or any institutions with which the authors are associated.

Home » The Coming Cyber-Industrial Complex: A Warning For New US Administration – OpEd

Darwin Notebooks, Including Darwin’s Iconic ‘Tree-Of-Life’ Sketch, Reported Stolen From Cambridge University

David Bressan Contributor
Science
I deal with the rocky road to our modern understanding of earth


Notebook containing Darwin's original 1837 diagram of the Tree-of-Life, one of two such notebooks ... [+] CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

Cambridge University Library has reported two notebooks used by Charles Darwin for his private writings as stolen. One of the notebooks contains Darwin's famous quote 'I think' and the first-ever Tree-of-Life diagram drawn by Darwin in 1837, two decades ahead of the publication of the theory of evolution in his book 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life', in November 1859.

The notebooks were last seen in November 2000, when they were taken out of the collection to be digitized. During a subsequent routine check-in January 2001, it was found that the small box containing the two notebooks had not been returned to its proper place. At that time, the library was undergoing extensive renovation work, and it was thought that the notebooks had been misplaced internally. The library hosts around ten million books, maps, manuscripts and other objects on more than 130 miles (210 km) of shelving in its collections. Following a series of exhaustive searches, the largest in the library’s history, curators have concluded that the notebooks have likely been stolen.

The matter has been reported to Cambridgeshire Police and Interpol, and the library made a public appeal for help in locating the notebooks.

The notebooks are described as being roughly postcard-sized, with reddish-brown covers, and were, at the time of their disappearance, kept in a blue cardboard box. The two notebooks bear the letters 'B' and 'C' respectively on their covers.


The cover of the missing 'Notebook B.' CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY


The two Darwin notebooks had previously been digitised and their content is available online.

Ottawa Fails on Climate Legislation. Again
New Liberal bill promises net-zero emissions by 2050, but has no targets, no plan, no commitment to involve other levels of government.

Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood Today | TheTyee.ca

‘The federal Environment Ministry has been setting climate targets and publishing climate plans — not to mention reporting on their inevitable failure — for nearly 30 years.’ Photo of Alberta’s oilsands by Kris Krug, Creative Commons licensed.

The federal government tabled its long-awaited climate legislation in the House of Commons last week. Bill C-12 places legal obligations on the environment minister to set greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for the years 2030, 2035, 2040 and 2045, with the ultimate goal of achieving a net-zero carbon Canadian economy by 2050.

The minister will consider the advice of a new independent advisory body in developing plans to meet those targets. And the minister will report regularly on the government’s progress.

And that’s it. That’s essentially the whole bill.

It is not an emissions reduction plan (that will come later). It is not a binding commitment to meet the government’s climate targets (there is no enforcement mechanism). And it is not an all-of-government strategy — provinces, territories, municipalities, Indigenous governments and even other federal ministries are not covered.

No, rather than the kind of sweeping and binding legislation that could have jump-started a transformative Canadian climate agenda, Bill C-12 is instead a narrow and largely uninteresting piece of legislation that formalizes the federal government’s existing approach to managing climate policy.

To be clear, requiring the government to set, monitor and report on greenhouse gas emission targets is not a bad thing. Greater transparency and timeliness in developing federal policy is certainly welcome.

However those are functions we would expect the environment minister to perform with or without legislation. Indeed, the federal Environment Ministry has been setting climate targets and publishing climate plans — not to mention reporting on their inevitable failure — for nearly 30 years.

There is nothing in this new bill that makes the achievement of Canada’s targets for 2030 and beyond any more likely than the target we missed in 2012 (Kyoto Protocol) or the one we are certain to miss by the end of 2020 (Copenhagen Accord).

And while this new bill is unlikely to hinder future climate policy development, it does introduce or exacerbate some risks.

First, the bill’s failure to require a new emissions reduction target before 2030 means the federal government can continue delaying the kinds of transformational climate policies we require to meet the scale of the climate change threat. A new 2025 target would have put real pressure onto the current government rather than shirking responsibility to a future one.

Second, the bill’s narrow scope means the environment minister has no new leverage to achieve pan-Canadian collaboration. Without any ability to compel co-operation from the provinces, which control critical areas of climate policy such as energy and transportation, the federal government still does not have all the tools it needs to meet its own targets.

Third, the bill’s emphasis on “net-zero” emissions without clarifying how and where emissions are counted leaves the door open to international carbon offsets as an alternative to domestic emissions reductions. Although emissions trading is covered under the Paris Agreement and may serve some role in Canada’s climate plans moving forward, it should not be viewed as an alternative to cutting emissions at home.



BC Needs a ‘Wartime Approach’ to the Climate Emergency. And Now

READ MORE

The bill may yet be improved. The minority Liberal government tabled Bill C-12 for first reading last week, which means it is still subject to review and revision by Parliament in the coming months. The climate-conscious leaders of the Bloc Québécois, NDP and Green parties will have opportunities to pressure the government in the House and in committee to address these issues.

Nevertheless, Bill C-12 may ultimately be less consequential than the emission reduction plan the federal government has promised to introduce in the next few weeks.

The new plan, which replaces the 2015 Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change, will detail how the government intends to meet the current 2030 target while putting Canada on a path to meeting its 2050 target.

If Bill C-12 is much ado about nothing, let’s hope the new emissions plan is something worth celebrating.

Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood is a senior researcher on international trade and climate policy for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the article originally appeared on the centre’s Behind the Numbers blog. Follow Hadrian on Twitter @hadrianmk.

Harvard petition demands scrutiny of ex-Trump officials

A petition circulating at Harvard University demands new accountability standards for former Trump administration 

officials who seek to work or speak on campus, an idea that has drawn outrage from prominent conservatives

Via AP news wire
4 days ago

Harvard Trump Officials
(Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved)

A petition circulating at Harvard University demands new accountability standards for former Trump administration officials who seek to work or speak on campus, an idea that has drawn outrage from prominent conservatives.

The online open letter calls for a new “system of accountability” to review top political appointees who served under Republican President Donald Trump and could come to campus as professors, fellows or speakers after Trump leaves office

Those who failed to uphold traditional democratic principals should be disqualified, the petition says.

“A complete disregard for the truth is a defining feature of many decisions made by this administration,” according to the petition. “That alone should be enough to draw a line.”

It was unclear who created the petition or how many students have signed it. Harvard declined to comment on it.

Harvard and its Kennedy School of Government often hire outgoing politicians and political staffers to teach as professors or temporary fellows. The university has welcomed figures from both Democratic and Republican administrations in the past.

The school's Institute of Politics fellowships have attracted figures including Reince Priebus, Trump's former chief of staff, and Sarah Hurwitz, the former chief speechwriter for former First Lady Michelle Obama.

Harvard has faced blowback over some past fellows, including its selection of former Trump press secretary Sean Spicer in 2017. The decision drew opposition from more than 1,000 alumni who petitioned against it, but Spicer was allowed to serve as a fellow.

The new petition argues that Trump officials deserves more scrutiny than those tied to past presidents. It says Trump has trampled democratic norms, and that those who were complicit “have disqualified themselves from being hired by the school as faculty or fellows.”

Prominent Republicans blasted the petition as an attack on free speech and open discourse. Alan Dershowitz a retired Harvard law professor who represented Trump in his impeachment trial, said he would offer free legal help to anyone who would be excluded by new policies.

“Will I be banned from speaking at Harvard?” Dershowitz asked on Twitter.

Kayleigh McEnany, the White House press secretary and a Harvard Law School graduate, urged Harvard to reject the petition.

“I will happily walk back on campus and challenge this,” she told Fox Business. “Censorship should not be tolerated. Our academic communities should be bastions of free speech.”

The Harvard Graduate Students Union, which represents campus graduate workers, said it supports calls to block Trump officials.

Marisa Borreggine, the union's vice president, said it would be disappointing if Harvard hired former officials from a “blatantly anti-democratic, anti-science, and anti-labor administration.”

The petition at Harvard began circulating weeks after a University of Massachusetts professor tweeted that faculty at prestigious universities should oppose the hiring of Trump officials.

Paul Musgrave, who teaches political science at UMass-Amherst, is calling on schools not to hire Trump's high-level appointees as members of their faculty. Welcoming them, he said, would be a betrayal of the same values universities traditionally espouse.

“This is an abnormal administration that has been hostile to science, to universities, to immigrants,” Musgrave said in an interview. “This is not an administration whose officers can be treated normally.”

The Harvard petition goes further in demanding additional scrutiny of speakers and fellows, not just faculty. Before bringing speakers, it says, Harvard should vet speakers to determine their role in undermining democratic institutions.

Harvard has a duty to “boldly confront” those who were complicit, it says, “or not invite them to speak at all.”

SOME DAYS IT DOES NOT PAY TO GET OUT OF BED

British man facing permanent blindness after being bitten by cobra  in India while battling coronavirus 

Despite already suffering malaria, dengue fever and coronavirus, he was determined to stay in the country but then he was bitten twice by the snake.

Rebecca Speare-Cole
Tue, 24 November 2020, 

Ian Jones is recuperating from a cobra bite and coronavirus. (Robertson Foster)

A British man in India is facing permanent blindness after being bitten by a cobra while suffering coronavirus.

Ian Jones, 49, spent days in intensive care after he was bitten by a black king cobra in Jodhpur, Rajasthan, in the north-west of the country after contracting COVID-19.

Jones has now been discharged from hospital and is recuperating at his base in the city but is still paralysed in his legs and completely blind.

His family are still unsure whether these conditions, caused by the snake venom, will be permanent.

Ian Jones with his dog 'Rocky'. (Robertson Foster)

The former healthcare worker, who lives on the Isle of Wight with his family, runs a charity-backed social enterprise called Sabirian, aimed at helping people out of poverty.

Despite already suffering malaria, dengue fever and coronavirus, he was determined to stay in the country but then he was bitten twice by the snake.

A GoFundMe page has been set up by Community Action Isle of Wight, which owns Sabirian, to raise funds to cover his medical costs and eventual transport home.

In the meantime, he has been reunited with his “beloved” dog Rocky and his family have thanked the public for their donations after raising more than £17,000.

They said that, together with Jones and the charity, they are “hugely grateful for the incredible response to the fundraising appeal”.

The statement, released through Community Action Isle of Wight, said: “We had no idea it would generate such an amazing global response and we would like to thank each and every one of you for your support, we are so very grateful.

“While Ian is out of hospital he is not out of the woods yet – he has paralysis in his legs and is therefore confined to a wheelchair and he is also totally blind, both as a result of the cobra venom, which is extremely frightening for him.”

A spokesperson for the charity added that they are still unsure whether the paralysis and blindness will be permanent.

Read: Couple reunited with dog who was stolen six years ago

His family said they “take some comfort” from the fact that he is back in more familiar surroundings “and with his beloved dog Rocky and able to enjoy some cuddles again”.

They added: “We are doing everything we can to try and bring him home so he can continue his recovery here with us and we will keep you posted on his progress.”

Jones’s son Seb previously described him as a “fighter” and said he had “remained resolute in his determination to stay in the country and continue his work to help the people that needed his support”.