The Middle East Peace Talks

Peace talks in the Middle East began in earnest following the 1973 Arab-Israeli War (Yom Kippur War).  The Arab states had been waging war against Israel since 1948 as they refused to accept the existence of the Jewish state and vowed to destroy it for they saw it as a new form of imperialism and Jewish settlers were displacing Palestinian Arabs who also claimed the land.  On the four occasions of fighting the Israelis, the Arabs lost though they nearly succeeded in the last one.

Following the 1973 war, things began to change and it began in Egypt under the initiatives undertaken by its president Anwar Sadat who made a bold move by reaching out and traveling to Israel.  His visit to 1977 Israel and address at the Knesset (Parliament) underscored the change he was initiating.  He first told the assembled members how he and other Arabs felt with their intrusion to Palestine

In all sincerity I tell you we welcome you among us with full security and safety. This in itself is a tremendous turning point, one of the landmarks of a decisive historical change. We used to reject you. We had our reasons and our fears, yes. We refused to meet with you, anywhere, yes.

Sadat stated that fear was what drove the Arab states to reject Israels existence and go to war against it for the very reasons stated before.  This was more or less a confession he was making on behalf of his Arab colleagues who by then refused to acknowledge Israel or make peace with it.  Sadat also mentioned in his address he had grown tired of the endless fighting that not only claimed lives but it was also part of Egypts changing foreign policy following his assumption of leadership.  Sadats presidency saw the departure of the Soviet Union as its main supporter and Egypt was turning towards the United States and the west for economic and financial support and to gain the favor of the US, he had to make peace with its ally, Israel and he saw that the US wields considerable influence over its ally.

For his part, Prime Minister Menachem Begin, on that same day Sadat addressed the Knesset acknowledged the need for peace between Israelis and Arabs that Jews never robbed the Palestinians of their lands

The President (Chaim Herzog) mentioned the Balfour Declaration. No, sir, we took no foreign land. We returned to our Homeland. The bond between our People and this Land is eternal. It was created at the dawn of human history. It was never severed.

Begin dispelled the false and baseless claims by the Arabs that they are imperialists and Begin implicitly underscored that most of the Arabs were blind or chose to be ignorant about the history of the land by not acknowledging that Jews have been there with them before being dispersed in the Diaspora and that the Old Testament can attest to that.  Nevertheless, despite defending their right to be in Palestine, Begin did agree that there was a need to make peace and he was willing to forge ahead with it, beginning with Egypt.
A year later after their historic meeting, the two Middle East leaders met in the United States with President Jimmy Carter serving as mediator.  Instead of forging peace in the stressful atmosphere of Washington, DC, all parties repaired to the presidential retreat at Camp David Maryland where the peaceful surroundings would make it conducive for them to negotiate in earnest.  The early part of the meetings were tense as both sides were not keen on compromising and President Carter had to shift back and forth, speaking to both men.  After days of standing off and Carters shuttling, they managed to find common ground and by September, Israel and Egypt signed a peace agreement which finally put an end to their animosity.
Peace requires respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.

Part of the peace agreement is for Israel to cede the Sinai back to Egypt.  Strategically, Israel occupied these lands, as well as the Golan Heights of Syria to act as a buffer zone for its security and it is rather understandable when viewed from a security standpoint.  Israel ceded the region when Egypt guaranteed its security and will no longer wage aggression against it.  To this day, that agreement is still being honored and both nations have been at peace since then.  As a further epilogue, peace agreements have already been made with most of the other Arab neighbors save for Syria.  It can be inferred here that Israel is willing to make peace so as long as its security is guaranteed and will no longer be threatened by its hostile neighbors who in turn must be willing to recognize Israels existence and abandon its goal of destroying it. This is the key to lasting peace in the Middle East.

Political Economy

Politics played a big role in the different institutional set ups at different levels and in the process impacted on the changing association between the state and the economy plus the society and the state. It emerges in the two cases that there was no fundamental change as it was perceived as a re-regulation process which witnessed the repositioning of the state. Simply put, the state was changing to remain in tandem with the emerging scenario at the international stage. This was occasioned by the need to protect the major interests of the states.

The economic restructuring in North Africa
Most North African countries engaged in state planning in the period between the 1960 and 1970s with a view to attaining rapid industrialization. During this period, there were tight controls on foreign capital and an unparalleled state expansion into service provision. Initially, sheer confusion and incoherence characterizing the planning was masked in the name of scientific management. At the same time success was readily realized due to protected markets. Despite this, the act of nationalizing foreign based industries and choosing to promote some local ones did not convince (Khapoya, 1998).

As time passed on, the distortions arising from state planning became apparent. Such included economic disruptions such as the doing away with market forces in favor of a type of planning which did not pay attention to both costing and pricing. However, with time, it became clear that opening up of economies was the way to go as opposed to running a closed economy. The inward-looking development program proved incapable of generating the much sought after revenue to develop the countries. It proved difficult to finance increasing imports and the needs of a welfare state (Khapoya, 1998).

In 1969, the Tunisian minister tasked with the responsibility of setting up an integrated system based on a socialist orientation Ahmed Ben Saleh was relieved of his duties. At the same time, a more decentralized developmental approach was introduced. However, this was short lived as in 1974, President Sadat introduced a working paper which paved way for the liberalization process infitah. The aim was to improve the efficiency of the Egyptian public enterprise, revitalize the private sector, and encourage foreign investment in the Egyptian country. A few years later, the Algerian country followed suit and introduced a shift of the countrys own on the economic orientation front. Following the sudden demise of the then president Boumedienne, Chadli    Benjedid, his successor was quick to introduce new policy guidelines as captured in the five year plan publication of 1980-4  (Molefi, 2007). This presented a critical departure from his predecessors focus.

Instead of a focus on heavy industry under the public sector, a shift was proposed based on light industry and a greater focus on the private sector. The decentralization and liberalization policies were slowly developed in North Africa. This was premised on the fact that the oil boom coming  during the late 1970s was good enough in aiding the countries navigate the pressures occasioned by both domestic and international indebt-ness. On another front, the attempt to raise prices of basic commodities and lower food subsidies led to riots both in Egypt and Tunisia in 1977 and 1984 respectively (Sandbrook, 2006). This temporarily halted the process and at the same time offered a political weapon to the earlier opponents of reforms.

Early liberalization efforts led to growth in unemployment rates and polarity between the poor and the rich (Martin and OMeara, 2006). A similar scenario occurred in morocco as the agreement with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to reduce subsidies saw an increase in prices leading to riots in1984. From the year 1986 and onwards, the three states were forced to seek the help of the IMF and the World Bank. This was as a result of falling prices of oil at the international stage resulting in a rise in both international and domestic debt. This turn of events forced the three states to revert to the early reform focus. In Egypt, a standby agreement was signed with the IMF which facilitated the extension of loans to the country in exchange for a promise by Egypt towards meeting certain IMF set targets.  In reference to morocco, a strong commitment to privatization was guaranteed in the year 1989. In Tunisia, a renewed assurance to remove barriers concerning trade and investment was made. This notwithstanding, the most serious drastic measure was witnessed in Algeria(Roland and Atmore, 1994).

After years of falling living standards and forced austerity, riots ensued in 1988 (Roland and Atmore, 1994). In response to this, the then president, Chadli introduced policies with an aim of renewing the economic reform agenda. The country was also required to restructure its political system. This kind of pressure continued to intensify especially after the Gulf war. Following this, the Egyptian government took the initiative by offering both diplomatic and military support to the allied forces attacking Iraq in return for aid. This also captured a commitment to structural adjustments which witnessed an offer listing more than hundred companies up for sale. This also led to a cut in subsidies, an introduction of a new tax regime, revival of the stock exchange system, and freeing of the urban and agricultural sectors from poverty. Tunisia and morocco were equally pushed into reforming. At centre stage were the European Union, the World Bank, and the IMF. The restructuring was done poorly or was impeded by problems associated with poor management and indebt-ness meaning several arrangements had to be made to prepare the state businesses for sale. The states were partly to blame for this mess.

The Syria, Iraq and Jordan case
In Syria, the acts of nationalizing the economy were carried out in 1960s. The power seizure by President Hafiz al-Asad in 1970 led to a halt of the events. The leader sought to consolidate his position by loosening restrictions and facilitating freer trade by encouraging a return of Syrians who had fled the country to return and invest. In 1973, certain sections of the Syrian economy opened both to Arab and European investment. The opening of the service sector served as a precursor for economic growth witnessed in the subsequent ten years. The oil revenues were however key in the sustained success for the ten years. The Syrian president was also able to secure funding from Kuwait, Libya, and Saudi Arabia (Harrigan and El-Said, 2010).  

The emergence of state tolerated corruption which saw individuals of position use public offices to enrich them served to undermine the move towards development. President Asad was thus enthroned in a position whereby he would reward his loyalists. This coupled with other economic wrongdoing led to mounting discontent in the country populace as exhibited n 1970. It also inhibited the Syrian intent of diversifying its economy. However, the countrys hard-line stance against Israel meant that oil rich countries steadied their aid supply to the country (Harrigan and El-Said (2010).

The loss of Russian markets and the persistent internal problems coupled with a reduction in aid forced the country to make a number of concessions with the private sector. This allowed private investors to take over the burden of investing in the country. As time went, the country passed legislation giving official way to foreign investment. In addition, the pro-allied stance of the state on the Gulf war meant aid freely flowed to the state (Lapidus, 2008).

The economic opening of the Syrian economy did not however translate to political openness. However, there was a degree of opening the economy but such could not pass as liberalization as the president continued to dominate the economy with a view to expanding on his power base. Non-state actors were basically locked out of politics.

By 1960 the private sector in Iraq was highly limited.  The small number of private enterprises present was effectively destroyed by the nationalization agenda of 1960s. The 1970s establishments were mainly a creation of the Bathi reign. The idea was to prevent the expansion of foreign control into the oil industry. Half of the firms dealing in the oil business were exclusively from the Tkrit and Al-Anbar family from Saddam Husseins homeland (Lapidus, 2008). 

The 1980s witnessed another wave of private sector promotion. This was stimulated by the food shortages griping the country during the war time with Iran. In 1988, various public enterprises were privatized.  Other public firms were extended greater autonomy in reference to operation limits. The creation of Rafidain bank points to exemplify this. The war on Kuwait changed the economic face of Iraq as a number of sanctions were imposed on the country. The absence of state control in the Kurdish area meant that only private economics were applicable (Lapidus, 2008).

The Jordan case presents a divergent prospect. Of the Arab states, the Jordan country had the most open system. Despite this, after a decade of self-proclaimed liberalization, the state held a huge influence on economic activities in the state. However, as at 1988, the government was closely working with the IMF towards achieving an acceptable degree of liberalization. The first attempt was geared towards stabilizing the national debt and introducing structural adjustments towards the elimination of subsidies with other market imperfections.  However, such policies provoked public outcry as exhibited in the 1989 and 1996 public disturbances. This notwithstanding, as of 1990, Jordan had made very limited progress towards liberalizing the economy due to vested political interests due to fear on the part of government bureaucrats on the potential loss of power (Alasdair and Blake, 1985).

The expanding need for military meant that there were limited funds to be used in the welfare state activities (McGrail, 2004). Equally important, investment activities were no longer possible from within as a result this encouraged a certain degree of investment in the countries. By the turn of the 1990s, the welfare orientation of the states had been reduced by great margins. At the same time the gap between the private and the public sector was reduced immensely as the state encouraged information sharing between public and private entities.

The failure to open up the economies as desired lay in the royal families interests in regards to this, thee were businesses to protect both public and private (Simon, 1995). On the other hand, there were fears that the move towards liberalization would attract discontent from the citizenry. The other factor rested on the fear of losing control over the economy to foreigners. It is discernable that opening up the economy directly posed dangers to the ruling elite as it derived a lot of power from the control on the economy.

Analyzing the two cases
Initially the North African countries were sing state planning towards achieving their goals. This case also holds for the gulf countries. The two cases were characterized by protected economies rich in oil, an aspect that guaranteed relative success. However, as pointed out, the two cases were fraught with domination occasioned by the ruling elite. Simply put, the ruling class was in control of these economies with a view to protecting their sectarian interests at the expense of the rest of the citizenry. a protected market meant there was considerable growth in the states as they were supported by the proceeds from oil. However, as changes came especially on international commerce, it became clear that a closed economy could not thrive. The falling oil prices could no longer guarantee the funds earlier available. This meant that the state was under no illusions, if it was to make progress, alternatives had to be found. To get the much needed funds, opening up was an option, however, the fear of foreign domination and the need to protect the powers held by the royal families implied that this option was not preferable. But the absence of funds greatly undermined the position of government in reference to offering subsidies. The absence of subsidies put the state on a collision course with its citizenry.

The shrinking of the oil market and the accompanied tumble in the prices at the global level meant there was need to seek alternative funding sources. Unfortunately, the funding was available only from the West. However, the West had a host of conditions pegged to its help which had to be fulfilled before coming in. This is the case applied both to the Gulf region and the north of Africa. The two groups of states chose to accept and promise to restructure. However, the restructuring led to a complication of an already difficult situation. Prices of goods rose partly due to elimination of reduction of government subsidies. The overall result was widespread discontent within the countries occasioning subsequent riots.

Some aspects relating to the adoption of the economic restructuring emerge. Economics is closely tied to politics as politics both directly and indirectly affect the way an economy is run. At the onset, the countries both from the north of Africa and the Gulf region were never keen on introducing economic reforms. This was primarily based on the idea of falling victims of foreign control and loss of political control within the countries. Economies were also arranged in a manner that protected leadership interests. As events changed, the country leaderships were forced to adopt the changes.  The establishments then went ahead to undermine the restructuring exercise premised on the same idea.

Another issue that becomes clear in this review is the role of both internal and external forces on the politics and economics of a state. Whereas the west was pushing for the restructuring of the countries in perspective economies, it cannot be ruled out that there were vested interests. Opening up economies was to a ploy to locate business opportunities for western imperialism. In this sense, the IMF, the World Bank, and the European Union were pushing for reforms with a view to securing investment opportunities in the regions. Within the states, the citizenry was not keen on the restructuring exercise as it led to suffering due to increased prices and loss of jobs due to reorganization of public entities for privatization. The local elite were equally opposed to the measures on the basis of the pursuit of self-protectionism against foreign domination. However, thee local elite stands accused of protecting selfish interests as their activities were never aimed at protecting the citizenry.

It becomes clear that external conditions like falling oil prices and pressure from global bodies such as the World Bank and the international monetary fund were behind the adoption of liberal changes both in the north of Africa and the gulf region.

However, according to Harrigan and El-Said (2010), the restructuring system witnessed an expansion of state welfare programs, an attribute it intended to reign on. This case is seen n Egypt and Jordan where rising poverty levels and decline of welfare state programs due to liberalization led to an increase in Islamic welfare programs in the process improving the idea of Muslim brotherhood. This presents considerable opposition to the incumbent regimes.

Liberalization is both a political and economic exercise. However, the political attribute weighs heavily on the latter as it is political leaders who affect the course of economies in different states. It is on this basis that the international actors the World Bank and the IMF supported by the politically powerful west sought to force the two set of countries into restructuring their economies. The economic difficulties being experienced in the Gulf and the Northern part of Africa forced the two countries to adopt the measures. However, due to the intentions of protecting power and their sectarian interests, the leadership of the two countries only appears to have restructured the economies in limited ways. The fact that the restructuring affected the economies in an adverse way in reference to rising prices points to foster the point that the introduction was not done progressively.

On the basis of this paper, it emerges that attempts at liberalization were made. It should be noted that attempts to alter the structure of an economy are politically sanctioned.  It is thus difficult to distance them from the general view. In this sense, while adjusting the economies of both the North Africa and the Gulf States, it is clear that the political establishments at the time were focused on reforming the economies in ways which served to reinforce their positions. Simply put, the restructuring of the economies was not aimed at bringing a new societal-state engagement with on the economy.

The introduction of structural adjustments programs were used as a yard stick in gauging the development of states albeit by the international community. However, it was realized that reforming other supporting sectors like the banking industry was of paramount importance.

The privatization in the countries did not take a plausible path. Most of the privatized industries ended up in the ands of cliques of individuals whose aim was to stifle competition and continue in the same early vein of economic domination. As a result, the desired goals of restructuring were limited.

Fontamara An Evaluation of the Church and Christianity and Their Connection to Socialism

Ignazio Silone is considered as among the first anti-fascist advocate of his time. He wrote a lot of books that tackled his beliefs and understanding of the society he was in and most, if not all, of them gained popular attention from the reading public all over the world. Among his most famous works is Fontamara, which is an anti-fascist literature. This masterpiece is greatly praise and at the same time criticized for its intense claims and unusual interpretations. Among this is the connection that he claimed exist between the Church and Christianity with Socialism. This is really contestable because those who understand Socialism to its core would argue that Christianity and Socialism are irreconcilable for the earlier is anchored on the divinity of God, while the latter is built on the atheistic philosophy instituted in communism where it actually was derived from. However, in the story, the people failed to have a deeper understanding of what Christianity stood for, thus it provided a different meaning and even became instrumental for government oppression. The aim of this paper, therefore, is to identify Silones representation of the Church and Christianity in Fontamara and to explore the connections he perceived was present between the said institutions to Socialism an idea that seems to be absurd for many people.

Silones Representations
Church
    For many people, perception of the Church is corollary to Christianity, however, in Fontamara, the two seem to play separate roles. The Church in the story appeared to be an instrument for the perpetuation of the peoples ignorance, which led to their oppression. One representation of this is the town priest Don Abbacchio who was influential in making the people accept their fate under the fascist Contractor advising them not to oppose the latter for he was the devil personified however, everyone saw that he arrived riding one of the Contractors coaches. It is ironic how the priest could go on criticizing the Contractor when it was apparent that he was getting favor from the latter. This could imply that the Church, through the priest, was used to pacify the people by making them believe that it was useless to argue thus they should just let the Contractor be the people heed his advice because of their allegiance to the Church.

    Silone actually showed that there was connivance between the Church and the State in the story.  As Paynter pointed out, the symbolism of the lice that appeared on Micheles dream, which had longer legs, darker and with a cross at the back, represented a more destructive government but is supported by the Church. In the dream, the Pope was talking with Christ about the punishment He would bestow to the oppressive people. However, the Pope kept on taking their side claiming that they were also good Christians. Then Christ offered several proposals on what to do with the instead but the Pope always had a counter-argument. In exasperation, Christ asked what then should be done. The Pope recommended that the cafoni be given lice so that they would be preoccupied by it, which would take their attention away from the situation at hand.  Thus, instead of bringing punishment to the fascist leader, the Pope found it better to give the people something that would take their attention from their suffering so that they will not be troubled too much by it.

Christianity
    Despite the fact that Christianity is an attribute of the Church, it cannot be totally claimed to have the same representation as the physical Church in the story. It was shown that the peoples belief in Christ are what made them become blinded by some of the obvious facts that were in front of them because they were somehow concealed by the faith they have to their priest and their congregation. Moreover, it was also shown that all of them, even the oppressors, were actually Christians. Thus, it may be easy to conclude that it also was the tool in the existence of the fascist government.   

    Then again, one may be getting the wrong idea of it just like the peasants did if that is how they viewed Christianity in the book. On the surface, it may seem that the claim is valid because basically, that is what was apparent in the story. This is because it takes a deeper understanding of the concept of Christianity to be able to practice it correctly. Unfortunately, the cafoni took it at face value or as literally as the Church would want them to believe, which generally seem to be in the favor of the oppressors. What the peasants failed to realize was the real meaning of Christianity and what the genuine message of God was for the people. The Church was largely to be blamed for these because they were the shepherd who guided the flock to the wrong direction and provided their own interpretation of the Scriptures.

    In the same allegory presented above, the one about the lice, it showed how much Christ wanted to alleviate the condition of the peasants. He was eager to do things for them at the expense of the oppressors. However, the Pope, claiming that the latter are also good Christians contradicted every proposition He gave. In this particular scenario, it can be seen that the heart of God (in essence, Christianity) wants to do something for the poor people. However, His messengers, the priests or Popes who serve as liaison, are the ones given the opportunity to choose which way to do it and the decision they made is what worsen the situation.
   
    As a matter of fact, Silones work was teeming with ideas associated with Christianity and one of the most significant is the torture and sacrifice of Berardo. The depiction of the process of beating can be compared to the sufferings that Christ had to bear on the hands of the people in His way to Calvary. His sacrifice of his life so that his fellow cafoni may be liberated from the fascist government is like Christs sacrifice so that the world and mankind would be redeemed. Thus, it may seem confusing and blurred but there was actually a thin line that was present between Christianity and the Church as was portrayed in the story. It was the Church which was partly responsible for the condition of the people while Christianity in itself was not as bad, however, the misinterpretation of which is.

In Connection to Socialism
    The book Fontamara is known to be written by Silone after he severed ties with the Communist Party. He then went back to his earlier ideological inclination which was Socialism. Thus, the book, aside from its anti-fascist touch also can be associated with the authors socialist convictions. Socialism, as the adherents of communism and even many of those who are not, is said to be largely related to communism. Given that, it generally follows the Communist doctrines as were written in the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. In this light, it could therefore be claimed that Socialism and Christianity should not go together because they are of opposing views.
    However, Ignazio Silone had a different conviction for he believed that Socialism was tied in faith. In one of his essays, he argued that the more scientific Socialist theories claim to be, the more temporary they seem to be and for him Socialist values are permanent. Silones perception is supported by Gorbachev when he asserted that Socialism is an idea which actually derives strength from Christianitys accomplishment. In the book, it was shown how the sacrifice of Berardo, which was earlier likened to the sacrifice of Christ, became the driving force of the people to conduct anti-fascist actions. Thus, it can be said that for Silone, either it is through Christianity that Socialism will rise or the solidarity of Christians will tend to provide the changes to society. Furthermore, the linkage between his advocacy and Christianity can further be recognized at the end of the story wherein the question, what are we to do was asked. In Paynters analysis, this was lifted from the book of Saint John the Baptist and in light of the story, it was asked in reference to their newly discovered awareness and readiness to let go of their selfish pursuits inspired by Berardos martyrdom.

    Ignacio Silones illustration of the Church and Christianity in the story tells a lot about his personality. In the literature, he seemed to denounce the Church and some of its practitioners such as the priests and the adherents but not Christianity itself. He showed how the earlier can be used as an instrument for oppressing people once it is interpreted in the wrong manner as was shown by how the priests in the story lured the people and divert their attention from the real situation. On the other hand, he illustrated the significance that the value of real Christianity has in the development and betterment of the society. This could be a testament to his claim that he was a socialist without a party, a Christian without a church.
    The characterization of the Church put forth by Silone in the story could best be understood by taking in consideration the context and the period when he wrote the book. Indeed at the earlier times, the Church had somehow become a tool used by the government because of their mutualistic relationship, wherein one benefits from the other, although not generally but there were indeed some stray souls who confer to such a collaboration. Nevertheless, the real essence of Christianity is not marred by such and it forever stayed to be faithful to the people for as long as it is properly understood and the fulfilment of the Scriptures could lead to the success of a Socialist government.

    Although many people would disagree with Silones assertion that Christianity and Socialism come hand in hand, it was shown in Fontamara how it is possible. Using simple words and elaborate representations, he was able to provide a clear illustration of what he perceived the role of the Church and Christianity have in the society and he was able to show how the latter is connected to Socialism, which as shown was as a means for its rise and growth.

SOVIET RUSSIAN HISTORY

The economy of China is now growing more than any other country in the world, and it is headed by the Communist Party.  It has balanced communism with capitalism and has become a leader at it.  What many people dont know today is that Vladimir Lenin also tried to do that in Russia with his New Economic Policy (NEP), but Joseph Stalin put an end to it.  Indeed, communist leaders in other parts of the world, such as Che Guevara favored China over the Soviet Union, whose Stalinist policy smeared communism.  While the Stalin period is a continuity of the Lenin period in the sense that communism controlled the Soviet government, it was mainly a break because Stalin was more brutal and extreme in his policies than Lenin who was relatively more moderate.

The break stems from a difference in personalityLenin was a lawyer who was against the extremes of the Left and Right, while Stalin, prior to becoming all powerful in the Soviet Union, was a bank robber, kidnapper and counterfeiter.  In 1892, Lenin earned his law degree from the University of St. Petersburg after initially being expelled from Kazan University where he participated in a student riot under the influence of Karl Marxs works.  Stalin, on the other hand was originally an undergraduate theologian who eventually, like many clergymen today, exposed his dual personality.  He rebelled and failed to graduate after being unable to pay his tuition fees and missing the final exam.  Then he joined Lenins Bolsheviks after reading Lenins Marxist works.  He funded the Bolsheviks through kidnapping, extortion and bank robberies.  In fact, just after he resigned temporarily from the group because it banned robberies, he caused the death of 40 people after raiding a bank shipment.  Later, it would be Stalin who would influence Lenin when it came to assertiveness in executions.

Thus, after Lenin suffered from a stroke, he feared the worst for Russia if Stalin, then General Secretary of the Communist Party, remained in power.  He wrote a testament through his wife Nadezhda about how he wanted to change the soviet structure and the evils of Stalin.  He rudely said that Stalin was too powerful and that he needed to be purged from his current post.  Nadezhda faithfully mailed the testament to the Communist Partys central committee after Lenin died.  It was intended to be read in May 1924 at the 13th Party Congress, but Stalin, along with Kamenev and Zinoviev who were members of the ruling troika, suppressed it.  It was only in 1925, that the testament became known through the publication of Max Eastman in the United States.  One of Stalins opponents, Leon Trotsky, who was assassinated later by Stalins secret agents, invoked it as part of his rhetoric against Stalin. 

But Stalin remained in power and either reversed some of Lenins policies or made it brutal and extreme.  Lenin, for example, created the NEP after realizing that a pure communist economy did not work.  He allowed some capitalism, but limited it to small businesses.  Large industrial ventures, international trade and banking were still state-controlled.  Furthermore, in the agricultural sector, the state only took a portion of the farmers harvest as a tax in kind.  The difference could then be sold to the market with a profit.  While it increased yields in the beginning, eventually farmers started hoarding their farm produce to increase market prices.

This really upset Stalin and instead of finding a Middle-Way solution to the problem, as the Chinese communists did successfully, he hastily discontinued Lenins NEP after Lenin died, and he replaced it in 1928 with complete state control and collectivization.  Stalin also feared future military attacks from aggressor nations like Germany, and he believed that rapid industrialization was necessary to protect itself from imperialists.  He also thought that agricultural collectivization would enable Russia to achieve this.  But the peasants, of course, vehemently protested against this policy, and as a result, many of them were executed.  Moreover, the Soviet government estimated that as a result of collectivization, industrial output would increase three times and agricultural yields would increase 1.5 times, but these estimates or goals were not realized.  And Stalin blamed the kulaks or wealthy peasants because of their non-cooperative attitude.  The actual kulaks were only a small minority, but the ones labeled as kulaks, even if they were not, were exiled into remote regions, forced into labor camps, or they were simply executed.  More than 20,000 people died as a result of Dekulakization in 1930.  It is also estimated that about two to five million Ukrainian peasants died during the Holodomor famine, when Stalin tortured and executed these peasants to steal their grain, which could have fed millions for a year but instead was exported to fund the industrialization of Russia and to starve those who opposed him, an act of genocide, as the Ukrainian government asserts.

This was something Lenin would have definitely opposed he was vehemently against the imperialism of the capitalists, but Stalin became their equivalent.  Lenin wrote Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916) to explain how Western nations such as Britain and Germany exploit the natural and human resources of weaker countries to enrich themselves.  Indeed, Britons conquered America, including Canada, and slaughtered millions of Native Americans, just like the Spaniards and Portuguese, stealing their land and importing slaves from Africa.  The Britons did the same thing to the aboriginals of Australia and New Zealand.  Not satisfied with their conquests, they also colonized and enslaved Asian countries like India, Malaysia and Singapore.  The English poet Rudyard Kipling even wrote The White Mans Burden The United States and the Philippine Islands (1899), which was published in the once-popular McClures magazine, describing the American white mans role in taming Filipinos who he called new-caught, sullen peoples, half devil and half child.  Eventually, the US government, inspired by this poem, attacked the Philippine Republic and captured its president, Emilio Aguinaldo, but the American generals wanted to annihilate half the population of the country since guerillas still hounded them.  As they planned genocide, however, they were eventually confronted with formidable enemies in the form of Japan and Germany, something that allowed the Allies to see themselves on the mirror.

Lenin would never, indeed, want to associate himself with such imperialists, but not only did Stalin act like evil imperialists, he also joined them as Allies.  Lenin thought that imperialist-capitalist Britons and French used Russia as a tool during World War I, and their capitalist interests dragged Russia into the conflict.  In World War I, Lenin wanted to pull out Russian troops from the war since the Germans continued to march toward the east, but other Bolsheviks wanted to continue fighting.  Trotsky tried to negotiate with the Germans but failed, so the Germans renewed their advance and captured some parts of western Russia. Consequently, Lenin withdrew from World War I through the Brest-Litovsk Treaty.  Russia lost much of its territory, and Lenin transferred the seat of government to Moscow from Petrograd due to the German menace in 1918.  But Stalin did the opposite during World War II.  This time, when Hitler attacked Russia after breaking a non-aggression pact with them and repeating history, Stalin stood firm, unlike Lenin, in spite of the fact that millions of his Red-Army soldiers were already slaughtered by the Nazis, and he fought back.  All the sacrifices that Russia made to industrialize and prepare for such a situation paid off.  They stopped the German advance, recovered their stolen land and marched forward to Germany, where after negotiating and joining the American, British and French Allies, Stalin managed to fool them and capture East Germany, together with other Eastern European nations, as a buffer zone.  Vengeance was Stalins.

However, Stalins resultant victory came at a very high price he executed all types of people from various races, ethnicities and classes, even his own party members, something that Lenin would object to since he believed the revolution was a war against class, not against race, ethnicity or gender.  As Lenin said in a speech

Only the most ignorant and down-trodden people can believe the lies and slander that are spread about the Jews...It is not the Jews who are the enemies of the working people. The enemies of the workers are the capitalists of all countries. Among the Jews there are working people, and they form the majority. They are our brothers, who, like us, are oppressed by capital they are our comrades in the struggle for socialism. Among the Jews there are kulaks, exploiters, and capitalists, just as there are among the Russians, and among people of all nationsRich Jews, like rich Russians, and the rich in all countries, are in alliance to oppress, crush, rob, and disunite the workers...Shame on accursed Tsarism, which tortured and persecuted the Jews. Shame on those who foment hatred towards the Jews, who foment hatred towards other nations.  
But Stalin allegedly hated Jews and many other ethnicities.  While the historiography of accounting for all the executions during Stalins period has changed over the decades,    there is no doubt that millions suffered as a result of his policies.  He supposedly asserted that Every Jewish nationalist is the agent of the American intelligence service. Jewish nationalists think that their nation was saved by the United States. They think theyre indebted to the Americans. Among doctors, there are many Jewish nationalists.  There are also allegations from those close to Stalin, including Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, that Stalin harbored negative sentiments about the Jews and that he was paranoid about their potential for espionage.  But other historians think that Khrushchevs accounts are not accurate.

Even if Stalins anti-Semitism is hearsay, the execution and persecution of other ethnicities has substantial evidence.  Americans, for example, who were trying to flee the Great Depression by settling in communist Russia, were sent to gulags, prison camps or were executed for potentially being spies.  Stalins secret and public police, the NKVD, also arrested approximately 350,000 and executed roughly 250,000 foreigners, including people from Germany, Poland and Korea, since Stalin was paranoid about spies and rather than go through the difficulty of sorting out the real spies from innocent suspects, he took the easy path and just arrested all of them.  Somewhat understandably though, after being attacked by Germany and Japan in the past, who wouldnt be paranoid about those countries and their neighbors  After all, America did the same thing to the Japanese, who were all sent to prison camps, after Pearl Harbor was bombed.  And even today, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI and even airport security uses racial profiling and often singles out Arabs, Muslims or anyone who looks like them as possible suspects even if they are innocent.  The same thing is happening with innocent Iraqis and Afghans who have now turned to terror even if they were once indifferent since they were falsely accused and bombed, with their loved ones now dead.  Thousands of these innocent victims also perished, so there is really not much of a difference between the policies of George Bush and Stalin.

Stalin also deported many ethnicities and resettled them in Central Asia and Siberia, much like the US Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) deporting Mexicans and other nationalities today.  People from Finland, Korea, Ukraine, Poland, Germany, Greece, Lithuania, Estonia, Turkey, Bulgaria and Latvia were among those who were deported.  Indeed, Lenin would have opposed such practices, as Khrushchev, who later reversed Stalins policies, believes.

Stalin was also paranoid about counter-revolutionaries within his own government and the Russian people, so he had them arrested and executed immediately during the Great Purge or the Great Terror to prevent any insurgency or coup detat.  Indeed Leon Trotsky asserted that a river of blood separates the Lenin period from Stalins.  Hundreds of thousands, the exact figure unknown, perished.  Stalin also altered the historiography of the Soviet Union by censoring or altering Soviet textbooks and photographs.  Those who were purged, for example, were removed from pictures, just as women today remove their ex-boyfriends from their favorite photos using Adobe Photoshop or similar computer graphics editors.

But in fairness to Stalin, some of his projects were continuities of Lenins dreams.  During Stalins period, women were treated equally and were given equal opportunities.  Advances in health care and education also contributed to improvements in literacy and the overall quality of life for the average Soviet.  Stalin also pioneered prenatal care and hospital births for women.  Foreign experts were also sent to Russia to improve the infrastructure and develop it.

In the end, while some aspects of the Stalin period were a continuity of the Lenin period, most of it was a break from Lenins anti-imperialist stance.  While China is now more of the vision that Lenin saw, Stalin developed similarities with Western imperialists.  Indeed, even until now, America and its allies are no better than Stalin.

Rabbinic Judaism through the First to Sixth Century CE

The term Jewish Diaspora, the forced mass exile of the Jews from their native lands (Israel, Lebanon, and Jordan), is well-known to have started in late 8th Century BCE timeline, not declining until the early centuries of the CE. It is during this timeframe when the Jews revolted against their Roman conquerors and, as a result, were banished to different parts of Europe and Asia or sold as slaves across the vast Roman Empire (Grayzel, 1984).

Notable events in the Diaspora timeline
    In the First Century, uprisings from various Jewish communities besieged the Roman Empire, the strongest being the Great Jewish Revolt (beginning in the 66 CE, ending late into the 73 CE). The Jews were defeated, and Jerusalem fell and was set ablaze by the Romans. The siege of Masada in the 73 CE was the final tragic event to the revolt (Josephus, c.75).

    The Second Century witnessed a restart of the revolts from the Jewish communities, the most famous being the Kitos War that happened during the years 115-117 CE, and Bar Kochbas revolt during the 130s CE. Both ended with the defeat and annihilation of the Jewish population in Cyprus and Rome, respectively. The remaining Jewish population was banished out of Jerusalem, their Holy City (Hooker, n.d.).

    There is not much said about the Third Century. It was devoid of any historical uprisings, but was instead filled with wrangling among rabbis on the editing of the text of the Talmud.

    During the Fourth Century, the Jews were permitted to enter their Holy City on the anniversary of the Second Temples destruction. The Jews revolted against the Caesar Gallus during 351 CE, but was easily defeated. During the years 361-363 CE, the Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate granted the return of the Jews to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the Second Temple, but the plan failed when a strong earthquake struck in 363 CE. This could be considered the start of the end of the Jewish Diaspora.

    The Fifth Century saw the Jews re-worshipping at the rebuilt Second Temple. More and more Jews returned to Jerusalem. And when the Sixth Century came, the Jewish communities were back into Jerusalem. Late in the 6th Century, the Jews were under the oppressive rule of the Byzantines, leading them to revolt once more.

Judaisms various denominations
    It is during this timeline that we explore rabbinic Judaism and its fate during the Diaspora. Rabbinic Judaism has been the traditional voice of Judaism since the Jewish Diaspora, between the 2nd to 6th Century CE (Grayzel, 1984). It was, however, not the only voice making itself heard.

    Among the various denominations present in the Jewish religion, we will only compare rabbinic Judaism with the more scripture-based Karaism and the more recent Liberal Judaism since these branches are the ones with the most glaringly conflicting theories. It should be noted that, among the three, only rabbinic Judaism and Karaism existed during the Diaspora.

    Rabbinic Judaism, also termed Rabbinism by scholars, has always maintained that Moses received both the Written Torah and the oral law from Yahweh when he (Moses) ascended Mount Sinai. The oral law is believed to contain instructions from Yahweh about how to interpret the commandments in the Torah. This oral law, passed down from generation to generation, became the foundation for the Talmud and Mishnah and other written texts compiled by the rabbis (Stemberger, 1996).

    But due to many contradicting passages in the Mishnah and other written interpretations of the Oral Torah, the Karaite Judaism denomination insists that only the Written Torah must have been handed down to Moses. They believe in the literal interpretation of the Tanakh canon alone, and disregard the written versions of the orally-handed-down Talmud and Mishnah as not binding (Polliack, 2004).

    The Liberal movement, founded during the 20th Century under the Progressive Judaism school of thought, promotes a personal interpretation of the Written Torah. Leaving the past arguments between Rabbinism and Karaism, the Liberal Jews concentrate more on their perceived truth, as divined from the Torah, instead of the traditional interpretations in the written texts.

Evidence of Rabbinic Judaism in the Diaspora
    Judaism underwent many challenges and changes during the Diaspora. Rabbinic Judaism, in particular, went under fire from the various denominations of Judaism that broke free from it. Questions on the legitimacy of the interpretations rocked the Jewish faith.

    All throughout the Diaspora, Judaism was a much-debated topic. The Jews were divided among themselves, hence the emergence of the schisms in Judaism (30 CE) and the violence among the various denominations. This in turn led to the sacking of the Second Temple during the First Century. Redactions of the Mishnah (200 CE) and the Talmud of Jerusalem (450 CE) also occurred within the Diaspora.

    Rachel Hachlili (1998) pointed out many evidences of Judaism during the Diaspora, though they were not entirely of rabbinic Judaism in nature. Two synagogues were excavated at Delos and Ostia, the one at Delos dating to the pre-70 CE. Rabbinical texts on the synagogues history were also discovered. Other synagogues showing rabbinic interpretations in their architecture and carvings were also discovered to have existed, an example being a rabbinical interpretation of the Exodus Passover scene. The scene contained soldiers, a figure uncommon in the more literal interpretations of the other denominations (Hachlili, 1998).

    Due to the schism among the Jewish denominations, however, writer S.J.D. Cohen (1981) was led to observe that the Jews did not seek rabbinic leadership during the Diaspora. The Jews were not purely rabbinical, but neither were they solidly of another denomination.

    The Jewish Diaspora greatly affected Judaism, creating rips in the mainstream rabbinic Judaism and dividing Judaism into a plethora of denominations. Its effects continue in present Judaism. Yet despite all the separations, Rabbinic Judaism remains to be the most common form of Judaism in the world today. 

The Jews in the Roman and Persian Empires

The first century AD can be described as the period of tranquility. Jewish communities thrived in many parts of the Roman and Parthian Empires. The Jews were protected under Roman law and allowed to practice their religion without much constraint. Indeed, Jewish communities can be found in Syria, Iberia, Egypt, Armenia, and Parthia. In Rome, the Jews were allowed to establish synagogues and centers of religious learning. The Jewish community paid a yearly maintenance tax to the Roman government.

In Judea, however, the Jews were in constant conflict with Roman authorities. Rising tax demands, famine, and political discontent led to a major rebellion in 69 A.D. The Roman emperor commanded a large army to subdue the rebels. The historian Josephus wrote that the purpose of the rebellion was to regain Jewish independence. For months, the Roman army paid siege on Jerusalem.

Finally, the Romans captured the city and burned the temple to the ground. The Jews were dispersed in many parts of the empire. In Persia, the Jewish communities were regularly harassed by Parthian officials. The Jews were suspected of spying for the Romans. This was not the only issue. The Jews did not recognize the nominal authority of the Parthian monarch in the areas of religion and learning.

The spread of the Christian religion in the Roman Empire and its subsequent adoption as the state religion proved detrimental to the Jewish religion. Emperor Constantine the Great ordered the destruction of Jewish synagogues in Judea and Syria in an attempt to strengthen Christianity. Constantine also banned the practice of the Jewish religion in Rome and other major cities. Constantines mother, Theodora, removed Jewish scholars in major centers of learning.

The contempt of the Roman emperors to the Jewish faith was based on the notion that the Jewish religion was the antithesis of Christianity. In many parts of the empire, Christians harassed Jewish communities. In major cities, Roman authorities instigated civil unrests to dislodge the Jews from their established communities.

In Persia, the Babylonian Jews lived in relative harmony. At the onset of the Roman invasion of Judea, the Babylonian Jews wanted to fight the Romans. The Parthian monarch threatened to use force if they insisted on waging war against the Romans. In the Parthian court, several Jewish scholars translated an ancient copy of the works of Zoroaster into Greek and Aramaic. The Parthian monarch even allowed the establishment of a small Jewish state in Babylonia. Indeed, while the Jews were persecuted in the Roman Empire, they were respected and protected in the Parthian Empire.

With the rise of the Sassanians, the Jews were suspected of spying for the Romans. The Sassanian ruler instigated major massacres of Jewish communities in an attempt to purify Sassanian society. This, however, eased at the end of the 6th century AD. In the West, the fall of the Roman Empire led to a short revival of Jewish communities in the Mediterranean. However, this was short-lived as the Christian Church began to impose its political and religious authority in some parts of the empire.

Living in a World without Women

In the quest for womens genuine role in the society, Crossette argued that women in the Muslim world have made a great change in the modernization of its society. Womens influence has made a major impact in various sectors in the Muslim world. This impact is favorably recognized by the modern world through its given equal rights.

    Traditionally, womens roles in the Muslim society are favorable for men.  Gender segregation is customary and women are only perceived as wives and mothers without any connection to the economic world. However, these traditional views towards women had changed over time. Social change in particular, which includes the economic and political status of women, is historically brought by political conflict. Post-World War II as a political conflict brought about the change in the social status of women. In connection, the Middle East had experienced the same political conflict since the 1950s. The most evident political conflict is that of the Palestinians. They have been discharge by Zionists from their communities throughout the period of conflict. This conflict, however, had made major changes in the rural Palestinian life particularly in womens role through political involvement.

    Indeed, womens roles in the society have changed over time and these changes help the society grow as well. Within the Muslim world, women- may it be activists or not, play a major responsibility of molding the society and considered themselves accountable for all the decisions they have to make.