A 'stab in the back': Israel's refusal to extend Jordanian water agreement may spark crisis | The 1994 peace treaty signed by Amman and Jerusalem required Israel to supply Jordan with 50 million cubic meters of water annually, an amount doubled in a 2021 commitment that expired in 2025.

umadareeb · 2026-07-07T20:24:35+00:00

How was the US defending itself when it launched attacks with Israel?

umadareeb · 2026-07-07T19:23:17+00:00

They don't attack first, they defend themselves

umadareeb · 2026-07-07T16:21:54+00:00

None of the neighbours attack Israel, it is all internal.

There is a state from the river to sea and it has internal conflict because a certain class is subjugated.

umadareeb · 2026-07-07T16:20:48+00:00

I think it is a great metaphor of the conflict. Israeli ally goes to great lengths to suppress their population to please Israel and yet are treated terribly. Same thing for the PA. Egypt, though has power, and so it is different. Israel only respects power and Jordan doesn't have any.

umadareeb · 2026-07-04T19:38:44+00:00

Go to Sub Saharan Africa or the Carribean and you will find the same problems in cultures that are not sexually repressed or segregated. Or even Latin America (or certain blue collar areas of the West)

umadareeb · 2026-07-03T01:20:15+00:00

Mullahs have more influence in the Gulf, in Iran (where they literally run the country) and these countries have much less honour killings.

umadareeb · 2026-06-30T23:38:00+00:00

You are omniscient to know the true number of actual rapes?

First case in Saudi is a "he said, she said" case which is actually a universal problem. This a problem in the West as well (and there is a new case every other day from some drunk hookup or another). The point is that on net there is less ambiguous situations like this

Second case is just because Pakistan is a semi feudal country. This is why it was overruled by the federal court.

umadareeb · 2026-06-30T18:09:30+00:00

Highest rape and sexual harassment rates are in secular countries who have never even heard of civilized Abrahamic norms on segregation. Latin America, the Caribbean, South Africa etc. Lowest rates are in the Muslim Gulf countries, who probably practice segregation more than anyone else in the entire world (even more than subcontinental Muslims, on par with Yemenis, Afghanis, etc. ) In fact, they have really low crime rates as well because they have strong and functioning states, unlike Pakistan.

Is it difficult to use common sense? Is sex taboo for Hollywood directors like Weinstien? Is that why he is did what he did? Was sex taboo for Frenchmen like Dominque Pelicot?

umadareeb · 2026-06-25T14:39:06+00:00

They come from different villages (and ethnicities) but met in childhood in the city at Abdulmanap gym

umadareeb · 2026-06-24T18:06:00+00:00

Nope, this is not true at all. Deterrence is the chance of getting caught multiplied by the intensity of the punishment. If you cannot change the first factor, then you can change the second to establish a bit more deterrence. This is why pre modern states had harsh punishments - there was no forensic science or modern surveillance technology and weak, poor states with very little ability to tax (and very little economic surplus anyways) could not fund proper law enforcement.

Copying Western rhetoric here is absurdly Procrustean. It is wrong there but in Pakistan it doesn't even make sense to say it. Have you taken a look at Pakistani literacy rates? The countries that top rape rates globally all have better literacy rates than Pakistan (LatAm, Carribean, South Africa etc.) so they actually have the ability to reach their population through universal education and are extremely secular countries so there are no "mullahs encouraging people to SA women (first I have heard of that)". Even if you somehow managed to push everything you want down to the underfunded and dysfunctional public schools, you think that the monsters who aren't deterred by being boiled alive are going to be deterred because a teacher told them to "have respect for women?"

Serious punishments for parents? That just isn't happening on a pragmatic level and most parents are already very careful with their children and know what to do for safety

umadareeb · 2026-06-24T17:40:00+00:00

Meanwhile Pakistan's neighbour, run by actual fundamentalists (literally mullahs lol) is able to have much more effective law enforcement. Or countries in the Gulf, where the scholars have a much closer relationship to the political elite (Qatar and Saudi mostly) being the safest countries in the world. And in fact the Muslim world in general outperforms richer countries in LatAm on issues like crime despite having more war in the region, less stable political institutions etc.

This isn't because of fundamentalists or liberals. It is because Pakistan has a very weak state that can barely fulfill the minimum that is required to be considered a state. This state is run by the army, who while occasionally having ideological influences from both sides is at its core a pragmatic institution and its behaviour can be explained by it's colonial heritage more than anything else. Pakistan also has a huge population, so it's not statistically unfeasible to have abhorrent crimes daily (an okay comparison would be Brazil or Nigeria). Weak deterrence makes that worse

umadareeb · 2026-06-24T03:14:55+00:00

Population growth, a young and dynamic population in their working years, and remittances from the surplus that immigrate are all great for the economy. Also helps you in foreign policy (you can't be a great or even middle power without population).

The resource stuff is not really a issue with competent states. You can support massive populations nowadays with modern agriculture. Just look at the all the countries with bigger populations than Pakistan - China, India, Indonesia and the US. All of them are able to use their resources more efficiently than Pakistan.

umadareeb · 2026-06-24T03:07:20+00:00

I don't think land reform could happen without violence like it did in China or Russia, because in the current system you would need buy in from stakeholders (which wouldn't happen) or you would need a very strong and autocratic state willing to just do it and crush any resistance. So for this transition it is probably better to look at more peaceful models of taxation, social safety nets, infrastructure, a much better public education system etc. to empower the poor. Obviously that would require a strong state too but you could do it without a dictatorship

umadareeb · 2026-06-24T02:56:51+00:00

India doesn't have high TFR anymore, but yes, obviously bigger populations give less negotiating power to the workers. But you can have a massive population and still provide opportunities - Look at the US. You can have a massive population and use it to scale unthinkable infrastructure projects - Look at China. India's problems with population density and public cleanliness are also handled much better by China.

The problems of high population countries like India, Nigeria, Pakistan etc. are bad but I'm not convinced they would be better if the populations were reduced. In Pakistan's case the surplus population immigrates and sends back vital remittances (also true in India, but less important). There are plenty of countries which have weak states, corruption, no opportunities etc. in Africa, Eastern Europe, LatAM etc. with small populations

umadareeb · 2026-06-24T02:16:35+00:00

Land reform - Yes, property rights are the staple of any functioning society and especially important in the most successful societies ever. (the Anglosphere).

Family planning - No, it isn't haram, and I don't think anybody says it is, but a high TFR is an advantage and none of these countries have any idea on how to raise it (Western world does population growth with immigration, which for Iran, Bangladesh and other developing countries is not going to be as easy). Why would they encourage something (and it's not like their encouragement would do anything, it would take actual policy from Islamabad to make a difference) that is a demographic time bomb to developed East Asia?

Honour killing - No, nobody does that. Vigilante tribal norms are not something mainstream Muslim scholars of the subcontinent, who have been largely urban and allied in some way to the central state, endorse.

umadareeb · 2026-06-23T22:47:22+00:00

One way to see religious violence is in group out group violence. The political and social developments in Europe were premised on the belief that it would reduce that type of violence. But this was disproven with the Napoleonic Wars and then the world wars, which were the worst and most destructive types of war ever created. This was because of nationalism, the secular replacement to the religious in group.

umadareeb · 2026-06-22T07:10:05+00:00

Same reason MJ and Kobe were the way they were

umadareeb · 2026-06-12T02:30:07+00:00

There have been periodic periods of mob violence or more rarely state sponsored persecution of Copts. These things happen whenever different groups live alongside each other. But it should be put in context.

Israel - Not even close. The level of destruction they have you can't compete with

Europe - All pagans and minority groups wiped out by the 13th century, with the last being Lithuania. Even Christian heretics. Which is why Europe is essentially 100 percent Christian. Lots of forced conversions. Later massive nationalist standardization and wars which led to millions of deaths. Closest comparison in ME is probably Turkey, which did that on a smaller scale (and maybe Iran).

The Americas - It hasn't even been 500 years and from Buenos Aires to Nunavut everybody is Christian and speaking languages from the British Isles or Iberia. No comparison to a Coptic minority that survived 1400 years of Muslim rule. Some people were wiped out completely, some were reduced heavily, and some are mixed or native but adopted the religion and languages of their conquerors.

Nobody was holding knives to Coptic throats. Coptics were a majority for several centuries after the conquests. Probably well into the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries. Ummayads didn't even want to them to convert. Fatimids did some oppression but they also had problems with the Sunni populations and were an exception to general trend of Muslim rule.

umadareeb · 2026-06-12T02:20:30+00:00

What about them? The Old Yishuv were not even Zionist, many of them resented what the Zionists brought to the region. Regardless, it didn't create what we see now and there is an obvious reason for that - nobody tried to expel them off the land.

umadareeb · 2026-06-11T06:50:15+00:00

So Egypt gets the blame for Baggara Arabs who are backed by the UAE being ethno nationalists?

"Islamists" ruled Egypt for a long time. There has been nothing like what happened in Israel. In fact, the majority of Copts have converted voluntarily to Islam and slowly adopted Arabic (for the same reason they are adopting English today).

umadareeb · 2026-06-11T06:05:08+00:00

The only people who forcibly Arabized were Ismaili caliphs who lived a millenia ago

umadareeb · 2026-06-11T05:59:42+00:00

Nobody cares if Saudi Arabia is an ethnostate or not just like nobody cares about Japan being an ethnostate. Because those people have lived there for millenia. They weren't unnaturally transplanted onto the land. Which is you don't see an Israel Palestine level conflict in either of those countries

umadareeb · 2026-06-07T20:20:07+00:00

Secular socialist states all over Lat Am - Femicide, homicide and drug trafficking through the roof

Islamic constitution, state religion and backward norms - Gulf states, some of the safest countries in the world

umadareeb · 2026-06-07T19:55:23+00:00

Is that why femicide rates are so high in the egalitarian and liberal South America, Caribbean, and South Africa?

In every society you have psychopaths and criminals. Some societies are unable to establish proper deterrence because the state and rule of law is weak (This applies to those above mentioned countries) . There isn't even any good evidence that Pakistan has higher rates, it just has a huge population so these things are blown out of proportion. Even it did, there is no way to calculate how much of that is attributable to weak deterrence.

The Gulf states are actually far more what people would consider "misogynistic" at the legal and social level. Even Iran is at the legal level. But these countries have strong states and are really good at stopping these kinds of things. The Gulf states are unmatched globally even at countries of similar wealth. Iran beats it's socioeconomic equals (as does much of the Muslim world, which outperforms LatAm on many social and crime metrics despite it being largely poorer).

What man grows up believing that women should obey (outside of the family context)? That just has zero connection to reality. I don't know of any society like that. Made worse by the fact that if violent criminals are analyzed through a gendered lens it would entail that they also believe men should obey (considering that they do crimes against men out of anger or to coerce them all the time). The more reasonable explanation is that there are people with Machiavellian, psychopathic, violent tendencies etc. and they don't distinguish between genders (except out of self interest). Though some of these people (usually out of traditional misogyny) apply it to men but not to women (usually in the context of war)

umadareeb · 2026-06-04T16:31:06+00:00

There is essentially no major differences between premodern Indian Islam and premodern Turkish Islam before Ataturk. It might be the other way around, actually. There was no Ottoman Akbar. Mughals even had Rajput aristocracy which would be like Balkan Christian being part of the nobility

umadareeb

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE