Connect with us

Middle East

Migration and identity crisis

Published

on

Whether we like it or not, immigration is the reality of our world today. This fact, in addition to the fact that it can become an opportunity with proper individual and organizational management, also has its own challenges. Among other things, one of the challenges that arise for immigrant communities and the immigrant generation is the identity crisis. The crisis of identity is a broad and multidimensional debate, but with a simpler view, this crisis among the second and third generation of immigrants is caused by a duality – on the one hand, they inevitably have to reject the relatively strict traditional-religious behavior of their parents, and on the other hand, they cannot fully absorb the secular and civil values ​​of the host society.

At the same time, these second and third generation immigrants need a series of rituals, education and ceremonies in which they can feel themselves and find a sense of belonging. Because they have rejected the worn-out advice of their parents, they lose their respect, attention and empathy.

But on the other hand, they are not respected outside when they face the more important and larger part, that is, the host society. That is, because they cannot be successfully absorbed into the host society, they do not attract attention and respect from there and are isolated. While as human beings they need attention and respect from others – to be someone for themselves and to be known and honored with the title they like. If we want to explain the identity problem in simple language, this is it. Of course, this is not a general case. There are so many young people who are successfully recruited and busy with their daily work and are in positive interaction with institutions and human groups in their field of work every day. This is a huge success in terms of integration. But naturally, there are those whose absorption process in the host society is disturbed due to various reasons.

They are thirsty for attention and seeking respect because of the aforementioned emptiness. In this case, they are waiting hard for someone, an institution or a group to be found under its order to become meaningful signifiers even at the cost of obeying or blindly following. Because following also reminds at least that they are human and some people need to follow them.

Immigrants want to be respected by the host countries as it strengthens the sense of belonging to the community

Due to this need, many addresses with religious, ethnic and cultural names have been created among immigrants and usually they all offer some kind of identity product. Because they know that the immigrant community needs things to remind them that they belong to a certain nation, race, or religion in times of identity crisis. They have a special past and history, and based on their ancestral religion, they will be treated in a special way in heaven.

Also, in this world, angels always have a good opinion of them. When they feel that they have been rejected from the reality of society due to the difficulties of immigration, it is natural for them to take refuge in imaginary sources and ask for respect and attention from there.

This seemingly makes their existence meaningful and strengthens their sense of belonging to the same group, but on the other hand, it further separates them from the main body of the host society. This separation is not only deep, but sometimes becomes a factor resistant to assimilation and integration.

Efforts should be made so that the situation does not reach a point where that vacuum is formed or reaches a critical level. The way to avoid this gap is absorption and integration. Being absorbed is not easy for immigrants; Therefore, a practical solution should be considered for it. For this, it is good to ask: What helps us to become like the society or people of our host country or second home? What do they have? What do we have in common?

In response, it should be said: Our first and most important contribution is in “citizenship”. That we are citizens of a certain country and being a citizen requires commitment and sacrifice. If we reach this civic understanding that citizenship is a principle prior to other elements of identity such as religion, religion, language and ethnicity, I think we have traveled an important part of the way. It is the only umbrella that can cover everyone equally, so that no one feels left out.

The good thing about this umbrella is that in order to join it, no immigrant needs to become a Christian first to become a citizen of a certain country, or to be white first to qualify for citizenship. It is enough that they respect the rights and freedoms of the members of the society.

This is the result of the maturity of human history, which is steered by Western civilization, and now Western countries also consider themselves obliged to comply with it.

Of course, this has not always been the case in the West. For example, more than half a century ago in Germany, Jews were legally ineligible for German citizenship as long as they insisted on their Jewishness. The granting of citizenship, which is actually the granting of the right to live again, regardless of religion, ethnicity and region, based only on being “human”, is an unprecedented achievement in human history, which is implemented in first world countries.

The identity loss and wandering shows itself in various forms.

The phenomenon of migration and the lack of compatibility of new arrivals with the new environment is not a new thing. For example, after the industrial revolution in the 19th century, these same countries faced the problem of identity crisis. Due to the impact of the industrial revolution, people suddenly moved from the surrounding areas to the cities, and those who had just arrived in the city had exactly the same situation as today’s immigrants, who are thrown from the third world countries to the center of the largest cities of the first world countries, and it is impossible not to get lost.

This identity loss and wandering shows itself in various forms. The problem of internal migration in Western countries in the 18th and 19th centuries, caused by the mass migration of rural people to the cities, was solved by gradual integration. Today, the challenge of immigration to these countries can only be managed with sustainable and intelligent integration.

But what is important is the implementation of this integration in the healthiest way and with the least cost for the host society and the immigrants. Integration is inevitable, it just needs to be managed well. If integration does not take place, urban life with its own nature and the whole issue of government-nationality and national identity of these countries will face danger and no country likes this.

One can think about those who just arrived in the city two centuries ago, how it was hard for them to lose their local dialects and customs and religious and regional traditions, but now their current generations who were born in the city, grew up and educated in the city, are basically urban and they do not have the accent of their great-grandfathers nor their customs. They are either from London or from Manchester or from Birmingham and all of them are English and they have nothing to do with their villages.

Current immigrants also have to go through such a process. That is, they should be absorbed in the urban life and civic values ​​and nationality of the host countries. As Fukuyama, a contemporary political scientist, says “although with the victory of the Iranian revolution in 1979 and the Salafist movement in Saudi Arabia in the same years, the assumption that Muslim immigrants in Western countries should maintain their independent religious institutions was strengthened.”

Several decades of bad experiences of some migrants in West have led to the creation of far-right parties and their stance against immigrant

Even today, this strategy is being implemented by the Islamic Republic in all parts of the world under various titles under the guise of religion and under the name of religious freedom. But the result of creating an island and intervening and demanding the isolation of same-religious groups from the rest of the host society is creating a rift and the illusion of a dual identity, which, if it becomes acute, can even create security problems for the host society.

From the point of view of isolated groups and individuals, citizenship does not have a special meaning, nor does it bring duties and obligations. According to them, religion or ethnicity is the factor of unification, not citizenship. The occurrence of religiously motivated terrorist attacks in Western countries, as well as the joining of second and third generation Muslim immigrants from Western countries to extremist groups in the Middle East, can be understood under this logic.

Several decades of bad experiences of Muslims in Western countries have led to the creation of far-right parties and their stance against immigrants and Muslims in those countries. The emergence of populist nationalism is due to the feeling of danger that immigrants have taken their identity from them and they don’t want to be confused with immigrants.

That is, in the host countries, which are mostly western, there is also a group that does not like immigrants, especially Muslim immigrants, to be integrated into them. According to them, Muslim immigrants should not pollute their culture and identity – so to speak.

But again, due to the blessing of the secular age and the secular government, their words are not taken into account, and they are willing to give citizenship to Muslims and follow the policy of multiculturalism, with all the possible dangers and sometimes bad memories of some of them – that one day maybe the important principle of “citizenship” will be institutionalized in them.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Middle East

US and Israel weigh Iran strikes after midterm vote, reports say

Published

7 hours ago

on

22/10/2026

By

The US and Israeli defence ministries have drawn up plans for a fresh assault on Iran, with the envisioned offensive under consideration to launch after the US Congressional midterm elections on 3 November.

Citing sources, The New York Times reported that the blueprint anticipates a brief but intense campaign.

As military units step up their drills, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth discussed prospective strike options with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The list of targets encompasses Iran’s nuclear sites, its energy infrastructure, and its arsenals of missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles.

Several officials who spoke to the newspaper argued that a new wave of attacks could deal a heavy blow to the Iranian economy, forcing the leadership in Tehran into concessions.

Conversely, other sources doubt whether a resumption of fighting would prove any more successful than the earlier campaign conducted between February and April.

That previous offensive drove energy prices higher and drained US stockpiles of interceptor missiles.

It remains unclear whether US President Donald Trump will authorise the operation.

Domestic political calculations in Israel could also influence the trajectory of the plans, given that the country faces general elections on 27 October.

While some experts speaking to the newspaper contended that Netanyahu could leverage the threat of war to form a national unity government, others pointed to the opposition’s distrust of the prime minister.

Washington fears regional spillover

The US administration also harbours concerns that the fighting could engulf the wider region. On Wednesday, the US State Department ordered non-essential government personnel and their family members to leave Saudi Arabia following attacks by the Iran-backed Houthis.

A US military build-up, comprising three aircraft carriers, fighter aircraft, and special forces units, is slated to be fully deployed to the region by early November.

The targets under review include the deep underground nuclear facility code-named “Pickaxe”. Trump suggested that the high-yield GBU-43/B bomb, known as the “mother of all bombs”, could be deployed against the site, though experts doubt whether the ordnance can destroy a complex buried so deeply.

For its part, Tehran is preparing for a potential escalation, threatening to broaden its target list. Retaliatory options under consideration by Iran reportedly include data centres and subsea internet cables, in addition to shipping and energy facilities.

Mehdi Mohammadi, an adviser to an Iranian negotiator, dismissed US hopes of wrapping up a new campaign within 72 hours as a “fantasy”. Mohammadi warned that Tehran’s response would be more severe and unpredictable.

The Financial Times previously reported that an Israeli strike on Iran set for 10 October had been called off because the US president was unwilling to risk a broader conflict ahead of the Congressional midterms.

According to that report, the Israeli military had prepared a multi-day assault on nuclear sites, Iranian government targets, power plants, and civilian infrastructure on Netanyahu’s orders. The strikes had been designed to exceed the intensity of the campaign begun in February.

Washington seeks to secure an agreement from Tehran covering both the Strait of Hormuz and its nuclear programme.

“It will either be a deal or a strike,” one source told the Financial Times, adding that an operation could get under way in the coming weeks.

Another official who spoke to the paper suggested that Israeli preparations might serve as leverage to squeeze Iran in negotiations.

Axios also reported that the Pentagon had issued orders to prepare for renewed strikes, though the directive contained no specific date and Trump has yet to take a final decision.

The US and Israel launched their offensive against Iran on 28 February. Iran hit back by targeting US and Israeli assets across the region and curbing vessel transit through the Strait of Hormuz.

Although both sides signed a memorandum of understanding in June that provided for a ceasefire and talks to lift the blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, reciprocal attacks between the US and Iran have persisted.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Netanyahu trails Eisenkot in Israeli polls despite Trump backing

Published

1 day ago

on

21/10/2026

By

As general elections scheduled for 27 October approach in Israel, the opposition camp led by former Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot continues to lead Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in public opinion polls.

Survey data published in the Israeli press on 19 and 20 October reveal that the governing coalition has failed to catch the opposition, despite explicit backing from US President Donald Trump.

However, the current distribution of votes documents that neither wing can reach a governing majority on its own.

Neither bloc reaches the 61 seats needed to form a government

According to a survey conducted by Channel 13, if an election were held today, Eisenkot’s bloc would win 51 seats, while the Netanyahu coalition would take 50.

A Channel 12 poll indicates that the gap has widened slightly, projecting 55 seats for Eisenkot’s alliance and 51 for the governing bloc. A minimum of 61 seats is required to form a government in the Knesset, Israel’s 120-seat parliament.

A key factor deadlocking the political arithmetic is the refusal by both sides to form a coalition with parties representing Palestinian citizens of Israel. This stance stands as the most tangible obstacle to securing a parliamentary majority after the election.

Channel 12 data shows that overall voter turnout is expected to remain at 72%. The inclination to head to the ballot box climbs to 81% among opposition voters, compared with 74% measured among Netanyahu supporters.

The same poll notes that Eisenkot has widened his lead over Netanyahu by two further points in prime ministerial preferences.

Yashar party climbs after Gantz bows out

A survey published on the Walla news site shows that the balance shifted after Benny Gantz decided to withdraw his Blue and White party from the race. Following that move, Eisenkot’s Yashar party increased its projected tally to 23 seats, while Netanyahu’s Likud dropped by one seat to 19.

Eisenkot’s party and the “Zionist Opposition” bloc it anchors have remained atop the polls for several months.

In an earlier message of support, Trump praised Netanyahu as “a great fighting prime minister and an even greater partner for peace.” Public opinion polls document that this diplomatic and political backing has not proved sufficient to tip the preferences of the Israeli electorate in favour of the incumbent government.

Support for Ben Gvir rises among young voters

Although Netanyahu’s alliance trails in overall strength, far-right figures within the coalition appear to be expanding their grassroots base. Gauged interest in the Jewish Power party of Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir is climbing, particularly among younger voters.

Speaking to a study conducted by Agam Labs, affiliated with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, an 18-year-old student described his shifting preference: “I used to think he was a bit crazy, but then I actually looked at what he was saying, and it all made sense.”

Another Israeli citizen stated that Ben Gvir’s push to arm West Bank settlers gave them “room to breathe.”

Ben Gvir is known for leading settler incursions into the Al-Aqsa compound and distributing military-grade rifles to tens of thousands of settlers since 7 October 2023.

Criticized for escalating violence against Palestinians, Ben Gvir has called for starving Gaza, maintaining military operations in Lebanon, and bombing Beirut. The far-right minister’s militaristic stances also find a political constituency across several opposition parties in Israel.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Netanyahu unveils security doctrine and regional alliance map

Published

2 days ago

on

20/10/2026

By

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has shared an updated security doctrine with the public ahead of general elections scheduled for 27 October.

Announced by the Prime Minister’s Office on 18 October and shaped with contributions from the National Security Council, the work includes a detailed map classifying Israel’s regional allies, adversaries, and spheres of influence.

The new doctrine aims to eliminate elements defined as threats directly through pre-emptive military interventions rather than containing them, to expand buffer zones, and to establish new regional partnerships.

Al Jazeera points out that this approach has effectively been put into practice during Israel’s recent military operations and strikes against neighbouring countries.

Regional blocs and allies classified on the map

The map presented by Netanyahu classifies not only sovereign states into blocs, but also armed groups, de facto administrations, and territories controlled by various forces.

The terms “alliance” and “friend” used on the map do not imply that formal and binding partnerships have been established with all these entities.

The “Hexagon Alliance” on the Israel-United Arab Emirates (UAE) axis and parties considered “friends” of this bloc are shown in blue and light blue shades.

This group includes Azerbaijan, Greece, southern Cyprus, the Druze in Syria’s As-Suwayda province, eastern Libya under Khalifa Haftar’s control, Ethiopia, Somaliland, Puntland, areas in Yemen held by the UAE-backed former Southern Transitional Council, and territories controlled by the Rapid Support Forces in Sudan.

The “Sunni Diamond Alliance”, formed by Türkiye, Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, alongside peripheral actors, is distinguished by green and light green shades.

This cluster marks Azerbaijan, Syria, Qatar, Kuwait, areas in Yemen controlled by the Saudi-backed Presidential Leadership Council, Eritrea, Sudan, the West Bank, Jordan, the Lebanese government, Northern Cyprus, and Somalia. In Libya, both the Tripoli-based western administration and the Haftar-dominated eastern administration are shown as linked to this bloc.

Iran and the Axis of Resistance are defined in red and pink colours. Hashd al-Shaabi in Iraq, eastern and southern parts of Lebanon where Hezbollah is active, Ansar Allah-controlled areas in Yemen, and Hamas-administered Gaza find a place within this axis. Russia is marked on the map in pink under “friend” status to this bloc.

Orange and yellow markings are also used around NATO members, alliance partners, and actors with friendly relations with Washington. The lines also illustrate the permeability between blocs.

For instance, Azerbaijan is presented with two-toned stripes as a friend of both the Israel-UAE axis and the Türkiye-led bloc, while India stands out as the only actor classified as a “friend” to all parties.

The map in question was reportedly prepared in May by Marc Saxer and Marcus Schneider for the Germany-based Friedrich Ebert Foundation, which has engaged with Israeli governments since 1978.

Pre-election rhetoric of the “indispensable leader”

Netanyahu is facing voters in a bid to retain power amid ongoing corruption proceedings and continued criticism over his management of the 7 October 2023 attacks and subsequent conflicts.

According to Al Jazeera’s analysis, releasing the security doctrine and map on the eve of elections rests on Netanyahu’s strategy of establishing himself as the only capable leader who can protect Israel.

Backed by electoral support from US President Donald Trump, Netanyahu pointed during his presentation to a potential change of administration in the White House.

Arguing that an administration distant or hostile to Israel could take office in Washington within two years, Netanyahu said his country must expand its network of alliances and become an attractive regional partner because of that possibility.

Mohanad Hage Ali, deputy director for research at the Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center, noted that this presentation, built on rival blocs and security corridors, deepens existential anxieties within society.

According to Hage Ali, this approach reinforces voters’ perceived need for a tough leader, and Netanyahu is attempting to rally support from populations wary of uncertainty through this reassurance.

Fierce backlash from the Israeli opposition

The publication of the document provoked reactions in Israeli domestic politics.

Gadi Eisenkot, leader of the Yashar Party and former chief of general staff, criticised the work as consisting of “two empty pages filled with slogans that have nothing to do with an actual security doctrine”.

Emphasising that the Netanyahu government was responsible for the “gravest failure and disaster in Israel’s history” on 7 October, Eisenkot said subsequent escalating regional clashes had also left every front engulfed in flames.

Eisenkot argued that the document exposes a lingering strategic vacuum, while the prime minister is reviving fears to divert attention from misleading claims in his election pledges.

Yesh Atid leader and former prime minister Yair Lapid also described the text as superficial.

“Even by Netanyahu’s current standards, which are defined by exhaustion and detachment from reality, this document looks as if it was written using a free version of an AI chatbot,” Lapid said.

Lapid added that a text consisting merely of bulleted headings cannot be deemed a doctrine, and that the effort is nothing more than an attempt to cover up the disasters caused by the prime minister.

The buffer zone model

The buffer zone concept featured in the strategy document is based on Israel establishing direct military control over cross-border territories.

Al Jazeera notes that the current occupation conditions in Gaza and southern Lebanon are practical reflections of this policy.

Mohanad Hage Ali warned that a plan based on making military control permanent could bring fresh conflicts and the risk of ethnic cleansing.

Hage Ali also noted that portraying actors such as the Rapid Support Forces in Sudan and Haftar’s forces within the Israel-UAE axis could damage their legitimacy in the Arab world.

Arguing that this choice reflects Netanyahu’s domestic priorities, Hage Ali observed: “What Israelis think becomes more important than the reputation of your allies and the sustainability of these alliances.”

Netanyahu’s proposal for a “hexagon of alliances”, raised at the beginning of the year and covering India, Greece, southern Cyprus, and unspecified Arab, African, and Asian nations, has yet to be formalised.

While international analyses describe the initiative as a diplomatic branding exercise rather than a binding defence pact, observers recall that actors such as India prioritise commercial interests and non-alignment over rigid blocs.

Finally, Hage Ali stated that the presented map will provide propaganda material for the Tehran government and its allies, reinforcing arguments that Israel harbours regional expansion and domination ambitions.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey