Middle East
Migration and identity crisis
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.
Iran has resumed ballistic missile production in underground facilities, despite statements by Israeli and US authorities asserting that this capacity had been completely eliminated.
According to a report by The Wall Street Journal citing US and Middle Eastern officials, the Tehran administration is utilizing pre-stockpiled components in the manufacturing process.
Officials report that despite strikes on missile sites and industrial installations at the beginning of the war, Iran continues the assembly of both solid- and liquid-fuelled missiles.
Intelligence data indicates activity at numerous underground centres, including the Khojir complex in the southeast of the country, along with efforts to establish additional underground assembly points to protect against new air strikes.
Current assembly operations are being maintained at lower volumes compared with pre-war levels, as US and Israeli operations destroyed several facilities and a naval blockade has impeded the import of components and solid-fuel ingredients.
Assessing the process, Tal Inbar, a senior analyst at the US-based Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, stressed that damaged infrastructure can be repaired during periods when facilities are not targeted, and parts procured from other countries can be stored there.
Inbar noted that it would be naive to believe Iran is not rebuilding its missile production capacity.
Arguing that the facilities were destroyed and Tehran has suffered severe losses, the official stated that Iran remains weaker than ever before, and US President Donald Trump will never permit the country to acquire nuclear weapons.
Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell stated that the US has destroyed up to 90% of Iran’s drone, ballistic missile, and naval industrial infrastructure, severely degrading Tehran’s ability to launch missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles.
Another US government official pointed out that the Tehran administration may have revived production, albeit on a low scale, following preliminary talks conducted in mid-June with the Trump administration regarding the opening of the Strait of Hormuz and ending the war. The official noted that existing stockpiles are sufficient to assemble at least two hundred missiles.
A CNN report in late May indicated that the Tehran administration was attempting to reopen underground missile shelters, struck by the US and Israel with costly munitions, using bulldozers and dump trucks.
Excavation activities accelerated after the April ceasefire decision; out of 69 tunnel entrances struck across 18 distinct locations, 50 have been made accessible again.
Experts stressed that it is impossible to destroy missile power solely by bombing tunnel entrances, underlining the limitations of such bombardments.
US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth claimed in April that they had effectively ended Iran’s missile programme. However, an NBC News report noted that Tehran utilized the ceasefire period to reconstitute its military strength.
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has requested that US President Donald Trump launch air strikes against the Houthis in Yemen.
According to two US officials who spoke to Axios, Trump rejected the request, and US officials emphasised that the administration has no plans for direct intervention against the Houthis for now.
Oil prices surged on Thursday after the resistance led by Houthi militias (Ansarallah) seized the strategic coastal city of Mokha in Yemen.
This development brought the Yemeni resistance one step closer to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, which is vital for global trade and Saudi oil exports.
With Iran already disrupting traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, Houthi control over Bab el-Mandeb could provide Tehran with powerful new leverage over the US and its Gulf allies.
On Thursday, as Houthi forces advanced towards the coastal city of Mokha and Saudi-backed Yemeni forces retreated, bin Salman telephoned Trump to brief him on the deteriorating situation.
A few hours later, the prince called again to request that Trump carry out US air strikes against the Houthis.
Trump declined, but a US official stated that the administration would provide Saudi Arabia with intelligence and targeting data on the Houthis.
The official noted that approximately 200 US military personnel are currently stationed in Saudi Arabia, providing non-military support.
A senior Trump administration official indicated that Washington’s priority is keeping the Red Sea open, while leaving the broader fight to regional partners.
“We are in continuous dialogue with Saudi Arabia and the Government of the Republic of Yemen regarding regional stability,” the official said.
The official continued:
“The US remains focused on protecting our core national security interests, such as ensuring freedom of navigation in the Red Sea, while empowering our regional partners to take the lead in managing and resolving regional security challenges.”
The US is concerned by the rapidly escalating conflict in Yemen and is seeking to avoid direct military intervention while increasing its support for Saudi Arabia.
According to two sources familiar with the matter, Admiral Brad Cooper, Commander of US Central Command (CENTCOM), travelled to Saudi Arabia on Thursday for urgent coordination meetings.
The conflict between Saudi Arabia and Yemeni resistance forces reignited in July after Riyadh blocked an Iranian aircraft carrying senior Houthi officials from landing in Sanaa following their return from Ali Khamenei’s funeral.
Bin Salman requested Trump’s political support to strike Sanaa airport, but made clear that Saudi Arabia did not require US military assistance. Trump granted his support.
The Houthis subsequently retaliated by attacking Saudi tankers in the Red Sea. These strikes threatened a route crucial to the kingdom’s oil exports, and the group later expanded its attacks to Saudi energy facilities.
Saudi Arabia and its Yemeni allies responded with air strikes and ground operations against Houthi positions.
Saudi Arabia’s request for direct US military intervention marks a sharp reversal from July, when Riyadh informed Washington that it could manage the Houthis on its own.
As clashes intensified, the Saudis began seeking progressively greater support from the US.
Sources close to the discussions noted that in recent weeks, US military and civilian officials informed their Saudi counterparts that Trump’s directive is to keep American forces focused on Iran and the Strait of Hormuz, and to avoid opening a new front.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly ignored a direct warning from UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan in the run-up to 7 October 2023, according to an investigation by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.
The report states that the UAE leader, widely known as MBZ, was convinced in September 2023 that an explosion was imminent in the region, particularly given the escalating tensions in the West Bank.
Israeli President Isaac Herzog, who maintains close ties with bin Zayed, recounted: “In the months leading up to the war, he spoke with me about this issue frequently. He consistently conveyed the message that the situation needed to be de-escalated. He even dispatched a special envoy to Israel who met with the prime minister. The emir appeared to sense that the region was on the verge of erupting.”
MBZ also engaged in direct discussions with Netanyahu. These exchanges followed a standard operational protocol: a representative from the United Arab Emirates embassy would arrive at the prime minister’s office equipped with a specialised, secure telephone device to ensure confidentiality.
However, according to the newspaper, the call initiated by bin Zayed on this occasion was extraordinary in nature.
A week and a half before 7 October 2023, the UAE ruler placed a call to Netanyahu from the Presidential Palace in Abu Dhabi, and the two leaders spoke for 45 minutes.
During this conversation, bin Zayed warned that Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas leader in Gaza, was planning a major operation against Israel.
Bin Zayed voiced deep concern that such an event would not only lead to significant bloodshed, but would also destabilise the entire region and undermine the Abraham Accords.
Haaretz reported that three senior foreign sources possess direct knowledge of the call’s contents, marking the first public disclosure of the conversation’s existence.
A close Palestinian adviser to bin Zayed, who had emigrated from Gaza to Abu Dhabi years earlier and maintained extensive connections across the Gaza Strip, was also present during the exchange.
According to the adviser, the UAE ruler stressed to Netanyahu that Israel needed to prepare for this specific threat.
The adviser stated:
“The emir explained that, according to his assessment, Sinwar was preparing for a major event. He told Netanyahu that Israel had to be prepared. At the same time, he proposed working towards an economic solution for the Gaza Strip to prevent escalation, alongside calming the situation in the West Bank.”
Bin Zayed urged Netanyahu to take the matter seriously. Yet, to the emir’s surprise, the prime minister reacted with relative calm.
Netanyahu told bin Zayed that, in his own assessment, Hamas was planning to operate in the West Bank area. Reassuring the Emirati leader, Netanyahu insisted that Israel was prepared for any scenario.
The UAE leader later recounted his conversation with Netanyahu and his subsequent warning to CIA Director William J. Burns.
Bin Zayed shared with Burns the intuitive alarm he had sought to convey to Netanyahu—that “something over there is about to blow”—and noted the Israeli prime minister’s conviction that the unstable theatre was in fact the West Bank.
“The emir hoped that, despite Netanyahu’s reserved reaction, he would take the message seriously and take action,” the adviser said.
However, neither anticipated that the prime minister would hear the warning without briefing the heads of his defence and security establishments: neither the director of the Shin Bet, nor the director of the Mossad, nor the chief of staff of the Israel Defence Forces was informed of MBZ’s warning.
Haaretz noted that Gaza-related negotiations between Israel and Hamas had been proceeding smoothly in early 2023, providing the context in which the Emirati ruler’s concerns emerged.
The report received swift corroboration from the Israeli political opposition. Former prime minister and leader of the B’Yachad party, Naftali Bennett, stated that he knew the warning issued by UAE leader Mohamed bin Zayed to Netanyahu concerning Hamas’s plans prior to 7 October was genuine.
Speaking to 103FM, Bennett said: “I am telling you: I know this to be true.”
Bennett continued:
“Mohamed bin Zayed of the UAE warned Netanyahu that Sinwar was planning an operation. The head of the Egyptian General Intelligence Directorate, Abbas Kamel, also notified Netanyahu a few days before the massacre that a major operation was being planned. I do not wish to discuss my sources with anyone. I am telling you: I know this fact to be true.”
Contending that Netanyahu had led Israel “blindly into this horrific disaster,” the opposition figure asserted: “He was so deeply captive to the conception that Hamas was an asset that, despite receiving explicit warnings, he did nothing.”
Bennett maintained that Netanyahu bears direct responsibility for 7 October, not merely by virtue of being prime minister, but because “he spent 15 years strengthening Hamas and doing nothing.”
AfD’s Siegmund links German rearmament to remigration plans
Chinese carmakers expand European share as Stellantis loses ground
Iran resumes ballistic missile assembly using stockpiled parts
Analysts warn new surge in Chinese exports threatens global markets
Anthropic uncovers Claude use by Iranian, Houthi, and Russian units
-
Europe5 days agoGermany’s CDU drafts tougher citizenship rules to counter AfD
-
Russia2 weeks agoWhat to know about Russia’s upcoming State Duma elections?
-
Europe2 weeks agoMarine Le Pen leads all 2027 French presidential scenarios, poll shows
-
Diplomacy1 week agoGeoffrey Roberts sees Ukraine war concluding within coming months
-
Middle East2 weeks agoIran expands deterrence as Gulf strikes expose US munitions limits, analysts say
-
Europe1 week agoGerman industrial bosses push for return to 40-hour working week
-
Russia2 weeks agoRussia warns NATO over Arctic militarisation and conflict risks
-
Asia2 weeks agoBOJ faces critical rate decision as US presses for faster hikes
