Connect with us

Featured

The Crises of Multiculturalism In Europe And The Question Of The Muslim Immigration

The Crises of Multiculturalism in Europe

Published

on

In the part of the world considered to be the West, multiculturalism initially originated in the nineteenth century in the American context. Even then it was a broad phrase that was difficult to define since it has descriptive, strategic, and normative connotations. This discussion to this date still often pops up in political debates and government gatherings in Europe aimed at discussing what all things should be considered to encompass it. However, the generic definition refers to a society’s cultural, ethnic, and religious variety on an empirical level and clearly differs from monoculturalism or the presence of only one culture in a society. To understand the crises of multiculturalism in Europe, its important to understand generic meaning of multiculturalism.

Terence Turner, an anthropologist at the University of Chicago attempts to define multiculturalism in his 1993 essay in the following terms:

“In calling for the formal equality of all cultures within the purview of the state and its educational system, multiculturalism represents a demand for the dissociation (decentering) of the political community and its common social institutions from identification with any one cultural tradition.” (Turner)

Unlike other western countries such as the United States, Australia, and Canada, European countries were not very quick to welcome cultural diversity until the late twentieth century. Even the contemporary reality of Europe, keeping in view particular incidents like hate crimes in places like London and Germany against Muslims to the passing of laws such as the veil ban in France; dictates a crises of multiculturalism in Europe.

Read here, The Scope of inter-religious pluralism within Islam

When did European Nations Embrace Multiculturalism?

It is a widely held belief that European nations did not outrightly embrace multiculturalism until the late twentieth century. And that it was specifically the post-war immigration and country-specific measures to integrate incoming immigrants seeking asylum in Europe that preceded this newly approved transformation. As a result, when considering crises of multiculturalism in Europe, multicultural policies and in fact understanding this colossal concept in its entirety are almost always limited to the integration of immigrants who arrived during the post-war wave of migration.

The tense relationship that Europeans have with religiously and ethnically diverse minorities, notably Muslim immigrants, is at the center of both national and international discussions and disputes.

These current disputes and the debatable state of Muslim minorities in Europe, however, cannot be understood in isolation solely from the point of view of the present migrant or refugee crisis.

Even before the tragic 9/11 attacks or attacks in other parts of Europe like the London bombings on 7 July 2005 referred to as 7/7, ethnic and religious conflicts had already begun to prompt a reconsideration of multiculturalism as a sustainable ideology for Europe.

Multiculturalism, on the other hand, has become ingrained in most European countries’ daily lives and it won’t be incorrect to say that it cannot possibly be entirely reversed. However, issues arising at both the institutional and decision-making levels, as well as on the societal level through general public opinion, have made daily life more difficult for Muslims of various ethnocultural groups who are either living or wish to live their lives according to their religious and cultural traditions.

Also, read Communalism and Economic Marginalisation of Muslims

The question of Muslim migration in Europe

Europe has seen a record surge of asylum seekers from countries that are predominantly Muslim in recent years. This influx of Muslim migrants has sparked a huge debate in some nations concerning immigration and security policy, as well as concerns about the existing and future numbers of Muslims in Europe. The crises of multiculturalism in Europe is dictated to a very large extent by the question of the Muslim migration. Migration has been a contentious subject almost since the time of its inception.

But the more intriguing debate around the question of migration is always the largest influx of Muslim migrants. However, it is important to understand the history of Muslim migration in Europe. There are primarily two reasons why Muslim migrants were coming to Europe in large numbers and at a fast pace.

The first reason was the economic migration of Muslims from third-world countries in search of jobs and earning opportunities. The second reason was the numerous and continuous wars in predominately Muslim nations that pushed the fleeing Muslims to migrate to Europe.

Read here, Islamic Democracy: Is Democracy Compatible with Islam?

Economic migration of Muslims from third-world countries

Those who had previously left their nations in quest of work, social benefits, and greater earnings were the earlier migrants. The vast majority of these first-generation migrants arrived from third-world countries in the 1950s and 60s when they were young and looking for work. They had no intention of settling permanently, rather they only planned to come to earn enough money to save in order to send it back home. These migrants rarely got white-collar jobs and usually were restricted to doing manual work in factories and industries regarded as the “unprofessional work sector”.

Overall, these migrants helped towards the economic prosperity of many European countries by building railroads and roads, cleaning and maintaining the streets, government, and private offices, working in coal mines and industries, and taking up occupations that Europeans were unwilling to do themselves.

In Western Europe, there was no “migrant crisis” till then and, by extension, no “Muslim migration influx” until 1970 as such. In public spaces, migrants were mainly unnoticed, and Europeans were not only insensitive but indifferent to them. These migrants did not explicitly exhibit any radical or specific religious obligations, nor did they demand any space for it, since they did not want to dwell permanently in Europe.

Muslim migrants were not explicitly discriminated against or prejudiced due to their identity because they contributed to the well-being of European societies. While there was classism as well as racism, there was no manifestation of anything that would be recognized as Islamophobia. In short, migration was regarded as a benefit rather than a burden, and even less so as a threat.

Read here, The Forgotten Jammu Massacre

Muslims fleeing war and conflict in predominantly Muslim Nations

The second reason for the Muslim migrant influx in Europe is people fleeing war and conflict zones. Millions of people have been forced to escape their homes around the Muslim world due to a variety of such factors, including interstate conflicts, civil wars, US-led military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, in addition to a variety of other natural calamities like earthquakes and Tsunamis. Many people have crossed national boundaries and are now living as refugees in neighboring nations. Most of these migrants however preferred to go to European countries in search of asylum and larger educational and earning opportunities, but besides everything for a safe war-free environment.

While fleeing war and death in their own countries millions of Muslim migrants are still in limbo waiting for confirmation on whether they can make stable lives for themselves in European countries. However, many of the migrant Muslims who were seeking asylum in Europe and did actually manage to get in are still unsure if they can call Europe their home.

Despite the fact that the Muslim migrants were escaping war, they were later subjected to intolerance, discrimination, and violence in the countries in which they sought refuge.

Since, unlike the earlier economic migrants, these migrant Muslims came to Europe looking for a place to call home, they were exhibiting their religious identity in public, and it did not settle well with the Europeans this time. These Muslims living in Europe were started to be seen as outcasts based on the visibility of their “Muslimness’. Any outward display of Islam like the wearing of a hijab by Muslim women or the growing of a beard and wearing a skull cap by Muslim men started to be seen with contempt and resulted in the phenomenon of Islamophobia. While the roots of Islamophobia are widely contested, it only came to be recognized as an existing phenomenon around this time.

Also, read How Practical is the Secular Democracy of India? Curbing of Religious Freedom in Kashmir

WELCOME

MZEMO

GET EXCITING NEWS

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Featured

Who Will Guard Gaza’s Future? Inside the International Stabilization Force and the Peace Summit

Published

on

Who-Will-Guard-Gazas-Future-Inside-the-International-Stabilization-Force-and-the-Peace-Summit

As the world turns its gaze toward the upcoming Gaza peace moot scheduled in Sharm el-Sheikh, anticipation mixes with skepticism. Delegations from more than 25 nations, including Egypt, Qatar, Indonesia, Pakistan, and the United States, are expected to participate. The summit’s stated goal is to chart a post-war roadmap for Gaza: one that ensures reconstruction, stability, and long-term governance. Yet, beneath the diplomatic smiles lies a deeper unease. Will this summit bring justice, or simply repackage occupation in the language of peace?

While Egypt positions itself as a mediator and the United States attempts to portray itself as a peace broker, many in the Muslim world view this as an exercise in image management. For Gazans who have endured months of devastation, the word “peace” feels hollow when their children are still being buried beneath rubble.

The International Stabilization Force: A New Guardian or Another Overseer?

Central to the summit’s agenda is the proposed International Stabilization Force (ISF). It is a multinational security body meant to take charge of Gaza once Israeli troops withdraw. According to policy outlines discussed at the Council on Foreign Relations, the ISF would be composed of troops from Muslim-majority countries such as Egypt, Indonesia, and Turkey, supported logistically by the U.S. and possibly NATO allies.

Its mission is to oversee security, prevent rearmament, and assist in rebuilding civilian police institutions. Yet this concept immediately triggers questions of legitimacy and control. Who will the ISF answer to, whether it be the United Nations, the Arab League, or Washington? And will it protect Gazans or impose an externally dictated order?

Critics warn that such a force could serve as a buffer between Israel and Gaza rather than a guarantor of Palestinian sovereignty. A security expert quoted, “If the ISF’s mandate comes from Western powers, it may enforce stability at the cost of freedom.”

Gaza’s Sovereignty Between Protection and Control

The idea of international troops in Gaza is not new. Similar arrangements in Lebanon and Bosnia offered mixed results when peacekeeping often turned into passive observation, and local populations remained powerless. For Gazans, the fear is that the ISF might become an instrument to monitor them rather than protect them.

While Israel seeks guarantees that Hamas will not regain control, Palestinians demand something far simpler: the right to self-govern without occupation or military oversight. Many analysts argue that unless the ISF’s command structure includes Palestinian representation, it risks deepening mistrust.

Furthermore, there are legal and ethical dilemmas. If Israeli forces withdraw but still control Gaza’s airspace and borders through the ISF, can Gaza truly be called free? The world has seen this model before, which is an illusion of autonomy wrapped in the language of international cooperation.

The Politics Behind Peace: Competing Interests

Every participating nation arrives with its own agenda. For example, Egypt, leading the ISF, offers regional prestige. For Qatar and Indonesia, participation reinforces solidarity with Palestinians. For the United States, it is a strategic opportunity to maintain influence over the post-war narrative. Yet, for Gaza, each external interest risks turning the strip into a geopolitical chessboard.

Observers note that the absence of any confirmed Israeli participation in the summit is telling. It suggests that while plans are made for Gaza’s future, the voices of those who live there remain marginalized. Without Gazan and broader Palestinian leadership at the table, the summit risks becoming an exercise in deciding the fate of a people without their consent.

Reconstruction and Responsibility: The Road Ahead

Rebuilding Gaza will require an estimated $70 billion, according to updated UN and World Bank figures. Roads, hospitals, power grids, and schools must be reconstructed almost from scratch. The ISF, if deployed, will play a role in securing aid routes and ensuring humanitarian access, but security alone will not heal Gaza. Without justice, accountability, and economic sovereignty, reconstruction will be little more than rebuilding the cage.

Experts emphasize that any real peace must involve lifting the blockade, restoring trade access, and giving Palestinians control over their borders and ports. Without these measures, even billions in reconstruction funds will fail to bring lasting stability.

The Moral Imperative

The peace summit in Egypt and the proposed International Stabilization Force are being presented as symbols of hope. However, hope without accountability is fragile. If the world truly wants to guard Gaza’s future, it must begin by addressing the root cause of its suffering, which is occupation, displacement, and systemic denial of human rights.

True peace cannot be imposed, but it must be built on justice. For Gazans, peace is not about foreign soldiers on their streets. It’s about waking up without fear, owning their land, and rebuilding their lives with dignity. The question that remains is whether the world will finally allow them that chance.

Continue Reading

Crimes Against Humanity

Israel’s Airstrikes on Gaza Reveal the Fragility of Truce

Published

on

Israels-Airstrikes-on-Gaza-Reveal-the-Fragility-of-Truce

When a fragile truce was declared a few days ago, a brief wave of hope washed over Gaza. Families thought they might finally rebuild their shattered homes, search for missing relatives, and sleep without the thunder of jets. However, within days, Israeli warplanes were once again striking the besieged strip. The so-called ceasefire, brokered with international backing, proved to be another chapter in a series of broken promises and shattered faith.

Israel claimed its latest strikes were a “response” to alleged violations by Hamas. Yet, on the ground, the victims were overwhelmingly civilians. Gaza’s health authorities confirmed more than a hundred people killed in the first hours of renewed bombardment. Most of them are women and children. Hospitals, already operating on the brink of collapse, struggled to treat the flood of casualties amid power shortages and dwindling medical supplies.

The truce, meant to bring calm, instead became a cruel illusion. The hum of drones returned, the fear crept back, and families once again fled for survival through rubble-strewn streets. International media outlets described scenes of panic as people searched for shelter, knowing there was none.

Bombardment Under a Banner of Peace

Each new airstrike tears away the thin veil of diplomacy that labels this as a truce. Residential blocks in Khan Younis and Gaza City were flattened, as eyewitnesses described entire families buried under rubble. Aid convoys waiting at Rafah were delayed yet again, leaving tens of thousands of displaced families without food or shelter. Even temporary medical camps reported running out of anesthesia and blood supplies as wounded civilians poured in.

For many Gazans, this ceasefire was never about peace. It was a pause for breath, which means the one that Israel chose to weaponize. As one humanitarian worker told, “Every time they say peace, we prepare for more funerals.” The despair among civilians is palpable, as they question whether the world even listens anymore.

This renewed round of bombings underlines a haunting reality that every so-called truce has become another opportunity for Israel to reposition militarily while Gaza’s people pay with their lives.

Truce Without Trust: The Myth of Protection

The fragility of the ceasefire exposes an uncomfortable truth that there is no enforcement mechanism strong enough to hold Israel accountable. Western governments condemned the bombing with soft statements but continued supplying military aid. The United States, which once called for restraint, quietly approved another arms shipment days before the strikes resumed.

This moral contradiction fuels Gaza’s anguish. Washington preaches human rights yet funds the very machinery that violates them. The European Union speaks of international law but rarely acts when those laws are broken. For ordinary Palestinians, the message is clear that their lives are negotiable, their suffering expendable in geopolitical bargains.

Human rights analysts argue that without credible monitoring, ceasefires will remain political performances rather than pathways to peace. As one UN official said, “If a truce allows bombing to continue, it is not a truce but just a theater.”

The Humanitarian Fallout: Life Amid Rubble

The humanitarian picture is grim. The United Nations estimates over 1.7 million Gazans are internally displaced, living in makeshift tents, classrooms, or under broken walls. Clean water remains scarce, fuel is nearly exhausted, and disease spreads faster than aid. Children draw pictures of bombs instead of butterflies while mothers ration bread to feed hungry infants.

Entire neighborhoods lie in ruins while their residents wait for food deliveries that rarely arrive. The World Food Programme reports that over 90% of Gaza’s population faces acute food insecurity. Hospitals are short on insulin, cancer medicine, and even basic painkillers. In some areas, people boil seawater to drink. Aid agencies have warned that if the siege continues, famine could arrive before winter.

Yet trucks full of aid remain parked just across the border, which is a cruel reminder of political paralysis and global indifference.

Legal and Moral Accountability

Under international law, targeting civilians during a ceasefire violates the Geneva Conventions. Still, Israel acts with impunity, shielded by its Western allies. Human rights groups have repeatedly called for independent investigations, but efforts stall at the UN due to American vetoes. The International Criminal Court’s pending case on alleged war crimes in Gaza remains stalled by diplomatic pressure.

For the people of Gaza, these violations are not abstract. They are lived experiences with the sound of collapsing roofs, the dust in the lungs, the endless funerals of neighbors and friends. Each airstrike deepens a collective trauma that future generations will inherit.

International experts now warn that without accountability, the world risks normalizing war crimes. As Amnesty International stated, “A ceasefire without justice is a countdown to the next tragedy.”

What Lies Ahead

As diplomats gather to discuss the next phase of Gaza’s future, the ground reality remains unchanged. The truce is more fragile than ever, and the people it was meant to protect are once again paying the price. Unless the international community enforces accountability and demands a genuine end to hostilities, this cycle will repeat.

A ceasefire should mean safety, not survival between strikes. For Gaza’s people, peace cannot come from pauses in bombing, but it must come from the world’s moral awakening to their right to live, rebuild, and breathe free. The global community must decide whether it stands for human life or for silence in the face of genocide.

Continue Reading

Featured

Annexing the West Bank While Gaza Bleeds

Published

on

Annexing-the-West-Bank-While-Gaza-Bleeds

Gaza’s skyline has vanished under intense smoke, while its streets, once filled with life, now echo with silence and grief. Amid this devastation, Israel has chosen to open another front, and this time not with missiles, but with geography. The Knesset, Israel’s parliament, has recently advanced two bills that aim to formally annex large parts of the occupied West Bank. It is an act of political conquest, while on the other hand, Gaza’s children are buried under rubble.

This is not a coincidence but a continuity. As Gaza suffers from genocide, Israel is redrawing borders to make that erasure permanent.

A Legislative Land Grab

Recently, Israel’s parliament approved the first readings of two annexation bills. The first extends Israeli civil law to all West Bank settlements, which is a territory occupied since 1967 and recognized internationally as Palestinian land. When it comes to the second bill, it targets Ma’ale Adumim, a massive settlement east of Jerusalem that splits the West Bank in half, severing its north from its south.

Although the votes were close, with one passing 25–24 and the other 31–9, their meaning was profound. As per the reports, both bills were introduced while U.S. Vice President JD Vance was visiting Israel, symbolizing open defiance of Washington’s diplomacy. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hesitated to endorse them publicly, but pressure from his far-right allies, led by Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, is relentless. Their ideology is clear: no Palestine, no partition, and hence no peace.

Gaza’s Agony: A Genocide in Real Time

While politicians in Jerusalem debate annexation, Gaza’s population fights to survive. The UN Commission of Inquiry has declared Israel’s actions in Gaza a genocide, which is a deliberate, systematic, and aimed effort at destroying a people. Till now, more than 67,000 Palestinians have died. Thousands have been displaced, and entire neighborhoods lie flattened. Hospitals function without power while aid convoys are bombed before reaching the hungry.

The International Court of Justice ordered Israel in January 2024 to prevent acts of genocide and ensure humanitarian access. None of those orders was respected. Moreover, the siege tightened, and starvation was made a weapon. Against this backdrop, annexation of the West Bank reads not as policy, but as a strategy that seems to be the second half of a single campaign to erase Palestine from existence.

Illegality Beyond Dispute

When International Law is brought into the limelight, Israel’s annexation efforts are null and void. Even the ICJ’s 2024 advisory opinion confirmed that Israel’s occupation and settlement expansion violate the Fourth Geneva Convention. The United Nations has repeatedly reaffirmed that any attempt to acquire land by force is illegal. States are required not to recognize or assist such measures.

Yet, Israel continues to act with impunity. Roads, checkpoints, and segregated zones have already turned the West Bank into an archipelago of isolated enclaves. The annexation of Ma’ale Adumim would cement that reality, rendering a future Palestinian state geographically impossible. As it was observed,

“Israel no longer hides its intent, and the map of occupation is clearly being turned into a map of sovereignty.”

Washington’s response has been familiar: sharp words, soft hands. Vice President Vance called the Knesset vote an “insult,” with a warning that it endangered the fragile Gaza ceasefire framework. Yet, U.S. military aid, which is nearly $3.8 billion annually, continues without condition. American arms still supply Israeli jets, and U.S. vetoes still block UN resolutions calling for accountability.

This pattern of contradiction has defined U.S.-Israel relations for decades, including public condemnation and private protection. Israel acts knowing that Washington’s rebukes will never reach the language of sanctions. It is diplomacy without deterrence, and therefore, carte blanche.

The Ceasefire Framework

As Gaza starves, diplomats continue to negotiate the truce. According to reports, the ceasefire plan includes a phased release of Israeli hostages, the freeing of about 2,000 Palestinian prisoners, and gradual Israeli troop withdrawals from urban centers. However, each new bulldozer digging into West Bank soil makes these efforts meaningless.

How can peace talks survive when one side expands the very occupation at their root? How can trust grow when homes are demolished under the shadow of negotiation tents? Consequently, the annexation vote mocks every word written in ceasefire communiqués.

What Lies Ahead

Inside Israel, Netanyahu faces a dangerous balancing act. His far-right allies threaten to topple his coalition if he slows annexation. Western allies warn of isolation if he proceeds. The prime minister’s hesitation is tactical, not moral. Whether annexation happens now or later, the machinery of occupation keeps grinding forward.

Internationally, legal pressure is rising but somehow easing, especially after the announcement of the so-called “truce”. The UN Human Rights Council urges accountability, while the European governments debate sanctions against settlers and arms-export suspensions. However, power still shields Israel from the consequences of law. The ICJ’s rulings carry moral weight, yet enforcement remains elusive. Until action matches outrage, international law will remain a promise unfulfilled.

Annexation during genocide is the moment when the world’s excuses run out. Law, morality, and history converge here. If the international community turns away again, the phrase “never again” will lose its meaning forever. And in the dust of Gaza and the stones of the West Bank, humanity itself will stand accused.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending