I seldom write purely political pieces. I'm averse to walking into the ring and picking a fight with anyone. And honestly I find not-particularly-political writing on other topics (such as history and tech) to be more fun. Nor do I consider myself to be all that passionate about indigenous affairs – at least, not compared with other progressive causes such as the environment or refugees (maybe because I'm a racist privileged white guy myself!). However, with only five days to go until Australia votes (and with the forecast for said vote looking quite dismal), I thought I'd share my two cents on what, in my humble opinion, the Voice is all about.

I don't know about my fellow Yes advocates, but – call me cynical if you will – personally I have zero expectations of the plight of indigenous Australians actually improving, should the Voice be established. This is not about closing the gap. There are massive issues affecting Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, those issues have festered for a long time, and there's no silver bullet – no establishing of yet another advisory body, no throwing around of yet more money – that will magically or instantly change that. I hope that the Voice does make an inkling of a difference on the ground, but I'd say it'll be an inkling at best.

So then, what is this referendum about? It's about recognising indigenous Australians in the Constitution for the first time ever! (First-ever not racist mention, at least.) It's about adding something to the Constitution that's more than a purely symbolic gesture. It's about doing what indigenous Australians have asked for (yes, read the facts, they have asked for it!). It's about not having yet another decade or three of absolutely no progress being made towards reconciliation. And it's about Australia not being an embarassment to the world (in yet another way).

I'm not going to bother to regurgitate all the assertions of the Yes campaign, nor to try to refute all the vitriol of the No campaign, in this here humble piece (including, among the countless other bits of misinformation, the ridiculous claim that "the Voice is racist"). I just have this simple argument to put to y'all.

A vote for No is a vote for nothing. The Voice is something. It's not something perfect, but it's something, and it's an appropriate something for Australia in 2023, and it's better than nothing. And rather than being afraid of that modest little something (and expressing your fear by way of hostility), the only thing you should actually be afraid of – sure as hell the only thing I'm afraid of – is the shame and disgrace of doing more nothing.

I hope that, by being an interactive, animated, round-by-round visualisation of the ballot distribution process, this simulation gives you a deeper understanding of how instant-runoff voting works.

The rules coded into the simulator, are those used for the House of Representatives in Australian federal elections, as specified in the Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) s274.

There are other tools around that do basically the same thing as this simulator. Kudos to the authors of those tools. However, they only output a text log or a text-based table, they don't provide any visualisation or animation of the vote-counting process. And they spit out the results for all rounds all at once, they don't show (quite as clearly) how the results evolve from one round to the next.

Source code is all up on GitHub. It's coded in vanilla JS, with the help of the lovely Papa Parse library for CSV handling. I made a nice flowchart version of the code too.

With a federal election coming up, here in Australia, in just a few days' time, this simulator means there's now one less excuse for any of my fellow citizens to not know how the voting system works. And, in this election more than ever, it's vital that you properly understand why every preference matters, and how you can make every preference count.

I have also made the casual observation, over the last three years, that Morrison makes few appearances on Aunty in general, compared with the commercial alternatives, particularly Sky News (which I personally have never watched directly, and have no plans to, but I've seen plenty of clips of Morrison on Sky repeated on the ABC and elsewhere).

This led me to do some research, to find out: how often has Morrison taken part in ABC interviews, during his tenure so far as Prime Minister, compared with his predecessors? I compiled my findings, and this is what they show:

It's official: Morrison has, on average, taken part in fewer ABC TV and Radio interviews, than any other Prime Minister in recent Australian history.

I hope you find my humble dataset useful. Apart from illustrating Morrison's disdain for the ABC, there are also tonnes of other interesting analyses that could be performed on the data, and tonnes of other conclusions that could be drawn from it.

My findings are hardly surprising, considering Morrison's flagrant preference for sensationalism, spin, and the far-right fringe. I leave it as an exercise to the reader, to draw from my dataset what conclusions you will, regarding the fate of the already Coalition-scarred ABC, should Morrison win a second term.

Update, 18 May 2022: check it out, this article has been re-published on Independent Australia!

I'm not overly optimistic, here in what is one of the safest Liberal seats in Australia. But you never know, this may finally be the year when the winds of change rustle the verdant treescape of Sydney's leafy North Shore.

Communism – or, to be more precise, Marxism – made sweeping promises of a rosy utopian world society: all people are equal; from each according to his ability, to each according to his need; the end of the bourgeoisie, the rise of the proletariat; and the end of poverty. In reality, the nature of the communist societies that emerged during the 20^th century was far from this grandiose vision.

Communism obviously was not successful in terms of the most obvious measure: namely, its own longevity. The world's first and its longest-lived communist regime, the Soviet Union, well and truly collapsed. The world's most populous country, the People's Republic of China, is stronger than ever, but effectively remains communist in name only (as does its southern neighbour, Vietnam).

However, this article does not seek to measure communism's success based on the survival rate of particular governments; nor does it seek to analyse (in any great detail) why particular regimes failed (and there's no shortage of other articles that do analyse just that). More important than whether the regimes themselves prospered or met their demise, is their legacy and their long-term impact on the societies that they presided over. So, how successful was the communism experiment, in actually improving the economic, political, and cultural conditions of the populations that experienced it?

Success:

• Health care in Cuba (internationally recognised as being one of the world's best and most accessible public health care systems)
• The arts (Soviet theatre and Soviet ballet received funding and support for many years, as Cuban theatre still does; despite severely limiting artistic freedom, most communist regimes did actually make the arts thrive with subsidies)
• Education (despite the heavy dose of propaganda in schools, almost all communist regimes have massively improved their populations' literacy rates, and have invested heavily in more schools and universities, and in universal access to them)
• Infrastructure (for example, the USSR built an impressive railway network, a glorious metro in Moscow, and numerous power stations, although not all of amazing quality; and PR China has built an excellent highway network, among many other things)
• Womens' rights (the USSR strongly promoted women in the workforce, as does China and Cuba; the Soviet Union was also a pioneer in legalised abortion)
• Industrialisation (putting aside for a moment the enormous sacrifices made to achieve it, the fact is that the USSR, China, and Vietnam transformed rapidly from agrarian economies into industrial powerhouses under communism, and they remain world industrial heavyweights today)

Failure:

• Health care in general (Soviet health care was particularly infamous for its appalling state, and apparently not much has changed in Russia today; China's public health care system is generally considered adequate, but it's hardly an exemplary model either)
• Housing (for the vast majority, Soviet housing and Mao-era Chinese housing were of terrible quality, were overcrowded, and suffered from chronic shortages, and it continues to be this way in Cuba; although the Soviet residences can't be all bad, because Russians are now protesting their demolition)
• Environment (communist regimes, especially the USSR and PR China, have been directly responsible for some of the world's worst environmental catastrophes, the effects of which are expected to linger on for centuries)
• Food security (the communist practice of collectivisation of agriculture has almost always had disastrous results – the USSR experienced food shortages throughout its existence, Maoist China suffered one of the worst famines in human history, and North Korea has endured such acute food scarcity that its population has on occasion resorted to cannibalism)
• Freedom (all communist states so far in history have been totalitarian regimes, and have severely curtailed all freedoms – of speech, of movement, of artistic expression, of religion – and that oppressive legacy lives on to this day)
• Culture and heritage (communist regimes have waged war against their peoples' traditions, religions, and icons, and they have also physically destroyed numerous historic artifacts and monuments; this has resulted in cultural vacuums that may never fully heal)
• Propaganda (truth has invariably taken a back seat to propaganda in communist states – supposedly, the government is perfect, foreign powers are evil, and history can be re-written)
• Corruption (far from the Marxist ideal of universal equality, it has most definitely been a case of some are more equal than others in communist states – communism has engendered endemic bribery and nepotism every time)
• Morale (as the old communist joke goes: "we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us" – nobody has any motivation to work hard, so productivity nationwide plummets; as well as work morale, the oppressive atmosphere of communist regimes has resulted in ongoing social malaise – modern Russia, for example, has one of the world's highest alcoholism and suicide rates)
• Human damage (rather than making everyone a winner, communism has generally made almost everyone a victim – as well as the huge number of people murdered, imprisoned, and tortured as enemies of a communist state, almost all citizens other than Party elites have endured prolonged suffering due to the states' constant intrusion into their lives)

Closing remarks

Personally, I have always considered myself quite a "leftie": I'm a supporter of socially progressive causes, and in particular, I've always been involved with environmental movements. However, I've never considered myself a socialist or a communist, and I hope that this brief article on communism reflects what I believe are my fairly balanced and objective views on the topic.

Based on my list of pros and cons above, I would quite strongly tend to conclude that, overall, the communism experiment of the 20^th century was not successful at improving the economic, political, and cultural conditions of the populations that experienced it.

I'm reluctant to draw comparisons, because I feel that it's a case of apples and oranges, and also because I feel that a pure analysis should judge communist regimes on their merits and faults, and on theirs alone. However, the fact is that, based on the items in my lists above, much more success has been achieved, and much less failure has occurred, in capitalist democracies, than has been the case in communist states (and the pinnacle has really been achieved in the world's socialist democracies). The Nordic Model – and indeed the model of my own home country, Australia – demonstrates that a high quality of life and a high level of equality are attainable without going down the path of Marxist Communism; indeed, arguably those things are attainable only if Marxist Communism is avoided.

I hope you appreciate what I have endeavoured to do in this article: that is, to avoid the question of whether or not communist theory is fundamentally flawed; to avoid a religious rant about the "evils" of communism or of capitalism; and to avoid judging communism based on its means, and to instead concentrate on what ends it achieved. And I humbly hope that I have stuck to that plan laudably. Because if one thing is needed more than anything else in the arena of analyses of communism, it's clear-sightedness, and a focus on the hard facts, rather than religious zeal and ideological ranting.

This article is my quick take, regarding the current status of the federal-ness of the EU. Just a simple layman's opinion, on what is of course quite a complex question. Perhaps not an expert analysis; but, hopefully, a simpler and more concise run-down than experts elsewhere have provided.

EU as a federation – yes or no?

(Image courtesy of Probert Encyclopaedia).

Yes:

• Free trade within the Union, no customs tariffs within the Union
• Unified representation in the WTO
• Unified environmental protection law (and enforcement of such law)

No:

• Single currency (currently only uniform within the Eurozone, of which several EU member states are not a part)
• Removal of border controls (some borders still exist, most notably between UK / Ireland and the rest of Europe)
• Central bank (the ECB only applies to the Eurozone, not the whole EU; the ECB is less powerful than other central banks around the world, as member states still maintain their own individual central banks)
• Integrated legislative system (European Union law still based largely on treaties rather than statutes / precedents; most EU law applies only indirectly on member states; almost no European Union criminal law)
• Federal constitution (came close, but was ultimately rejected; current closest entity is the Treaty of Lisbon)
• Federal law enforcement (Europol has no executive powers, and is not a federal police force; the police forces and other law-enforcement bodies of each member state still maintain full responsibility and full jurisdiction)
• Integrated judicial system (European Court of Justice only has jurisdiction over EU law, has neither direct nor appellate jurisdiction over the laws of member states; as such, the ECJ is not a federal supreme / high court)
• Single nationality (each member state still issues its own passports, albeit with "EU branding"; member state citizenships / nationalities haven't been replaced with single "European" citizenship / nationality)
• Unified immigration law (each member state still has jurisdiction over most forms of immigration, including the various permanent residency categories and also citizenship; EU has only unified immigration in specific cases, such as visa-free periods for eligible tourists, and the Blue Card for skilled work visas)
• Military (each member state maintains its own military, although the EU does co-ordinate defence policy between members; EU itself only has a peacekeeping force)
• Taxation (EU does not tax citizens directly, only charges a levy on the government of each member state)
• Unified health care system (still entirely separate systems for each member state)
• Unified education system (still entirely separate systems for each member state)
• Unified foreign relations (member state embassies worldwide haven't been replaced with "European" embassies; still numerous treaties and bilateral relations exist directly between member states and other nations worldwide)
• Unified representation in the UN (each member-state still has its own UN seat)
• Unified national symbols (the EU has a flag, an anthem, various headquarter buildings, a president, a capital city, official languages, and other symbols; but member states retain their own symbols in all of the above; and the symbols of individual member states are generally still of greater importance than the EU symbols)
• Sovereignty under international law (each member-state is still a sovereign power)

Verdict

The EU is still far from being a federated entity, in its present incarnation. It's also highly uncertain whether the EU will become more federated in the future; and it's generally accepted that at the moment, many Europeans have no desire for the EU to federate further.

Europe has achieved a great deal in its efforts towards political and economic unity. Unfortunately, however, a number of the European nations have been dragged kicking and screaming every step of the way. On account of this, there have been far too many compromises made, mainly in the form of agreeing to exceptions and exclusions. There are numerous binding treaties, but there is no constitution. There is a quasi-supreme court, but it has no supreme jurisdiction. There is a single currency and a border-free zone, apart from where there isn't. In fact, there is even a European Union, apart from where there isn't (with Switzerland and Norway being the most conspicuously absent parties).

Federalism just doesn't work like that. In all the truly federated unions in the world, all of the above issues have been resolved unequivocally – no exceptions, no special agreements. Whichever way you look at it – by comparison with international standards; by reference to formal definitions; or simply by logical reasoning and with a bit of common sense – the European Union is an oxymoron at best, and the United States of Europe remains an improbable dream.

Foreign intervention is nothing new in Syria, which is the heart of one of the most ancient civilised regions in the world. Whether it be Syria's intervention in the affairs of others, or the intervention of others in the affairs of Syria – both of the above have been going on unabated for thousands of years. With an alternating role throughout history as either a World Power in its own right, or as a point of significance to other World Powers (with the latter being more often the case), Syria could be described as a serious "mover and shaken" kind of place.

This article examines, over the ages, the role of the land that is modern-day Syria (which, for convenience's sake and at the expense of anachronism, I will continue to refer to as "Syria"), in light of this theme. It is my endeavour that by exploring the history of Syria in this way, I am able to highlight the deep roots of "being influential" versus "being influenced by" – a game that Syria has been playing expertly for millennia – and that ultimately, I manage to inform readers from a new angle, regarding the current tragic events that are occurring there.

Ancient times

The borders of Syria in the ancient world were not clearly defined; however, for as far back as its recorded history extends, the region has been centred upon the cities of Damascus and Aleppo. These remain the two largest and most important cities in Syria to this day. They are also both contenders for the claim of oldest continuously-inhabited city in the world.

One or the other of these two cities has almost always been the seat of power; and on various occasions, Syria has been reduced (by the encroachment of surrounding kingdoms / empires) to little more than the area immediately surrounding one or both of these cities. From the capital, the dominion of Syria has generally extended west to the coastal plains region (centred on the port of Latakia), east to the Euphrates river and beyond (the "Al-Jazira" region), and south to the Hawran Plateau.

Syria's recorded history begins in the Late Bronze Age / Early Iron Age, c. 1200 BC. In this era, the region was populated and ruled by various ancient kingdoms, including the Phoenicians (based in modern-day Lebanon, to the west of Syria), the Hittites (based in modern-day Turkey, to the north of Syria), the Assyrians (based in modern-day Northern Iraq, to the east of Syria), and the ancient Egyptians. Additionally, Syria was often in contact (both friendly and hostile) with the ancient kingdom of Israel, and with the other Biblical realms — including Ammon, Moab, Edom (all in modern-day Jordan), and Philistia (in modern day Israel and Gaza) — which all lay to the south. Most importantly, however, it was around this time that the Arameans emerged.

The Arameans can be thought of as the original, defining native tribe of Syria. The Arameans began as a small kingdom in southern Syria, where they captured Damascus and made it their capital; this also marked the birth of Damascus as a city of significance. The Arameans' early conquests included areas in southern modern-day Lebanon (such as the Bekaa Valley), and in northern modern-day Israel (such as Rehov). Between 1100 BC and 900 BC, the Aramean kingdoms expanded northward to the Aleppo area, and eastward to the Euphrates area. All of this area (i.e. basically all of modern-day Syria) was in ancient times known as Aram, i.e. land of the Arameans.

*Note: Antioch was not founded until c. 320 BC; it is included on this map as a point of reference, due to its significance in later ancient Syrian history.

The story of Aramaic

It is with the Arameans that we can observe the first significant example, in Syria's long history, of a land that has its own distinct style of "influencing" and of "being influenced by". The Arameans are generally regarded by historians as a weak civilisation, that was repeatedly conquered and dominated by neighbouring empires. They never united into a single kingdom; rather, they were a loose confederation of city-states and tribes. The Aramean civilisation in its original form – i.e. as independent states, able to assert their self-determination – came to an end c. 900 BC, when the entire region was subjugted by the Neo Assyrian Empire. Fairly clear example of "being influenced by".

Ironically, however, this subjugation was precisely the event that led to the Arameans subsequently leaving a profound and long-lasting legacy upon the entire region. During the rule of the Neo Assyrians in Syria, a significant portion of the Aramean population migrated – both voluntarily and under duress – to the Assyrian heartland and to Babylonia. Once there, the Aramaic language began to spread: first within the Empire's heartland; and ultimately throughout the greater Empire, which at its height included most of the Fertile Crescent of the ancient Middle East.

The Aramaic language was the lingua franca of the Middle East between approximately 700 BC and 700 AD. Aramaic came to displace its "cousin" languages, Hebrew and Phoenician, in the areas of modern-day Israel and Lebanon. Hebrew is considered the "language of the Jews" and the "language of the Bible"; however, for the entire latter half or so of Bibical Israel's history, the language of conversation was Aramaic, with Hebrew relegated to little more than ritual and scriptural use. It is for this reason that Jesus spoke Aramaic; and it is also for this reason that most of the later Jewish scriptural texts (including several books of the Tanakh, and almost the entire Talmud) were written in Aramaic.

Aramaic included various dialects: of these, the most influential was Syriac, which itself evolved into various regional sub-dialects. Syriac was originally the dialect used by the Imperial Assyrians in their homeland – but in later years, it spread west to northern Syria and to Turkey; and east to Persia, and even as far as India. Syriac played a significant role in the early history of Christianity, and a small number of Christian groups continue to read Syriac Christian texts to this day. Another important dialect of ancient Aramaic was Mandaic, which was the dominant dialect spoken by those Aramaic speakers who settled in ancient Persia.

Although not a direct descendant of Aramaic, Arabic is another member of the Semitic language family; and spoken Arabic was heavily influenced by Aramaic, in the centuries preceding the birth of Islam. The Arabic writing system is a direct descendant of the Nabatean (ancient Jordanian) Aramaic writing system. With the rise of Islam, from c. 630 AD onwards, Arabic began to spread throughout the Middle East, first as the language of religion, then later as the language of bureaucracy, and ultimately as the new lingua franca. As such, it was Arabic that finally ended the long and influential dominance of Aramaic in the region. To this day, the majority of the formerly Aramaic-speaking world – including Syria itself – now uses Arabic almost universally.

Aramaic remains a living language in the modern world, although it is highly endangered. To this day, Aramaic's roots in ancient Aram are attested to, by the fact that the only remaining native speakers of (non-Syriac / non-Mandaic) Aramaic, are the residents of a handful of remote villages, in the mountains of Syria near Damascus. It seems that Aramaic's heyday, as the de facto language of much of the civilised world, has long passed. Linguistically speaking, Syria has long since been "under the influence"; nevertheless, Syria's linguistic heyday still lives on in an isolated corner of the nation's patchwork.

Syria and the Empires

After the conquest of Syria by the Assyrians in c. 900 BC, Syria continued to be ruled by neighbouring or distant empires for the next 1,500 years. Towards the end of the 7^th century BC, the Assyrians were overshadowed by the Babylonians, and by c. 600 BC the Babylonians had conquered Syria. Shortly after, the Babylonians were overwhelmed by the growing might of the Persian Empire, and by c. 500 BC Syria was under Persian dominion. Little is known about Syria during these years, apart from accounts of numerous rebellions (particularly under Assyrian rule). However, it seems unlikely that the changes of governance in this era had any noticeable cultural or political effect on Syria.

All that changed c. 330 BC, when Alexander the Great conquered Syria – along with conquering virtually the entire Persian Empire in all its vastness – and Syria, for the first time, fell under the influence of an Empire to its west, rather than to its east (it also came to be known as "Syria" only from this time onward, as the name is of Greek origin). The Greeks built a new capital, Antioch, which dealt a severe blow to Damascus, and which shifted Syria's seat of power to the north for the first time (the Greeks also established Aleppo, which they called Beroea; from its onset, the city was of some importance). The Greeks also imposed their language and religion upon Syria, as they did upon all their Empire; however, these failed to completely replace the Aramaic language and the old religious worship, which continued to flourish outside of the Greek centres.

Syria remained firmly under occidental dominion for quite some time thereafter. The Armenian kingdom conquered Greek Syria in 83 BC, although the Armenians held on to it for only a brief period. Syria was conquered by the Romans, and was made a Roman province in 64 BC; this marked the start of more than 300 years of Syrian administration directly by Imperial Rome.

Syria remained subordinate during this time; however, Antioch was one of the largest and most powerful cities of the Empire (surpassed only by Rome and Byzantium), and as such, it enjoyed a certain level of autonomy. As in the Greek era, Syria continued to be influenced by both the Imperial language (now Latin – although Greek remained more widely-used than Latin in Syria and its neighbours), and by the Imperial religion ("Greco-Roman"); and as in Greek times, this influence continued to grow, but it never completely engulfed Syria.

Syria was also heavily influenced by, and heavily influential in, the birth and early growth of Christianity. From c. 252 AD, Antioch became the home of the world's first organised Christian Church, which later became the Antiochian Orthodox Church (this Church has since moved its headquarters to Damascus). It is said that Paul the Apostle was converted while travelling on the Road to Damascus – thus giving Damascus, too, a significant role in the stories of the New Testament.

From 260 to 273 AD, Syria was controlled by the rebel group of the Roman Empire that governed from Palmyra, a city in central Syria. This rebel government was crushed by the Romans, and Syria and its neighbouring provinces subsequently returned to Roman rule. For the next hundred or so years, the split of the Roman Empire into Western and Eastern halves developed in various stages; until c. 395 AD, when Constantinople (formerly known as Byzantium) officially became the capital of the new Eastern Roman Empire (or "Byzantine Empire"), and Syria (along with its neighbours) became a Byzantine province.

Both the capital (Antioch), and the province of Syria in general, continued to flourish for the next several hundred years of Byzantine rule (including Aleppo, which was second only to Antioch in this era) – until the Muslim conquest of Syria in c. 635 AD, when Antioch fell into a steep decline from which it never recovered. Antioch was finally destroyed c. 1260 AD, thus terminating the final stronghold of Byzantine influence in Syria.

The Muslim conquest of Syria

In 636 AD, the Muslims of Arabia conquered Syria; and Caliph Muawiya I declared Damascus his new home, as well as the capital of the new Islamic world. This marked a dramatic and sudden change for Syria: for the first time in almost 1,000 years, Damascus was re-instated as the seat of power; and, more importantly, Syria was to return to Semitic rule after centuries of Occidental rule.

This also marked the start of Syria's Golden Age: for the first and only time in its history, Syria was to be the capital of a world empire, a serious "mover" and an influencer. Under the Ummayad dynasty, Syria commanded an empire of considerable proportions, stretching all the way from Spain to India. Much of the wealth, knowledge, and strength of this empire flowed directly to the rulers in Damascus.

During the Ummayad Caliphate, Syria was home to an Arab Muslim presence for the first time. The Empire's ruling elite were leading families from Mecca, who moved permanently to Damascus. The conquerors were ultimately the first and the only rulers, in Syria's history, to successfully impose a new language and a new religion on almost the entire populace. However, the conversion of Syria was not an overnight success story: in the early years of the Caliphate, the population of Syria remained predominantly Aramaic- and Greek-speaking, as well as adherents to the old "pagan" religions. It wasn't until many centuries later, that Syria became the majority Arab-speaking, Islam-adherent place that it is today. The fact that Syria being anything other than an "Arab Muslim country" seems far-fetched to a modern reader, is testament to the thoroughness with which the Ummayads and their successors undertook their transformation campaign.

Syria's Golden Age ended in 750 AD, with the Abbasid Dynasty replacing the Ummayads as rulers of the Islamic world, and with the Empire's capital shifting from Damascus to Baghdad. The rest of Syria's history through Medieval times was far from Golden – the formerly prosperous and unified region was divided up and conquered many times over.

A variety of invaders left their mark on Syria in these centuries: Byzantines successfully re-captured much of the north, and even briefly conquered Damascus in 975 AD; the Seljuk Turks controlled much of Syria from Damascus (and Aleppo) c. 1079-1104 AD; Crusaders invaded Syria (along with its neighbours), and caused rampant damage and bloodshed, during the various Crusades that took place throughout the 1100's AD; the Ayyubid Dynasty of Egypt (under Saladin and his successors) intermittently ruled Syria throughout the first half of the 1200's AD; the Mongols attacked Syria numerous times between 1260 and 1300 AD (but failed to conquer Syria or the Holy Land); the Mamluks ruled Syria (from Egypt) for most of the period 1260-1516 AD; and Tamerlane of Samarkand attacked Syria in 1400 AD, sacking both Aleppo and Damascus, and massacring thousands of the inhabitants (before being driven out again by the Mamluks).

It should also be noted that at some point during these turbulent centuries, the Alawite ethnic group and religious sect was born in the north-west of Syria, and quietly grew to dominate the villages of the mountains and the coastal plains near Latakia. The Alawites remained an isolated and secluded rural group until modern times.

These tumultuous and often bloody centuries of Syrian history came to an end in the 1500s, when the Ottoman Turks defeated the Mamluks, and wrested control of Syria and neighbouring territories from them. The subsequent four centuries, under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, marked a welcome period of peace and stability for Syria (in contrast to the devasation of the Crusader and Mongol invasion waves in prior centuries). However, the Ottomans also severely neglected Syria, along with the rest of the Levant, treating the region ever-increasingly as a provincial backwater.

The Ottomans made Aleppo the Syrian capital, thus shifting Syria's power base back to the north after almost nine centuries of Damascus rule (although by this time, Antioch had long been lying in ruins). In the Ottoman period, Aleppo grew to become Syria's largest city (and one of the more important cities of the Empire), far outstripping Damascus in terms of fame and fortune. However, Syria under the Ottomans was an impoverished province of an increasingly ageing empire.

Modern times

The modern world galloped abruptly into Syria on 1 Oct 1918, when the 10^th Australian Light Horse Brigade formally accepted the surrender of Damascus by the Ottoman Empire, on behalf of the WWI Allied Forces. The cavalry were shortly followed by the arrival of Lawrence of Arabia, who helped to establish Emir Faisal as the interim leader of a British-backed Syrian government. Officially, from 1918-1920, Syria fell under the British- and French-headed Occupied Enemy Territory Administration.

For the first time since the end of the Ummayad Caliphate, almost 12 centuries prior, Syria became a unified sovereign power again on 7 Mar 1920, when Faisal became king of a newly-declared independent Greater Syria (and as with Caliph Muawiya 12 centuries earlier, King Faisal was also from Mecca). Faisal had been promised Arab independence and governorship by the Allies during WWI, in return for the significant assistance that he and his Arabian brethren provided in the defeat of the Ottomans. However, the Allies failed to live up to their promise: the French successfully attacked the fledgling kingdom; and on 14 Jul 1920, Syria's brief independence ended, and the French Mandate of Syria began its governance. King Faisal was shortly thereafter sent into exile.

Syria had enjoyed a short yet all-too-sweet taste of independence in 1920, for the first time in centuries; and under the French Mandate, the people of Syria demonstrated on numerous occasions that the tasting had left them hungry for permanent self-determination. France, however – which was supposedly filling no more than a "caretaker" role of the region, and which was supposedly no longer a colonial power – consistently crushed Syrian protests and revolts in the Mandate period with violence and mercilessness, particularly in the revolt of 1925.

During the French Mandate, the Alawites emerged as a significant force in Syria for the first time. Embittered by centuries of discrimination and repression under Ottoman rule, this non-Sunni muslim group – along with other minority groups, such as the Druze – were keen to take advantage of the ending of the old status quo in Syria.

Under their governance, the French allowed the north-west corner of Syria – which was at the time known by its Ottoman name, the Sanjuk of Alexandretta – to fall into Turkish hands. This was a major blow to the future Syrian state – although the French hardly cared about Syria's future; they considered the giving-away of the region as a good political move with Turkey. The region was declared the independent Republic of Hatay in 1938; and in 1939, the new state voted to join Turkey as Hatay Province. This region is home to the ruins of Antioch, which was (as discussed earlier) the Syrian capital for almost 1,000 years. It is therefore understandable that Hatay continues to be a thorn in Syrian-Turkish relations to this day.

Syria adopted various names under French rule. From 1922, it was called the "Syrian Federation" for several years; and from 1930, it was called the Syrian Republic. Also, in 1936, Syria signed a treaty of independence from France. However, despite the treaties and the name changes, in reality Syria remained under French Mandate control (including during WWII, first under Vichy French rule and then under Free French rule) until 1946, when the last French troops finally left for good.

Syria has been a sovereign nation (almost) continuously since 17 Apr 1946. However, the first few decades of modern independent Syria were turbulent. Syria experiened numerous changes of government during the 1950s, several of which were considered coups. From 1958-1961, Syria ceded its independence and formed the United Arab Republic with Eygpt; however, this union proved short-lived, and Syria regained its previous sovereignty after the UAR's collapse. Syria has officially been known as the Syrian Arab Republic since re-declaring its independence on 28 Sep 1961.

Syria's government remained unstable for the following decade: however, in 1963, the Ba'ath party took over the nation's rule; and since then, the Ba'ath remain the ruling force in Syria to this day. The Ba'ath themselves experienced several internal coups for the remainder of the decade. Finally, in Nov 1970, then Defence Minister Hafez al-Assad orchestrated a coup; and Syria's government has effectively remained unchanged from that time to the present day. Hafez al-Assad was President until his death in 2000; at which point he was succeeded by his son Bashar al-Assad, who remains President so far amidst Syria's recent return to tumult.

The Assad family is part of Syria's Alawite minority; and for the entire 42-year reign of the Assads, the Alawites have come to dominate virtually the entire top tier of Syria's government, bureaucracy, military, and police force. Assad-ruled Syria has consistently demonstrated favouritism towards the Alawites, and towards various other minority groups (such as the Druze); while flagrantly discriminating against Syria's Sunni Muslim majority, and against larger minority groups (such as the Kurds). Syria's current civil war is, therefore, rooted in centuries-old sectarian bitterness as a highly significant factor.

Modern independent Syria continues its age-old tradition of both being significantly influenced by other world powers, and of exerting an influence of its own (particularly upon its neighbours), in a rather tangled web. Syria has been a strong ally of Russia for the majority of its independent history, in particular during the Soviet years, when Syria was considered to be on the USSR's side of the global Cold War. Russia has provided arms to Syria for many years, and to this day the majority of the Syrian military's weapons arsenal is of Soviet origin. Russia demonstrated its commitment to its longstanding Syrian alliance as recently as last month, when it and China (who acted in support of Russia) vetoed a UN resolution that aimed to impose international sanctions on the Syrian regime.

Syria has also been a friend of Iran for some time, and is considered Iran's closest ally. The friendship between these two nations began in the 1980s, following Iran's Islamic revolution, when Syria supported Iran in the Iran-Iraq War. In the recent crisis, Iran has been the most vocal supporter of the Assad regime, repeatedly asserting that the current conflict in Syria is being artificially exacerbated by US intervention. Some have commented that Iran and Syria are effectively isolated together – that is, neither has any other good friends that it can rely on (even a number of other Arab states, most notably Saudi Arabia, have vocally shunned the regime) – and that as such, the respective Ayatollah- and Alawite-ruled regimes will be allies to the bitter end.

In terms of exerting an influence of its own, the principal example of this in modern Syria is the state's heavy sponsorship of Hezbollah, and its ongoing intervention in Lebanon, on account of Hezbollah among other things. Syria supports Hezbollah for two reasons: firstly, in order to maintain a strong influence within Lebanese domestic politics and power-plays; and secondly, as part of its ongoing conflict with Israel.

Of the five Arab states that attacked Israel in 1948 (and several times again thereafter), Syria is the only one that still has yet to establish a peace treaty with the State of Israel. As such – despite the fact that not a single bullet has been fired between Israeli and Syrian forces since 1973 – the two states are still officially at war. Israel occupied the Golan Heights in the 1967 Six-Day War, and remains in control of the highly disputed territory to this day. The Golan Heights has alternated between Israeli and Syrian rule for thousands of years – evidence suggests that the conflict stretches back as far as Israelite-Aramean disputes three millenia ago – however, the area is recognised as sovereign Syrian territory by the international community today.

The story continues

As I hope my extensive account of the land's narrative demonstrates, Syria is a land that has seen many rulers and many influences come and go, for thousands of years. Neither conflict, nor revolution, nor foreign intervention, are anything new for Syria.

The uprising against Syria's ruling Ba'ath government began almost 18 months ago, and it has become a particularly brutal and destructive conflict in recent months. It seems unlikely that Syria's current civil war will end quickly – on the contrary, it appears to be growing ever-increasingly drawn-out, at this stage. Various international commentators have stated that it's "almost certain" that the Assad regime will ultimately fall, and that it's now only a matter of time. Personally, I wouldn't be too quick to draw such conclusions – as my historical investigations have revealed, Syria is a land of surprises, as well as a land where webs of interrelations stretch back to ancient times.

The Assad regime was merely the latest chapter in Syria's long history; and whatever comes next, will merely be the land's following chapter. For a land that has witnessed the rise and fall of almost every major empire in civilised history; that has seen languages, religions, and ethnic groups make their distinctive mark and leave their legacy; for such a land as this, the current events – dramatic, tragic, and pivotal though they may be – are but a drop in the ocean.

South Sudan is the world's newest nation – it declared its independence on 9 Jul 2011. Israel was one of the first foreign nations to establish formal diplomatic ties with the fledgling Republic. Subsequently, Israel wasted no time in announcing publicly that all South Sudanese refugees would soon be required to leave; they were given a deadline of 31 Mar 2012, and were informed that they would be forcibly deported if still in Israel after that date.

Israel claims that, since having gained independence, it is now safe for South Sudanese nationals to return home. However, independent critics rebuke this, saying that there is still significant armed conflict between Sudan, South Sudan, and numerous rebel groups in the region. Aside from the ongoing security concerns, South Sudan is also one of the world's poorest and least-developed countries; claiming that South Sudan is ready to repatriate its people, is a ridiculous notion at best.

Israel helped formulate the UN Refugee Convention of 1951. This was in the aftermath of the Holocaust, an event in which millions of Jewish lives could have been saved, had the rest of the world accepted more European Jews as refugees. Israel, of course, is itself one of the world's most famous "refugee nations", as the majority of the nation's founders were survivors of Nazi persecution in Europe, seeking to establish a permanent homeland where Jews could forevermore seek shelter from oppression elsewhere.

It's ironic, therefore, that Israel – of all nations – until recently had no formal policy regarding asylum seekers, nor any formal system for managing an influx of asylum seekers. (And I thought Australia's handling of asylum seekers was bad!) To this day, Israel's immigration policy consists almost entirely of the Law of Return, which allows any Jew to immigrate to the country hassle-free.

Well, it seems to me that this law has recently been amended. For Jewish refugees, the Law is that you can Return to Israel (no matter what). For non-Jews, the Law is that you're forced to Return from Israel, back to wherever you fled from. Couldn't get much more double standards than that!

Irony and hypocrisy

Many Israelis are currently up in arms over the African migrants that have "infiltrated" the country. Those Israelis obviously have very short memories (and a very poor grasp of irony). After all, it was only 21 years ago, in 1991, when Operation Solomon resulted in the airlifting of almost 15,000 black Africans from Ethiopia to Israel, as a result of heightened security risks for those people in Ethiopia. Today, over 120,000 Ethiopian Jews (African-born and Israeli-born) live in Israel.

Apparently, that's quite acceptable – after all, they were Jewish black Africans. As such, they were flown from Africa to Israel, courtesy of the State, and were subsequently welcomed with open arms. It seems that for non-Jewish black Africans (in this case, almost all of them are Christians), the tables get turned – they get flown from Israel back to Africa; and they're even given a gift of €1,000 per person, in the hope that they go away and stay away.

Oh, and in case the historical parallels aren't striking enough: the home countries of these refugees – South Sudan and Eritrea – happen to both be neighbouring Ethiopia (in fact, Operations Moses and Joshua, the precursors to Operation Solomon, involved airlifting Ethiopian Jewish refugees from airstrips within Sudan – whether modern-day South Sudan or not, is uncertain).

It's also a historical irony, that these African refugees are arriving in Israel on foot, after crossing the Sinai desert and entering via Egypt. You'd think that we Jews would have more compassion for those making an "exodus" from Egypt. However, if Israel does feel any compassion towards these people, it certainly has a strange way of demonstrating it: Israel is currently in the process of rapidly constructing a new fence along the entire length of its desert border with Egypt, the primary purpose of which is to stop the flow of illegal immigrants that cross over each year.

It's quite ironic, too, that many of the African refugees who arrive in Israel are fleeing religious persecution. After all, was the modern State of Israel not founded for exactly this purpose – to provide safe haven to those fleeing discrimination elsewhere in the world, based on their religious observance? And, after all, is it not logical that those fleeing such discrimination should choose to seek asylum in the Holy Land? Apart from South Sudan, a large number of the recent migrants are from Eritrea, a country that has banned all religious freedom, and that has the world's lowest Press Freedom Index rating in the world (179th, lower even than North Korea).

Much ado about nothing

Israel is a nation that lives in fear of many threats. The recent arrival of African refugees has been identified by many Israelis (and by the government) as yet another threat, and as such, the response has been one of fear. Israel fears that these "infiltrators" will increase crime on the nation's streets. It fears that they will prove an economic burden. And it fears that they will erode the Jewish character of the State.

These fears, in my opinion, are actually completely unfounded. On the contrary, Israel's fear of the new arrivals is nothing short of ridiculous. The refugees will not increase crime in Israel; they will not prove an economic burden; and (the issue that worries Israel most of all) they will not erode the Jewish character of the state.

As recent research has shown, humanitarian immigrants in general make a significant positive contribution to their new home country; this is a contribution that is traditionally under-estimated, or even refuted altogether. Refugees, if welcomed and provided with adequate initial support, are people who desire to, and who in most cases do, contribute back to their new host country. They're desperately trying to escape a life of violence and poverty, in order to start anew; if given the opportunity to fulfil their dream, they generally respond gratefully.

Israel is a new player in the field of humanitarian immigration (new to ethnically-agnostic humanitarian immigration, at least). I can only assume that it's on account of this lack of experience, that Israel is failing to realise just how much it has to gain, should it welcome these refugees. If welcomed warmly and given citizenship, the majority of these Africans will support Israel in whatever way Israel asks them to. Almost all of them will learn Hebrew. A great number will join the IDF. And quite a few will even convert to Judaism. In short, these immigrants could prove to be just the additional supporters of the Jewish status quo that Israel needs.

What is Israel's biggest fear in this day and age? That the nation's Arab / Palestinian population is growing faster than its Jewish population; and that in 20 years' time, the Jews will be voted out of their own State by an Arab majority. As such, what should Israel be actively trying to do? It's in Israel's interests to actively encourage any immigration that contributes people / votes to the Jewish side of the equation. And, in my opinion, if Israel were to accept these African refugees with open arms today, then in 20 years' time they would be exactly the additional people / votes that the status quo requires.

Finally, as many others have already stated: apart from being ironic, hypocritical, impractical, and (most likely) illegal, Israel's current policy towards its African refugees is inhumane. As a Jew myself, I feel ashamed and incredulous that Israel should behave in this manner, when a group of desperate and abandoned people comes knocking at its doorstep. It is an embarrassment to Jews worldwide. We of all people should know better and act better.

This is the latest in a long series of decisions that Argentina has made throughout its modern history, all of which have displayed: hot-headed nationalist sentiment; an arrogant and apathetic attitude towards other nations; and utter disregard for diplomatic and economic consequences. As with previous decisions, it's also likely that this one will ultimately cause Argentina more harm than good.

I think it's time to ask: Argentina, why do you keep shooting yourself in the foot? Argentina, are you too stubborn, are you too proud, or are you just plain stupid? Argentina, ¿que onda?

I've spent quite a lot of time in Argentina. My first visit was five years ago, as a backpacker. Last year I returned, and I decided to stay for almost six months, volunteering in a soup kitchen and studying Spanish (in Mendoza). So, I believe I've come to know the country and its people reasonably well — about as well as a foreigner can hope to know it, in a relatively short time.

I also really like Argentina. I wouldn't have chosen to spend so much time there, if I disliked the place. Argentines have generally been very warm and welcoming towards me. Argentines love to enjoy life, as is evident in their love of good food, fine beverages, and amazing (and late) nightlife. They are a relaxed people, who value their leisure time, never work too hard, and always have one minute more for a casual chat.

During my first visit to Argentina, this was essentially my complete view of the nation. However, having now spent significantly more time in the country, I realise that this was a rather rose-coloured view, and that it far from makes up the full story. Argentina is also a country facing many, many problems.

Questionable choices

What pains me most about Argentina, is that it seems to have everything going for it, and yet it's so much less than it could be. Argentina is a land of enormous potential, most of it squandered. A land of opportunities that are time and time again passed up. It's a nation that seems to be addicted to making choices that are "questionable", to put it nicely.

The most famous of these voluntary decisions in Argentina's history was when, in 1982, the nation decided to declare war on Great Britain over the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas). By most logical counts, this was a bad decision for a number of reasons.

Diplomatically, the Falklands war was bad: most of the world condemned Argentina for attacking the sovereign territory of another nation pre-emptively — few countries were sympathetic to Argentina's cause. Economically it was bad: it took a heavy toll on Argentina's national budget, and it also resulted in the UK (and the wider European community) imposing various trade sanctions on Argentina. And militarily it was bad: by all accounts, it should have been clear to the Argentine generals that the British military was far superior to their own, and that a war for Argentina was almost completely unwinnable.

Argentina shocked the world again when, in late 2001, it decided to default on its enormous debt to the IMF. Around the same time, the government also froze all bank accounts in the country, and severely limited the bank withdrawals that private citizens could make. Shortly thereafter, Argentina also abandoned its 10-year-long policy of pegging its currency to the US Dollar, as a result of the economic crisis that this policy had ended in.

While this decision was one of the more understandable in Argentina's history — the country's economy was in a desperate state, and few other options were available — it was still highly questionable. Defaulting on virtually the entire national debt had disastrous consequences for Argentina's international economic relations. In the short-term, foreign investment vanished from Argentina, a blow that took many years thereafter to recover (and one that continues a struggled recovery, to this day). Of all the choices open to it, Argentina elected the one that would shatter the rest of the world's confidence in its economic stability, more than any other.

And now we see history repeating itself, with Argentina once again damaging its own economic credibility, by effectively stealing a company worth billions of dollars from Spain (which, to make matters even worse, is one of Argentina's larger trading partners). We should hardly be surprised.

Culture, not just politics

It would be a bit less irrational, if we could at least confine these choices to having been "imposed" on the nation by its politicians. However, this would be far from accurate. On the contrary, all of these choices (with the possible exception of the loan defaulting) were overwhelmingly supported by the general public of Argentina. To this day, you don't have to travel far in Argentina, before you see a poster or a graffitied wall proclaiming: "Las Malvinas son Argentinas" ("The Falklands are Argentine"). And, similarly, this week's announcement to nationalise YPF was accompanied by patriotic protestors displaying banners of: "YPF de los Argentinos".

So, how can this be explained culturally? How can a nation that on the surface appears to be peaceful, fun-loving, and Western in attitude, also consistently support decisions of an aggressive character that isolate the country on the international stage?

As I said, I've spent some time in Argentina. And, as I've learned, the cultural values of Argentina appear at first to be almost identical to those of Western Europe, and of other Western nations such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Indeed, most foreigners comment, when first visiting, that Argentina is by far the most European place in Latin America. However, after getting to know Argentines better, one comes to realise that there are actually some significant differences in cultural values, lying just under the surface.

Firstly, Argentina has a superiority complex. Many Argentines honestly believe that their country is one of the mightiest, the smartest, and the richest in the world. Obviously, both the nation's history, and independent statistics (by bodies such as the UN), make it clear that Argentina is none of these things. That, however, seems to be of little significance to the average Argentine. Indeed, a common joke among Argentines is that: "Argentina should be attached to Europe, but by some mistake it floated over and joined South America". Also particularly baffling, is that many Argentines seem to be capable of maintaining their superiority, while at the same time serving up a refreshingly honest criticism of their nation's many problems. This superiority complex can be explained in large part by my second point.

Secondly, Argentina has a (disturbingly high) penchant for producing and for swallowing its own propaganda. For a country that supposedly aspires to be a liberal Western democracy, Argentina is rife with misinformation about its own history, about its own geography, and about the rest of the world. In my opinion, the proliferation of exaggerated or outright false teachings in Argentina borders on a Soviet-Russian level of propaganda. Some studies indicate that a prolonged and systematic agenda of propaganda in education is to blame for Argentina's current misinformed state. I'm no expert on Argentina's educational system, and anyway I'd prefer not to pin the blame on any one factor, such as schooling. But for me, there can be no doubt: Argentines are more accustomed to digesting their own version of the truth, than they are to listening to any facts from the outside.

Finally, Argentina has an incredibly strong level of patriotism in its national psyche. Patriotism may not at first seem any different in Argentina, to patriotism in other countries. It's strong in much of the world, and particularly in much of the rest of Latin America. But there's something about the way Argentines identify with their nation — I can't pinpoint it exactly, but perhaps the way they cling to national icons such as football and mate, or the level of support they give to their leaders — there's something that's different about Argentine patriotism. In my opinion, it's this sentiment that fuels irrational thinking and irrational decisions in Argentina more than anything else. It's this patriotism that somehow disfigures the logic of Argentines into thinking: "whatever we decide as a nation is right, and the rest of the world can get stuffed".

Final thoughts

It really does pain me to say negative things about Argentina, because it's a country that I've come to know and to love dearly, and I have almost nothing but happy memories from all my time spent there. This is also the first time I've written an article critical of Argentina; and perhaps I've become a little bit Argentine myself, because I feel just a tad bit "unpatriotic" in publishing what I've written.

However, I felt that I needed to explore why this country, that I feel such affection for, continually chooses to isolate itself, to damage itself, and to stigmatise itself. I'm living in Chile this year, just next door; and I must admit, I feel melancholy at being away from the buena onda, but also relief at keeping some distance from the enormous instability that is Argentina.

Two weeks ago, the Gillard government succeeded in passing legislation for a new carbon tax through the lower house of the Australian federal parliament. Shortly after, opposition leader Tony Abbott made a "pledge in blood", promising that: "We will repeal the tax, we can repeal the tax, we must repeal the tax".

The passing of the carbon tax bill represents a concerted effort spanning at least ten years, made possible by the hard work and the sacrifice of numerous Australians (at all levels, including at the very top). Australia is the highest per-capita greenhouse gas emitter in the developed world. We need climate change legislation enactment urgently, and this bill represents a huge step towards that endeavour.

I don't usually publish direct political commentary here. Nor do I usually name and shame. But I feel compelled to make an exception in this case. For me, Tony Abbott's response to the carbon tax can only possibly be addressed in one way. He leaves us with no option. If this man has sworn to repeal the good work that has flourished of late, then the solution is simple. Tony Abbott must never lead this country. The consequences of his ascension to power would be, in a nutshell, diabolical.

So, join me in making a blood pledge to never vote for Tony Abbott.

Fortunately, as commentators have pointed out, it would actually be extremely difficult — if not downright impossible — for an Abbott-led government to repeal the tax in practice (please G-d may such government never come to pass). Also fortunate is the fact that support for the anti-carbon-tax movement is much less than Abbott makes it out to be, via his dramatic media shenanigans.

Of course, there are also a plethora of other reasons to not vote for tony. His hard-line Christian stance on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia. His xenophobia towards what he perceives as "the enemies of our Christian democratic society", i.e. Muslims and other minority groups. His policies regarding Aboriginal rights. His pathetic opportunism of the scare-campaign bandwagon to "stop the boats". His unashamed labelling of himself as "Howard 2.0". His budgie smugglers (if somehow — perhaps due to a mental disability — nothing else about the possibility of Abbott being PM scares the crap out of you, at least consider this!).

In last year's Federal election, I was truly terrified at the real and imminent possibility that Abbott could actually win (and I wasn't alone). I was aghast at how incredibly close he came to claiming the top job, although ultimately very relieved in seeing him fail (a very Bush-esque affair, in my opinion, was Australia's post-election kerfuffle of 2010 — which I find fitting, since I find Abbott almost as nauseating as the legendarily dimwitted G-W himself).

I remain in a state of trepidation, as long as Abbott continues to have a chance of leading this country. Because, laugh as we may at Gillard's 2010 election slogan of "Moving Forward Together", I can assure you that Abbott's policy goes more along the line of "Moving Backward Stagnantly".

Image courtesy of The Wire.