Blair the new middle East envoy

[myata]

Blair has lots of credibility on that side of the equation.

Sorry, but more than just saying is needed to prove. How did he earned that creadibilty? By blindly following Bush into Iraq quagmire? By repeating over and again that it was the right thing to do?

It doesn't matter if the Arab/Muslims don't trust him - they never trust anyone on this issue anyway.

Maybe it's worth trying to earn their trust then? By first recognising one's responsibility for earlier deeds, then taking a position that is more balanced than automatic support of one side in the conflict?

Is there any other alternatives? A settlement cannot be achieved without both sides agreeing to it.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, that means we've identified yet ANOTHER major problem in the Middle East.

There are "problems" all over the globe....maybe we should just reduce expectations a bit.

A Coke and a smile won't fix the Middle East. The last time the US manufactured "peace" in the Middle East, it cost hundreds of billions without any oil. If the Yankees have to foot the bill again, we want something for our money.

[BC_chick]

And I unequivically deny the idea that Islamic terrorism is driven by jealousy or envy of our western technology. I certainly have never suggested anything so outrageous and facile.

That big long post of yours which I quoted from was a list of internal problems facing Muslim nations and it ended with the following:

Bottom line is that the mess in the Middle East is very much an Islamic issue. They will do everything they can to blame the West for their own problems - and that is what they do all the time - while the Arab/Islamic rulers contintue their mis-rule, with all their corruption and inefficiency and violence towards their own people.

I obviously misintepreted what you meant by "the mess."

Nonetheless, I already addressed this issue in another post. When you continue to support fundamentalist dictators and overthrowing the progressives in the region, then myata may have a point....

In post #19, I elaborated on the above.

[Rue]

In response to the below passages in Mad Michael and then BC Chick's posts;

"The Middle East is host to most of the holy sites for Jews, Christians and Muslims. This has always been a major source of tension in the region. This issue has always fueled beliefs by one religious group of nefarious motives/actions by the other religious groups. This issue is always hot and has endured for over 1300 years so far."

I would most certainly agree.

"Ever since Sultan Mehmet IV's last unsuccessful siege on Vienna in 1683 (commanded by Mustafa), the Muslim world has been on the losing end of just about every major military confrontation with Europeans. Where once the Ottoman army of elite Janissary warriors was much feared, by the late-17th century, European scientific and technical advantages on the battlefield had made the Janissaries pretty much impotent. This fact drives an extraordinary amount of Arabic and Islamic sense of 'humilitation' at the hands of Christian Europe (Arabs apparently define 'humiliation' as anything other than their own victory and/or domination)."

I would most certainly agree and up-date that to include the Arab League losses during the 1949 War of Israel independence and the 1967 6 day war.

"The Islamic people may rightfully claim that in the 11th century AD, Islamic culture was more advanced and sophisticated, with more advanced science, mathematics, medicine and astronomy than Christian Europe. By the 18th century, the Islamic world lagged far behind Christian Europe in every one of these categories. Again, this fact fuels an extraordinary amount of Arabic and Islamic sense of 'humiliation' at the hands of Christian Europe."

I would again have to agree.

"The fact that Arabic/Islamic culture lags so far behind the Christian West in science, technology and industry also fuels a second source of division in the Arabic/Islamic world - as to how to address this fact - should Arabic/Islamic society modernize/liberalize/westernize in order to advance their standard of living or remain reliant on western technology and trade? Or close their doors and shut themselves off and pretend that its is still the 14th century?"

Again I would agree.

"The longstanding political-tribal factionism of Sunni vs Shi'ite complicates all political issues in the Middle East given that society in the Middle East is still primarily based on tribal clans - and every tribal clan is either Sunni or Shi'ite."

I would not agree with the very last part. There are many clans that are not strictly Sunni or Shiite. I always spell it wrong but one example are the Amidyah Muslim people who have suffered much persecution from both Sunnis and Shiites.

"The failure of the institution of government in the Middle East. Because there is no substantive concept or principle of 'nation-state' or 'good-government' or 'representative government' (or civil society for that matter) in the Islamic world, their governments have always been corrupt, disfunctional, arbitrary and self-serving. Enormous and systematic corruption is why the Ottoman Empire collapsed and the same level of endemic corruption has defined governments in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Turkey ever since. Indeed, it was corruption and incompetent government that brought down the old Caliphate and allowed the Ottomans to take over so many centuries ago. And it is endemic corruption of government throughout the Middle East to this day that makes any progress on any issue, almost impossible to achieve."

I again agree.

"The failure of nationalism. Nationalism is the method by which the Western nations forged themselves into coherent political unities known as nation-states. This is a very powerful, efficient and effective form of political organisation. In the Middle East, there is an irreconcilable difference between Turkish, Egyptian or Persian nationalism and Arab Islamicism. This is yet another fissure point in Middle East politics. This is often cited as the failure of pan-Arabism. Islamic culture (for the most part) does not admit of the validity of a secular state government."

I again agree.

"So there you have a list of some 'endemic' problems of the Middle East. "

I think the above summary is unique. No one else that I know of has presented the above to date in this discussion of the conflict of the Middle East and I personally believe it is a very solid effort at trying to look at historic developments without making excuses but by providing cause and effect relationships.

Where I might disagree is that I do not think Islamic society feels infeior to Christianity or Judaism or anyone else's civilization.

I think they truly believe they are superior.

"All of these issues and conflicts in the Middle East all predate the arrival of Western colonial power and/or Western military conquests of the 19th and 20th century."

Precisely and it is the same reason, I would argue an attempt to blame the present day problems simply on Zionism is equally as invalid for the exact same reasons.

"As I noted above, the arrival of Western powers directly into the Middle East during the last two centuries has served to magnify and/or intesify all of these long-simmering disputes and fault-lines in the region of the Middle East."

Of course. They added fuel to the fire. But the question is-how long does anyone keep using the past as an excuse to remain entrenched and refuse to change and accept change? How long do we blame the British or French or Israelis or anyone else?

How can one evolve and grow for the better if their hatred or sense of entitlement of victimization or failure or what-ever else you want to call it, prevents them from saying-o.k. enough with the violence, it has gotten us nothing, its time to be bold and take a chance as Sadat and Rabin did or Ghandi did or Martin Luther King did.

"Btw, are familiar with the history of Islam and the Jews? They have always been allies and friends for the last 1300 years right up until the advent of Whabbism out of Saudi Arabia (with its own native form of

militant anti-semitism) and Nazi's attempts to develop alliances with Turkey & Iran between WW1 & WW2. At that time, the Arabs acquired a virolent hatred of Jews and that pre-dates the establishment of Israel."

Only partially true. There was anti-semitism and hatred directed at Jews by Muslims from the very time Muhammed preached at Medina and 300 Jews were killed for refusing to convert.

The aparthetid system of dhimittude oppressed and led to massacres and hardships of Jews in the Muslim world during the above period. It was not all peaches and cream by any means but it was vastly different then with the anti-semtiism of Europe. In Europe it was constant. In the Muslim world it came in sporadic attacks and massacres and riots but certainly not over the same period of time and in the same level of intensity and rate of murder. However that is because Jews were forced to pay Muslims not to be attacked/

Under dhimmitude Jews were forced to pay for protection to Muslims so they would not be attacked and they werekept in ghettoes and treated as second class citizens and subject to discrimination and ridicule, were not allowed to own land, could notp serve as witnesses and testify when they were sued since they were considered infidel (so had to pay a Muslim witness to testify on their behalf often wiping them out trying t o defend aginst false accusations).

Jews were not the allies of Muslims or their friends. They were considered to be inferior infidel to be quarantined.

That said Sunni and Shiite Muslims also practiced dhimmitude on Christians and were not exactly tolerant of Hindus, Bahaiis, Zoroastreans, Amidyah Muslims, Buddists, either.

"But my only point is that the Western powers did not make the Middle East into the mess it is - only contributed & complicated to the Arabic/Islamic mess that long existed there - and has certainly made the whole mess worse and harder than ever to resolve. "

I agree, blaming it all on the British and French is too simplistic. I think the British handling of the League of Nations Mandate has very much to do with the current Palestinian-Israeli conflict but not the rest of the Middle East and is no longer an excuse-it has historic relevance to understand why certain situations exist today, but it does not mean it can be used as an excuse to justofy terror, coruption, inefficiency, etc.

The billions of dollars in petro dollars could have been used to easily create a third Palestinian state and help create a strong economic community between the Muslim countries and Israel long ago.

The decision to maintain a belief that the only solution is to wipe out Israel and run states with secret police forces and oppressive military juntas and Muslim clerical councils who are not interested in freedom of expression-the decision to slaughter balck Christians in Sudan or use people as slaves can not be blamed on the West. The decision to steal billions of aid money and not use it to create a Palestinian state lies with the corupted Fatah and the legacy of Arafat and his cronies.

The current economic despair of the Gaza lies directly with Hamas' decision to destroy its economic infrastructure since it was funded by Israel and leave Palestinians with nothing rather then allow them to work side by side and cooperate with Israel.

The choice to continue pursuing terror, broadcasting anti-semitism on the air and calling for the death of Christians and Jews, can not be blamed simply on the West or as some like to do the US or Israel.

"Bottom line is that the mess in the Middle East is very much an Islamic issue. "

There I might disagree a bit. I think the mess in the Middle East can be attributed to many failures in the Muslim world, but I will say the same about my own people (Jews) and Christians. All three of our societies have f..cked up.

"They will do everything they can to blame the West for their own problems"

No I will not engage in negative generalizations about ALL Muslims. I would agree with the above comments as it relates specifically to Muslims and Muslim clerics who subscribe to violence and terrorism or certain kinds of fundamentalism but I would be careful not to smeer all Muslims.

"- and that is what they do all the time "

They is a smeer word. It incites hatred against all Muslims. I am specific in saying "they" should read "Muslim terrorists" or "certain Muslims" or "certain Muslim clerics".

"- while the Arab/Islamic rulers contintue their mis-rule, with all their corruption and inefficiency and violence towards their own people."

On this last comment, I think saying the majority of Muslim countries right now are corupt and inefficient is not a stretch but again I would guard against it being used to incite hatred against Muslims as a people. The fact they have shitty governments may not be a deliberate choice on the part of Muslimst. It may be that many Muslims want peace but have no way to express such sentiments if in fact a vocal minority of violent Muslims prevent them from expressing themselves.

In any event I think all of the above passages were distinct and refreshing and offer a new perspective to the same old good (Palestine) v.s. bad (Israel-US) scenario or the pvre-used to the point of nauseating blame it on British imperialism approach.

[Rue]

"I have only argued here that all of the 'problems' in the Middle East that make it famously complex and violent are all pre-existing the arrival of the European colonial powers. "

You are the first to state it, and you did so in a clear and precise manner and I applaud you for it. It is a very important point and I am glad you raised it and I only regret I did not before now.

"And the reason I'm making this argument is because if western colonialism is blamed for all of the problems in the Middle East (as myata wants to do) we can never improve the situation in the Middle East"

I absolutely agree with the above and again I am glad you say it.

" the Arabic & Muslim contribution to their own problems. "

The only place where I partially debate with you is that while I think the Arab and Muslim world must take a long hard look at their own actions and stop blaming the West, Israel or anyone but themselves for their problems-I also take care to express such criticism without intending to sound like I am smeering all Muslims or blame all Muslims.

I think is important Muslims can hear from non Muslims that while we criticize many things in Muslim society this does not mean we hate Muslims or disrespect the religion and what I criticize as failures in Muslim society I do equally with my own people or Western society.

I say that because too often on this forum I see alleged criticism directed at Israel but it turns into negative generalizations about Israeli Jews and other Jews, intentionally and unintentionally- so I also don't like it when it is done in reverse to Muslims.

I also wangt to say this to you Mad Michael.

It is the utmost of paradoxes that Jews after the holocaust found themselves in a conflict with the British, the same country that defeated Nazism.

There are many stories of conflicted British soldiers fresh from the holocaust of Europe then finding themselves in Palestine trying caught in a conflict between Muslims and Jews. It is a fact not all British soldiers in Palestine hated Jews and many would not shoot at them and let them in, precisely because of their knowledge of what they had seen in Europe.

I also find it ironic I am the first generation in my family never to have had to go to war or be shot at or attacked by my own society's police or civilians precisely because of a government system of democracy that comes from Britain.

So you know I would love to blame it all on the British but that would be kind of ridiculous considering my ancestors could only dream that Jews could live the way I do precisely because of the British parliamentary system.

So I can criticize certain aspects of colonialism but I also cherish other parts of it.

And I am sure Mad Michael you know exactly what I mean better then anyone.

[Mad_Michael]

And I unequivically deny the idea that Islamic terrorism is driven by jealousy or envy of our western technology. I certainly have never suggested anything so outrageous and facile.

That big long post of yours which I quoted from was a list of internal problems facing Muslim nations and it ended with the following:

Bottom line is that the mess in the Middle East is very much an Islamic issue. They will do everything they can to blame the West for their own problems - and that is what they do all the time - while the Arab/Islamic rulers contintue their mis-rule, with all their corruption and inefficiency and violence towards their own people.

I obviously misintepreted what you meant by "the mess."

Yes, the Middle East is a mess. I don't see how anyone can deny or question that.

This does not mean that I endorse the view that Islamic terrorism is driven by envy or jealousy of the west. I believe that Islamic terrorism (such that it is, or so named) is much deeper and more significant than 'envy'. Indeed, 'envy' does not provide a functional analysis of Islamic terrorism. If envy was their motive, methinks you'd see some very different tactics being used. Blackmail for example.

Nonetheless, I already addressed this issue in another post. When you continue to support fundamentalist dictators and overthrowing the progressives in the region, then myata may have a point....

I really find that people at this forum project a whole lot of views to me that I don't have.

I certainly have never endorsed any dictatorship (fundamentalist or otherwise), or overthrowing progressives in any region.

Is your view of world politics so one sided (or black and white) that if one person makes a reasoned defence against an outrageous partisan bias that person is immediately assumed to be a neocon?

I attacked myata's view that every problem in the Middle East is caused by western colonialism. That viewpoint is purely ideological and ignores actual Middle Eastern and Islamic history. That does not make me a neocon or a supporter of US warmongering or Israeli occupation.

[Mad_Michael]

The only place where I partially debate with you is that while I think the Arab and Muslim world must take a long hard look at their own actions and stop blaming the West, Israel or anyone but themselves for their problems-I also take care to express such criticism without intending to sound like I am smeering all Muslims or blame all Muslims.

I think is important Muslims can hear from non Muslims that while we criticize many things in Muslim society this does not mean we hate Muslims or disrespect the religion and what I criticize as failures in Muslim society I do equally with my own people or Western society.

I say that because too often on this forum I see alleged criticism directed at Israel but it turns into negative generalizations about Israeli Jews and other Jews, intentionally and unintentionally- so I also don't like it when it is done in reverse to Muslims.

Agreed. I used that term as a 'short-hand' for the native inhabitants of the region.

And I agree that critique of Israeli politics is often taken as justification or support for Jew-bashing. Just as certainly that critique of Muslim politics is often taken as justification or support for Islam-bashing. That was NOT my intention. My interest here is historical, not political or religious.

And I do regret it if some idiots will use my arguments to argue that Muslims can't rule themselves, but I can't help it if they do.

I also wangt to say this to you Mad Michael.

It is the utmost of paradoxes that Jews after the holocaust found themselves in a conflict with the British, the same country that defeated Nazism.

There are many stories of conflicted British soldiers fresh from the holocaust of Europe then finding themselves in Palestine trying caught in a conflict between Muslims and Jews. It is a fact not all British soldiers in Palestine hated Jews and many would not shoot at them and let them in, precisely because of their knowledge of what they had seen in Europe.

I also find it ironic I am the first generation in my family never to have had to go to war or be shot at or attacked by my own society's police or civilians precisely because of a government system of democracy that comes from Britain.

So you know I would love to blame it all on the British but that would be kind of ridiculous considering my ancestors could only dream that Jews could live the way I do precisely because of the British parliamentary system.

So I can criticize certain aspects of colonialism but I also cherish other parts of it.

And I am sure Mad Michael you know exactly what I mean better then anyone.

I understand your point (I think). That is part of why I felt the need to clarify the historical record of Middle Eastern history. It is not nearly so black and white as people would like it to be. Britain's role in the creation of Israel is very complex.

Indeed, where would India be today without British colonialism? That's not say that British colonialism was all-good for India because it most certainly wasn't. But no one can look at India today and say that British colonialism didn't have a very large and positive impact upon that country. History is never black and white.

And, let me say I'm glad you appreciate the key point I raised about viewing the whole issue clearly - good and bad - as the only way to move forward. Pretending one side is evil and the other angels is a recipe for more war.

[White Doors]

I disagree then that colonialism had nothing to do with the problems of the Middle-East. All the problems that you mention are internal. The external problems are political, and if you really think terrorism is a jealousy of a technologically-advanced society, why don't I see Sweden being targetted?

I have not argued or suggested in this thread that European colonialism had nothng to do with the problems of the Middle East.

I have only argued here that all of the 'problems' in the Middle East that make it famously complex and violent are all pre-existing the arrival of the European colonial powers. And yes, western colonial power has had a huge effect on the Middle East, magnifying, complicating and entrenching many of those issues.

And the reason I'm making this argument is because if western colonialism is blamed for all of the problems in the Middle East (as myata wants to do) we can never improve the situation in the Middle East since that view of the 'problem' ignores the Arabic & Muslim contribution to their own problems.

For example, when two kids are fighting, picking out one of them and blaming them entirely for the fight does not resolve the issue they were fighting about - indeed, it tends to make the fight-problem worse when you are not watching.

The problems in the Middle East are manifold and complex. The western European powers are part of those problems, but not entirely the cause.

And I unequivically deny the idea that Islamic terrorism is driven by jealousy or envy of our western technology. I certainly have never suggested anything so outrageous and facile.

Thanks for your balanced views on the situation in the ME. I enjoyed learning from your posts.

[Bonam]

It is the utmost of paradoxes that Jews after the holocaust found themselves in a conflict with the British, the same country that defeated Nazism.

Not really a paradox... the British didn't exactly fight Germany just to save the Jews. In fact, the British severely restricted Jewish emigration to Palestine during the period of World War II, causing more Jews than would otherwise have been to remain trapped in places in Europe where they became victims of the Holocaust. Furthermore, the British policy of restricting Jewish immigration to Palestine continued after the end of the War until the establishment of Israel, and this caused additional hardship to large amounts of Holocaust survivors and other Jewish refugees. So it's not surprising that the Jews found themselves in conflict with the British over this issue.

Anyway it was mostly the Soviet Union that defeated Germany, the whole Western Front of the WWII was pretty minor in comparison. And the Russians hated the Jews for way longer, and more deeply, than the Germans did (they just never got the idea to try to completely whipe them out like Hitler did).

[myata]

I attacked myata's view that every problem in the Middle East is caused by western colonialism. That viewpoint is purely ideological and ignores actual Middle Eastern and Islamic history.

Interesting. My viewpoint is based on a very simple practical fact that is evidenced daily anywhere on this planet: if someone is pissed off strongly and continuously over a period of time, there's bound to be a backlash. The last hundred years was such continuous and strong interference by outsiders in the region. Now we're seeing the backlash. Yet you fail to see the direct causal link and instead want to relegate it all to philosophy and history. Isn't it like, ideological?

[Mad_Michael]

I attacked myata's view that every problem in the Middle East is caused by western colonialism. That viewpoint is purely ideological and ignores actual Middle Eastern and Islamic history.

Interesting. My viewpoint is based on a very simple practical fact that is evidenced daily anywhere on this planet: if someone is pissed off strongly and continuously over a period of time, there's bound to be a backlash. The last hundred years was such continuous and strong interference by outsiders in the region. Now we're seeing the backlash. Yet you fail to see the direct causal link and instead want to relegate it all to philosophy and history. Isn't it like, ideological?

I have never denied the obvious Western imperialist/colonialist involvement in the Middle East during the last 100 years. I have acknowledged that it is a major factor in all Middle East issues.

Without a doubt present day Muslims are being animated by virolent anti-western emotions, built on some sense of greivance with the Western powers. No doubt about it.

But just stop for a minute and think about who is profiting from this Muslim sense of greivance and who is propagating it? I respectfully submit that they are Arabic/Muslim dictatorships.

And as my earlier arguments were designed to show, much of what passes for Arabic/Muslim grievances these days in the region are little more than manufactured propaganda based on a very conveniently forgetful reading of history.

Until both sides are honest about this stuff, we will only have more of the same.

Your views on this issue suggests to me that we are a long way from both sides making frank and honest appraisals of the situation.

And you call my position here ideological eh? That is a classic case of projection.

[myata]

I have never denied the obvious Western imperialist/colonialist involvement in the Middle East during the last 100 years. I have acknowledged that it is a major factor in all Middle East issues.

Without a doubt present day Muslims are being animated by virolent anti-western emotions, built on some sense of greivance with the Western powers. No doubt about it.

But just stop for a minute and think about who is profiting from this Muslim sense of greivance and who is propagating it? I respectfully submit that they are Arabic/Muslim dictatorships.

Thanks for admitting the obviuos. Yes someone maybe using the past grievances in the wrong way i.e to thier own advantages and not the the benefit of the people. That does not make them (grievances) any less real or deserving of attention, especially as interference does not stop. Consider Iraq, and now Iran.

And as my earlier arguments were designed to show, much of what passes for Arabic/Muslim grievances these days in the region are little more than manufactured propaganda based on a very conveniently forgetful reading of history.

Well I thought that you admitted the obvious but apparently not for long. What is "little more than"? Palestinian refugees and situation in the occupied territories? Massive military aid to the friendly, even if less than spotless on the democracy agenda, regimes? Iraq war? The threat of one in Iran? Those are today's news. Which world are you living in?

[Mad_Michael]

Thanks for admitting the obviuos. Yes someone maybe using the past grievances in the wrong way i.e to thier own advantages and not the the benefit of the people. That does not make them (grievances) any less real or deserving of attention, especially as interference does not stop. Consider Iraq, and now Iran.

Self-serving 'grievences' put forward by those with strong vested interests are suspect by definition - they no credibility upon the issue.

True, that doesn't make 'real' greivences less real, but it sure makes addressing them almost impossible.

And as my earlier arguments were designed to show, much of what passes for Arabic/Muslim grievances these days in the region are little more than manufactured propaganda based on a very conveniently forgetful reading of history.

Well I thought that you admitted the obvious but apparently not for long. What is "little more than"? Palestinian refugees and situation in the occupied territories? Massive military aid to the friendly, even if less than spotless on the democracy agenda, regimes? Iraq war? The threat of one in Iran? Those are today's news. Which world are you living in?

Which part of "little more than" do you not understand?

Self-serving propaganda of the Arab/Islamic dictatorships serve the interests of the Arab/Islamic dictatorships. A kernal of truth may be buried under their propaganda, but it is poisoned by association and, as I pointed out above, makes any reasonable address impossible. Indeed, Arab/Islamic dictators have (by far) the most to lose with improving relations between West and Middle East. The West generally has nothing to lose here on this account.

Once again, you just keep appealing to some mystical assumption that all of the ills of the Middle East were magically created by the West. This belief is one of the main reasons that the majority of Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East live under dictatorships with no rights.

Gotta hand it to the Arab/Islamic dictators - they are good at playing the game. They've got you fighting their battles for them. Nice deal.

Seriously, always look to "who benefits" and "who loses" when addressing international affairs. In this case, the West has everything to gain from 'good relations' with Arabs and Islam in general (and the Middle East) while the West has everything to lose from 'bad relations' with Arabs/Islam/Middle East.

Yet you assume that the West has a fetish for screwing Arabs/Islam and/or Middle East, despite it being against their own direct interests.

Only the Arab/Islamic dictators of the Middle East (and oil companies) profit from the present situation. It is they that profit from tense relations and play propaganda games.

Always, follow the money.

[myata]

Self-serving propaganda of the Arab/Islamic dictatorships serve the interests of the Arab/Islamic dictatorships. A kernal of truth may be buried under their propaganda, but it is poisoned by association and, as I pointed out above, makes any reasonable address impossible. Indeed, Arab/Islamic dictators have (by far) the most to lose with improving relations between West and Middle East. The West generally has nothing to lose here on this account.

What is poisoned? What Americans blew up Iraq? Why searh for logic in setting things upside down? It's really simple. Interference by foreign powers creates tensions in the region. These tensions are sometimes exploited by the authoritarian regimes. The cause is the interference, the effect is its manipulation by the regimes. Without one, there would not be another.

Once again, you just keep appealing to some mystical assumption that all of the ills of the Middle East were magically created by the West. This belief is one of the main reasons that the majority of Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East live under dictatorships with no rights.

No, I'm operating purely on facts. Earlier in this thread I listed current ongoing conflicts which can be traced directly to some incident of foreign involvement. And yes, some "dictatorships" also were created with our direct participation. In any case, I do not believe we in the West are in any position to teach other people how they should live. If they are used to authoritarian rule, they should be able to have it for as long as they like it and aren't doing anything hostile. Remember, in historically miniscule terms, we ourselves are only just out of the biggest mess ever seen on this planet (WWI and II, complite with using WMD against civil population). Nobody has managed to match that yet, hard as they tried.

Seriously, always look to "who benefits" and "who loses" when addressing international affairs. In this case, the West has everything to gain from 'good relations' with Arabs and Islam in general (and the Middle East) while the West has everything to lose from 'bad relations' with Arabs/Islam/Middle East.

Really, can't be said any better. Who benefits from the mess in Iraq? Maybe contractors linked to administration and making starbucks at the expense of taxpayers whose children are dying in the doomed war? If you saw Fifth Element you may recall the episode in which Zorg demonstrates the benefits of mess on the ground. Nothing happened so far to convince me that it's some noble ideals and not the plain old urge to control everything (and grab a good chunk of juicy stuff while at that), that's at work here.

[Mad_Michael]

Self-serving propaganda of the Arab/Islamic dictatorships serve the interests of the Arab/Islamic dictatorships. A kernal of truth may be buried under their propaganda, but it is poisoned by association and, as I pointed out above, makes any reasonable address impossible. Indeed, Arab/Islamic dictators have (by far) the most to lose with improving relations between West and Middle East. The West generally has nothing to lose here on this account.

What is poisoned? What Americans blew up Iraq? Why searh for logic in setting things upside down? It's really simple. Interference by foreign powers creates tensions in the region. These tensions are sometimes exploited by the authoritarian regimes. The cause is the interference, the effect is its manipulation by the regimes. Without one, there would not be another.

You appear to shift between the Israel-Palestine issue to the US-Iraq issue to the Iraq-Iran war at will. These are all very different things, yet you just jump from one to the other as if they are all identical.

Which ever one I address, you just switch to another one.

Blair's appointment does not include any mandate for addressing the Israel-Palestine question or the issue of Iraq. But these are the issues you keep raising.

Once again, you just keep appealing to some mystical assumption that all of the ills of the Middle East were magically created by the West. This belief is one of the main reasons that the majority of Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East live under dictatorships with no rights.

No, I'm operating purely on facts. Earlier in this thread I listed current ongoing conflicts which can be traced directly to some incident of foreign involvement.

And I have shown that the vast majority of the core 'problems' in the Middle East that you take issue with originate in the Middle East prior to the arrival of the Western powers.

Yet all you can do is blame the Western Powers and pretend that they are the cause of everything.

Removal of every western soldier from the Middle East would not solve any problem in the Middle East. Western soldiers were mostly invited into the Middle East by Middle Eastern dictatorships in order to help them address Middle Eastern problems.

Yes, the presence of western powers in the Middle East complicates and makes every problem worse. But since they didn't create the problems, removal of the western powers will not remove the problems. The core problems are indigenous to the region.

And yes, some "dictatorships" also were created with our direct participation.

So, the West installed the Ottomans in Turkey? Or Mohammad Ali in Egypt? Or the Ayatollah's of Iran? Or the House of Saud?

Methinks your biased view of Middle Eastern politics and recent history is rather sketchy. Indeed, one might say it is rather selective with the facts.

In any case, I do not believe we in the West are in any position to teach other people how they should live.

You're right. I consider western paternalism to be as obnoxious as Islamic absolutism.

But as I noted above, apart from the US invasion of Iraq, every western soldier in the Middle East is there through the invitation of some Middle Eastern government.

If they are used to authoritarian rule, they should be able to have it for as long as they like it and aren't doing anything hostile.

I don't have a problem with this. My foreign policy view can only be described as realpolitique. That means I'm in favour of whatever works well.

Unfortunately, the majority of the authoritarian Arab/Muslim dictatorships (save Iran) demand/beg/pay for western military support for their regimes.

Remember, in historically miniscule terms, we ourselves are only just out of the biggest mess ever seen on this planet (WWI and II, complite with using WMD against civil population). Nobody has managed to match that yet, hard as they tried.

By your own argument, the Middle East is far more recently engaged in mass destruction (Iraq vs Iran war) where WMD's were used against civilian populations.

Seriously, always look to "who benefits" and "who loses" when addressing international affairs. In this case, the West has everything to gain from 'good relations' with Arabs and Islam in general (and the Middle East) while the West has everything to lose from 'bad relations' with Arabs/Islam/Middle East.

Really, can't be said any better. Who benefits from the mess in Iraq? Maybe contractors linked to administration and making starbucks at the expense of taxpayers whose children are dying in the doomed war? If you saw Fifth Element you may recall the episode in which Zorg demonstrates the benefits of mess on the ground. Nothing happened so far to convince me that it's some noble ideals and not the plain old urge to control everything (and grab a good chunk of juicy stuff while at that), that's at work here.

Again, you selectively choose one example and ignore the multitude of counter-examples available. The US invasion of Iraq is only one element in the Middle East. Prior to 2003, that problem didn't exist.

So, are you saying here that ALL of the problems in the Middle East are caused by the US invasion of Iraq in 2003? That's rather more absurd than your usual bias statements.

The problems in the Middle East cannot be taken selectively and individually by place or historical time. To do so ignores the several centuries of history that lie behind every one of the 'problems' in the Middle East today.

And besides, a few tens of millions in profits for western contractors pale in comparison to the enormous wealth and power that accrues to Arabic control of oil. What have the Arabs done with the vast wealth of their oil? They've used it to subsidize their dictatorships, to alternately repress or bribe their own people, to buy western weapon systems and to forment religious wars in neighbouring states within the region.

But of course, the western contractors are to blame for absolutely everything.

I said "follow the money" not follow the spare change.

[myata]

[

You appear to shift between the Israel-Palestine issue to the US-Iraq issue to the Iraq-Iran war at will. These are all very different things, yet you just jump from one to the other as if they are all identical.

Which ever one I address, you just switch to another one.

OK, here's the logical link between the two: both are obvious and glaring examples of Western interference in the region.

And I have shown that the vast majority of the core 'problems' in the Middle East ..

Nope, you haven't. But I'm not interested in circular arguments of "you said I said kind". Please reread your earlier post and my response to it.

Removal of every western soldier from the Middle East would not solve any problem in the Middle East. Western soldiers were mostly invited into the Middle East by Middle Eastern dictatorships in order to help them address Middle Eastern problems.

How do you know? Do you have a magic ball in which you see the future? And what if we made that huge leap of mentality and just tried, for a change? Surely, the sky would fall down?

BTW, are they the same undemocratic authoritarian dictators you were complaining about? If so, why are we so willing to oblige to their wishes (if they are, indeed, their wishes)? Pure love of humanity?

Yes, the presence of western powers in the Middle East complicates and makes every problem worse. But since they didn't create the problems, ....

So nobody created these problems: inter-ethnic conflicts originating to colonial policies; Israel; removal of popular regimes and support of dictators; supporting warring fractions (Bin Laden's against Soviets; warlords against Taleban; Fatah against Hamaz, ..... to near infinity). Finally full scale invasion in Iraq;

Are you talking about some alternative history in another Universe?

And yes, some "dictatorships" also were created with our direct participation.

So, the West installed the Ottomans in Turkey? Or Mohammad Ali in Egypt? Or the Ayatollah's of Iran? Or the House of Saud?

Are you having problems reading English? Or just interpreting it?

I said "SOME" which isn't a synonym of "ALL".

Unfortunately, the majority of the authoritarian Arab/Muslim dictatorships (save Iran) demand/beg/pay for western military support for their regimes.

To which we have no choice but to submit and oblige. Ha-ha-ha.

So, are you saying here that ALL of the problems in the Middle East are caused by the US invasion of Iraq in 2003? That's rather more absurd than your usual bias statements.

Absurd indeed is your interpretation. What I said is that US invasion of Iraq is another, obviuos and glaring example of interference and manipulation in the region. Which links to the long string of previous events.

What have the Arabs done with the vast wealth of their oil? They've used it to subsidize their dictatorships, to alternately repress or bribe their own people, to buy western weapon systems and to forment religious wars in neighbouring states within the region.

It's certainly a serious problem for them. It's nothing to do, however, with our responisibility for our deeds.

[Mad_Michael]

[

You appear to shift between the Israel-Palestine issue to the US-Iraq issue to the Iraq-Iran war at will. These are all very different things, yet you just jump from one to the other as if they are all identical.

Which ever one I address, you just switch to another one.

OK, here's the logical link between the two: both are obvious and glaring examples of Western interference in the region.

You hold that Iraq's invasion of Iran was a western proxy war?

That's colourful - and a perfect demonstration of why I can't take your argument very seriously. You are grasping.

You might as well call the Iraq-Iran war a Russian proxy war or a Chinese proxy war since they sold as many or more weapons to the combatants as western nations (illegally) did. I believe Sweden was a significant arms supplier to both sides.

How do you know? Do you have a magic ball in which you see the future? And what if we made that huge leap of mentality and just tried, for a change? Surely, the sky would fall down?

I don't know.

But I do know that every single western soldier in the Middle East (save the US invasion of Iraq in 2003) is there at the expressed invitation of a Middle Eastern government.

You seem to avoid this point in order to pretend that western troops are 'invading' everything.

BTW, are they the same undemocratic authoritarian dictators you were complaining about? If so, why are we so willing to oblige to their wishes (if they are, indeed, their wishes)? Pure love of humanity?

I'm not obliging their wishes with anything. Nor am I justifying their actions.

I'm only explaining what is going on since you have a very colourful and selective way of interpreting 'facts'

So nobody created these problems: inter-ethnic conflicts originating to colonial policies; Israel; removal of popular regimes and support of dictators; supporting warring fractions (Bin Laden's against Soviets; warlords against Taleban; Fatah against Hamaz, ..... to near infinity). Finally full scale invasion in Iraq;

You just don't get it.

No one doubts the fact that the western powers are up to their eyeballs in the Middle East right now. No one doubts that the fact that this is a huge problem for 'world peace' and that it complicates all the complex problems of the middle east.

I have never denied this. Your whole argument here seems predicated on you pretending that I'm denying this. You have never offered any argument against the fact that all of the existing problems in the Middle East pre-date the arrival of western powers. You just want to pretend that this isn't so.

And that is why I find discussing this topic with you to be a waste of time.

Absurd indeed is your interpretation. What I said is that US invasion of Iraq is another, obviuos and glaring example of interference and manipulation in the region. Which links to the long string of previous events.

Actually, the US invasion of Iraq is a quite extraordinary unique event.

It's certainly a serious problem for them.

This is progress. You are, for the first time in this thread, acknowledging that the Arabs/Muslims have a bit of a problem of their own.

And that's why blaming 'us' for everything is absurd.

Until people can actually look at the Middle East without partisan bias and/or selective 'blinkers' on, I can guarentee nothing will ever change there. Indeed, it is likely only ever to get worse. With or without western military power.

If USA cuts off military/political support of Arab/Muslim dictatorships, those dictators will just turn to Russia or China to supply them with same. Indeed, they have already done this at times and are presently engaged in doing so as 'insurance' against US pullout.

Like I said, pulling out all western troops from the Middle East won't change nothing (save Iraq - which is a particularly complex case). Those troops would just be replaced by other non-western troops because the Arab/Muslim dictatorships need them to survive against their own people.

[myata]

Like I said, pulling out all western troops from the Middle East won't change nothing (save Iraq - which is a particularly complex case). Those troops would just be replaced by other non-western troops because the Arab/Muslim dictatorships need them to survive against their own people.

Don't really have time to comment on the rest - need a grammophone or CD player for that.

Yes it will change one very important thing: we will not bear responsibility for what those dictatorships are doing with our help, not to mention direct interference like Iraq war as the latest of numerous cited examples.

[Mad_Michael]

Don't really have time to comment on the rest - need a grammophone or CD player for that.

Yes it will change one very important thing: we will not bear responsibility for what those dictatorships are doing with our help, not to mention direct interference like Iraq war as the latest of numerous cited examples.

Right. So it would remove western complicity in the Arab/Muslim dictatorships.

But it we would still have huge problems in the Middle East, posing a significant danger to world peace - which is exactly the situation that drew the western troops in the first place.

That's the problem when you let your ideology and/or bias dictate your policy. You end up with an ideologically satisfying policy that just doesn't work. Indeed, that's how we got the invasion of Iraq in the first place.

Interesting that you apply the same principles of approaching the topic as those you presume to oppose. All designed to keep the tension high and the problems entrenched since so many people and parties profit from the status quo.

[White Doors]

It's all a farce anyways. the Arab neighbours (with a few notable exceptions) don't want peace anyways.

They want Israel to be ruled by Sharia and for the Jews to pay tribute to their muslim masters again.

That's it. A state where Muslims are a minority and beholden to jews is alien to them and will not be tolerated - especially in the middle easy and especially more-so in their fictitious 3rd most holy place. ( a complete fabrication btw).

Edited July 9, 2007 by White Doors

[Mad_Michael]

It's all a farce anyways. the Arab neighbours (with a few notable exceptions) don't want peace anyways.

They want Israel to be ruled by Sharia and for the Jews to pay tribute to their muslim masters again.

That's it. A state where Muslims are a minority and beholden to jews is alien to them and will not be tolerated - especially in the middle easy and especially more-so in their fictitious 3rd most holy place. ( a complete fabrication btw).

Yes, this is generally true. Only it is HALF the problem.

The other half of the problem with Israel and Palestine is the zionist dream of Israel for Jews - and no Arabs allowed (or only enough allowed in to provide manual labour to good Jewish companies).

Zionist dreams of 'Greater Israel' including the full annexation and a Jewish majority population in the occupied territories of the West Bank is the Jewish equivelent of the Muslim dream of 'no Israel'.

Indeed, it is quite interesting to note that 30-40-50 years ago, both the Israelis and the Palestinians flatly and categorically rejected the 'two-state' solution, both believing they had the power to eliminate the other.

You will find no sympathy from me for the Israeli or Palestinian cause.

Edited July 9, 2007 by Mad_Michael

[Bonam]

The other half of the problem with Israel and Palestine is the zionist dream of Israel for Jews - and no Arabs allowed (or only enough allowed in to provide manual labour to good Jewish companies).

Arabs are allowed in Israel, and in fact form quite a substantial part of its population (roughly 1/4). These Arabs are able to obtain Israeli citizenship and have access to all parts of Israeli society, including government.

Zionist dreams of 'Greater Israel' including the full annexation and a Jewish majority population in the occupied territories of the West Bank is the Jewish equivelent of the Muslim dream of 'no Israel'.

The difference being that the idea of "Greater Israel" is sought after by only a tiny minority, and generally dismissed as extreme and unrealistic by most Israelis, whereas the idea of "no Israel" is part of the charters of various organizations with substantial sway in several Arab countries/areas (i.e. Hamas) and also has been expressed by leading members of governments of major middle-eastern powers (i.e. the president of Iran).

Indeed, it is quite interesting to note that 30-40-50 years ago, both the Israelis and the Palestinians flatly and categorically rejected the 'two-state' solution, both believing they had the power to eliminate the other.

When the partitioning of the Mandate of Palestine was first proposed by the UN in 1947, the Jews of Palestine accepted the proposal, whereas the Arabs declared it completely unacceptable and stepped up their attacks on Jews (which had been going on in Palestine for 30+ years at that point). When Israel declared itself a state, it was the Arabs that invaded Israel and attempted to destroy it, not the other way around. Furthermore the Israelis never believed nor attempted to "eliminate" the Palestinians. Had they wanted to, they could easily have expelled them all from Gaza and the West Bank after 1967, but they didn't.

The difference really is very simple. Israelis want a bit of land which is reasonably secure where they can live in peace and be left alone by their Arab neighbours. The Arabs, on the other hand, want to eliminate Israel, and will stop at nothing to do so.

Edited July 9, 2007 by Bonam

[Mad_Michael]

The difference really is very simple. Israelis want a bit of land which is reasonably secure where they can live in peace and be left alone by their Arab neighbours. The Arabs, on the other hand, want to eliminate Israel, and will stop at nothing to do so.

Spoken like a truly biased partisan.

As noted above, Israel will find no sympathy from me.

I used to sympathise with the Israeli position - up until 1981. Since that time, Israel has moved over to the 'aggressor' club and is not worhty of sympathy. They are warmongers no different than any they presume to crtique.

[ScottSA]

Spoken like a truly biased partisan.

God forbid that anyone actually have a position to stand behind.

[Mad_Michael]

Spoken like a truly biased partisan.

God forbid that anyone actually have a position to stand behind.

Partisan positions are quite common - and valid opinions. Everyone is entitled to one.

I object when they are presented as 'fair and balanced' assessments of the situation when it is bloody obvious they are not (as was the clear case in this thread).

Partisans of Israel or Palestine are about as 'fair and balanced' as Fox News and have little to offer any substantive discussion of the topic other than vitrol or spin.