28 Feb 05
I was invited to open a new thread about the situation in the Middle East .... here goes.
We continue our discussion ....... everybody is invited to join in !
No1: "..... and your preferred solutions are actions that will inevitably lead to large-scale bloody war."
..... your thinking only implies the worst case scenarios, wherein you are also willing to support the Jewish people, the State of Israel, if it is threatened in its very existence.
I support policies that will prevent this situation ever coming into being.
No1: "The Iran situation is typical; rather than Iran being "allowed" to have a nuclear weapon, you would support war against them ... "
Allowing Iran to have a nuclear weapon is a serious security threat to Israel, to the region and as a result of that to the world. Iran has stated that it would like to wipe Israel from the face of the earth.
Israel never stated it wants to wipe Iran from the face of the earth ....
No1, your "it is not fair" attitude, inspired by I assume honest and genuine moral indignation, leads to risky attitudes and very risky policies regarding world peace. We should opt for and strongly support the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, including the question of the destruction of Israels nuclear weapons, which question needs to be adressed and settled in a general peace agreement between Israel and ALL the regional countries hostile to it, garanteed by the Super and Giga powers and the UN.
A peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians will not entail Israels destruction of nuclear arms as you and the Palestinians undoubtedly will understand.
Again in the case of Iran you're only looking at the worst case scenario. What I hope for is that the European Three will succeed in getting Iran to accept a negotiated deal. However I'm not inclined to believe in any succesfull result looking at Iran's firm and resolute stance, the weak position of the European Three, also known as the Toothless Three, and looking at the very unfortunate and undesirable Russian policies in this regard that seem to undermine every European effort.
We all know the stick and carrot approach in international politics. Well, in my view, Europe is emphasising the carrot approach too much and the US is inclined to emphasise the stick approach too much. If Europe and the United States, and if possible Russia and China, would be able to reach an agreement about how to tackle this problem in a balanced stick and carrot approach the problem would be solved within a reasonable amount of time. However, I would be more than happy to see the Atlantic partners proceed together in a joint effort to persuade Iran not to enrich uranium and not to develop other necessary programs for building nuclear weapons. But I'm afraid this will also and again, not be the case.
28 Feb 05
I'm beginning to believe that democracy will spread throughout the Middle East in the next decade. Women will be liberated and gain political power. Trade will flourish. Education for all will thrive. The Middle East will join Europe and America in the 21st century. It will not happen without regional setbacks, but it has started and it will continue. And if things proceed along those general lines, the nuclear question will not become a major problem.
28 Feb 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhat is missing in your (and certainly Delmer's post) is how the situation looks from the perspective of the Muslim countries. They see two interconnected threads: First, the establishment of a Western, religious state in their midst and the arming and protection of that state by the large Western countries. Second, the attempt to import Western cultural values into the Middle East so that the entire region is more mallable to control by outsiders. These two threads have lead to the rise in Islamic Fundamentalism which acheived its first and most lasting success in Iran, which under the Shah was openly attempting to emulate the West. The overthrow of the Shah was the opening shot in an ideological war which continues to this day.
I was invited to open a new thread about the situation in the Middle East .... here goes.
We continue our discussion ....... everybody is invited to join in !
No1: "..... and your preferred solutions are actions that will inevi ...[text shortened]... eapons. But I'm afraid this will also and again, not be the case.
Simply put, the old time monarchial system of the past with riches flowing to a small section of the population cannot long survive. It attempted to continue in power by allying with the West and sending their sons to be educated and to establish contacts with powerful people in Western countries. But it has become clear that the vast majority of the Muslim world (what's called "public opinion" in the West but denigrated as the "Arab street" here) are rejecting a future where their leaders will be junior partners to rich and powerful Westerners and there will be a Starbucks and McDonalds on every corner in the Middle East. The true future of the Muslim countries there resides in who will win the struggle between the Islamic Fundamentalists and the antiWestern progressives who reject the present system, the Fundamentalists and Western domination.
It is true that a general settlement of ALL Middle Eastern issues would be desirable and I would support that, but it is equally true that the West and Israel have consistently shot down even-handed proposals like the creation of a Middle East Nuclear Free zone and a comprehensive settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian problem. Always it is insisted that the Arabs do something BEFORE the "big" issues can be tackled without reciprocal conditions being placed on Israel. Thus, the West's actions increase the Muslim world's suspicions and make resolution of the real issues more difficult.
You may disregard my opinion of what's "fair", but when you disregard what the Muslim world regards as fair and then make demands upon them, they will resist. And then what? Then people will say "Well we can't allow Country A to ignore Security Council Resolutions [though Israel is in violation of many] we have to do something!!" And the "something" always invariably slides down the "slippery slope" to war. This is recent history in the Middle East and will be future history if policies aren't changed.
I would support a general Middle Eastern summit with ALL issues on the table and NO preconditions in an attempt to peaceably resolve what can be resolved. What do you think of that proposal?
28 Feb 05
Originally posted by no1marauder
What is missing in your (and certainly Delmer's post) is how the situation looks from the perspective of the Muslim countries. They see two interconnected threads: First, the establishment of a Western, religious state in their midst and the arming and protection of that state by the large Western countries. Second, the attempt to import Weste ...[text shortened]... ons in an attempt to peaceably resolve what can be resolved. What do you think of that proposal?
Your proposal comes a bit too soon, I'm afraid. The present three major issues should be adressed first: A peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the Iran issue and the Syria issue. It is impossible to adress ALL the regions problems in one general conference. It would be like organising a conference in trying to solve all the major political, philosophical and economical problems in the US.
28 Feb 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1: "What is missing in your (and certainly Delmer's post) is how the situation looks from the perspective of the Muslim countries."
What is missing in your (and certainly Delmer's post) is how the situation looks from the perspective of the Muslim countries. They see two interconnected threads: First, the establishment of a Western, religious state in the ...[text shortened]... resolve what can be resolved. What do you think of that proposal?
This perspective isn't missing at all. Check out how many Arab countries want Syria to remain in Lebanon. Remember the 1989 Taif Accord I mentioned a couple of times.
The problem is that there are a lot of Arab Nationalist and Islamic factions that have decided to use violence to change the situation. Others like for instance Saddam Hussein in the past and the Syrian dictator and the Iranian mullahs in the present are using excessive violence and practise excessive violations of Human Rights to support the status quo, to maintain their oppressive regimes. Whether they or any others have any good points in analysing the colonial past and the cultural and military imperialist situation in the present, and they certainly have many good points of which you mentioned a few in your post, whether or not they or their opponents have good points is not a reason to support their policies of terrorism, supporting terrorism, violating Human Rights or trying to attain weapons of Mass Destruction. The situation is serious and complicated enough as it is. Let's not add to that.
The Egyptian President has understood the need for democratic reforms. He announced a reform concerning presidential elections. Much more reform is needed to adress all the urgent points all over the Middle East.
28 Feb 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeI fail to see how the Iran issue can be resolved in a manner satisfactory to the Muslim world without simultanously addressing the threats to Iran: that of a large Western army at next door to them under a political leadership prone to making bellicose threats and statements AND a massive Israeli nuclear arsenal. Again, you are insisting on Muslim countries making concessions with nothing in return from Israel and the West. This is not negotiating but issusing demands and ultimatums.
Your proposal comes a bit too soon, I'm afraid. The present three major issues should be adressed first: A peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the Iran issue and the Syria issue. It is impossible to adress ALL the regions problems in one general conference. It would be like organising a conference in trying to solve all the major political, philosophical and economical problems in the US.
The same with Lebanon and Syria. There are elections that will be held soon; it would make sense to see what kind of government comes to power. Instead, we have a contrived "crisis" largely for Western political considerations. And the whole issue of Syria cannot be resolved without discussions with Israel regarding the Golan Heights. You can't simply demand Muslim countries must do as they are told without receiving anything in return; this is not how sovereign states resolve their differences.
28 Feb 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderIran is asked by the UN to meet his international obligations under the NPT. The Arab countries agree on that. If you have information to the contrary can you please give that to me.
I fail to see how the Iran issue can be resolved in a manner satisfactory to the Muslim world without simultanously addressing the threats to Iran: that of a large Western army at next door to them under a political leadershi ...[text shortened]... eturn; this is not how sovereign states resolve their differences.
No1: "Again, you are insisting on Muslim countries making concessions with nothing in return from Israel and the West. This is not negotiating but issusing demands and ultimatums."
I referred to the negotiations with Iran by the European Three which I support. Besides that, asking nations, Iran and Syria, to meet their international obligations is not simply "issuing demands and ultimatums". I have not heard of any ultimatums regarding Iran and Syria yet.
No1: "You can't simply demand Muslim countries must do as they are told without receiving anything in return; this is not how sovereign states resolve their differences.
You keep forgetting the role the UN, the Arab and Muslim countries themselves, treaties and their consequenses play on the world stage.
Tell me, how many Muslim countries agree with Iran on the issue of Nuclear weapons, how many want Iran to possess nuclear weapons ?
How many Arab countries support Syria in maintaining its Lebanon occupation ?
You cannot simply dismiss your normal international obligations and expect something in return for returning to your stance to meet your normal obligations. North Korea has performed that trick in the past regarding the NPT but I doubt the International Community will accept this trick so easily a second time.
In order to understand the situation better let us focus on the following questions:
How many Arab or Muslim countries don't want Iran to meet its international obligations under the NPT ? ... or: How many Arab and or Muslim countries want Iran to possess nuclear weapons ?
How many Arab and or Muslim countries support Syria in maintaining its Lebanon occupation ?
28 Feb 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeI don't know; has the Arab League made any statement recently on either of these issues?
Iran is asked by the UN to meet his international obligations under the NPT. The Arab countries agree on that. If you have information to the contrary can you please give that to me.
No1: "Again, you are insisting on Muslim countries making concessions with nothing in return from Israel and the West. This is not negotiating but issusing demands and ultim ...[text shortened]...
How many Arab and or Muslim countries support Syria in maintaining its Lebanon occupation ?
And why is there not real international pressure on Israel to meet its international obligations? Or on the nuclear powers who are signatories to the NPT to make good on their obligation to negotiate a complete disarmament of all nuclear weapons? It seems all the obligations you assert flow one way only.
28 Feb 05
Originally posted by no1marauderYou can be sure there is international diplomatic pressure on Israel to make a peace deal with the Palestinian Authority. However, the UN knows that it is not realistic for Israel to clear all occupied territories immediately and unconditionally. Neither is it realistic to ask for a complete removal of Israel's Weapons of Mass Destruction, if you want to take the situation seriously and look at things realistically .... not to mention the fact they never signed the NPT.
I don't know; has the Arab League made any statement recently on either of these issues?
And why is there not real international pressure on Israel to meet its international obligations? Or on the nuclear powers who are signatories to the NPT to make good on their obligation to negotiate a complete disarmament of all nuclear weapons? It seems all the obligations you assert flow one way only.
No1: " ..... real international pressure ..... on the nuclear powers who are signatories to the NPT to make good on their obligation to negotiate a complete disarmament of all nuclear weapons? "
If you check out the pages that are dedicated to this issue on the UN site you will get an idea of the difficulties involved.
In short: We need a trustbuilding policy by ALL nations to achieve that is required by the NPT. The world situation isn't actually a fairy tale picture at the moment as you know. To disarm considerately by the Nuclear Power nations would be a sign for others to replace the present Nuclear Powers ... and I certainly wouldn't want North Korea, Iran, Syria or some other country that falls in the same category of "Non-Human Rights Respecting" countries to take their place. You cannot expect the Nuclear Power countries to negotiate the destruction of their nuclear WMD's, if others are trying to obtain them. It simply doesn't work that way. You could say that nations such as Iran and North Korea are in effect blocking any progress in that field called for by the NPT.
So, I guess the UN has still a lot of work to do on building trust among the nations.
28 Feb 05
Originally posted by Delmer
I'm beginning to believe that democracy will spread throughout the Middle East in the next decade. Women will be liberated and gain political power. Trade will flourish. Education for all will thrive. The Middle East will join Europe and America in the 21st century. It will not happen without regional setbacks, but it has started and it will continue. And if ...[text shortened]... things proceed along those general lines, the nuclear question will not become a major problem.
Your post is certainly an example of the general optimist mood there is regarding future developments in the Middle East. Not everybody is pleased with these developments towards peace though. This will become clear if we consider for instance the Hariri assassination in Lebanon and the most recent terrorist attack in Tel Aviv. More attempts to block peace and to blow up the frail peace talks that are taking place now will follow without any doubt. A decisive question is how Israel and the Palestinian Authority will react to these attacks. In particular self restraint on Israel's side will play a major part. Israel will be pressurised massively not to react in a simular violent way ... but how far can Israel go and afford itself not to react in a military way ? The government has an obligation to protect the Israeli people. They cannot go on negotiating when at the same time night-clubs and busses are being targetted by suicide bombers ......
28 Feb 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeIsrael's been occupying the Palestinian territorites for almost 38 years now in violation of numerous Security Council Resolutions starting with 242. If you want to look at the situation seriously you would try to look at it from the point of view of the average Muslim in the Middle East. I presented that view, but you ignored it to continue with the Western line of everything the Muslim countries must do - disarm, stop supporting resistance movements, change their internal political systems, etc. etc. etc. And, of course, it is "unrealistic" for Israel and the West to do anything. Typical.
You can be sure there is international diplomatic pressure on Israel to make a peace deal with the Palestinian Authority. However, the UN knows that it is not realistic for Israel to clear all occupied territories immediately and unconditionally. Neither is it realistic to ask for a complete removal of Israel's Weapons of Mass Destruction, if you want to t ...[text shortened]... NPT.
So, I guess the UN has still a lot of work to do on building trust among the nations.
Israel's signing or non-signing of the NPT is really irrelevant; what is relevant is that their possession of WMD's makes other countries in the region desire them to defend themselves. Of course, for Muslim countries to have one such weapon is a "threat to peace" while Israel, a nation that has attacked all its neighbors at one time or another and is in clear violation of dozens of Security Council Resolutions, may possess hundreds with impunity. This is the type of blatant hypocrisy that fuels Muslim rage in the Middle East and increases the allure of radical Fundamentalists.
The NPT has also been in effect for 35 years and as I pointed out in another thread the nuclear powers are in clear violation of it. Yet, they insist upon putting restrictions beyond those in the treaty on Iran, a country that has not invaded any other country in the 20th century!
The situation in the Middle East will not be resolved by pro-Western and Pro-Israeli chauvinism and blatant hypocrisy; a resolution of the issues requires compromises on both sides. It also requires the end of the insistence on meddling into the internal affairs of Muslim countries that the Western powers have incessantly done for most of the 20th century. If you continue to refuse to look at it through the eyes of the average Muslim (NOT a few pro-Western governments), you will never understand why the policies you advocate are doomed to failure and if they are followed, inevitable mass bloodshed.
28 Feb 05
Originally posted by no1marauderit seems to me to be a very sad fact that:
I don't know; has the Arab League made any statement recently on either of these issues?
And why is there not real international pressure on Israel to meet its international obligations? Or on the nuclear powers who are signatories to the NPT to make good on their obligation to negotiate a complete disarmament of all nuclear weapons? It seems all the obligations you assert flow one way only.
as soon as a country has the ability to drop nuclear weapons on large cities around the planet,
then that country becomes a legitimate nuclear owner.
this is very sad.
i ask a question for which i have no answer:
how can these "legitimate" owners be encouraged to reduce, and especially to completely dismiss, their arsenal?
28 Feb 05
Originally posted by no1marauder
Israel's been occupying the Palestinian territorites for almost 38 years now in violation of numerous Security Council Resolutions starting with 242. If you want to look at the situation seriously you would try to look at it from the point of view of the average Muslim in the Middle East. I presented that view, but you ignored it to continue wi ...[text shortened]... policies you advocate are doomed to failure and if they are followed, inevitable mass bloodshed.
I do have an eye for the reproaches made by what you call the average Muslim. They have many good points as I ackowledged in one of my earlier posts. But as I said having good points does not bring peace any nearer nor does it bring the necessary reforms.
Political reform is necessary. The education system needs reform. The economic system needs reform. It is time for looking forward, it is time for peace and it is time to look at and solve the most pressing economic and social problems.
Maybe someday we will be able to talk about why the Islamists want to wage war, the Jihad, against the United States and Europe and how your liberal ideas are being looked upon by them and how they weigh these, your, ideas in their decision to go to war ..... would you find that interesting No1 ?
28 Feb 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeIf you want to blame my "liberal" ideas for the actions of Islamic Fundamentalists, go ahead; it should be obvious to you that my ideology is as far from Fundamentalists of any sort as any could be. That Muslim countries need reform is obvious (so do non-Muslim countries) but the point is that the West's actions are strengthening the hand of fundamentalists and fanatics. You can't invade Muslim countries and then try to impose what you believe are needed reforms on an occupied and hostile people. In the early 1950's, Iran had elected a liberal, Western-educated reformer named Mossadegh but the US engineered a coup against him because he nationalized the oil companies so the revenues could be used for liberal, democratic reforms. Instead, the Shah was installed and although pro-Western was a bloody tyrant who was eventually deposed by Islamic Fundamentalists who rule to this day. If Iran had been left to its own in the 50's it may have developed into a liberal democracy, but Western meddling ended that and changed history for the worse. The same mistakes are being repeated today; a feeling of cultural superiority and the imposition of Western ideas on an unwilling populace are leading to strife and bloodshed all through the Middle East.
I do have an eye for the reproaches made by what you call the average Muslim. They have many good points as I ackowledged in one of my earlier posts. But as I said having good points does not bring peace any nearer nor does it bring the necessary reforms.
Political reform is necessary. The education system needs reform. The economic system needs reform. I ...[text shortened]... these, your, ideas in their decision to go to war ..... would you find that interesting No1 ?
I do not have paranoid fears about Islamics marching down Main Street USA; the same type of nonsensical scare tactics were used to justify the Vietnam War with all its horror and futile bloodshed. The sooner my country and the rest of the West stops interfering in the Middle East the better; that will give indigenous, patriotic progressives a chance to overcome the Fundamentalists and build better societies. But so long as outsiders attempt to impose political systems on a proud and independent people, their will be ever more violence and bloodshed. That is the lesson of history, Ivanhoe and the West is ignoring it at their peril.
28 Feb 05
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1: "If you want to blame my "liberal" ideas for the actions of Islamic Fundamentalists, go ahead; it should be obvious to you that my ideology is as far from Fundamentalists of any sort as any could be."
If you want to blame my "liberal" ideas for the actions of Islamic Fundamentalists, go ahead; it should be obvious to you that my ideology is as far from Fundamentalists of any sort as any could be. That Muslim countries need reform is obvious (so do non-Muslim countries) but the point is that the West's actions are strengthening the hand of f ...[text shortened]... nd bloodshed. That is the lesson of history, Ivanhoe and the West is ignoring it at their peril.
"Blaming" is not the correct term no1. Trying to understand why the Jihadists have declared war on the West is my aim. You already mentioned a few reasons, but there is of course much more ... and that has to do with liberal and too liberal ideas. I understand that having such a discussion would ask the most of your and my self-control no1 ...... but I am perfectly willing to try and have a civil discussion with you on the subject. We have proven we can do it .......