Arabs' Fear of Iran:
We hear a lot about how much Arabs resent early 20th century "Western imperialism," but tend to forget that the (decidedly non-Arab) Ottoman Turks ruled the Arabs (including South Syria, the area that became Mandatory Palestine after WWI) for hundreds of years. Via lgf, Mark Steyn relates that fact to contemporary Arab states' reaction to the Israel-Party of God (Hezbollah) war:
But Saudi-Egyptian-Jordanian opportunism on Palestine has caught up with them: It's finally dawned on them that a strategy of consciously avoiding resolution of the "Palestinian question" has helped deliver Gaza, and Lebanon and Syria, into the hands of a regime that's a far bigger threat to the Arab world than the Zionist Entity. Cairo and Co. grew so accustomed to whining about the Palestinian pseudo-crisis decade in decade out that it never occurred to them that they might face a real crisis one day: a Middle East dominated by an apocalyptic Iran and its local enforcers, in which Arab self-rule turns out to have been a mere interlude between the Ottoman sultans and the eternal eclipse of a Persian nuclear umbrella.On a marginally related note, it turns out that even in Israel, anti-Israel sentiment is tied into anti-American sentiment, as evidence by this Ha'aretz report on an anti-War demonstration in Tel Aviv attended by Jewish and Arab leftists, communists, etc.:
The rally, which received wide international press coverage, had a theme unfamiliar from previous demonstrations here. Beside the usual calls for the prime minister and defense minister to resign, this was a distinctly anti-American protest. Alongside chants of "We will not kill, we will not die in the name of Zionism" there were chants of "We will not die and will not kill in the service of the United States," and slogans condemning President George W. Bush.
[Remainder of rant deleted by editor]
I can see a possible future in which Egypt, Saudi, and some other states cut a deal in which they get Israel to withdraw from occupied territories as cover for "siding" with the US against Iran. But getting Syria to join may be the key to that scenario and that's a challenge. I think the US ought to try to buy off Syria, like it did Egypt, but can't see the Bush Administration being pragmatic enough to do that.
I'm putting what you deleted back in. You can delete them again, but people are going to see them whether you try to censor it or not. Like I said, the truth gets out, no matter how hard people like you try to hide and obfuscate it. That's the beauty of truth, it lasts, survives and surmounts over people like you.
Here is the part Bernstein deleted:
The UN is justly criticizing Israeli terrorism and pointing out how the sadistic and bloodthirsty bombing of blocks of civilians buildings is a violation of humanitarian law and a war crime. As I said, it's good to see the truth get out, despite the attempts of people to hide and obfuscate it.
Link to Yahoo story
Quotes from the article:
UN humanitarian coordinator Jan Egeland, in Beirut to launch a urgent appeal for funds for half a million people made homeless by the conflict, made no attempt to hide his fury as he toured bombed-out areas.
"This is destruction of block after block of mainly residential areas. I would say it seems to be an excessive use of force in an area with so many citizens," he told reporters in the southern suburbs of Beirut, a Hezbollah stronghold.
Asked if the Israeli raid that destroyed the burned-out buildings before him constituted a war crime, he replied: "It makes it a violation of humanitarian law."
His comments came as at least twelve civilians, including a Lebanese press photographer, were killed in new Israeli air strikes across Lebanon on the 12th day of Israel's punishing war on Hezbollah.
Decidedly non-Arab? Was "Turks do not equal Arabs" up for debate at some point?
These people are well beyond the mainstream left. It's a typical conservative rhetorical device to characterize far left as "left" or "liberal." Isn't it interesting that the rock of the Israeli left, Peace Now, wasn't a part of this? Neither were the Labor party or Rabbis for Human Rights. These protesters are on the fringe. Please don't denigrate the mainstream left by associating them with these fools.
And for those who aren't familiar with Israeli protests, 2500 people is so small it isn't worth noticing. Bona fide protests usually involve 50,000-100,000 packing Rabin Square.
As for the UN guy's comments, has he -- or you -- bothered to read the Geneva Conventions they put such great stock in? If there's a "war crime," it's putting a terrorist base in a civilian area -- which is Hezbollah's crime, not Israel's. The Geneva Conventions are quite clear that it is perfectly legitimate to attack a military target even if civilians get killed. The presence of civilians does not immunize a target.
There is no purpose in arguing with you because your posts themselves show you aren't amenable to reason. Hence, probably why B deleted them. Plus, your rhetoric is completely innappropriate.
But please go right ahead and make a fool of yourself.
Blowing up sanitation plants, power plants, and dozens of 20-story apartment buildings is not going to make Israel safe, but it will give sadistic Israeli radicals their fill of Arab blood.
You tiny minority can go on and on with your censorship, and your obfuscation, but you can't hide the truth. Thanks to the uncensored parts of internet the whole world can see what is going on.
The statement is nonsense. The Egyptians, Saudis, and Jordanians have always recognized the Iranian threat.
I've done business in the Middle East for 30 years. Shortly after the first Gulf War, I met with two top Egyptian generals. The conversation turned to the subject of Iraq.
"Forget Iraq," one general said. "Iraq is no threat. Iran is the threat."
Nice to know what you are against, what do you stand for?
You quote the UN and European leaders to support your position. Given the pathetic failure of both the European leaders in general and the UN in particular to protect Moslems in the former Yugoslavia (Srebenicia ring a bell Mr antiBernstein?)or prevent genocide in general (Sudan, Rwanda) I'm taken aback that you would consider them useful source for human rights information or action.
Your trust in these institutions is pathetic but entertaining in a bitter sort of way.
Cheers,
TJIT
Don't let the door hit you in the ass.
(You don't need any more brain damage.)
Another reason why, regardless of the wisdom of going into Iraq, we must succeed in Iraq -- where success is measured by a strong Iraqi state, and not necessarily a democratic one. It's time to get serious about foreign policy again; bring back the cold warriors.
BTW -- linking LGF? Why spend you credibility on that nonsense?
Not to pile on, but it's clear that Hezbollah is killing as many civilians as it can - inserting ball bearings into the rockets so that they spray on imptac. It's also clear that Israel is trying to minimize civilian casualties - dropping leaflets, using precision guided bombs. I think aB and his ilk forget that Israel could do much nastier if they wanted to - but Hezbollah is being as nasty as they can be.
Egelund, the UN apparatchik that antiB cites, also chided, lightly, Hezbollah for hiding among civilians.
But now comes the Saudi foreign minister to tell the US that it should begin negotiations over Israel's head on the basis of giving Hezbollah everything it kidnapped the soldiers for. Somehow that does not sound to me like trembling Arabs worried more about Iran than Israel. I think they are terrified of Israel's nukes, which already exist.
There's a point at which those get used. The Arabs know that, and they have always known that pinpricks wouldn't get them to that point. Now they have promoted some genuine crazies into the driver's seat and they are worried that those nuts are going to drive Israel over the edge. Therefore, they want Hezbollah appeased today. Thinking into the future has never been a strong point with Arab governments.
It's not clear to me why Arabs, as such, would have something extra to fear from a nuclear Iran. Iran is going to nuke Cairo? Cannot imagine why.
I verily believe Iran would nuke Tel Aviv in a heartbeat, though.
Let's begin there before we go over the rest of this crap.
Jesus fucking christ. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?
For starters, look at the Sunni-Shiite rivalry in Iraq. Egypt is mostly Sunni. A Shiite theocratic regime runs Iran.
You don't see Iraqis flooding into Lebanon to kills Jews. You see Sunni and Shiite militants killing each other in Baghdad.
Like it or not.
The wise men are silenced when the guns and bombs appear, and suddenly my children are distinguished from their children. Israel will rue the day she attacked Lebanon, but it sure feels good now, they say.
Falafel-eating surrender monkeys.
It's a strange situation. Obviously, the practice of hiding behind civilians is reprehensible and should be condemned. But even so, does that justify Israel in absolutely anything?
I wonder if Israel would be as willing to sacrifice innocent Israeli civilians in the way that it is willing to sacrifice innocent Lebanese civilians. If not, it seems you have a rather difficult humanitarian question.
Well, I haven't forgotten it, and I'm quite sure that the Arabs haven't forgotten it. They thought that with the end of World War I, the Wilsonian principles of national self-determination were finally going to be put into action in the Middle East, only to find that the West planned a little carve-out from that principle in order to accommodate the Jewish National Home, to be established through massive immigration into Arab territory and the displacement of the native population. Their displeasure was a little like that of the Irish, who around the same time found that Irish self-determination was going to be compromised by the carve-out of Northern Ireland--except that at least in the case of Northern Ireland the Orangemen were actually living there, had been there for about 300 years, and formed a majority of the population of the Six Counties, while the Jews were either a tiny minority of the population, had only arrived in the last decade, or had yet to immigrate.
It should be noted that when President Wilson sent the King-Crane Commission to make recommendations regarding the lands taken from Turkey during the war, the Commission quoted one the Allied war aims, as stated by President Wilson: "The settlement of every question, whether of territory, of sovereignty, of economic arrangement, or of political relationship upon the basis of the free acceptance of that settlement by the people immediately concerned and not upon the basis of the material interest or advantage of any other nation or people which may desire a different settlement for the sake of its own exterior influence or mastery."
It is not surprising that the Commission further noted that "If that principle is to rule, and so the wishes of Palestine's population are to be decisive as to what is to be done with Palestine, then it is to be remembered that the non-Jewish population of Palestine-nearly nine tenths of the whole-are emphatically against the entire Zionist program. The tables show that there was no one thing upon which the population of Palestine were more agreed than upon this. To subject a people so minded to unlimited Jewish immigration, and to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land, would be a gross violation of the principle just quoted, and of the people's rights, though it kept within the forms of law."
The Commission concluded that "In view of all these considerations, and with a deep sense of sympathy for the Jewish cause, the Commissioners feel bound to recommend that only a greatly reduced Zionist program be attempted by the Peace Conference, and even that, only very gradually initiated. This would have to mean that Jewish immigration should be definitely limited, and that the project for making Palestine distinctly a Jewish commonwealth should be given up."
Wilson betrayed lots of national aspirations -- he was easily the worst president we've ever had -- but it beggars belief that anyone would argue that the outside world betrayed Arab modernism, Seamus.
The idea that the Arabs, once out from under the Ottoman yoke, would have created pluralistic democracies is crazy. My offer of proof: Saudi Arabia.