Putting it together: US Middle East Policy is coming apart

07/14/2006

If you like this post - click to Reddit!
add to del.icio.us	Add to digg - digg it

Original text copyright by the author and MidEastWeb for Coexistence, RA. Posted at MidEastWeb Middle East Web Log at http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000488.htm where your intelligent and constructive comments are welcome. Distributed by MEW Newslist. Subscribe by e-mail to mew-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. Please forward by email with this notice and link to and cite this article. Other uses by permission.

by Moderator @ 05:21 PM CST [Link]

Replies: 24 comments

Ami

Thanks for your comment on my blog. I read your post on the same subject and find myself in accord with what you've said. Your words were much more eloquent than mine, but I can see that we are aligned philosphically. Out here in the Kansas Flint Hills speech tends to be plain. This is Will Rogers country.

I hope that my country will find its way through all the diplomatic niceties and support what is right and just in this situation. It's time for Hezbollah and Hamas to be permanently de-fanged.

Posted by Phil Dillon @ 07/14/2006 11:28 PM CST

You make some valid points but your argument is pretty one sided. Pro-Isreal. The United States and the rest of the Middle East are playing an oil game. These religous fanatic groups are totally blinded by their hatred and so busy fueling that hate they cannot focus there anger at the true culprits the political organizations that have profited from this unrest.Supression of the masses and profit for the few. Wake Up people , only god has the answers......

Posted by JO @ 07/15/2006 02:20 AM CST

Dear Editor,

Greetings. I have had my article "Israel and the Land" published in Russia's newspaper Pravda (link is below). Although I am a conservative (evangelical) Christian, I do not believe the Bible supports present day Jewish claim to all Arab land in Palestine and beyond. Israel does have every right to exist like any other nation. I offer a Biblical and historical analysis and refutation of the popularly accepted theory of Zionism. It is Zionism (building and expanding Jewish settlements on Arab land which is fueling most of the problem).

Please feel free to reproduce my article in Pravda. I do not ask for any compensation, monetary or otherwise.

Sincerely,
Babu G. Ranganathan*
(B.A. Bible/Biology)
www.religionscience.com

LINK: http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/13-07-2006/83273-Israel-0

*As a religion and science writer, I have had the privilege of being recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis Who's Who in The East.

Posted by Babu G. Ranganathan @ 07/15/2006 02:56 PM CST

american democracy faild in the middle east because america is not honest in its calling for democracy; it is just a cover or a lie to hide its aims. i think the best way for american is to let people live as they wish; america should support people not the the bad regimes

Posted by freeman @ 07/16/2006 02:47 AM CST

Coming apart, hardly. The terrorists have little to celebrate, what territory have they won, what hearts have they won. The Big Bang in the Middle East has done what it is suppose to do, speed up the inevitable. It placed the war in the vary place it needs to be, that is where Islamic terrorism was born. This war has been handed off to the next administration since the 1970's. 9-11 took away the curtain and we all got to see the enemy. Many want to close that curtain, pretend it is not there. If we do that we will see many more 9-11's. Iran is nervous. We have him boxed in. Iran is not only nervous about us but also it's own people. They have had a record number (500) of protests (large protests)against the clerics, many have given their lives. The overwhelmingly young population loves the west and they know their days are numbered. We let it grow and fester, it will take years to cure it. The terrorists are desperate and because of that they are killing their own people. That will be their downfall.

Posted by Diane Clark @ 07/16/2006 06:30 AM CST

Does anyone remember Irgun Zwei Leumi, the Stern gang and Hagana? They were the violent organizations who forced through the creation of Israel. This was opposed by all the neighbouring Arab counties in the voting on Resolution 181 (November 1947) and at all times thereafter. Since then Israel has expanded by military conquest, never by the consent of any arab government. Agreements, on the Israel question have always been made when the position of Israel was strong and its opponents weak. There is no evidence that the Arab countries actually accept Israel: only that they temporarily make the best of a bad situation by appearing to when put under pressure. The idea that there is a peace process leading to peace between israel and the Palestinians and the Middle East generally has no strong evidence to support it. It seems much more likely that in reality there will never be peace in the Middle East while Israel remains a Jewish state. This seems so obvious that the statesmen, politicians, journalists and commentators who talk about "road maps to peace" and "the peace process" seem to be like sleepwalkers or entranced.

Posted by Clear Eyes @ 07/17/2006 01:12 AM CST

Ami, I must disagree with some of your comments:

1) I don't think that the Hamas's participation in the elections was bad, or that an attempt to prevent them from participating, or not holding elections would have been better. The Hamas was a significant party already in the Palestinian AK-47 political system. It is better that there is a congruence between the actual political reality and the formation of the Palestiian government. This should enable Israel to fight, pressure or negotiate a ceasefire with the Hamas as it would and actually did with any Arab or Muslim government that is or was unwilling to recognize it. It is much better than the situation we see in Lebanon where a semi-official organization acts, and then the government denies responsibility.

2) I don't think the US, France or Israel has an interest in toppling Assad.

3) Give credit to the Cedar revolution. It is a significant acheivement.

4) I doubt if he US could acheive the disarmament of Hizballa, or that he Lebanese government could, even if they wanted.

5) Disarmament of the Hizballa is an unrealistic goal. Insisting on it would prolong the war too much. If the Lebanese army takes over the south, and Hizballa's credibility in Lebanese politics is harmed, and there is enough deterrant to cause it to refrain from trying to return to the same kind of methods it employed since 2000, and there is a ceasefire which is supported by Lebanese and Arab public opinion (i.e. which HIzballa will find difficult to break), than that has to be enough. It may be possible afterwards that the moderate Lebanese will have enough strength in the atmosphere of a discredited Hizballa and a ceasefire to disarm it completely, but even if not, if a ceasefire was good enough to end a war between Israel and Nasser's Egypt, it should suffice now. The greatest risk is that of the Hizballa rearming, but here a successful ceasefire agreement and American-European interference may be useful.
The point is this: instead of expecting ponintlesly thaty he Hizballa is disarmed and crushed, we should strive to a better balance of power with the HIzballa enforced by moderate Lebanese public opinion and the US and Europe. If this would result in the Hizballa eroding that would be nice. If it means that Hizballa would find other ways to harm Israel that do not involve using Lebanon directly (such as aiding the Palestinians) that's not good but not terrible. So long as we do not return to the pre war situation (at least for some years) this should be sufficient. And I think the deterrant caused by this war should accomplish that. As you said the better is the enemy of the good.

6) I think pressure by Bush on Israel may be useful. Arabs find it convenient to think of peace and ceasefire with Israel as the result of American pressure. If that makes it easier for them to sign them it is fine with me. If Bush steps up now as the guy who stopped the attacks on Lebanon and helped it rebuild, this may strengthen his position in Lebanon. It will also help the Lebanese government save some face in this war without appearing to capitulate to Isrel, while still harming Hizballa, and stopping Israel from acting stupid without making its government seem weak to Israelis.

7) It is unfair to criticize the US for toppling Saddam and not toppling Assad, supporting Palestinian democracy and not supporting Egyptian. Nor is it in Israel's interest that the US not be involved in the region, although hopefully in a better way. But the US is not omnipotent. It cannot form an ideal relationship with each Arab state. It is necessary to find a balance of the many forces instead of hoping to vaniquish them.

Posted by Micha @ 07/17/2006 03:02 AM CST

Dear Babu G. Ranganathan, Biblical theological arguments are completely irrelevant to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, only of little interest to the history of zionism, and the minority part of Zionism that could care (i.e. the religious zionists) won't care for the opinions of an evangelical christian. Your view of what is the popularly accepted theory of Zionism, seems to be the one popularly accepted by Arabs. It is not popularly accepted by Zionists. I doubt that here is a popularly accepted theory of Zionism other than the desire that a Jewish nation state exist. The only group to rely on theological arguments are the religious zionists, who are, as I said, a minority.

building and expanding Jewish settlements in the territories occupied in 67 was one of many factors fueling the problem. However, in the last years support for such settlements, and the power of the minority group endorsing it, has diminished. This has been acheived and will continue to be acheived without reference to biblical scholarship.

Posted by Micha @ 07/17/2006 03:13 AM CST

Ami, on a personal note, I find your understandable pessimism rather alarming. After all, we have to continue living here, and cannot afford to be fatalistic. There must be a sequence of realistic moves that can make our situation better if not perfect.

Posted by Micha @ 07/17/2006 04:32 AM CST

Micha,
I think you are in error that UK has no interest in toppling the Syrian regime. Last Wednesday there was a documentary about the Mike's Place suicide bombers which showed that Syria is deeply involved in facilitating the recruitment and deployment of volunteers / mercenaries to fight in Iraq. Omar Sharif, one of the bombers, was a regular to Syria and went there with the intention of fighting alongside the Sunni forces in Iraq.
In light of the UK's pressing need to address militant Islam in UK, I think that the government would be very interested in seeing Syria face some internal chaos rather than exporting it across the world. In an interview yesterday PM Blair made it very clear that it is the view of the UK govt that Syria and Iran are responsible for the current crisis and the mess in Gaza.

Posted by Rod Davies @ 07/17/2006 12:24 PM CST

Micha why "must there be a sequence of realistic moves that can make our situation better"? Because we wish it were so? Of course we wish it were so, but if that is used as a reason for believing it to be true we are into wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is cause of much confusion, bad policies and consequent misery.

Posted by Clear Eyes @ 07/17/2006 12:58 PM CST

Clear Eyes

I had a hard time trying to read through the tea leaves of your comment. Are you saying that Israel is, and always has been, the aggressor in the Middle-East? Are you saying that the solution to the problem is the dimsnatling of the Jewish state?

If that's the case, I must say that I believe your mathematics and geopolitics in this case are flawed.

Posted by phildillon @ 07/17/2006 03:00 PM CST

Those statements that you ask are they mine may or may not follow from my observations.

I do say that the creation of Israel was achieved by violence and that the arab nations oppposed it from the start.
I do say thatIsrael has occupied land beyond the limits authorized by the UN and by the construction of the wall is extending its territory now.
I think these are verifiable facts.
I do have the opinion that the arab nations will never accept Israel as a Jewish state in their midst and that there will always be hostility and often conflict between Israel and the Arab states.
I said nothing about a "solution". What would constitute a "solution"? A solution for some parties would be a perpetuation of the problem for others.

Posted by Clear Eyes @ 07/17/2006 03:33 PM CST

Clear eyes:

You said " It seems much more likely that in reality there will never be peace in the Middle East while Israel remains a Jewish state."

If that isn't a solution offered, what is it? Is it just an expression of a regrettable geoplitical reality the world just needs to accept?

There's no need to be coy. Just answer the question.

Posted by Phil Dillon @ 07/17/2006 07:00 PM CST

Phil Dillon

I do not think that dismantling the State of Israel would be a solution. It might or might not bring peace. Where would all the Jews born in Israel over the last 50 years go? It is not a solution. I huess what I am saying is that Israelis think they are right to be where they are and do what they do and their Arab neighbours, especially those who would otherwise have owned the land taken by Israel, think their resistance is right. Theref is no solution. Peace if it comes would be at a terrible price.

The idea that there is a solution which "we" can find, identify and implement is arrogant. It used to be part of the basis of old-style colonial thinking.

Posted by Clear Eyes @ 07/17/2006 07:42 PM CST

Clear Eyes

I've think I've read through the tea leaves. I think I've got it. You apparently don't have much taste for solutions. Myself, I don't have much taste the notion that peace in the Middle-East would be more likely without Israel as a Jewish state.

By the way, I wasn't offering any solution. I was trying to get my arms around how you saw Israel. I think that's clear to me now.

Posted by Phil Dillon @ 07/17/2006 09:59 PM CST

Phil Dillon
Thanks for an interesting exchange. We probably both have distorted views of the other's position

Posted by Clear Eyes @ 07/17/2006 10:12 PM CST

Hey Babu.G.R.

I see you are into this Zionism thing along with every other man with a canine. Here are my thoughts on what is in fact a very familiar human situation. (Your pride in being a who's who and letting us all know it is also an example of human behaviour, oft studied by psychiatrists.)

By the time of Arab Nationalism colliding with the form of Jewish zionism prevalent in about 1910 - Unpleasantly similar to 1930's German national socialism, it changed but is still the form always clutched at by those that still refer to Zionism today - there had already been since 1860 or so the increasing movement of Jews from Europe to Palestine, then a sleepy backwater of the Ottoman empire gradually dying and consisting mostly of tenant farmers living on the land of mostly absentee landlords. The new migrants were empowered by their migrant zeal and assisted by the usual great organistion that was their second nature ( hence constant claims of 'conspiracy') and already in place in a substantial number of organisations and other assistance available to help with further migration and to further establish those already there. A powerful, self sustaining rationale was up and running, whilst on the other side the dawning realistion that Palestine was in danger of ceding it's majority Arab nature to a Jewish zionist one was slow to get under way except amongst local Arab idealists and a class, small in number, known as the notables. A zone of low pressure exploited by one of high pressure, human nature in action, deal with it.

The jews did nothing illegal, they bought land both cheaply and later at great expense, and occupied it, and in doing so removed many Arab tenants so that the Jews could farm in their own more productive way - not a new nor specifically jewish problem, see modern day businiess practice in England or anywhere for that matter, hey, try Darfur for a less pleasant way of getting the same result. As for the zionistic nature of the proto-Isrealis at that time - one must remember that there were several types of Zionism, religious, reform, labour, and many types of Zionist, not all bad - I ask you,what do you suppose caused it? Well, the West has created Isreal twice, once in providing the basis for a jewish desire to return to their 'biblical homeland', once via progroms, random slaughter, racism, etc = Zionism, and twice in officiating over Israel's legal induction into the familly of nations, the one UN resolution which through being ignored by Palestinian Arabs and others has effectively been the basis for all the ordure that has gone down since: still with me babu? The Palestinian Arabs have been trumped by superior desire and organistion at every turn, but have exacerbated their position by feeling that some day, some how, that situation would be reversed, and therefore they have never felt able to accept and compromise. The situation they find themselves in today in will not change untill they do accept and compromise. In a sense Palestine has been abused by Israel, other Arabs, and themselves in only slightly differing degrees, you'd think that by about now they'd have taken the plunge and become more focussed on what that could get rather than what they will only ever dream of, certainly as things stand, and believe me there is a lot more invested in the way things stand than Palestine will ever be offered as weapon that finally works; now that's a fact, ok, and it has sod all to do with religion except as the first point by which Jews are judged by Muslims according to the league table of acceptable peoples and religions set by Mohammed, and let's face it, he never did forgive the Jews for thinking his great new idea was really just some good old Arab poetry with a lot of clearly plageurised religious coding in between. Ta ra.

Posted by Zed Misrahi @ 07/25/2006 01:22 AM CST

Hmmm...Ok read this and read what has been printed by Zionists since 1948.not much difference don't you all agrree?A lot of serious hate and bloodshed ,just so a motely crew of my bretherin could claim a peice of desert as there own( don't forget we nearly got Uganda....)Unfortunately there was one problem ...Palestinians.
Today as israel,Seemingly led by Satan himself heads into Syria in order to destroy the nation as the horned one has done in Lebanon I greive for the innocents who appear to be the only people our once glorious army can kill.Shame on the houses of Bush ,Blair and Rice and may God forgive you.

"...Coming apart, hardly. The terrorists have little to celebrate, what territory have they won, what hearts have they won. The Big Bang in the Middle East has done what it is suppose to do, speed up the inevitable. It placed the war in the vary place it needs to be, that is where Islamic terrorism was born. This war has been handed off to the next administration since the 1970's. 9-11 took away the curtain and we all got to see the enemy. Many want to close that curtain, pretend it is not there. If we do that we will see many more 9-11's. Iran is nervous. We have him boxed in. Iran is not only nervous about us but also it's own people. They have had a record number (500) of protests (large protests)against the clerics, many have given their lives. The overwhelmingly young population loves the west and they know their days are numbered. We let it grow and fester, it will take years to cure it. The terrorists are desperate and because of that they are killing their own people. That will be their downfall...."

Posted by Emmanual Goldstein @ 07/30/2006 02:41 PM CST

Zed Misrahi
Conceding all you say about the development of jewish residence and land ownership in Palestine, is it not a fact that the the establishment of a Jewish state was achieved by imposing it on a Palestinian population against their wished and against the wishes of all their immediate neighbours. (See the voting reocord on Res 181 in the General Assembly 27 Nov 1947) The neighbouring Moslem states opposed the formation of a Jewish state then and have clearly expressesd their opposition to it ever since. There have been some states that have made treaties with Israel after the fait accompli in the hope of making the best of a situation that they did not like but could not change. The provisions of 181 were largely ignored by both sides (for example it laid down that Jerusalem should be under international control, not under the control of a Jewish state.) Israel has expanded considerably since its formation, the expansion usually being justiied as necessary to defend the borders. Hostility to Israel has been pretty consistent. In the ligh t of this it is surely not unreasonable to say that Israel was imposed by force on an unwilling region. The Palestinians and their Muslim neighbours surely have a case when they say that her wishes and interests have consistently been ignored and over-ridden by the use of force by Israel helped by the financial, diplomatic and liogistic support of the USA. That being so their anger and hostility is completely understandable. They feel goaded and when goaded people behave wildly immorally and viol;ently sometimes. The result is always massive orceful retaliation and a reinforcement of the Palestinians sense of impotent rage.

Against this background what reason is there to suppose that peace between Israel and its Palesinian neighbours and othe Moslem neighbours is possible? It seems to be obviously impossibe' If it is impossible it is not rtional to follow policies that presuppose this peace an be achieved. More rational would be policies aimed at containing and limiting the endemic state of conflict and prolonging as much as possible the temporary periods of calm. An obvious starting point would be a prohibition on exporting arms to the regions (to either party). Those who make profits from this trade would of course ioppose this policy. Another policy that might be considered is to suppress colonial type thinking about controlling the area and let the protagonists get on with dealing ith their local situation without outside interference.

As to the connection between this conflict and the "war on terror", itwould seem to be obvious that the westen countries need Moslem allies. Present policies give moslem countries the impression that the USA and UJK are indeed waging a faith-based war on Islam as a whole (a "crusade") and Moslem friends of the USA and UK are getting to be ever thinner on the ground. This does not look like progress in the "war on terror"

Posted by Clear Eyes @ 08/06/2006 06:00 PM CST

Basic observation:

Hiz B'Allah is not a sovereign entity. It has no sovereign territory. Its continuing launch of over 3,000 missiles against Israel is a terrorist act conducted from Lebanese soil with the assent of the Lebanese government, in whose legislature it holds many seats.

The Lebanese government, regardless of its fiscal or miltary capacities, has made essentially no effort to hunt down and disable Hiz B'Allah. It has, therefore, assented to the attacks and should fully anticipate retaliation. The Lebanese people should understand that their government has jeopardized their lives, regardless of whether Siniora is more pro- or anti-Baathist. When you allow terrorists to stage from your territory, you invite war. If the Arab peoples choose to ally themselves with such as Hiz B'Allah, then perhaps we simply don't share common values. Ordinarily, when two large civilizations don't share basic values, they either segregate or they do battle. Because we have a very strong economic dependence on the oil resources of the area, I doubt we'll agree to 'stay out of one anothers' back yards'. Maybe the fight's on.

On the other hand, I'd invite the Arab community to consider how differently it might respond if those missiles had landed in Amman, instead of Haifa. If they are prepared to treat Israel just like any other neighbor, clearly the outrage of the Arab world cannot be diverted from Hiz B'Allah and its host, Lebanon. If Arabs or Muslims prefer to be idiosyncratic in their foreign policies, then we probably don't share values systems.

Posted by dave @ 08/07/2006 08:46 AM CST

dave

The West and Islam do differ in their value systems. That is precisely the root of the problem that must be solved

Posted by Clear Eyes @ 08/07/2006 09:48 AM CST

No, I disagree. Western values and the Qur'An are quite compatible in most respects. It's not about Islam. The dissonance would be with backward-looking, Salafist distortions by angry, impotent, principally Arab masses of poorly-educated people ill-suited to compete in the international workforce. All of these characteristics go together and run against the grain of western thought.

Posted by dave @ 08/07/2006 11:59 AM CST

dave
OK. So these angry impotent masses of poorly educated people (not Islam in its pure theoretical form) have value systems that differ from those of the west. As restated that is still the root of the problem that must be solved.

Posted by Clear Eyes @ 08/07/2006 08:37 PM CST

Please do not leave notes for MidEastWeb editors here. Hyperlinks are not displayed. We may delete or abridge comments that are longer than 250 words, or consist entirely of material copied from other sources, and we shall delete comments with obscene or racist content or commercial advertisements. Comments should adhere to Mideastweb Guidelines . IPs of offenders will be banned.