The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The tangled web of Middle Eastern alliances > Comments

The tangled web of Middle Eastern alliances : Comments

By Peter Coates, published 18/12/2006

The state of play in the Middle East with the uncertainty of US withdrawal from Iraq.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
It's nice to see some discussion of the complex relationships at play in the middle east.

I fear that far too many westerners view the region as either a simplistic arab monolith or just a series of warring tribes, both of which fail to grasp the true complexities of the situation.

I recently noted a discussion during the Jim Lehrer news hour, between several stakeholders and experts regarding the current situation in Iraq. One spokesman highlighted the importance of the Shia-Sunni-Kurd divide, and asked the representative from a conservative think tank (who was still insisting victory could be achieved) what he believed could be done.

The conservative highlighted an instance where Kurdish militia were able to act as intermediaries and achieve a positive outcome. While there will undoubtedly be instances where this can be achieved, I tend to think it's hardly representative of the situation, which really is edging close to civil war - if not there already.

I can't help but wonder how many proponents of the war in Iraq were genuinely aware of the complexity of this region - we assume the decision makers know that background, but in recent weeks we've seen indications that the head of a US terrorism taskforce is unaware of whether or not Al-Qaeda is predominantly Shia or Sunni.

Issues like this may seem unimportant to Western eyes, but they are crucial to those in the middle east, a realisation that is only just beginning to set in for some, who really should be better informed.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 18 December 2006 11:36:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Unfortunately it is little Israel with its nuclear arsenal which is the real menace in the Middle East.

In the first place for the French to supply the nuclear engineering science and the US to allow the go-ahead way back in the late 1970's, will surely be regarded by future historians as a public relations tragedy performed by leaders with surprisingly shallow diplomatic forethought.
Posted by bushbred, Monday, 18 December 2006 1:17:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TurnRightThenLeft

The dim American awareness of the Middle East sadly doesn't look as though it will diminish under a Democrat dominate Congress.

see http://intelligence-summit.blogspot.com/2006/12/us-house-intelligence-chair-calls-al.html "US House intelligence chair calls al Qaeda Shi'ite, Pelosi pick fails quiz":

WASHINGTON, Dec 11 (Reuters) - Is al Qaeda a Sunni organization, or Shi'ite? The question proved nettlesome for Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas, incoming Democratic chairman of the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

"Predominantly -- probably Shi'ite," he said in a recent interview with Congressional Quarterly, a periodical that covers political and legislative issues in Congress.

Unfortunately for Reyes, the al Qaeda network led by Osama bin Laden is comprehensively Sunni...

...Asked to describe the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, Congressional Quarterly said Reyes responded: "Hezbollah. Uh, Hezbollah," and then said, "Why do you ask me these questions at five o'clock?" ...

--
BUSHBRED

I agree. Israel is always given the benefit of the doubt - even when it strafes clearly marked American ships eg 34 US sailor were killed when Israeli jets attacked the USS Liberty in the 1967 Six Day War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident .

Isreal probably had some nuclear weapons by the late 1960s due not only to French and US assistance but also British http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%27s_nuclear_program

The Middle East keeps on getting more complex and is moving closer to the nuclear brink.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 18 December 2006 2:17:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are very few potentially workable outcomes for Iraq.

1/ Sunni return to ascendancy (=Oppression of the Shia..again)
2/ Vice versa of above.
3/ Kurds make up the WHOLE police force and keep the Shia and Sunni apart.
4/ Partition the country, (Turkey won't like that) but its the most practical outcome I feel.

5/ Sunnis become Shia or Shia become Sunni.
6/ They all see the light, and become Christians :) My preferred solution.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 18 December 2006 10:28:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BOAZ

I think after several more years of civil war a rough 3 way Partition (your Outcome 4) will occur - with the Saudis supporting a Sunni state, Iran helping a Shia state and the US/Israel backing a Kurdish state.

Christianity all round (Outcome 6) would, of course, be a long shot ;)

I think my views made 15 months are still valid http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=182#15059

"The US appears to be in Iraq to:
- control Iraq’s oil production and reserves (a significant proportion of the Middle East’s (world’s major producers) oil supplies)
- protect Saudi Arabia from outside threats particularly from the Shiite threat (including Iran). Bush has a long record of personal and public ties with the Saudi’s.
- act as a buffer between Israel (with a well documented record of owning [nuclear] weapons) and Iran and Pakistan (emerging Muslim nuclear weapon states). Its in the US’s interests to prevent a regional nuclear war in the Middle East.
- Give a large (post Cold War) US defence establishment something to do. Defence spend is traditionally good for the US economy and hence the Republican’s chance of reelection.
- Focus American public interest on “manageable” and until recently popular government activities, that is, making war on Muslims in Iraq (while providing far smaller resources for the more useful activity of fighting terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan)

If there is sufficient US public pressure on Bush regarding US casualties then most US forces may need to withdraw to friendlier real estate (such as Kuwait) leaving a civil war in Iraq.

Whatever happens I think a large US presence in the Middle East will remain, however winning or losing the Oil War is measured.
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 15 September 2005 1:35:56 PM"

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 19 December 2006 8:42:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part One

Plantagent, your comments seem on a similar track to historians and political scientists, whom so many of our OLO members call fruitcakes and left-wing loonies.

These are not so much one-sided people, but are advised by philosophical tutors to take the overhead view, similar to honest - to goodness judges and lawyers.

With the way things are in the ME right now, the main thing is to try and achieve some sort of power balance, rather than having the US and her co-Anglophile allies threatening more missile diplomacy for a guarantee of liberty and freedom which at present seems mostly for Israel, rather than what’s left of the citizens of Iraq.

Seeing that our universities used to do well-constructed courses on the above theories, it makes one wonder whether it suits world leaders these days to have them banned or burned, as the Nazis did to the older Reichstag.
Posted by bushbred, Tuesday, 19 December 2006 11:56:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BB Part Two

Notwithstanding America’s unipolar and martial ability to shape this world in the American Way with designations from US leaders about rogue nations, and with God know’s how many more million’s slaughtered or crippled in the process, we need the referees and umpires of global fair play to now make the decisions.

We could well ask where will they come from, especially as our UN is strongly de-democratised by big nation vetoes, and in the West all our Supreme or High Courts are filled with partisan political appointees rather than from proven neutral or ethical establishments?

So finally we must look to some moralistic area of socio-political science, which does indeed strongly discuss Realpolitik-style power balances as a last resort plan to prevent global war. And indeed in this dangerous nuclear age with so many countries getting away with turning nuclear, as Pakistan did, and as North Korea has, we may need the older semi- scientific power balance theories to come alive again, as happened with world agreement for India to atomically match Pakistan

Actually a pretty safe bet from socio- political reasoners rather than from the politically religous, would be that a well-discussed arrangement for Iran to go atomic to match Israel could be the remedy to cure the majority of present Middle East problems.

We thus take the liberty to give intimation to Peter Coates’ conclusion, for us - to recognise that Iranian iniatives are not necessarily a threat
Posted by bushbred, Tuesday, 19 December 2006 3:17:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz David

If they all turned Christian that would only be an advantage if they all adopted one brand. If the Shiites turned Catholic and the Sunnis turned Lutheran would we be any better off?

A better solution might for all to turn Jewish or Atheist.
Posted by logic, Tuesday, 19 December 2006 5:21:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushbred

Yes its easy for OLO commenters to classify other viewpoints in a negative way.

What I try to look at is:

- The economic determinants – ie what natural resources or other businesses set a region or country apart (eg. oil in Iraq)? This approach unites Marxists (and more quietly) capitalists. They differentiate themselves on social aspirations – but this often doesn’t make a real difference; and

- National interests. What behaviour has a country shown historically/politically and why? eg: the US needs a large active defence force for its economic health. Another is that dominating the oil heartland of the Middle East is essential for the US and its minor allies the UK and Australia.

The power balance strategy certainly seemed to be behind Israel and the US (partly on behalf of Saudi Arabia) alternately backing either side in the Iran – Iraq War 1980-1988.

Then as now western leaders might feel that keeping Sunni and Shiites weak by fueling long wars between them is the way for the west to maintain dominance (divide and rule).

Big power will or vetoes in the UN may well be on the rise. As there is now a South Korean UN Secretary General, US influence over him might be stronger.

“Iran to go atomic to match Israel could be the remedy to cure the majority of present Middle East problems.”

I don’t know if Iran going nuclear would be beneficial but realizing that it has the right (like Israel and Pakistan) to do it is realistic. One can expect Saudi Arabia to move in the same direction.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 10:45:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Plantagenet, if you are really Pete, you seem to have what is termed a fluent overhead knowledge as well a great interest in what is really going on in the Middle East. I myself studied power politics as a mature age student during the end of the Cold War. As an oldie was praised by the American tutor as having insight, and when getting top marks in a degree was ragged on something about - From Deserts the Prophets Come.

What is meant by overhead knowledge, as you doubtless know, is that of a non-political lawman or judge, whose wisdom is better to be based on sound reason than on party politics or religous faith. Also, as I mentioned in an earlier post, our democracies suffer so much through having the principles of justice destroyed through political postings into our judiciaries.

There is a saying, unfortunately, that politics and ethical principles don't always make a good mix.
Posted by bushbred, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 6:42:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bushbred

I appreciate your words - yes I'm Pete (still getting used to identifying myself). What you are writing about appears to be falling into place - ethics and genuinely explained national interests are constantly being hidden for profit and political ambition - making conclusions difficult.

The Middle East has a mix of major change, helpful sources of information and potential effects on Australia to demand concerted attention.

My research suffers (benefits?) from being an employer free zone but I aim to eventually redress that.

I hope you have happy Christmas and New Year.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 21 December 2006 10:07:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Also happy Christmas to you Pete. Anyhow, bit more on power politics, looks like GWB is playing his own GPPG, Global Power Politcs Game with India.

Had a bit to do with India while studying the social sciences in Sri-Lanka in 1981. Was surprised to find both Sri-Lanka and India were not quite as non-aligned as acknowledged by our Western media at the time. While we were surprised to find a Soviet cruiser anchored out from Colombo, as well as we were not allowed to visit Triconomalee because the Soviets had a base there, we were also guardedly informed that the Soviet navy often called into Indian ports.

Also one of our PHD's in charge was part Indian, and it was surprising how the conversation sometimes also got non-aligned or enjoyably cosmopolitan.

Returning to the recent visit to India by George W', with knowing through part experience that the Indians did not come down in the last diplomatic cloud, could reckon that anything George Bush arranged with India, might not be in America's benefit in the long run.

As you intimated Pete, about more a global game of power politics, like the old Concert of Europe after the Napoleonic Wars with Bismarck very interested as he gathered the old feudal mid European Princedoms together to make the Greater Germany.

However, Bismarck did his best to avoid further wars to virtually save Europe. Further it has been said of Bismarck who died in 1905, that with his reasoning WW1 would never have started. Further, it was later said by Maynard Keynes who attended the Treaty of Versailles, if commonsense had been used at Versailles rather than treating defeated Germany like a pariah, Hitler would never been encouraged by the Wermacht to begin WW2.

Guess its a case of true or false, Pete, or shutting the gate after the horse has bolted, but even as Winston Churchill declared, good leaders do need to take lessons from history even to go back to the ancient Greeks.
Posted by bushbred, Thursday, 21 December 2006 4:17:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If commonsense had been used at Versailles rather than treating defeated Germany like a pariah, Hitler would never have been in power. Once he was in power he needed an impoverished desperate populace to follow him blindly as he and his friends manipulated sufficient number of them.

But Hitler did not believe that God was with him or that martyrs would be rewarded in paradise, he was not as mad as all that. Unfortunately people like Ahmadinejad et al believe just that,and this makes them potentially much more dangerous. Ahmadinejad would happily annihilate the whole world if he felt Allah required it, and his Nazi like state has his citizens in a tight grip.

Israel like India and Pakistan has a ethic which uses a nuclear bomb as a threat rather than an actuality. The Jewish faith has a long standing belief that life is the paramount concern for the living and also that divine favours are bestowed equally on all good people regardless of faith or lack of it. This makes a Jewish neighbour a better proposition than an Islamic or Christian one.

What ever you say about Israeli methods they are not even interested in world domination, just a peaceful, tiny little patch for themselves. You have to admit Israel's treatment of other religions in its midst is far superior to that of its Islamic neighbours.

Regarding oil surely you all can realise that it is a life blood to the Western way of life and that Western lands cannot afford to leave major supplies in the hands of madmen.

Has OLO introduced a spell check, or is mine, which has just appeared, a result of a upgrade of Mozilla Firefox which I use in preference to MS Explorer?
Posted by logic, Friday, 22 December 2006 7:05:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Planta and Logic.

Planta first.. yes its a long shot mate, all Iraqi's becoming Christian. Any such 'mass conversion' would be probably as deep as the next privilage or SUV they thought they are going to get.

But the Gospel has never been about 'mass' conversion, it has been about mass proclamation.
Lets look at the circumstances of the birth of the early church.

Acts 2
Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. 7Utterly amazed, they asked: "Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans? 8Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language? 9Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs-we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!" 12Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, "What does this mean?"

13Some, however, made fun of them and said, "They have had too much wine.[b]"

14Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: "Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. 15These men are not drunk, as you suppose. It's only nine in the morning! 16No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel

41Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

Dear Logic/Celeste.. this is the 'brand' the only name it goes by is Jesus.. Messiah. I acknowledge your point though.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 22 December 2006 7:31:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushbred and Logic

I prefer to write current analyses that can be placed in the political science category. More implicitly they are in the context of historical currents.

But still its interesting to argue historical points for their own sake. On Hitler...I think Germany would have again become an aggressive force in Europe if he had not been there. Military aggression had become a German problem solving technique by 1939 as seen in Franco-Prussian War 1870-1871 and WWI 1914-18. The Great Depression (1929 into the 1930s) added widespread suffering for many Germans and especially returned soldiers. The "stab in the back" feeling which predated Hitler's rise, together with the ideological vacuum of lack of faith in society, set the conditions for future war. These drove a need for scapegoats, designated as Jews, communists and capitalists which in (then) current German style were combated with military aggression. In a nutshell, if not Hitler then someone else.

Dear Boaz

I appreciate the frequent virtues of your faith. I try to avoid an approach of religious alignment over issues of terrorism and war in the Middle East, because bullets and bombs are not truly guided by faith, but by politics crushing faith.

My non-aligned status admitted I hope you all have a good Christmas and Happy New Year.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 22 December 2006 9:12:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Your reasoning is far to deadly, Logic. Maybe mine is too, with the fact though I do not want to live with the Iranians because I do not favour their religous laws, I believe as a middle-road thinker, that Iran under scientific power-balance theory, needs to be protected from the menace of Israeli nuclear rockets, either by Nato, or by her own atomic means.

Please read the appropriate literature on it, Logic. Also rememember that in her lifetime Iran has only used deadly dialectic, never invaded other countries as modern Israel has done too many times in the last century.
Posted by bushbred, Friday, 22 December 2006 1:05:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bushbred

Correct me if I am wrong but Iran has not been seriously invaded or had rockets fired into its territory deliberately targetting it's civilians
as Israel has. Nor has any nation declared that the complete destruction of the Iranian state is their intention.

That is the reason for the Israeli attacks, a justified fear.

Bush at his worst has only argued for replacement of the present Iranian regime by a a democratic one preserving the rights of women and non Islamic religions.

A lot of western intelligence suggests that Iran is supporting Hezbollah. I think Israel has reason to worry. Question is what can be done about it?
Posted by logic, Friday, 22 December 2006 5:17:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Admittedly on the face of it, Logic, you are partly on the right track, as is said in some discussions on the matter, but not looking at the whole future of the Middle East.

The major problems are:

1. Both America and Britain with some sort of hegemonic cum contrabandist neo-colonial scheme in mind are protecting mall nations or peoples like the Israelis and Kurds, who admittedly have been suppressed by more powerful peoples. Such could be either because of their cultural independence or by fears from the ruling parties about their higher intelligences causing some sort of unwanted intrusion.

2 It is also admitted that the Israelis and Kurds are highly intelligent people who unfortunately through history their ability especially in economics has often superseded the intellect of the nation they should have been more quietly absorbed into.

From one who has had much to do with Hebrew peoples especially in the military and also as a farmer in older times selling his woolclip on the property, and must say how adept they are mentally, and can understand how in history they have shone in so many ways in modern times particularly as writers and in the film industry. Remember that Einstein was of the same race, as well as Einstein - and many many more.

Surely there is a better way, Logic, in this so-called advanced age of superior intellect to peacefully work things out rather than multiplying by ten in Iran, all the recent killings that have gone on in Iraq.

Further, seeing that battered unipolar Americana still holds the Ace cards - rather than threats of sheer power alone, from now on, maybe she should take a lesson from Abraham Lincoln, and learn more ways of making friends with opposing numbers
Posted by bushbred, Friday, 22 December 2006 6:36:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bushbred

Who are the "Hebrew peoples". And skill with economics? If you are referring to Jews statistics don't bear you out. Poverty was the key note of Eastern European Jewish communities which is partly why so many became communists.

In this country a large proportion of Jews are not rich. It is only in scholarship, medicine and the arts that a significant minority of Jews reach the dizzy heights. You have believed an old Christian stereotype used to discredit Jews.

I have met some Rabbis who you would not even pick as Jewish if you met them in the street. And when they spoke you would only identify them as Americans.
Posted by logic, Saturday, 23 December 2006 8:14:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Logic.

Come off it, mate. Might be from the bush, but did not come down in the last shower. As I mentioned, had plenty to do with Hebrews, but used the term because unfortunately the term Jew has never rung well in the bush where I come from, and so to me never looks good on paper.

Also your tale about most Jews are just ordinary folk, pretty well repeated back to me what I told you, that from the Jewish race has been born some of the world’s greatest talents. Possibly the only thing I forgot was that Jews are also the most illustrious bankers in history. Hence we have the Rothschilds who are still so strongly connected with the Bank of England, and their progeny in America, the Rockefellers, who intermarried with the Morgans, both families so famously connected with the US Federal Reserve which is non-government run.

It also just happens that the historic Israeli families who over the centuries never moved out of the Palestine precincts had a history of getting on with the Palestine Arabs.

Maybe you can tell, Logic, what has been the cause of the trouble since? Some say it is American influence. There has been a change of mindset, anyhow, the newer Israelis seemingly deadset on nation- building, which some say cannot possibly work in the area without some sort of Arabic genocide.
Posted by bushbred, Saturday, 23 December 2006 3:17:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bushbred

"It also just happens that the historic Israeli families who over the centuries never moved out of the Palestine precincts had a history of getting on with the Palestine Arabs."

Then why did some of the Arabs attack them with hatchets after the Mufti of Jerusalem called for attacks on Jews? That preceded the UN partition of Palestine and the entry of the US. And what about the denial of passports to Egyptian Jews and the edging out of Jews and Christians from Arab lands even when the origins of these communities preceded the arrival of the Arabs with Mahomet's armies? This all suggests a strong militant pressure to Islamicize the Middle East.

I do not think you would like to live in a society with Sharia law. Neither I suspect would most Arabs but literacy levels are low in these lands and regularly denied to women so the people have little capacity to understand the full implications.

As for whether the term Jew has rung well in the bush where you come from I wonder whether you come from Australia. In the south eastern states there is no problem with Anglo Australians. Certainly in Victoria John Monash was a war hero and a Zionist. Both he and Rabbi Dangelow who was the Jewish Chaplain to the Australian Forces during WW2 were given state funerals and the people lined the streets. And neither men were renown for their economic skills.
Posted by logic, Saturday, 23 December 2006 6:36:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You have still got me wrong, Logic. As I mentioned earlier, our family was close friends with one Jewish woolbuyer who used to camp in Dalwallinu. It was in bush pubs where the term Jewboy was used much too derogatorally, and why many of us now do not like the sound of the term. Much rather the term, Israeli.

Also you press earlier historical breakouts between Jews and Arabs too much,Logic. They did live together peacefully for much of the time before the inrush of the persecuted Jews from Europe and the Soviets, as any qualified historian will tell you.

What concerns me so much about backing the Israelis too much, Logic, is that it could easily set the whole Middle East aflame, especially if Iran is attacked by Israel with American backing.

Remember that Iran was attacked by Iraq in 1981 with American help. Also the Soviets were more on the side of Iraq. Yet after eight years Iran came out victorious.

Furthermore, who knows what advantages either Russia or China might take in such a war?
Posted by bushbred, Sunday, 24 December 2006 12:07:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bushbred

I am glad that I got you wrong. We do then have a basis for discussion.

However the term Jewboy around Victoria if ever used was only used by a small minority mainly to describe immigrants and not applied to Jews as a whole. Generally the perception of Jews has favourable ever since the First Fleet

It is important to realise that Judaism has been adopted by a huge range of different groups, call them races if you like. Also extensive intermarriage has meant that most Jewish communities resemble the countries in which they have lived. DNA research has shown this although it also shows a link to other Middle Eastern groups. Jews are divided over serious religious differences and whether they integrate with the community at large or stay in in a group together. As a result in Melbourne for example there is no such thing as a single community.

The problem in the Middle East is complex, but in terms of human rights and freedoms most of the Arab countries are badly lacking in our terms. The establishment of the Jewish state of Israel was entered into perhaps with a certain naivety but there are whole generations who are born there and regard it as home, many are multiple generation Israeli.

In addition Israel became home to a large number of Jews from other Arab countries, these refugees roughly equaled in number the Palestinian refugees and comprise approximately half of the Israeli Jewish population. If the debate was remotely even sided concern would be given to these groups and their dispossession.

Iran I think is a dangerous beast. My hope is that if ever they do get the technology to make a bomb, and some expert opinion suggests they can't, the present regime will have been overthrown by the moderates, who will show us the traditional greatness of the Persian nation.
Posted by logic, Sunday, 24 December 2006 10:01:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How unfortunate that with multicultural political correctness the exception to the rule has become more of value than the rule. The emotional moment. The trigger. Out weights it's existence in time. That moment, split seconds, do you feel it. Now rearrange your life. Don't let the fact that life goes on at a measured pace, incrementally, disrupt your social hysteria of the moment. OVERREACT. This same strife has been goin' on for sixty years and sixty years from now regardless of the borders they will still be as nasty. Tribal blood. Family feuds. In the name of religion blood ties fade.
No. My God. And if you can't spell it, let me punctuate it with a sam missile. Allah akbar.
Posted by aqvarivs, Sunday, 24 December 2006 11:29:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Logic

First, I am deeply shocked concerning your attitude to Iran. I am not in love with the nation, but as a scientist with honours, and a deep interest in a middle-road view, I look to nations like Iran to be free to support battling Arab nations, especially as she has never attacked other nations unless attacked herself - and in that regard possibly less said about Pax Americana and former Pax Britannica the better.

As mentioned in my last Post, an attack on Iran could set the whole Middle East aflame, possibly bringing in outside nations.

You talk about wanting discussion, Logic. By the look of it, your logic appears far too dangerously warlike to invite a sensible get together.

You seem over obsessed with the Jewish problem, which most social scientists I have mixed with have been much milder about - though some have pointed our how Israel has been content to stay under the wing of America - and in the long run could indeed influence her protector the wrong way.

Don’t know what your background is, mine simply is, going on 86, brought up on a wheat and sheep farm, forced to leave school early in the Depression to help on the property, five years in the army, then back in the bush again till retirement.

On yours, I must say I am still totally in the dark.

Finishing on Israel, the US might have been following the wrong track ever since she allowed Israel to illegally go atomic. Also it is astounding how the news of Israel’s nuclear engineering was supposed to have been kept a secret for so long?

As a free-thinking social scientist, Logic, I believe I should be allowed to have my own views on the Middle East problems, which I am sure will never be solved by attacking Iran. Just look what has happened with Iraq.

This is my last Post for a while, especially regarding the Middle East. Got this damned single-desk schemozzle to thing about. My pension comes from the farm.

Happy Christmas to you and the family.
Posted by bushbred, Monday, 25 December 2006 12:11:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bushbred

I do appreciate your comments on Iran. But I have never advocated attacking either Iran or Iraq. I just consider Iran dangerous, regardless of its earlier history. As to the appropriate solution I have no idea. I rather hope that the moderates in Iran can overthrow the Islamic extremists with their hateful and unpopular regime.

Regarding the US I think their international politics are often on the wrong track. Israel has to act in what it considers its interests - as to whether what it is doing is correct or not is another matter. Israelis are motivated by a justifiable fear.

Regarding the Jewish problem I am Jewish from ancestors who arrived in Australia in the 19th century. I have no holocaust background but I do have a vested interest in Australia remaining a country which gave Jews completely equal rights, in fact was the first to do so.

I am 65 and an electrical engineer with a small business of my own. Because of continuing good health and a family genetic of longevity I expect to continue working for quite a few years. Only some of my friends are Jewish.

I wish you a happy Christmas and best of wishes in the new year.
Posted by logic, Monday, 25 December 2006 6:38:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy