Here is a link to the most sensible analysis of the Middle East I've ever read.

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9302

Some excerpts:

>>Strategically, the Arab-Israeli conflict has been almost irrelevant since the end of the cold war. And as for the impact of the conflict on oil prices, it was powerful in 1973 when the Saudis declared embargoes and cut production, but that was the first and last time that the "oil weapon" was wielded.>>

>>Yes, it would be nice if Israelis and Palestinians could settle their differences, but it would do little or nothing to calm the other conflicts in the middle east from Algeria to Iraq, or to stop Muslim-Hindu violence in Kashmir, Muslim-Christian violence in Indonesia and the Philippines, Muslim-Buddhist violence in Thailand, Muslim-animist violence in Sudan, Muslim-Igbo violence in Nigeria, Muslim-Muscovite violence in Chechnya, or the different varieties of inter-Muslim violence between traditionalists and Islamists, and between Sunnis and Shia,….>

>>As for the claim that the "Iranians" are united in patriotic support for the nuclear programme, no such nationality even exists. Out of Iran's population of 70m or so, 51 per cent are ethnically Persian, 24 per cent are Turks ("Azeris" is the regime's term), with other minorities comprising the remaining quarter. Many of Iran's 16-17m Turks are in revolt against Persian cultural imperialism; its 5-6m Kurds have started a serious insurgency; the Arab minority detonates bombs in Ahvaz; and Baluch tribesmen attack gendarmes and revolutionary guards. If some 40 per cent of the British population were engaged in separatist struggles of varying intensity, nobody would claim that it was firmly united around the London government.>>

Edward Luttwak concludes as follows:

>>Unless compelled by immediate danger, we should therefore focus on the old and new lands of creation in Europe and America, in India and east Asia—places where hard-working populations are looking ahead instead of dreaming of the past.End of the article>>

For audio go to:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2007/1941788.htm

i think i'll continue to pay attention to the area where the bombs are going off. since some of the major leaders of conflict are frank about intending to punish western nations for sins of the british occupation and american hegemony, and have demonstrated capacity to do so, this will be a popular feeling in every western foreign affairs ministry.

filing the middle east under "too-hard" or "trivial importance" is possible if your interest is looking for a tourist destination, but alas, it's more complicated than that.

The bombs are going off in Sudan and people are dying in their tens of thousands.

The war in Congo & Rwanda killed 4 million people. That's more than died in the Iran – Iraq war, Gulf wars 1 and 2 and the Iraqi post war aftermath combined. Nobody paid much attention.

The killing in Congo is still going on. People are even less interested than Sudan.

The Javanese are colonizing West Papua just to the North of us.

So what's so special about the Middle-East?

Due you really think the sad little country of Iran is a threat?

Do you think Iran is even going to be able to remain in one piece?

Right now – Luttwak did not cover this – the Sunni in Khuzestan is waging a secessionist war. Khuzestan happens to be where most of Iran's oil is located. Do you think that preposterous little theocracy could survive without oil revenues which accounts for two thirds of government revenue?

The story of most of the Arab Middle-East is one of stagnation. It's not just that they haven't caught up with "the West." It's that they're falling behind the nations of Asia. There are even serious doubts as to whether they can remain ahead of sub-Saharan Africa. They are by far their own worst enemies.

The Middle-East is just not worth all the attention it's getting.

The rest of the world needs to greatly accelerate effort create alternatives to Middle East oil. I am sure we can create a solar-hydrogen economy in a few years if we apply ourselves. Unfortunately this probably won’t happen until we are denied Middle East oil or the price of oil forces the use of alternatives. Apart from oil nothing emanates from the Middle East apart from an underclass with a high birth rate and a desire to force their values on the rest of us.

I must say through boredom I am sympathetic to sawing off the middle east and Iran.
Unfortunately they are intruding into the "West" via immigration and
bringing their conflicts, imagined or real with them.
It just becomes totally complicated because we will be relying at least
for the next 20 to 30 years on the area for oil.
So as much as I would be in favour of ignoring the Middle East I am afraid
that it is not a realistic proposal.
It will take us at least 20 years to get ourselves free of oil and onto
a transition fuel. One thing I can submit, it won't be Hydrogen.
Electricity is a much better energy carrier.

Just so everyone knows the leading '08 US Republicans just said they would support a nuclear strike against Iran premptively. This is in addition to the US building missile bases next to Russia.

http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=144&a=2276

"Nine of ten candidates for the Republican presidential nomination explicitly or tacitly supported a US attack on Iran using nuclear weapons, in response to a question at Tuesday night’s nationally televised debate in New Hampshire.
Despite the extraordinary character of these declarations—giving support to the first use of nuclear weapons in war since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 62 years ago—there was virtually no US press coverage of these remarks and no commentary on their significance."

A Palestinian_State is OUT of the_Question!

Strange, but true. I'm not speaking from an ideologically this time. (believe_it_or_not)... I'm saying it this time purely on the basis of the network of Israeli settlements and linking roads which have cropped up in the West bank.

Personally, I am in agremeent with this state of affairs. But the ugly other side of that coin is: The Palestinian aspirations for Statehood are at best, a vague mirage keeping hope alive, but the closer they get to it, the more it simply fades.

As time goes by, not less but MORE Settlements are arising (from what I observe)... and any Palestinian state would be fragmented as to be completely unworkable.

The Settlers have very strong views about the status of the land, and I suggest many of them are living in the spirit of Genesis "This land I give you and your descendants for ever" said God.

But if this was just a creeping land squabble, it would be no more important than the 100s of others in the world.

What separates the 'Middle East' (particularly Israel) from 'the others' is the status of Jerusalem, and in particular there also, the Temple Mount.

I'd be interested in the results of a survey done among settlers alone, on the issue of the Mosque and Temple, I think it would be quite different from such a survey on that issue done in Tel Aviv.

AL AKSAH MOSQUE ILLEGAL. In reality when Caliph Omar went to Jerusalem, he refrained from entering the St Marys church (where the Mosque is) at that time to prevent his Muslim followers taking it as 'Muslim' This is the assurance that Fellow Human is always telling us about. "Rights of Christians and Jews ..guaranteeed"

It lasted but a short while, and today we see the mosque built over the destroyed Church.

In summary, all Christians, Jews and Muslims have a strong spiritual interest in that location. I as a Christian would prefer to see the Jewish Temple there. The "Church" is the living body of believers, not a building.

Bazz,

Luttwak is not advocating ignoring the Middle-East. His suggestion is that we're giving the problems in the Middle-East too much airtime and most of the pontificating is worthless.

Maybe in the end all we can do is let the various factions, internal and external, in Iraq, Lebanon, etc get on with the business of killing each other, or not, as they decide. There may be nothing Western countries can do to save the protagonists in the Middle-East from themselves.

Steel,

The depressing thing is that threatening to nuke Iran is among the LEAST bizarre things the GOP candidates are saying.

Abu Boaz Basheer:-)

I am watching you..
Speaking of Jerusalem Noble Sanctuary (al aqsa mosque) I was reading this interesting article by an Israeli regarding the 1969 fire.

"In the morning of August 21, 1969, a fire at Masjid al-Aqsa, the al-Aqsa Mosque opposite the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, gutted the southeastern wing of the mosque. By the following day, it become apparent that a non-Jewish tourist from Australia was responsible for the blaze. On August 23, Dennis Michael Rohan was arrested for arson, suspected of starting the fire. Rohan was an Australian Protestant follower of an evangelical sect known as the Church of God. By his own admission, Rohan hoped to hasten the coming of the Messiah by burning down the al-Aqsa Mosque. Rohan told the court that he acted as "the Lord's emissary" on divine instructions, in accordance with the Book of Zechariah, and that he had tried to destroy the al-Aqsa Mosque in order to rebuild the Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount. He was hospitalized in a mental institution, found to be insane and was later deported from Israel."

So over to you Boaz, any comments?

wooo..Bashir ? :) I've seen that dude in court.. notttt a pretty site. But at least you're being a bit entertaining now instead of morose :)..well done!

I prefer being compared to Martell (Tours).. or Sobiesky (Vienna) but thats cool.

Regarding that dill who set fire to the Mosque.. wow.. way2go eh.. kidding.. no, he was misguided in his eschatology. We can do nothing to 'hasten' the coming, we can only be faithful in proclamation, and rest in the assurance that Christ will return "Like a thief in the night" ie.. at a time we least expect. The events which precede the Return, are so cataclysmic and broad, that no individual human can speed it up, unless you wish to claim the name and work of 'AntiChrist'.. now THAT might move things along a bit.

I checked out the "Worldwide Church of God" - (from Wikipedia)

[the WCG under Herbert Armstrong had a significant, and often controversial, influence on 20th century Christian broadcasting and publishing in the United States and Europe, especially in the field of interpreting biblical end-time (eschatalogical) prophecies]

[Under Armstrong's leadership, the Worldwide Church of God was considered by many to be theologically a cult with unorthodox and, to some, heretical teachings]

cheers

Why are Palestinian children killed ?

Here is one good reason, but the amazing thing is the RESTRAINT of the Israeli soldier who could quite justifiably blown this little suckers head off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjjOhaokqkA

That little boy is ONLY alive because the Israeli soldier had restraint.

But this incident also shows the Palestinian Muslim mentality. If you are kind, they see it as weakness and futher.. a sign of their own strength.

How many times do we hear of the "cruel Israeli's" I guess this little boy had been fed a constant diet of "The Israeli Satan" and a corresponding side salad of "Islam will triumph... remember Khaybar" etc.. to the point where he actually believed it.

When a society programs its children to this extent...(the Palestinian Muslims) it is not far away from the old 'Child sacrifice' when they gave their children to the flames to appease Molech the pagan god.
Interestingly, many Palestinians are the SAME PEOPLE who used to do that. (Canaanites) The Arab ring ins, invaders, migrants of victorious opportunism, (taking Jewish land) simply peddle the Islamic paradise of 70 virgins to play with .... all in all, its a mess of apocalyptic proportions.

The tragedy is, Palestinians ACT as if Israel could 'not' shove them into the sea if they decided to do so. This silly child epitomizes that attitude of lunacy.

Boaz, do you really believe that the YouTube piece was genuine?

That a fully armed Israeli soldier would run away from a stone-throwing kid?

That the entire piece was filmed - just like that, as it happened - by a passing cameraman?

You have to be the most naive, gullible and ingenuous person I have ever encountered.

Except...

I don't believe for a moment that you are that stupid.

You are deliberately buying into the propaganda that supports your anti-Islam hatred and paranoia, without even the most cursory questioning.

You do it without blushing, without remorse when you are found out - "The virginia Uni massacre.. done by a Muslim? 'Ismail X'", and without the slightest regard for the fact that you are deliberately attempting to reproduce your hatred in others.

This is just another example of your underhand, tacky and altogether despicable campaign against people who choose a religion that is not yours.

Pericles,

Do you have any reason to believe the youtube clip is not genuine?

I don't know whether, or not, it is.

But how can you be so sure it isn't?

stevenlmeyer, I have no factual evidence for the YouTube clip being staged, only circumstantial.

The way the camera tracks their movements, particularly the way the kid and the soldier are oh-so-conveniently framed, from top left to down right - classic cinematic shot. How amazingly fortunate.

The way the soldier stops, turns and retreats after having one rock thrown at him is highly unconvincing.

Despite all the time the cameraman seems to have, the soldier is still unrecognizable. If the action did occur as it appears, wouldn't you take the opportunity to zoom in a little closer - at least once? We instead get some edited-in close-ups (i.e. post-production, not a camera effect) and a classic pan back at the end - which, incidentally, reveals a couple of bystanders looking extremely incurious, showing no reaction at all to the events.

No, I don't have any factual evidence. But it is a highly odd and inconsistent piece of filming, extremely convenient(in propaganda terms), and highly unconvincing.

But while I am personally sure that it is fake - and also sure that this will be confirmed in due course - my post was more about the alacrity with which Boaz jumps on these events in such an unquestioning way, and reproduces them as incontrovertible fact, in order to support his paranoid fear and hatred of anything remotely Islamic.

He does this regularly, hence the reminder of his instant reproduction on OLO of the "The virginia Uni massacre.. done by a Muslim? 'Ismail X'" innuendo.

Pericles.. what you should consider is that the youtube vid was placed there by a Muslim, or.. (to accomodate your skepticism.. someone 'claiming' to be a Muslim)..
Are you into 9/11 conspiracies also ? :)

In this regard we need to look at all the facts. The title was "brave boy, cowardly soldier"... not 'Stupid boy, compassionate soldier"

It appeared to me that the boy made a split second decision when he saw the soldier was not going to shoot, he was emboldened in the adrenaline rush.

I also saw footage, (different vid) where an Israeli soldier shot a young palestinian at point blank range. I have a feeling this one was genuine, but even if not, it certainly illustrates, if not actually support, the reality of the power balance there. It 'is' rather silly for Hamas and company to constantly gee themselves up at funerals and rallies and shoot their pop guns into the air, when on the other side of the military coin is an army which could wipe them clean in a couple of days.

That people hold such lop sided views of life and struggle, is one of the many reasons the middle east is important.

That they persist in their delusion of empowerment, of Allah intervening, of..whatever emotional/spiritual drug they are on, is a continual source of amazement to me. Its tantamount to the Aboriginal activists who try to re-claim Australia... why bother?

So, while I recognize your concern for me not being duped by cheap propoganda.. this one only had the effect of making the Israeli look like a coward and the youth look like a hero.. (to the palestinian eye) to my eye..I saw restraint.

Boaz, if you did just a little more digging - just a little, not very much at all - you will find that the same footage was posted over two months ago with the headline "coward Israeli soldier in palestine".

No reference to the boy at all.

>>In this regard we need to look at all the facts. The title was "brave boy, cowardly soldier"... not 'Stupid boy, compassionate soldier"<<

Facts, Boaz? Facts? The title does not make it factual - if anything, it underlines the fact that it is blatant propaganda.

>>It appeared to me that the boy made a split second decision when he saw the soldier was not going to shoot, he was emboldened in the adrenaline rush<<

Well, that's what you wanted to see, so that's what you saw. But the intention - "coward Israeli soldier in palestine", remember - was to show an Israeli soldier running away.

If you were to dig just a little further, you will find that there are also questions about the uniform, whether it is actually an Israeli uniform, and the gun (AK47? Galil?) the former not in use with, and the latter not favoured by, the Israeli Defence Force.

You see what you want to see, Boaz, and say anything that comes into your head, whether it might be true or not.

That would just be sad, if it wasn't also rabble-rousing.

Boaz,

“I as a Christian would prefer to see the Jewish Temple there”

Few posts above you said that Dennis Michael Rohan (below) belonged to a church that you don’t believe in, yet above comment means you sympathise with his cause and action.

"In the morning of August 21, 1969, a fire at Masjid al-Aqsa, the al-Aqsa Mosque opposite the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, gutted the southeastern wing of the mosque. By the following day, it become apparent that a non-Jewish tourist from Australia was responsible for the blaze. On August 23, Dennis Michael Rohan was arrested for arson, suspected of starting the fire. Rohan was an Australian Protestant follower of an evangelical sect known as the Church of God. By his own admission, Rohan hoped to hasten the coming of the Messiah by burning down the al-Aqsa Mosque. Rohan told the court that he acted as "the Lord's emissary" on divine instructions, in accordance with the Book of Zechariah, and that he had tried to destroy the al-Aqsa Mosque in order to rebuild the Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount. He was hospitalized in a mental institution, found to be insane and was later deported from Israel."

Clear question Boaz: in your mind now, the action of D. Michael Rohan is a clear act of terrorism or not?
Please use a Yes or No comment.

F.H...... his action was a.... ummm...arrr... *bites tongue*.... cough... choke... maybe.. kinda..... possibly...

YESSSS it was an act of TERRORISm and the bloke who did it claimed to be a Christian. History is history, I cannot deny it.

I never said I wanted it removed 'that' way, but I would approve the Israeli government legislating it out of the way, and then the lawful bulldozers could come in and do their thing.
Lets face it, at one point in time, the Islamic 'bulldozers' of Omar's successor (probably slaves) removed the Church and built the mosque.. the Christians (and the Jews) had zero voice or choice about it.. something I would be seriously reminding Muslims about if they disagreed with its removal.

It so happens though, that while I prefer to see great hidious crimes of history reversed, (which of course would include the treatment of indigenous Aussies) -in this particular case, from what I've seen, the Mosque is not exactly on the real temple site. It would be possible to re-build the temple just near the mosque.

It would not be possible though, to have the mosque so close due to ritual purity reasons I think.. (not 100% sure on that)