Menu



error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
Peter Fogel

1470
7259 Posts
7259
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
Re: Human Shields In Gaza - PRESIDENT WITHDRAWS CHARGES AGAINST USS COLE MASTERMIND
2/9/2009 4:19:24 PM

Hello Friends,

Here's an interesting article I read earlier and thought you might find it interesting. Your thoughts would be appreciated.

Shalom,

Peter

The Gaza War: A Small Part of The Nationalist-Islamist Conflict
Barry Rubin
January 11, 2009

In decades to come, when the Middle East's history for this era is written, the current war in Gaza will be deemed a skirmish in the great Arab-Persian; Sunni-Shia; Arab nationalist-Islamist; Iran-Syria versus Egypt-Saudi Arabia conflict that is going to be the region's--and perhaps world's--main feature for the rest of our lifetimes.

The Arab-Israeli conflict, as it existed from 1948 to the late 1980s or thereafter, is over. Whatever they say in public, all the Arab states except for Syria have basically withdrawn from active participation. Indeed, strong statements in speeches and media have long been a substitute for action. Egypt, Jordan, and the PLO signed peace agreements with Israel, which may not have yielded warm relations but certainly ended their direct involvement in any conflict. The Persian Gulf and north African Arab states are just not focused on it.

Why has this happened? There are basically four reasons why the Middle East today is totally different from that of the previous period.

First, almost all the Arab states--Syria being the exception--concluded that they could not defeat and destroy Israel. This came about both due to the experience of war and to the collapse of the Soviet bloc, their main ally in the conflict. To stir people's passions over an unwinnable conflict is profitable for rulers--to distract them from their own dictatorial government--but defeat by Israel could bring down the regimes. Even Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein turned toward trying to dominate the Persian Gulf rather than fight Israel.

Second, the Arab states have become preoccupied with other problems. Those with oil--Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates--focus on making money and enjoying the good life. Those without--Egypt, Jordan, Morocco--strive to survive. Both groups need good relations with the West: the poor to get aid, the rich for markets and safe places to invest.

Third, they concluded the Palestinians were incapable of defeating Israel militarily or making peace with Israel diplomatically. Once the PLO signed an agreement with Israel in 1993, intended to produce a political settlement, Arab states were freed from their obligations. They didn't even give the Palestinians much economic aid, most such help coming from the West. Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat was quite unpopular in the Arab world, being viewed as corrupt and untrustworthy. His successors were seen as weak. Why, they asked, should Arab rulers let Arafat and the PLO determine their policy?

Fourth, the Arab world is beset by a new conflict which takes up much of its attention and resources: the radical Islamist challenge to Arab nationalist regimes.  In every country, the conflict is waged, sometimes violently, at others times through propaganda battles and electoral maneuvers. The Palestinians, too, fought among themselves along these lines. After winning an election victory and then making a deal for a coalition government, Hamas turned on its nationalist rivals and drove them out of Gaza by force.

Every Arab state is battling Hamas's friends inside its own borders. In Lebanon, Hizballah Shia Islamists bully Sunni Muslim, Christian, and Druze rivals. Bloody civil wars between Islamists and nationalists erupted in Algeria and Egypt; terrorist campaigns swept Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

Finally, the Arab states face a powerful Iranian-Syrian axis whose clients include Hizballah, Hamas, and Iraqi insurgents. This is a danger far exceeding the largely fabricated one from Israel and Arab rulers know it. In response to the Hamas attacks on Israel, Tariq Alhomayed, editor-in-chief of Al-Sharq al-Awsat, proclaimed that Hamas is the tool of Iran and "Iran is a real threat to Arab security, as today it launched a war against Egypt, tomorrow against Saudi Arabia, and then the whole house of cards will collapse."

That is how the current fighting is being viewed in the leading circles of the Arab world, not as an Arab-Israeli struggle but as part of the Islamist-nationalist conflict. Hamas and Hizballah, Egyptian Foreign Minister Aboul Gheit proclaimed, are at war with Egypt and want to bring war and chaos to Egypt as they have in their own countries.

Hamas and its allies see the issue in similar terms. Why, asked deputy Hizballah leader Naim Qassem according to a MEMRI translation, "is Gaza besieged? Because the people of Gaza and Palestine have rejected the humiliating political options, and have chosen the proud political option of Jihad–the option of resistance."

What does this really mean? To accept "humiliating political options" signifies a compromise peace which would gain a Palestinian state in exchange for accepting Israel's existence. It also means getting along with the West rather than fighting against it. "Resistance" is a favorite codeword coined by Syria's regime for a program of battling for decades, sacrificing many thousand lives, using terrorism, fighting wars, and staying intransigent until final, total victory is achieved. The goal is to destroy Israel, expel Western influence from the Middle East, and make every regime a radical Islamist dictatorship.

Aside from the catastrophic cost and bloody defeat that this strategy entails, Qassem is leaving out a lot more. The Palestinian Authority-ruled West Bank isn't besieged, it's prospering. There's no fighting because the nationalists there don't glorify the sacrifice of everything to carry out an ultimately losing jihad. 

Inasmuch as the West rescues Hamas from its own mistakes, the result will be strengthening radical forces throughout the region, demoralizing moderates, and ensuring even more violence and suffering in future. Vladimir Lenin, leader of the previous big revolutionary movement, Communism, predicted that democratic states would sell their enemies the rope that would be used to hang themselves. Radical Islamists are counting on it. Relatively moderate Arab nationalists fear it. Israel is fighting to prevent it.

*A version of this article was published in the Ottawa Citizen, January 1, 2008


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).

 

Peter Fogel
Babylon 7
+0
Peter Fogel

1470
7259 Posts
7259
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
Re: Human Shields In Gaza - Holocaust Denying Bishop Ousted
2/10/2009 4:49:32 AM
 Hello Friends,

I don't know about you but when I first read about Bishop Williamson a well known holocaust denier being reinstated I was very surprised and disturbed. Recently there have been petitions and many other sources that urged the Pope to reconsider his action. I was relieved to read the following article in the Atlas Shrugs blog. (sources in the text links).

Shalom,

Peter 

VATICAN OUSTS HOLOCAUST DENIER BISHOP

The Vatican finally did the right thing and ousted the Bishop who denied the holocaust 

((youtube id="yZqTCOyzaAE&eurl"))((/youtube))

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZqTCOyzaAE&eurl

The Vatican has said Pope Benedict, who expressed his full solidarity with Jews, was not aware of Williamson's denial of the Holocaust when he rehabilitated the bishops. Apparently, the 'firing'  came shortly after the Pope met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Last week the chief rabbi in Israel severed ties with the Vatican. It seems Merkel had more influence with the Pope.

BUENOS AIRES — An ultra-traditionalist Roman Catholic bishop who has drawn sharp criticism from the Vatican and Jewish groups for denying the extent of the Holocaust was removed as the head of an Argentine seminary, a Catholic Church official said on Sunday.

Pope Benedict angered Jewish leaders and progressive Catholics last month when he lifted excommunications on the bishop, Richard Williamson, and three other traditionalists to try to heal a 20-year-old schism within the Church.

The Vatican has since ordered the bishop to publicly recant his views questioning whether the Nazis used gas chambers and the number of Jews who died.

[...]

The Vatican has said Pope Benedict, who expressed his full solidarity with Jews, was not aware of Williamson's denial of the Holocaust when he rehabilitated the bishops.

Read More Here

Peter Fogel
Babylon 7
+0
Peter Fogel

1470
7259 Posts
7259
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
Re: Human Shields In Gaza - Holocaust Denying Bishop Ousted
2/10/2009 5:20:51 AM
 Hello Friends,

I read a few things that I found a bit disturbing today about hate but just like beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess the definition of hate is the same. Possibly in a future post I will give my explanation and definition of hate, racism and more but for now I would like to relate to one small comment that was made in the “other” forum that was supposedly the reason that it was started. Not the truth for sure but that's beside the point. Even though I stated in the past that I wouldn't reply to any of the posts there directly but this comment and the response to it imply that Rinna was treated with disrespect and pushed away from this thread. Nothing can be further from the truth all you have to do is read the discussion where she participated in this thread and see for yourself.

This was written as a response to Rinna: I got involved when I saw members there press you on a very human and clear statement "Those are only Children". Your replies were very kind and respectful but their replies were aggressive Nothing can be further from the truth. Any and all that post in this thread and any of my threads are treated with respect and if there is a discussion about a particular issue it is open and all can express their views. No one was aggressive towards Rinna quite the contrary. All expressed their regrets over the loss of innocent lives but came to different conclusions then Rinna did. Disagreement isn't aggression.

Any and all that express their views, opinions and beliefs here are treated with respect even when there is disagreement.

So Rinna,you wrote in reply to the above quote: "Yes, it was very hard for me to post a point that I felt I had my right too but I was pushed away because I did not side their point". I must disagree, your posts were responded to in a proper and respectful manner by all participants. You weren't pushed away quite the opposite is true. I welcome a discussion and respect all opinions aside from racism and hate posts.

In conclusion, disagreement isn't aggression or disrespect but an expression of others opinions. Without hearing what others think there would be no discussion. In this forum the objective is to show information that isn't reported on in the main stream media and the discussion there after is the name of the game and no more.

Shalom,

Peter

Peter Fogel
Babylon 7
+0
Rinna Rani

1779
5162 Posts
5162
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 50 Poster
Person Of The Week
Re: Human Shields In Gaza - Holocaust Denying Bishop Ousted
2/10/2009 5:35:57 AM
Dear Peter,
Greetings!
Thank you for this post that you have posted.

I understand your point of view on aggression.  And yes, I agree I wrote that in Georgios forum.  I had such a hard time posting a point in this thread about what I believed in and that is the side of the children.  However, when a point such as - when push comes to shove, you HAVE TO choose a side on which I constantly said NO, I WILL NOT CHOOSE ANY PARTY BUT WILL ONLY CHOOSE THE CHILDREN'S SIDE.

It gave me the impression that after numerous attempts of just saying what I needed to say and not coming to this forum to choose sides, I was pushed away by the fact that this continuous choosing sides issue will never rest until I agree with the poster and it started becoming sarcastic.  Sorry, Peter but sarcasm is not my choice of posting a point, it actually creates more disruption than ever - emotionally and mentally.  So, Peter, I hope the word "pushed away" has been explained to what I meant by it.

However, if you wish for me to reconstruct the sentence to be more acceptable for everyone and not to have everyone misunderstand, please just send me a PM and I will do it.  I do not want anymore misunderstanding or conflicts that was initially created and the scar is still visible.

My intention in that statement in Georgios forum is to state my point of view and no harm to anyone in particular especially you Peter so I hope this does not hurt anyone's feelings.

Love, Rinna
+0
Peter Fogel

1470
7259 Posts
7259
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
Re: Human Shields In Gaza - Holocaust Denying Bishop Ousted
2/10/2009 6:09:43 AM

Hello Rinna,

My feelings were definitely were not hurt. I just wanted to correct the impression that you were not allowed  to express your opinion here and were pushed away or driven out.

I have never nor will I in future deny anyone the right to express their opinions (with the exceptions I mentioned in a previous post) in any of my forums. It has been my experience though that there are those that believe and feel that if you disagree with them you are in fact attacking them. I was under the impression that this was the case now and I'm glad to see that it is not.

There is no need for further correspondence on this issue.

Shalom,

Peter

Peter Fogel
Babylon 7
+0


facebook
Like us on Facebook!