Well this blog has gotten some passionate defenders of the US' agenda in the Middle East. These readers and commenters can be helpful because they can explain the US motivations in the Middle East in their own words.
So far, I'll mention George Carty, Dermot Maloney (who has answered the first), noname7364, Quemo Jones and Cowboy. I'd also like to encourage all Westerners, especially those generally supportive of US policies regarding the Middle East to answer these questions.
US policy has been very clear for decades in providing the answers to these questions. It will be interesting to see how the answers of questions by supporters of US policy match actual US policy.
Here are the questions:
1) Assuming Egypt's voters want Egypt to be as hostile against Israel as Iran is, would you oppose that democratic outcome for Egypt?
2) If Egypt was to become as hostile against Israel as Iran is, how do you think the US should respond to Egypt in that case? Should the US work to prevent Egypt from attaining legal nuclear weapons capabilities like those Japan, Brazil and other countries have? How?
3) Assuming Egypt's voters want to be as generous in supplying arms and materials to Palestinians as US voters are in supplying Israel, should the US just watch this happen? What, if anything, should the US do to prevent that?
86 comments:
Let us see. Hitler and n7 both support Zionist colonization of Palestine, while I am against. Where it brings n7, I wonder?
Too late now the Jews are there, they are not going to leave, so quit whineing and deal with it. The alternative is the middle east being turned into radioactive glass.
Well, Whites are still in post-Apartheid South Africa.
That article was certainly an eye-opener about the onerous strings (not just relating to Israel) attached to Egyptian food aid. I'm doubly surprised that such an article was on a pro-neocon website!
Did Japan ever deny wanting the ability to build nuclear weapons?
This is a hypothetical you invented, so that's up to you.
My question is does Japan have peaceful nuclear energy? If by your definition it does not then at least I'm clear on how you're using that term.
Whites only made up 10 percent of the population in South Africa. The State of Israel has a population of approximately 7,798,600 inhabitants as of September 2011.[1] 75.3% of them are Jewish (about 5,865,300 individuals), 20.5% are Arabs (About 1,597,300 individuals), while the remaining 4.3% (about 318,200 individuals) are defined as "others" (family members of Jewish immigrants who are not registered at the Interior Ministry as Jews, non-Arab Christians, non-Arab
Only two choices accept Israel or Armageddon.
yes, I was sure to find some dirty side of USA 'aid", because I do not trust imperialists to do ANY good to their usual victims. Of course, this distrust is based on the lot of facts, historical and modern.
Regarding the neo-cons - maybe they hate imperialism's victims so much, they do not even want to full themselves, and, on the other hand, want to know their foe (leftist Egyptians, for ex.) Liberals often do not want to even admit to themselves that USA could do some wrong :(
GC is clearly basic believes in goodness of imperialist states. he is not alone in the West, of course, and not the last to project his colonial views on natives. Just to let him know, Egyptians quite for some time are questioning (to put it mildly) the benefits of USA food aid as well. I have found it in a second of googling, and, sure there are much more of it
http://www.meforum.org/281/does-american-aid-help-egypt
All in all, GC position somehow reminds me about slaveowners and their public advocates who argued with serious mien that without white masters Blacks could not even fed themselves.
Thanks for answering.
Your answers to 1) and 3) put you, the board's open colonialist and open bigot to the left of the entire mainstream of US foreign policy thought. The Barack Obama administration is very actively working to ensure that Egypt's foreign policy never comes under democratic control.
2) The NPT guarantees access to technology "without discrimination", and not based on whether or not you consider the country stable enough. The US ratified the NPT. But you, like most Americans, would have no problem with breaking the terms of that treaty it seems.
A religious Theocracy is not democracy and is too dangerous to be allow nuclear weapons if it can be prevented.
The best I can tell this is a site for anti-jewish and anti Isreal bigots trying to justifie the genocide of the people of Israel in the name of democracy. You either have to supports Israels existence or you have to support the genocide of the jews there and else where in the world that would not have any place to go. That would have been a million that was driven out of Islamic countries to Israel since world war II.
It looks like the Nazis are back, just trying to be more reasonable about it.
"Thinking of Saudi Arabia as an independent country rather than as
effectively a US colonial subject can only lead to errors of analysis."
Actually thinking of saudi arabia as a colonial subject is what can lead to errors of analysis, if saudi arabia really wanted a nuclear programme they would have gone ahead with it and bore the brunt of us anger ( as they did when they rejected bushes pleas to help lower oil prices), instead those at top felt it wasnt truely in their interests so they declined.
So Japan lies when it says it wants or has peaceful nuclear energy?
I'm at this point just figuring out if you have different definitions of peaceful nuclear energy based on how close a country is to Israel.
You believe Japan does not have peaceful nuclear energy you're saying?
"What do you believe causes almost the entire spectrum of US foreign policy thought to disagree with you on that issue?"
Various reasons, some might just simply disagree while others are misinformed and then they are those who are under pressure from lobby groups. They would also be those who genuinely are worried with the development of any technology that can be used in some way to develop nuclear materials and feel that their is already too much of it in the world today.
" You disagree on those questions, I believe, if those are the positions you hold, with Barack Obama, George Bush"
Have these questions been posted to these men?
"than you are to either Jeffrey Goldberg or Juan Cole."
Again the two men hold very different positions and have written critically of each other, they logically cant be put together.
"If you answer anything but no, we are done."
So you ask me a question and if you dont get an answer that is acceptable to you, you will mosey on. Do you have any idea how childish this postion is.
The answer is that it depends on the certain officials, some are very concerned with irans nuclear programme, while others who may have little interest in the two state solution would be concerned with saudi arabias efforts to heal the palestinian rift between hamas and fatah, which if healed would strenghten the palestinian position which would no longer be devided.
Other officials recognise that irans postion is to achive nuclear latency like japan and is therefore unlikely to ever launch an attack against israel therefore iran is not the major threat that it is sometimes made out to be. Otheres then would consider both to be a hinderence, again it all depends on the certain officials.
"why do you believe Saudi Arabia pursues less threatening policies than Iran?"
If saudi arabia did do such a thing it is because those in charge felt it was in their interests to do so while if iran pursued more hostile policies this would again be due to those in charge feeling that it was in their interests.
Censorship at its finest it seems :/
It would show that they weren't sincere, and that may lead to a deterioration of diplomatic relations (not because they wanted a nuclear weapons capability, but because they lied).
Maybe when they start going hungry (while some aid to Egypt is indeed a bribe to the regime to get it to leave Israel alone, the countries also gets large amounts of food aid) they'd change their mind...
1) Assuming Egypt's voters want Egypt to be as hostile against Israel as Iran is, would you oppose that democratic outcome for Egypt?
No I would not oppose a democratic outcome in that case as long as Egypt remained a democracy with the ability to change.2) If Egypt was to become as hostile against Israel as Iran is, how do you think the US should respond to Egypt in that case? Should the US work to prevent Egypt from attaining legal nuclear weapons capabilities like those Japan, Brazil and other countries have? How? I would oppose nuclear weapons capabilites for Egypt because I dont think they are stable enought to be trusted with nuclear weapons, the same as Iran. I would oppose it by cutting off all aid to Egypt, one out of every 3 loaves of bread is made with wheat from America. There military is dependent on american technology.3) Assuming Egypt's voters want to be as generous in supplying arms and materials to Palestinians as US voters are in supplying Israel, should the US just watch this happen? What, if anything, should the US do to prevent that? Again cut off aid to Egypt, and allie itself with Israel.
I'd be more worried about a nuclear-armed Saudi Arabia than a
nuclear-armed Iran (although the latter may lead to the former though,
as you suggest).
Why do you think Saudi Arabia has not responding to Israel's nuclear program? And if it is not independent enough to respond to Israel's, how can it respond to Iran's?
Maybe Reuters' analysis will put you at ease a little:
Few analysts believe Riyadh, the world's top oil exporter
and a key ally for the United States, is likely to embark upon a
weapons programme in defiance of U.S. calls for restraint. But
Turki's remarks signal the extent of concern over non-Arab
Iran's military ambitions among Arab Gulf countries.
http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL5E7N62G920111206
Thinking of Saudi Arabia as an independent country rather than as effectively a US colonial subject can only lead to errors of analysis.
If Saudi Arabia had nuclear weapons by that time, might they actually
start a nuclear war on the basis that they're going to starve to death
anyway, and at least if they launched the nukes they'd get to take some
kafir bastards with them?
What? Wow. That's a weird fantasy you have there. I'm not sure how to respond but I find it worrying that you've developed this whole scenario in your mind.
You're not responding to the questions. Please answer the questions in sentence form, incorporating at least some of the words of the question.
If you don't want to, just participate in another thread.
[Please first answer all three questions in sentence form, using the words from the questions. And then we can discuss the other issues you want to raise.]
I did answer the question, the answer is NO, NO, and NO. I oppose any country no matter what kind of country they are including democracy if their goal is the destruction of Israel.
[Please answer the questions above in list form, 1, 2 then 3.
After that you can discuss Jewish refugees if you would like.]
I suppose it would be in wain to point that Arabic Jews (Mizrahim) lived in much more security than Ashkenazim in Europe. First Jewish government minister in the ME was NOT in Israel. The reason of the end of such life was and is Zionism and esp. Nakba - ethnic cleansing of Palestinians who were natives, unlike European colonizers who had NOTHING to do with Palestine but some religious tales while being un-religious themselves.
Not only Zionists are guilty of uprooting Mizrahi Jews for cannon fodder of colonization(often Zionists took a part in it, from terror to asking Arab states for help). Zionists also openly preferred NOT saving Ashkenazi Jews of Europe if it could slow rapid colonization of Palestine. One could google Ben-Gurion and "
"all German Jewish children" and "England" and see the results.
USA "aid" to Egypt means aid to dictators (mubarak or SCAF) to leash Egyptians lest they achieve democracy. I suppose the great majority of Egyptians would be glad to lost such "aid"
[Again, for this post in particular, I'd really appreciate if you answer the three questions in order.]
Thank you.
Interesting that you also express positions that I think put you outside of US mainstream foreign policy thought. Maybe the only people whose answers to these questions match actual US policy are going to be the open bigots. That would be interesting.
Just a quick question about "peaceful nuclear energy" do you believe Japan has peaceful nuclear energy? Because Japan is clear that while it does not have weapons today, it will have them a few weeks after a sufficient provocation.
If Egypt turns down your CANDU offer, and insists on the ability to enrich uranium itself, but safeguarded, but also available to make a weapon in an emergency, what, to you would that say about Egypt's sincerity about having peaceful nuclear energy?
1) I'd warn and warn and warn them that if they push Israel too far, they may end up bringing the Samson Option down on their heads (which would pretty much obliterate Egypt as a nation, due to the Sword of Damocles that is the Aswan High Dam). No direct intervention though (except for cuts to aid payments) unless they shelter terrorists who attack the Western world proper (ie excluding Israel).
2) Given the Aswan High Dam thing (plus the fact that Egypt doesn't have Iran's Shi'a martyrdom complex), it's vanishingly unlikely that Egypt would actually start a nuclear war. So no need for any restrictions on an Egyptian nuclear program.
I'd think that if Egypt expressed an intention for a purely peaceful nuclear energy programme, I'd offer them CANDU reactors (which don't need enriched fuel) in an effort to gauge their sincerity.
3) Again, no intervention short of cuts to aid payments. Aid is not a right, and Western countries are mostly heavily in debt as it is.
Are you happy enough with these answers.
I'm not really supportive of Zionism, and my main concern about the anti-Zionists is that they underestimate the obstacle that Israel's nuclear weapons pose to their ambitions. I'm also sceptical of nuclear non-proliferation, as it is too useful a ploy for the enemies of civilian nuclear power (fossil fuel profiteers and Malthusians). The enemies of nuclear energy need to be defeated ASAP, because a massive expansion of nuclear power is needed to replace increasingly-scarce fossil fuels. (Wind and solar are just a smokescreen for continued fossil fuel domination, by the way.)
As for Egyptians arming Palestinian militants, it's within their right to do so, but they can't expect to continue getting aid from the West if they do this...
George, on this post I'd be very interested to see your answers to all three questions in order.
I'd be more worried about a nuclear-armed Saudi Arabia than a nuclear-armed Iran (although the latter may lead to the former though, as you suggest).
Unlike Iran (which has significant agricultural output and even a smattering of industry), Saudi Arabia is an almost entirely one-product economy, and when that product runs out or is superseded (perhaps we could use nuclear energy to make artificial oil from water and atmospheric CO2 -- you may have noticed the Nuclear Power Yes Please badge on my avatar), the country could be looking at a Malthusian catastrophe. (Unless it is forestalled by Western aid, but this may not be forthcoming given the noxious variant of Islam prevalent there.)
If Saudi Arabia had nuclear weapons by that time, might they actually start a nuclear war on the basis that they're going to starve to death anyway, and at least if they launched the nukes they'd get to take some kafir bastards with them? Sort of like Israel's Samson Option, only it wouldn't require the other side to start the war...
[Please answer the three questions in the post before putting forth your ideas about the superiority of Western over Islamic culture.]
Clearly the position you've stated on Iran's nuclear program differs from that of the Bush administration and the Obama administration.
If that's your position I'm sure you're aware that you are outside of US foreign policy mainstream views.
Why do you think that is? What do you believe causes almost the entire spectrum of US foreign policy thought to disagree with you on that issue?
On the other two questions, I also believe that the positions you've outlined would put you into a pro-democratic fringe. You disagree on those questions, I believe, if those are the positions you hold, with Barack Obama, George Bush and are closer in views on those two specific questions to me than you are to either Jeffrey Goldberg or Juan Cole.
How do you think Barack Obama or Juan Cole would have answered questions 1 and 3 - and if their answers would be different from yours, how do you explain the difference?
1) Do you believe US or Israeli officials consider Saudi Arabia's policies as strategically threatening to Israel as Iran's policies?
If you answer anything but no, we are done. We can discuss some other issue but we have nothing more to talk about regarding Saudi Arabia.
2) If not, why do you believe Saudi Arabia pursues less threatening policies than Iran?
There are three questions in the body of the post. Please answer them before we begin discussing your ideas of a dispute with Iran.
What makes you think that it would take that long?
Hardly cosmetically poor, but actually poor, diplomatic realtions between the two are in a bad state and many far right israelis are not happy with saudi arabias attempts to heal the hamas fatah rift.
"The reason for this is that the Saudi government is not accountable to the people ruled, but rather to the United States."
As i said before the saudi government very much marches as a whole to its own drum beat.
"Could Saudi Arabia survive as a de-facto ally of Israel in the face of a
hugely anti-Israel population without the United States?"
Again saudi arabia and israel in practice are not allies, they do not even have proper diplomatic relations with one another, in this regards the saudi government isnt doing anything its people would be majorly hostile about. So yes, even without the us saudi arabia would still be basically the same in regards to its behaviour.
"Why, other than orders from the US embassy"
Again this is a very simplistic viewpoint, the us doesnt have the ability to give orders to saudi arabia, a bit towards the end of the bush presidency bush effectivily begged for saudi arabia to help decrease oil prices, because the saudis felt it wasnt in their interst to do so they declined.
"[why would] Saudi Arabia really not reflect in its policies the views and sensibilities of almost all of the Arab people? "
As a whole if often does, when it doesnt its because it personally felt it was not in its interest to do so.
If the United States attacked Iran the Iranian Navy and Air Forces would last abour 15 hours. The Iranian Army? 30 Days
Saudi arabias behaviour and style of rule would really be the same regardless of its relationship with the us
We disagree about this.
Saudi Arabia's relationship with Israel is cosmetically poor but Saudi Arabia's population is just as opposed, or more opposed to Israel than Iran's. Saudi Arabia spends twice as much on its military as Israel and Iran combined and effectively Saudi Arabia is not a threat to Israel. Not nearly as much a threat as Iran.
The reason for this is that the Saudi government is not accountable to the people ruled, but rather to the United States.
Could Saudi Arabia survive as a de-facto ally of Israel in the face of a hugely anti-Israel population without the United States?
Why would it? Why, other than orders from the US embassy, would the country called Saudi Arabia really not reflect in its policies the views and sensibilities of almost all of the Arab people?
Please answer the three questions noname7364. Just to have you on record.
"DM, on the other hand, could simply not even bother to look into USA-Saudi relationship."
This isnt factually true, ive read quite a bit on the matter. Saudi arabias behaviour and style of rule would really be the same regardless of its relationship with the us, for example it was a very conservative state before the us and it formed closer relations and became the us's third main source of oil. Saudi arabia has massive oil wealth and therefore has many available customers and great influence.
To say it needs the us for is entire survival is really pushing it, nations without us support and with no major oil resources such as syria have governments which have managed to stay in power for quite some time due to being highly oppressive.
"Saudi rulers are very useful for USA imperialist politics on the ME"
The saudis as a whole will very much march to their own drum beat.
" including their more and more visual support for Zionism"
This wasnt support for zionism, it had more to do with irans dislike of a shia group linked to iran, when it comes to the issue of israel saudi arabia and israel have very poor relations with one another.
"a typical Cole-lite, but, while Cole is influential and thus worth
attention, at least as a weather-vine of USA imperialism, DM is just
garden variety."
So you wont give someone attention unless they are influencial, thats kind of fickle.
"By the way, Arnold, is it just me, or Cole has stopped for some time cry wolf (genocide)"
When has juan implied that genocide is occurring in syria, he has stated stated that syria, one of the most oppressive governments in the middle east has been killing its own people, this is true.
"call for USA/Saudi liberation of Syrians - Libya-stile?"
When did he call for a libya style intervention in the first place?
If Iran has nuclear weapons even more countries in the middle east are going to decide they need nuclear weapons, the more countries that have nuclear weapons the more chance there will be a nuclear war. I find the very idea of a county where they have massive demonstrations where people scream death to america and whos leadership is religious fanatics having nuclear weapons rather repulsive.
I would not support a democracy dedicated to the destruction of Israel, it would be stupid to support a democracy if its interests oppose those of the USA or the objectives of that democracy are evil such as supporting terrorism. Israel is not going to go away, they need to deal with it. :
Van Creveld was quoted in David Hirst’s “The Gun and the Olive Branch” (2003) as saying“We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: ‘Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.’ I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under."
I think Israel will use the Samson Option if they have too, because thats what I would do if I was them.
Arnold, I am sure Cole at least admits to himself that USA support for Saudi dictatorship (which also is the main source of the most reactionary version of Islam, and the hotbed of terrorism) is vital for survive of the Saudi rule. Cole just does not want to admit it, because it would put him in indefeasible position regarding his most-cultivated image of liberal. Saudi rulers are very useful for USA imperialist politics on the ME, including their more and more visual support for Zionism (see 2006 Zionist aggression against Lebanon).
DM, on the other hand, could simply not even bother to look into USA-Saudi relationship. For him, it is just ordinary relation. Yes, sure, just ordinary as to Venezuela, for ex :(
I suppose DM would like to criticize my humble post, including my style, a pity that I do not give a damn about his opinion because I have learned enough about him - a typical Cole-lite, but, while Cole is influential and thus worth attention, at least as a weather-vine of USA imperialism, DM is just garden variety.
By the way, Arnold, is it just me, or Cole has stopped for some time cry wolf (genocide) regarding Syria and call for USA/Saudi liberation of Syrians - Libya-stile? I wonder why?
"especially those generally supportive of US policies regarding the Middle East"
Depends on the policy.
2) I have no problem with any country including iran at the moment developing a nuclear program, however they would be better off in the long run trying to build up green technology.
3) If they want to it is their right, however they along with the us should be more responsible supplying arms to both groups, if either groups start using weapons are illegitimate reasons sanctions on various weapons should be placed.
"But I would say that it is DM who really scares me."
(rolls eyes)
"And DM clearly has NO moral or even logical problems with aggressive
wars, providing they are waging under pretext he agrees with."
I have a problem with wars if they are going to cause more distress than the alternative, if a war is going to cause less distress than the alternative i am then for it. This is pretty accepted logic among most rational people and isnt controversial.
"Not that I put any faith in UN, and, of course, not long ago UN was used for rubber-stamping one more colonial war"
Which war was this, libya? The war which hindered a dictator from attacking his own people.
"In short, DM is the face and voice of the modern colonialism"
Considering i dont support the establishment of colonies that is a bit of a bizarre claim. It is arnold and yourself however who are the face of something terrible, the face of ideologues who will put their ideological beliefs ahead of human well being.
"not enough to sway grown ups"
How can he, he gives up almost immediately when he has difficulty defending his position.
"May the majority of Americans at least be thrown by the changing in
ages-long routine out of rut enough to stop and look around and say :
wait!"
I have goosebumps.
" If they could, just the lack of USA imperialist forces abroad could
greatly help to improve lives of the majority of world population."
In some areas yes, in some no, it depends on the region, circumstances and context. Also please dont pretend that you care about others.
"imagine Saudis or Israel without USA unwavering support?"
I think the us being more critical towards israel would be quite good for both countries and for those in the region. Saudi arabia would likely be the exact same.
"Imagine, then, Afghan people being NOT forced to chose between USA colonialism and Taliban"
If you had your way the afgahn people would have had no choice at all and would have been stuck under the taliban, gladly the taliban have been overthrown and the available evidence shows that most afghans see this as just and that their lives are better now than they were ( not that lidia is interested im afraid :/)
"Imagine Iran without the daily threat of USA/Israel bombs"
I do think that the us should modify its relations with the oppressive iranian government and stop making a big deal out of its nuclear programme.
"imagine Syrians free to challenge the rulers without fear of repeating Libya's fate!"
I imagine syrians are more concerned with things going on in the country, such as armed forces of a very oppressive government shooting at its people. Also from the available evidence so far libyas fate seems quite acceptable to the libyans.
"In such case, Arnold, your words, just like words of other courageous,
knowledgeable and honest Americans could mean the difference between
catastrophe and the new, better future."
Bit sappy
"So, let us go on, never mind DM murderous "humanitarian" srangelove for the bomb."
"humanitarian" should be humanitarian.
Arnold, I agree about GC.
But I would say that it is DM who really scares me. Someone not of the kind of Cowboy and noname. I would call DM the typical consumer of Cole-like "informed comments", so DM could not be called "ignorant" (USA liberals like, by my impression, blame FOX for ignorance of the USA masses, as if CNN is not airing the same imperialist propaganda, only otherwise styled). And DM clearly has NO moral or even logical problems with aggressive wars, providing they are waging under pretext he agrees with. Just to think that in UN definition any war that it is not for self-defense was called a crime. Not that I put any faith in UN, and, of course, not long ago UN was used for rubber-stamping one more colonial war without even fig leaf of "self-defense" as was in case of USA aggressions against Afghanistan and Iraq. In short, DM is the face and voice of the modern colonialism (it is worth mentioning that in between mass murder and ethnic cleansing of natives, even Zionists were fond of bragging how much good they brought to "Arabs").
I have said before and will repeat - the words, even your words, Arnold, no matter how well-written and well-based are not enough to sway grown ups. Does it mean that your blog is useless? I suppose not. If words usually are not enough, the reality could sometimes prod and then words are of much help. I see the today reality in the world and in the USA particularly as very challenging but also very promising. USA could turn to open fascism, and Obama sure in the front-line to such possibility. But I hope for another option. May the majority of Americans at least be thrown by the changing in ages-long routine out of rut enough to stop and look around and say : wait! If they could, just the lack of USA imperialist forces abroad could greatly help to improve lives of the majority of world population. Just imagine Saudis or Israel without USA unwavering support? Imagine stop of all those big and "small" wars that USA (and NATO, of course) are waging just now. Imagine, then, Afghan people being NOT forced to chose between USA colonialism and Taliban (mostly in fact the result of the USA meddling in the region). Imagine Iran without the daily threat of USA/Israel bombs, imagine Syrians free to challenge the rulers without fear of repeating Libya's fate!
In such case, Arnold, your words, just like words of other courageous, knowledgeable and honest Americans could mean the difference between catastrophe and the new, better future. So, let us go on, never mind DM murderous "humanitarian" srangelove for the bomb.
The United States has passionate defenders of policies that by professed US values are really not defensible.
This post is an attempt to refocus and redirect some of that passion to a more useful direction. I can explain the implications of US policy, but in addition, since we have passionate supporters right here, we can have them explain their motivations themselves.
I also want to note that George Carty, while I disagree with many of his positions, cannot be fairly categorized with some of the more rude and explicitly bigoted commenters who have become posting here more recently.
Well if its OK with Hilter, I sure its Ok with you.
Lidia one should not have the right to demand certain answers from someone out of the blue in this context and then procede to censor comments when one does not adequetly apply to the declared rules of a non-superior. Erasing comments here for this is indeed a of form censorship.
Arnold has asked (VERY POLITELY) many times. n7 just ignored the request and went on with rasist non-sequiturs. Arnold has NOT deleted all n7 racist rants (I sometimes really wonder if n7 is quite sane), only those that were instead of answering questions. If n7 does not want answering them and only wants to pollute, he is still free to do it in other posts :(
If wants him to answer the questions he can simply ask for that, as opposed to deleting entire comments, that is censorship.
PS. I hope that you, unlike DM, understand, that my definition of you as a member of imperialist society is not a calling you names. No one could choose where and in what society to be born. But one could (and I believe, should), try at least not to remind in the same mentally confinement, so to speak, esp. if one is more or less privileged. My heroes like Marx or Engels were not born proletarians, but they consciously choose to take the side of oppressed. But first they had to try and see the world NOT as members of ruling class.
Even if you have NO such ambitions :), it still not hurts to admit that different societies give their members different experience, often VERY different, and it is more safe NOT to judge anything only from the experience you were born into.
As a matter of fact you are NOT right. There was NOT a one island without another way to provide for working people.
I know it from a bit odd source - the translation into Russian of the article from old "Edinburgh review". The translation was done by Russian foes of slavery, who was waging war against its defenders (In Russia, the slavery-like servitude was abolished later than in UK colonies, but a bit earlier than in USA). There was a long article about past, present and possible future of the ALL colonies of such sort named and with a lot of data. In every case it was mentioned that freed slaves while willing to work for a shilling a day, could still find another ways to sustain themselves, including those who preferred return to per-agriculture ways.
I presume with your West Indies example that you're thinking of the small islands completely covered with sugar plantations (eg Barbados) rather than the larger ones with vacant land available (eg Jamaica).
On those islands, the blacks would indeed have starved if that had been the landlords' desire, as all food was imported from outside. However, the landlords preferred to continue exploiting the now-"free" black population, and said blacks carried on cutting cane as they had done under slavery.
I dont think they are stable enought to be trusted with nuclear weapons
Did you really mean to write this, or did you actually mean "I think they are too aggressive to be trusted with nuclear weapons"?
of course, BEFORE Zionism in the ME there was NOTHING even near as sinister as anti-Semitism of "civilized" Europe.
That was indeed my point when I described Arab antisemitism as "very much a post-Ottoman phenomenon"...
"i.e. of the member of imperialist society"
But you are also a member of a society that engaged in imperilaism lidia, you are aware of this yes?
GC. Could I pretty please ask you to NOT use your own experience (i.e. of the member of imperialist society) as you are predicting other peoples fate? It is about as wise as claiming that while wolves could not survive without meat, deers on the grass are bound to starve. Of course, I do not mean that you have another Physiological needs than Arabs have, just that your social and such life is based on VERY different foundation.
Just to let you an example - during slavery in 19th English landlords of West-India could not get rid of heavy debt. Some reasoning against the emancipation was that former slaves will starve to death. But they still somehow managed in the SAME place.
The very example you have done is not so good, of course. The problem was NOT "resources run out" but the demands of capitalist goal - i.e. profits. Not a small role played Thatcher's (i.e. UK capitalism) desire to get rid of influent and militant Labor Unions.
OF COURSE Hitler helped Zionists :( You see, they had a lot of common - both were racists to the extreme, both had the same colonialist mentor (UK), both wanted to get Jews out of Germany. Mind you, German Jews were mostly highly assimilated and it was very not good to Zionists. Without Nazis they sure could not prod the majority of the German Jews to leave the country they saw as their motherland. Of course, Hitler was also not against the idea to make a little problem to UK in its "mandate". There was a Nazi program (in cooperation with Zionists, of course) of support to emigration of Jews to Palestine, including permit (only to them) to take with them a real sum of money.
One of the best sources very worth reading is here
http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/index.htm, esp. see
http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/ch07.htm
You could find even that Hitler was enforcer of Hebrew (!) among German Jews (whose mother tongue, of course, was German)
GC, I see you still are open for new knowledge, unlike some others here :(
I hope you will see that your knowledge of Zionism is VERY lacking. Of course, it is NOT your fault as such, but any person trying to have an opinion of the ME (and not only) is advised to get more systematic and good quality info as a necessary tool. Best wishes
There is NOT anything like "this kind of extreme Arab antisemitism". SOME Arabs could be anti-Semitic, why not? They are humans. But I am sure anti-Semitism is much more rampant between Christian Zionists in USA.The most openly anti-Semits in Arab world are Saudi royals and their clerical lackeys.
of course, BEFORE Zionism in the ME there was NOTHING even near as sinister as anti-Semitism of "civilized" Europe.
As I mentioned before, Israel has nuclear missiles, while Apartheid South Africa only had free fall bombs.
Condensing down to one sentence: "I fully support Zionism, because all Arabs are Nazi Jew-killers."
I wonder if he (noname7365) has any workable plan to denazify the Arabs? After all, this kind of extreme Arab antisemitism is very much a post-Ottoman phenomenon, driven by Nazism, Zionism or both...
Hitler helped the Zionists?????
Cite? (I can understand some Euro antisemites supporting Zionism in order to get the Jews out of Europe, but not one as whacked-out as Hitler...)
What? Wow. That's a weird fantasy you have there. I'm not sure how to
respond but I find it worrying that you've developed this whole scenario
in your mind.
I live in North-East England, which still hasn't fully recovered from the collapse of its coal-mining industry, so I do have experience of what can happen to a resource-extraction-based economy when the resources run out.
And Saudi Arabia (not being part of a larger political entity with other types of economic activity, and even more dominated by oil than my region used to be by coal) would be far, far worse...
To count all false claims of n7 in this post would take too long, and anyway, I have refuted most of them several times here :) Not that I did it in hope to get n7 to see reality, just to put his words in some context.
I fully support Zionism after what happen to the Jews in World War II and the Arabs sideing with Hilter. I fully support Israels existance. I fully support Israel haveing nuclear weapons because its the only way they can exist where they are they so out numbered and hated. They cant match the surrounding countries tank for tank and plane for plane. Nor can Israel ever afford to lose a war. The rest of the middle east can afford to lose war and they have time after time after time. I dont have a problem with Iran have nuclear power, just nuclear weapons or the means to make one. It can be arranged for them to have nuclear power with other countries refineing the materials needed to run a nuclear power plant. Considering the threats they have made to destroy Isreal and kill the people there I hope Israel takes out their nuclear facilities even if the use nuclear weapons to do it.
"If you answer anything but no, we are done."
So you ask me a question and if you dont get an answer that is acceptable to you, you will mosey on. Do you have any idea how childish this postion is.
The answer is that it depends on the certain officials, some are very concerned with irans nuclear programme, while others who may have little interest in the two state solution would be concerned with saudi arabias efforts to heal the palestinian rift between hamas and fatah, which if healed would strenghten the palestinian position which would no longer be devided.
Other officials recognise that irans postion is to achive nuclear latency like japan and is therefore unlikely to ever launch an attack against israel therefore iran is not the major threat that it is sometimes made out to be. Otheres then would consider both to be a hinderence, again it all depends on the certain officials.
"why do you believe Saudi Arabia pursues less threatening policies than Iran?"
If saudi arabia did do such a thing it is because those in charge felt it was in their interests to do so while if iran pursued more hostile policies this would again be due to those in charge feeling that it was in their interests.
n7 is being a bit odd, "You either have to supports Israels existence or you have to support the genocide of the jews there and else where in the world that would not have any place to go"
1) Israel is a colonial state. I understand that colonialism is OK to n7, but SOME natives still could find it somehow objectable
2) Hitler had NOTHING against Zionist colony on Palestinian lands, and even helped a lot.
3) Jews are quite well outside of Israel and a lot of them has NO wish to became colonizers of Palestine. As a matter of fact, because of non-stop aggressions colonizer Jews are in greater risk.
In short, one could be against colonization and still do NOT want to kill not only colonizers (if they are clever enough to stop being colonizers), but even all their co-religionists in the world.
I suppose n7 could not see that he literally calls to genocide of Jews (providing Zionism is not viable). But I am not surprised - before he also called Zionist Jews in Palestine to commit suicide in case they could not be colonizers anymore. I doubt very much that the majority of Jews and even of Zionist Jews would be happy with such "defender" as n7. I, for ex, wish Zionists to come to their sense, stop being colonizers and start to make honest living.
Funny how DM is calling "censorship" a polite request to answer the questions for which the post was created. Given Arnold not clearing his blog from n7 declaring colonialism being preferred by colonized, it is a very strange "censorship", esp because n7 has a nice habit to copy-paste the whole sheets of Zionist racist propaganda, sometimes even multiple times.
The Haavara Transfer was designed to solve the main difficulty that the Nazis had in getting to get Jews out of Germany -- the Jews naturally wanted to take their money with them, but the Nazis couldn't allow them to because if they had it would have bankrupted Germany (which was desperately short of foreign currency for the entire period of Nazi rule).
The plan had German Jews pay into a fund in Berlin, for which they received certificates with a face value of 1000 Palestinian pounds (the amount required by Jewish immigrants to get a visa to immigrate into Palestine). The Zionists then used the Berlin fund to buy German goods, and received Palestinian pounds when they then sold those goods on to Jewish or Arab customers. This system solved the Nazis' financial problem by ensuring that the money taken out of the country by German Jews would be used to buy German products.
Lidia has no problems with imperialism as long as it is Soviet imperialism ;)
Yes, as I have pointed, Nazis were able to get something from their support for Zionist colonization and vice versa. The details could be interesting, but not so important.
GC, there was NOT "Soviet imperialism", ergo, I could not have or not have problems with something non-existent.
I have pointed before that SU was getting NO imperialist profits from its international relations with former colonies. USA, UK and other imperialists states had and still have much higher standard of living because of imperialist colonial and neocolonial robbery. Are you aware how much USA/UK "aid" cost not only Egypt but every other African state?
USSR got political support, it is true. But it is not imperialism, if it not includes basic condition of imperialism. You could read some good book on imperialism, even not the classic one by Lenin.
. J. A. Hobson could do.
I was brought up in a way which was opposite to imperialism and thus I could see imperialist lies while you see them as a common sense, till something or somebody prove it is not.
Yes, but it was an alliance of convenience, and ultimately the Nazis would have tried to slaughter the Jews in Palestine.
Hitler double-crossed every single country he signed a treaty with, except for Japan (and even that was because he never got the chance).
Dermot, could you explain to Lidia how the Soviet Union was imperialist, since she denies that Soviet imperialism existed at all?
GC, all colonialists's alliances are such. Not only Hitler double-crossed, UK and USA did the same. Anyway, Zionists were stupid too, but it is not the question. Hitler and Zionists helped each other, and Zionists do not like to be reminded of it.
I picked my own home region because I'm familiar with it, and I'm not sure that the fact that the UK coal industry was destroyed by Thatcher for political reasons (rather than ending due to the coal reserves being exhausted) is really so relevant.
What economic future do you see for a post-oil Arabian Peninsula?
including those who preferred return to pre-agriculture ways.
LOL! What lands were thinly populated enough that a return to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle would be feasible???
It's also why I'm sceptical that the conclusions of your "Edinburgh Review" paper translation would have any relevance in today's world, where population is four times greater than in the mid 19th century (and where most of the increase is in the formerly-colonial world -- White people were an anomalously large proportion of the world's population in the 19th century...)
Before LOLing on facts provided by me, remember, please, that there are still peoples living exactly in such conditions - in the places like cited by my source (i.e on the banks of giant rivers - in jungle). I would recommend you do not trust your imagination or lack thereof in serious matters.
Anyway, it is not critical. I just have answered to refute your mistaken "argument" your had made to support your assumption that without colonisators natives are going to starve.
Arabs somehow managed to live there before oil, so, if you do not think they are somehow less human and less clever than non-Arabs, I do not see reason to you worry about their future post-oil.
The problem is not oil or its end, but capitalism and imperialism, and it is not only in Arabian Peninsula.
Yes, but today's populations in the Arabian Peninsula are probably several times larger than they were in the pre-oil era.
For the post-oil era, they either they need some other product which they can trade for food (I don't see any possibilities though) or they need some way of growing enough food domestically to feed their population. Let's hope they get themselves some nuclear desalination plants in time, while they still have oil money to pay for them!
I'm thinking "what happens to the Gulf Arabs when the oil runs out"? You're the only person who mentioned "colonizers"...
it is nice of you to care so much about Arabs. I wonder, do you do the same about all other peoples? :)
I meant your posts about West-India. But Arabs in SA are not free from colonialism else. Arnold mentioned it many times. Without being ruled by puppets of USA, Arabs could use oil money more wisely. Of course, the very possibility of Arabs managing their oil by themselves was the reason USA has puppet rulers in SA.
Post a Comment