| Do You Now Believe Us? Foreign Policy Is Still The Issue |
|
|
| Tuesday, 09 October 2007 | |
 THE so-called war on terror has been a "disaster" and British military policy in Iraq and Afghanistan must be fundamentally changed if al-Qaeda is to be defeated, a report released today states.The report, by the Oxford Research Group think tank, calls for major changes in foreign policy and warns of the dangers of military action against Iran. Iraq has become a training ground for violent jihadists and British and US forces should withdraw from the country immediately, it adds. Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, will update MPs in the Commons this afternoon following his recent visit to Iraq, when he announced that 1,000 British troops could be back in the UK by Christmas. The latest report claims the current fight against international terrorism has failed and has instead played into the hands of al-Qaeda. The dismantling of the Taleban regime in Afghanistan in 2001-2 was of "direct value" to al-Qaeda and the extraordinary rendition and detention of terrorist suspects a "constant source of propaganda". The report, Towards Sustainable Security - Alternatives to the War on Terror, calls for a complete withdrawal from Iraq, a scaling-down of military operations in Afghanistan, and the ending of extraordinary rendition and detention without trial. The report's author, Paul Rogers, said: "Every aspect of the war on terror has been counterproductive in Iraq and Afghanistan, from the loss of civilian life through to mass detentions without trial. In short, it has been a disaster. Western countries simply have to face up to the dangerous mistakes of the past six years and recognise the need for new policies." He warned: "Going to war with Iran will make matters far worse, playing directly into the hands of extreme elements and adding greatly to the violence across the region. Whatever the problems with Iran, war should be avoided at all costs - the mistakes already made will be completely overshadowed by the consequences of a war with Iran." The Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, Michael Moore, said: "This hard-hitting report is a timely reminder of the flawed strategy of treating Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran as three fronts of the so-called war on terror. "The concept of the war on terror is now wholly discredited. It would be folly to continue trying to tackle violent extremism in the same manner. The government must pay heed and withdraw our troops from Iraq and reconsider our strategy for Afghanistan. Above all else it must make it clear that military action against Iran is a non-starter." However, Jim Devine, the Labour MP for Livingston and a long-standing opponent of the war in Iraq, said he believed a distinction should be made between that conflict and the war in Afghanistan. "My views would be different with reference to Afghanistan because the return of the Taleban would set the country back by 100 years, particularly in respect of the education and rights of women. "But I would agree that the war in Iraq has been a disaster and I have been opposed to it from the start. There was no serious thinking about how to handle the aftermath of the war and how to manage the consequences of Saddam's downfall." Lindsey German, the national convener for the Stop the War Coalition said: "I am not surprised that this report says the war has been a disaster. This is the view of nearly everybody who looks into this seriously. The latest statistics say there are four million refugees and more than a million civilian dead in Iraq. "The only people who don't seem to realise this war has been a disaster are the British and US governments. If you look at the opinion polls most people are strongly opposed to continuation of the war. Most recent opinion polls suggest they want the war to end within a year. "We believe the British government should act to withdraw troops by Christmas and we hope that is what Gordon Brown will announce tomorrow." A Foreign Office spokesman said: "We haven't seen this report and so we are not in a position to comment on it."           Readers have left 40 comments.
JWD:
Quote
Who started the Terror War? Al Qaeda when they took down the Twin Towers. You can't expect a zero response from The West. The Taleban refused to render Al Qaeda so the USA went in to get him.
I think that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been badly handled but the reasons for attempting them were sound. The implementation has been bad. Withdrawl and changes of policy won't work. The Genie is out of the bottle. Withdrawl emboldens the Global Jihad and acts as recruiting too. Al Qaeda won't give up on Palestine or Al Andalus. There will continue to be a War on Terror (better named War on Terrorists) because the Terrorists aren't going to stop. If they force Foreign Policy changes then they will be emboldened towards MORE Terror. The West will never stop supporting Israel becaus ethey know Israel has the means to drag the World into War if they are ever close to defeat. Major foreign policy won't change. What the article really means is change Military policy
(1)
2007-10-09 08:16:35
George:
Quote
"War on Terror" is a stupid misnomer - which shows how scared the West is (or how PC). The war is against "Islamism" (by which I mean a re-awakening Islam as a global socio-religio-political force and sense of identity - dormant for some time).
Whether the west defends itself or not, whether it pursues aggressive foreign policies or not is immaterial. And the more decadent the West becomes (morally, intellectually) the more Islam will advance. This is a battle of ideas, not just of armies. The West needs to re-establish its own sense of history and identity or it will lose both battles.
(2)
2007-10-09 09:20:11
Rob:
Quote
The terror war wa started in the muslim world when american trained-financed and backed terrorists from all over the world to go go and fight in afghanistan because the americans wanted revenge for vietnam.
alciada is a product of the americans and used whenever required on tap. if you talk baout the modern beginings of the terrorist it started with jewish terorists in palestine by gangs such as irgun and stern terror outfits. what is happening in iraq is nearly 350,000 foreign terrorists killing and oppressing the natives of iraq. the day muslims wake up and unite the west shall drop its support for israel at the drop of a hat. i think gordon brown is on the right track by pulling our forces out of iraq,why should we fight for other peoples interests.
(3)
2007-10-09 10:04:42
George:
Quote
Neither does the Islamic resurgence have anything whatsoever to do with 'Palestine'. That wound has been allowed to fester by Arab nations keen to have a stick with which to beat the West. Anyone who thinks that the advance of Islam either in ideas or violence is due to Israel's existence or occupation of Arab land is either stupid, wilfully ignorant or a deceiver. It is just used as an excuse for the furtherance of ideological aims.
(4)
2007-10-09 10:30:35
JWD:
Quote
The threats of terror can be any chosen reason to be upset.
In recent years we have had the comments by the Pope and Cartoons. Since we can be threatened for simply expressing our opinions under the norms of Western freedom it follows that simply by following a basic Liberal Judaeo-Christian ethic we will still be threatened. Its a house of cards. If Israel wasn't flavour of the month then they would find something else. According to Government responses we were already blackmailed that we face terrorism if we don't change Foreign Policy. That is the BEST reason NOT to change it. Support for Israel will never waiver because the West cannot afford to abandon it from a strategic point of view. Any destruction of Israel will result in a World War because Israel has nothing to lose by launching one if attacked. Hence, Israel will always be supported. Some will ask why we can't abandon Saudi Arabia, again its strategic. Its to protect Oil.
(5)
2007-10-09 11:42:40
Rob:
Quote
JWD by your own comments you are showing us that israel blackmails western nations into supporting it.
if they did not then israel would bring the whole world down by launcing a world war as they have nothing to lose. so we finally get to know the reason why aspiring PMs and Presidents have to go before jewish groups to swear to protect israel and its interests. thankyou for at least pointing that out to us. Back to the issue at hand even a moron knows,there is a reaction to every action,some is positive some is negative.
(6)
2007-10-09 12:11:14
George:
Quote
Rob: "there is a reaction to every action,some is positive some is negative."
This is a moral justification for anything. By the same token the US was justified in attacking the Taleban and Al-Qaeda after 9/11. (Don't start a chicken and egg conversation - it will go too far back in time) JWD is talking rubbish (strangely for him) - the west supports Israel because it is THE RIGHT THING TO DO(after having spent 1000 years doing the wrong thing by the Jews). And before you start - Western politics is based on the lobbying system. Democracy isn't perfect, but as Churchill said, it's the 'least worst' option. Theocracy (rule by religion) has to be the worst - don't you agree?
(7)
2007-10-09 12:54:07
JWD:
Quote
JWD by your own comments you are showing us that israel blackmails western nations into supporting it. — Robif they did not then israel would bring the whole world down by launcing a world war as they have nothing to lose. so we finally get to know the reason why aspiring PMs and Presidents have to go before jewish groups to swear to protect israel and its interests. thankyou for at least pointing that out to us. Back to the issue at hand even a moron knows,there is a reaction to every action,some is positive some is negative. First of all I concur with George that supporting Israel IS the right thing to do. My comment about taking the World into War if the destruction of Israel were to come about is NOT implying blackmail. Its the reality that the ONLY way Israel would be under threat is due to a nuclear strike. In that case Israel would be retaliating with nukes and so the World War would take off. That is why its importnat to make sure Iran cannot make a nuclear strike against Israel. Israel has a policy of not being the first to use nukes and has had opportunities to use them. Lets forward to what Galloway says about a strike on Iran. He repeated his policy at Qods Day. "If anyone strikes at Iran then an hour later the oil-fields will be in flames and oil will be $800 a barrel". Now THAT is blackmail. It just like the US senator who sai that the West should threaten Mecca should certain acions ensue. Blackmail is when you say "If you do X - we will do Y". It is NOT blackmail to forecast a likely consequence that is not a policy.
(8)
2007-10-09 13:09:15
JWD:
Quote
JWD by your own comments you are showing us that israel blackmails western nations into supporting it. — Robif they did not then israel would bring the whole world down by launcing a world war as they have nothing to lose. so we finally get to know the reason why aspiring PMs and Presidents have to go before jewish groups to swear to protect israel and its interests. thankyou for at least pointing that out to us. Back to the issue at hand even a moron knows,there is a reaction to every action,some is positive some is negative. Why do you make the libel that PM's and Presidents have to go before Jewish groups. Surely this is an Antisemitic canard undeserving to be published here. PM's and Presidents go before many different groups to explain their policies and express solidarity. Look at how many meeting the Government held with Muslim groups after 7/7. They met, they appointed advisory commissions but didn't mean they had to adopt any of the ideas.
(9)
2007-10-09 13:42:14
Rob:
Quote
So when someone else says it is blackmail but when you say it,it is a forecast.
still suffering from the chosen ones mentality are we,if you do it is ok but if i do it it is wrong. once again thankyou for letting us know the reason for israels hold on western nations. Back to the issue at hand iraq never attacked america or britain,so action and reaction does not apply to iraq. but the illegal attack which has resulted in hundreds of thousands of dead iraqi human beings will have a negative reaction.
(10)
2007-10-09 13:48:26
Rob:
Quote
Nice try JWD but it is not going to work,is aipac a hindu-buddhist-muslim or jewish organisation in america.
why do aspiring presidents go before this group and pledge to protect israel,is israel in america,for if it was i could understand a person saying when elected i shall defend israel or simialr statements. i have a email response from david camerons office as to why he went before a jewish group and called himself a zionist if it means protecting israel. muslims are voters and citizens of britain so i can understand if they say we shall look after the interests of muslims,but i would find it alarming if they said we shall protect iran-pakistan or egypt, for i would be thinking this person wishes to become the leader of britian yet he talks about protecting these nations,so why does he not just go to those countries and campaign to be their leader,as we need leaders who look after our interests not that of foreign nations.
(11)
2007-10-09 14:00:43
George:
Quote
The liberal (left) has been anti-US foreign policy, anti-army, -police, -government, anti-western, - capitalist, -israeli, -men, -semitic: anti-everything, for so long now that it's very hard for some people to get it out of their system. For a while after the end of the Cold War it seemed that some progress would be made in making the world a 'fairer' place: environmental issues, the no-global lot.
Then came 9/11. The same 'anti'-brigade have got their heads firmly buried under the sand and cannot see the threat to their own existence from Islamism. Why is it that Western feminists, for example, are silent on the plight of Pakistani women jailed under the barbarous Hudood laws ? Why doesn't MPAC, or Rob, ever mention this and a whole host of other monstrosities taht make the West Bank look like a garden party. Yes, the US may be a contradictory place and the West may have misplaced capitalist values. But, again, the answer is not a theocracy.
(12)
2007-10-09 14:03:08
Syed:
Quote
George, I don't think I've ever come across anyone who has fallen for the anti-Islamic rhetoric of the media as much as what you have.
I don't have the time to address all your misconceptions, but just quickly: 1) The Hudood law was abolished last year, and the Saudi legal system is about to be reformed - so you'll see that postive change is in occurring. 2) Just because a so-called Islamic state passes a law does not mean it is sanctioned/ordained by Islam. "The above clauses of Hudood law are the exact opposites of Quranic verses 24:4 and a number of hadith" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudood_ordinance Also, do you honestly believe that the establishment of a theocracy here in Britain is an actual threat? Even if the majority of British Muslims wanted a theocracy (which they don't), how would Muslims make that happen considering we only make up a few percent of the population? Do you have any Muslim friends or colleagues? Have you ever spoken to a Muslim in person? I'm guessing no. But considering the amount of rubbish the media spews out, I don't blame you for being an Islamophobe. However, if you ask questions with an open mind, Muslims will be happy to address any concerns you have. Salaams.
(13)
2007-10-09 14:28:19
Rob:
Quote
george i beleive in democracy and if people in diffrent nations vote in people who look after their own nations interest we should act as democrats and accept that.
we should treat others as we would like to be treated,if that was the case you will not find me criticising but applauding. women in iraq had more rights and freedoms under saddam then they do now under american occupation. as for pakistan it easy to condemn others but when we should look at ourselves before lambasting others,first we must correct our own defects then lecture others. lets keep to the topic at hand or this shall become a never ending cycle,actions always have reactions.
(14)
2007-10-09 14:35:06
JWD:
Quote
Nice try JWD but it is not going to work,is aipac a hindu-buddhist-muslim or jewish organisation in america. — Robwhy do aspiring presidents go before this group and pledge to protect israel,is israel in america,for if it was i could understand a person saying when elected i shall defend israel or simialr statements. i have a email response from david camerons office as to why he went before a jewish group and called himself a zionist if it means protecting israel. muslims are voters and citizens of britain so i can understand if they say we shall look after the interests of muslims,but i would find it alarming if they said we shall protect iran-pakistan or egypt, for i would be thinking this person wishes to become the leader of britian yet he talks about protecting these nations,so why does he not just go to those countries and campaign to be their leader,as we need leaders who look after our interests not that of foreign nations. Muslims are voters just like Sikhs, gay people, Jews and atheists are. The Muslim vote in the UK has hardly any effect on the outcome of an election (and neither does a Jewish vote). That is due to the demographics of where Muslims live and the limited influence on some constituencies to turn majorities in favour of the main parties. You SHOULD look after the interests of Muslims and MPAC UK try to do that. But it is a mistake to think you can change foreign policy by your vote and by your protests. You can measure this effect quite simply. If you were to suggest that UK Governments are Pro-Zionist, given that there are only just under 300,000 Jews in the UK compared with 1.6m Muslims (please correct me if I am wrong) then how come the Government isn't persuaded to NOT be Pro-Zionists. That shows that the reason is NOT because of any Jewish Lobby. It shows that there are other reasons. Those reasons are common morality and shared values.
(15)
2007-10-09 14:40:52
JWD:
Quote
JWD by your own comments you are showing us that israel blackmails western nations into supporting it. — Robif they did not then israel would bring the whole world down by launcing a world war as they have nothing to lose. so we finally get to know the reason why aspiring PMs and Presidents have to go before jewish groups to swear to protect israel and its interests. thankyou for at least pointing that out to us. Back to the issue at hand even a moron knows,there is a reaction to every action,some is positive some is negative. In answer to your point about prospective MP's and PM's having to go before Jewish groups (implying that the Israeli Lobby is powerful):- A load of rubbish. Look how successful the Israeli Lobby is in the USA and UK. Saudi Arabia: Record arms deal from USA and record fighter contracts for the UK. Support for the Islamic regimes of Pakistan, Egypt and Jordan. Yup, the Israeli Lobby sure is a success!!! Sometimes you have 'special friends' who think the same way you do, hold the same religious ethics, respect the same democratic principles and share teh same morak
(16)
2007-10-09 14:42:51
George:
Quote
Syed
As far as I know they Hudood Laws were NOT repealed last year. In fact there was very strong opposition from the Mullahs to the proposed changes and the plans had to be abandoned - you know the laws I'm talking about - four witnesses to a rape, if not the woman must be guilty of adultery (but you're not allowed to quote from the Koran here for fear it has been taken out of context [BS]). Point taken about the imminent threat of a theocracy being introduced here. But that's not for the lack of trying by some organisations - and if the West continues to collapse into its own iniquity then how long before a theocracy looks attractive? As for my Muslim friends and in-laws I don't think I need to say anything more. As for the media - I agree with you - they spew rubbish. It ranges from the scare-mongering of a Melanie Phillips to the Islam-is-Peace nonsense from commentators and politicians, and the deliberately deceptive snakes like Bunglawallah and Ibrahim Mogra. I'm phobic (fearful) of Western liberals' stupidity not Islam or Muslims. And fearful of the hate-mongerers.
(17)
2007-10-09 14:57:31
shan:
Quote
george i doubt very much that you have muslim friends or as you imply are marrid to a muslim women.
this is the lamest excuse used when islamophobes are challenged,the same can apply to racists,when they say i am not a racist i have black friends. the laws is if a person claims to have been raped,there should be forensic evidence or witnesses or the culprit admitting his guilt. here in britian around 50,000 women are raped every year and the conviction rate is less then 10 per cent so what will you be doing to stop the injustice to fellow british citizens,not much by your islampohobic comments as you have a one track hatred of islam.
(18)
2007-10-09 15:14:49
Rob:
Quote
JWD nice example you gave to once again prove that we do not care about democracy but will support anyone who does our bidding.
saudi dictatorship-pakistan dictatorship-egypt dicatorship-jordan dictatorship, i am sure you did not want to prove that our governments are hypocrits as they talk democracy but help arm and support dictators. these tinpot dictators do americas biddding in keeping their own people down,what a fine example to give.
(19)
2007-10-09 15:20:05
George:
Quote
Shan - you are right. being married to a Muslim woman is no guarantee of being hate-free. However, i was asked if I had any acquaitances...rather than having my point dealt with.
Are you sure that all is needed for a rape conviction in Pakistan is forensic evidence???????? I think not. Or is that you don't like any criticism of Pakistan? And whatever the failure rate in rape convictions in this country (lamenatble) doesn't make the Hudood laws right, does it? Or do two wrongs make a right in your book? Can you point to an Islamophobic comment that I have made? Or is all criticism considered as such? this discussion was about US foreign policy. As usual it has drifted off topic (partly my fault).
(20)
2007-10-09 15:33:17
Syed:
Quote
As far as I know they Hudood Laws were NOT repealed last year. — George(but you're not allowed to quote from the Koran here for fear it has been taken out of context [BS]). — GeorgeThe woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication - flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the believers witness their punishment. [24:2] And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations) - flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors; [24:4] And for those who launch a charge against their spouses, and have (in support) no evidence but their own, their solitary evidence (can be received) if they bear witness four times (with an oath) by Allah that they are solemnly telling the truth; [24:6] But it would avert the punishment from the wife, if she bears witness four times (with an oath) By Allah, that (her husband) is telling a lie; [24:8] So you see, these verses are in regard to adultery and fornication, not rape. However, even in rape cases, a woman does not need 4 witnesses of the actual act, but rather 4 character witnesses to testify that she is telling the truth and/or the rapist is lying.
(21)
2007-10-09 15:51:55
Shan-Birmingham:
Quote
The debate was in regard to foreign policy yet your bias got the better of you by bringing in pakistan and womems rights and calling members of the muslim commuity deceptive snakes is a inkling to your real feeling for islam.
your comments potray you to be a islamophobe, whether you are one or not is another thing. yes in pakistan forensic evidence is used in line with suspect admitting guilt and witnesses,here in the u.k we have laws which reuqire similar burden of proof,the number of witnesses is debatable between two and four. i wish you had the same kind of fervour to help fellow british citizens then worry about women of pakistan. democracy means by the people for the people,it does not mean as i tell you and how you comply, nations have the right to make laws in their own countries just like we have that right.
(23)
2007-10-09 16:08:20
Paul M:
Quote
The Moderator suggests we stick to the topic, so here is my view of the foreign policy issue.
The Muslim world throws up a lot of revolting regimes of many different varities, from those that stop women driving and chop off limbs (Saudi Arabia) to those who hang gays in the streets (Iran) to those who commit genocide on their own populations, Christian and Muslim (Sudan). Why is this? It is a long complicated answer. But I think it is a big mistake to blame Islam. Islam is a great religion and once created a great civilisation. It may well be that it will be the basis for a great revival in the future. Whatever the reason, the reaction of Islamicists is always the same. If the West treats with these regimes, (e.g. Sadam pre Kuwait), it is accused of creating them (as if Baathism was dreamt up in the Oxford philosophy department). If it boycotts them (e.g. Sadam post Kuwait, pre- Gulf War II) it is accused of genocide because of the impact on the population. And if it tries to remove them, then it is told to change its foreign policy or its people will get blown up. There is a big problem in the Islamic world which only the Muslims can fix (which is why I opposed the Iraq war and do not think you can impose democracy from the outside). But as long as they carry on endlessly playing the victim and whining about Israel the Muslims will get nowhere, despite their vast spaces, populations, heritage and oil wealth.
(24)
2007-10-09 16:17:46
George:
Quote
Blaming US foreign policy for the increase in violence committed in the name of religion (rather than blaming it on some of the tenets of that religion or its followers) IS deception.
(25)
2007-10-09 16:23:07
Rob-Birmingham:
Quote
Paulm and George ACTIONS HAVE REACTIONS-if you do not like muslims fighting against occupation then end occupation end reaction.
it really is a simple as that but since your thinking is so biased and clouded you are unable to see past your hate filled reasoning.
(26)
2007-10-09 16:57:11
Paul M:
Quote
But Rob - answer my point.
If we treat / deal with regimes, it's our fault the regimes are hideous and we are blamed for creating them. If we boycott, we are responsible for genocide. If we invade, we get blown up. How about Muslims actually figuring out how to create democratic, accountable regimes in the Islamic world which respect the human rights of their citizens? Certainly it should be done in an Islamic way, and from the inside, but how about taking some responsibility?
(27)
2007-10-09 18:13:38
RSD:
Quote
There can be no doubt that the extrication of US & UK forces from Iraq will be difficult. Equally once they are out there can be little doubt that the post-mortems will condemn the Iraq war as a pointless and costly adventure at best. But there are a number of scenarios which could follow;
1. The US, and perhaps UK, become more isolationist and wholly unwilling to commit troops to any international action including peace-keeping. This would have serious implications as the US & UK forces have amply demonstrated that they are the best amongst international forces and have been at the forefront of effective peace-keeping. 2. The US could regard infantry based actions as being politically unacceptable and develop strategies which use air and naval power to strike hard into areas where they see threats developing. Due to the relative low cost this might encourage the US to act even more aggressively. 3. The US could deply aggressively its capacity to apply sanctions to nations it considers a "major" threat and compel other nations to cooperate with these with the threat of exclusion from the US market. This the US did against Vietnam after the war. 4. The greatest danger is that isolationists in the US actively disengage from the UN, and withhold funds from it. This may be done as punishment for those countries that opposed the US and in response to what the US sees as the corruption and ineffectiveness of the UN. US disengagement would cause the UN to collapse very quickly. There will be those that gloat as the US & UK are forced to withdraw from Iraq and will momentarily celebrate. But before anyone starts handing out the sweets I would suggest that they look at Gaza where the Israelis were "driven out" by Hamas. Whatever happens the ordinary Iraqis, who want nothing better than to get on with their lives, will be the ones who will pay the final price for the actions of US, UK, Iran, Syria and the various members of the UN.
(28)
2007-10-09 20:03:16
Rob:
Quote
Saddam was a stooge who did the bidding of foreign powers,when he tried to go his own way,he was whacked like the mafia does.
the point to consider is when nations of the world elect people who care for the interests of their own nations,why do certain nations attempt to overthrow those democratically elected governments. certain western governments talk democracy but in reality want stooges to do as they are told. the negativety shown towards certain western nations is due to our double standards-hypocrisy and patrionising behaviour. I think the biggest test of sincerety would be when the godfathers of so called democracy made a pledge to never deal with any dictator whatever the compulsion and to never attempt to overthrow or destabilise nations who elect leaders we do not like because of their policies,then people would have nothing to comeback at us. Finally Actions have Reactions.
(29)
2007-10-10 10:22:27
Paul M:
Quote
Actions have reactions. So the Palestinians are entitled to elect a party whose charter blames the Jews for everything from the French revolution to the First World War, and the rest of the world is entitled to give such a government the cold shoulder. They are entitled to elect a government calling for Israel's destruction and they should expect Israel at least to turn off the lights (which it has not).
Does never dealing with dictators mean we cannot trade with their countries? Then we are in the 1991-2003 world of Iraq when the likes of Rob accused the West of committing genocide against the Iraqi people for not supplying them with enough Western-made drugs (a really novel interpretation of genocide, by the way). And don't say 'you can trade but not deal with the dictators' since, in control economies like Baathist Iraq, this is not an option. The ghastliness of the regimes in the Arab world (and much, but not all, of the Muslim world beyond) puts the West in a quandry. Instead of taking the 'Do-as-we-say-or-we-blow-you-up' line, Muslims would do much better to do one of two things: 1. Help the Islamic world think through how it can fix its own problems 2. Focus on how the Muslim community, with the Light of Islam, can contribute to this country The endless posing as a victim with the undertones (and often overtones) of menace, and the utter fixation on Israel, is deeply disempowering to Muslims who should have so much to offer
(30)
2007-10-10 11:00:26
JWD:
Quote
Actions have reactions. So the Palestinians are entitled to elect a party whose charter blames the Jews for everything from the French revolution to the First World War, and the rest of the world is entitled to give such a government the cold shoulder. They are entitled to elect a government calling for Israel's destruction and they should expect Israel at least to turn off the lights (which it has not). — Paul MDoes never dealing with dictators mean we cannot trade with their countries? Then we are in the 1991-2003 world of Iraq when the likes of Rob accused the West of committing genocide against the Iraqi people for not supplying them with enough Western-made drugs (a really novel interpretation of genocide, by the way). And don't say 'you can trade but not deal with the dictators' since, in control economies like Baathist Iraq, this is not an option. The ghastliness of the regimes in the Arab world (and much, but not all, of the Muslim world beyond) puts the West in a quandry. Instead of taking the 'Do-as-we-say-or-we-blow-you-up' line, Muslims would do much better to do one of two things: 1. Help the Islamic world think through how it can fix its own problems 2. Focus on how the Muslim community, with the Light of Islam, can contribute to this country The endless posing as a victim with the undertones (and often overtones) of menace, and the utter fixation on Israel, is deeply disempowering to Muslims who should have so much to offer Hitler blamed the Jews to unite people to a common cause. Arab governments divert people away from their regimes by turning their focus towards Israel (and Jews as judged by the hate literature from Arab countries). This is done to make them forget how bad their own governments are or how poor they are compared to their leaders. Suaid Arabia is an example. I guess they might give the Palestinians money but it ends up in arms and not food and infrastructure.
(31)
2007-10-10 12:03:09
Rob:
Quote
The only thing blamed on the jews in palestine is the slaughter-theft and daily humailtion they suffer at the hands of jewish soldeirs.
i am sure the palestinians will wellcome all occupiers to leave peacefully if they chose to. but when occupiers do not leave how do you end occupation,if zionist jews do not like being criticised for their actions then they should not carry out those acts in the first place. if you do not like being called occupiers and oppressers then do not occupy and oppress.
(32)
2007-10-10 16:01:53
Paul M:
Quote
I hate to turn this into another Is /Pal debate, because my contention is that Muslims should be looking a little more widely.
But Rob leaves me no option. Israel pulled all its settlers out of Gaza and back to the international border. Now for sure the withdrawal was not complete because Israel continued to monitor the skies and seas (although not control the Egyptian border) and remained in the West Bank (although with Kadima openly pledged to pulling out of most it unconditionally). What did the Palestinians do? 1. Start to build their economy and society and press through the international community for faster Israeli withdrawal? 2. Elect a government pledged to destroy Israel, provoke Israel daily by Qassam attacks and scupper the Israeli plan to pull out of most of the West Bank, then proceed to have a brutal civil war? Of course Sharon's motive were not pure and Israel is not faultless, but the Palestinians were handed a great opportunity to put Israel in a position where it had no choice but to continue pulling back. Instead they fluffed it. The fact is, the Palestinians are really terrified of an Israeli withdrawal because we have seen what it leads to in Gaza, i.e. civil war, and have done all they can to prevent it in the West Bank. Meanwhile, they can pretty much do what they like to each other (e.g. throw each other off buildings, continue to rob their own people by spending massive international aid on their own weapons and Swiss bank accounts) safe in the knowledge that the Robs and the MPACs and the Clare Shorts of this world will not treat them like adults but will blame it all on Israel whatever happens and whatever the Israelis do. My contention is that a key part of the Palestinians growing up is for their supporters to grow up. Think about it carefully, Rob.
(33)
2007-10-10 17:13:29
JWD:
Quote
I hate to turn this into another Is /Pal debate, because my contention is that Muslims should be looking a little more widely. — Paul MBut Rob leaves me no option. Israel pulled all its settlers out of Gaza and back to the international border. Now for sure the withdrawal was not complete because Israel continued to monitor the skies and seas (although not control the Egyptian border) and remained in the West Bank (although with Kadima openly pledged to pulling out of most it unconditionally). What did the Palestinians do? 1. Start to build their economy and society and press through the international community for faster Israeli withdrawal? 2. Elect a government pledged to destroy Israel, provoke Israel daily by Qassam attacks and scupper the Israeli plan to pull out of most of the West Bank, then proceed to have a brutal civil war? Of course Sharon's motive were not pure and Israel is not faultless, but the Palestinians were handed a great opportunity to put Israel in a position where it had no choice but to continue pulling back. Instead they fluffed it. The fact is, the Palestinians are really terrified of an Israeli withdrawal because we have seen what it leads to in Gaza, i.e. civil war, and have done all they can to prevent it in the West Bank. Meanwhile, they can pretty much do what they like to each other (e.g. throw each other off buildings, continue to rob their own people by spending massive international aid on their own weapons and Swiss bank accounts) safe in the knowledge that the Robs and the MPACs and the Clare Shorts of this world will not treat them like adults but will blame it all on Israel whatever happens and whatever the Israelis do. My contention is that a key part of the Palestinians growing up is for their supporters to grow up. Think about it carefully, Rob. Paul M is definitely the Star of this website. Telling it like it is without the Yah-Boo exchanges. A lesson I would do well to learn. Israel left the Gazans the hi-tec greenhouses but they didn't know how to use them. Preferred to trash them. Abbas negotiated massive Gaza investment, which went away when Hamas started firing rockets and precipitated the Civil War. PHCR accuses both Fatah and Hamas of human rights violations against each other in Gaza. That is what you get when you hand Palestinians their territory. They fight over it amongst themselves and destroy it. The greatest gift the West could give Israel is to help make a Palestinian State ASAP. Watch it crumble and hear all the "Told you so!". But its THEIR State and they can trash it if they like I suppose. When will Palestinians take responsibility for their failures instead of blaming everyone esle?
(34)
2007-10-10 22:13:00
Rob:
Quote
paulm read carefully the people of the world are not stupid that they do not know what is happening in palestine.
gaza was turned into a large prison controlled by israel,food-water and electricity was all dependent on israels whims and this included customs duties due to the palestinians authority. the israelis went on hunting trips whenever they felt like killing palestinians,the excuse would be we suspected he wanted to attack israel so dropped a bomb or missile on him and if a few innocents died pot luck. these qassam rockets were fired after israel attacked gaza,these were reactions to actions,the hamas movement went as far as to offer israel a ceasefire for 15 or 20 years if i remember right. the israelis rejected this so who is deceitful can be seen from this,having a israeli stooge dahlan working to wreck the palestinian government in league with america and israel,is hardly proof of how the palestinians will rule themselves. when occupation has ended after a few decades we will be able to judge whether they can govern themselves them or not. you have given us one further proof that the chosen ones think only they can govern,the chosen ones motto is by deceit thou shall wage war,a most apt name befitting their attitude to others.
(35)
2007-10-11 12:08:12
RSD:
Quote
Rob, Hamas allegedly offered Israel a 10 - 15 year Hudna as a sole token in return for an end to the occupation, continuing Israel support for Palestinian trade and tax collection. For the Israelis this was insufficient for two reasons. Firstly the Israelis want a permanent peace, not the promise of a cease-fire for 10 years, and that has been their position since 1968. Secondly they have grounds to doubt Hamas' ability to deliver even on a cease-fire.
Hamas knew even before it suggested the Hudna that Israel would reject it, and therefore they had nothing to lose by making the statement and everything to gain. Hamas lacks the basic organisational capacity to deliver up a stable Palestine, it like Fatah is riven with corruption. We tend to forget that by the end of the first Intifadeh that Hamas had killed far more Palestinians than the IDF. What Palestine and the Palestinians need is first an open debate about the future, next a political system where political parties outside of Hamas or PLO/Fatah may exist, and then commitment to the creation of the machinery of real government for the people. To achieve this they need our support and our honesty. Let us not forget that before all the violence by Fatah and Hamas against Israeli targets that about 150,000 Palestinians worked in Israel, could freely move back and forth across the Green Line and had the overall highest standard of living and education in the Arab world. Now they are among the poorest. This current strategy of violence and the cult of death has brought nothing but misery. It is time to end it and use a different approach.
(36)
2007-10-11 19:34:53
JWD:
Quote
paulm read carefully the people of the world are not stupid that they do not know what is happening in palestine. — Robgaza was turned into a large prison controlled by israel,food-water and electricity was all dependent on israels whims and this included customs duties due to the palestinians authority. the israelis went on hunting trips whenever they felt like killing palestinians,the excuse would be we suspected he wanted to attack israel so dropped a bomb or missile on him and if a few innocents died pot luck. these qassam rockets were fired after israel attacked gaza,these were reactions to actions,the hamas movement went as far as to offer israel a ceasefire for 15 or 20 years if i remember right. the israelis rejected this so who is deceitful can be seen from this,having a israeli stooge dahlan working to wreck the palestinian government in league with america and israel,is hardly proof of how the palestinians will rule themselves. when occupation has ended after a few decades we will be able to judge whether they can govern themselves them or not. you have given us one further proof that the chosen ones think only they can govern,the chosen ones motto is by deceit thou shall wage war,a most apt name befitting their attitude to others. The people of the World do indeed know what's happening. That is why they aren't saying much when Israel responds to Qassam fire and takes out the Terrorists who fire them and make them. The World knows that a Hamas that continually fires on Israel isn't a partner for peace but an organisation that needs to be destroyed. If ONLY Israel had undertaken proportional responses to Qassam fire and fired one rocket back for each one fired by Hamas. Who would object to this proportionality? I know the Gaza mantra is "biggest prison on Earth" but its just a mantra and not reality. Arms get smuggled in, food arrives, electricty flows, people are in the markets. Perhaps Palestinians could ask their Arab brothers in Egypt to take down the fence and let them move around in Egypt much more freely. The truth is that the Egyptians don't want the Gazans. Why do they want to invite Terrorism onto their pitch? Remember Palestinian Human Rights Council has just condemned Hamas and Fatah for human rights violations between each other. What is it about Israel that made them throw each other off buildings or go into hospitals to kill patients? And YOU think the World DOESN'T understand these people?
(37)
2007-10-12 08:09:47
Rob:
Quote
JWD the world knows if there was no occupation there would be no resistance.
the end of occuaption in palestine will end resistance in palestine,the simple thing is if you wish to end resistance end occupation. RSD that the old mantra we have no one to negotiate with is old news,the palestinians did not send out invitation for them to be occupied and kicked out of their homes and lands. the proof is in the pudding,the day when occupation has ended in totallity then we can comment on the honesty of their statements.
(38)
2007-10-12 11:36:25
JWD:
Quote
JWD the world knows if there was no occupation there would be no resistance. — Robthe end of occuaption in palestine will end resistance in palestine,the simple thing is if you wish to end resistance end occupation. RSD that the old mantra we have no one to negotiate with is old news,the palestinians did not send out invitation for them to be occupied and kicked out of their homes and lands. the proof is in the pudding,the day when occupation has ended in totallity then we can comment on the honesty of their statements. Resistance is dumb when you can get what you want without killing and being killed. How many peace deals have the Palestinians rejected? Why did they sign The Roadmap, which gives them a state without the need for violemce and then immdiately break it? Why are you fighting Israel while seeking peace? If there was never a suicide bomber, terrorist shooting or rockets fired at Israel then there would be no need for an Israeli response. There is "Occupation" because The Arabs tried to destroy Israel in 1948 and 1967 and devastatingly failed. What if Israel had said "We aren't giving Egypt and Jordan back, you're defeated and there is no chance you can take it from us" - but they didn't. They offered peace for a land negotiation. Egypt and Jordan accepted, dumped the Palestinians and then the Palestinians refused the same deal. So, Palestinians and Arabs DID invite their own disater by starting wars they lost. Well, losers don't get the best deal in the end and the Palestinians should get used to that. They will get less now than they had offered at Camp David.
(39)
2007-10-12 19:59:57
Rob:
Quote
Hitler said the third reich would last a thousand years but we cannot see it any where today.
palestinians will not be losers for ever and it is best for all concerned of stolen homes and lands are returned for theives will be theives no matter what the excuses made for their theft. if a theif breaks into someones home the homeowner has the right to defend himself using the means at his disposal,in law he is not the criminal but the theif. no occuaption no resistance all decent people with common sense realise this.
(40)
2007-10-15 10:12:52
|
Search MPACUK.org
Latest Discussions
Recommended Books
