|
Post by doctork on Nov 25, 2006 13:30:08 GMT -5
OK - here's the new thread.
I will see if I can bring the relevant posts from "Foley and such" over here also.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Nov 25, 2006 13:40:25 GMT -5
I had no luck with moving the posts in a readable format. So if someone smarter than I can move posts #122 forward from the "Foley" site to this one, feel free to do so.
Meanwhile - about Russia supplying missiles to Iran, Putin being publicly shocked - shocked that the West would accuse him of assassinating the spy in London, and imperialism ascribed dually to both Russia and the US-UK axis:
Russia has been seeking access to the Persian Gulf for decades; this was a motive behind the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, which attempt was abandoned in 1989. Although if you take a look at the map, that fell a bit short. They would still need to drive on through either Pakistan or Iran.
Perhaps now, Putin seeks such access by proxy-puppet in Iran.
|
|
rmn
Sleepy Member
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on Nov 25, 2006 13:53:01 GMT -5
At least you attempted to bring those posts over, Doc K. I knew it would be an excise in futility (for me) before even trying.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Nov 25, 2006 14:59:23 GMT -5
Here's rmn's first post on the topic (originally #122 on "Foley"). //Awoke this morning to hear that Putin is accusing the West of politicizing Alexander Litvinenko's death in the UK. The ex-spy wrote a scathing letter on his death bed, accusing Putin of murder. Putin's response could just as easily been Brezhnev’s or, for that matter, Khrushchev’s. Couple this with the planned shipment of Russian missiles to Iran. Why in the world would Putin allow this? No one gains with greater instability in that neck of the woods. So. Bring in Baker? Kissinger? Rove? The new Democratic Congress? I'm afraid we're in a bind, folks. R//
|
|
|
Post by joew on Nov 25, 2006 15:02:45 GMT -5
gailkate replied: //Sobering, isn't it? I don't think I even knew about the missiles to Iran. I've definitely slowed down on the news since the election - other things keeping me busy and a need to reorient myself to a less intense world. But the truth is, our world is intense and it ain't all about us. I interrupt myself for this announcement. RMN, this is a new thread. Can you move your comment to a new thread so people will know what you've started here?//
|
|
|
Post by joew on Nov 25, 2006 15:04:29 GMT -5
rmn responded: //Hey there, Gailkate. Hope you're well. I don't know if this is a new thread. Methinks that the latest news falls under the "such" portion of the existing thread. There's been a theme throughout suggesting that many woes befalling America and her allies could be mitigated through a strong, moral, and just leadership, particularly in the U.S. Executive Branch. I'm not giving up hope. We'll have to see how this new congress operates. It's all about 2008, folks.//
|
|
|
Post by joew on Nov 25, 2006 15:06:05 GMT -5
I replied: //One part of the problem is that a lot of the people in control in Russia still think that the United States is out to get them. They see every bit of support we give the other former soviet republics as being aimed against them. And it looks to me as if they are taking the attitude, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," and want to stir up as much trouble for us as they can.//
|
|
|
Post by joew on Nov 25, 2006 15:07:30 GMT -5
Next I posted the following: //In my previous post, I was thinking about the following e-mail, which a friend forwarded to me several weeks ago. It looks like an excerpt from a discussion with one participant, above the broken line, referring to what is below the line. The stuff below the line is apparently the part by "Valentin," and it looks as if both are referring to an interview Putin gave. What is scary is that these are "experts" who seem to be Russians. // Reply-To: Untimely_Thoughts_An_Expert_Discussion_Group_on_Russia@googlegroups.com Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:38:31 +0100 To: "'Untimely_Thoughts_An_Expert_Discussion_Group_on_Russia@googlegroups.com'" <Untimely_Thoughts_An_Expert_Discussion_Group_on_Russia@googlegroups.com> Subject: [UTExpertsDiscGrp] Russian Enlightenment I would like to raise the issue of Russia being "the true heir of European Enlightenment", as pointed out by Valentin in his quote below. Personally, I have increasingly been thinking along similar lines. The point is that the West has become lazy (ultra-protectionist - actually, literally too fat), stale and has no new ideas to offer other than "more of the same", along with patronizing lecturing to the emerging "sovereign democracies" such as Russia and (increasingly) China. The "sovereign modernisers" who have taken over since Putin has arrived need to come up with novel ideas and solutions, because they are confronting - and must solve - real and very tough problems (developing a market economy and democracy from scratch) - unlike the Western elites, which have basically run out of fresh ideas and have nothing to offer on anything and are paralysed by fear. (Where are the much needed structural reforms of Germany, France, Italy and, indeed, of the European Union's institutions?) Furthermore, the West (especially the US-UK axis) remains thoroughly imperialist, while being driven by a messianic (supposedly democratic) ideology under the guise of the war on the axis of evil, while Russia has become imperialism and ideology averse (having seen where imperialism has brought it, it has become sick of it) . Interpreting the Georgian or Ukrainian imbroglios through the "neo-imperialist template" would be foolish - Russia is merely defending itself from covert Washington agression: for starters, why do these countries need to be in NATO, rather than in the EU?. Putin comes across as very level headed and much more intelligent and informed than (most of) his Western peers (especially Bush) because he has been "selected" by his tough environment to solve a particularly difficult problem - namely, how to stabilise post-communist/post-imperial Russia, while keeping it together (especially in the face of continued Western hostility and scheeming by retired cold-war warriors in league with emigre Russian oligarchy). I would like to know of any contemporary Western leader capable of successfully handling such a brief. It is telling thatin the same interview (to which Valentin refers) Putin says he does not consider himself to be a politician - imagine any Western politician daring to say such a thing. (Some autocrat). The bottom line: the communist Russia was the modern equivalent of the "barbarians at the gates" - Putin's "sovereign Russia" challenges the West by being more enlightened - ie, having fresh ideas and approaches - than the West. ------------------ This is vintage Putin: intellectually sharp, substantive, infinitely patient, eloquent, vernacular, unmistakingly Soviet Russian cultural type and Russian European at his best. What a difference with the cold, calculating, fork-tongued West Europeans and the intimidating, shrill rhetoric of Washington! You can accuse me of being prejudiced, but Russians do remain the only true heirs of European Enlightenment! Oh, Fedor Mikhailovich, how right you were! // (I think Fedor Mikhailovich is Dostoevsky.) —joeW//
|
|
|
Post by joew on Nov 25, 2006 15:09:09 GMT -5
gailkate replied: //Good morning, RMN and Joe. I'm well, thanks, looking forward to another sunny and mild day. I agree about the &such, but some people might not be drawn to a thread that seems to be focused on Foley. You've made the point that it is easier to navigate when they're aren't too many categories, and I agree. What can we do to maintain simplicity but make it a bit more precise? Categories such as most newspapers use - National, International,etc? During the Michael Jackson trial we had a long thread going that I often skipped. Gossip column items can be entertaining but not everyone wants to wade through it to get to something else in a hodge-podge of "current events." Anyway, Joe, you may be right that the missiles to Iran are a way to stir up trouble against us. But maybe they're also a way to defend against the leader whose failings RMN alludes to. Were he strong, moral and just, they might be less likely to prepare for some half-baked "preemptive" measure. Not that I have any confidence in Putin. I think he's a dressed up thug. //
|
|
|
Post by joew on Nov 25, 2006 15:12:23 GMT -5
I responded: //In general, I think a new thread for a new topic is the way to go. When people tire of it, it moves down the page as people post to other things. I hope folks will at least glance at this because it's in the current events section and has new replies being posted. (If not, maybe we can make a new thread called something like "Russia and Iran" and copy and paste from here over there.)//
gailkate replied: //I do, too, Joe. Especially as you added the foregoing knock-out conversation, which I'm going to need to read more attentively. I wonder is there's a way to research more about where this came from.//
|
|
|
Post by joew on Nov 25, 2006 15:14:40 GMT -5
rmn concluded the discussion on that thread with this" //Scary stuff, Joe. It's more than evident that the US-Russian relationship is on thin ice. Nonetheless, Putin is on his way to exacerbating an already foul-smelling situation. He must know that Israel will be on an ultra war footing the moment Russian missiles arrive in Iran. One would certainly look for Putin to find another way to stroke his geopolitical interests. Hey wait, that's where Barry Goldwater-style diplomacy comes in. Or JFK-style diplomacy, if you're looking for a more hardcore approach to matters of foreign policy. Well, what do we do in the interim? Moe Howard has two years remaining in Washington. Sigh. What do you think about John Edwards? John McCain? Gailkate or Joe: Please feel free to take the past several posts to a new thread. That sounds like the thing to do. RMN//
And now, we have the preliminaries right here, and we can proceed.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Nov 25, 2006 15:19:37 GMT -5
Rmn — I agree that we need skillful diplomacy (by which I mean all measures short of war). I didn't see enough of Edwards to form the opinion that he is up to it. But I think McCain could handle the situation. The Democrat I'd feel best about is Joe Biden. He seems to see the international situation fairly clearly.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Nov 25, 2006 15:45:43 GMT -5
Joe, thank you for transferring the other posts.
Now, scarier still: Consider that Valentin and his fellow Russian expert may not be wrong. The west has gotten fat and lazy, and it is not so hard to see why many would consider almost any leader smarter than George Bush.
I believe many elements of the "US-UK axis" are in pursuit of empire; "messianic" pursuit of empire applies to GWB only in my opinion, as I have previously voiced concern about his foreign policy governed by Biblical prophesy.
If one adopts (even temporarily for the sake of argument) that viewpoint, then the USSR was the only entity standing in the way of Western global empire. Since its demise, one could argue that the west has enjoyed unopposed pursuit of global empire.
Biden does seem to have a good grasp of international affairs, and quite possibly Richard Lugar (on the R side). I would like to see diminished concern with "empire" and greater concern with the real problems facing us today - extreme poverty, epidemic disease, illiteracy, global environmental destruction, among others.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Nov 25, 2006 16:05:18 GMT -5
… Now, scarier still: Consider that Valentin and his fellow Russian expert may not be wrong. The west has gotten fat and lazy, and it is not so hard to see why many would consider almost any leader smarter than George Bush. I believe many elements of the "US-UK axis" are in pursuit of empire; "messianic" pursuit of empire applies to GWB only in my opinion, as I have previously voiced concern about his foreign policy governed by Biblical prophesy. If one adopts (even temporarily for the sake of argument) that viewpoint, then the USSR was the only entity standing in the way of Western global empire. Since its demise, one could argue that the west has enjoyed unopposed pursuit of global empire. Biden does seem to have a good grasp of international affairs, and quite possibly Richard Lugar (on the R side). I would like to see diminished concern with "empire" and greater concern with the real problems facing us today - extreme poverty, epidemic disease, illiteracy, global environmental destruction, among others. Well, yes, if one accepts as a premise that the U.S. (& U.K.) are in pursuit of empire, then there is a certain validity to their underlying comcern. But the obvious first question is whether the premise is valid. There is, I think, a difference between seeking an empire and seeking to have other countries well-disposed toward us. I see our foreign policy as the latter. Then there is the fact that with the rise of al-Qaeda, we are hardly unopposed. The problems you mention are definitely worth acting on, but so are acts of terrorism and the threat of nuclear proliferation to rogue states. I don't see it as either-or. We have to try to deal with all of them.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Nov 25, 2006 16:05:45 GMT -5
And I agree about Lugar.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Nov 26, 2006 15:55:29 GMT -5
//I wonder is there's a way to research more about where this came from.// — gailkate
I googled "Untimely_Thoughts_An_Expert_Discussion_Group_on_Russia" and got a location with the following:
//You cannot view or post messages because you are not currently a member. Members must be approved before joining. Description: The Russia Experts Discussion Group is a community of those interested in Russia and related issues.
You must be signed in and a member of this group to read its archive.//
An interesting coincidence (?): it was our fear that Iran was going to align with the Soviet Union that led the CIA to engineer the coup which displaced Mossadeq and put the shah in control. Now Russia is cozying up to the people who toppled the shah.
Things could have been very different if the West had not become "fat and lazy" and hedonistic. The West in the days before the"sexual revolution" could have been a natural friend of the Islamic world.
– modified to get my comment on topic out of the middle of what I found on Google
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Nov 26, 2006 18:59:09 GMT -5
The west may have gotten fat and lazy, but my sparse reading on Russia and its struggle to build a post-communist government and economy has not revealed "fresh ideas." Crime, graft, corruption and brutal trteatment of ethnic minorities. Putin sure isn't a Gorbachev and I'm not even sure he's a Yeltsin. I feel very uninformed to be making these comments - would that our Sergey were here to blast us all with his Russian perspective. Still, I think Valentin is as warped and biased as our neocons.
Where really can empire-building fit in the 21st Century? It's hard for me to see nations fighting for world domination in the sense that Germany and Japan did or the old Soviets did as they marched over all the little countries that became part of their "Union." Still, as Dr.K points out, oil continues to be a motive for overpowering countries, just as ports and natural resources have always motivated nations to wage war.
The idealogical motive is more frightening, as there seem no practical accommodations to be made with people who just want to exterminate whole populations. I don't think that was so much Bin Laden's motive, at least to begin with. Our coziness with Arab monarchies that robbed their own people was our biggest offense to him, wasn't it? But now we've added religious purging to the stinking brew.
As for the sexual revolution having a role in this, I'm dubious. Certainly radical Muslims disapprove of promiscuity, but they disapprove of women who don't shroud themselves and succumb to whatever men choose to do to them. They'd disapprove of my gardening in shorts.
|
|
|
Post by brutus on Nov 26, 2006 19:09:53 GMT -5
"...They'd disapprove of my gardening in shorts..." Good thing I ain't one of "them" cause I don't! ~B~
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Nov 26, 2006 19:55:56 GMT -5
This is probably apropos of nothing here, but in a phone conversation I had with my sister this evening, she told me that in her church they heard this morning the report of some missionaries who went to Russia for "church building." They reported back that things are very bleak there, lots of "atheism," a tough place to "spread the Gospel," and things like that. I responded that the Russian people had practiced their Orthodox faith through all kinds of persecution and brutality and kept the church alive through the decades of Communist anti-religious control, when Christianity was illegal. I asked her if these "missionaries" had in fact even visited a Russian Orthodox church or talked to any of the people about their faith, and she responded that no, in fact they had only visited the "evangelical" churches they were trying to plant.
This just burns my butt. I'm really getting sick and tired of one little group of people telling other people their Christian faith isn't the right kind. Maybe especially when millions of them have been martyred for that faith.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Nov 26, 2006 20:17:14 GMT -5
gailkate — I don't think it was so much that the monarchies were robbing the people as that the Saudi monarchy allowed American troops on Arabian soil that got bin Laden angry at us. I also think the image of rempant promiscuity which our entertainment media project is offensive to ordinary Muslims, not just the radicals.
As for Iran, it was our support of the secularizing and westernized shah which got us in the sights of the Shi'ite ayatollahs. "We" thought he was modernizing the country, and that it was a good thing. How they would have felt if the shah had been less Western and the West had been less secular may be anybody's guess.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Nov 26, 2006 20:25:06 GMT -5
bl — a fair point about the survival of Orthodoxy in Russia. It always saddens me when Evangelicals think that Orthodoxy and Catholicism aren't truly Christian. Fortunately, most leaders of the major Evangelical organizations have come to recognize that both are Christian.
From what I've read about the religious situation in Russia, however, I've gained the impression that decades of Soviet militant atheism, while not destroying the Orthodox faith, have succeeded in significantly diminishing church membership and religious practice. What's your take on the level of faith and practice in Russia?
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Nov 26, 2006 20:35:07 GMT -5
I don't know the answer to that, Joe, but I will try to find out. We have a number of Russians in my church, and I am sure my priest is aware of Orthodox practice in Russia (though he is in fact, Greek). I know that he visited Russia not too many years ago and I've heard nothing but glowing reports from him about the Orthodox churches he visited there. I'll ask him what he thinks.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Nov 26, 2006 21:42:05 GMT -5
A couple of years ago, I interviewed for, and was offered, a job in Yerevan, Armenia. The non-sectarian NGO extending the offer pointed out that the country (a former SSR) was an orthodox Christian nation with the Armenian Orthodox Church as the official state religion. I was told that most of the population was atheistic however, the result of the long-time Soviet domination, although a significant minority remained faithful.
I regretfully declined the position because in the end I couldn't persuade my family to move to Yerevan.
I find it interesting that the regimes we love to hate today are those we had a role in creating: we supported theTaliban-to-be when they opposed the Russian invaders in Afghanistan, and we supported the rise of Saddam when he opposed the Iranians who held our embassy staff captive. Joew points to the history of our support of the Shah of Iran.
As for control of natural resources - that is a goal of western empire. Not just oil. All those World Bank loans forgiven in poor African nations? Many were forgiven on the condition that the water and power agencies be "privatized," and thus owned by major western multinationals. Said multinationals are "multi-dipping:" - the loaned funds went to them for building the hydroelectric dam (or whatever) for the third world. Now they own the revenue-generating power or water installation
It may not be empire in the old sense - an official state policy to dominate. Now I think it is powerful individuals who move back and forth between prominant government posts and corporate boards. Dick Cheney and Halliburton are but one example. Net result: public aid moneys wind up enriching private entities under the guise of "aid." This filters down to "the rich get rich and the poor get poorer," as the middle class shrinks and a wealthy elite makes fabulous gains.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Nov 26, 2006 22:24:33 GMT -5
And as for terrorist opposition:
It seems sporadic and too uncoordinated to be labelled state-sponsored opposition, although it is certainly a significant consideration, as is nuclear proliferation to "rogue nations." There are, however, a number of countries which would consider the US to be the rogue nation with dangerous nuclear power. Our invasion of Iraq for what now appear to be trumped-up reasons supports this belief, for those so inclined.
Al Queda terrorists could be part of an attempt to rebuild the "Muslim caliphate" which could in itself be an attempt at building empire. Possible, but I am not convinced yet.
What I've observed in Muslim countries - the west is not resented for the sexual revolution per se but rather for a more global "looseness" - trashy Hollywood movies and TV shows (which is the US most commonly seen in many countries), pornography, alcohol usage, immodest clothing, etc. NB - no one I spoke with ever complained about gardening shorts!
But the real resentment often festers around US foreign policy support of a "blank check" for Israel with its perceived oppression of Palestinians, who were evicted from their homes and farms, forced to dwell inside walled communities with limited mobility and denial of basics such as food and healthcare. By the way, "Palestinians" circa 1947 were substantially Christian (eastern orthodox denominations mainly) as well as Muslim; the remaining population today is probably less than 5% Christian, as they have had readier access to emigration to Europe and the US.
We are also perceived as having "welched" on our promises to rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq. In Afghanistan, there is wide awareness of timetables that have not been met, which may be ascribed to attention diverted to the Iraq war.
Most places I travelled in Afghanistan and Pakistan, people appreciated my presence as an American individual there to consult and help host nationals improve maternal-child healthcare, whatever their opinion of my government. Most "got" the difference: I'm a person, not the personification of my government's policies. And they were committed to hospitality to a visitor (me) even if they hate GWB and all the politics/policy.
In Armenia, western aid workers often traveled to Iran for R&R, considered an optimal such destination, very friendly, great bargains on Persian rugs. In Afghanistan, Baku in Azerbaijan (sworn enemy of Armenia) was the popular R&R locale. Go figure!
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Nov 26, 2006 22:44:37 GMT -5
And here's my daughter's take (lengthy) on US-Russia relations, which I'm posting here with her (and UPI) permission. She has come a long way since I took her to the "Battle in Seattle" WTO protests in 1999.
Seems she is promoting joint efforts toward empire-through-trade - between the US and Russia.
This is the same daughter who loves to remind me about that old adage: The apple doesn't fall very far from the tree, mom.
By Amber Corrin UPI Correspondent
WASHINGTON, Nov. 22 (UPI) -- The long-awaited bilateral negotiations completed in Hanoi last week between the United States and Russia, key to Russia's accession into the World Trade Organization, signify new vigor in an aging discord between reluctant partners. However, it will take more than a lengthy paper trail and ceremonial hand-shaking for the pacts to uphold the lofty global expectations Russia now faces.
Overcoming hurdles that have plagued the former Soviet superpower since its initial WTO negotiation attempts in June 1993, Russia will now have to prove itself by enacting measures that will open market access and conform to WTO standards. Russia has committed to addressing major obstacles such as intellectual property rights protection and agricultural import issues, some of which will become effective immediately.
"We are very pleased to announce we have completed the bilateral market access agreement with Russia; this is something we've been working on for a long time," said Dorothy Dwoskin, lead U.S. negotiator for Russia's WTO accession for the U.S. Trade Representative.
"The U.S. has been taking the time to ensure the negotiations are genuine," and the USTR is confident progress will continue throughout the next round of multilateral agreements and Russia's accession to the WTO, Dwoskin said.
Deteriorating relations between the U.S. and Russia have reached the lowest point in years, experts say, and the new agreements represent more than simply trade bargains. The political ramifications and potential capital gains reinforce the impact of improved relations between the two geopolitical giants, and forthcoming actions will portend much for the future of international trade relations.
"For the Hanoi agreements to mean anything, several things must happen. First, the U.S. and Russia must bridge the gap on Iran (nuclear policy). In 2007 the U.S. Congress will debate giving Russia permanent normal trade relations status, lifting the 1974 Jackson-Vanik amendment. This will be a referendum on Russia and the U.S.-Russian relationship," said Andrew Kuchins, director of the Russian and Eurasian Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C.
Russia will also have to prove itself in the eyes of American policymakers. A surface makeover will need to precede progress in trade partnership, a move that has not traditionally been favored in Russian diplomacy.
"The Russian government will need to get serious about lobbying in Washington and cleaning up its image. The image of Russia in this town is pretty grim," Kuchins said.
Of course, the longstanding differences between the two nations go far beyond outward appearances. According to Kuchin, the disparate perceptions of the meaning of "partnership" have driven apart diplomatic exchange.
"Russia will never be a trusted partner until it more fully embraces Western values and promotes real and not Potemkin democratic values. Until and if that happens, Russia will remain in the category of countries that are partners and allies of convenience or necessity," Kuchin said.
Russia will need to reform more than just their diplomatic approach in its bid for WTO accession. Broad overhauls in the enforcement of intellectual property rights laws and agricultural tariffs and standards will pave the way not only to the WTO but also to billions of dollars in American capital.
The International Intellectual Property Alliance estimates that Russian piracy of intellectual property cost U.S. industries $1.7 billion in 2005 alone and more than $6.5 billion in the past five years. While Russian legal framework on IPR is within international standards, the country's poor enforcement of the laws will require a major shift from current practices. Problems with the transparency of Russia's enforcement system, fragmentation of federal bureaucracy and the influence of organized crime all have presented obstacles in trade agreements with the U.S.
Continued amendments of current laws in tandem with action against piracy and counterfeiting have demonstrated Russia's will to improve in this area, and the U.S. is "cautiously optimistic," said Eric J. Schwartz, counsel to the International Intellectual Property Alliance.
In 2005 Russia imported nearly $1 billion in U.S. agricultural products, including some $645 million in poultry and pork. As part of its WTO accession, Russia will bind tariffs on all agricultural products, a move that will for the first time allow exporters to predict tariffs on their products, according to Nicholas Giordano, international trade counsel for the National Pork Producers Council.
The agricultural stipulations will offer enormous benefit for U.S. farmers, ranchers and food processors, opening a massive market for U.S. exporters and producers not only by regulating just tariffs but also inspection and sanitation standards. The newly opened market will also promote sectors such as telecommunications, computer services, express delivery, distribution, financial services and audio visual services.
The potential is great for mutual benefit between the U.S. and Russia; however, much will remain to be seen in the upcoming round of multilateral negotiations and interim before the formal WTO accession. But with as much as 90 percent of foreign businesses planning to expand in Russia in the next three years, and with Congress likely addressing Russia legislation in the spring of 2007, the U.S. cannot afford to simply sit back and wait.
"This is a win-win situation for both countries and both economies. We'll be shooting ourselves in the foot if we don't do this at the right time," said Randi Levinas, director of policy and programs for the U.S.-Russia Business Council.
"You can't transform Russia overnight. It's a process. But we do have to recognize progress has been made," Levinas said.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Nov 26, 2006 23:03:39 GMT -5
… But the real resentment often festers around US foreign policy support of a "blank check" for Israel with its perceived oppression of Palestinians, who were evicted from their homes and farms, forced to dwell inside walled communities with limited mobility and denial of basics such as food and healthcare. By the way, "Palestinians" circa 1947 were substantially Christian (eastern orthodox denominations mainly) as well as Muslim; the remaining population today is probably less than 5% Christian, as they have had readier access to emigration to Europe and the US. … There's a lot to what you say. For now I'd just like to point out that Israel has always had Arab citizens, Arab members of the Knesset and armed forces. WhenI was there on pilgrimage in 1996, I met some young Bedouins who were either in the army or soon to be. I tend to credit the accounts that say much of the displacement of the Palestinians was actually voluntary on their part under the inducement of the Arab states, which were planning to overrun Israel. And it was Jordan and Egypt which confined them to refugee camps. At any rate, Israel has always been willing to have non-Jewish citizens participating in civic affairs. But, for instance, the Christian Palestinians have recently been leaving Bethlehem, which is under Palestinian control. Whereas, back in 1996, traveling between Jerusalem and Bethlehem was fairly easy for a tour group, and the Christians of Bethlehem seemed fairly comfortable. My take is that the root of the problem is that for the nearly 60 years of Israel's existence many of Israel's neighbors have wanted to destroy "the Zionist entity." The Palestinians could have lived in peace with Israel — with all that means for freedom of movement and economic activity — at any time they were willing to do so. But the anti-Israeli propaganda of the militants is still effective with the general population, it seems; and the conflict continues because the Palestinians and their supposed friends keep it going.
|
|
|
Post by SeattleDan on Nov 26, 2006 23:51:25 GMT -5
Yes, to a certain extent, Arabs have been a part of Israeli society. The last time I did jury duty, a few years ago, the case I sat on involved a young man named Mohammed, who had served in the Israeli Army. He was charged with assault with intent to rob. There wasn't nearly enough evidence to convict him of the robbery charge, but he admitted to attacking the star witness, so we did convict him of that. But I was struck by the fact that someone who was so clearly a Muslim served in the Israeli Army.
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Nov 27, 2006 6:00:42 GMT -5
A couple of years ago, I interviewed for, and was offered, a job in Yerevan, Armenia. The non-sectarian NGO extending the offer pointed out that the country (a former SSR) was an orthodox Christian nation with the Armenian Orthodox Church as the official state religion. I was told that most of the population was atheistic however, the result of the long-time Soviet domination, although a significant minority remained faithful. I regretfully declined the position because in the end I couldn't persuade my family to move to Yerevan. I find it interesting that the regimes we love to hate today are those we had a role in creating: we supported theTaliban-to-be when they opposed the Russian invaders in Afghanistan, and we supported the rise of Saddam when he opposed the Iranians who held our embassy staff captive. Joew points to the history of our support of the Shah of Iran. As for control of natural resources - that is a goal of western empire. Not just oil. All those World Bank loans forgiven in poor African nations? Many were forgiven on the condition that the water and power agencies be "privatized," and thus owned by major western multinationals. Said multinationals are "multi-dipping:" - the loaned funds went to them for building the hydroelectric dam (or whatever) for the third world. Now they own the revenue-generating power or water installation It may not be empire in the old sense - an official state policy to dominate. Now I think it is powerful individuals who move back and forth between prominant government posts and corporate boards. Dick Cheney and Halliburton are but one example. Net result: public aid moneys wind up enriching private entities under the guise of "aid." This filters down to "the rich get rich and the poor get poorer," as the middle class shrinks and a wealthy elite makes fabulous gains. doctork, I think you might enjoy the book, The Poisonwood Bible, by Barbara Kingsolver.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Nov 27, 2006 9:51:46 GMT -5
I'm trying to digest all this information and the complexity of the threads we're weaving together. But I confess to being envious of so much experience. Dr.K (is it Kristen?) must be about 102 by my calculations, so broad are her travels and numerous her jobs. Joe can talk about free travel between Bethlehem and Jeruselem. Have I mentioned I've been Toronto?
I'm also impressed by Amber's UPI career, which I don't recall being mentioned before. She must be pretty young and pretty sharp. In reference to Russia's failure to respect intellectual property rights, she says this:
Problems with the transparency of Russia's enforcement system, fragmentation of federal bureaucracy and the influence of organized crime all have presented obstacles in trade agreements with the U.S. and later this in connection with agricultural tariffs and trade:
The agricultural stipulations will offer enormous benefit for U.S. farmers, ranchers and food processors, opening a massive market for U.S. exporters and producers not only by regulating just tariffs but also inspection and sanitation standards. The newly opened market will also promote sectors such as telecommunications, computer services, express delivery, distribution, financial services and audio visual services. ..................................... But with as much as 90 percent of foreign businesses planning to expand in Russia in the next three years, and with Congress likely addressing Russia legislation in the spring of 2007, the U.S. cannot afford to simply sit back and wait. I didn't know this and am irritated by the huge cloud that Iraq has lowered upon my horizon. (As the Clinton impeachment did 8 years ago.) We have so much to read and think about!
In relation to the empire-building we started with a couple of days ago, I agree that corporatocracy is the new imperialism. 19th Century robber barons now move freely between government - and its access to military muscle - and corporate boardrooms.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Nov 27, 2006 12:38:25 GMT -5
Gailkate, Amber is 23, new college grad interning at UPI, hoping to forge a career there, or similar locale if possible. She is living in Washington, DC, a difficult and expensive place to get started. And of course an American journalist who wishes to focus on international news has a long row to hoe. I told her about Al Jazeera English starting up, with an office in DC, its news anchor a Jewish fellow who used to work for ABC. (Amber considers herself Jewish, like my husband, so I think that detail is relevant.)
As for me, either doctork, Dr K, or Kristin, not nearing 102 yet (!) though I often comment that it is a good thing I don't look as old as I feel sometimes. And did I mention I can't hold a job or stay in one place too long...
BL, I did try the Kingsolver book as it sounded like it would appeal to me. But it sat on the bedside table for months with the bookmark a few pages in. If it is in the basement, as opposed to donated to the Friends of the Bellingham Library, I'll give it another try. The book will be in line behind The Quiet American, Kabul in Winter and two books I need to pick up from Dan when I get to Seattle this week (Epidemic of Care, and Return to Big Stone Gap).
Joew, "opinions I post here may not be my own." Amber has hers labelled, but my summary of sentiments were just that, summaries of what people on site have told me about their feelings re the US. If I were communicating with non-Afghan/Pak centric friends, I'll bet the chief objection to the US now would be Iraq, not Israel. Though the two are not unrelated of course.
My own impression of Israeli-Arab conflict is that the vast majority of both want to live in peace, but the fringe on both sides drive the visible politics (does this sound familiar and a little too close to home?). My reference to the walled community is The Wall being built today, not the refugee camps of decades ago. Here are the contrasting views of three friends of mine:
Jerry is a physician, American-born Maronite (Christian orthodox) son of Palestinian parents who dwelt in Lebanon before arrival in the US. Gerry's extended family were Palestinian olive growers prior to 1947-48 when they were driven from their home and land of centuries, to those refugee camps and elsewhere. Their olive groves are now tended by Israelis on Israeli territory, while the remnant original owners live behind the Wall in occupied territory, cut off from their livelihood.
Bob is an American Jew, close friend from my college days, who now spends about half his time in Israel, acitve in Israeli-American politics; he was drawn there by his son who lives there and is active in Seeds of Peace, but Bob is more militant. He told me all about the Arab Israelis and their right to vote, serve in the Army, etc, participate in all the rights of a democratic state. Next sentence was how they needed the Wall to keep the Arab-Palestinians in occupied territories, not citizens of democratic Israel; if the Arab-Israeli population were allowed to rise over 15 - 20% of Israel then it would be impossible to maintain a Jewish democratic state. Bob's opinion of Jerry's family? They secretly sold their land to Jewish settlers years ago, but won't admit it. Therefore, it is really Israeli Jewish land, not stolen from Palestinians at all, which Bob asserts is the case for almost all the "occupied Palestinian" land.
Third colleague/friend is Jeff, American Jewish environmental activist who lives in Israel now, teaching at a university. He is a strong supporter of Israel as a free-standing state of course, but appalled by the building of the Wall. He equates the environmental impact to that of building a four-to-six lane freeway. He tells me that most Palestinian olive groves were relocated to the Israeli side of the Wall where they now benefit Israeli settlers, while depriving the Palestinians of their livelihood. The official government stance is that the trees will be returned to their rightful owners "later."
Oh, a fourth friend, Lou, also an American (orthodox Christian) physician who emigrated from Lebanon to the US as a child. During the 80's when we were close professional colleagues, he took his family (wife and three young children) to Lebanon every year to visit the extended family still there. But Lou, isn't that kind of dangerous, I asked? (you know, the attack on the US Marines barracks, constant conflict between Israel and Lebanon, Arabs contolled the Beirut Airport and wouldn't let Christians in). Oh no, says Lou. We just fly to Cyprus, take the boat to Lebanon, and once we get past the roadblocks and all, back to our hometown, everything is beautiful, just as it was decades/centuries ago, and we're so glad to see our family. So I saw Lou this summer and asked how things were going, did he still go back home to Lebanon to visit the family. "Oh no, not now, it's too dangerous."
Having friends involved just puts such a personal face on this, I find it very painful. And I certainly have no answers, just lots of questions, a real mess. But I am extremely wary of the biased information we read in the American media, as I don't think we have nearly the understanding necessary to address important issues. Sadly, it appears our leaders in DC lack knowledge and perspective too. The anthropologist in me (and I was an anthropologist first, before the doctor-businessperson-public health- health policy stuff got started) says we are clueless.
|
|