Conflict in the Middle East

[PeteC]

In full: Tony Blair speech

Tony Blair has given a speech to the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles. The prime minister warned that an "arc of extremism" was stretching across the Middle East and outlined his view on how best to tackle it.
Overnight, the news came through that as well as continuing conflict in the Lebanon, Britain's armed forces suffered losses in Iraq and Afghanistan. It brings home yet again the extraordinary courage and commitment of our armed forces who risk their lives and in some cases tragically lose them, defending our country's security and that of the wider world. These are people of whom we should be very proud.

I know the US has suffered heavy losses too in Iraq and in Afghanistan. We should never forget how much we owe these people, how great their bravery, and their sacrifice.

I planned the basis of this speech several weeks ago. The crisis in the Lebanon has not changed its thesis. It has brought it into sharp relief.

The purpose of the provocation that began the conflict was clear. It was to create chaos, division and bloodshed, to provoke retaliation by Israel that would lead to Arab and Muslim opinion being inflamed, not against those who started the aggression but against those who responded to it.

It is still possible even now to come out of this crisis with a better long-term prospect for the cause of moderation in the Middle East succeeding. But it would be absurd not to face up to the immediate damage to that cause which has been done.

We will continue to do all we can to halt the hostilities. But once that has happened, we must commit ourselves to a complete renaissance of our strategy to defeat those that threaten us. There is an arc of extremism now stretching across the Middle East and touching, with increasing definition, countries far outside that region. To defeat it will need an alliance of moderation, that paints a different future in which Muslim, Jew and Christian; Arab and Western; wealthy and developing nations can make progress in peace and harmony with each other. My argument to you today is this: we will not win the battle against this global extremism unless we win it at the level of values as much as force, unless we show we are even-handed, fair and just in our application of those values to the world.

'Global values'

The point is this. This is war, but of a completely unconventional kind.

9/11 in the US, 7/7 in the UK, 11/3 in Madrid, the countless terrorist attacks in countries as disparate as Indonesia or Algeria, what is now happening in Afghanistan and in Indonesia, the continuing conflict in Lebanon and Palestine, it is all part of the same thing. What are the values that govern the future of the world? Are they those of tolerance, freedom, respect for difference and diversity or those of reaction, division and hatred? My point is that this war can't be won in a conventional way. It can only be won by showing that our values are stronger, better and more just, more fair than the alternative. Doing this, however, requires us to change dramatically the focus of our policy.

Unless we re-appraise our strategy, unless we revitalise the broader global agenda on poverty, climate change, trade, and in respect of the Middle East, bend every sinew of our will to making peace between Israel and Palestine, we will not win. And this is a battle we must win.

What is happening today out in the Middle East, in Afghanistan and beyond is an elemental struggle about the values that will shape our future.

It is in part a struggle between what I will call reactionary Islam and moderate, mainstream Islam. But its implications go far wider. We are fighting a war, but not just against terrorism but about how the world should govern itself in the early 21st century, about global values.

'Growing movement'

The root causes of the current crisis are supremely indicative of this. Ever since September 11, the US has embarked on a policy of intervention in order to protect its and our future security. Hence Afghanistan. Hence Iraq. Hence the broader Middle East initiative in support of moves towards democracy in the Arab world.

The point about these interventions, however, military and otherwise, is that they were not just about changing regimes but changing the values systems governing the nations concerned. The banner was not actually "regime change", it was "values change".

What we have done therefore in intervening in this way, is far more momentous than possibly we appreciated at the time.

Of course the fanatics, attached to a completely wrong and reactionary view of Islam, had been engaging in terrorism for years before September 11. In Chechnya, in India and Pakistan, in Algeria, in many other Muslim countries, atrocities were occurring. But we did not feel the impact directly. So we were not bending our eye or our will to it as we should have. We had barely heard of the Taleban. We rather inclined to the view that where there was terrorism, perhaps it was partly the fault of the governments of the countries concerned.

We were in error. In fact, these acts of terrorism were not isolated incidents. They were part of a growing movement. A movement that believed Muslims had departed from their proper faith, were being taken over by Western culture, were being governed treacherously by Muslims complicit in this takeover, whereas the true way to recover not just the true faith, but Muslim confidence and self esteem, was to take on the West and all its works.

Sometimes political strategy comes deliberatively, sometimes by instinct. For this movement, it was probably by instinct. It has an ideology, a world-view, it has deep convictions and the determination of the fanatic. It resembles in many ways early revolutionary Communism. It doesn't always need structures and command centres or even explicit communication. It knows what it thinks.

Its strategy in the late 1990s became clear. If they were merely fighting with Islam, they ran the risk that fellow Muslims - being as decent and fair-minded as anyone else - would choose to reject their fanaticism. A battle about Islam was just Muslim versus Muslim. They realised they had to create a completely different battle in Muslim minds: Muslim versus Western.

This is what September 11 did. Still now, I am amazed at how many people will say, in effect, there is increased terrorism today because we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. They seem to forget entirely that September 11 predated either. The West didn't attack this movement. We were attacked. Until then we had largely ignored it.

'Existential battles'

The reason I say our response was even more momentous than it seemed at the time, is this. We could have chosen security as the battleground. But we didn't. We chose values. We said we didn't want another Taleban or a different Saddam. Rightly, in my view, we realised that you can't defeat a fanatical ideology just by imprisoning or killing its leaders; you have to defeat its ideas.

There is a host of analysis written about mistakes made in Iraq or Afghanistan, much of it with hindsight but some of it with justification. But it all misses one vital point. The moment we decided not to change regime but to change the value system, we made both Iraq and Afghanistan into existential battles for reactionary Islam. We posed a threat not to their activities simply, but to their values, to the roots of their existence.

We committed ourselves to supporting moderate, mainstream Islam. In almost pristine form, the battles in Iraq or Afghanistan became battles between the majority of Muslims in either country who wanted democracy and the minority who realise that this rings the death-knell of their ideology.

What is more, in doing this, we widened the definition of reactionary Islam. It is not just Al-Qaeda who felt threatened by the prospect of two brutal dictatorships - one secular, one religious - becoming tolerant democracies. Any other country who could see that change in those countries might result in change in theirs, immediately also felt under threat. Syria and Iran, for example. No matter that previously, in what was effectively another political age, many of those under threat hated each other. Suddenly new alliances became formed under the impulsion of the common threat.

So in Iraq, Syria allowed Al-Qaeda operatives to cross the border. Iran has supported extremist Shia there. The purpose of the terrorism in Iraq is absolutely simple: carnage, causing sectarian hatred, leading to civil war.

'Arc of extremism'

However, there was one cause which, the world over, unites Islam, one issue that even the most westernised Muslims find unjust and, perhaps worse, humiliating: Palestine. Here a moderate leadership was squeezed between its own inability to control the radical elements and the political stagnation of the peace process. When Prime Minister Sharon took the brave step of disengagement from Gaza, it could have been and should have been the opportunity to re-start the process. But the squeeze was too great and as ever because these processes never stay still, instead of moving forward, it fell back. Hamas won the election. Even then, had moderate elements in Hamas been able to show progress, the situation might have been saved. But they couldn't.

So the opportunity passed to reactionary Islam and they seized it: first in Gaza, then in Lebanon. They knew what would happen. Their terrorism would provoke massive retaliation by Israel. Within days, the world would forget the original provocation and be shocked by the retaliation. They want to trap the moderates between support for America and an Arab street furious at what they see nightly on their television. This is what has happened.

For them, what is vital is that the struggle is defined in their terms: Islam versus the West; that instead of Muslims seeing this as about democracy versus dictatorship, they see only the bombs and the brutality of war, and sent from Israel.

In this way, they hope that the arc of extremism that now stretches across the region, will sweep away the fledgling but faltering steps modern Islam wants to take into the future.

'Religious oligarchy'

To turn all of this around requires us first to perceive the nature of the struggle we are fighting and secondly to have a realistic strategy to win it. At present we are challenged on both fronts.

As to the first, it is almost incredible to me that so much of Western opinion appears to buy the idea that the emergence of this global terrorism is somehow our fault. For a start, it is indeed global. No-one who ever half bothers to look at the spread and range of activity related to this terrorism can fail to see its presence in virtually every major nation in the world. It is directed at the United States and its allies, of course. But it is also directed at nations who could not conceivably be said to be allies of the West. It is also rubbish to suggest that it is the product of poverty. It is true it will use the cause of poverty. But its fanatics are hardly the champions of economic development. It is based on religious extremism. That is the fact. And not any religious extremism, but a specifically Muslim version.

What it is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is not about those countries' liberation from US occupation. It is actually the only reason for the continuing presence of our troops. And it is they not us who are doing the slaughter of the innocent and doing it deliberately.

Its purpose is explicitly to prevent those countries becoming democracies and not "Western style" democracies, any sort of democracy. It is to prevent Palestine living side by side with Israel; not to fight for the coming into being of a Palestinian state, but for the going out of being, of an Israeli state. It is not wanting Muslim countries to modernise but to retreat into governance by a semi-feudal religious oligarchy.

'Israeli predicament'

Yet despite all of this, which I consider virtually obvious, we look at the bloodshed in Iraq and say that's a reason for leaving, we listen to the propaganda that tells us it's all because of our suppression of Muslims and have parts of our opinion seriously believing that if we only got out of Iraq and Afghanistan, it would all stop.

And most contemporaneously, and in some ways most perniciously, a very large and, I fear, growing part of our opinion looks at Israel, and thinks we pay too great a price for supporting it and sympathises with Muslim opinion that condemns it. Absent from so much of the coverage, is any understanding of the Israeli predicament.

I, and any halfway sentient human being, regards the loss of civilian life in Lebanon as unacceptable, grieves for that nation, is sickened by its plight and wants the war to stop now. But just for a moment, put yourself in Israel's place. It has a crisis in Gaza, sparked by the kidnap of a soldier by Hamas. Suddenly, without warning, Hezbollah who have been continuing to operate in southern Lebanon for two years in defiance of UN Resolution 1559, cross the UN blue line, kill eight Israeli soldiers and kidnap two more. They then fire rockets indiscriminately at the civilian population in northern Israel.

Hezbollah gets their weapons from Iran. Iran are now also financing militant elements in Hamas. Iran's president has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map". And he's trying to acquire a nuclear weapon. Just to complete the picture, Israel's main neighbour along its eastern flank is Syria who support Hezbollah and house the hardline leaders of Hamas.

It's not exactly a situation conducive to a feeling of security, is it?

But the central point is this. In the end, even the issue of Israel is just part of the same, wider struggle for the soul of the region. If we recognised this struggle for what it truly is, we would be at least along the first steps of the path to winning it. But a vast part of the Western opinion is not remotely near this yet.

'Self-evident challenges'

Whatever the outward manifestation at any one time - in Lebanon, in Gaza, in Iraq and add to that in Afghanistan, in Kashmir, in a host of other nations including now some in Africa - it is a global fight about global values; it is about modernisation, within Islam and outside of it; it is about whether our value system can be shown to be sufficiently robust, true, principled and appealing that it beats theirs. Islamist extremism's whole strategy is based on a presumed sense of grievance that can motivate people to divide against each other. Our answer has to be a set of values strong enough to unite people with each other.

This is not just about security or military tactics. It is about hearts and minds, about inspiring people, persuading them, showing them what our values at their best stand for.

Just to state it in these terms, is to underline how much we have to do. Convincing our own opinion of the nature of the battle is hard enough. But we then have to empower moderate, mainstream Islam to defeat reactionary Islam. And because so much focus is now, world-wide on this issue, it is becoming itself a kind of surrogate for all the other issues the rest of the world has with the West. In other words, fail on this and across the range, everything gets harder.

Why are we not yet succeeding? Because we are not being bold enough, consistent enough, thorough enough, in fighting for the values we believe in.

We start this battle with some self-evident challenges. Iraq's political process has worked in an extraordinary way. But the continued sectarian bloodshed is appalling: and threatens its progress deeply. In Afghanistan, the Taleban are making a determined effort to return and using the drugs trade a front. Years of anti-Israeli and therefore anti-American teaching and propaganda has left the Arab street often wildly divorced from the practical politics of their governments. Iran and, to a lesser extent, Syria are a constant source of de-stabilisation and reaction.

The purpose of terrorism - whether in Iran, Afghanistan, Lebanon or Palestine is never just the terrorist act itself. It is to use the act to trigger a chain reaction, to expunge any willingness to negotiate or compromise. Unfortunately it frequently works, as we know from our own experience in Northern Ireland, though thankfully the huge progress made in the last decade there, shows that it can also be overcome.

So, short-term, we can't say we are winning. But, there are many reasons for long-term optimism. Across the Middle East, there is a process of modernisation as well as reaction. It is unnoticed but it is there: in the UAE, in Bahrain, in Kuwait, in Qatar. In Egypt, there is debate about the speed of change but not about its direction. In Libya and Algeria, there is both greater stability and a gradual but significant opening up.

Most of all, there is one incontrovertible truth that should give us hope. In Iraq, in Afghanistan, and of course in the Lebanon, any time that people are permitted a chance to embrace democracy, they do so. The lie - that democracy, the rule of law, human rights are Western concepts, alien to Islam - has been exposed. In countries as disparate as Turkey and Indonesia, there is an emerging strength in moderate Islam that should greatly encourage us.

'Two-state solution'

So the struggle is finely poised. The question is: how do we empower the moderates to defeat the extremists?

First, naturally, we should support, nurture, build strong alliances with all those in the Middle East who are on the modernising path.

Secondly, we need, as President Bush said on Friday, to re-energise the MEPP between Israel and Palestine, and we need to do it in a dramatic and profound manner.

I want to explain why I think this issue is so utterly fundamental to all we are trying to do. I know it can be very irritating for Israel to be told that this issue is of cardinal importance, as if it is on their shoulders that the weight of the troubles of the region should always fall. I know also their fear that in our anxiety for wider reasons to secure a settlement, we sacrifice the vital interests of Israel.

Let me make it clear. I would never put Israel's security at risk.

Instead I want, what we all now acknowledge we need: a two-state solution. The Palestinian state must be independent, viable but also democratic and not threaten Israel's safety.

This is what the majority of Israelis and Palestinians want.

Its significance for the broader issue of the Middle East and for the battle within Islam, is this. The real impact of a settlement is more than correcting the plight of the Palestinians. It is that such a settlement would be the living, tangible, visible proof that the region and therefore the world can accommodate different faiths and cultures, even those who have been in vehement opposition to each other. It is, in other words, the total and complete rejection of the case of reactionary Islam. It destroys not just their most effective rallying call, it fatally undermines their basic ideology.

And, for sure, it empowers moderate, mainstream Islam enormously. They are able to point to progress as demonstration that their allies, ie us, are even-handed not selective, do care about justice for Muslims as much as Christians or Jews.

But, and it is a big but, this progress will not happen unless we change radically our degree of focus, effort and engagement, especially with the Palestinian side. In this the active leadership of the US is essential but so also is the participation of Europe, of Russia and of the UN. We need relentlessly, vigorously, to put a viable Palestinian government on its feet, to offer a vision of how the Roadmap to final status negotiation can happen and then pursue it, week in, week out, 'til it's done. Nothing else will do. Nothing else is more important to the success of our foreign policy.

Third, we need to see Iraq through its crisis and out to the place its people want: a non-sectarian, democratic state. The Iraqi and Afghan fight for democracy is our fight. Same values. Same enemy. Victory for them is victory for us all.

Fourth, we need to make clear to Syria and Iran that there is a choice: come in to the international community and play by the same rules as the rest of us; or be confronted. Their support of terrorism, their deliberate export of instability, their desire to see wrecked the democratic prospect in Iraq, is utterly unjustifiable, dangerous and wrong. If they keep raising the stakes, they will find they have miscalculated.

'Wider debate'

From the above it is clear that from now on, we need a whole strategy for the Middle East. If we are faced with an arc of extremism, we need a corresponding arc of moderation and reconciliation. Each part is linked. Progress between Israel and Palestine affects Iraq. Progress in Iraq affects democracy in the region. Progress for moderate, mainstream Islam anywhere puts reactionary Islam on the defensive everywhere. But none of it happens unless in each individual part the necessary energy and commitment is displayed not fitfully, but continuously.

I said at the outset that the result of this struggle had effects wider than the region itself. Plainly that applies to our own security. This global Islamist terrorism began in the Middle East. Sort the Middle East and it will inexorably decline. The read-across, for example, from the region to the Muslim communities in Europe is almost instant.

But there is a less obvious sense in which the outcome determines the success of our wider world-view. For me, a victory for the moderates means an Islam that is open: open to globalisation, open to working with others of different faiths, open to alliances with other nations.

In this way, this struggle is in fact part of a far wider debate.

Though left and right still matter in politics, the increasing divide today is between open and closed. Is the answer to globalisation, protectionism or free trade?

Is the answer to the pressure of mass migration, managed immigration or closed borders?

Is the answer to global security threats, isolationism or engagement?

Those are very big questions for US and for Europe.

'Modern realpolitik'

Without hesitation, I am on the open side of the argument. The way for us to handle the challenge of globalisation is to compete better, more intelligently, more flexibly. We have to give our people confidence we can compete. See competition as a threat and we are already on the way to losing.

Immigration is the toughest issue in Europe right now and you know something of it here in California. People get scared of it for understandable reasons. It needs to be controlled. There have to be rules. Many of the conventions dealing with it post-WWII are out of date. All that is true. But, properly managed, immigrants give a country dynamism, drive, new ideas as well as new blood.

And as for isolationism, that is a perennial risk in the US and EU policy. My point here is very simple: global terrorism means we can't opt-out even if we wanted to. The world is inter-dependent. To be engaged is only modern realpolitik.

But we only win people to these positions if our policy is not just about interests but about values, not just about what is necessary but about what is right.

'Shameful poverty'

Which brings me to my final reflection about US policy. My advice is: always be in the lead, always at the forefront, always engaged in building alliances, in reaching out, in showing that whereas unilateral action can never be ruled out, it is not the preference.

How we get a sensible, balanced but effective framework to tackle climate change after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012 should be an American priority.

America wants a low-carbon economy, it is investing heavily in clean technology, it needs China and India to grow substantially. The world is ready for a new start here. Lead it.

The same is true for the WTO talks, now precariously in the balance, or for Africa, whose poverty is shameful.

If we are championing the cause of development in Africa, it is right in itself but it is also sending the message of moral purpose, that reinforces our value system as credible in all other aspects of policy.

It serves one other objective. There is a risk that the world, after the Cold War, goes back to a global policy based on spheres of influence. Think ahead. Think China, within 20 or 30 years, surely the world's other super-power. Think Russia and its precious energy reserves. Think India. I believe all of these great emerging powers want a benign relationship with the West.

But I also believe that the stronger and more appealing our world-view is, the more it is seen as based not just on power but on justice, the easier it will be for us to shape the future in which Europe and the US will no longer, economically or politically, be transcendent. Long before then, we want moderate, mainstream Islam to triumph over reactionary Islam.

That is why I say this struggle is one about values. Our values are worth struggling for. They represent humanity's progress throughout the ages and at each point we have had to fight for them and defend them. As a new age beckons, it is time to fight for them again.

[Wanderlust]

That's a good speech. Somehow i just can't imagine George Bush being capable of a speech like that; partly because of his obvious ineptness, but also because I don't think he believes it, whereas I truly believe Blair does. I do take issue with one theme though - a lot of the Muslim extremists have come about, I believe, by successive US governments getting their foreign policy wrong, and meddling in various countries, trying to get a leader they like in place, as well as unswerving support for Israel. Their record in the region is atrocious; if anyone wants to reappraise the history of this up to the end of the first Gulf War, and has an hour or two, have a read of "Ancient History": U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War Il and the Folly Of Intervention by Sheldon L. Richman. Nothing changes...

[Jockey]

How would you like it if someone came in to your house, threw you out, then labelled you a terrorist for trying to fight your way back in? The poor defenseless people of Palestine have been, and are being shockingly treated. All this barbaric murder by Isreal, condoned by America and the UK, will breed a new generation of suicide bombers. If I was a Palestinian I would certainly be "a terrorist".

Imagine if Hitler had invaded England and the Nazi's were still occupying it today. Would Englishmen be wrong to fight for their country back? Please tell me the difference from this scenario to what is actually happening now?

I read Blair's speach in the last post and it was typically lacking in humanity throughout. Compare it to his speach after the London bombing. Are the lives of these poor innocent woman, children and old people worthless? I look at the news and it makes out there is fierce fighting going on - rubbish - it is fierce annihilation!

There is a total absence of humanity in this situation.

On a piece of news my heart bled as they showed a man in hospital. He had grotesque wounds................ominously it was reported they were black and smelled of phospherous (a contravened chemical weapon), as he lay there suffering in horrendous pain, the commentry told of his wife and mother, both dead, his eldest son, also dead. He had two other children, who weren't shown, but who were obviously also in the same state as him Who will care for this man? Who will care for his children? Who will bury his family? Will he ever know what mass grave they have been hurried into? Will he be able to find the hastily dug ditch where his countrymen are being forced to dump their dead? Will he be able to work ever again? He has a life of struggling ahead of him. His crime? Driving north, with his family in the car, in a mad rush to escape the bombs falling on his home town.

Barbaric, but aside from the wider political pointscoring, this is a tragedy of epic proportions. The most terrible shame is the story of the man in hospital, and the 100's of thousands more, these are people who we do not hear of, and their stories are not uncommon.

While Condoleza Rice, Bush, Blair and the entourage of satanists in suits smile and drink champagne, eating the best of food at 5 star hotels, they are condoning murder, torture and anihilation of a poor nation. Its 99.9% innocent civilians who are suffering. The world has become a cruel cruel place, its as if satan himself has taken over.

[Wanderlust]

I agree Jockey, but given the audience Blair was addressing in his speech I think he went as far as he could to subtly criticise both the US and Israel; he also emphasises the need to work with the majority moderates to stabilise the region as a whole, rather than what has happened in the past. I would rather that he was 'in' the current process than shouting from the sidelines as I do believe he is as horrified as you or I by the current situation, whereas I think Bush couldn't care less as long as the oil keeps flowing and his constituents are kept happy. These are dark times indeed and if I believed in a higher being I'd be praying to them right now.

[caller]

I'd be praying a lot more if Jockey's views came to the fore!!!

Now lets see Blair practise what he preaches at home. We seem incapable of dealing with the extremists who have used the UK as a base for many years - not his fault - he inherited it.

I think Balirs speech was spot on. Appeasement doesn't work because the people(?) you are dealing with care not at all for innocent casualties. Its a hearts and mind job, whilst dealing with the reality and that means hurting those who perpetrate these acts.

Jockey, you and I will have to disagree on this. You don't like jews, thats evident. Come out from under your shroud and admit it. Thats what colours your posts.

I have a problem with the extremists in the Muslim religion. I don't like the visual impact with the woman in full robes. I don't like the way such women are treated, I think it barbaric. I think the Taliban enforcing such doctrines is male insecurity picked up by the blind leading the ignorant whilst promising 99 virgins in heaven, or whatever it is, for suicide bombers (by the way, what do the women get?).Woman wearing headscarves by choice, I find a non-intrusive way of respecting their religion. Thats my view. Although most Muslim women I know wear nothing visual that demonstrates their religion of choice to others, especially the one with modern tatoos!. But they regard themselves as praticising Muslims. Very confusing to this simple soul.

I also think that all these so called religious leaders are the new Hitlers, Stalin, Mussilini's, Zog's (couldn't resist that one) of their age. At the end of the day, they are just violent tyrants who have found an end to suit their needs.

[Jockey]

You don't like jews, thats evident. Come out from under your shroud and admit it.

That to me is a complete insult! If you read my post properly you will see I blame only the people who make the decisions and I have labelled them satanists. On reflection I think that is a slur on satanists!

I'm not going to comment any more on this thread because I don't want anything to do with being accused of or being misinterpreted as having religeous intollerance. So to answer your slanderous remark caller - I like all people be they Jews, muslims, catholics, protestants, black, yellow, pink, white etc. and I'm saddened if anyone should think otherwise.

As for Blairs "hearts and minds" speach, is he trying to tell us we need to bomb, maim and kill innocent people in order to brainwash them into thinking we are right and they are wrong?

I think I have said enough on this subject. I felt better getting things off my chest but I'm not going to get pulled into a racist debate so for me I will not post any more on this subject.

[Guess]

I saw nothing in Jockey's post that indicated a dislike of Jews. His first paragraph is absolutely spot on. Let me explain to you the reason why.

Palestine and many of the countries in the middle east were dominated by the enormous and powerful Ottoman empire for five centuries. The First world war fianlly defeated the Otoman power totally. The British and French had the task of policing the region with a view to establishing long term friendly states that were able to self govern. Durin the second wrold war any gropu that was discovered to be a potential ally to the French/British Coallition was recruited and armed to assist in the fight against the Ottomans. One of these many groups were the future Iraelis. These were mainly Russians Jews who were driven from the Tsarist Russia from 1881 until early in the twentieth century. The Jews were offered a deal by Lord Balfour in 1917. It stated:

"His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

That is the statement in its entirety and is the basis by which Isreal have conned the wotrd into the believing there "Right to Exist" policy.

After the Second World War there was another massive influx into Isreal, this time German's Czechs, Poles and many others who had displaced as a result of Nazi persecution.

It was at that time that the demand for the immediate creation of a state if Israwl was made. The British originally supported the opposing Arabs who did not want the homleand ruled by Eurpoean foreigners but later gave in when world sympathy for the Jews grew as the attocities in Germany and Poland became known, and Jewish Terorism against the British was stepped up.

Hence the State of Israel was founded. Ever since the creation there has been conflict with the neighbours of Israel and those who have lost their homeland and are now ruled by what they see quite rightly as a foreign nation.

Now with backing from the US and the UK the Israelis are able to expand their territory and unleash there terror machine on the innocent civilians that they occupy and are neighbours to.

Try and put yopurself into the position of the victims. Start with Palestine, after five centuries of rule by the Turks they finally get freedom even though it was policed by the British. This freedom is short lived. Their homeland is then taken from them by Russians and Poles and they a systematically treated barbarically by there new rulers.

Jockey never mentioned the word Jew in his post but I have because I am not afraid to do so. However it is completely irrelevant what the religious beliefs are. This conflict is about people fighting against foreign dominated oppression in their own homeland. Relgion has nothing at all to do with anything here. This an ancient ruse that has now worn thin.

Throught the history of the state of Israel the acts have barbarism have been heavily one sided. That is from the Israeli side. Now wonder extremist groups are spawned.

If I had grown up in Palestine and seen my family, friends and homeland being systematically detroyed by a barbaric foreign regime I would also become a so called terrorist extremist.

Because of The US and the UK's blind allegience to Israel a number of wars have resulted. None of these have settled anything and only set the stage for the next one. Each one gets more serious than the previous one. All the British and Americans have achieved is to get innocent soldiers from their own countries killed fighting for something that they do not understand.

There needs to be at least one more military campaign to begin the peace process. This should be to take control of Israel and weed out the war criminals for trial.

The UN should then sit back and question the whole situation regarding Israels right to exist. More important the debnate regarding Palestine's right to exist should be started.

Until this is done the long winded Blair empty statements and Bush's inept gibberings will continue while in the meantime many more innocent people will continue to live a life of hell for the crime of being a neighbour of Israel. Eventually the "Extremists" will get their hands on more sophisticated devices and there will levels of terrorism from both sides the likes of which have never been seen before.

The attrocity committed in New York, which IMHO was carried out as a result of the Palestine conflict but by members of an organistaion with their own agenda, was just the start.

If steps are not taken now to curb Israel's murderous barbaric campaign the Middle Eastern Conflcit can only escalate and embroil other nations that so far have not been directly involved.

[PeteC]

I understand what you're saying Guess, as well as everyone else. However, if you take the history back further, wasn't Israel "Israel" from the time of Abraham? I don't think the Jews left voluntarily the first time around. What the UN did in 1946, they did, and nothing is going to undo that now.

Regardless of the reasons for 9-11, even if the US partially caused it by their own policies, 2819 were killed/missing. At Pearl Harbor 3303 were killed/missing.

Why should anyone think that the USA's response to 9-11 is any different than what it was with the Japanese? It isn't, it's just taking longer to develop as it's not traditional warfare. I don't want to see it happen but Syria and Iran are next, bet the farm on it.

The tactics of Hezzbola and Hamas are to use schools, hospitals and densely populated villages as the base of their attacks. Then, they run like hell so when vectored, they are not there but the innocents are. They then catch CNN or BBC to film the civilian dead. There was a report today that the same dead child was spotted in three different locations and filmed as being a victim in each one. Rigor had already set in. The child was being moved around by someone(?) to spin the story.

I think Blair said that the moderate Muslims have to step up and confront the radicals, worldwide. He's right as if they don't they will be swallowed up in this and perhaps cease to exist as well.

We can debate all of this until we have ulcers and die of old age but what has always happened in history is going to happen again, the most powerful will win.

Will there be lasting peace afterwards? I hope so but I doubt it. History concerning the human species again.

I tell you who wants peace more than anyone else and that's the soldiers who are fighting. Not because they're scared and miss home, but because they see the gore, destruction and waste of it all on a day to day basis. But, their country called them to serve and if people stop doing that, we have anarchy.

No war ends well, not even for the victor. It just ends. That's my last words on this issue also. It's too upsetting and all we're going to do is bash each other based upon different philosophies. Pete

[Jaime]

OK, here I go again.

wasn't Israel "Israel" from the time of Abraham? I don't think the Jews left voluntarily the first time around.

The same argument says lets give England back to the Welsh, the descendants of the Britons, give the Americas back to the indians, give Thailand back to the Mon-khmers etc. etc ad infinitum. And who was there before the Jews? They were supposedly led there by Moses so it's not where they started out. So, come on Pete, I know you can do better than that!

For some reason, Israel is a one-off. I wonder why? Not because the Jews are God's chosen people but because they are somebody else's! The trouble with the state of Israel is that as soon as anyone sticks their head above the parapet and criticises it, they have the whole 'you are anti-Jewish' thing thrown at them! Politically, Israel is and always has been fireproof, from long before 9/11. People see the injustice and the double standards and that breeds resentment.

[Guess]

OK, here I go again.

wasn't Israel "Israel" from the time of Abraham? I don't think the Jews left voluntarily the first time around.

The same argument says lets give England back to the Welsh, the descendants of the Britons, give the Americas back to the indians, give Thailand back to the Mon-khmers etc. etc ad infinitum. And who was there before the Jews? They were supposedly led there by Moses so it's not where they started out. So, come on Pete, I know you can do better than that!

For some reason, Israel is a one-off. I wonder why? Not because the Jews are God's chosen people but because they are somebody else's! The trouble with the state of Israel is that as soon as anyone sticks their head above the parapet and criticises it, they have the whole 'you are anti-Jewish' thing thrown at them! Politically, Israel is and always has been fireproof, from long before 9/11. People see the injustice and the double standards and that breeds resentment.

Hear hear.

I went back in history to as a means to get to the situation that we have today which really only goes back as far as 1946 or 1917 at the absolute earliest.

I must stress U have nothing whatever against Jews or their religion. My beef is with Israel and its supporters and as Jaimie says their "one-off" situation.

Whereas I respect the religous books of all the religions is has to be pointed out that these are very old anf have been translated many time via many different languages and dialects. What is written aboot the plight of the Jews pre Christ has about as much historic evidence and relevance as Robin Hood and his Merry Men, Romulus and Remus and King Arthur and his knights of the round table. I.e there was probably some fatctual basis to all these stories but they are way from conclusive and anyway they happened so long ago that the facts surrounding them are irrelevant.

My understanding supported by modern historical accounts is that the whole region was either atheist or in someway conformed to the newly formed Jewish Faith. Christ came along and added a new dimension follwed by Mohammed four centuries later.

I agree with what Pete says but I will state that although I believe that although the excuse the extremists use for their own ends is the US and UK (and of course Spanish, Australian etc.) support for Israel, I in no way condonde the actions of these terrorists of 9/11 any more than I would condone with the actions carried out currently by the terrorist state of Israel.

Thes are just two different flavours of terrorists. Both are wrong.

[PeteC]

I'm breaking my own damn rules. You guys are insurgents into my mind.

I don't condone anything about it either but what can I or any of us do...move to Thailand?

It's common knowledge that the core undercurrent of American economics and power is inflenced by the Jews. It has been since the end of WWII or even before. I'm not going to renounce my citizenship over it, no one in their right mind would and that goes for UK citizens as well as the scenario there is not that much different.

We are where we are, and we need to face world reality as it is at present.

This entire outburst by Israel appears to me to have caught Washington by surprise as well, to a degree. Perhaps there have been things said and implemented that has caused Israel to question their support structure? You have to remember the USS Liberty in the Med during the Israel/Egypt war in the 60's. They almost blew it out of the water and killed several crew saying "...we did not see the flag..." Bullshit, they didn't want us listening to their war communications, and a US warship is very, very evident compared to what was in the entire Med at the time. We buried the issue. See paragraph 3 above.

The bottom line is that the Arab's are going to lose this and really no one is going to win. Not to mention the dead people. I'll also mention the tax burden on everyday Americans who will have to finance reconstruction for decades.

You two guys are right, 100% right with most of your points. It makes no difference. The world is on a set course. You gotta ride it as there's no other place to go and no power to change it. Pete

[lomuamart]

I try not to get caught up in these debates. I've got my views of who is and who isn't right, but they're mine and I'll do my best to keep them off the board - I hope.
So, all my comment is about is who's going to win?
As Pete has said, no-one wins. Yet it's happening all over that region. Western "defence and peacekeeping forces" are stretched to the limit already. We all know this.
If Syria and particularly Iran get involved, as it they're threatening to do, it's chaos and anarchy anyway. The "peacekeepers" won't be able to do much, other than the unthinkable.
India vs Pakistan. Give us a break. This has pretty much always been one of the most volatile areas in the world because of their nuclear capability and muscle flexing.
And then Africa. And then Indonesia???
It goes on and on.
There's no way to win and for any "advanced nation" to support these admittedly very volatile regional conflicts is extremely dangerous for all, in my view.
What's the alternative? Well, I'm not going to posit one, because I don't have an answer.
That post is just from a concerned member of this planet. Reckon my wife and I will try to be hippies again - at leat me, anyway - and find some place miles away from anywhere for utopian life.
If only

[PeteC]

That post is just from a concerned member of this planet. Reckon my wife and I will try to be hippies again - at leat me, anyway - and find some place miles away from anywhere for utopian life.
If only

I agree, I'll join you. Before signing off for the night I checked my yahoo home page. This is what I saw:

Koizumi seen paving ground for war shrine visit

Taiwan refuses visit by senior Chinese official

North Korea Cancels Inter-Korean Events, Citing Flood Damage

Iranian Delegation Visits Pyongyang for Closer Ties

Iran warns oil could reach $200 on sanctions

Generals raise fears of Iraq civil war

Perhaps none of this is really happening, it's only the media inventing most of it? Who sang that song, "Don't worry, be happy"? Pete

[caller]

And I would just like to pubicly pass on my apologies to Jockey. (should read "publicly" to change it further would detract from Jaimes next post!!! Read on)

I re-read what he wrote and there's a lot of emotion there. I think maybe that kind of influenced his tone and how I interpreted it.

If he'll accept, a beers on me next time I'm in HH.

Nothing that has been written here has changed my opinion or views, although I'm open to ideas.

Interesting to noted the shift in reporting today, looking at Israeli casualties, maybe its not so newsworthy to keep doing the other? Thats my cyniicism about the press, by the way.

I guess these topics are just not appropriate for a forum like this? Everyone has their own opinions and maybe they're best kept quiet.

I've learnt my lesson.

[Jaime]

And I would just like to pubicly pass on my apologies to Jockey.

Hey Jockey! That is an offer you just cannot refuse!

Can we have photographs for the members' (no pun intended) pages?