Posted on 07/28/2006 11:27:07 AM PDT by qlangley
The state of Israel is almost sixty years old. It has been in a formal state of war every day since then. Formal states of war often exist when there is no actual fighting. But in the case of Israel, there has been a permanent fighting war too. Some periods have been quieter than others. Many have been quieter than the past week. None has been without bloodshed.
Why has the violence flared up now? What is different about July 2006 that did not also apply in June 2006, or even the summer of 2005.
I would suggest that those on the jihadist side who thrive on violence are suddenly feeling defensive. They are scared that they no longer have the automatic ability to rally the entire Muslim world to their cause.
This is not wholly new. There have been divisions among Arabs and Muslims before. But in 2006 the fissures have become deeper and, perhaps more significantly, it is now apparent that the divisions are between populations, and not just between governments.
The Arab League condemned Egypt in the 1970s for making peace with Israel. But these divisions were minor compared to today. In a sense, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict still united Arabs. Arabs sided with the Palestinians. The question was over tactics.
The Iran-Iraq war divided the Muslim world, but more or less united Arabs, though Syria was sympathetic to the Iranian side.
The Gulf War of 1990-91 was rather different. Arabs fought Arabs. Iraq invaded Kuwait. Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states provided money and bases for western countries to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. Syria put troops into the field against Iraq. But the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remained a source of unity. Saddam’s survival strategy was to fire on Israel: to force Israel to defend itself, so that Syria and other Arab states would withdraw from the international coalition.
But now things are very different. Saddam is insanely convinced that Iran, Israel and the US jointly plotted his downfall. Iran remains a country deeply distrusted by almost all Arab states. Meanwhile, Iraq, with the support of its Coalition allies has unleashed a virus into the Arab world that all its neighbors fear: freedom. People in Iraq elected their government. People in Iraq read independent newspapers and listen to free TV and radio. They write their own blogs.
And, worse, there are vectors for this virus. Right across the Middle East people have internet access. There are two competing pan-Arab news channels: Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya. They have different takes on the situation in Iraq, and now on the conflict in the Lebanon. Arabs have access to competing points of view, and can make up their own minds.
Iran, under international pressure because of its nuclear program believes that by inciting renewed conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors it can unify the Muslim world on its side. That was a huge miscalculation. Arab governments are calling on Iran’s client, Hezbollah, to desist. Al Arabiya is carrying anti-Iranian and anti-Hezbollah messages across the Arab world. And the west is more convinced than ever that the mad mullahs cannot be allowed nuclear weapons. It is not just talk. They would start a nuclear holocaust.
Quentin Langley is editor of www.quentinlangley.net an academic at the University of Cardiff and is a columnist with Campaigns & Elections. This article was first published in the Common Sense series for Lake Champlain Weekly.
I’ve never considered freedom’s march analogous to the spread of a pathogen. Alternatively, I’ve never considered freedom a cure all either. Freedom only relieves an individual from blaming someone else for their failures. The free mind that learns responsibility through failing will one day succeed. That kind of success alone is the engine driving humankind to a better and brighter future.
Hopefully, Iran's constant blathering will help unify America's resolve.
>>I’ve never considered freedom’s march analogous to the spread of a pathogen.
Under chaos theory, many things can me considered so analogous. And, of course, there is the notion of the 'meme' which also draws analogies between human ideas and biological systems.
>>While it is true that Arab governments may be alarmed by this obvious Iranian/Shiite move to become the dominant Islamic state, the people, the so-called "Arab street" overwhelmingly support Hizbollah.
Do you have evidence for this? There are no countries in which Arabs are allowed to vote in which they have voted in any great number for allies of Hezbollah.
I really don't find 'demonstrations' - often orchestrated specifically for western media - very convincing evidence. There were demonstrations in America too, but no-one thinks the demonstrators - a fraction of 1% of the population - were speaking for anyone other than themselves. A demonstration that is huge by historic standards tells you that a small minority feels very strongly about a subject. It does not tell you how large the group that silently agrees with them is - it could be 10% of the population or 90%, the numbers demonstrating would be identical.
Please understand, this is a very narrow point. It doesn't mean that you are wrong, and I am not pretending it does. I also haven't read the book you have kindly recommended. This is just notice that I require a LOT more evidence than demonstrations.
Just ask your average Arab, whether Sunni or Shia, what he thinks about Hizbollah? I double-dog guarantee that you will get a ringing endorsment for the terror group by the vast majority along with concomitant curses on the Jews and Christians. Muslims will bandwagon around their own when they are attacked by "outsiders" every single time. There is so much evidence to prove this that I could fill many pages with it.
>>There is so much evidence to prove this that I could fill many pages with it.
You could? That is interesting, but you have not offered any so far. You have offered me guarantees as to what I would find if I asked the 'average' Muslim or Arab. Presumably you mean a large scale scientific poll across the overlapping regions. I am afraid I don't have the resources to conduct such a poll, and there is clear evidence that if you conduct polls in repressive regimes you don't get honest answers.
>>What do I have to do to convince you that the the Muslims today are near universally backing Hizbollah?
You could cite some evidence. One piece would be a start.
Anecdotes about what SOME Muslim people did will not convince anyone who has a passing acquaintance with reasoning skills that ALL (or nearly all) Muslims must support a particular proposition.
>>I don't care a fig about "scientific polls."
No, evidence does not seem to inform your thinking process.
>>I know d*mn well that the vast majority of Muslims everywhere support what Hizbollah is doing right now
Oh, I see. You know it WELL! That explains everything. Why didn't you say so before? I didn't even realise you were personally acquainted with 'the vast majority of Muslims'.
Here was I asking for evidence and you already know it, without evidence. That clears everything up. Thank you.
And thank you for introducing me to your friend the strawman. I hear he hasn't got a brain. You two certainly seem to have hit it off.
If you were allowed to make up my side of the argument as well, it would be easy for you to win. But since I am the one who gets to express my views, you merely expose yourself as a fool, and a deeply dishonest one.
As all of those reading will attest, I have made no assertions as to the balance of public opinion in middle eastern countries. Any such assertion would be mere guesswork. I would not engage in that without first examining evidence. I have none and you have ignored requests to proffer any that you may possess. You have made assertion after assertion, and all I have done, repeatedly, is to ask you if you have any evidence.
Finally, after considerable pressure, you volunteer an argument. Protests themselves tell us nothing, but it is possible that the absence of counter protests is an indicator of the balance of opinion. It is not exactly evidence, but perhaps it is an indicator.
If you had responded in this way in the beginning - you know, without the silly slurs and the absurd strawmen - then I would not have felt the need to expose your argumentation to rigorous analysis. Instead, in response to a polite request for evidence, you develop your own absurd ad hominems and ridiculous attacks.
Just keep taking the tablets and see if they calm you down. You might even want to increase the dose.
You and Mr. Strawman are obvious bedmates. So, please, don't go away mad, just go away.
If your blood pressure returns to normal, and you would like to be introduced to the difference between evidence and assertion, let me know. There was a flash there in the post before last. It is possible that you are not a complete lost cause. I would be pleased to help.
If asking me would be too humiliating for you, perhaps you have a dictionary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.