@JeSoul

The way you make the point about moral countries and moral leadership makes it hard to argue against, as that is a view that resonates strongly with me. While no country is moral some do indeed appear to be more moral than others. Someone recently introduced to me Brian Gleck’s book War at Home, a book that details shocking atrocities committed by the FBI, particularly at the time of J Edgar Hoover, the criminologist who ran the FBI, some say the USA, for 48 years, and some of whose methods would make Genghis Khan look civilised. You read and think, wait a minute, these people are just as bad as whose they demonise. But in a more sober moment you recall checks and balances, Nixon and other leaders brought down by their own agencies once these things are found out, things done openly and with impunity in other climes. I think it was Bokassa of the Central African Republic who once had schoolchildren picked up and tortured for refusing to wear a shirt with his picture on it because they thought he was ugly. And His Majesty and Excellency remained in power for long after. An amoral country! I once heard, but could not confirm, that Col Gadaffi did something similar when some kids threw stones at his convoy. Another amoral country.

But those who contend that the West is hardly more moral have a compelling argument. I have no doubt if the UK prime minister were to order the police to shoot unarmed people marching silently through a street his order would not even be carried out. If they are carried out, I believe the PM, the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and several officers would be looking for a job in a matter of days. Much less order the police to arrest and torture children for declining to wear a shirt! This may also apply to the US. So are they morally superior or do they just operate by a different kind of morality – “us” and “them”? Most people would remember Ariel Sharon’s horrible war crimes in Lebanon. But when you do you wonder why the West would insist (rightly) on the trial of people like Milosevic and Mladic but fete the likes of Sharon who was responsible for the death of civilians including women and children. You would wonder why the United States would throw things at efforts to bring Sharon to international trial for being responsible for the death of children.

But I’m rambling!

Actually, I don’t believe all the countries in the Middle East would matter if peace is to be made. I mean if Israel and the Palestinians themselves, along with Egypt, can agree on borders for a Palestinian nation, what would the rantings of a Jew-hating Ayatollah in Tehran or a Bedouin in Medina matter? The only other countries that will matter in this matter, the countries that need to AGREE, are the countries sharing a border with Palestine – Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. As for the remaining Middle Eastern countries, I would say that for every pathologically amoral country like Iran or Libya there is an enlightened one like the UAE or Bahrain to lend moral support. That is why I don’t think we need to have a moral Middle East before anything can be achieved. Israel and the Palestinians themselves are the problem, Israel more because they are the stronger party. The greatest obstacle to resolution of that matter is constituted by Hamas wing of Israeli politics and Hamas and the more militant groups on the Palestinian side. I had earlier talked about the Arabs saying “no more war” and then demonstrating a readiness to accept Israel.

JeSoul:
Lai lai. I wish I shared your optimism, rather, I suspect if the land was given back, they will quickly find something else they want given back. Until they become 'moral' nations, I would not consider making any kind of concessions as I feel they would be wasted on the wrong generation of leadership/people.

That’s why there would be negotiations. 1967 is just one of the issues. During the negotiations all issues would be on the table and only when both parties are ready to make concessions and append their signatures to a document would progress be made. It would not be a case of Israel agreeing to 67 and the Arabs later asking for something else.

JeSoul:
Really Myjoe? when did we start taking the word of the MB?

They are not fielding candidates for the presidency in the September election.

JeSoul:

The whole crux of the matter, and a song they continue to sing to whomever will listen.

Ahmadinejad has indeed been saying that to anyone that would listen.

JeSoul:
As Negro said, I don't think Obama is naive at all. He is merely an idealist who's read too many utopian books, dreamt too many utopian dreams and discussed too many utopian ideals - while sipping green tea in a buddhist temple in the mountains of the Sichuan province in China. He knows how the world works, but foolishly hopes he can change people with his words, instead of accepting the reality on ground and working within it towards a realistic end.

I think the president was merely setting out an agenda. I doubt even he expected Israel to accept it off hand. But I agree with you peace is not likely to come to that place soon. It's just that I place the blame for that squarely at the doors of the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves.

violent:

So what happens when Israel's right to exist as a nation is threatened? Do you suppose it is unjust if a smaller nation (by landmass) takes measures to protect itself from bigger sharks who feel it shouldn't have a right to exist?

Are you really convinced of what your saying or do you just want to argue?

violent:

Do you suppose it is unjust if a smaller nation (by landmass) takes measures to protect itself from bigger sharks who feel it shouldn't have a right to exist?

A smaller nation by landmass indeed, what landmass are we talking about, the whole world or the Middle East. Even United State of America has a small landmass when compared to the whole Americas.

When did protecting yourself mean land grab and extending settlements?

Myjoe no vex ehn. Sorry for another late response . . .

MyJoe:

@JeSoul

The way you make the point about moral countries and moral leadership makes it hard to argue against, as that is a view that resonates strongly with me. While no country is moral some do indeed appear to be more moral than others. Someone recently introduced to me Brian Gleck’s book War at Home, a book that details shocking atrocities committed by the FBI, particularly at the time of J Edgar Hoover, the criminologist who ran the FBI, some say the USA, for 48 years, and some of whose methods would make Genghis Khan look civilised. You read and think, wait a minute, these people are just as bad as whose they demonise. But in a more sober moment you recall checks and balances, Nixon and other leaders brought down by their own agencies once these things are found out, things done openly and with impunity in other climes. I think it was Bokassa of the Central African Republic who once had schoolchildren picked up and tortured for refusing to wear a shirt with his picture on it because they thought he was ugly. And His Majesty and Excellency remained in power for long after. An amoral country! I once heard, but could not confirm, that Col Gadaffi did something similar when some kids threw stones at his convoy. Another amoral country.

  Add to that list Mugabe's latest atrocity of jailing a man because he used his toilet. I bet one of our resident conspiracy theorists can spin a story and blame the west for that too.

  I agree with you so much above jare. And especially about the US (FBI/CIA and co) also equally having extremely ugly skeletons of bad deeds in their own closet. On a national scale, we even need look no further than how they treated slaves . . . thank God for evolution.

But those who contend that the West is hardly more moral have a compelling argument. I have no doubt if the UK prime minister were to order the police to shoot unarmed people marching silently through a street his order would not even be carried out. If they are carried out, I believe the PM, the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and several officers would be looking for a job in a matter of days. Much less order the police to arrest and torture children for declining to wear a shirt! This may also apply to the US. So are they morally superior or do they just operate by a different kind of morality – “us” and “them”? Most people would remember Ariel Sharon’s horrible war crimes in Lebanon. But when you do you wonder why the West would insist (rightly) on the trial of people like Milosevic and Mladic but fete the likes of Sharon who was responsible for the death of civilians including women and children. You would wonder why the United States would throw things at efforts to bring Sharon to international trial for being responsible for the death of children.

I do honestly believe that more recently, western nations do hold themselves to a higher standard - such that there are even people/organizations here fighting against Obama's drone attacks against jihadists in Yemen. Imagine that! lol. As a collective group, there is so much balance, that it is darn near impossible for blatant injustice to go unchallenged - even when it is directed at terrorists. That isn't just a different kind of morality - it is superior. How can a nation that claims to have any kind of sense allow the jailing of a man for merely using a president's toilet? How can Syria and co dare to point at the US when they are hunting down and shooting teachers and workers for merely participating in a political demonstration?

But I’m rambling!

You can ramble anytime to me Myjoe, I'm learning a lot from you.

Actually, I don’t believe all the countries in the Middle East would matter if peace is to be made. I mean if Israel and the Palestinians themselves, along with Egypt, can agree on borders for a Palestinian nation, what would the rantings of a Jew-hating Ayatollah in Tehran or a Bedouin in Medina matter? The only other countries that will matter in this matter, the countries that need to AGREE, are the countries sharing a border with Palestine – Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. As for the remaining Middle Eastern countries, I would say that for every pathologically amoral country like Iran or Libya there is an enlightened one like the UAE or Bahrain to lend moral support. That is why I don’t think we need to have a moral Middle East before anything can be achieved. Israel and the Palestinians themselves are the problem, Israel more because they are the stronger party. The greatest obstacle to resolution of that matter is constituted by Hamas wing of Israeli politics and Hamas and the more militant groups on the Palestinian side. I had earlier talked about the Arabs saying “no more war” and then demonstrating a readiness to accept Israel.
That’s why there would be negotiations. 1967 is just one of the issues. During the negotiations all issues would be on the table and only when both parties are ready to make concessions and append their signatures to a document would progress be made. It would not be a case of Israel agreeing to 67 and the Arabs later asking for something else.

  Excellent points and I tend to agree . . . except on the ratio .

They are not fielding candidates for the presidency in the September election.

Perhaps not. But the recent news of violence and clashes (some religious) that weren't there even thru the uprising should cause one to pause. We know they're tussling for power wherever they can find it, perhaps it may not be 'fielding a candidate' but I have no doubt they already have a calculated agenda, call me crazy lol.

I think the president was merely setting out an agenda. I doubt even he expected Israel to accept it off hand. But I agree with you peace is not likely to come to that place soon. It's just that I place the blame for that squarely at the doors of the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves.

Isreal will continue to act like the man who has been violated and done wrong, therefore I do not expect them to concede and offer up an olive branch - they would expect that to come from the one who first fired at them. And they can afford to remain stubborn because they are more superior - militarily - than their opponent. Meanwhile Palestinians continue to point to Israel's 'crimes' committed while 'protecting' themselves and refuse to accept na dem first start wahala and offer up an apology to soften Israel's heart. . . and so we're stuck in an endless cycle of puffed up egos.

JeSoul:

Isreal will continue to act like the man who has been violated and done wrong, therefore I do not expect them to concede and offer up an olive branch - they would expect that to come from the one who first fired at them. And they can afford to remain stubborn because they are more superior - militarily - than their opponent. Meanwhile Palestinians continue to point to Israel's 'crimes' committed while 'protecting' themselves and refuse to accept na dem first start wahala and offer up an apology to soften Israel's heart. . . and so we're stuck in an endless cycle of puffed up egos.

Would you offer an apology to a roach? Would you sign an agreement to live side by side in peace with a rat? Would you sign a binding agreement to recognise the right of all pigs to exist?

Once one realises that this is how Hamas and their supporters view the Jews, then it begins to become clear that peace is no where near.

Mariory:

Would you offer an apology to a roach? Would you sign an agreement to live side by side in peace with a rat? Would you sign a binding agreement to recognise the right of all pigs to exist?

Once one realises that this is how Hamas and their supporters view the Jews, then it begins to become clear that peace is no where near.

  Chai!  Dude you harsh oh! lol

JeSoul:

I do honestly believe that more recently, western nations do hold themselves to a higher standard - such that there are even people/organizations here fighting against Obama's drone attacks against jihadists in Yemen. Imagine that! lol. As a collective group, there is so much balance, that it is darn near impossible for blatant injustice to go unchallenged - even when it is directed at terrorists. That isn't just a different kind of morality - it is superior.

Yeah. It's impossible to miss the higher standards to which the Western nations hold themselves nowadays.

JeSoul:
How can a nation that claims to have any kind of sense allow the jailing of a man for merely using a president's toilet?   How can Syria and co dare to point at the US when they are hunting down and shooting teachers and workers for merely participating in a political demonstration?

It's strange with these people. Strange. You just wonder what kinds of human beings these are.

JeSoul:
You can ramble anytime to me Myjoe, I'm learning a lot from you.

Many thanks for your kindness.

JeSoul:
  Excellent points and I tend to agree . . . except on the ratio .
Perhaps not. But the recent news of violence and clashes (some religious) that weren't there even thru the uprising should cause one to pause. We know they're tussling for power wherever they can find it, perhaps it may not be 'fielding a candidate' but I have no doubt they already have a calculated agenda, call me crazy lol.

I think you are reading them with the specs of the 80's. The Muslim Brotherhood seems to have evolved a lot over the years, much like the Justice and Development Party, Turkey's present ruling party, which also started out as an Islamist party. The religious conflicts in Egypt are shameful, but I guess they follow the pattern in any Arab country where a long serving dictator gets deposed - all buried troubles crawl out of their holes, as the problems were never actually addressed, just repressed through sheer force by the police state. I am sure things will simmer down and the Copts can live in peace. I am not aware the MB has anything to do with it, though.

JeSoul:
Isreal will continue to act like the man who has been violated and done wrong, therefore I do not expect them to concede and offer up an olive branch - they would expect that to come from the one who first fired at them. And they can afford to remain stubborn because they are more superior - militarily - than their opponent. Meanwhile Palestinians continue to point to Israel's 'crimes' committed while 'protecting' themselves and refuse to accept na dem first start wahala and offer up an apology to soften Israel's heart. . . and so we're stuck in an endless cycle of puffed up egos.

I agree about operating from a superior position - guess anyone would act the same. But it gets tangled when we try establish who fired first. The Palestinians are landless and condemned to be refugees. They seem for the most part the harassed, fired at ones. But what you said above is the reason mediators are needed. Maybe one day they will let someone do it the way Egypt and Israel let Carter back then. This one is much more knotty, though. Still hoping . . .

JeSoul:

  Chai!  Dude you harsh oh! lol

Not harsh JeSoul, just factual. What I said is nothing compared to some of the hate speeches given by Hamas leaders and their friends. That is why Israel goes to great lengths to maintain their military superiority.