The Region: The abandonment of logic on the Middle East

[shira]

The Region: The abandonment of logic on the Middle East
By BARRY RUBIN
07/19/2010 00:31

People who don’t follow the issues, understand the debate or know the country want to play with our lives.

The arguments used by many in the West to avoid thinking and talking seriously about the Middle East generally feature a refusal to discuss the substance of issues and usually involve a barrage of insults, characterizations, and nonlogical or nonfactual claims.

1. The right-wing argument. This says: You’re basically a right-wing person who opposes a two-state solution and wants to do mean things to Arabs or Muslims. Therefore, we can ignore anything you say. I won’t take the space to present my Democratic Party (US) and Labor Party (Israel) credentials. Let’s just point out that there are many Democrats unhappy with Barack Obama’s foreign policy (even if only in private) and that the Labor Party is part of the current Israeli government. Calling people who aren’t right-wing right-wing is merely a tactic by radicals to convince liberals to ignore critics and to mistake a relatively extremist approach as a moderate left-of-center one.

There is a parallel attempt to label anyone who favors Israel as a right-winger unfit for civilized discourse and thus an enemy of enlightened people. Yet it should be a liberal cause to support a country that is not only democratic and with an open, liberal society, but which is also a US ally, a bulwark against aggressive and repressive forces and a country which has made considerable sacrifices and taken great risks for peace.

It should be a liberal cause to oppose the establishment of radical Islamist regimes that destroy individual rights, create ruthless dictatorships and oppress women and Christians. Moreover, it is very much in the national interest of the US and of the West – including any liberal interpretation of that interest – to oppose a region dominated by Iran and its allies, the overthrow of relatively moderate Arab regimes, the destruction of Israel and a situation of increased violence and crisis that would result.


more...
http://www.jpost.com/Features/FrontLines/Article.aspx?id=181832

[Hardrada]

1. It should be a liberal cause to get the fuck out of the ME altogether

and let those sons of the desert settle their own differences.

[bemildred]

2. Very ironic:

"The arguments used by many in the West to avoid thinking and talking seriously about the Middle East generally feature a refusal to discuss the substance of issues and usually involve a barrage of insults, characterizations, and nonlogical or nonfactual claims."

An long list of straw-man and attack the messenger whining about "insults, characterizations, and nonlogical or nonfactual claims."

[whosinpower]

3. The left wing liberals were obliterated

In the last Israeli election cycle. Oberliner posted an article explaining why Israel is moving to the right.

This article tries to paint Netanyahu as being___________ - what exactly, I am not sure. If I were to say right wing - I would be labelled a radical..... If I brought up the controversial conversion law......I must hate Israel.....sarcasm. If left leaning Israeli's criticize Netanyahu's leadership - they are self hating trash.....But wait....

I understood left leaning as being liberal....and right leaning as being conservative....and the left leaning Israeli's have less power now than ever before....but, according to this article, Israel is a liberal open society....just without liberals in power.....

I suppose by the standardpost of Iran - Israel could be seen as liberal...still left of Iran, but moving further and further to the right. According to Oberliner's article, Israel was moving to the right as a pyschological reaction to existential threat over 2 decades long. I don't dispute that - but it does make one wonder if Iran and the region was also far right because of a psychological existential threat over the past 2000 years - and is the correct course of action just isolating those nations.....seems to me that regional peace - long term equitable peace would require that the Arab nations would need to move left to be more progressive.

If the Arab Nations cannot move towards more progressive ideals - for whatever reason....this is bad news for Israel. And no amount of Iron Dome, or nuclear weapons, or walls, weapons, sanctions, wars can save them. Because it indicates that once a nation moves far to the right - they cannot change. I reject this personally. Iran can change. It needs not be an enemy of Israel. But I do not see sanctions as a means of allowing Iran to embrace more liberal ideals. I see sanctions as an existential threat to that nation.....which moves it further right, and entrenches the concept of perpetual war.

[shira]

4. What does Leftwing/Rightwing have to do with this, seriously?

Meretz could be in power and do everything possible for peace, including bringing back the build-your-own-home program for refugees...

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=326524&mesg_id=326902

...and it wouldn't make one bit of difference. Palestinian leadership hates Israel's Left-wing just as much as they hate Israel's Right-wing.

Not saying I wouldn't rather see Israel's Left-wing running the government now, but insofar as making peace is concerned I realize they wouldn't do any better than Netanyahu right now. What makes you think otherwise? :shrug:

[whosinpower]

5. Do you even read the articles that you post?

snip - It should be a liberal cause to oppose the establishment of radical Islamist regimes that destroy individual rights, create ruthless dictatorships and oppress women and Christians.

Oh wait - upon reading it more carefully the third time.....the author is insinuating that the West should be more liberal and appose the establishment of radical regimes that destroy individual rights, create ruthless dictatorships and oppress people.....but....we know from Oberliner's article that nations tend to move to the right as a psychological reaction to existential threat. I am not disputing that. I am not disputing the threat to Israel.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I was under the impression that liberalism is left leaning, and conservatism is right leaning. The author stated "It should be a liberal cause....." Is this meant to redefine what it is to be liberal - or just to shut up the critisicm? And if the west does not embrace a cause to appose the establishment of radical regimes....then the west is not liberal enough for the author?

Or...are we just supposed to shut the F*** up anyways because it is Israeli lives at stake. You will note that I never suggested that a left leaning, socially progressive Israeli government would alter the reality there. But here is something to chew on....if Iran began to move left and begin to embrace socially progressive ideals.....what then? Think in terms of decades, not months.....

The pickle is this - if we threaten, sanction, overthrow Iran -they cannot move to a more progressive end. As a liberal, I should work towards ending inequality, oppression of minorities, and the establishment of radical regimes...but I cannot do so with the tools of the might makes right, because the result is perpetual war....which is great news for the military industrial complex, but sucks for human rights.

Israel would be in a far better position if Iran became more liberal, more progressive, more tolerant. That can only happen when the benefits of doing so outweigh the cost and when the existential threat, real or perceived ceases to exist.

[shira]

6. Israel can have elections, change from RW to LW overnight - just like in the USA (Bush to Obama)

That doesn't happen in regimes like Iran, Cuba, N.Korea, Gaza, etc.

How do you explain France and Britain's move to the Right in their latest elections (Sarkozi and Cameron)? Or Bush's last 8 years? Or the Republicans maybe taking over the House of Representatives this coming November?

[whosinpower]

7. Are you hopeful for the republicans?

Certainly democratic states can and do evolve to the whims of the voter to a certain degree. I wouldn't put much money on the republicans gaining that much in the next election cycle. They have to rebuild their party from the ground up and this takes time to establish a clear message. That is not to gloss over the volatility in the public....there will be allot of changes in the next cycle. Bush was so unpopular towards the end of his term - even McCain asked him to stay away....

I am not that familiar with French politics or Sarkozy. A person can hardly claim that Cameron won handily....he had to find allies and form a coalition. Canada has had three minority governments and three elections in four years as a result of no one party winning majority.

You reject Oberliner's article regarding Israel moving to the right as a reaction to living with existential threat?

Interesting choice of nations you asked about. Why not Saudi Arabia?

[shira]

8. No - why would you think I want Republicans to win the house?

What do you think of Barry Rubin's 1st argument from the OP?

I am not that familiar with French politics or Sarkozy. A person can hardly claim that Cameron won handily....he had to find allies and form a coalition.

The point is that liberal democracies not under existential threat move to the right about as much as they go left, just like Israel. Cameron may not have won handily but neither did Netanyahu's Likud party; in fact, Kadima won more seats but couldn't put together a coalition.

You reject Oberliner's article regarding Israel moving to the right as a reaction to living with existential threat?

Sort of, with one reason being the examples above where there was no 'threat' but democracies went Rightwing anyway.

Also, take the 90's in Israel, for example. After Rabin was assassinated and Perez took over, Palestinian terrorism spiked and - due to what was perceived as an existential threat - Netanyahu was elected. However, when the electorate felt Netanyahu wasn't going to work for peace, Labour won in a landslide over Netanyahu and Barak took over. I don't see any reason to believe that couldn't happen again if the circumstances change.

Even with Rightwing leadership, you do realize Israel's media and courts system are more liberal than America's? Even in Israel's Knesset, anti-zionist or communist politicians can viciously blast other officials and policy (no way this would happen in America). It's not even arguable as to which society in general is more liberal. Take your pick as to what's better - (a) conservatives in power with liberal media, courts, and more freedom of dissent or (b) liberals in power with conservative media, courts, and less freedom of dissent? Which would you choose if these were your only options?

Interesting choice of nations you asked about. Why not Saudi Arabia?

What's to say about Saudi Arabia? :shrug: