Middle East

[Vort]

Simple example - as a good parent, if your child goes about calling you with bad names in your house because he/she thinks that right, what would you do? Reprimand him right? Hardly will the thought cross your mind that he has the right to freedom of speech, because you know he's lost it. And if you don't take action, others kids may join in. A double wrong.

This guy doesn't understand what freedom of speech is. An example of a smart-mouthed teenager has exactly zero to do with freedom of speech. This is not an example of a Muslim perspective on free speech, but of a Muslim who does not understand the idea of "free speech."

[Guest]

I actually don't think this is about religion or heritage at all. There are only a limited number of things over which people really go to war. They are summed up pretty well by power, resources, and money.

Yes. Power, resources, money... usually achieved by using religion to amass public support.

But, the Arab-Israeli conflict has purely religious roots where both Jews and Muslims claim the rights to their own "Zion Land", that is, land consecrated by God/Allah for their own refuge... which just happened to be the same tract of property. The Christians sided with the Jews because of Biblical accounts of the "return of the Jews to the Promised Land" as a required element for the 2nd Coming.

The problems in the Middle East around Israel started post WWII when we decided to place Jewish refugees in the British territories in Israel. There was a population explosion of Jews that acutely disrupted the balance of power. Sudden shifts of power like that typically lead to bad blood.

MOE, this is too simplistic and therefore, not true.

The problem with the Middle East started way before that. If you remember the Zionist/Arab Nationalists movements became prominent in modern history during the late 1800's when that entire region was still under the control of the Turks. Jews bought land from the Turks in what is now Israel which led to the establishment of Tel Aviv comprised mainly of Jewish farm lands. Turks Nationalism rose up during that time which caused them to discriminate against Arabs and Jews alike, so Arab Nationalists and Jews both banded with the British in the first World War to oust the Turks.

The British won that region with the help of the Arab Nationalist revolt. The region comprised of what is now Israel, Palestine, Gaza strip, and Jordan, with Jordan split off into its own government and the rest of the region with its government called Mandated Palestine. But in the process Britain declared Mandated Palestine as home of the Jews with assurances that Jewish and non-Jewish communities are going to co-exist peaceably in the area. This mandate was given a plan of independence - that the British is going to hand over the area to the established government there. The leaders of the Arab Nationalists - Huseyn and al-Husseini were established in Damascus in then British-owned Syria establishing the Nationalists there. Jews then started flocking to Palestine.

But then the Arab Nationalists lost Syria to the French which led Huseyn to get exiled to British-owned Iraq and al-Husseini to return to Palestine. Arab Nationalists then started flocking back to Palestine. The Arab Nationalists started to feel that the British gave preference to the Jews over the establishment of government and businesses in Palestine and that they were poised to create a Jewish State, edging Arabs out. al-Hussein incited revolts against the Jews which led to the Hebron massacre of 67 Jews.

The British had their hands full trying to keep peace between Arabs and Jews in Palestine and then World War II happened and a mass immigration of Jews fled Germany to Palestine causing the Arabs to become even more hostile so that the British had to stop mass immigration of Jews in Palestine to maintain peace. It then became illegal for Jews to immigrate to Palestine in the middle of the holocaust which caused massive unrest with the Jews leading to their establishment of armed resistance to provide safe harbor to the illegal immigrants.

After WWII ended, the British asked the newly formed United Nations to help in finding a peaceable solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict as the British Mandate of Palestine is about to end. The UN then came up with the Plan of Partition which would have established 2 States in Mandated Palestine - a Jewish State and an Arab State with economic union between the two. The Jews accepted the Plan of Partition, the Arab Nationalists rejected it. The British Mandate ended without a conflict resolution and Civil War immediately broke out. The Jewish army successfully established an unofficial Jewish State (with no clear boundaries). Arabs from surrounding nations of Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, and Iraq helped the Arab Nationalists but Jewish Defense Forces massacred Arab towns leading to the exile of Palestinian Arabs to surrounding nations. Jews then extended the unofficial Jewish State boundaries to include everything in Mandated Palestine except for the Gaza Strip (taken over by Egypt) and the West Bank (taken over by Jordan) and called it Israel. Jews from Arab nations flocked to Israel.

The war ended with an Armistice Agreement between Israelis and all the surrounding Arab nations firmly establishing the State of Israel but leaving the existing Israeli boundaries as a military demarcation line and not permanent borders. The permanent borders are to be established by Peace Treaties.

Okay, this is 1949. Until today - 2012 - these Peace Treaties are still in dispute and so permanent borders are still in question. The lines continue to remain as military demarcation lines so that anybody launching attacks across these lines are going to get a military response.

We've seen this kind of thing before. When the Mormons started congregating in Missouri in large numbers, they were a group of abolitionist yankees moving into a slave state. The sudden increase of the mormon population threatened to disturb the balance of power there, which also included the economic viability of many people already living in Missouri. The mobs didn't really care about the religion beyond the fact that it was a useful wedge for inciting others to anger.

When I look at the Middle East, I see a region that is navigating a difficult sea of progress and resistance. I have a hard time saying the place is falling apart when earlier this year, Egypt arrested someone for blasphemy--the person was a Muslim cleric who burned a New Testament.

That kind of recognition of respect for more than one religion is progress. But progress is hard and upsetting to people who don't want things to change. Overall, I like the direction the Middle East is moving, but in doing so, I have to accept that there are going to be a lot of challenges to overcome.

Egypt has always had religious freedom in their Constitution even under the Mubarak regime. Coptic Christmas is a National Holiday after all. Abrahamic religions have peacefully coexisted in Egypt for a very long time even with Muslims holding an 80% majority and the laws of the land based on Sharia. Sure, there are accounts of discrimination against one or the other and the non-Abrahamic religious groups are still quite tenuous... but that's the same as it is now under Morsi.

When I look at the Middle East, I see a region with the Muslim Brotherhood gaining hold in key governments so that almost 50% of government seats in Egypt are now under the brotherhood. The experience in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia leads one to be wary of government control by Islamic leaders. Morsi has not been President for too long - but his regime's impotence at controlling the riot at the American Embassy in Egypt and his successive statement to deny freedom of speech to anti-Muslim sentiment as well as his regime's attempts to shut down Egyptian media that is critical of the Muslim Brotherhood makes you stand up and pay closer attention.

With respect to Iran, I think there has been some promise of regime change there, but I don't expect it will catch up to the progress in Egypt for another 20 years. And, unfortunately, when the time comes that we have to take military action against Iran to prevent them from developing nuclear capabilities, we will turn the populace against us and set back that progress another 15.

With respect to Israel, both Israel and the Palestinians have to share in the blame for what's going on there. As long as each side is trying to portray the other as the aggressor at fault, they don't deserve to be treated any better than children. If it were up to me, I'd send a message to each side by striking them both and then telling them to quiet down and play nice.

Look back to what I wrote above. The Israelis have been open to peaceful coexistence - the Palestinians, not so much. Your suggestion of striking them both and then telling them to quiet down and play nice shows you have not a bit of inkling on what's going on there.

When you have an Iranian President that promises to wipe out Israel from the face of the planet - even in a formal address to the United Nations - and then you stand by while he arms himself with nuclear weapons... what is it that you're actually saying? You're saying, "Israel, sorry dudes, see ya in the next life.". If that's your intent, then go right ahead. But don't spout "solidarity with Israel" on the political pulpit.

What does it matter if it sets back that progress another 15 years (which I don't believe one wit, by the way) if the alternative is open season genocide?

[NeuroTypical]

This is not an example of a Muslim perspective on free speech, but of a Muslim who does not understand the idea of "free speech."

The guy in question would probably disagree with your assessment of him.

I would respond "How come you automatically assume there's a difference?"

[Guest]

The guy in question would probably disagree with your assessment of him.

I would respond "How come you automatically assume there's a difference?"

LM, are you asking how come Vort automatically assumes there's a difference between a Muslim's perspective of free speech versus a Muslim who doesn't understand free speech?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. There are tons of Muslims, especially those living in America, who understands and prefer to live by the American concept of free speech.

[Vort]

The guy in question would probably disagree with your assessment of him.

My assessment is based on the short quote you provided. The example is clearly inappropriate for a discussion of free speech.

I would respond "How come you automatically assume there's a difference?"

Consider this argument:

I don't approve of the idea of taxes. What if my neighbor wants to make me pay for his new house addition? That isn't fair at all!

This is essentially the argument your example friend is making.

[NeuroTypical]

Consider this argument:

I don't approve of the idea of taxes. What if my neighbor wants to make me pay for his new house addition? That isn't fair at all!

This is essentially the argument your example friend is making.

I'd agree. But you didn't answer my question.

Consider a random figure picked out of the air to illustrate a point: What if 72.45% of all non-US Muslims just have the wrong idea about what "Freedom of speech" means?

The guy from my quote was a highly educated professional consultant who spoke 3 different languages and worked in and around many nations and nationalities. He didn't get to the US very often. Companies would pay him to fly to their country and be smart enough to fix their problems. And yes indeed, when asked what he thought about freedom of speech, he replied in part: "So yes, you live by the divine rules and not by the humanly created idea of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a western concept brought about due to circumstances people faced here, not in Islamic countries."

Edited November 21, 2012 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Vort]

I'd agree. But you didn't answer my question.

Consider a random figure picked out of the air to illustrate a point: What if 72.45% of all non-US Muslims just have the wrong idea about what "Freedom of speech" means?

The guy from my quote was a highly educated professional consultant who spoke 3 different languages and worked in and around many nations and nationalities. He didn't get to the US very often. Companies would pay him to fly to their country and be smart enough to fix their problems. And yes indeed, when asked what he thought about freedom of speech, he replied in part: "So yes, you live by the divine rules and not by the humanly created idea of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a western concept brought about due to circumstances people faced here, not in Islamic countries."

Your question was, "How come you automatically assume there's a difference [between free speech in society and a smart-mouth teenager]?"

My response would be the example I provided before, illustrating this person's complete lack of understanding of what free speech involves by comparing it with someone who equates governmental collection of taxes with his neighbor forcing him to finance a home remodel.

A more direct response would be, I assume there is a difference because I understand what 'free speech' means and what it does not mean."

This is not a matter of the man being stupid. This is a matter of the man being ignorant. And if he refuses to understand the difference, then he is willfully ignorant, and his opinion is worthless and should be ignored.

[Vort]

Or, if I had a better perspective, my answer to the question might be, "What do you understand 'freedom of speech' to mean?" After he explained his wrong idea and I was comfortable I understood him, I would then say something like, "What you describe is not what 'free speech' means. If I describe to you the meaning of 'free speech', are you willing to listen to my explanation?" If he was, then I'd explain it.

[NeuroTypical]

Speaking of Islamic perspectives on the concept of freedom of speech: I wonder if the Cairo judicial system is peopled by folks who just don't understand it, or if they really do understand it, but are content to be against it.

Egyptian court orders death sentences over anti-Islam film

Cairo (CNN) -- Seven Coptic Egyptians living abroad were sentenced to death Wednesday by a court in Cairo for their connection to an inflammatory anti-Islam film, the prosecutor's office said.

The suspects are accused of being involved with the production of the film in California, said Adel Al Saeed, official spokesman for the prosecutor's office.

Since the Egyptian citizens were tried in absentia, the sentence would be applied only if they returned to Egypt.

[Traveler]

I am becoming confused - are some of the rebels we are helping in Syria connected to those responsible for Benghazi? Are we (the USA) being played that badly? Is our intelligence that bad - or is the American people being played by the administration?

Any one think they understand and have a handle on things? Could we be making worse choices and have a more confusing policy? Anyone think they know what our Middle East policy is?

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

I'm partial to Stratfor's take on things.

[Guest]

I am becoming confused - are some of the rebels we are helping in Syria connected to those responsible for Benghazi? Are we (the USA) being played that badly? Is our intelligence that bad - or is the American people being played by the administration?

Any one think they understand and have a handle on things? Could we be making worse choices and have a more confusing policy? Anyone think they know what our Middle East policy is?

The Traveler

Nobody knows. You have to piece it together yourself.

But as far as Syria... It has been the conclusion in the intelligence enthusiasts circles as early as the day after Benghazi that the protests in Egypt was staged by an Al-Queda cel in Syria to provide cover for the Benghazi operation. They used the then-unknown video to rile up support by airing a 2-hour special on how bad that 15 minute-video is. Before the airing, the video had less than a thousand views on youtube after being on it for 4 months. After the airing, the video had over 60 thousand in less than a day...

I do not believe our intelligence is THAT bad. I believe the administration has an agenda. We don't know what it is. But it is there.

If you want to ask my opinion, the administration is distancing themselves from Israel and all their decisions on the Arab Spring was deliberately designed to provide the intended results that are now unfolding with Morsi.

Edited December 12, 2012 by anatess

[Traveler]

Nobody knows. You have to piece it together yourself.

But as far as Syria... It has been the conclusion in the intelligence enthusiasts circles as early as the day after Benghazi that the protests in Egypt was staged by an Al-Queda cel in Syria to provide cover for the Benghazi operation. They used the then-unknown video to rile up support by airing a 2-hour special on how bad that 15 minute-video is. Before the airing, the video had less than a thousand views on youtube after being on it for 4 months. After the airing, the video had over 60 thousand in less than a day...

I do not believe our intelligence is THAT bad. I believe the administration has an agenda. We don't know what it is. But it is there.

If you want to ask my opinion, the administration is distancing themselves from Israel and all their decisions on the Arab Spring was deliberately designed to provide the intended results that are now unfolding with Morsi.

When it comes to the Middle East - I am not sure anything the USA is doing or has done makes sense. Can anyone explain our involvement in Bahrain? It appears to me that Saudi Arabia is pulling the strings in the Middle East - more now than ever before.

I find this most interesting because of a Islamic friend I met in my travels. I gave him a Book of Mormon and he gave me a translation of the Koran. When he read the Book of Mormon he was very impressed - He said he believes that the Gadianton organization of modern times is the Royal Saudi Family and that it is their goal to bring down every democratic country and to control the world by controlling money. I thought that to be a most interesting idea.

The Traveler

[NoxNullaEgetDeumPerfectum]

"By Way Of Deception,

Thou Shalt Do War." - a motto of Mossad. Not sure why they picked it.

Israel got to obtain nuclear weapons. Well, only after the death of JFK; he was opposed to them going nuclear. I agree, it would only make matters worse. Splitting the region into jew and palaestinian by the UN order was also a mistake. Rather they should have remained and assimilated into the region. This only escalated hate in the creation of two factions holding claims to the same land.

They did not need to go nuclear to defend themselves either from their hatefull neighbors. As even supported by:

Israeli General Matityahu Peled, is quoted in Ha'aretz (19 March 1972) with the following statement,

"The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war."

So I say why can not Iran have nuclear energy? If they do obtain nukes, why would we invade? What if they do not use it, but a means of deterance? I am not supporting the Iran regiem. I just want to avoid a conflict.

Are sanctions worth it?

United Nations Ambassador, Madeleine Albright, when appearing on 60 Minutes, was asked the following by correspondent Lesley Stahl, in reference to the years of United States led economic sanctions against Iraq,

"We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

To which Ambassador Albright replied,

"I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it."

Is it worth it today against Iran?

[volgadon]

"By Way Of Deception,

Thou Shalt Do War." - a motto of Mossad. Not sure why they picked it.

The motto is taken from Proverbs 24:6.

Proverbs 24 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre

[volgadon]

They did not need to go nuclear to defend themselves either from their hatefull neighbors. As even supported by:

Israeli General Matityahu Peled, is quoted in Ha'aretz (19 March 1972) with the following statement,

"The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war."

This quote, to put it mildly, is baloney. Never mind that it wasn't in Haaretz, but to take it just like that reveals a deep ignorance of those years. Egypt's intentions were hardly secret. What the general staff did discuss was the opportunity to strike before Egypt and its allies were able to solidify and strengthen their position.

[Traveler]

This quote, to put it mildly, is baloney. Never mind that it wasn't in Haaretz, but to take it just like that reveals a deep ignorance of those years. Egypt's intentions were hardly secret. What the general staff did discuss was the opportunity to strike before Egypt and its allies were able to solidify and strengthen their position.

The history of the Middle East is interesting to me. Even in biblical times there was very little peace. I am not sure that the presents of Israel has done much at all to create a culture of war but like the final era of the Nephits in the Book of Mormon - once the Nephits were destroyed war did not end but continued. I am of the opinion that Israel actually brings a semblance of peace and that without the nation of Israel that war in the Middle East would be more widespread.

What I find most interesting is that many of my Islamic friends agree with me?

The Traveler

[Guest]

The history of the Middle East is interesting to me. Even in biblical times there was very little peace. I am not sure that the presents of Israel has done much at all to create a culture of war but like the final era of the Nephits in the Book of Mormon - once the Nephits were destroyed war did not end but continued. I am of the opinion that Israel actually brings a semblance of peace and that without the nation of Israel that war in the Middle East would be more widespread.

What I find most interesting is that many of my Islamic friends agree with me?

The Traveler

Traveler, I'm not sure I understand your post. In Biblical times there was very little peace anywhere, not just the middle east.

The hypothetical absence of Israel in the region does not necessary indicate less peace. It merely indicates what faction holds power in the region. The lessening of western influence does not mean they're all going to go barbaric and kill each other or something.

[Traveler]

Traveler, I'm not sure I understand your post. In Biblical times there was very little peace anywhere, not just the middle east.

The hypothetical absence of Israel in the region does not necessary indicate less peace. It merely indicates what faction holds power in the region. The lessening of western influence does not mean they're all going to go barbaric and kill each other or something.

As various religions have entered new geographic regions there have been times when relative piece has followed. For example Asia was more war like before the influence of Buddhism. Certain religious influences have been less war like and other very colonial and war like.

Traditional Trinitarian Christianity as well as Islam have been more involved in violent conquest than religions. But Jewish culture, though involved in a lot of historical violence has seldom been the initial perpetrator.

My point is that the Middle East would not become peaceful with the nation of Israel. In fact - it is my belief that Israel brings more peace than war. That the engines of war currently directed towards Israel is not because of Israel but because Israel is like a lighting rod. Thus the concentration of violence towards Israel would not dissipate in their absence but would continue.

The reason is that Israel is mostly defensive. Those that have taken offense in the Middle East appear to me to have as a basic belief structure that G-d is pleased with offensive violence.

The Traveler