Androminos' Questions about the Middle East
How long does the international community think ANY nation has to suffer the kidnapping and murder of its people?
To all who are feeling unsure about what position to take on this, let's just be sure not to sit back and tell ourselves that this age-old problem is something new and that the destruction of innocent lives and displacement of human beings is the right or the moral solution to the back-and-forth violence between state and non-state that has been going on for so long in the territory. One look with an untainted eye will tell you that it's absolutely untrue. How long has there been tribal struggle in the Palestinian region between diverse groups of people? What about Rwanda? Darfur?
Where is a Western leader with moral authority today? The world longs for him. A just God cries out for him (or her). The U.S. will never be a good ally to Israel until the U.S. makes good-faith efforts to stand behind her with an active diplomatic effort for a two-state solution that never sleeps. The past five years have been a disastrous slumber with a wrong-headed approach to protecting Israel on the part of the United States.
What we need is order - a fight for the protection of human rights and a proper prosecution of the rule of law among nations. This isn't some pie-in-the-sky notion. The work of peace and the keeping of order in this world is a tremendously difficult task, yet I am dismayed when I see that President Bush and his administration are only serving to stir up the pot of hatred and distrust amongst the people of the Middle East. You can see proof by the numbers of hard-line extremists being elected in these nations. A moral Western leader who respects and believes in the rule of law would try to guide the world with wisdom, respect for all peoples, and the promise of opportunity and participation for all in the global economy, provided that they are willing to compromise along with the West. Empire is a goal that comes with violence and unjust treatment of the weakest. The goal of Empire must be laid aside if America truly wants to help its ally Israel.
What then is a solution. And I don't just mean to end the current round of fighting. I mean what is the solution to the very real and legitimate problem faced by Israel who is surrounded by combatants and terrorists committed to her destruction?
A new commitment to non-Empire. Allowing Middle Eastern nations to govern themselves rather than hanging an anvil around their necks with the threat of violence and destruction whenever unrest (they call it "terror") occurs in their own respective nations. There will be no healthy Western-friendly democracies born in the Middle East until the people of the Middle East desire it. Let's use of heads. Put a moral thinking cap on. Destroying innocent people is no way for them to desire the rule of monsters that inflict such misery. As the Reagan years approached in the U.S., over thirty years ago, neoconservatism was born and with it came the hope (and determination) that new democracies would spring up in the Middle East. In the meantime, and most hypocritically, evil regimes were embraced by the U.S. government for political gain. The people of this world aren't stupid. They know when a motive is sincere and when it is merely a position taken to gain oppressive power. We embrace Saddam Hussein one day and he's the monster-du-jour the next.
The problem is, neoconservatism went from a left-leaning idea about freedom to a today's dogmatic hard-line right revolution that most of the American people do not desire.
When Ned Lamont beat Joe Lieberman in Connecticut this week, this is what the American people were screaming about!
There must be a change in U.S. foreign policy about which the world will sit up and take notice.
How does one stop the terrorists from attacking? Expecting Israel to go back to the status quo of accepting terrorism against it's people from those along it's borders is hardly a viable solution.
"Accepting" terrorism is one thing. Creating conditions that will ensure a whole new generation of terrorism is totally another. For what is terrorism? It is a tactic used by those who choose to opt out of the international community - those who chose to return to the law of the jungle rather than the international rule of law.
For all intents and purposes, President Bush opted out of the internatiuonal rule of law when he made a pre-emptive strike on Iraq.
Israel has used the excuse that a few kidnapped soldiers is legal reason to destroy the infrastructure of southern Lebanon and displace 25% of the Lebanese population.
The leaders of the U.S. and Israel are going about this in a way that is front-loading the best likelihood of a new World War whose sides will not be lined up as they were in the last two world wars. They call the rebellious and violent tactic used by non-states "the enemy." A tactic is an "enemy" - not a specified state or group of states. Tell me - how do you conquer or vanquish a tactic? How do you "conquer" hatred? Who do you kill? How do you quantify such a win? What will be acheived when that "win" is quantifiable and qualifiable (if it ever could be)?
Let's remember that there were a group of upstarts who caused violence in a civilized place called Concord, Massachusetts well over 200 years ago. They reared up against a great power and used non-traditional and brutal tactics to resist their enemy. After the ragtag rebels caused Great Britain to lose their political ability and will to win, they formed an independent new government and we sit here today calling ourselves the recipients of and the fighters for the symbol of freedom. A nation had been living in the hearts of men and women in Lexington and Concord, but that nation was not yet a part of the world until they made it so. Those colonist rebels in America didn't prey on the innocent, but they were ruthless in battle. Who are we to say that there are not new nations living somewhere in the hearts of some people in the Middle East? Who are we to determine their destiny for them? Who are we to languish in Iraq when the destiny of that nation, in light of freedom, belongs to them? We can't be the world's policeman. No one nation has a right to do that.
There are international forums for political crises. The U.N. is the first one that comes to mind. If they have become an impotent joke to some, it's because the people who have had the most poewer to make it succeed have sabotaged it for the past five years. Without a strong and effective forum with which to iron out international problems, we may as well forget that we are a civilized world and leave the world to savages.
