Middle East trouble- The worst is yet to come.

The Temple Mount/Dome of the Rock has been fought over for millenia (long before Islam came onto the scene), I don't see why anything should change now. If either side had any sense they'd permit a neutral party to administer the site, but neither side does...

Unfortunately, I don't see how these people can peacefully coexist, given that at least one side has no desire to peacefully coexist. I think it'll take a particularly nasty war - a real war, and one that might involve nuclear weapons - for the Arabs to realize that the "destroy Israel" business isn't very profitable. Yes, the worst is yet to come... In my opinion.

 

You know it's sorta funny, everyone keeps talking about how Christians have such a vested interest in the region, but you just don't see that many of them planting bombs over the issue...

I've got my own ideas... but why do you think this is?

 

haven:

It's a combination of New Testament teachings (no parallel in Islam or Judaism for concepts like "turn the other cheek" and "love thine enemies") and several hundred years' worth of maturation. Christians are on the whole a peaceful lot, while much of Islam (and jewish orthodoxy, for that matter) is still stuck with 12th century concepts of religion, politics, and warfare.

Also, the West ("Chistendom", if you want to call it that) has a relatively long tradition of secular democracy. Secular democracies tend to shy away from war. The Middle East (Arab culture in particular) has no secular or democratic tradition; their leaders are either religious leaders who teach jehad as a virtue, or more secular strongmen who have learned that force is the best way to solve every problem - schoolyard bullies who rule states. Until they learn to place a high value on secular education, they will never have secular democracy, and until they have secular democracy, they will not shy away from violence.

Iraq without a Saddam regime would be a good candidate for the first Arab/Islamic secular democracy, IMO.

Just my stupid opinion, of course...

 

You know, I actually agree with you on part of that.

I think the issue is larger, however.

1. The notion of objectivity is more important in the West. Doesn't always mean we're perfectly fair, but rather that we tend to be more willing to admit that the other guy has a point. This also means we rely less on religious dictums and more on philosophy and reason... which are less rigid.

2. The Western democracies, and hence Christianity for the most part, are far, far away from the region. yeah, part of the issue is religious. But another part of it consists of a very real struggle for land and resources going on in the area. Unfortunately, the two issues have sort of merged. For us, however... as long as we're certain to get our oil, we tend to be ok with whatever's going on.

3. Importance of the individual. In the West, we prefer not to die for the group. Hence, you're less likely to see suicide bombers, etc. And for those of you who would claim that there simply aren't important group issues: well, as much as I find pro-life activists distasteful, I have to admit... they don't blow up clinics all *that* often.

 

haven:

1. Agree. I'd also add (clarify) that we in the West are more likely to admit our own faults - we tend towards introspection - while Arab culture typically blames someone else whenever possible. This is one reason why they treat their women like dirt and believe that the recently released OBL video is a fake.

2. Agree.

3. Agree. Back to #1, we also stress personal responsibility.

 

You guys may be missing the most obvious reason Christians are MORE peaceful, in general, than Muslims: money.

Much like pregnancy, violence diminishes as education and wealth increase. When you live in abject poverty and your only means of education is a monestary, the environment breeds loyalism and violence. We are just fortunate to live in a society where poverty has largely been eliminated.

When people are successful, the last thing they want to do is break that up with a war, no matter what it might be for.

 

Jeff:

Of course poverty is a major part of it, but that leads back to the main reasons they're poor: no secular education, so no democracy, and no educated production base (engineers and businesspeople or developed economic infrastructure, etc), so no free market system, so no money...

It all boils down to secular education IMO. They can blame us for their poverty if they want to (which is ironic, since we put food on their tables by buying their oil), but until they start educating their own people they'll have despotic governments that hoard their national wealth...

 

Excellent take, Jeff. Middle East conflict aside, the Chechens and the Bosnians had their countries completely destroyed. It is difficult to stay focused on education when your home has been leveled.

Education systems in poorer countries are obviously inferior to more developed nations. This is why the literacy rates in countries like Rwanda, Ethiopia, and Somalia are alarmingly low. It's kind of hard to focus on learning differential calculatus and the fundamentals of business management when you don't know where your next meal is coming from.

 

And it's hard to get a hot meal if no one in your country is learning differential calculus or the fundamentals of business management...

Vicious cycle. One which Koranic education certainly won't break.

 

Christians are plenty warlike, historically. See the crusades, etc. The difference here is that there are Muslim nations surrounding the area, along with a Jewish state. Not only is there no Christian nation in the immediate area, but there really isn't a Christian analog to Isreal, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, etc. The Bible really has very little input in the way that Western nations are put together, or run.

 

treeman, I basically agree, however, it takes money to pay for the education. Also, it doesn't have to be a democracy to succeed. There have been plenty of monarchies and socialist systems that have worked (and continue to).

 

Iraq and Libya were tremendously fundamentalist right? No they were secular nations who just happened to have brutal secular rulers instead of brutal "fundamentalist" regimes. And of course Tree I know you'll love me adding this, they were put in power with the help of our Central Intelligence Agency.

Here is a nice article on that topic.

And here is the reason why those backwards fundamentalists don't consider US all that neutral.

 

Jeff:

It just seems to me that the only way to break the cycle is to introduce a secular education system... I'm always open to better ideas, though.

boy:

Alright, I'm getting tired of you blaming the US for putting Saddam and Qhadafi in power, and I'm not sure about Qhadafi (haven't studied Libya's history too much), but you are way off base in claiming that we put Saddam in power. That is simply a lie.

Saddam made his name in a failed execution attempt of the previous leader. He has been a Baath party member since he was a young man (back when he was a professional assassin), and we have always opposed the Baathist movement. We never - never - supported the young Saddam.Not when his party mentor took control, and not when he himself ascended to power in Iraq. We have always known that he was a murderous scumbag.

We supported him in his war against Iran as a way to see both regimes weakened. Contrary to public belief - and your dishonest propaganda - we did not give the Iraqis weapons, we gave them some sattelite intelligence, and that's it. They have gotten the vast majority of their weapons from the USSR/Russia, France, and China. So cut the bulls*it.

Iraq has always been relatively secular, and I personally think that without Saddam's regime in power they could actually have a working democracy. Now, I know you're enamored with Iran's "democracy" (which is about to fall and may be replaced by a real democracy, BTW), but I don't think the Iraqis would like your version. Mullahs don't have much real extertise when it comes to ruling secular and well-educated populations...

 

boy,

Can you appreciate the difference between a country with a secular government and one with a secular democratic government?



Mango

 

Jeff:

No, you'll notice I usually trumpet economics as the most determining factor. And it is, for strife. All the rest, is predicated upon economics, imo.

However, Israel is relatively wealthy... and you don't see a problem. If the US were closer to the region, they'd be sucked in, regardless of affluence.

Hence, once one acknowledges the fact that this conflict exists... poverty becomes irrelevant for our involvement.

 

But haven, why is economics such a large factor? To rephrase, why are the Arab populations poor, and the Israeli populations rich?

Oil cannot be the factor there, since the Israelis have basically none, and the Arab countries have much. US aid is also not a factor, since it's negligible as a % of GDP, and we give much to Arab countries as well.

There is no significant trickle-down effect in Arab countries, which is due to the corrupt governmental systems they have. And not just the US-supported governments (before boy throws more propaganda) - all governments in the region.

Lack of secular education just seems to me to be the biggest factor in their poverty, and the first one that they have the ability to change if the cycle of poverty is to be broken. I'm not talking about the quantity of educated persons here, so much as the quality. Teach people engineering instead of how to recite the Koran or strap bombs onto themselves for jehad, and they'll actually be able to build something that is commercially useful. There's no other way to bring them into the 21st century global economy, and there's no way for them to escape poverty unless they do that.

Not to mention the fact that functioning democracy demands a certain level of popular intelligence if it is to succeed... Dictators have a much easier time controlling dolts.

 

Initially, on Israel: very bad example, the amount of money that flowed into that state from the West and Jews in general was tremendous. Still is tremendous. I believe they're still the #1 recipient of international aid. I'll discuss oil later.

Why is the Philippines less developed than, say, Indonesia?

I don't think that democracy and liberal democratic values are necessary conditions for economic vitality.

Mango made a post about this not too long ago. Why do *some* economies function, and others bust? I don't think it's cultural, since there are such variances withint similar cultures.

Slovenia, when it broke from Macedonia, became relatively wealthy fairly quickly. Bosnia, Serbia, and Croatia, on the other hand, descended into hell. And don't bring the biases into it: most good research indicates that all that hatred was a product of elite manipulation to retain their power. Extremely successful propaganda on the part of Milosevic.

Ultimately, I think there's a bargain that most developing nations face when confronted with the West. You can either preserve autonomy, and be poor... or you can make your economy an export-dependent one and invest in industrial infrastructure to c reate cheap goods, which gives the US, in particular, but also the EU and CHina... tremendous leverage over you. It seems most Middle Eastern nations made the choice for autonomy. Good one for political autonomy... bad one for the economy.

As for oil: I also think oil is part of their problem. If you build an economy completely around the export of a single product, it lacks balance. YOu had instant wealth... but limited means of sustainign wealth and creating infrastructure.

 

haven,

Wasn't Slovenia the most geographically removed from the religious strife that wrecked Yugoslovia? Most Western European of the various areas that made up Yugoslovia is the way I thought of Slovenia.


Mango