The Middle East

hey diddle diddle the cat played the fiddle

but not to the right and not to the left cause the answer is always in the middle.

"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe -- because, in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty."

George Bush the Younger said that. And one can see: The West wasn't lacking nice words or intelligent insights. What was missing, though, were the right policies -- and, much worse, a belief in our own values.

There aren't many places in the world where Western moral double standards are as glaring as in the Middle East. In the ears of the 1.5 million Palestinians enclosed in the Gaza Strip, Western words like freedom and democracy must sound about as credible as Brezhnev's praise of freedom and socialism to the ears of an occupied Poland.

Indeed, the West's closest allies are the jailors of the Palestinian people. No other countries have received as much foreign aid from the United States as Israel and Egypt. Most of the money benefits the military -- but the US defense industry profits handsomely as well. The Egyptian air force F16 fighter jets thundering over the heads of protesters on Cairo's Tahrir Square originate from the USA, as do the M60 tanks used by the Israelis to patrol Gaza.

Whether it is helping to maintain Israel's security, providing free passage through the Suez Canal or ensuring the containment of radical Islam, the former Mubarak regime certainly provided the West with valuable services over the years. And those are, of course, all legitimate interests. The problem is that the West and Israel have used illegitimate means to pursue them. Support for a regime that ruled for 30 years under emergency laws, defrauding one election after another without even blinking, one that relied on a police force notorious for torture and persecution, was illegitimate.

As Bush correctly stated, "(I)n the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty."

Indeed, the era of peace which can be bought is over. In the developments in Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan and Yemen, we could in fact be seeing the awakening of a new era in the Arab world. Perhaps the Arab world is now casting off the yoke of Western-back autocracies just as Eastern Europe rid themselves of Soviet rule 20 years ago. This time, however, the West isn't on the side of the heralds of freedom -- instead they are the allies of the oppressors. It wasn't even two years ago that the German foreign minister praised Mubarak's regime for its "many years of political continuity" and called it an "anchor of stability in the region."

How will the West heal this wound of destroyed credibility? It is certainly not going to happen today. The winds of change turned into a storm some time ago, but not even that has been enough to drive the center of power in Washington to muster clear words on the situation. The US Secretary of State murmured something about an "orderly transition," but the man the world is looking to is keeping silent. US President Barack Obama, it would seem, can think of nothing to say about the urge for freedom of millions of young men in the Maghreb region who are being held hostage by history and the web of Western imperial interests.

Youth in the Gaza Strip penned perhaps the most poignant rebuke of Western Middle East policies, regardless whether they are formulated in Washington, Paris, London or Berlin. "We want to be free. We want to be able to lead normal lives. We want peace. Are we asking for too much?"

But these youth can't even turn to the West for an answer to their question. It has already shrugged off responsibility.

The risky consequences of this failure are obvious. Militant Islam's greatest ally has always been the West's hypocrisy. Again and again, the West has denied its own values in the Middle East, giving autocracy precedence over democracy. But sometimes people can be strongly influenced by the very things they are fighting against. Autocracy in the Arab regimes is meant to be a bulwark against Islamism?

Now democracy is threatening to become an ally of Islamism. After all, Hamas emerged triumphant in free elections in the Gaza Strip in 2006. The Muslim Brotherhood has now pledged to support a secular Egypt, but how long will that promise hold if the Islamist group comes to power?

--------------------

SA, there are times in life when it's best to walk away from situations, socialists, communists, & various liberals who choose to deny history & rewrite it to THEIR liking, like Ahmadinejine, in Iran. As of today, February 11, 2012, I'll no longer waste my time or patience on those ppl who post outrageous topics in the News & Politics SEA forum. Later!

Hello guys and everybody here! We all have valid points in every post we write here relative to the topic about the Middle East Scenario. And this is supposed to be good for democratic discussions but we have to consider the levels of the majority of people involved here or reading the forum in this particular issue. Instead of complicating it by joining the fray, I personally think it is better that I would rather not to but suggest to the gentlemen or all the members to better tone down or taper the issue. For when it gets deeper, it could leave a personal wound or refresh wounds to anybody's heart, feelings and minds to any or all of us here in this site which is definitely not good to happen since it will ruin the forum!

This is our way of saying...hey, this is an adult hobbyists site which all of us are enjoying and giving us priviledge to discuss any topic we know or had research since at least it has given us an avenue to share such, but at a limited scope or level, so as not to monopolize and scare others in joining the forum. If we want a comprehensive post based on knowledge or extensive research about the topic, we can always write it as an article or blog about it on this site!. Thank you.

Hi Luli, thank you four your interest reading my posts.

However, I can not let go your reaction here that the Americans killed more than the Spaniards in their occupations here in the Pilippines. I am a Filipino, born and stayed here all my life together with my family and ancestors and actively studied my local history. Your reference is just a scholar-author of a written article while my reference is my whole life, my passion and feelings as a Filipino and my education right here in my place and country. The information is absurd and nobody from my great grandparents had told that story, instead what they told their children are the opposite to this information, even what we learned in our school.

With due respect to you whoever you are in this world, maybe in this particular situation or topic, I could say my information is more reliable than yours relative to my country!

Hi Dohm,

thank you for your open words!
I have no reason to doubt in what you explained.

There is one little detail, only. The USA annexed the Philippines, and the former colony became a colonizer, - not a tutor. Hopefully we can agree about this point.

--------------------

Hi Dohm,
it is easy to understand. I could not help to smile when reading your glorification of the "US-Philippine alliance".
That is why I ask you, if you can accept the statement that the former colony USA became a colonizer when annexing and occupying the Philippines as as result of their war with Spain?
Each colonizer is a tutor in some way, but originally it is a colonizer including the well known consequences for the annexed country.

--------------------

So now the UN is in Syria, or at least trying to be. They had one of their vehicles bomed, today and no one was injuried...too bad the US doesn't have the money the UN has to spend on safety equiptment.

The US moto is: "The best buy you can get...for the cheapest ammount of money". The politicians who make all the money will always sacrifie the person on the ground...Life is cheap.