WHAT'S NEW

About
My Other Blog
Blog Schedule
Activism
Past Blog Posts
Various &
a Sundry Blogs
Favorite
Websites
My Stuff
On The Web
Audio-Visual Updated: 02/25/2026
Favorite
Articles
This Month's Scripture Verse:

For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
I Timothy 6:10

SEARCH THIS BLOG
Showing posts with label Middle East. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Middle East. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 5, 2016

Using Zootopia To Understand The Middle East

The movie Zootopia is a movie about an imaginary city where all kinds of animals, both predators and prey, live together in peace. However, a few of the prey hatched a plot where they secretly injected  individual predators with a chemical that reverted them to their savage form and had that savagery blamed on nature. The intended result of the plot was that those animals involved in the plot could sieze greater power for both themselves and others like them by causing the animal society there to be afraid of all predators based on the actions of a few.

 What makes the plot plausbile for the American audience is that the savage behavior forced onto the targeted predators was caused by a drug injection. This is an important point because many Americans would not consider abusive treatment to be a plausible cause of savagery. There is something about our rugged individualism that says abuse does not cause one to be vicious to others. That regardless of how we have been treated, we alone are guilty if we partially or fully do unto others what others have done unto us.

 Perhaps, this is why we have the current situation that we have in the Middle East. We look at Palestinian militants and Islamic extremists as being savage and rightly so. But we attribute that savagery solely to their nature or religion or whatever other factor that distinguishes them from us so that the actions of some cause us to be afraid of all. Thus, when it comes to Palestinian terrorism, we do not consider the conditions in which they are forced to live to be a significant factor in their behavior. And so we blame them, and correctly so to a degree, for their actions. 

 The same goes with Al-Qaeda and ISIS, though the difference in the reasn for the forming of the two groups is significant. Those who formed the core of Al-Qaeda were not first attacked by us. In fact, we once supported the then future Al-Qaeda members when they were practicing their terrorism on the people of Afghanistan in an effort to overthrow the Soviet backed government there. That occurred during the 1980s. ISIS however formed in the aftermath of our invasion of Iraq. In fact, the leader of ISIS was once a prisoner in an American detention center.

 But this practice of blaming groups for their atrocities without reference to the atrocities they had suffered has a limit. That limit is when the blame could be shifted to us. For many of us rationalize the terrorist actions of the IDF and Israel's brutal occupation on Palestinian terrorism while not allowing the Palestinians to return the favor. Likewise, many of us have justified our invasion and past occupation of Iraq on the atrocities visited on us on the 9-11 atrocities while not allowing groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS to blame their actions on our past and present foreign policies.

 The end effect is this, while we give ourselves permission to wantonly strike back out of fear, we become judge, jury, and executioner to those who would do the same to us. And such an approach, both in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and our war in the Middle  can only guarantee at least one of two results: an endless war and/or moral suicide being committed by those who seek to win with overwhelming violence.

 Certainly, some conservatives would cite me for committing moral equvilancy here. For how could anyone compare the violence committed by our side, whether that be Israel's use of force against the Palestinians or us as we attack in the Middle East with the violence committed by our enemies? Here, the use of labels is important. Because to not judge ourselves by the same standard we use to judge others indicates a moral relavity to which we are blinded by a sense of entitlement. Thus, Israel is permitted to defend themselves from Palestinian terrorism as they see fit, but Palestinians are not recognized as having the same right. In addition, we are allowed to attack and commit acts of terrorism to defend ourselves, but Islamic extremists are not permitted to the same. 

 A sense of entitlement that sustains our double standards and moral relativity is based on an assumption of moral supremacy and/or past sufferings. America's sense of entitlement for its own actions is based on the assumption that we are morally superior to our enemies. America's sense of entitlement for Israeli actions are understandably based on 2 millenia of anti-Semitism and extreme suffering. 

 Now we could debate the morality of that sense of entitlement if we want, but we should note that while debating that, our current responses in the Middle East and that of Israel's to the Palestinians are only intensifying the cycle of violence.

 So from here, we should note the following. Just as the Israeli Occupation and its consequential violence understandably creates a savagery in some of the Palestinian people causing Israelis to fear all Palestinians, so Palestinian terrorism inspires further Palestinian terrorism as Israel brutally responds to that Palestinian attacks. Likewise, as we use a 'sledghammer' approach, as described by Noam Chomsky, in the Middle East by invading, bombing and assassinating, attempting to overthrow governments, and supporting brutal dictators we stoke the fires of anger in enough people in the Middle East so that they strike back. And as they strike back, their atrocities, such as was conducted in the 9-11 attacks, cause us to give into fear of the rest of those from the Middle East and/or Muslims thus we give ourselves permission to strike back without accountability. 

 In the end, those who benefit the most from these induced attacks are politicians who can use fear to garner and consolidate more power and arms dealers and manufacturers. They are the only ones who have a stake maintaining the status quo. And we allow them to continue to do so at our own peril.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, February 29, 2016

ONIM For February 29, 2016

Christian News



 World News



 Pick(s) Of The Litter







Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Monday, December 7, 2015

ONIM For December 7, 2015

Christian News



World News



Pick(s) Of The Litter





Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, April 7, 2015

A Reason For Hopelessness: Our (Homi/Sui)cidal Leaders



It seems like what John Lennon said in 1968 (see the video above) applies in full force today. For if we are not talking about how to treat Iran over its nuclear aspirations, we are talking about the US sending troops to nations that border Russia--no need to mention the nuclear capabilities of the nations involved here--as the West has broken its promises of not moving east in exchange for the reunification of Germany. And one of the Russian responses to America's policies suggested a nuclear strike on Yellowstone and the San Andreas fault in order to trigger catastrophic results (click here). It isn't certain whether that analyst understands that if Yellowstone erupts,  not only will America be decimated, much of the whole world will be put at risk (click here). Of course, we should include how Russia has been trying force its way into the Ukraine as the U.S. and the 

 And while Netanyahu wants a better, though perhaps unrealistic, deal with Iran (click here and there), Republican leaders and wannabe leaders are calling for the possible bombing of Iran (click here and there). Netanyahu's worries here include the financial recovery for Iran and a Middle East Arms race. Note how, in the MSNBC video, the Israeli representative calls on Iran to act as a "normal" nation if it wants to be treated as one. But consider the source. How has Israel treated both Lebanon and the Palestinians? Is Russia a normal country? Then what about Chechnya and the Ukraine? Is the U.S. normal country? No need to list the number of interventions on our part? How about France or Great Britain? Haven't they joined us in interventions or had some of their own?

 The concern that the Israeli representative(see the video linked to above) shows for Iran obtaining nuclear weapons too soon is too limited and selective. When Israel has its way with the Palestinians, shouldn't it expect challenges? What kind of reaction did Russia receive when it did the same in Chechnya? And we weren't greeted as liberators in Iraq, were we?

 What the Iran controversy is about is the tension that exists from the desires of a nation, which exists in the lowest tier of a multi-tier international pecking order, to switch tiers and move on up in the world. Meanwhile, the big fish in the pond, Israel, feels threatened about the change and for some understandable reasons. Being on the recipient end of chants that say 'Death to Israel' can understandably put you on edge. Seeing how the nation calling for that is moving up in the world in terms of its economy and its technological capabilities can be disconcerting. 

 But the moving up of nations from the lower tiers to upper tiers is not only a normal occurrence in history, it is facilitated by the spread of technology. And perhaps, that is the real issue both now and in the future. Technology is spreading and as it does, it brings more parity between nations and even groups. Parity brings a change in the pecking order. And changes in the pecking order can also bring calls for retaliation. So those nations that have taken full advantage of being upper tier nations could have many legitimate concerns when nations change the tier in which they are in.

 This changing tiers among nations is perhaps the biggest argument for relying on the rule of law, rather than the rule of force, especially when one's nation is in the upper tier. Relying on the rule of force could be very expedient today, but it can put one at great risk in the future. This is why the Iran nuclear deal has become such a sensitive issue. Iran wants to advance so that it can change tiers. Israel is worried that once Iran does, it will be in a better position to settle some old scores. In addition, Israel won't have as free a reign over the region as it once did.

 As technology advances, our only hope for survival is to coexist as equal partners with all others. And, for good reason, while many can point to history and say that such coexistence is the impossible dream, the future is saying that relying on a pecking order is not survivable. For either we will always be stuck in a cycle of maintaining the international status quo by bombing suspect nations into the past until we are overwhelmed by a growing number of enemies, or we will fall a peg or two because keeping our current place in the world is simply not sustainable. With either scenario, we make ourselves, and others, increasingly vulnerable in the future.




Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)