Ah…. but which came first and was a reaction to the other?

If the middle east exported only their oil and not their violence, the West (US) would not have a military presence there. Fact is, we are plenty lazy enough to let well enough alone. We are motivated only by self interests; no surprise there.

Maybe less than 100% support of Israel would please some in the middle east, but again, the history books seem to dim the prospects of this actually working. Once again, other countries and individuals are also working in their own best interests. Arafat torpedoed some very reasonable offerings put forward by Israel (after being pushed very hard by the US) because it was in his own best interests to NOT have the Palestinian issue solved. As far as 100% support goes, that is what comes with being an ally. The US and Britain do not agree on 100% of things, but we support each other 100% that is what allies do. As an American, I am comfortable with 100% support of Israel and I am comfortable that we get 100% support in return. We don’t agree with all of Israels policies; we just have to get over that.

Although I agree that the creation of Israel has proven to be a spark that has lead to an incredible amount of strife, I disagree with you that the solution now lies in the Israeli condition. I tend to believe that if by some process the state of Israel were eliminated and the land and people simply merged into the bordering countries or even if they flipped the country from Israel to Palestine; I don’t think the middle east problem would be solved. There is a more fundamental battle being waged there and it is more about a religion. Not solvable.

Lastly, the comment about the fragility of Turkey and Lebanon is interesting since they are both examples of what democracy does. Lebanon is more complicated due to the Syrian aspect, but in general, both countries work well both within and outside their borders…. and they are muslim. If Iraq were to become as successful and as stable as Turkey, you might start to see real change in the area. Of course, it could just as easily slip the other direction and we are moving backward.

But let’s talk Israel. I agree it is not through a lack of trying many times and I perhaps chose my words incautiously. Of course every US President would love to be remembered as the one who solved the ‘Middle East’. The real problem is the 100% unswerving support for anything Israel does. Was there an outcry from Washington when Israel built nuclear weapons? When they built ‘the Wall’? When they bulldozed whole Palestinian settlements? When they extended their own borders? There is, let’s be honest, a very powerful Jewish lobby in the USA…

I firmly believe that the only way to solve the Israel/Palestine problem is to start making that support conditional…

Obviously what was done with the creation of Israel cannot be undone. If your premise is accepted that this is the root problem then the real question is what do you do about it? I think the statement that none of the American presidents have had the political courage and will to tackle this is wrong… I think it is that there are no easy solutions. Any one of these people would have loved to have the “I solved world peace” trophy on their resume at any price. Just no method to get there is apparent.

So, negotiation fails. Outright war against the “enemy” fails. Appeasement fails worst of all… What is the solution? The only thing that comes to mind is changing the culture at it’s base and that is very hard to do; particularly when these are countries generally led by dictators or a cabal that is very adept at stoking the anti-American/Israeli fires to keep their populations focused on something other than the current state of their own situations. It is not too great a mental leap to say that the only possible way to address this is if the people of these countries would have an opportunity to have a voice in their own governments and a stake in their own situation so that they would recognize that as much as they might want to strike out at those they disagree with, it is not in their own best interest. A democratic government tends to fit that bill. If you make that mental leap, then you might say that one long term solution to peace in the middle east is democracy. History would tend to back up that assumption.

Now, take a look at the map. If you were going to try to insert democracy into the equation what country might be a good place. How about Iraq? It sits between Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria (among others). It also had the convenient distinction of being ruled by a brutal, hated dictator. Going into Iraq and giving freedom and democracy then starts to make some sense. Is it achievable? That is the question! Is it a strike against terrorism? Absolutely! Will we know if it is going to work? Check back in 20-30 years.

This is not some sort of solution that can be granted by a handshake or an agreement.. there are too many self interests that compete against the problem being solved that way.

I think it was right that America should have gone after Bin Laden and the group responsible for 9/11. That had (and still has) my support 100%. Therefore something had to be done about Afghanistan. However a little night time reading of history would have shown the Bush – Cheney – Rumsfeld group that waging and winning wars in Afghanistan is virtually impossible. Many have tried and all have failed. There is also the issue of how to fight terrorist organisations and their allies. What you can’t do is take western style armies and march into such places and expect a conventional war. Experience in Vietnam should have warned them of this.

Iraq, of course, was a different issue and I believe that was more personal. Bush and Fox and Blair were the only people who made claims of (a) Iraq’s involvement in 9/11 and (b) that they had serious weaponry. Iraq should never have happened and that was obvious from before the invasion (and not hindsight!). And once again the White House went into Iraq expecting a conventional (and quick) war which is what they got with the Iraq army but clearly not what they were going to get subsequently.

The simple truth is that you do not defeat terrorism with armies and wars. The two wars were exactly what the terrorists wanted – that and the domestic fear. It swelled their numbers and forced other nations to ‘take sides’. I should do more research for this argument but I challenge anyone to name one real terrorist organisation that has been subdued by military action.

Stopping terrorism always comes down to talking. That doesn’t mean giving them what they want but it does mean finding ways of reducing and neutralising their grudge. This has always been the only real way. The key to all this was and remains Israel. The imperative for the last 60 years has been to resolve the problem of Palestine and that takes political will and courage sadly lacking in all of your Presidents except one (Jimmy Carter/Egypt). (Yes – and sadly lacking over here as well although it is impossible to do anything when America backs Israel without question).

It is interesting to remember that Israel came into being through American recognition (Truman) following a terrorist campaign against the British (and, if i recall correctly, the French?). These acts of terrorism took many lives but were totally condoned by the US administration. But of course, American lives were not at stake. The British and Europe begged Truman not to go ahead and recognise the state of Israel as we could see the problems that would ensue including the years of genocide against Palestinians. Plus this was giving in to terror. What needed to happen then was dialogue to control borders etc. What actually happened was the US giving the new state the support to do what it liked and we are still paying the price of that folly today.

On the other hand – European airports do their best to keep up with these stupid security measures. First body scanners are installed right now, Amsterdam is using one for over a year now.

And finally: Yes, 9/11 was the worst terrorism act ever. How many people have been killed? 4.000? 5.000? But how much money has been wasted since? How many people have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq? How many civil rights have been cut down? Do the math and put that in a relationship to 100.000+ victims of south-asias tsunami-desaster four years ago. It makes no sense at all.

As far as Fox news goes; wanting to silence dissenting opinion (even if it has one of the highest bullshit indicators on the planet) is actually the best way to “plunge…[society] toward fascism” that I can think of. Maybe we can start small (censor bloggers) and move up to eliminating Fox News. If we are successful with that lets then take on talk radio! …sorry, I’ll pass.

But why should I not worry about Fox News? Everyone with an IQ above 50 should worry about Fox News. It must have one of the highest bullshit indicators on the planet.