[Paquadez]

I post this, as this, the latest correspondence from my friend, Robert Thompson, with whom I spent quite some time, when in France, during the past two weeks, chatting about various issues.

Please remember, I do not totally agree with his views, but, however, respect his wide-based knowledge and wisdom concerning what we in the UK and most in the USA call, probably, incorrectly, the "Middle East".

Also it is worth noting, that Robert is in ongoing correspondence, with many friends and contacts in the USA and that his letters reflect their collective views and fears. These people would no doubt be ascribed the sobriquet of "Liberals" and "Neo-Commies" by Mulder and a number of others I can think of!

However and be that as it may, it might assist some people, to develop their perspectives, in a more comprehensive and balanced way, rather than the somewhat narrow "We are right - send in the Gunboats" fashion I have sadly observed.


Quote:-

For reasons which are presumably historical, in France we talk of the Near East (proche orient) meaning Turkey, the Levant (i.e. Syria, the Lebanon, Palestine and Jordan) and Egypt and the Middle East (moyen orient) meaning the countries to the East of the others as far as the borders of Pakistan, including the Arabian Peninsula, whereas in English the whole area is known as the Middle East, without making any very clear distinction between countries which vary enormously.

In addition, there is often a confusion in English-speaking countries about the North African seaboard states to the West of the desert beyond the fertile valley of the Nile, i.e. Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco, which are together referred to in French as the Maghreb, i.e. a transliteration of the Arabic word (maghrib) for the West. I have often heard (and read of) these countries being referred to in English as oriental, which is the exact opposite of how they are considered in the Arab world. Morocco is in fact a transliteration of its full title of al-mamalikat al-maghribia (the kingdom of the West).

Even when I write in English, I prefer to use the French classifications, as they are more precise, and I apologise in advance if this sometimes causes confusion among my correspondents.

In all of these areas there are currently serious problems arising largely from the stupidity and greed of the "West" over the past couple of centuries, and none of the present protagonists in these regions can claim total innocence. France had its colonial ambitions in the Maghreb and in the Levant and the United Kingdom in both the Levant and in the Middle East, and both have left mixed inheritances to the peoples concerned. However selfish their interference may have been, they have at least in more modern times managed to gain some understanding of (and respect for) the manner in which these same peoples live and their respective ways of life.

The discovery of oil brought a new urgency to the British interest in Iraq, the Arabo-Persian Gulf States and Iran, and a new player in the form of the U.S.A. into Iran and above all into the newly emerging Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which was coming under the domination of the extremist Wahabi sect of Islam. The urgent task for the oil companies from the U.S.A. was to oust the British from as much of the Arabian Peninsula as possible, which explains the birth of the continuing strategic alliance with the Ibn Saud family, whose regime is probably one of the most vicious in the world. What they probably did not expect was that the financial power which this gave would finance the fanatical expression of the Wahabi attitude towards themselves (and of all other non-Muslim) culminating in such murderous acts as those of 11th September 2001, and others since.

The ignorant are deliberately being led by those in Washington DC who know, but do not wish to pass on, the truth, to believe that the Wahabi regime in Saudi Arabia is friendly to the interests of the U.S.A. On the other hand, these liars describe the enemy of the U.S.A. as being persons from some darkly uncertain (and deliberately ill-defined) Islamic background, with anti-western attitudes, which can be attributed to any country, body or person which this (peculiarly amoral) U.S.A. administration wishes to choose, as recently the Ba'ath Party in Iraq, the Ba'ath Party in Syria or the current regime in Iran. In passing, it is worth noting that the two branches of the original Ba'ath Party have been bitter rivals for many years, and that Michel Aflak, the founder took refuge in Baghdad after falling out with his fellow-countrymen in Syria.

These lies about Islam being churned out by the Bush regime, and the deliberate confusion which it encourages, can only create false grounds for discord between faiths and civilisations. I am a strong supporter of the body set up by the French Bishops known as the Secretariat pour les Relations avec l'Islam (Secretariat for Relations with Islam), which encourages very lively inter-faith dialogue. The S.R.I. publishes a peridocal bulletin, which reports on local initiatives in France and in the Lebanon, as well as in countries of Muslim majority with a strong French influence, such as Tunisia and Morocco. We can also look at the situation in Palestine, where the Christians are respected full citizens who take an active part in public and political affairs. On the television last night, we saw Mr Arafat receiving a delegation of Palestinian Christian leaders, led by the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, Michel Sabbah, and it is evident that, among the Palestinian people, there is no difference in the suffering endured by the Christians and the Muslim at the hands of the invaders. For us it is most illogical to see the Bush regime showing such enmity towards the Christians of the Holy Land, when several of his team claim to be themselves followers of Christ.

This all having been mentioned, we now have attempts being made in the Near East by the "State of Israel" to avoid any form of recognition of the democratic choice of the Palestinians of their leader. Mr Bush makes much of bringing democracy to the region, but he also refuses to acknowledge that the Palestinians have chosen Mr Arafat as their President. The lack of logic in his attitude can only be described as dishonest, and he has never made any effort to explain his decisions other than to do what his neo-conservative backers have ordered him to do. It is said that this is for internal electoral reasons, but, if this is so, it is because the electorate has been misled by the falsification of reports on events in all the Arab world, and beyond that in other states with large Muslim majorities, such as Iran and Indonesia. Mr Bush should explain why he accepts the credentials of King Fahd who was certainly not democratically elected and yet refuses to deal with Mr Arafat who was freely chosen by his people.

The latest news from the U.N. Security Council this morning is that, after a very reasonable draft resolution was put forward by Syria (a moderate state which is hated by the Bush regime because it wishes to recover the part of its national territory occupied by the "Israeli Defence Force", as it calls itself) to try to persuade the "State of Israel" not to expel (or, as one Israeli Minister has suggested, assassinate) Mr Arafat, the U.S.A. last night vetoed the draft. This is somehow supposed to fit in with the long promised "war on terrorism" for the start of which the world is still waiting with baited breath.

We know that the administration in the U.S.A. has at its disposition many experts who could give accurate advice on what should be done in the Arab world, but the present regime seems quite simply to ignore their warnings, because they are not compatible with the orders given by the all-powerful neo-conservatives. The administration also has ample power to crush the continuing terrorism inflicted by the Zionists, but refuses so to do, presumably for the "electoral reasons" already mentioned.

This leads us in Europe to ask what is the real strength of these same "electoral reasons" which are based on such lies. We also wonder why the majority of voters in the U.S.A. should be so strongly against the (mainly poor) Christians in the Near and Middle East. We can only assume that they despise those who are so eloquently referred to in the Beatitudes, because they do not try to achieve the "American dream" in their part of the world.

Comments please !

While still hoping for a start in the "war against terrorism" by means of a reduction in your country's most official pro-terrorist behaviour and for a growth in the influence of honesty and justice, I send my best wishes to you all and to all the ordinary people of the U.S.A. (including the families of the service personnel who have lost their lives in Iraq) who are the most direct victims of the Bush regime.

Unquote

Paq

[Paquadez]

An interesting commentary from Europe. Not mine, I stress.

Those with a wider appreciation of global thinking, may well be interested.

Paq

Questions put to Sebastien Fath, researcher at the CNRS (Group of Sociology of Religions and Secularism) by Francois d'Alancon under the Heading :

Why does Mr Bush always says that America is good ?

In this way he makes clear his belief in the saving power of the United States

Q - In his speech to the United Nations, George W. Bush referred to the "moral law which ought to be defended and applied by all men and all nations". The day before, in an interview broadcast by Fox News, the American President had declared that "America is a truly good nation". How do you interpret these comments ?

A - This attitude reflects the impregnation by classic evangelical religious values. Evangelical Protestantism gives a much greater value to engagement and strong convictions than to questioning and doubt. This certainty regarding the goodness of the American people can be interpreted as a concern to sweep aside doubt and as a call to engagement in favour of virtue.

However, there are too many troublesome elements to enable one to limit oneself to this single hypothesis. In Protestant culture, there is also a sense of sin, a basic pessimism regarding men and nations, particularly among the American fundamentalists who look very critically at the American people.

For Jerry Falwell, the United States deserved the blow on 11th September because of moral decadence which only the return of Jesus can bring to an end. This vision of the world is precisely the opposite of Mr Bush's post-millenial optimism.

Q - What is the substance of this ideology of America ?

A - This ideology has two ingredients, the one populist and the other neo-messianic. To speak of the Americans as a truly good nation is a low form of flattery which shocks us. In the United States, it is part of a well-worn populist vocabulary which passes unnoticed. All the trajectory of Mr Bush Junior is impregnated by this binary and manichean populism which one finds in his speech to the U.N.O. when he insisted on the fact that there is no neutral ground in the war against terrorism.

The other element is the neo-messianic outlook. Contrary to the Christian teaching which underlines the ambivalent nature of every human being touched by sin, Mr Bush professes a belief in the goodness of the United States and their saving power. With Mr Bush it is America which is building the kingdom of God and the new Messiah is Uncle Sam. The neo-conservatives want America to gain the monopoly of legitimate violence on a world-wide scale, i.e. to become a sort of super-State for the whole of the planet. This sends us back to a completely cinematographic culture - such as Armageddon, the sum of all our fears, Independence Day or The Fall of the Black Falcon - bearing the mythology of an America which is sufficient unto itself and which can, alone, save humanity. Mr Bush appears to make himself the apostle of a sort of political religion, the religion of the American Way of Life.

Q - How was this speech received by the Americans ?

A - The deliberate media strategy carried out by the Murdoch Group consists in legitimising a worldwide projection of American power in the name of this new ideology. Resistance to this project is less strong than one might have imagined in the United States. One has to remember that the majority of the Churches opposed the war in Iraq and one should not underestimate the capacity of civil society to react to this type of speech. The American President today comes back to these themes because the contestation is rising and that doubt is taking hold of a large part of American opinion. In American culture, there still remains a visceral suspicion of powers-that-be and a State which have too much power. When the elections come, American society may well revert to that tradition.

[muw]

And who listens to the French? "They are nothing but a bunch of cheese eating surrender monkey's"! Quote Grounds Keeper Willy!

Seriously as a German Engineer who told me "Nothing" could make the EU support the US in Iraq.

I said Oh really you mean if the Algerian Muslim Terrorist who tried to fly a hi-jacked French Airplane into the Eiffel Tower had been successful killing thousands of Parisians then the EU wouldn't have been *** kicking mad and the first to jump in?

He admitted they probably would have been, and I then told him "so" it is just a matter of the terrorist not successfully hitting the EU first!

With friends like that!

And no I did not support in anyway the starting of the War in Iraq. But now that we are there!

[plschwartz]

PAQ
Post#2

[sligo]

I think that Thompson's analysis is chock full of factual errors. Beyond that he falls into the trap of blaming all Eastern issues on colonialism when in fact, before the first Brit, Frenchman, etc entered the region, a good portion of the area was mirred in the Middle Ages. Arab repression is the repression of Arabs by Arabs and has nothing to do with Colonialism.j

I won't go into his views on Israel because I have made my points over and over again. Let it suffice to say that I disagree with his need to demonize the Jews.

[plschwartz]

slingo:
Rather then "colonialism" what about "interaction with the West". Which I think had a great effect on the pre-existing Islamic tribal/feudal system much like europe earlier. One great intrusion seems to have been Napoleans invasion of Egypt (I have discussed this elsewhere). The British need to protect its route to India did cause major power shifts and stabilazations of ruling houses. And of course the 20th century brought ideas of nationalism and independence.

[Paquadez]

Originally Posted by plschwartz

PAQ
Post#2

I hope that you realised, PLS, that both those posts were from September 2003!

Our new member, muw, revived a thread I had completely forgotten about.

SLY:

If I could be bothered, I would copy your repetitous comments to Robert, who I'm sure would provide you with some food for thought.

Not surprisingly, I can't....................................

Quite part from the fact that he was an honours graduate of one of Britain's leading universities, an international lawyer of repute, has travelled widely, throughout the Middle East and Asia, speaks some arabic, maintains constant touch with Arabs, Jews and Christians throughout the region, was Secretary General of probably one of the most important International Arbitration Courts in the World, he is obviously a flake and you are obviously right.

Paq

[sligo]

Yes Schwartz but there were "ruling houses" (in other words despotic regimes) before Napoleon and there were "ruling houses" after Napoleon. Again, I find it intellectually dishonest to ignore the many variables that have made that region what it is today. In a a way it plays into the hands of the ultras on both sides of the political spectrum. The left can say--well its all the colonial powers fault (thats patently wrong) and the right can say, you see, the left is onlly interested in demonizing captialism and the western democracies, and ignores the crimes perpetuated by Arabs on Arabs.

[muw]

Yea this was my mistake and I sorely regret it! But as a further note I have met and discussed with many "learned" Britain’s and others. It is amazing how many misconceptions there are out there.

Please let me add I search for original thoughts. Not necessarily original to those who inform me but to me myself!

But to find a new idea you have to put up with endless personal abuse and regurgitated nonsense! Please do not get me wrong I truly am interested in your idea’s but I am not kind to those who spout the same old party line whichever party that might be!

[Paquadez]

Originally Posted by sligo

I think that Thompson's analysis is chock full of factual errors. Beyond that he falls into the trap of blaming all Eastern issues on colonialism when in fact, before the first Brit, Frenchman, etc entered the region, a good portion of the area was mirred in the Middle Ages. Arab repression is the repression of Arabs by Arabs and has nothing to do with Colonialism.j

I won't go into his views on Israel because I have made my points over and over again. Let it suffice to say that I disagree with his need to demonize the Jews.

You are of course, neatly forgetting such items as Ibn ben Saud, a Bedouin, attacking Jeddha, circa 1924 (ish) beheading the legitimate ruler with a rusty scimitar and taking over the country.

FYI, Robert does NOT "Demonize the Jews": he criticises the treatment of other people, both Arab AND Christian "Palestinians", for want of a better descriptor, by the state of Israel, for their benefit and other detriment.

The demonization of the Jews is another subject:if it exists.

Insofar as what we now erronesouly call the Middle East, is concerned, well you realy have to delve further back in history.

Probably, the most influential intererence in the whole area, was from the Ottaman Empire (i.e. what we now call Turkey) which backed the losing side in WW I!

Paq

[sligo]

Paq--I'll make you a deal. Would you please post some of "Roberts" analysis of what the Arabs are doing in Dafur--fact is, would you please post anything that he has written that is critical of Arab governments miserable record vis a vis human rights, torture, oppression of the poor etc. Paq--they dont exist because he exists to demonize Jews--.

[EdGreene]

Originally Posted by Paquadez

I post this, as this, the latest correspondence from my friend, Robert Thompson, with whom I spent quite some time, when in France, during the past two weeks, chatting about various issues.

Quote:-

For reasons which are presumably historical, in France we talk of the Near East (proche orient) meaning Turkey, the Levant (i.e. Syria, the Lebanon, Palestine and Jordan) and Egypt and the Middle East (moyen orient) meaning the countries to the East of the others as far as the borders of Pakistan, including the Arabian Peninsula, whereas in English the whole area is known as the Middle East, without making any very clear distinction between countries which vary enormously.

In addition, there is often a confusion in English-speaking countries about the North African seaboard states to the West of the desert beyond the fertile valley of the Nile, i.e. Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco, which are together referred to in French as the Maghreb, i.e. a transliteration of the Arabic word (maghrib) for the West. I have often heard (and read of) these countries being referred to in English as oriental, which is the exact opposite of how they are considered in the Arab world. Morocco is in fact a transliteration of its full title of al-mamalikat al-maghribia (the kingdom of the West).

(SNIP) of good article for brevity only
Paq

Paq said:

In addition, there is often a confusion in English-speaking countries about the North African seaboard states to the West of the desert beyond the fertile valley of the Nile, i.e. Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco, which are together referred to in French as the Maghreb, i.e. a transliteration of the Arabic word (maghrib) for the West.

Even that description is inaccurate, a hangover from the days of Colonialism.
All of those nations named above are AFRICAN countries, to include Libya, Egypt and "Palestine"*. In fact the geopolitical renaming and realignment from "Africa" to whatever the Colonials wanted to name them started with Napoleon in 1799 when he visited Egypt.

To call them anything other than "African" is to further promote European hubris: nee: racism.
*The lands south of The Lebanon and west of The Jordan are properly "Africa", itself a ba$tardization.
Egypt was called "Kemet" and "Africa" called "Alkebulan" by its original people.
**Western minds and historians have divided "Alkebulan" into sections, each region serving a political and hubristic purpose:
***"North" Africa, "Sub Sahara", "East Africa", "The Namib(ia)", "South Africa" are all geopolitical names for the Continent of Alkebulan.

To put ones geography, politics and thinking straight in the present world, one must think of "Alkebulan" (Africa) as what it is: a whole, entire, fully functional Continent, not a "country".
It is Alkebulan that gave birth first to humankind and then, the three "Great Religions".

[EdGreene]

Originally Posted by muw

And who listens to the French? "They are nothing but a bunch of cheese eating surrender monkey's"! Quote Grounds Keeper Willy!

Seriously as a German Engineer who told me "Nothing" could make the EU support the US in Iraq.

I said Oh really you mean if the Algerian Muslim Terrorist who tried to fly a hi-jacked French Airplane into the Eiffel Tower had been successful killing thousands of Parisians then the EU wouldn't have been *** kicking mad and the first to jump in?

He admitted they probably would have been, and I then told him "so" it is just a matter of the terrorist not successfully hitting the EU first!

With friends like that!

And no I did not support in anyway the starting of the War in Iraq. But now that we are there!

"Errr, uhmm", a 9/11 type attack on the Eiffel Tower would have made a spectacular bonfire, killing at best no more than a few hundred people. Sure, the French would have pitched a hissy and maybe they might have talked the EU into responding, but no way an Eiffel Tower crash kills near that many.

Why? Because what knocked down the Towers was tens of thousands of pounds of Jet fuel, burning inside an enclosure. A fully loaded Jet hitting the Eiffel Tower would have simply spread those tens of thousands of pound of Jet fuel on the area below; same for the Empire State Building: the collision would have sheared off the wings (where the gas is), letting the burning wings fall onto the street below.
+The Empire state Building was struck by an ARMY bomber flying in a fog. Started a small fire and incapacititated a few rooms on four floors;
*The real fault was the Twin Tower's construction. They, unlike the Empire State Building which has solid steel beams and bricks as a part of its outside structure which would have prevented the intrusion of much of the Jet fuel, doomed the Towers.

The Towers had no such structural protection or integrity, allowing the [i]the entire, fully laoded Jet aircraft to get inside the building to explode on the concrete central core: the resultant expolisons and those thousands of pounds of Jet fuel first burned up the central core, then burned down as the Jet fuel flowed, burning as it went, toward the ground. All the time, the flames and heat stayed inside the building

[Paquadez]

Ed

I specifically stated that they were not my words and that I did not necessarily agree with the whole ethos.

Therefore "Paq Said" is erroneous - he didn't!

Paq


SLY

In Britain we'd say "B*******" !

Robert (no parenthesis needed) does not write about Arab .v. Arab circumstances, in this context.

He does have other commentary elsewhere.

If you met and spoke to him, you would rapidly realise that he does not exist to demonize the Jews.

However, it is becoming increasingly obvious that you are all experts on everything to do with the Middle East, North Africa, Palestine, etc.

And have nothing further to learn.

Why not offer your services to the White House? I'm sure Colin Powell could use some help. Geo W certainly could: he seems to think that Paris is in Texas!

paq

[EdGreene]

Originally Posted by Paquadez

Ed

I specifically stated that they were not my words and that I did not necessarily agree with the whole ethos.

Therefore "Paq Said" is erroneous - he didn't!

Paq

I did word that poorly, didn't I?