UN report blames Israel, US for lack of Arab reform

[drdon326]

The creation of Israel and the US support for its policies in the West Bank are partially to blame for the lack of reform in the Arab world, according to a UN-sponsored report released Tuesday.

The Arab Human Development Report 2004 (AHDR) cited the creation of the Jewish state as one of the roots of authoritarianism in the Middle East, along with the discovery of oil and the support for dictators by the superpowers during the Cold War.

Israel rebuffed the claims. "For too long too many people in the Arab world have used Israel as an excuse to justify behavior that cannot be justified," said Mark Regev, spokesman for the Foreign Ministry. "You can't have democratic elections because of Israel and you can't give equal rights to women in Saudi Arabia because of Israel. This is of course a cop out."

The 248-page report, published by the United Nations Development Program, was ready months ago, prior to the Palestinian and Iraqi elections, but its release was delayed because of objections by the US and Egypt. It was finally released with the UN logo and a disclaimer in the preface.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1112668202417

....................................................................

This should be on Comedy Central.

The UN "aint nuttin but shit"

[number6]

1. This should be on Comedy Central.

what the Jpost ? or A Sharon

[number6]

2. The UN "aint nuttin but shit"

you must like that Bolton dude huh ?

[Coastie for Truth]

3. Based on this report

"The Arab Human Development Report 2004 (AHDR) cited the creation of the Jewish state as one of the roots of authoritarianism in the Middle East, along with the discovery of oil and the support for dictators by the superpowers during the Cold War."

How does the creation of Israel become a root cause of authoritarianism? I do not follow the logic. There are more logical links to

1) the discovery of oil and
2) the support for dictators by the superpowers during the Cold War

as made clear in my regular and monotonous citations of "A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order" by F. William Engdahl and "House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties" by Craig Unger.

This is the old "He made me do it" excuse.

Oh well --> please enlighten me.




<>

[Darranar]

6. Well, to the extent that Israel is a tool of the United States...

and before that, of Britain and France, there's some truth to the accusation. But you are right that it is more of a side-issue.

The discovery of oil argument is somewhat missing the point; its main relevance is a motive for (2). It should also be noted that the support for dictators by superpowers has hardly ended with the Cold War.

[Coastie for Truth]

7. Ignoring a lot of history

Your statement that "Well, to the extent that Israel is a tool of the United States...and before that, of Britain and France, there's some truth to the accusation" identifies the "power players" but mis-applies their roles and results.

It is fairly clear that Israel, Palestine, and Lebanon were actually created as weak, divided, multi-ethnic, buffer states on the Eastern Littoral of the Mediterranean, and this was done to "protect" the Suez Canal and create a British and French "Balance of Power" on the Eastern Littoral of the Mediterranean

This was the object of the French-British Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, and is thoroughly described in "A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order" by F. William Engdahl.

I would go so far as to say that all of ME policy is driven by "Petroleum Politics" by a "Petroleum-Political Complex" where the Israeli people, the Palestinian people, the Lebanese people, and the Muslim proletariat are mere spectators. See, e.g.,"House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties" by Craig Unger, as well as Engdahl, above, and you might want to "Edgar" Shell Oil at http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html and read about payoffs to Filipino and Indonesian terrorists and deliberate over stating of "proven reserves" ("stock fraud") http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=shell&CIK=&filenum=&State=&SIC=&owner=include&action=getcompany

I realize that for some it is much easier to put 100% of the blame on one side - be it the Israelis or the Palestinians (or in my biased case as a Prius driving, independent alternative renewable green energy engineer "Big Oil" at $2.61 a gallon) - and to ignore their own ("our own") oil consumption habits and the "protection" of the mineral "interests" of the former colonial interest. But remember - the former colonial powers have a history of "Balance of Power" to retain hegemony (Anglophones versus Francophones in Canada, Europeans versus African Slaves in the "American Colonies", siding with the Confederacy during the American Civil War, British versus Dutch in South Africa, Hindus versus Muslims versus Sikhs in Indian-Pakistan, Muslims versus Christians versus Jews in the Eastern Littoral of the Mediterranean)

[Darranar]

9. I was talking about Israel, not Israel and the Palestinians...

My point was regarding Israel - because your post regarded Israel. I was merely pointing out that Israel has contributed something to the matter, and did not in any way indicate that the Palestinians were completely innocent, in this matter or any other.

I would go so far as to say that all of ME policy is driven by "Petroleum Politics" by a "Petroleum-Political Complex" where the Israeli people, the Palestinian people, the Lebanese people, and the Muslim proletariat are mere spectators.

I do not think it is all about oil, merely largely about oil; there are other concerns, for instance contesting the interests of other powers. The area is geographically important too, and had considerable significance long before nations cared about oil.

[Coastie for Truth]

10. So we get back to "Balance of Power" and "Big Power Hegemony" Plus Oil

where the little people, be they Israelis, Lebanese, Palestinians, or proletariat generally, are just pawns, chess pieces and markers to be moved around by power politics, balance of power, big power hegemony, and oil.

So, what else is new?

(From my perspective on the periphery of the "Energy Industry" - I just give Petroleum Politics more emphasis).

[simcha_6]

8. The UN is right

Authoritarian regimes use anti-Israel sentiments to deflect criticism. Any critic of the regime is a tool of Israel, after all (irony here). This isn't really Israel's fault, though. It's just Israel's existence. Its actions don't help Arab reform, but it doesn't really stop it either, or else Arab reform would have occurred between 48-67.

[applegrove]

4. I wonder how the Rovbots will handle this one - since they need the

UN to provide stability in Iraq after the US is gone. The only way to ensure the success of the new democracy & destroy the insurgency.

:shrug:

[Radio_Rick]

5. This just reinforces the impression of the UN's ineffectiveness

For political issues the world still turns to the big power blocs.

For humanitarian issues the world still turns to the NGOs like the ICRC and AI and Physicians Without Borders.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Colorado Blue]

12. You know what - I'd like to see this report. But, in a sense

even without reading it, I think the writer has a point.

The creation of Israel played into some really volatile religious and political themes of the day, while simultaneously seeming to contravene Arab wishes for self-determination.

This was close on the heels of WWII, when the poison of Europe had spilled into the M.E. and changed the texture of the region. Bigotry toward Jews emerged, that had NEVER been a part of Islam. At the same time, a strong movement for Arab nationalism was rising. Relations with the west, with the modern world, had changed the dynamic forever.

The simple fact of modernity did not and DOES not, sit well with all parties in the region.

In and of themselves, had Arab leaders not decided to attack the Jewish state, but to make the Palestinian state along side it, those factors would probably have evolved by now, into a broader spectrum of political discourse.

And even had that amelioration and broadening NOT occurred, had Islamism still risen and the Brotherhoods still become powerful, and the Ba'ath party, the ISSUE of Israel and Palestine would have been moot. The ability of the divisive and dictatorial leaders of the region to focus on the Jewish state and the plight of the Palestinians, would have been removed. This might have changed the dynamics of the region.*

Israel gave violent, reactionary forces a focal point. That in itself has enabled dictatorial leaders, fundamentalist Islamists and militants the ability to keep people's attention on that one particular issue, instead of on modernizing the region, improving the economic outlook for the non-oil states, and forming a secular, liberal, technological and democratic society.

A theory:)

*Frankly, I don't think the lack of Israel OR the creation of Israel, either way, would have been enough to truly change the outcome overall. There are so MANY fault lines, so many possible areas for conflict - and we've seen many explode: Lebanon, Iran/Iraq, secular/religious, oil/non-oil, religious sect vs. religious sect, pastoral/agricultural world vs. globalization, and the shadow wars played by the Great Powers.

Moreover, this region had not been part of the developing, technological West, nor had it acquired the habits of self-government. And, the twentieth century brought crashing changes to us all - here, where time had virtually stood still in many ways, it seems to have set up a deep revulsion to change as well as a great opportunity.

There were bound to have been problems nevertheless.