She wont vote for militant Islam
This evening BBC Radio 4′s Moral Maze is discussing the unrest in Egypt. I usually find this program to irritating to listen to. The panelist seem to consider that it is their soul objective to be obnoxious and insulting to the “witnesses”.
In describing tonight’s program the BBC web site asks: “Is it morally justifiable to tolerate or support unpleasant, authoritarian, undemocratic regimes because we feel the likely alternatives might prove worse for the citizens of Egypt.”
My answer is simple: NO! No because it is wrong to support unpleasant, authoritarian, undemocratic regimes. NO because we cannot know what the alternative will be. And NO because we have experience of what happens when revolution finally breaks out in countries where the West has connived to suppress democracy. i.e. the people despise the West along with the dictator which they have just thrown off.
The classic example of this is Iran. In 1953 the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh was overthrown in a coup d’état instigated by the United States and the United Kingdom. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was installed as Shāh and propped up by the United States until the revolution in 1977.
From what I have read the revolution was initially backed by a secular movement but militant Islamists used the chance to grab power. Secular Iranians tried to resist but were crushed by the new regime of Ayatollah Khomeini. They could have received help from the West but having been responsible for 20 years of their repression we were not trusted and there followed a caustic division between Iran and the West that lasts ’till this day. That is an example of what happens when we support unpleasant, authoritarian, undemocratic regimes because we feel the likely alternatives might prove worse.
We should support the people of Egypt in ejecting their dictator. If they then elect an authoritarian Islamist government then more fool them. At least the responsibility will not be ours and when they are finally in a position to reject authoritarianism we will be in a position to help.
More optimistically I believe that Egyptians will have learned from the experiences of Iran and Afghanistan and will reject outright Islamist rule though Islamists may have some role in a coalition. It is possible that Egypt could finally break the curse that has afflicted the Arab world for decades and start to modernise.
Imagine a middle east of modern democratic countries right on the border of the largest trading block in the world. I am talking of the European Union. While the world obsesses over whether China will supplant America as the largest economy in the world they overlook the fact that the EU has an economy larger than both. With the Arab world modernising trade would take off and this would be great news for Arabs and Europeans.
The financial crisis has caused market uncertainty and companies have been nervous about initiating capital projects. Investors are also unenthusiastic as many assets appear overpriced; there is even talk of a Chinese asset bubble. Consequently some sectors, such as insurance, are awash with capital.
If democracy were to blossom then this capital could find it’s way to infrastructure projects in the Arab world. There was speculation in The Economist in 2009 of solar powered electricity generation in the Sahara with the electricity transported to Europe across the Mediterranean. That is not going to happen while the region is ruled by unstable dictators.
Lastly consider the effect on the Arab / Israeli conflict. Today the subtext of much of Israel’s argument is that the Palestinians are just Arabs who are used to being oppressed and the Palestinians are no worse off than citizens of other Arab countries.
Imagine if Israel were surrounded by thriving democracies. Israel would be forced to confront it’s oppressive and racist policies toward the Palestinians. Could The United States continue to support the siege of Gaza or the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians? Shame on them if they did.
Art Photography
Gaza Ceasefire – But the agression continues
Tags: bollocks, ceasefire, ex-pats, gaza, hamas, israel, Mark Regev, palestine, rockets, wanker, white phosphorous
Mr Regev in front of one of “his” cities
Today BBC TV news had an interview with Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev who complained, in his Australian accent, that Palestinians were shooting missiles into “our cities”. A quick reference to Wikipedia reveals that he was born Mark Freiberg in Australia and emigrated to Israel at the age of 22. This seems not to be atypical. Recently I heard another Israeli official with a British accent and most of the Israeli settlers I’ve heard interviewed have come from the United States.
Nice. Very nice. It must be great to be born in a liberal Western democracy where religious and political freedom are guaranteed and diversity promoted; to then find your “spiritual self” and fuck off to Israel to go on International TV and start spouting off about how the local people are firing missiles into “our cities”.
Wikipedia states that Mr. Regev was a prominent member of the Socialist-Zionist youth movement, Ichud Habonim, and was active in the Melbourne University Jewish Students Society and this is the trouble with people whose recent ancestors come from other countries: They tend to be wankers. They idolise a nation that never really existed. The second generation Irish of Boston drink green Guinness, bang on about “the craic” and (in the past) threw money into buckets in pubs to fund the IRA’s bombing campaign. The second generation Scots walk around Heathrow airport draped in bloody Tartan and stinking of Whisky. The second generation British brag about the SAS and the second generation Pakistanis in Britain follow an idiotic fundamentalist version of their religion which is at odds with the freedom they enjoy in the UK.
The descendent of emigrants can develop stupid romanticised ideas of how their supposed home country should be. When all they do is go on holiday and make a nuisance of themselves this is tolerable. When they “return” to Palestine/Israel and start taking yet more Palestinian territory for their “settlements” and aiding the attacks on a people who have been under occupation for over fifty years then they become a problem for everyone.
Mr. Regev is a idealogical fanatic. Here he is quibbling about who is a journalists to try to legitimise air strikes on buildings occupied by journalists and here he is trying to evade allegations that Israel used white phosphorous against civilians.
A previous Talking Bollocks article documented him talking bollocks while attempting to justify continued settlement activity. His mechanical, preprogrammed and self supporting rhetoric is reminiscent of any fundamentalists Islamist. That Israel appoints such a person to be an official spokesman is indicative of the lunacy which allows Israel to claim to be a liberal democracy while simultaneously settling foreign land with religious fundamentalists.
We now have another ceasefire and that can only be good news. However it is not enough to call for the Israelis to stop attacking Gaza or for Hamas to stop firing missiles into Israel. These are merely the overt and violent forms of aggression prevalent in Palestine/Israel.
While the ceasefire holds the Palestinians will be forced to continue to live under occupation in the West bank or under siege in Gaza while yet more starry eyed religious tossers arrive from abroad to take yet more of their land. The BBC World Service reported that between the start of the Oslo peace process and the date that it collapsed Israel doubled the number of Jewish settlers on Palestinian land – What incentive have the Palestinians to negotiate under those conditions?
The settlements activity is provocation for future conflict and while it continues Israel remains the aggressor and the Palestinians the victims. If there is to be peace in the area it will not be hammered out by ideologues but by pragmatists. Israel would do better to appoint ordinary Israelis to positions of power rather than wankers like Mr. Regev.
Australia – Not good enough for Mark Regev
Rate this: