Lorenz Zahn The way Israel “introduced“ itself and handled foreign policies with their neighbors wasn’t especially great, but by far not the only reason for tensions. I’m personally thinking of the impact the west (and east) had while securing their geopolitical interests. Might it be through actions such as Operation AJAX, proxy wars or the prevalent support of questionable groups and authoritarian regimes.

September 23, 2015 07:50:36 · Reply

tsuchan "Operation AJAX" I could look-up, because you named it. "Proxy wars or the prevalent support of questionable groups and authoritarian regimes" is too general to reference easily. Operation AJAX seems to have been executed in dubious authority, but the outcome resulted in decades of stability, increased secular and women's rights, etc until the Shah's overthrow by the "Islamic Revolution". The West wouldn't have sponsored that, I'll wager. But I've already accepted your general point that the West's interference in the Middle East has probably done more harm than good. Do we soon get to the point where you give a view on the issues I raised? - Number of people suffering in Middle East and potentially refugees far too many to integrate into Europe - Right of European countries to reject people who oppose the laws in the countries where they seek asylum - Refugees being fervent supporters of the same religion and worshipping the same imaginary being which are driving ISIS, Al Qaeda, The Taliban and any number of other murderous, cruel regimes - The question of who rises up against the regimes if the people who are suffering under them give up and run away v. whether those regimes are allowed to annexe country after country until they take over the whole world. These seem to be the problems at hand.

September 23, 2015 08:20:06 · Reply

Lorenz Zahn Short word on AJAX: What you mention was one side of the coin. At the time, Iran was a parliamentary democracy heading forwards. The reason the operation was pushed through was because the Iran tried to gain sovereignty over their resources. This was ultimately prevented by reinstating an authoritarian monarch, who suppressed his people. Now to the point of “how many people are we supposed to take in?”: Aside from the moral obligation of being partly blamable for the situation by sitting on our hands doing hardly anything for the last couple of years and pointing fingers at Russia, we haven’t done much by improving the situation of refugees currently located in the countries next to Syria. Putting some pressure on the Gulf States could also help for a start. And please… Don’t come with religion again. Would I assume someone wearing a cross to be a Mormon and having twelve wives? No, that would be silly. So let’s not do that. Finally to your point of people rising up: We are speaking of people trapped between the fronts. Imagine a civil war broke out in your own country. How many people would try to get away from there, because they have no partaking in it?

September 23, 2015 09:11:46 · Reply

tsuchan Thanks for the reply Lorenz. Thinking about refugees then, I suggested that if we take all the people in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan who are in legitimate fear of their lives, we have already over 80 million+ people. Then should the policy be to accept refugees up to the point where Europe's economy completely fails, and we have reached an equilibrium where it's no longer attractive for someone to come to Europe because the situation is no better than at home? All I'm trying to do is look forward just a little bit and suggest that this isn't sustainable. You said that we're not doing much to help other than pointing fingers at Russia. But isn't it a case of damned-if-we-intervene, damned-if-we don't? Some Western countries do intervene even when blocked by one or more UN permanent Members. But that is the strategy that was followed in the disastrous intervention in Iraq. You say we should put pressure on Gulf States to take refugees. I'm not very sure whether that would be a kindness. If I were in Saudi Arabia, for example, I think I'd be happier if I could escape to Syria. About humanitarian relief, that's certainly the proposal that I'm putting forward: that we expend much more effort and investment in safe refuges near the border of Syria and Iraq which could help many more people than the relatively token numbers who are admitted to Europe. We are seeing people who are leaving Syria because their houses, their towns, their cities have been flattened. They have nowhere to live, there is no water, no electricity. And in the mean time we seem to be tickling the surface of the problem pretty much ineffectively by giving a select few people the chance of settlement in the EU. If the scale of the situation is such that we can't solve it simply by settling refugees within the EU, isn't it better that we resettle as many as possible close to Syria with a view to helping them return as soon as possible, and taking the most vulnerable, the most sick or injured, the orphaned kids with nobody to look after them? Sure, these are not the doctors and dentists, builders and electricians (etc) who are an instant benefit to the adoptive countries: they are the people who need most commitment to look after. But after all the fit and educated people race to the EU, who is going back in the medium term to rebuild Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan? I was really surprised to read in your reply "Don’t come with religion again". It was in informative reaction, because it demonstrates religion is really no part of your concern at all. But I admit that I hadn't anticipated that. I think I gave a rationale cause for concern in my first contribution, when I quoted the BBC/ComRes poll of British Muslims, which suggests a truly scary number have sympathy with Charlie Hebdo attackers, preaching violence against the West, etc. I never said that all Muslims have extreme views as you suggest. I asked whether countries should have the right to refuse entry to people they perceive to be a threat. (For example, do you see a right to refuse people who - when asked - say they will disobey laws of the country to which they are seeking entry if they believe they are in conflict with the demands of their religion?) As a rationalist, if I'm labouring under a misapprehension, I want to be be corrected. If the information upon which I'm basing an opinion is unreliable, I want to be shown why. I don't want to take a view that is misconceived in fact. It's true, of course, that I need to be shown a convincing argument of my error; but I certainly welcome correction. I will concede: I think that belief in most religions is a weakness roughly proportionate to their devotee's willingness to accept without question their holy scriptures. There is a steady stream of people leaving countries across the EU to fight for ISIS. People with friends who are utterly surprised that friends who they have not even thought of as devout Muslims but have left to become ISIS fighters or their consorts. My submission would be that their religious belief makes them more vulnerable to brain-washing. So I do very much think it's about religion, and I do think the evidence of the proportion of Muslims who feel alienated from Western mainstream is alarming, but I certainly don't believe that a majority of Muslims are a threat. So the final point was about people trapped between the fronts of a civil war. Sure, I imagine many people would try to get away from there if it happened in my own country. Who wouldn't? But when nasty people take over one's country, who will fight them if all the nice people exit the stage? That was my question. Who will stand against the evil of ISIS, of the Taliban, of Al Qaeda if all their natural opponents declare themselves not a part of the conflict? Of course people need rehousing temporarily if their homes and cities have been destroyed. But it's a practical question: what stops ISIS from annexing every country, if they meet with no opposition because the people who hate them do not fight them?

September 24, 2015 16:43:20 · Reply