Middle East Politics
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Its funny because the states is the alleged 'mediator' of peace talks. Yet they've gone out of their way to defy international opinion to placate one side at the expense of the other. Some stellar mediating right there.
This time last year Obama went out of his way to placate the Palestinians. And the Iranians.
It matters not though. The Palestinians don't want a solution.
How is it at the expense of the Palestinians?
By demeaning their claim to East Jerusalem being the Palestinian capital.
And how exactly did Obama placate the Palestinians?
The Iran deal was pretty much backed by the entire world except for the likes of Saudi, nice bedfellows you have there.
What is the Palestinian claim to East Jerusalem based on?
Whatever the basis for that claim, the Embassy move doesn't prevent Jerusalem as a whole, or East Jerusalem, from becoming a capital or shared capital in the future. An issue for the Israelis and Palestinians to address together.
Neither does it prevent the U.S. from locating an Embassy in Jerusalem to represent diplomatic relations with a Palestinian State in the future.
Trump is apparently tying foreign aid to how countries vote against issues like the US moving its embassy to Jerusalem.
Bullying
What a complete idiot he is.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/20/politics/nikki-haley-taking-names-on-jerusalem/index.html
Not that different to what the UK have been doing the last 18 months or so, with tying foreign aid to security priorities.
Nothing new, world politics as always been like that.
You must have heard the phrase 'jiski laathi uski bhains'.
Interestingly, the UN partition plan resolution in 1947 was only passed after threats to poor countries like Liberia and Haiti. President Truman later noted:
"The facts were that not only were there pressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been seen there before, but that the White House, too, was subjected to a constant barrage. I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders—actuated by political motives and engaging in political threats—disturbed and annoyed me.”
So the annual UN General Assembly resolution condemning illegal Israeli actions in Jerusalem typically passes with at least 150 votes and about 6 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States).
I hope Ms Haley brought a couple of spare notebooks
I hope Ms Haley brought a couple of spare notebooks
I just found out that the king who created Saudi Arabia (Ibn Saud) formed an 'alliance' with the British. The British were everywhere it seems.
During that time they had 'deals' with 3 different parties and made promises to all of them,turned out to be pretty treacherous stuff in the end.
It's mindblowing to me how capable the British empire was doing deals like that and influencing whole regions so far from Britain.
Yeah for a small nation the outreach was extensive, the British empire was the largest in terms of land mass.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires
Not sure about IslamicThe greatest Islamic empire of them all
but in terms of size it was great indeed.Not sure about Islamic
Wasn't 100% serious, but it's debatable - in the 19th century British administrators and many prominent Indian Muslims were constantly going on about how Britain was then the greatest Muslim empire in the world. Indian ulama declared British India to be Dar al-Islam. In terms of geographic spread (Nigeria to Malaysia) and the actual size of the Muslim population no other 'Islamic' empire in history comes even close. They allowed their Muslim subjects to use the shari'ah for personal/family law and created a modified form of Islamic law (Anglo-Muhammadan Law) in India for civil disputes and the like. At times they provided subsidies for poor pilgrims going on the Hajj or to the Iraqi shrine cities. When Queen Victoria was considering the title she should adopt as Empress of India, Sultan and Padishah were briefly considered. And for a century or so the British basically acted as the protector of the last actual great Islamic empire, the Ottomans.
Cheers for the insight, I knew about a few of the things you mentioned but not all, the age of empires was inevitably coming to an end it's a shame post ww1 these lands were poorly managed and poor leaders put in place.
Nice to see the world stick it to Trump and the US crypto-fascist machine.
Actually hope Mango Mussolini honours his bluff and isolates the US. Quarantine them until they get their house in order.
Actually hope Mango Mussolini honours his bluff and isolates the US. Quarantine them until they get their house in order.
They went everywhere, and before leaving, they fecked it all up for the future generations
I'm thinking along the same lines.
They did more than forming an alliance with the king, i'd say propping him to seize power and becoming a king is more accurate. This was done to weaken the ottoman empire.
Bootlickers were plenty, i highly doubt anyone seriously considered british empire to be an islamic one. Darul Uloom Deoband and there ilk were formed on the basis that islam is in danger in India because of the british.
As for civil laws, muslims and hindus were governed by there respective religious laws in India, during the early stage the criminal laws were a mix of sharia and british laws and later on it was primarily british laws.
I think it was a way for Indian Muslims to place themselves (conceptually) at the centre of the Islamic world at a time of increased pan-Islamic sentiment. As for Deoband, Nadwat and the rest, they all remained loyal to the Brits throughout, even lining up to pledge allegiance in November 1914. Of course this was more a matter of necessity than principle.
What if they want a nice part of America?
Nikki Haley (who's birth name is Nimrata Randhawa, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikki_Haley btw) being spoofed:
Both of those are US constructs anyway. The Saudi Iranian conflict started when the US deemed it a good idea to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran and replace it with a tyrannous dicator, cue the Islamic revolution. Whereas Yemen is a US-led conflict.
This theorycrafting does raise an interesting point - its not all Israel.
Mind you one peculiar thing this hypothetical solution does do though is take away the one shallow rallying cry Arab and Muslim leaders exploit to placate their people and tenuously garner nationalist sentiment and unity - opposition to Israel. Without that you'll have some of these leaders sweating profusely to find a new rallying cry. Probably opposition to the expanding influence of the 'Shia crescent' or anti-Persian sentiment.
What would you propose we do ? Rewind history so we don't need to deal with the present ?
The fundamental problem with the middle east is theocracy and lack of Democracy imo. When people think within democratic rules and norms, they are less likely to squabble about conflicting religious principles.
See I don't believe democracy buffers theocratic or sectarian inclinations. Iraq is a prime example of that as evident with the country voting in Shia governments almost by default because of tribalistic loyalties. Egypt's first go at democracy resulted in the electoral victory of a pretty unpleasant Islamist faction. Heck it happens in the US too with its sizeable Christian zealots seeing no issue with voting for alleged pedophiles and sexual predators on the basis of their supposed 'Christian' values. Point being that so long as there exists sectarian and religious zealotry, democracy will only scaffold it, not reverse it. The debate then is do we accept democratic outcomes even if the result is undesired.
As to how you would tackle sectarian and religious tribalism at a cultural level - I wouldn't know how to answer that. Maybe its a case of Islamic-dominated countries needing to ride the wheels of time before becoming secularised as was the case with Europe and its mildening of Christianity, or its something that's accelerated by the phenomenon of globalisation. But having said that, one thing that can be done with tangible results is to deprive extremist sentiment of its motivations and appeal. Western foreign policy - in particular its unequivocal support for Israel, military campaigns and support of unsavoury theological factions to topple non-compliant secular leaders is one such source that if addressed, would certainly narrow the appeal behind radical religious sentiment. The trouble is, this would be at the expense of regional hegemonic goals, and thus the cycle is doomed to persist.
Cesspit more like. Israelis are monstars
Cut out the hate speech, thank you.
How's that hate speech?