Why would Israel have problems with Muslims outside the Middel East?

Posted by: Elric66 at April 10, 2007 8:07 AM

Jordanian king: Israel must make peace to coexist with Muslims

In a speech given in England (about 1980) Bat Ye'or made the point that roughly 50% of the people in Israel at that time were descendants of Jewish people who had fled Muslim countries and the yoke of Dhimmitude, the abuse of Jews by Muslims. So we have in Israel those who fled the abuse of Nazis and those who fled the abuse of Muslims. Is there something similar in what they fled? Muslims must make peace to coexist with Israel.

Can Muslims be honest about why that's a problem? Islam is quite a "religion" when it comes to deception and supremacist rationalizations.

Posted by: Frank at April 10, 2007 8:24 AM

Israel has experienced several "peace agreements" with its Muslim neighbors through the years....THe Muslims have dishonored every one of them by attacking Israel....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at April 10, 2007 8:30 AM

Elric66:
Why would Israel have problems with Muslims outside the Middel East?

Muslims are, generally, only loyal to Islam and other Muslims, and it almost seems as if they have a hive mind, because if Muslims are having problems somewhere or someone somewhere insults Islam, Muslims around the world will go hysterical, and possibly kill someone or blow something up. Muslims share common interests on a global basis.

Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop at April 10, 2007 8:31 AM

He means Israel must capitulate. What's he been smokin?

Posted by: sounder at April 10, 2007 8:46 AM

Elric66:
Why would Israel have problems with Muslims outside the Middel East?

Muslims are, generally, only loyal to Islam and other Muslims, and it almost seems as if they have a hive mind, because if Muslims are having problems somewhere or someone somewhere insults Islam, Muslims around the world will go hysterical, and possibly kill someone or blow something up. Muslims share common interests on a global basis.

Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop at April 10, 2007 08:31 AM

More like a borg mindset. :-)

It was a rhetorical question. Muslims are Muslim first and their nationality last. I found it funny that the King had to point out that Muslims living in Britian show more loyality to the Ummah then their host nation.

Posted by: Elric66 at April 10, 2007 8:49 AM

Again,

Imam Yusuf Kavakci: "All praise is for allah, our lord, the lord of the worlds.......... guide us to the straight path, the path of those whom you have favored (Muslims), not of those who have earned your wrath (Jews)or of those who have lost the way (Christians)."

Isn't that clear enough as to the Muslim intentions to live in peace with Israel? Not much room left for Jews or Christians.

Posted by: sounder at April 10, 2007 9:09 AM

ROBERT: "Modern, moderate King Abdullah just can't abide the thought of even a sliver of what once had been land ruled by Islamic law now being governed by infidels,..."

On the contrary, by signing a peace treaty with Israel and officially recognizing the Jewish State, Jordan has indeed accepted infidels ruling Israel proper - and even for the time being, the West Bank.

The world could do a lot worse than having King Abdullah running things in Jordan.

Posted by: Cornelius at April 10, 2007 9:20 AM

Even if Israel makes a treaty it will be of no more value then the "truce" of Al-Hudaybiya.

Posted by: Witch-king of Angmar at April 10, 2007 9:22 AM

"Jordan's King Abdullah said Tuesday that if Israel wanted to "coexist with a billion Muslims" worldwide, it must make peace."

Eliminate islam -- then peace!

Posted by: CelticCoyote at April 10, 2007 9:36 AM

The Shaab on the Street

Has King Abdullah checked this out with the Hairy Ape-Men of Hamas and the Palestine branch of Al-Queda? They sign off on it?

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at April 10, 2007 9:47 AM

Cornelius, always the optimist!

Are you smoking that funny stuff again?

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/04/10/advertisement-of-the-day-the-martyboro-man/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at April 10, 2007 9:47 AM

It's a fashion statement.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at April 10, 2007 9:55 AM

Submit! Pay the Jizya and be at peace.

So simple. No thought needed.

Posted by: turn at April 10, 2007 10:12 AM

Muslims must make peace to co-exist with me.

What's it going to be? I'm still waiting...

Posted by: Foehammer at April 10, 2007 11:05 AM

Stupid waste of his time. Israel will not make peace with its neighbours as long as it feels supreme in the region. This foolish king doesn't understand the language Israel understands. Not words and peace my friends. Ask Hizbullah what Israel understands

Posted by: Abdullah at April 10, 2007 11:13 AM

"...by signing a peace treaty with Israel and officially recognizing the Jewish State, Jordan has indeed accepted infidels ruling Israel proper - and even for the time being, the West Bank."
-- from a posting above

The poster apparently takes very seriously treaties between Muslim states and non-Muslim states. On what evidence? Whenever and wherever a Muslim Arab state has been in a position to violate, to breach in every important respect, its agreements with Israel, it has done so. The Armistice Agreements of 1949 were violated by Israel's neighbors, and terrorist attacks from both Jordan (formerly the Emirate of Transjordan) continued until Unit 101 under Ariel Sharon inflicted such damage in response as to force Jordan to change its ways. With Egypt, from which there were thousands of separate fedayeen attacks, mostly shootings of Israeli farmers, from 1949 to 1956, the rapid seizure of the Sinai in the Suez campaign was the only thing that convinced Nasser to put a stop to them, and his own guarantees to get Israel to withdraw from the Sinai were abandoned, some right away -- within 48 hours of Israel's withdrawal, despite his solemn promises, Egyptian troops were again in the Sinai, and the Suez Canal was never made available to Israel's ships -- and some not until May, 1967, when he blockaded Israel's shipping through the Straits of Tiran, and moved up hundreds of thousands of troops and told hysterical Cairene crowds that this would be the end of Israel.

The same goes for all of the interim agreements, under Rogers and Kissinger and the rest of them. And of course every single commitment made to end "hostile propaganda" and to encourage "friendly relations" that Egypt committed itself to under the Camp David Accords were violated by the Egyptian side, more blatantly of course after Israel had scrupulously fulfilled its side of the bargain, and given up, in three slices, the entire Sinai, together with three major airfields Israel had built, and the oilfields it had discovered, and the tourist site of Sharm el Sheikh, and the roads and other infrastructure - worth tens of billions of dollars, and given up uncomplainingly for nothing at all.

Oh, but Egypt made "peace" with Israel, you say? That "peace" is enforced the same way a "peace" with Syria or Saudi Arabia is kept: by the fear of what the Israelis can do in response. That, and only that, is what keeps the "peace" between Israel and its Muslim neighbors.

As for Jordan, the same goes for it and that so-called "Peace Traety" which the plucky little king, Abdullah's father, signed, and which despite its provisions has not led to the Jordanian government discouraging or inhibiting in any way the virulence of anti-Israel hatred, and is not a real peace but a paper peace, to be observed by Jordan only because, for now, like Egypt, it does not want to endanger its receipt of Jizya from the Americans, and most of all, because it knows that it has much more to lose in an encounter with Israel.

But Abdullah the kinglet should not think his mediagenic wife and of course everyone's favorite, Queen Noor, with her own meretricisou mythmaking in that "Act of Faith" book, or his attempts to civilize Jordan with a Deerfield-in-Amman, will save his bacon in the West. No longer. The jig is up because too many people are learning about Islam, and the sweetness-and-light charade just won't do. Not now. Not ever again.

[Digresson about that Deerfield-in-Amman plan: The elites in the Muslim lands get their high school and sometimes pre-high school education from Western non-Muslim schools, whether it is Chalabi and Allawi and others going to Jesuit-run Baghdad College, or Edward Said at Anglican-run Victoria College, and then they follow this with the American University in Beirut, or the American University in Cairo, or at Roberts College, or at Catholic schools in Pakistan(why, even "Baroness" Khan received her westernized gloss early on from a Catholic school in Karachi). Some go on to Radcliffe (Pinky Bhutto) or other schools.

Amazingly, however, they never think to ask themselves: why is it we went to Infidel schools, non-Muslim schools, and want the same for our children. And why do we want them to be able to live in the West? And why do we get our medical care in the West? And why can we breathe freely only in the West? Could it be, could it conceivably be, that the problem with our own societies and countries is that one thing that we keep defending and yet, by our own behavior, we show that we try to avoid or evade -- and that one thing is Islam?

We want everything the West has to offer, but we refuse to recognize that what the West has to offer, its education, its art, its science, its human freedoms, are not available in the world of Islam because of...Islam.

Only when the abdullahs and abdulletts of this world are forced to recognize this truth, will there be progress and the possibility of some kind of "dialogue." Until then, such "dialgue" will continue to consist of apologetic nonsense and lies, and nothing but.

Posted by: Hugh at April 10, 2007 11:56 AM

"Hugh"

.....amen , brother......

Posted by: exsgtbrown at April 10, 2007 11:59 AM

The Israelis are told to choose Islamic "peace".

A familiar brand, historically.

"They create a desert, and call it peace."

(Tacitus, quoting a Scottish/British chieftain and resistence fighter) -Calgacus.

The Israelis prefer to take a desert and create a living.

A Clash of Meanings.

Posted by: profitsbeard at April 10, 2007 12:09 PM

Israel will not make peace with its neighbours as long as it feels supreme in the region. This foolish king doesn't understand the language Israel understands. Not words and peace my friends. Ask Hizbullah what Israel understands

Posted by: Abdullah

-------------------------------------------------

This statement ^^^^is Ridiculous ! not to mention offensive. Israel cannot accept PEACE with it's neighbors because it's neighbors idea of peace is for Israel and the Jews to cease to exist.

Israel is not the roadblock to peace. Islam and it's homocidal ,irrational Phobia towards all things different is . All courtesy of MO.

Posted by: MoBlows at April 10, 2007 12:19 PM

Jordan has about as much "peace" with Israel as it will ever have.

Jordan will not be spared in the next go around.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at April 10, 2007 12:33 PM

IF THE CURRENT "KING OF JORDAN"(king of hype) FEELS THAT THE CREATION OF A "PALESTINIAN" STATE FOR ARABS IS SO IMPORTANT FOR WORLD PEACE, THEN WHY DOESN'T HE JUST CHANGE-BACK THE NAME OF HIS KINGDOM TO PALESTINE!?

He forgets how Jordan asked for help from America and Israel when Arafat attempted to overthrow his father in the 70,s

KING" ABDULLAH'S HYPOCRISY IS DISGUSTING AND SELF-SERVING. IT DOESN'T SERVE WORLD PEACE, OR REGIONAL PEACE, JUST HIS OWN RICH, BRITISH-ACCENTED, SELFISH ASS.

for more
http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2007/03/unspoken-occupation-jordan.html

Posted by: shiva at April 10, 2007 12:39 PM

No one is examining King Abdullah which is the mistake in this.

When King Hussein died, his brother was supposed to be king of Jordan, but the CIA instead installed Abdullah as our man. Israel protected him as much as America and Saudi Arabia.

One has to ask just why then is Abdullah acting so off the reservation the past year?

That is the answer to Abdullah if you notice where he is quoted in the French media. I posted on here several months ago alerting people that the Europeans were gaining control in the Middle East and someone scoffed as they couldn't understand it.

There is though continuous proof the central Europeans are implementing their own "peace" via Olmert and changing the Saudi plan and what President Bush tried to implement.
Abdullah is a major player in this for the Europeans. QUIETLY, he has bought up controlling interest in much of Jerusalem which the Europeans will to control.
Abdullah is also part of a "peace plan" out of Europe where Jordan will along with tens of thousands European troops take control over the West Bank "until the Palestinians can form a government". That means forever.

Understand Abdullah in calling for the Israeli state to "make peace" which will weaken it for a war which is being set up. In either case, Abdullah has postioned himself in Jordan perfectly.

In war, he gets the West Bank as a peace maker and in peace he gets the West Bank as his land back in occupation.
The war scenario kills off the neo Syrians in his Jordan and in peace they are his vassal people.

Abdullah is brilliant in his precarious position as Israel, Europe, America, Syria, Iran, al Qaeda and the Philistine neo Syrians all will not attack him as they will be shooting at each other.

He is one of the most adept leaders in the region, but Mr. Spencer's two stanza post is what is behind all of this. Jordan is not allied to America first anymore and is why he is acting so bold in the Europeans are watching his back.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at April 10, 2007 12:41 PM

Has anyone read the book of the elders of zion...its so revealing of the Zionist Jews.

Posted by: Abdullah at April 10, 2007 12:54 PM

Like a typical apologist, Abdullah blames Israel for the savagry of Islam.

Posted by: Elric66 at April 10, 2007 1:12 PM

Has anyone read the book of the elders of zion...its so revealing of the Zionist Jews.
Posted by: Abdullah

Yes, Abdullah, I've read it, in fact I own a copy. Very interesting. What did you think of the "Masada Plot" chapter? Amazing, no? Do you agree? What was your take on the Ben Gurion-Al-Husseini conspiracy?

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at April 10, 2007 1:27 PM

Abdullah,

Where did you get your copy. I ordered a tri-lingual English-Arabic-French version from Yahoo. It was out-of-print so I had to find a used copy from bibliophile. I wanted to enjoy the Arabic translation. An all English version is in print. Which version did you read?

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at April 10, 2007 1:30 PM

Oops,

that was Amazaon, not Yahoo. Sorry for the mistake.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at April 10, 2007 1:31 PM

Has anyone read the book of the elders of zion...its so revealing of the Zionist Jews.

Posted by: Abdullah

--------------------------------------------------

That book has been debunked numerous times. It has become a manifesto for rabid anti semites. It holds no weight.

Posted by: MoBlows at April 10, 2007 2:31 PM

The world could do a lot worse than having King Abdullah running things in Jordan.

Posted by: Cornelius

Have you acturally READ the 'peace' agreement these SOWdis proposed?

No more Jews allowed to immigrate into Israel for one. What a flagrant attempt to usurp Israel's National Sovereignty!

And when Israel rejects this surrender agreement she is chastized for being a warmonger and racist. These islamos sure know how to turn and twist things around!

No wonder our lawyers love them so much!!

So this 'King'-snake is showing what side he is on. His true colors.

I hope Israel takes over all of Judea and Samaria. And Gaza too. There will never be peace anyway so why concede anything to your enemies?

Let the guns of war be drawn!!

Posted by: Allahfanculo at April 10, 2007 2:46 PM

Ah, Abdullah,

you never told me what you think of the allegation that al-Husseini the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was actually on the pay of David Ben Gurion. That's an amazing fact or revelation! It's on page 366 of my tri-lingual edition of "The Protocols of The Elders of Zion." It's in chapter 16, about a fourth of the way in, so you should be able to reference it. Or check your index.

Anyway, what do think of that charge?

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at April 10, 2007 2:53 PM

Tee-hee...you really must give him a little more time to procure a copy so he can actually look up the chapters you're referring to. I mean, really, it takes a little more work to refute arguments than it does to spout the party line!

Posted by: mepeteart at April 10, 2007 3:15 PM

How does a book criticizing the policies of Napoleon III reveal the character of zionists?

And when exactly are the zionists going to start worshipping Hindu deities?

Posted by: Vorpar at April 10, 2007 3:26 PM

Okay Abdullah,

Maybe you didn't read all the way to chapter 16.

What did you think of the claims in chapter 3 ("Protocols of The Elders of Zion") that:

the Muslim Brotherhood was actually inspired by Theodor Herzl and that Martin Buber was Sayyid Qutub's mentor?

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at April 10, 2007 3:37 PM

Paging brother abdullah...

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at April 10, 2007 3:39 PM

'crickets'

Posted by: exsgtbrown at April 10, 2007 4:00 PM

Abdulla (real name: Obadiah) is not here

He was on break from his Sayeret (Israeli Special Commando Squad) where he was practicing an invasion of a Gaza refugee camp. That operation is now in progress and Obadiah is in the fight up to his tzi-tzis.

Obadiah (Abdullah) is busy now catching the hairy ape-men of Hamas.

Kol ha-Kavod, Obadiah (Abdullah) ub'hatzlacha!

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at April 10, 2007 4:22 PM

The Saudis think they hold the cards. If they "called" for jihad the US would turn them into a glass lake. Then the world could really say they came for the oil afterall. That would bring things to a head fast.

Posted by: J-Lin at April 10, 2007 4:58 PM

Jordanian king: "muslims must make peace to coexist with israel".

Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with that statement.

Posted by: Hermit at April 10, 2007 5:09 PM

I wish the Saudis would call for jihad and lead the way. wouldn't that be swell? We could take over all that oil and all the soccer moms could drive their Yukon SUVs with impunity. What a wonderful world it would be.

Destroy the al-Saud. Suck the wells as dry as the Empty Quarter. Demolish the two holy cities. Stay awhile to fight the swarming jihadis.

It's a zionist crusader fantasy come true!!!!

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at April 10, 2007 5:14 PM

sorry - the above post is on the wrong thread.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at April 10, 2007 5:16 PM

By all means, let's trash King Abdullah, let's terminate all aid to him....let's just do everything in our power to upend him from the throne so that less savory elements, those aligned to Syria and Iran, can take over in Amman.

Makes perfect geo-political sense.

Posted by: Cornelius at April 10, 2007 5:27 PM

"By all means, let's trash King Abdullah, let's terminate all aid to him....let's just do everything in our power to upend him from the throne so that less savory elements, those aligned to Syria and Iran, can take over in Amman.

Makes perfect geo-political sense."
-- from a posting above

No one made Abdullah make the remark he is quoted as saying - about how Israel has to essentially yield and yield to Arab and Muslim demands, to make peace on Arab terms, the terms of that other Abdullah, the Saudi one, which are or should be transparent.

It does no good to keep pretending that "Jordan" is our ally. It isn't. Its people are, according to every single poll, the most viciously and implacably anti-American of any among the Arabs and Muslims. There is nothing to be gained by continuing to allow them to assume, or their ruling elite to assume, that all the aid, all the solicitousness with Most-Favored-Nation status and so on, and above all that ludicrous fiction about Jordan being an "ally," needs to continue. It doesn't.

Your comment is silly. It was Abdullah who made a remark that was not friendly but attempted blackmail, and it was of a piece with his unacceptable nonsense and lies before Congress.

No free passes for Hashemites any more.

Posted by: Hugh at April 10, 2007 6:12 PM

I read the 'Elders of Zion' a long time ago. The longest, most boring piece of crappy literature imaginable. Its hard to believe that one person had the fortitude to sit down, and write page after page of unmitigated BS. Of course, thats what Mohammad did with the Quran. He sat down and wrote page after page of pure bovine fecal matter. That really wore him out. He had massive headaches after that.
It's not easy to take dictation from Allah.

Abdullah, you slave. Why are you not in school?
Why are you not out jihading with your brothers?
If you keep showing up here, you got to do more than quote your elders.

Posted by: duh_swami at April 10, 2007 6:28 PM

Abdulla, have you been fitted for a bomb belt----------------- did'nt think so. COWARD

Posted by: OLD SARGE at April 10, 2007 6:38 PM

duh_swami, I think you are wrong, I believe Mohammad was illiterate (along with all his other good traits) and actually dictated his perverse thoughts to some poor scribe who could write, between bouts of drooling and spasming. (Not the scribe!) Talk about a bad day at work!

Posted by: fedupinamerica at April 10, 2007 6:39 PM

Guys guys. Go a little easy on abdullard. Remember. We don't want him to go away.

nabi ZK

nabi to the famous mohametan trolls

Posted by: zonie kafir at April 10, 2007 7:26 PM

KING" ABDULLAH'S HYPOCRISY IS DISGUSTING AND SELF-SERVING. IT DOESN'T SERVE WORLD PEACE, OR REGIONAL PEACE, JUST HIS OWN RICH, BRITISH-ACCENTED, SELFISH ASS.
hey Shiva, Abdullah's just hopes people dont have a good memory, and can connect the dots of arab aggression on Israel. like other posters, let the US drop their support, $$$ to mr abullah and his jordiana countrymen who are anti US anyhow..

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at April 10, 2007 7:38 PM

^^^^ Basically Islam is a cosmic joke that turned an Epileptic Tribesman (who regurgitated prior teachings of the Christians and Jews ,suspiciously after and during his seizures) into the founder of the most intolerant , violent ideology ever created by man, and it comes to us in the guise of the " Religion of PEACE "

Posted by: MoBlows at April 10, 2007 9:05 PM

Sorry old friend, but the fact remains, King Abdullah is preferable to just about any plausible alternative. Yes, the Jordanian (Palestinian) people hate us, but the leadership is quite cooperative, particularly when compared to neighboring Syria and Iran. Surely the Israelis are aware of this.

You seem almost eager to erode US relations with all Muslim countries, even those where the leadership is favorably predisposed to us. This is not a recipe for how a great power will remain one.

PS - I hope you caught my final reply to you on your latest essay about Iraqi withdrawal. My two principle points:

1) You're a likable mensch; our differences are political, not personal

2) You over-estimate the power of the USA to affect events in the region....particularly in the anticipated aftermath of your oft-advocated withdrawal.

Posted by: Cornelius at April 10, 2007 9:17 PM

"You over-estimate the power of the USA to affect events in the region...."
-- from a posting above

I do? Not the people who thought they could re-make Iraq in a year or two or five?

Posted by: Hugh at April 10, 2007 10:16 PM

You seem almost eager to erode US relations with all Muslim countries, even those where the leadership is favorably predisposed to us. This is not a recipe for how a great power will remain one.

[...]

Posted by: Cornelius

I don't know where to start. But YES, the sooner we break all ties with all these moslem countries - THE BETTER! Put a lid on 'immigration' dawa too.

If you call these people 'favorably disposed' to us then I guess you mean that in contrast to Osama bin Laden?

With friends like these...

Your last comment sounds straight from the Baker commission on Iraq. And we all know who butters the bread that James BAkkker III eats.

Posted by: Allahfanculo at April 10, 2007 11:23 PM

"You over-estimate the power of the USA to affect events in the region...."
-- from a posting above

One more observation about your comment.

It completely misreads or overlooks the themes that I have stressed.

These are:

1) That the Iraq venture makes no sense not only because the goal or goals to be achieved are not the right ones, but because they are based on a belief that "democracy" or "freedom" can easily be transplanted, or transplanted at all, into a Muslim society in which most people locate political legitimacy not in the expressed will of mere mortals in their voting, but rather in the will expressed by Allah in the Qur'an as glossed by the Sunnah (derived from the Hadith and Sira). Mere mortals are slaves of Allah, and their highest and correct role is to be submissive to his will. And his will has by scholars been codified as the Shari'a, the Holy Law of Islam.

2) That the best way to weaken the Camp of Islam is to have far less direct intervention, indeed to keep intervention at a minimum, and instead through careful study identify the weak points within the Camp of Islam, including the main fissures (sectarian, ethnic, financial) and where possible, to exploit those fissures.

This Administration does not display, in its war-making, the intelligence and even cunning that members of the American government displayed during the Cold War (their names not all household words). Propaganda is non-existent, if by propaganda we mean information designed to lessen the appeal of the enemy’s ideology to others, and also to cause disaffection within the ranks of that enemy. Instead, Muslims are having their hearts and minds won by the constant repetition of praise for Islam, a misstating of Islam’s effects – have Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Wafa Sultan or Ali Sina or Ibn Warraq been asked to broadcast about Islam, in both English and other languages? Have the defectors from the Army of Islam been allowed to enroll in our Office of War Propaganda, for as much or as little time as they wish? Or is it they who, out of the Adminstration’s timidity, and its determined unwillingness to recognize the nature and scope of the Muslim threat, who are kep t out, not even brought in to at least offer their world-view to high government officials in the Executive Branch, in the Pentagon, or for that matter, before Congress?

Instead there is the blind willingness to keep squandering troops (nearly half of all post-2001 West Point graduates have left the military), and throwing tanks and helicopters and Strykers and Humvees and planes, in a large, ill-conceived, Baby-Hughie operations, against forces that are all hostile to us, but much more importantly, are hostile to each other, and that latter hostility ought to be recognized and exploited for our ends, instead of allowing them to exploit us for their respective ends.

You have stated my position not merely incorrectly, but with 180 degrees of incorrectness: you have taken my constant suggestions that we exploit, by the very act of withdrawing, the pre-existing fissures. And the fact that here and there some creative diplomacy might actually be necesary, as with getting Turkey to accept an independent Kurdistan with the right American guarantees (in turn dependent on American pressure on the Kurds, which could be considerable).

That idea, because it would require some mental effort, and some cunning, is one that probably appeals less to the Administration than in its pursuing of this crazed policy in Tarbaby Iraq. Our rulers are simply not up to it, and they obscurely sense that.

But why should you both misstate my position so badly, and share their timidity? Surely the American government can be a little less timid, a little more ruthless and willing to pressure old, but temporary allies of convenience, such as Turkey, or for that matter, new, but temporary allies of convenience, such as an independent Kurdistan.

Posted by: Hugh at April 11, 2007 12:17 AM

abdullah

Have you read "The Closed Circle" by David Pryce Jones? Give me your address and I'll send you a copy.

Posted by: pismopal at April 11, 2007 12:55 AM

I don't want to beat a dead horse here....I know you've got much bigger fish to fry than me. So I'll try to be succinct....

Your number one makes sense. I don't have great hopes for the successful transplantation of Democracy in a retrograde culture. But more importantly, I don't want to see another fanatical regime emerge in Iraq like the one next door in Iran.

Still, I readily understand (if not agree) that the enterprise could be the "tarbaby" you insist and that we should cut our losses. What I can't buy into is that we can do so and then continue to exert a telling influence on countries in the region (your "creative diplomacy"). You are simply not being realistic in your assessment that we can walk away from our responsibilities in Iraq and yet then prevail upon the Turks to allow the one thing they most dread, the one thing they've publicly drawn a line in the sand about....Kurdish independence. This is not a matter of "mental energy" or "cunning"....it's a matter of great-power diplomacy and the ability to exert one's will upon others. As America departs and Iraq descends into the chaos that you hope for, the Turks are not about to put their faith in American guarantees about anything, least of all the Kurds. It simply will NOT happen. I'll bet the farm.

Your number two has problems also. It certainly doesn't jive with your previously-stated desire to intervene in Darfur. Furthermore, your hopes to exacerbate the fissures in the Muslim world could result in just the scenario you imagine, but it could also result in the ascendency of extremism and the eclipse of any hope for a co-existence with moderate Muslims....(whom even Robert acknowledges exist in abundance).

I'm not trying to insult you here, but there is a little bit of Esposito in your thinking....'stay out of their affairs...and if the radicals triumph, so be it.'

Who knows, maybe you're right. But it's counter-intuitive to me.

Posted by: Cornelius at April 11, 2007 8:19 AM

"What I can't buy into is that we can do so and then continue to exert a telling influence on countries in the region (your "creative diplomacy"). You are simply not being realistic in your assessment that we can walk away from our responsibilities in Iraq..."
-- from the same tireless poster above

We don't need to have a "telling influence" if by that you mean winning hearts and minds.

Furthermore, you make the same mistake as Bush: you interpret as "having influence" only by doing certain things, rather than ceasing to do certain things that are now being done.

If, for example, The American government were to halt the disguised Jizyah of foreign aid to countries whose governments are meretricious, whose peoples hate the United States, and their hate is encouraged, not quite paradoxically, by the media campaigns either allowed or encouraged by their governments (as in Egypt), or are encouraged by the fact of our aid being seen as propping up despotic govennments (Egypt, Pakistan), or that aid being misused for the purposes of making war on fellow Infidel lands (all aid to the so-called "Palestinians," the name given to local Arabs in Gaza and the "West Bank" falls into that category) isn't that halting of aid as much an act as the provision of it was in the first place?

Isn't educating one's population about Islam more important now than sending more brigades to Iraq? That may not conform to most people's idea of "war" but it matters far more how many people in the West stop accepting the versions of Islam, with all the plausible Taqiyya and Tu-Quoque, of apologists for Islam, Muslim and non-Musli.

You keep misinterpreting my wishing to end the war in Iraq for us, as a drain on American resources and morale (today an article appeared noting that 46% of all West Point graduates since 2001 have now left the service, an unprecedented figure -- do you think they have left because they are "scared to fight" or because, rather, that they have discovered in Iraq that the "mission" is pointless and the waste of American serviemen's lives at this point both stupid and cruel?

You use the phrase "walk away from our responsibilities in Iraq"? What "responsibiliies in Iraq"? This is merely a variant on the Friedmanesque "we broke it, we bought it" nonsense. We don't have "responsiblities" toward anyone but ourselves, to weaken the Camp of Islam. We don't have to try to fix the innate aggression of Muslim peoples and their inability to compromise with each other, based on their worldview, provided by Qur'an, Hadith, and the example of Muhammad in the Sira, to view outcomes of warfare always as a matter of Victor and Vanquished. We don't have a "responsibility" to undo the effects of Islam in order to make Sunnis and Shi'a behave differently. And we couldn't undo those effects, in that way, no matter how prolonged the effort.

Finally, the Adminstration was ignorant, and apparently intends to stay ignorant, not only of the fact of sectarian (and ethnic) fissures, but of their depth and duration. Only those unaware of how deep those fissures are, and how they go back to the very first century of Islam (in the case of the Sunni-Shi'a divide) and to the essence of Islam from its very beginning, as a vehicle for Arab supremacism (in the case of the Kurd-Arab divide, a result of mistreatment of the Kurds by the Arabs, over a very long time), could conceivably think that the American govenment, if it does not somehow solve this insolvable problem (but Islam itself can have the numbers of its adherents diminished, if its own Camp is divided and demoralized), and its appeal to would-be converts diminished), is "walking away from its responsibilities in Iraq."

More than four years, and half-a-million officers and men trying their best, in a series of rotations, and the spending of $880 billion in past, present, and future committed costs, more than the total cost of all the wars ever fought by the United States save for World War II, is enough. Is more than enough. "[walk] away from our responsibilities in Iraq." Nonsense.

Posted by: Hugh at April 11, 2007 9:22 AM

HUGH: "We don't need to have a "telling influence" if by that you mean winning hearts and minds."

RESPONSE: No. I mean influence sufficient enough to alter Turkish behavior towards the nascent Iraqi Kurdish polity. You seem to see it as a given. I see a sharp dimunition of American credibility and influence in the entire region in the aftermath of a pull-out that is not correlative with a stabilized Iraq.

The Turks will be much less concerned about falling out with Washington than they will be about having an independent Kurdistan threatening their southeast. I wish you could concede this point.

HUGH: "Isn't educating one's population about Islam more important now than sending more brigades to Iraq?"

RESPONSE: No argument whatsoever there.

The rest of your post contains some excellent points...and certain insufficiently addressed incongruities (e.g. previous advocacy for intervening in Darfur while currently championing non-intervention; whether or not King Abdullah is preferable to plausible alternatives).

But I do appreciate the time and effort Hugh. I'm really struggling on many levels with this war of civilization. It's one thing to acknowledge that Islam is a sociological evil. It's another thing to know what to do about it.

Posted by: Cornelius at April 11, 2007 10:59 AM

"I mean influence sufficient enough to alter Turkish behavior towards the nascent Iraqi Kurdish polity. You seem to see it as a given. I see a sharp dimunition of American credibility and influence in the entire region in the aftermath of a pull-out that is not correlative with a stabilized Iraq."
-- from a posting above

I see it as a "given"? Then why have I in dozens of postings over the past few years explained how complicated it would be. Why have I first noted that the Turkish government must have made known to it that its usefulness during the Cold War has not continued since, and that bases in Bulgaria and elsewhere make Turkey, and those listening-posts and airbases, no longer useful if those bases cannot be used in the war that must now be waged (let's call it for them the war on "militant Islam" or the "Jihad" just to keep tempers down -- they'll know what we mean). Why have I said that it would require our eliciting from the Kurdish government guarantees about not making territorial demands on Turkey, but at the same time giving the Kurds every encouragement to make such demands on Syria and Iran, where Kurds also live. Why have I noted carefully that this could be achieved only because the Kurds have nowhere else to turn for long-term diplomatic and military support? Why have I said that the Turks would be unhappy with this, but might be made to see that it could work in their favor, and that the moral case of the Kurds in eastern Anatolia is lessened, not increased, by the existence of a Kurdish state to which they could, if they insist, move? Why have I never ever said it would be "a given" or "easy" but that it would require intelligence, tact, cunning, and that this seems to be lacking at all levels of our government?

Does that all amount to treating Turkish acquiescence in an independent Kurdistan as a "given"?

How much longer do you want to play this game?

Posted by: Hugh at April 11, 2007 12:53 PM

"We don't have to try to fix the innate aggression of Muslim peoples and their inability to compromise with each other,"

.....I concur....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at April 11, 2007 2:48 PM

Echoing the Saudis, peace on his terms is what King Abdullah wants. It includes the so-called Palestinian right of return which, if implemented, would:
a. first destroy the character of the State of Israel, then destroy it
b. rid the Hashemite kingdom of its unwanted Palestinian population

Don't confuse this guy with King Hussein in his later years whom we remember. With his backing for Hamas, Abdullah plays a different game.

Posted by: max at April 11, 2007 2:50 PM

I'll take that as an acknowledgement that affecting the fate of the Iraqi Kurds after having walked from Iraq....will be difficult, to say the least.

Posted by: Cornelius at April 11, 2007 2:57 PM

Difficult? I simply amply rebutted your latest misattribution to me, (for possibly the hundredth time-consuming goddam time at this website), that this business of getting Turkey to begrudgingly acquiesce in an independent Kurdistan wasn't a "given."

Christ on a crutch.

Posted by: Hugh at April 11, 2007 4:46 PM

WHOSE "peace"?

I suppose it's possible...just as soon as one figures how to make "peace"...with TERMINATORS.

Now I know why he's called his royal HIGHness; He needs a new beverage because his kool-aid's not makin' it.

Bottom's up!

Posted by: jcom972 at April 12, 2007 4:01 PM

"Difficult? I simply amply rebutted your latest misattribution to me, (for possibly the hundredth time-consuming goddam time at this website), that this business of getting Turkey to begrudgingly acquiesce in an independent Kurdistan wasn't a "given."

Christ on a crutch.

Posted by: Hugh"

......one can certainly go the the archives and validate your point!!.....I may be a little dense sometimes, I have read and re-read many of the articles in the archives....I certainly believe you....

"getting Turkey to begrudgingly acquiesce in an independent Kurdistan wasn't a "given."

keep up the good work....I appreciate it, no matter how many times I read reiterations of the truth....

and while an independent Kurdistan is not a "given", it certainly is not an impossibility...

hey, one day I may get a C+ in this course....

..esb...
"

Posted by: exsgtbrown at April 12, 2007 4:35 PM