The Middle East Continues...

[germanos]

Originally posted by Eli


A friend of mine recenty returned from a trip to the US. He said he followed only FOX News and that more often than not they were an order of magnitude more supportive of Israel and less critical of it's mistakes than the Israeli media itself.

Well, it's not their boys who are in the line of fire

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Thorgal

Care to elaborate?

Very brainwashed reaction btw.

Gepap and I rely largely on the same main news sources, NYTimes, Washington Post, and the Newshour. Yet we differ almost constantly on issues regarding Israel and the Middle East generally. This is because there is more than one viewpoint that can be reasonably asserted based upon the comparitively large volume of data these news sources put out.

Additionally Gepap argues from a more internationalist perspective, and I from a more American perspective, ie he tries to provide more of an analysis of the situation while I tend to argue for various actions or political positions. Neither one of us is brainwashed. He's not limiting his opinions to stuff Robert Fisk says, and I don't watch Fox (let alone only Fox) or hang around with militantly pro-Israeli jews or baptists. In other words our opinions are our own.

Europe has a much different perspective on the conflict. There are few jews there, and many Arabs. You are physically close to Arab states, and have colonial ties to them. You have a much greater tolerance for Arabs largely through familiarity. It's a lot easier for you to see them as individuals because most of you know an Arab as an individual at least to some extent. Most Americans can't say the same thing. We can relate to the Israelis more in part because they seem a lot more like us. In fact they seem more like us than some europeans do. For most of us a mutual hatred between the U.S. and much of the Arab world has been something that has been a reality for most of our lives. Many Arab states embraced first fascism, and then Stalinism, the two great rival ideologies for the U.S. in the last century.

It's not surprising then that even when we Americans and Europeans see the same news story, we have different reactions to it in general. Neither is it surprising when journalists from one place or the other report in accordance with their own experiences and prejudices. They are likely unaware that others will perceive a bias. This isn't brainwashing.

[germanos]

Originally posted by Sikander



Many Arab states embraced first fascism

[Darius871]

Originally posted by germanos

In what ways did Syrian & Iraqi Ba'athism (a fusion of pan-Arab nationalism, Arab Socialism, and extreme authoritarianism) differ from fascism?

[germanos]

Originally posted by Darius871


In what ways did Syrian & Iraqi Ba'athism (a fusion of pan-Arab nationalism, Arab Socialism, and extreme authoritarianism) differ from fascism?

I don't know.
I have an inkling you will say there isn't much.

What exactly makes Syria fascist then?
I haven't seen much of it, but I'll make sure to keep my eyes open next month .

[Zevico]

What exactly makes Syria fascist then?
I haven't seen much of it, but I'll make sure to keep my eyes open next month

I don't know if Syria is fascist in the conventional sense--as in Syrians actually hold to their leaders' beliefs. But the regime in itself is certainly fascist in its ideals. I guess it's a case of the Syrians seeing the lie before them--the lie that the "politicians" they have seek their interest and that of the "Arab Nation". That said there might be some Syrians who support Assad's regime. You could probably call them fascists.
Their ideology talks a lot about how the Arabs are Great and how they should all unite into one big country, and how Jews really suck and should go back to Europe.
Try reading up on it if you're really curious. It's not only relevant to Syria, incidentally--it's also related to Egypt TODAY--an American ally-- and Iraq prior to the Iraq war.

Actually, here's a few things I remember offhand.

Mein Kampf is a consistent bestseller in Arab countries. The Protocols of Zion are accepted by Arab state-owned media as truth and promulgated as such in its education systems. Not so long ago Egyptian TV ran a nice drama series all about how Jews were trying to take over the world (well, not really], it was actually about the nice Arab boys who find this out and fight for truth, justice and the Mubarak way).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
My impression is that the Israelis are aware they're not absolutely always the good guys doing the right thing. In my perception, the Israelis know they do some really ugly things, and that's generally acceptable, not because they feel as the "good guys", but simply because they're team.

Apparently, the Yanks want to believe really hard that Israel are the good guys, and are fighting villains.

Spiff, I read Haaretz pretty regularly, and I dont the impression that anyone says ugly things are ok cause theyre "team" There are some folks who attack particular govt policies, and others who defend them cause they are needed for security. Its implicit in the latter that they are justified.

I also almost never get the same tone or approach from Israeli doves that I do from external critics of Israel. There is a much greater sense of reality, and of whats possible. A vastly different set of motivations.

Id say the difference is that Israelis are dealing with reality. In the west there are hawks who are interested in hating arabs, or in showing that force is good cause they like force. Israeli hawks are generally so (with exceptions) cause they really think a particular forceful policy is necessary and useful for security. Similarly Israeli doves usually have a concrete belief in the potential of negotiations and peace agreements, and are aware of all the pitfalls and risks. While external critics of Israel blithely wave their hands away at risks and constraints, or even discount risks to Israels security, cause they dont think Israel is legitimate anyway. Its much easier to have a sane discussion of policy and strategy for a country, when everyone has a stake in it, and no participant is rooting for the countrys demise.

[Thorgal]

Neither for the demise of his neighbours you forgot...

[Darius871]

Originally posted by germanos I don't know.
I have an inkling you will say there isn't much.

I will only say that the original Ba'athist ideology contains the three basic ingredients of fascism, and that its progenitors made no bones about their 'inspiration' by European fascist thought (Italian more than German).

Originally posted by germanos
What exactly makes Syria fascist then?
I haven't seen much of it, but I'll make sure to keep my eyes open next month .

You'll see in my post I said "did" not "does," and that Sikander said "embraced" not "embraces." Ba'athism in theory became very different from practice over 42 long years, to say nothing of the differences between Hafez and Bashar.

[germanos]

Well, in the meantime I've done some quick reading and I see the points to why it can be argued that Ba'athism can be linked to Fascism.

But reading the Ba 'athist constitution I'm more inclined to keep it within the socialist spectrum.

But then, according to Wiki, some lob fascism in the socialist spectrum as well

Last but not least: (Ba'athist) Syria probably went more the way of Stalinism, and it appears to me that they still have a lot of work to do before they can claim to have implemented the Ba'ath constitution.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

I also almost never get the same tone or approach from Israeli doves that I do from external critics of Israel. There is a much greater sense of reality, and of whats possible. A vastly different set of motivations.

Id say the difference is that Israelis are dealing with reality. In the west there are hawks who are interested in hating arabs, or in showing that force is good cause they like force. Israeli hawks are generally so (with exceptions) cause they really think a particular forceful policy is necessary and useful for security. Similarly Israeli doves usually have a concrete belief in the potential of negotiations and peace agreements, and are aware of all the pitfalls and risks. While external critics of Israel blithely wave their hands away at risks and constraints, or even discount risks to Israels security, cause they dont think Israel is legitimate anyway. Its much easier to have a sane discussion of policy and strategy for a country, when everyone has a stake in it, and no participant is rooting for the countrys demise.

To me, these points add up to supporting an argument that Israelis are better equipped to deal with their situation than outsiders. Outside intervention is widely seen as a solution to conflicts, but in fact it can exacerbate and prolong them.

One problem with the internationalisation of conflicts is that parties involved can start competing for 'pity' to an outside audience. Outside agents get involved and start trying to cut deals to suit their own agendas and profile, and forcing through 'agreements' that are acceptable to no-one.

[Thorgal]

One problem with the internationalisation of conflicts is that parties involved can start competing for 'pity' to an outside audience. Outside agents get involved and start trying to cut deals to suit their own agendas and profile, and forcing through 'agreements' that are acceptable to no-one.

You mean outside agents like USA helping Israel with aids about the 6% of Israel´s GDP yearly? If there were no external involvenment Israel would be the most f***** of all there, or simply would not exist.

[Cort Haus]

Hasn't Egypt recieve more aid than Israel in recent years, though?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by germanos
Well, in the meantime I've done some quick reading and I see the points to why it can be argued that Ba'athism can be linked to Fascism.

But reading the Ba 'athist constitution I'm more inclined to keep it within the socialist spectrum.

But then, according to Wiki, some lob fascism in the socialist spectrum as well

Last but not least: (Ba'athist) Syria probably went more the way of Stalinism, and it appears to me that they still have a lot of work to do before they can claim to have implemented the Ba'ath constitution.

Fair enough, although I'd add that Syria then and now is hardly more socialist than the 'National Socialists' were.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


To me, these points add up to supporting an argument that Israelis are better equipped to deal with their situation than outsiders. Outside intervention is widely seen as a solution to conflicts, but in fact it can exacerbate and prolong them.

One problem with the internationalisation of conflicts is that parties involved can start competing for 'pity' to an outside audience. Outside agents get involved and start trying to cut deals to suit their own agendas and profile, and forcing through 'agreements' that are acceptable to no-one.

I was of course speaking about the arguements of pundits, commentators, and pontificators. Its inevitable that a major conflict will draw the attention of the powers.

In the case of Israel the major powers involved in recent years have recognized that Israels demise is not an acceptable option, even those powers like France that have generally been hostile to Israel.