The Middle East, Islam & Israel: Where do you stand?

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by Seekers

This is an independent and realistic stance. If possible, goodwill is on the upside. I don't want a ticking bomb that might come flying over the wall anytime.

I concur. Those preventive actions may not be of purely military nature, but a mix of military, political, economic and diplomatic pressure.

Let's not forget that Morocco was the first historical ally of the United States of America.

U.S.-MOROCCAN RELATIONS

Morocco was the first country to seek diplomatic relations with the Government of the United States in 1777, and remains one of our oldest and closest allies in the region. Formal U.S. relations with Morocco date from 1787, when the two nations negotiated a Treaty of Peace and Friendship. Renegotiated in 1836, the treaty is still in force, constituting the longest unbroken treaty relationship in U.S. history. As testament to the special nature of the U.S.-Moroccan relationship, Tangier is home to the oldest U.S. diplomatic property in the world, and the only building on foreign soil that is listed in the U.S. National Register of Historic Places, the American Legation in Tangier (now a museum).


U.S.-Moroccan relations, characterized by mutual respect and friendship, have remained strong through cooperation and sustained high-level dialogue. King Hassan II visited the United States several times during his reign as King, meeting with Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton. King Mohammed VI has continued his father’s tradition; he made his first trip to the U.S. as King on June 20, 2000. Prime Minister Jettou visited Washington in January 2004, and King Mohammed came to the United States in July 2004. Secretary of State Colin Powell traveled to Morocco in December 2004 to co-chair with Foreign Minister Benaissa the first meeting of the G8-BMENA "Forum for the Future." In June 2006, Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Karen Hughes visited Morocco to meet with Moroccan officials, Moroccan non-governmental organizations, and students.

As a stable, democratizing, and liberalizing Arab Muslim nation, Morocco is important for U.S. interests in the Middle East. Accordingly, U.S. policy toward Morocco seeks sustained and strong engagement, and identifies priorities for reform, conflict resolution, counterterrorism cooperation, and public outreach.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and its predecessor agencies have managed an active and effective assistance program in Morocco since 1953, for a cumulative amount exceeding $2 billion. The amount of USAID assistance to Morocco in FY 2005 was $28.2 million. USAID’s current multi-sectoral strategy (2004-2008) consists of three strategic objectives in creating more opportunities for trade and investment, basic education and workforce training, and government responsiveness to citizen needs.
The Peace Corps has been active in Morocco for more than 40 years, with the first group of 53 volunteers arriving in the country in 1963. Since that time, nearly 4,000 volunteers have served in Morocco, and have served in a variety of capacities including lab technology, urban development, commercial development, education, rural water supply, small business development, beekeeping, and English training. In 2005, 190 volunteers served in Morocco, working in four sectors: health, youth development, small business, and the environment.

[Kalevi]

Europe should not get involved in any actions against Islamic countries outside its borders, only get rid of Islam at home. No preemptive/preventive actions should be taken against trojan or neighbouring Muslim countries.

I find these "preemptive actions" highly problematic. Ironically, in the case when a coalition of big European countries would take "preemptive actions" against some tiny Albania, it would be actually correct for the targeted Muslim country to take some "preparing actions" - like getting a powerful ally, inviting foreign terrorists to their area and arming them.

[Menydh]

Kalevi, not taking preemptive actions against trojan and bordering Muslim countries would send a sign of weakness which would undoubtedly be exploited by Muslims. It is a necessary step to keep Europe strong both inside and at its borders. Further, it would send the wrong message that Europe is prepared to step back if it is blackmailed.

Notice that the poll reads "preemptive/preventive (military or political) actions". I'm confident that you will be able to see that political actions allow for a wide range of possibilities, from short to long term.

You've put as an example that one of the targeted Muslim countries might call in Muslim terrorists as a retaliation for Europe's policies. So what? Under strict policies to prevent any Muslim flow from that country, those terrorists would be left with the only alternative to blow themselves up in that country, since they wouldn't be able to reach Europe from it.

And still that's not necessary. When you are hunting down animals, they seek for routes of escape instead of attacking you. Only if you corner them they will jump on you, in a desperate attempt to access to their only route of escape left.

Similarly, such policies must be pursued through pressing and releasing. Not through suffocating.

[bombadillo]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Kalevi, not taking preemptive actions against trojan and bordering Muslim countries would send a sign of weakness which would undoubtedly be exploited by Muslims. It is a necessary step to keep Europe strong both inside and at its borders. Further, it would send the wrong message that Europe is prepared to step back if it is blackmailed.

Notice that the poll reads "preemptive/preventive (military or political) actions". I'm confident that you will be able to see that political actions allow for a wide range of possibilities, from short to long term.

You've put as an example that one of the targeted Muslim countries might call in Muslim terrorists as a retaliation for Europe's policies. So what? Under strict policies to prevent any Muslim flow from that country, those terrorists would be left with the only alternative to blow themselves up in that country, since they wouldn't be able to reach Europe from it.

Arguably, Europe needs the outside world more than the outside world needs it -- for resources, if nothing else. Thus Britain, for instance, consumes resources that need five times its land area. I'm sure the same is true for Belgium and Holland, and to a slightly lesser extent, Germany and France. Indeed, the modern era in world history is all about European countries looking for resources abroad -- and not the other way around. So it's imperative that Europe develop some modus vivendi with the outside world -- including moslem countries. Under these circumstances, it's unrealistic to suppose all people flows can be stopped.

I'm uncomfortable with "preemptive actions" if alternatives exist (and I believe they do in this instance); thus, in 1914, many of the major powers were trying to take preemptive actions against one another -- no-one anticipated a worldwide conflagration that would change the topography of the world. I feel it's the same here: "preemptive actions" (whatever that means precisely) are likely to be counterproductive.

Nor am I happy with the "clash of civilisations" thesis, pushed forward by Huntingdon and other US neocons. It's too black-and-white, too simple for a complex and nuanced world where we have shades of gray. Europe -- like Russia -- will need a "near abroad": a buffer zone where it exercises some influence. This could include countries like Turkey.

Just my opinions. Not necessarily correct, and I'm willing to examine counterarguments (which might be more persuasive than my own arguments).

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by bombadillo

It's too black-and-white, too simple for a complex and nuanced world where we have shades of gray. Europe -- like Russia -- will need a "near abroad": a buffer zone where it exercises some influence.

It is not a clash of civilisations that I am preconizing.

Indeed Europe (Russia included) needs of buffer zones of influence. I have argued this one time too many. But, as it happens, Europe's natural buffer zones lie in Central Asia, The Caucasus, Asia Minor and Northern Africa.

Which alternatives would you propose for countries such as Morocco, Algeria, Turkey, Chechnya, after you would have expelled their migrants from Europe? Would you feel The Balkans safe with a country that is closer to Turkey than it is to Europe?

I don't believe for a second that the rest of the Muslim world would turn hostile against Europe if we acted in and around our borders, thus as an European ethno-political and geo-political issue and not as a clash of fundamentalists (eg. American fundamentalism vs Islamic fundamentalism). More so if Europe's policies towards other Muslim countries follows normal patterns of political and economical relationship.

The Muslim world is (and always has been) much divided. It is only the clash of fundamentalists, represented by Islamicists on the one side and America on the other, that is uniting them.

Mind you, being cynical I would even propose feeding the clash of fundamentalists, while sitting comfortably to observe and perhaps take the chance to give the armament industry in Europe a lift, while making sure that they don't destroy each other (somehow, keeping the balance where needed).

[Parabolax]

I have voted this:

Europe should ally with America and Israel, supplying troops, providing that actions are clearly directed against countries which are supporting Islamic terrorism beyond doubt (i.e. non laicist regimes).

[Errigal]

Originally Posted by Parabolax

I have voted this:

Europe should ally with America and Israel, supplying troops, providing that actions are clearly directed against countries which are supporting Islamic terrorism beyond doubt (i.e. non laicist regimes).

I think you are misinformed.

[bombadillo]

Originally Posted by Parabolax

I have voted this:

Europe should ally with America and Israel, supplying troops, providing that actions are clearly directed against countries which are supporting Islamic terrorism beyond doubt (i.e. non laicist regimes).

I also think you are mistaken. The roots of modern "Islamic terrorism" seem to lie either in actions of the United States or actions of its client state, Israel. You can't cure something like this by having a go at the symptoms: you need to look at root causes. This the USA is adamently averting its gaze from. Partly because it doesn't wish to acknowledge responsibility and partly because the "War on Terror" gives it camouflage to pursue strategic purposes in the Middle East. I see no European ends being served by allying ourselves with the USA, which acts only on its own behalf, and whose word cannot be trusted at all. In addition, we earn the contempt of the rest of the world for being flunkys and lackeys to the USA.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Errigal

I think you are misinformed.

.. or he is a fundamentalist.

[Franze]

I am agree with Mynydd´s option, I can´t support islam but I don´t want to be the Israel and US´s toy, we need to have better politics, christianize Bosnia and Albania, removing all the turks from Bulgaria and grow up our population