10 Comments »

1. I don’t understand our countries position in the Middle East.

   When Iraq invaded Kuwait we didn’t leave it to negotiatians, we did something and liberated Kuwait. When Serbia ethnically cleansed the Kosovo Albanian population we didn’t leave it for the parties to discuss, we did something and used military force to equal the balance. When South Africa had a racist regime, we didn’t leave them to it, we imposed economic sanctions.

   Yet Israel occupies all Palestine and part of Syria and Lebanon, oppresses the Palestinians, employs racist rules to its Arab population and immigration, has WMD, and ignores twice the UN Resolutions that Iraq did, and in particular is the only country in the region that doesn’t accept UN Resolution 242.

   And we do nothing – could the PM tell me why?

   Comment by John — 1 Mar 2004 on 8:01 pm | Link

2. "When South Africa had a racist regime, we didn’t leave them to it, we imposed economic sanctions."
   — well, technically, we (the UK) never really did. Famously, this country bought coal from SA during the miners’ strike, and in 1988 the UK (and USA) voted against a Security Council resolution on sanctions. More in:
   <a href="http://www.sahistory.org.za/pages/classroom/pages/projects/grade12/lesson-2/unit3-uno.htm">http://www.sahistory.org.za/pages/classroom/pages/projects/grade12/lesson-2/unit3-uno.htm</a&gt;

   Comment by Chris Lightfoot — 1 Mar 2004 on 8:05 pm | Link

3. Israel occupied the areas that John mentions in self defense against definite aggression from Middle East neighbours. Israel beat their enemies at war and occupied part of their land. In the case of two countries this was returned to them in exchange for promises of peace (Egypt and Jordan). The other countries have never promised this and in the case of Syria probably sponsor terror against Israel.

   I believe that Saudi Arabia recently proposed that Jews were no longer allowed to visit the country. If Israel was the same how could two Muslim men be allowed to visit and then attempt mass murder (in one case achieving it)?? Which one is racist?

   "ignores twice the UN Resolutions that Iraq did"

   The UN is dominated by Muslim countries who all back each other and vote together on resolutions against Israel. That may be why it is ignored so often.

   Abuse the Palestinians? This is a little harsh but I agree that the conditions that they have to live in are very bad. Israel and the Palestinian leadership are both to blame here. And may I point out the situation in Chechnya is even worse. So is North Korea, China and even the USA (child poverty).

   Comment by Daniel — 2 Mar 2004 on 12:14 am | Link

4. Clearly Israel is not an evil regime. Iraq was governed by a tyrannical regime with a track-record of unjustifiable aggression. Israel is a free and democratic country.

   It is debatable to what extent the territories in question were taken in ‘self-defence’ but they were certainly taken in a conflict which was initiated by Arab states.

   I think it is grossly unfair to compare Israel to Iraq. But I agree that there is a major inconsistency in our foreign policy. Saddam gets toppled whilst North Korea gets to do as it likes. And that’s not to mention any of the nastier regimes in Africa…

   Comment by Ryan — 2 Mar 2004 on 1:15 am | Link

5. Maybe if there wasn’t such a huge lobby system in Washington DC supporting the actions of Israel then things would be different. However, I can’t see any way that the lobby will go away so nothing is going to change.
   Lets stop paying politicians to travel to the UN to make resolutions that everyone knows are unenforceable and spend the money on something helpful to society.

   Comment by Roger Huffadine — 2 Mar 2004 on 10:38 am | Link

6. It is ludicrous to think that the only reason the US supports Israel is because of a Jewish lobby in the United States. If people think that, than they are just as racist as any South African white person was during Apartheid.

   Comment by Daniel_F — 2 Mar 2004 on 3:06 pm | Link

7. Yes, security is important, but no consideration is given to the security of the Palestinian people.

   Comment by mick — 2 Mar 2004 on 3:26 pm | Link

8. Daniel_F
   I don’t think I wrote ‘Jewish’ lobby
   You may not understand the scope of interests of the lobbyists in Washington but you should know that its not all of one national origin.
   How about using your full name if you want to mis-quote and snipe?

   Comment by Roger Huffadine — 2 Mar 2004 on 4:35 pm | Link

9. Our Middle east policy, is 1. maintain the house of saud, 2.ensure that gulf states continue buying arms from us and supply oil. 3.forget we divided up the region with the french, promised everyone something. 4.maintain the staus quo, which means Israel, Jordan, Syria stay as they are, and Lebanon under Syrian control. as for the PLO we for what ever reason have continued and will for the time being support Arafat and keep him in power.
   What would be a change is for the UK to withdraw support for Arafat, condem Israel for building over the greenline into the west bank, work for a decent government for the Palestinains. let the house of saud go, and push for syria to pull out of Lebanon, and for better governments for the region.

   Comment by Peter Keating — 2 Mar 2004 on 6:51 pm | Link

10. The UK govt. seems to be aiming for the status quo described by Peter. However, I believe it is simply waiting for Arafat to die. At such a point there will be a power vacuum in Palestine and this will be the most dangerous period. Yet it will also be the most opertune moment for instigating change.

    The US and UK seem to be leaving the Mid East to their own devices. They have spread the seed of democracy in Iraq and, with proper support and minimal long term control, the benefits may be seen through out the region. The House of Saud will collapse because of inward pressure. The UK has rightly concluded that it is better to be felled by those wishing for democratic leadership rather than Islamic fundementalists. As such the UK govt. is supporting the House of Saud until such time as Iraq is stable and independant – and an example to the rest of the Mid East.

    Comment by Daniel Adler — 3 Mar 2004 on 11:57 am | Link

---

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.