The Middle East

Lord Soley

There are some deeply worrying reports coming from the Palestine/Israel talks in the US. Simon Tisdall writing in the Guardian today (Tuesday 5th October) suggests the talks are likely to end in failure.

It is getting hard to see how we can maintain even a semblance of peace in the region especially as other Arab states are now arming against Iran. The dangers of a nuclear threat are real.

8 comments for “The Middle East

  1. 05/10/2010 at 11:47 pm

    They sure are! From nuclear-armed Iran…

    No, hang on, they don’t have nukes.

    Well from nuclear-armed Syria…

    Oh they don’t have nukes either.

    I wonder who the nuclear threat in the Middle East is from?

  2. 06/10/2010 at 10:16 am

    I am sorry this is many more than 250 words, but I have to be at the doctor’s, so this may be my last chance to ‘partcicipate’, if you will, please.
    The “Middle-East” needs to be seen as one civilisational-group of countries, either cooperatively or adversarially interactive or ‘stand-off-co-existent’ with every other civilisational-group of countries around the World, now together forming the United Nations and the Global-Economy.

    That we British have an ultimately high responsibility for the success and for any failure of this ‘united-human-race’ is an entrenched factor since the English language is now the world-language; but English is by no means a highly-responsible language.

    Add to those factors the even deeper-entrenched ‘professional’ and ‘governance’ requirement for politicians to exploit, rather than to obey, such principles of good communication and honest-reasoning as Clarity, Charity and Self-Correction preparedness; and to lay down both Legislations and Constitutions for only five-years-at-a-time recurrently, when the whole Ghastly Need of The Earth itself is to have its Lifesupports preserved and conserved by human legislation and constitution for hundreds of thousands of years at-a-time; and we have a human-race including all its miraculously-advancing scientific and technological achievements not simply “up for extinction” but already on an increasingly slippery-slope down into it, literally into “our very own extinction”.

    For instance, that the tiny but modernly well advanced social and economic acreage of Israel is in effect totally surrounded by hugely extensive, economically-wealthy, and human-race-manipulative Arab States whose populations dominantly are avowed towards
    invading and taking-over that tiny Israeli acreage, and not content with that “insanity” to at the same time “chop up all Istealis into littlempieces and throw them into the Mediterranean Sea”, should surely have been a test-case and should have been peacefully Win-Win-Win resolved long before the close of the last century and the last milennium.
    JSDM appears to be the only voice in the whole world, but so far confined effectively to only this Lords of the Blog e-site (where it has not yet beenafforded the Clarity and Charity of recognition much less of agreement) crying out for Governance to start including, as the re-current first-resort, Friendly Method III Needs, Hows, and Costs recognition and Participatorily-Cooperative Problem Solving.
    That Iran and other Nation-States are prepared to go deeper into Pyrrhic Competition rather than starting-all-over into Method III may switch the Arab-world’s adversarial enetrgies and armies against each other, and thus righteously-save little Israel from being annihilated, for a few tens-of-years perhaps, the deeper likelihood of theArab world world triggering a ‘World War III’ Nuclear-holocaust is logically the ultimate outcome to be expected; and Lord\Soley seems to have scored a point for Clarity, Charity, and Self-Correction-preparedness here, by his closing sentence “The dangers of a nuclear threat are real”.

    Now let us, please, read on, with what every other participant has to say, in this very grave – these ultimately very grave – matters.

    • John R D Kidd
      09/10/2010 at 11:38 am

      EU and Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

      Thirty four (34) nations are members of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), which exists to curb the proliferation of unmanned delivery systems for nuclear weapons and the non-proliferation of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) carrying WMDs.
      Israel is not a party to any of the major treaties governing WMD nonproliferation, including the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC). It has signed, but not ratified, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the Chemicals Weapons Convention (CWC).

      However, the Israeli state is believed to possess a large nuclear arsenal that is concealed from inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency of the UN, in addition to an undeclared, offensive biological weapons program. It is further believed that Israel could develop an offensive chemical weapons program within a short period.

      Furthermore, Israel possesses a comprehensive arsenal of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles), and missile defense systems.

      She is also widely suspected of having fitted her three German-built Dolphin class submarines to deliver nuclear, sea-launched, cruise missiles (SLCM).

      Many of these systems are believed to have been constructed with US aid notwithstanding the fact that Israel refuses to be bound by virtually any of the international agreements on nuclear non-proliferation or the delivery of weapons of mass destruction that have been ratified by the majority of the democratic nations of the world, including Britain and America, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Australia, South Africa, Russia and twenty five others.

      Apart from other considerations, this enables Israeli arms manufacturers to export WMD, and their delivery systems, to any regime around the world, with complete impunity, but without any control.

      It is suggested that these facts alone should be sufficient to cause grave concern, particularly to the 27 member states of the European Union – who could be directly affected by any Mideast conflict that involved the use of weapons of mass destruction – whether nuclear, biological or chemical. Such weapons recognize no national boundaries and could quickly contaminate neighbouring states, causing widespread death and destruction on a scale never before experienced in this, or any other, time.

      For the UN to agree to let the status quo stand, would seem to be an illogical, perverse and dangerous position that impacts the security, not only of EU member states, but also of world peace.

      John RD Kidd, London . 05Oct2010

    06/10/2010 at 8:45 pm

    Iran is no match for the powers of the West, and I don’ think their Nuclear Ambitions are all that advanced at this stage. If they try anything we can eaisly create “Regime CHange”, which regretably will be an attemot at aWestern Style Liberal Democracy under the assumption that this will just mak epeople magiclaly gt along even though its never worked out quiet so well.

    As to Israel, The Settlements are demonised by the world, but I see no problems with ISraelis building in ISrael.

    What needs ot be done is simply to ask the Palistinians if they’d not midn a move and ot ask for some Land for them elsewhere. This has been tried int he apst and I realise this is a bit of a problem but I think this would work far better.

  4. John R D Kidd
    09/10/2010 at 11:28 am

    The UN Human Rights Council has reported that:

    “The conduct of the Israeli military and other personnel towards the flotilla passengers was not only disproportionate to the occasion but demonstrated levels of totally unnecessary and incredible violence. It betrayed an unacceptable level of brutality. Such conduct cannot be justified or condoned on security or any other grounds. It constituted grave violations of human rights law and international humanitarian law.”

    The panel concluded that there was “clear evidence” of wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment and wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health – all crimes under the Geneva Convention.”
    These alleged atrocities were by the state that is already in gross breach of its human rights commitments under the specific provisions of the EU-Israel Association Agreement on trade.

    This EU agreement should be cancelled forthwith on the grounds of wilful non-compliance by Israel.

  5. 09/10/2010 at 5:27 pm

    JRDK appears to have had a pre-conclusion that the State of Israel is ‘illegal’ anyway, and that he has now amassed conclusive evidence and authoritative judgement to confirm that ‘position’.

    If he has verbatimly reported the UNHRC decision then that wording –

    (( being packed with ultra-extreme verbiage, that a mere handful of coast-guard national-defence workers used conduct “disproproportionate” to the “occasion” (many unbiased observers would agree that “invasion” would be a more fitting term for this incident which, being an offensive and illegal operation against the State of Israel to infiltrate theri borders with warmongering-materials and intent, it is irresponsiblt-misleading to designate as an “occasion”);
    that a mere handful of well-disciplined Israeli-State workers used “totally unnecessary violence” and also “incredible violence” )) –

    is in itself an inflatedly disproportionate and kangaroo-court type of false-judgement.

    JRDK goes on, complicitly with UNHRC and the Geneva Convention, to claim and judge “clear evidence” of “atrocities”; on a hugely “grave” and internationally-survival-threatening scale; by that small group of Israeli national (and implicately of World-Peace) defence-workers.

    “Clear evidence” of – What ?

    If emotion needs to be included in order to make a rational point well then sobeit, this bunch of luxury-clubroom armchair-legislators (UNHRC, the Geneva Convention, and JDRK) go on to try hedging-their-bets with the “clear evidence” that the Israeli working-group were using either wilful killing, or (wilful) torture, or (wilful) inhumane treatment”; but they are not at all sure which; not sure at all.


    • John R D Kidd
      09/10/2010 at 6:54 pm

      JSDM is entitled, of course, to opine that the UNHRC and the Geneva Conventions are a ‘bunch of luxury-clubroom armchair-legislators’.

      The United Kingdom is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions and a member of the UN, in common with nearly two hundred countries that together form the international community.

      It is they that have decided that killing of civilians is a war crime and/or a crime against humanity. It is to this charge that the state of Israel has to answer for the bloody killing of 900 civilians in Dec 2008 and January 2009 plus the wanton killing of nine unarmed civilians on the high seas.

      • 10/10/2010 at 7:51 pm

        I wonder what other States are in the “queue” to answer similar charges (and to my knowledge alone in many cases much more serious charges in terms of the ‘qualities’ and ‘quantities’ involved, not to mention the Motives) in (deliberately)killing (unarmed or otherwise non-hostile) civilians ?

        Or does JRDK (vel the Geneva Convention or the UN) place Israel in a queue all on its own ?

        JRDK has not answered the fallaciousnesses of the UN and the Geneva Convention (and of his own argumentation) that JSDM put forward.

Comments are closed.