WikiLeaks exposed the true Mideast conflict

[shira]

Julian Assange is a dangerous criminal. This strange man with his long blond hair and misanthropic expression is not merely a cyberterrorist of a new kind. He is not merely a delusory anarchist humiliating the greatest power on earth. He is not merely an uninhibited megalomaniac disrupting modern diplomacy and undermining the world order. Assange is a dangerous criminal because he has shattered the accepted dogma on the understanding in the Middle East in the 21st century.

This dogma stated the following: The main problem in the Middle East is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The main problem in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the occupation. The main problem in the occupation is the settlements. Therefore if we just stop the settlements, the occupation will begin to end, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be solved and the Middle East will be stable. In the last decade, this dogma became fixed and was sanctified. It became a kind of core belief that cannot be questioned. This was the truth they swore to in the White House, the Elysee Palace and 10 Downing Street. This was the truth they reported in The Washington Post, Le Monde and The Guardian. This was the truth that incorporated the supreme moral gravity that formed the worldview of enlightened elites in the West and directed the policies of the Western powers.

Then along came Assange and shattered the dogma. The secret documents that WikiLeaks published proved that the settlements, the occupation and even the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were not the main problem in the Middle East. The confidential e-mails proved that the world they were talking about in Washington, Paris and London was an imaginary world. Assange proved that there was no connection between the real Middle East and the Middle East they talk about in The Washington Post, Le Monde and The Guardian. He revealed that the entire Arab world is currently busy with one problem only - Iran, Iran, Iran.

There is no doubt about it - Assange is a dangerous criminal. But he is dangerous not because he penetrated the Pentagon's information systems but because he revealed the Western intelligentsia's lack of intellectual integrity. Assange is dangerous not because he leaked state secrets on an unprecedented scale but because he revealed to us all that the West's hegemonic discourse is superficial and mendacious. Assange is dangerous not because he embarrassed the West's allies but because he proved that the West is contaminated by political correctness that cuts it off from the diplomatic reality. Assange placed a giant mirror in front of us all and proved the extent to which we had been duped in recent decades. A false dogma has prevented us from looking logically at the historic challenge facing us.

more...
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/wikileaks-exposed-the-true-mideast-conflict-1.328500

[whosinpower]

1. The palistinian issue has persevered for far longer than the iranians seeking nuclear weapons.

Another way to think of it is that the Arab world doesn't really give a sh** what happens to the palistinians.....but you knew that already.

Does this absolve Israel of its responsibility to end the occupation?

[shira]

2. The answer to your question is in the rest of the article...

<snip>

"But let's not confuse things. The settlements are indeed a disaster. The occupation is intolerable. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is dangerous. But now that the blond misanthrope has opened our eyes, we must no longer shut them. The confidential e-mails must be read and reread so they can be understood. There is no chance for the current diplomatic process, they say. There is no chance of signing an Israeli-Palestinian agreement as long as Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) is living under the menacing shadow of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. There is no chance of regional peace as long as the Arab world is living under Tehran's incessant threat.

After all, just as the Egyptian president, the Saudi king and the Gulf emirs whisper, Iran is the heart of the problem. Iran is the source of the poison and the source of the consternation. As long as Iran is growing stronger, is seeking nuclear weapons and is terrorizing the Middle East, there is no chance for peace.

The lesson is a bitter one. If Iran develops nuclear weapons, peace will disappear. A nuclear Iran will deal a final blow to the chance of achieving a compromise between Israelis and Arabs. Therefore the dove of peace has to be extremely hawkish toward Iran. The peace-seeker must deal with Iran.

The opposite is also true. Anyone who wants to appease Ahmadinejad is betraying peace. Anyone who takes a lenient view of the ayatollahs is abandoning Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Abu Mazen. It's true that a moratorium on the settlements will help in the struggle against the centrifuges. But only such a moratorium will make it possible to dismantle the settlements. When we rise from the ruins of the dogma, the strategic order of things is utterly clear - Iran first."

[whosinpower]

7. The dove of peace is already hawkish about Iran

I wonder what the author would have America and Obama do exactly? He achieved sanctions against Iran that Bush never could achieve. And if sanctions are not the answer - then what precisely....all out war?

And I can't help but wonder if the neighboring Arab states are so worried, why is it they don't do something about it other than complain to the US. Where are their solutions? Where are their armies?

I also find it odd - this statement - If Iran develops nuclear weapons, peace will dissappear. A nuclear Iran will deal a final blow to the chance of achieving a compromise between Israel and Arabs.

It seems to me, then, that it is even more critical to achieve the compromise NOW, rather than later. I will explain using the following scenarios....if the west goes to war against Iran - Israel gains an even larger target on its back. I would also be incredulous that the neighboring Arab states would be grateful and welcome even further western interference...that will not happen. The peace reward we all seek will not be at the end of that road.

If Israel bombs the nuclear facilities, it will also be seen as an act of war. Again, I would be incredulous that the neighboring Arab states would thank Israel - at least publically, it is my belief that the fallout would be far more damaging, with far more radical fringe groups gearing up for revenge. Did Israel gain any allies in the region when they bombed Iraq's nuclear facilities? Did they gain any allies when they bombed Syria's nuclear stuff? Did any of the neighboring Arab states step up and say - gee thanks Israel, we were all worried about Hussein...let's be friends now?

so - what then?

And, we should also consider that Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons to force Israel to deal with the palistinians....Iran is seeking nuclear weapons so that other nations do not invade it.....like Iraq. That lesson is not lost on them. They seek nuclear weapons as leverage to give them power in the region.

I think we are left with only one conclusion - the best way to deal with Iran is sanctions in the immediate term, and a longer term strategy to normalize relations over decades...but this still has nothing to do with the relations of Israel and the palistinians...and there is no reason to kick it down the road.

[shira]

8. The future is bleak.

It's not only that a nuclear Iran is protected from an Iraq-like invasion, it's what Iran will do once it goes nuclear. If Israel never took out Iraq's nuclear capability in the early 1980's then Iraq could have taken Kuwait in 1991 without worry, and proceeded to do more afterward. Think of what Iran will do in Lebanon with Hezbollah or Hamas in Gaza, once backed by a nuclear power. And if the PLO doesn't act as belligerent, extreme, and anti-Israel than a nuclear backed and Iranian influenced Hamas, they lose influence and power.

Even if peace was brokered tomorrow and Abbas became a full blown liberal, Hamas and Hezbollah backed by Iran won't buy in. Gaza will remain as is. Defamers of Israel who say it's a Nazi-Apartheid regime will continue to demonize and deligitimize Israel within the 1949 green line. With any regime change in Egypt and Jordan, who knows if they'd honor their peace deals? If Musharraf is taken out in Pakistan, their nukes could be acquired by nutballs in the mideast. Syria remains nasty. Saudi Arabia and Libya won't stop being who they are now. Turkey is becoming radically Islamic...

Peace isn't happening anytime soon.

But as bad as things are now, they'll be far worse with a nuclear Iran and Middle East countries trying to catch up with their own arms race. Sunnis, Al Qaeda, Baathists, etc...hate the Shiites running Iran. Tens of millions have died in the past century without nukes. What do you think would happen with them? That's why Iran is a priority and I/P runs a very distant second, third, or tenth place.

I don't have any answers. I like the STUXNET sabotage and sanctions but it's inevitable that Iran will become nuclear.

Focusing on home additions in parts of Israel that will remain in Israel in any peace deal is a dangerous distraction. A settlement freeze has not surprisingly made any difference at all in the peace process. Abbas and the majority of Palestinians simply aren't interested in cutting any fair or reasonable deal. Proof is here in examples throughout the thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x338783

One thing is for certain. All the talk about I/P peace leading to moderation throughout the region has been debunked for the BS it always was. Arab regimes need a scapegoat like Israel or else their tyrannies implode. Same for Iran. Hezbollah and Hamas need to stay in business too.

[RZM]

4. But not nearly as long as Iran's efforts to be a great power

Or the Sunni-Shi'a divide (though Iran has only been Shi'a for about 500 years), or any number of items relating to Persian-Arab relations.

No it does not absolve Israel of anything, but it is interesting to note, though it's hardly a new revelation either.

[bemildred]

3. A fascinating piece.

I guess every cloud has a silver lining. Wikileaks shows the US government is full of it, and therefore we have to attack Iran because Iran's enemies want us to.

[hayu_lol]

5. The enemy of my enemy is my friend...

or so one of the sayings goes.

Two countries used to control the entire region(one at a time): Turkey and Persia.

Both are now contending for the top spot.

[bemildred]

9. Good luck with that. nt

[subsuelo]

11. any article that begins with "Julian Assange is a dangerous criminal" is a complete joke. n/t

[shira]

6. Hilarious cartoon video "I will make a lot of peace in the Middle East".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhNOWVuSXGE&feature=player_embedded

[whosinpower]

10. Perhaps this article was written too soon - eh?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4644501

Saudi Arabia funding terror -

In a memo, Clinton notes that terror groups raise millions of dollars each year from Saudi sources, often during the hajj pilgrimage and the month of Ramadan. It is an ongoing challenge to persuade the authorities to make prevention of such activity a top priority, Clinton wrote. She added that Saudi contributors were the main source of funding for terror groups around the world.


Interesting that it is Saudi Arabia that wants America to "cut off the head of the snake"....all the while groups within that nation fund the direct enemies that America is fighting against including Al qaida. The great game continues......