Stats

Comments Posted By Bernard Marx

Displaying 0 To 0 Of 0 Comments

Pre-Occupied

Ethics are the core of any and all political debates. Good political discourse makes the ethical foundations of an argument clear and explicit – after all this is what we are arguing about, let’s be clear about it.

There is no way I’m saying ethics are set in stone, but they are an inherent part of all politics.

I think when someone says they believe the establishment of Israel is ethical, it is fair to ask them why they think this.

» Posted By Bernard Marx On January 7, 2010 @ 2:25 pm

You stated your belief that “the formation of Israel was ethical”. I’m simply (and dispassionately) asking you why? What ethical basis was there for this?

And in order to better understand your reasoning I was asking where this differed from a situation that occured at a similar time. Forget the Tibetan part if you like, but I would be interested to hear your reasoning.

» Posted By Bernard Marx On January 7, 2010 @ 2:01 pm

Kquark. I was not putting words in your mouth. I was asking a question. Why do you think the establishment of Israel was ethical, and if you see that as ethical does this mean you also the Tibetan occupation as ethical?

As far as I’m concerned by accussing me of putting words in your mouth you are the one constructing the strawman.

» Posted By Bernard Marx On January 7, 2010 @ 1:36 pm

How can it be ethical when it involved the displacement of people from homes they had lived in for hundreds of years?

What is the ethical basis for that?

Was the annexation of Tibet by China also ethical?

» Posted By Bernard Marx On January 7, 2010 @ 12:56 pm

Well said, and I’m glad you took my comments in the way they were intended.

Unfortunately the harsh truth is that I think everybody would be better off if Israel had not been created. A homeland could have just as easily been etched into the map of Europe. Which would have been far more legitimate and ultimately I believe less problematic.

That said, the fact that Israel has been created changes the situation. Now the only way some of the heat can be taken out of this conflict is for Palestinians to be granted control over a viable state – going back to the UN mandated borders of pre-1967 or similar.

Thanks for allowing these issues to be discussed in an honest and open way, I appreciate it.

» Posted By Bernard Marx On January 7, 2010 @ 12:54 pm

I think a better wording would be to say that the two-state solution has legitimacy, rather than saying it is ethical. The UN can confer some form of legitimacy, but it cannot make a ruling on what is ethical.

I agree that the two-state solution is the only viable option and should be heavily pushed by the US, but if the UN was to make a ruling regarding Tibet, would this make its annexation in 1951 ethical?

» Posted By Bernard Marx On January 7, 2010 @ 12:43 pm

“They need to be the superpower of the region, given what surrounds them.”

This argument could be applied equally to Iran.

» Posted By Bernard Marx On January 7, 2010 @ 12:19 pm

I also think it’s important to recognize what is populist rhetoric and what is a serious threat.

Many administrations are happy to beat the anti-Israel drum as a rhetorical device to deflect criticisms from their own failings and to garner the support of their citizens. Yet, at the same time they are often involved in backroom dealings with Israeli officials.

Also Israel has done very well creating the image of themselves as the underdog – the fragile small democracy in danger of being driven into the sea by the barbaric and authoritarian Arabs (and Persians). This is quite simply wrong.

They are the superpower of the region. They alone have a nuclear arsenal capable of levelling the entire region, plus they have the biggest military and global hegemon as uncritical guarantors of their survival.

It’s time to think more critically about these deliberately propagated tropes about their inherent vulnerability.

» Posted By Bernard Marx On January 7, 2010 @ 2:22 am

Well said. You pretty much summed up my position. I don’t have a dog in this fight so to speak, but I recognize the injustice that lies at the core of the Israeli state.

I find much of the debate over Israel intellectually dishonest and deliberately obfuscating, and I heartily second your call for an honest and temperate discussion.

» Posted By Bernard Marx On January 7, 2010 @ 1:51 am

Hmm, yes me too.

» Posted By Bernard Marx On January 7, 2010 @ 12:49 am

‘Anti-Semitic’ is used far more pervasively in my opinion. It is frequently used as a tool to deflect legitimate criticism about Israel.

» Posted By Bernard Marx On January 6, 2010 @ 11:40 pm

Hi Chernynkaya,

An interesting and thoughtful article. Although I am aware that you are “writing as [you] remember the loss of the Israel [you] knew”. I can’t help but point to the obvious inequity and appalling irony in the very foundations of this national myth.

You saw it as a “brand new country”. What about the people living there already. What were they?

It had a “brand new language

» Posted By Bernard Marx On January 6, 2010 @ 10:36 pm

Our Failed Intelligence

Something on the philosophy of religion would be good too. 😉

As for politics. Politics is us. It’s never perfect and never what we would perhaps like it to be, but it is us.

It’s humans arguing, negotiating and fighting over the core ethical issues – how should we live together and what do we owe each other as fellow humans.

Try not to give in entirely to cynicism.

» Posted By Bernard Marx On January 5, 2010 @ 12:24 am

Time Out for O/T – Vol 1

Mmmm, I saw the mention of Ethiopian food and had to join in. I love Ethiopian food (although I’ve had some not so good stuff too).

I always go for a mix of dishes on the injeera. I also like the tej (honey wine) and of course the coffee.

» Posted By Bernard Marx On January 6, 2010 @ 8:38 pm

It’s not the just politics

Drinking kava is an important custom in a number of pacific islands. I have tried it many times with Fijian friends.

Kava sessions are an important part of doing politics and there are quite elaborate rituals that go along with it.

» Posted By Bernard Marx On January 3, 2010 @ 11:36 pm

Which according to the wingers means that they tell the truth.

» Posted By Bernard Marx On January 3, 2010 @ 11:29 pm

US & UK Yemen Embassies Close

Well, I suppose I could write something about Yemen. It won’t be for a while though, as I’m heading off for a six-week summer holiday in a couple of days (yay!).

I’ll put it on my ‘things to do when I get back’ list.

Good night all.

» Posted By Bernard Marx On January 4, 2010 @ 12:48 am

Ha ha, quite right.

» Posted By Bernard Marx On January 4, 2010 @ 12:17 am

Thankfully, that’s true.

» Posted By Bernard Marx On January 3, 2010 @ 11:31 pm

I could recommend ‘A History of Modern Yemen’ by Paul Dresch for a detailed academic text.

Al Jazeera seems to have some good articles about what’s been happening more recently.

» Posted By Bernard Marx On January 3, 2010 @ 10:18 pm

Yep, extremely complex. But already people are misreading the conflict as a Sunni-Shia one.

» Posted By Bernard Marx On January 3, 2010 @ 9:34 pm

Yep, those are the people.

» Posted By Bernard Marx On January 3, 2010 @ 7:47 pm

Yes, I agree. Either way, it’s certain that even if they are funding the Houthis, they are not a major factor in the conflict.

This is not (as some people have suggested) a proxy war between the US and Iran.

» Posted By Bernard Marx On January 3, 2010 @ 7:44 pm

I think they’d be remarkably similar.

» Posted By Bernard Marx On January 3, 2010 @ 7:31 pm

Yes, that’s true.

» Posted By Bernard Marx On January 3, 2010 @ 7:30 pm

I think much of the heat Lieberman attracted (on HP at least) was for calling for ‘preemptive action’ in Yemen. I think a lot of people saw this as a euphemism for an invasion because they didn’t understand that any action in Yemen would be designed to support the government.

I also saw a lot of posters there saying it must be about getting their hands on Yemen’s oil, which is laughable. Yemen is not in an enviable situation regarding natural resources (good fisheries notwithstanding).

» Posted By Bernard Marx On January 3, 2010 @ 7:29 pm

The truth is that information from that area is very difficult to come by, and any information that is avaiable is quickly distorted for political reasons. However, I have it on what I consider to be as good an authority as any that there is no evidence of Iranian involvement with the Houthis (although supporting groups like this would be consistent with Iran’s modus operandi).

Regardless, I’m sure we will hear a lot more about their supposed support of the Houthis in the future.

» Posted By Bernard Marx On January 3, 2010 @ 7:21 pm

Actually the British embassy in Sana’a only moved to its current location relatively recently – I think for security reasons. It was previously in quite a built up area. Now it’s perched up on the side of a hill surrounded by other embassies.

Yes, Yemen may not be a ‘failed’ or ‘collapsed’ state, but it’s certainly facing some severe challanges. Many people I know (who are far more up with the play in Yemen than me) have predicted Yemen will fall into full-scale civil war within the next decade or so. It will be interesting to see how US involvement may influence this.

» Posted By Bernard Marx On January 3, 2010 @ 7:09 pm

Juan Cole is right in saying that Yemen “is an extremely complicated society”. Although I would in no way pretend to be an expert on Yemen I’ve spent enough time there to know that nothing is simple there, and anyone who presents it as such is likely to be very wrong.

My concern is that now Yemen is suddenly in the spotlight we are getting a whole load of overnight ‘experts’ on Yemen. There was an article on HP penned by the former ambassador to Morocco which was stunningly naive, simplistic and in a number of instances completely wrong.

It’s easy to see how the American public – many of whom probably can’t locate Yemen on the map let alone tell you anything about it, will be mobilized into thinking about it in certain ways. I can see Yemen being discursively constructed as an object of Western (imperial?) knowledge before my very eyes.

» Posted By Bernard Marx On January 3, 2010 @ 6:58 pm

I’ve been to both embassies, and although they are pretty secure from people trying to get in (especially the US one) it would be simple to lob a grenade over the fence or to mortar them from a distance.

I think they’ll eventually have to move the US embassy so that they can control the surrounding area better. The British embassy is better placed in this regard.

As far as what the US government will do in Yemen, I think it’s pretty clear that they will continue to support the government of Yemen. The biggest fear is that Yemen will become a ‘failed state’ which would make it far harder to control what goes on in the territory.

So this will mean supporting the government in their fight against al Houthis in the north (nothing to do with al Qaeda) and helping to curb the separatist movements in the south (nothing to do with al Qaeda) and the separatist movements in the east (perhaps some links to al Qaeda like groups).

Unfortunately this strategy risks continuing the type of policies that make the US so unpopular in the region – that is, propping up illegitimate regimes. For all the rhetoric about democracy, the truth is the US is scared of it and will stand in the way of self-determination if they don’t like what it may bring.

The biggest opposition party in Yemen – Islah – is an Islamic party, which would appear to be far less supportive of US policies.

» Posted By Bernard Marx On January 3, 2010 @ 6:11 pm