Amir Taheri: Israel is just a peripheral issue in ME

[cema]

The argument is based on the (count and, to a lesser extent, intensity of) conflicts in the Middle East not involving Israel.

I feel this is a weak argument. Obvsiouly Israel is not just another country in the region, so ideological (including religious) issues cannot be overlooked. Has anyone seen a stronger argument?

Comments

[aptsvet.livejournal.com]

I think I do, and the argument is on the surface. Imagine the Middle East without Israel - not a solution of the problem, which does not appear possible, but its mere absense. Would the region be much calmer? Fat chance. Even the "Palestinian problem" would remain, under a different guise. The argument could be expanded, and has been, but I have no time for that now.

[cema.livejournal.com]

If I understand it correctly, this is a restatement of Amir's argument. No?

[aptsvet.livejournal.com]

Sorry, my fault, I did not look at it. I will, but if indeed it is so, and you have not found it convincing, I apologize.
Briefly, my own version. The current ME is the result of the crisis within the Moslem civilization (hate the term, but for brevity's sake) plus the leftovers of the inept British-French colonialism. Israel is seen as a scapegoat for these problems.
But have a look at Africa which is in a much worse shape, minus Israel. The reason we pay less attention to it is that it has much less oil. Our luck, Africa's grief.

[cema.livejournal.com]

Nothing to apologize for.

Africa appears to be a lost case. But back to ME. The Muslim civ is in an obvious crisis, I think the evidence is overwhelming. But I may imagine an argument that the establishment of the State of Israel was a catalyst. Or an argument that the existence of Israel, an external factor, prevents Arabs from resolving the inter-Arab tensions.

[aptsvet.livejournal.com]

Common hatred for Israel prevents the parties from starting a real massacre of the Shias which would be their real dream. Israel is not a catalyst, rather an inhibitor.

[cema.livejournal.com]

It's interesting to see what kind of argument we are trying to develop.

One thing is if we discuss the current events: there is little disagreement between our position, so the discussion would end after each party has said what it thinks.

Another thing is if we want to see a scientific argumentation, which needs to take into account more factors, however insignificant they may seem to us (but I cannot do it, not being an expert).

Yet another thing is if we want to convince sceptics or curious but clueless people.

I guess, since the first option is not very interesting and the second one is not attainable, I am more interested in the third option. But did I miss something?

[aptsvet.livejournal.com]

The second option is, of course, the most interesting. It is, I believe, insoluble in an abstract argument. The only solution would be to let them get rid of Israel and see. In my view the real frenzy will start then. But I am not tempted to see myself proven right.

[cema.livejournal.com]

Well, indeed! No control case, please. :-)