open Democracy News Analysis - Common Cause., - Comments

Steven Rogers on "Common Cause."

Steven Rogers — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 23:45:14 +0000

I suppose that with an extreme definition of "dictatorship", Dubai could be called a dictatorship. You could also, if you wanted to be equally extreme in the other direction, call it consensual authoritarianism, with citizen control through a clan structure rather than through Western-style elections. The common Western view of these States is of a primitive elite repressing huddled masses yearning for greater liberty. I'm not sure that's accurate. In many cases the governing elites in these countries are quite Westernized and are privately a little embarrassed at some of the extreme conservatism. The pace at which they can liberalize is very much limited, though, by a deeply religious and highly conservative population. In any event, the people in these countries seem for the most part quite happy with their governments. They aren't slaughtering their people, they aren't threatening anyone, and they are cooperative and engaged members of the international community... so how is their system of government anyone else's problem?

eric_5 on "Common Cause."

eric_5 — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:35:05 +0000

Certainly if I'd had the choice between living in the UAE, Qatar, or Kuwait or living in Iran, or Saddam's Iraq, it would be a very easy choice indeed.Steven Rogers I did say Dubai was a pleasant dictatorship. Kuwait is coming along. I believe women in Kuwait will be able to vote and stand for office in national elections next year, provided they respect Islamic law.

Steven Rogers on "Common Cause."

Steven Rogers — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 23:56:20 +0000

Dubai is a pleasant little dictatorship. I think Westerners often misjudge political representation in the smaller Gulf States, simply because it doesn't take a form that Westerners are accustomed to. If a citizen of the UAE, or Bahrain, or Qatar, has a grievance his first step is not to write a letter to the editor, file a lawsuit, or demand an election. They go to the head of their clan. If the head of the clan thinks the grievance is legitimate, they go to the sheik. In the smaller emirates they go direct to the sheik (I've observed this myself, in Ras al Khaimah, very interesting process). In a place like Dubai or Abu Dhabi, the sheik would have people appointed to handle cases. The cases are taken quite seriously, and people with grievances generally get redress. It's a system that can only work in a place with a very small population and a strong clan system; it's certainly not for everybody. It seems to work, though, in places like the UAE and Qatar; if it works for them and they're happy with it, I see no cause to criticize. Certainly if I'd had the choice between living in the UAE, Qatar, or Kuwait or living in Iran, or Saddam's Iraq, it would be a very easy choice indeed.

eric_5 on "Common Cause."

eric_5 — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:08:00 +0000

Dubai is a pleasant little dictatorship. I found the Burj Al Arab very satisfactory, on the whole. Their prudent use of their oil wealth has to be admired. Since 80% of the population are foreign 'guest-workers', their long-term stability has to be questioned. I wasn't too tempted to invest in Palm Island.

Steven Rogers on "Common Cause."

Steven Rogers — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:00:01 +0000

Perhaps you could explain the term Arab modernity to us. Have a look around Dubai sometime. Modern, prosperous, peaceful, and as Arab as anyone could ask. It's not impossible. They don't even have major oil reserves...

ILJAY on "Common Cause."

ILJAY — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:19:08 +0000

Eric, The comment I would make is to underline my agreement with Professor George Schopflin's theme that Israel is intent on bombing its neighbours back to the past because it cannot live with Arab modernity Would you want to live with Arab modernity? Have you actually considered what that means? Perhaps you could explain the term Arab modernity to us.

englishman on "Common Cause."

englishman — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:14:48 +0000

"This is very common shorthand for the people who make policy, the Israeli government in other words. The statement that Israel was going to turn back the clock in Lebanon was actually made by the Israeli army Chief of Staff. He is most definitely a person, but he was speaking in his official capacity, not in his personal capacity." - eric Eric, I think you may have missed my point. I did point out that it is people who have views which drive policy, but ascribing one motive for a policy to everyone is misleading and inflammatory. I know it is convenient shorthand and we all use such words in this way from time to time. I am just pointing out that this can lead to misunderstandings and resentment where none need exist. In the specific case in point, most Israelis would not agree with the army CoS's motive (I believe) although they do agree his actions for other reasons. I think the elected Israeli government also have a spread of views on this and would not all subscribe to this motive. It is unfair and divisive to imply this. You may just see it as short hand but there are many who would interpret these words differently.

eric_5 on "Common Cause."

eric_5 — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 22:59:11 +0000

countries do not have motives, people do.englishman This is very common shorthand for the people who make policy, the Israeli government in other words. The statement that Israel was going to turn back the clock in Lebanon was actually made by the Israeli army Chief of Staff. He is most definitely a person, but he was speaking in his official capacity, not in his personal capacity. Oh dear. I think I'm disagreeing with you.

englishman on "Common Cause."

englishman — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:50:29 +0000

Whilst on the subject of trying to agree on things... Eric, I think a reason people disagree is often to do with how an issue is stated. When you say "Israel is intent on bombing its neighbours back to the past because it cannot live with Arab modernity, unless the Arabs are prepared to forget Israeli crimes." it ascribes a fact to a motive apparantly held by a country. As I tried to address in another posting, countries do not have motives, people do. And I do not subscribe to the idea of ascribing a nation's behaviour in this anthropomorphic way. There are certainly those in Israel who would wish to bomb its neighbours back to the past but I do not think that they are a majority. Most are despairing that they can ever reach a solution with the arab world and would be happy to compromise if one were available. In the meantime, most Israelis see Hezbullah as a real threat and wish to deal with it. You can say that they are being led this way, although the motives of the government also are diverse on this issue even if they agree on the current strategy. In a similar way I was objecting to the phrase Islamic fascism on another post. The trite association carries with it the idea of association of fascism with Islam, even if unintended, which would be annoying to Muslims with a moderate view but who would share some political aims with the extremists. If we were more careful with the words we used there would be much more agreement and a better understanding of others' views.

eric_5 on "Common Cause."

eric_5 — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:30:07 +0000

I can only repeat that I agree with the key statement and await agreement with my agreement. But I do absolutely agree with the statement 'The middle East is engaged in a titanic struggle between modernity and theocracy, although I would replace 'theocracy' with 'retrograde Islamic ideals'. The comment I would make is to underline my agreement with Professor George Schopflin's theme that Israel is intent on bombing its neighbours back to the past because it cannot live with Arab modernity, unless the Arabs are prepared to forget Israeli crimes. http://tinyurl.com/r2eox

jayfromtexas on "Common Cause."

jayfromtexas — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:06:09 +0000

Owly, My most sincere sympathies. Your thread was hijacked by people who were not interested in discussing the ideas that caused you concern, but instead wanted to use you as just another platform to speak out against their personal political obsessions. I would like to discuss these ideas with you and others, but by the time I finished reading the replys, I completely forgot what it was you were wanting to discuss, as no one addressed it. Please repost this thread with the title "Common Cause 2", and lets just hope that now that some have made their selfish points, they will allow us an actual discussion.

DaveGood on "Common Cause."

DaveGood — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 18:07:22 +0000

Brolly... I've been absent a while.... good to see you my friend.:) I'm, having a certain, if grim, type of fun right now, at Owly's ezxpense. I hope you and your daughters are well?. DaveGood

brolly3 on "Common Cause."

brolly3 — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 17:59:49 +0000

owly, Kindly respond on the point I made about Evangelical Christians waiting for Israel to be destroyed with the Second Coming of Christ, so that they can go to heaven. Do you dare?

DaveGood on "Common Cause."

DaveGood — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 17:53:30 +0000

Owly? Would that article be published by the same chap who publishes this...? http://www.page3.com/ DaveGood

owly on "Common Cause."

owly — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 17:43:26 +0000

brolly, So nice you have joined your idiotic friends. Kindly read the article to which I have drawn your attention and comment thereon. Too difficult for you ? Thought so.

Common Cause.,

owly — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 13:07:38 +0000

There is an article in todays Sunday Times (news review: 'Wimmin at War, by Sarah Baxter) which asks why feminist ideals have become twisted into support for groups like Hezbollah. As a former Greenham Common woman she interestingly says 'I think I was wrong about Reagan and too sympathetic towards the Soviet Union'. I wonder if many of the posters on this site feel the same, and particularly in regard to Islamic Fascism ? As the author points out when you listen to people like Hassan Nasrallah it is convenient to dismiss his words as nonsense, and yet certainly where women are concerned 'there is no discernible difference between their acts and their words'. She quotes Phyllis Chesler who married an Afghan and went to live there in 1961. 'The Afghanistan I knew was a prison, a police state, a feudal monarchy, a theocracy rank with fear and paranoia. . . I was ultimately forced to conclude that Afghan barbarism, tyranny and misogyny were entirely of their own making and not attributable to colonialism or imperialism'. She goes on to say 'I fear that the 'peace and love' crowd in the West refuses to understand how Islamism endangers our values and our lives, beginning with our commitment to women's rights and human rights'. As Sarah Baxter points out 'The middle East is engaged in a titanic struggle between modernity and theocracy. Whatever one's views about the Iraq war or the conflict in Lebanon, it deserves more than slogans about 'We are all Hezbollah now' and fury against Bush and Blair'. Quite so.