Damici,
I have a few minutes, so…
“1.) Our blind, unbending support for Israel, come hell or highwater, no matter what. We arm Israel and fund them (to the tune of $300 billion per year) because of a strong pro-Israel/Jewish voting and lobbying block in the U.S., despite the fact that they are flat out sitting on someone else’s land, and have been for decades.”
First, as to Israel’s sitting on ‘someone else’s land’, Israel is an internationally recognized nation with formal boundaries. If you think that Israel isn’t legitimate, take it up with the UN, which fully recognizes Israel as a legitimate nation-state right where it is.
Second, we give Israel billions - any idea how much we give Jordan and Egypt, two Arab countries? (Hint: Egypt has just tipped over the $50 billion - that’s billion - mark). So, yes, we give tons of money to Jews - and to Arabs, too. And we have done more than just send checks - witness our militray adventures on behalf of saving Muslims across the globe.
So your dangerously anti-Semitic rant cherrypicks preferable data to the exclusion of information that harms your case. No one pretends that the US and Israel aren’t allies, but we are not allies at Muslims’ expense. I think we are Israel’s allies at the expense of radical Muslims fundamentalists, and I would not have it any other way.
Third, as for the Jewish lobby: Hitler said the same thing. Great company to be in.
“2.) Prior to 9/11, our presence (i.e. having a military base) in Saudi Arabia, their so-called “sacred soil,” even though it isn’t really sacred soil (only Mecca and Medina are), but the jihadists don’t and didn’t like our being there regardless. Now you can extend this to include our occupation of Iraq, a Muslim nation. (They’re not too happy about our presence in Afghanistan either, but they brought that one on themselves, clear as day).”
First, we had a Persian Gulf presence since the end of WWII in order to prevent Communist penetration into the world’s oil supply. That was done by invitation. I personally have soured on the relationship, and the sooner we end it, the better in my view - but it is foolish to argue that the US tromped in like conquerors without permission. Was it a devil’s deal? You bet, but the alternative was letting the USSR have open season on the Persian Gulf, to which, I say, nope.
Second, you have a weird argument - you say that the Islamists believe something that isn’t true (about the Holy Land). And? We should kowtow to them even though, by your own admission, they have it wrong? Why is there all this ‘good faith’ in what the Islamists believe and want?
Third, I don’t doubt that Islamists are pissed about Iraq - so what? The should be pissed. We are bringing the fight they want in our cities into their backyward. We are defining the parameters of war - of course they don’t like it. Now read this carefully, as it is important: the measure of the Iraq war and its value does not rest on the Islamists’ opinion of it.
“3.) Our support for (and keeping in power of) corrupt, oppressive and secular (non-Islamic) regimes in the Middle East: the al-Saud family in Saudi Arabia (most of all), Mubarek in Egypt, Abdullah in Jordan, the rulers of Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, the U.A.E., etc., etc. These regimes generally rule over nations where most of the people are generally poor while the leaders themselves are filthy, filthy rich. They have shitty economies and awful human rights records with limited freedoms. But most of all, they’re not fundamentalist Islamic regimes, i.e. they don’t rule by Sharia law, the way the Taleban did. (The jihadists considered the Taleban to be the only “truly” Islamic regime on earth).”
Firstly, I agree in part. We need to avoid partnering up with unsavory nations, it is true. But the so-called class disparity is inescapable in a system of government that permits an all-powerful autocrat. Islamic governments tend to go this way and always have - hence there is no real real democracy in Arab nations (unless you count Turkey).
Second, you have an implausible argument - that these Islamists actually think the Taliban-style government is better than the current autocrats. So, it follows that what the Islamists want is a government essentially of even more tyranny than the current crop, since the current Arab autocrats, though far from perfect, have a better human rights record and general prosperity for its people than did the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Hmmm. So by that rationale, the ‘oppressed’ poor and filthy Arabs you refer to aren’t revolting because they want more freedom or rights, to which most Westerners could legitimately be sympathetic - they actually think that their current governments are too liberal and prefer Sharia law. It’s not more rights they want, but fewer. It’s not more property rights and thus a better economy, it’s less and a weaker, more archaic economy.
So we don’t have an uprising of people against tyrants wanting more freedom, but people wanting a new order of Taliban. It is a brand of fascism, and it should be dealt with in the only way that is effective with fascism - annhiliation. That annhiliation doesn’t have to come from a series of missile strikes, of course - more than anything, it must come from the liberal Muslims that reject Islamism.
But as self-declared enemies of the West, it is a recipe for disaster to try and ‘understand’ grievances that aren’t legitimate or nourished by some sense of decency. There are many groups of poor, disenfranchised groups of people around the world - and, in fairness, some of the West’s policies has made their lot in life worse. But only Sunni Muslims feel like they have the privilege of mass-murdering thousands of innocent civilians by surprise. You materialist-determinist theory fails because the non-Arab poor of the world do not feel entitled to bring death and destruction that same way as Islamists. So, no sympathy on that cause.
Whew. I’m spent.