Monday, May 21, 2007

palestine has to be solved: king abdallah

this morning i watched a bbc interview with jordan's king abdallah. nothing he said was new but nothing he said was unimportant.

king abdallah openly stated, emphasized and underlined that the crisis in the near east, the crisis at the core, is the palestine - israeli conflict. unless that is resolved, he itirated, there can be no peace, no solution to any other issue plagueing the region.

the interview came just as lebanon is once more being drawn into the cauldron of war, after having regained its prosperity - the sole reason being the intransigent ignorance of muslim militants or militant muslims, who, instead of creating or participating in any productive economic activity, prefer to function as semi-amateur mercenaries for the axis of evil between syria and iran, killing and dying as pawns in somebody else's war.

anybody with slightly more equipment for cogitation than the dimwit(s) who claim "ariel sharon is (was?) a man of peace" is aware that unless a more equitable balance between israel and the palestinians is struck than what war and raw power dictate, the very porous near east powder keg will keep on catching fire from one hole or the other.

even the cause of the main trouble in palestine today, the electoral victory of hamas is a metastasis of the same cancer. because israel found an excuse for its belligerent policies in the late yasir arafat's opportunistic incompliance and corrupt regime, hamas could come to power.

then again, the other problematic issues in the region, the matter of iran and its nuclear ambitions; syria, whose main industry in the last three decades has been terror and insurgence; iraq, which is the main and frequently only concern of the west; are all offshoots of the essential trouble between israel and palestine.

that is what king abdallah tried to draw into the very british field of vision of the bbc interviewer; who kept trying to put -especially- iraq on the burner as the main menu.

i have little love to lose for the english. i am, admittedly, an established anglophobe. however, the insistence of the bbc journalist to draw abdallah into debating iraq and iran, with his carefully modulated ox-bridge tones and manners, the slightly condescending attitude when speaking to the wog (*) king of a state, virtually created by "great" britain, while simultaneously paying obeisance to him because the king is a far larger piece of the establishment in which he is a minor pawn; would have done away with most sympathy, if i had any to spare (**).

the passive aggressive technique he employed is taught in interrogation 101 classes, to people whose job is to question others for garnering information, and does not necessarily always manifest the biases of the interviewer. he actually intends to draw out the speaker / confessor by implicitly contrasting him, without putting forth any real contrary argument. i believe the british educated king, too, is hardly alien to the technique, though there is no reasonable cause to accuse him of complicity with the bbc. furthermore, yes, i am an anglophobe but politically, i am not that quite often anti-british. her majesty's governments have had a far deeper grasp of the near east than the u.s., even better than bill clinton, and seem to be more aware that there can be no settlement to any of the dangerously escalating hostilities in the region.

lo... even antonius blarus was conscious of that and did try to warn dubya!..

iran's main and most utilitarian armament is not the shahab missiles, it is the perceived injustice against the palestinian people. hamas? that is just an egg laid by the anka, the mythical giant bird of the persians that signifies the empire(s) of iran.

(*) westernized oriental gentleman
(**) i am not essentially an undistinguishing lover of the human race and have a grand capacity to hate and despise all nations and their states with equanimity but i do reserve some credit to advance to some races. among her majesty the queen's subjects, the irish and, be "british" as they may, the scots are entitled to it. i used to like queen elizabeth personally but in my heart, although i think i understand her motives, she is badly implicated in the princess diana tragedy. nevertheless i may forgive her if she outlives charles or persuades him not to succeed and thus spares the world a king of brittania who reminds me (and possibly many more) of alfred e. neumann, the symbolic face we used to see often on the cover of mad magazine when we were kids.

No comments: