My rambling solution to Middle-East tensions: a beer in Switzerland

TEHRAN, Iran — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Friday called Israel's leaders a "group of terrorists" and threatened any country that supports the Jewish state.

"You imposed a group of terrorists ... on the region," Ahmadinejad said, addressing the U.S. and its allies. "It is in your own interest to distance yourself from these criminals... This is an ultimatum. Don't complain tomorrow."

"Nations will take revenge," he told a crowd of thousands gathered at a pro-Palestinian rally in the capital Tehran.

Ahmadinejad said Israel no longer had any reason to exist and would soon disappear.

"This regime, thanks to God, has lost the reason for its existence," he said.

"Efforts to stabilize this fake (Israeli) regime, by the grace of God, have completely failed... You should believe that this regime is disappearing," he said.

My only explanation for this - the reticence on the part of seemingly anyone in the world to denounce such talk from the leader of a state - is that most simply do not care that Israel is in real peril. Or, that they actually agree with Ahmadinejad. I tend to think it's more the prior than the latter. However, I've seen plenty of apathy and anti-semitism both.

Why would so many be so callous to the millions of Israelis just trying to survive as a nation? My guess is there is indeed some hatred of Jews in particular on the part of many. However, I think there's another reason that seems to go unnoticed (probably because it requires some examination of history - not a favorite topic of most).

The genesis of the modern Israel in some ways parallels the creation of many of the nations of the region: that is, it's a meal with a distinctly synthetic flavor. Israel was formulated through the actions of zionists in (primarily) the British government and their mouthpieces in the newly-formed U.N. Similarly, (Trans)Jordan and Iraq were created through such machinations following World War II. The borders of these nations are distinctly simple - straight lines often - which run through diverse people groups. Tolerance for straight lines in a crooked world runs very short. You can and will see the strife in places where peoples are forced to live in such synthetic states.

Mountains and rivers are typically fine borders, for these present natural (v. synthetic) territorial boundaries to humans. Does anyone think the situation in Iraq would be nearly so bad if the Kurds had a mountain range in between them and the Sunnis and similarly, the Sunnis and the Shia?

So what am I arguing? Probably what my Neocon friends do not wish to hear - that their nation-state building machinations are as doomed to failure as the other more leftist interventionist policies (such as welfare, social security, outcome-based education, etc.) for the very same reason: they are unnatural, running counter to both human aspirations and frailties.

In regard to Iraq, many have argued what you might think I am suggesting: that the current Iraq be divided into 3 states. I am not suggesting this. Rather, I am inclined to allow the people of the current Iraq to do as they may, without our continuing to force them to maintain the lines cast upon them by others. If they wish to remain as they are, let them. If not, let them. If they need to fight one another to determine the outcome, let them. This is the natural order of things: peoples fight one another for land and resources. To pretend otherwise is to run counter to history - never a good idea for long.

The Israelis used to get this. I'm not sure they still do.

What troubles most in the West regarding allowing Iraq to fracture (officially) is that the Shia of the south would almost certainly join with Iran and thus control the port of Basra and the oil fields surrounding. Great for Iran, scary for the civilized world. The Sunnis would get screwed, since they'd get the interior, without much oil and they'd be landlocked. The Kurds to the north would be landlocked as well, but they'd get a lot of oil. And this would totally piss-off the Turks, who have a sizeable Kurdish element in the southeast of Turkey, as well as the Iranians, who have Kurds in the northwest of Iran. The fear here being that these elements would secede from Turkey and Iran and join the Kurds of the former Iraq in a new Kurdistan, probably setting off another war.

Let's consider another angle of this situation. I tend to accept that the natural state of the region (or the world for that matter) is the preferable one, since all systems decay over time (entropy), devolving from synthetically ordered states to more natural ones. So, accepting this is how the region will settle once outside forces are removed, what is our best hope for a continued interest in the region?

Simply put: you ally yourself with people who indicate they want to be your friends (Hello: Israel, Kurdistan). You do not pretend to be friends with those who brazenly disrespect you (everyone else). You support your friends. You are clear with anyone claiming a desire to be your friend that you have boundaries and expectations. You woo them with honey, sure, but not without being clear about your standards. And if your friend screws up in some regard, you don't necessarily terminate the friendship, though you certainly reevaluate. If your friend ruins the lawnmower he borrowed, you don't lend him any other tools, but you might still have him over for dinner. If he's an honest chap, maybe he'll do the right thing and replace your mower. If not, you can always meet in neutral Switzerland for a beer now and then. He's buying, of course.

In other, related news, the European left wing is (finally) getting its collective underwear in a knot over radical Islamic influences in their lands. Welcome to reality, leftists! You really have to (start to) lose something before you realize the peril in which you exist. In the case of liberals, it is the arts, acceptance of homosexuality, etc. I'm glad that some are waking up. I'd just like to see them take the next logical leap and discover what I mentioned yesterday, that they have far more to fear from theocratically-minded Muslims than they do Christians.