Hollie, georgephillip, loinboy,
et al,
Americans can hardly be aware of how diplomacy has once again failed, for a simple reason: Virtually nothing is reported in the United States about the fate of the most obvious way to address – "the gravest threat" –
Establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.
Noam Chomsky
(PREFACE)
In any discussion on this topic
(International World Threat), that involves Israel, it is probably better to forget Noam Chomsky. Not because of what Chomsky says is irrelevant, but because he has become so divisive himself; which derails and diminishes the importance of anything he has to say.
The topic itself, presupposes, that the "gravest threat" has anything at all to do with the Middle East and the "classic dispute" between the Muslim World and everyone/everything non-Muslim. And while no one can argue that this "classic dispute" is not one of the most important topics of the day, it is rather impetuous to believe it is the gravest of threats. The "classic dispute" between the inhabitants of the Middle East/Persian Gulf Region and the rest of the World has been around for more and three millenium. And if they survive, it will be around for another three millenium, popping in and out of the history of importance like a sine-wave through time. Today, they have a piece of the stage, with Iran wanting parity with Israel on nuclear weapons, and the Palestinians wanting the world to believe they are the owners of a piece of land that has been conquered so many times, that they forget that they are not a unified people.
(CLARIFICATION)
Threat is a matter of perception.
- What is a threat to you, may not be a threat to me.
- What situations intimidate you, may not intimidate me.
- What is perilous to you, may not be perilous to me.
The perception is affected by the level
(very Maslow-ish) and proximity of the threat in time and space.
[(A 122mm Rocket looks more impressive if it lands in your row of CHUs than if it lands across the river.)(A crash on Wall Street is more impressive to the upper 1% of the elite than it is to me in the lower quarter of the economy.)(Unemployment has an impact on the working class, but doesn't on the independently wealthy.)]
When we talk about the "World Threat," it means something much different than it does when we say a "Threat to America." Americans have a tendency to consider these interchangeable; that is, what threatens America, threatens the world. But this is not necessarily the case. The outcome of the Iraq and Afghan military adventures is not of the same level of importance to the Pacific nations or Africa, as it is to America. The same can be said, is true for the Persian Gulf.
(COMMENT)
So the questions remains: What is the Gravest Threat to World Peace? Is it
(really) Middle Eastern/Persian Gulf centric? Has it anything to do with:
- Israel
- The Palestinian Issue
- Iran
- Nuclear Weapons
OR, is it based on the emerging political-economic hegemonies, and the distribution of energy?
While I respect the commentary of Noam Chomsky, and his perspective, I believe him to be wrong. His perspective, if tightened down to just the one (of several) regional issues, then --- there might be some validity to his thesis. But examining the threat on a global scale,
I say he is (no disrespect intended to his academic prowess, or his youthful experiences as an undergrad in the HaZore'a Kibbutz) a bit naive.
Most Respectfully,
R