Chief rabbi and premier seek engagement while realpolitik dictates intervention

I was delighted to read a Sunday Times article containing extracts of the speeches made by Chief Rabbi Warren Goldstein and Western Cape Premier Ebrahim Rasool at the “Sharing Ideas for the Future public forum”.

There is no doubting their sincerity in calling on Jews and Muslims to rejoice in their own identity, while seeking to engage members of the other faith.

Indeed, they believe it imperative, in the interests of all faiths and even those who do not believe in religion, to build bridges through understanding and tolerance.

I have, in my posts, gone a step further and called on people to try to ascertain the true nature of Muslim and Jewish aspirations in order that engagement be commenced from that platform, as opposed to what the media and interest groups would have you believe is the starting point.

You cannot, for example, classify a Muslim as an extremist if the mainstream religion holds the exact same views.

It is pointless saying Muslim moderates would not condone a certain type of behaviour, when the behaviour concerned may well be the core of the majority’s beliefs.

And having established that, you can then seek greater understanding and tolerance between the groups because your starting point is based on the reality on the ground. Imposing your own ideas of what Muslim moderates should look like is a recipe for resentment and disaster.

Negotiations wherein the parties are speaking to self-conceived models of what you believe Muslims should believe, rather than what their true beliefs are, can never succeed.

Into this melting pot must then be thrown the political and economic realities of this planet.

While we would like to think that we are all well read and up to date with the latest trends, I cannot help but think that most of the time we are missing the wood for the trees.

Yesterday the Washington Post had an article from a former CIA case officer who was involved in the search for Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction.

What is abundantly clear, from his recollections of his time in Iraq, is that while he was genuinely searching for the WMDs, the decision to launch the invasion was already a fait accompli.

The geopolitical considerations for invading a sovereign country outweighed any need for a smoking gun. That could be found later if needs be.

In other words, all the talk of extremism, negotiations, the necessity of bringing stability or democracy to the region was just padding, because come what may, for more compelling reasons, that invasion was going to take place.

In simple terms, economics.

The Sunday edition of the New York Times had a very interesting article in its business section. It confirms that many of the world’s oil suppliers are going to become importers of oil in the next few years. This is going to produce the second-biggest threat to oil supply within the next decade.

At present the United States consumes almost a quarter of the world’s oil. China and India are going to see enormous increase in their demands for oil as their economies continue to expand rapidly.

Partial solutions can be found in Canada, for example, but greater political stability and drilling is required in Iran, Iraq and Venezuela, according to the report.

What is clear is that in order to maintain not only its lifestyle but also its position as the world’s hyperpower, the United States will be forced to dominate the Middle East.

The reality is that it is forced to maintain a presence in the region or face the prospect of being held hostage over a barrel of oil.

As we have seen in the Washington Post article, when political and economic factors dictate, then any means necessary to fulfil those needs will be used.

Where I differ from the article in the New York Times is that I believe that it is in instability in the region that the US can seek solutions to its own problems; that is, impending energy shortages.

Any attempt at a caliphate or broader Arab state must therefore be seen as a threat and its proponents deemed to be extremists — even though this may well express the hopes and aspirations of the majority of Muslims in the region.

Conveniently it is the threat of Sunni against Shi’ite, Muslim against Jews, which necessitates not only the continued presence of US armed forces but also the wholesale arming of pro-American countries in the region.

The reality is that while the need for oil remains the primary source of energy, the region will remain destabilised regardless of any paradigm shift in the thinking of Jews and Muslims.

Professors Mearsheimer and Walt used the Israel Lobby; Bush and Blair spoke of WMDs and a need for democracy as the basis for invading Iraq.

Neither stands up to close scrutiny.

They can’t because they are each based on a false premise.

The US cannot leave Iraq ; even if it adopts an exit strategy it will still claim that it is necessary to maintain a substantial presence in the area, because of the geopolitical factors described above.

The hostility between groups has to be maintained until it no longer serves a purpose.

Hostility in the region translates into hostility worldwide and it is against that that the highly commendable efforts of the Muslims and Jews of South Africa must be seen and a measure of caution introduced.

It is all very well to promote engagement, but along with that comes a duty to educate the people of our country that sometimes intervening factors, driven by powerful interest groups, may well play a part in ensuring that hatred is maintained.

The hatred provides the basis for intervening where otherwise it would be adjudged as pure aggression based on attaining strategic goals.

Perhaps the members of the ANC who attend the conference this weekend may learn a lesson from that and bring us a government that is united in the interest of all our citizens.