>I just discovered Juan Cole and his excellent blog Informed Comment. Read an interview with Cole here, where he talks about his new book Engaging the Muslim World, and check out his speech in the video below (what I write in this article is pretty much what he says in his first part of the video).

In his book he calls for a different kind of relationship between the United States and the Muslim majority states than what we’ve been seeing in recent years. The US, from the point of view of the Muslim world (and pretty much the whole wide world), has been acting aggressively in the region. It’s quite obvious that US policy is not a force for stability.

A lot of US policy is made on poor information, poor perception and poor judgement about the Muslim world, and you see this everyday when people are discussing Muslim issues. Even when people you thought was intellectually aware of some of the things going on in the world, you get these prejudiced comments that just reeks of fear and ignorance. Check the commentary discussions here (in Swedish) for an excellent example.

Juan Cole clearly admits that there’s a lot to be done when it comes to equal rights, gender segregation and so forth in the Muslim world, but the real question to start with is this: ”How shall these problems be adressed?”
The idea that the United States can liberate Muslim women by force of arms, which has been openly and frankly stated by US military officers and so forth, is bizarre. Cole says: ”I grew up on army bases and I love the US military, but it is not liberated with regard to views of women. The idea that they’re going to liberate women is a little bit…unlikely”.
To say the least.

An interesting Bin Laden quote:
”If I hated the Western way of life I would have hit Sweden”.

The fundamentalists do not hate the US way of life. They hate the American policy, and the specific policies they don’t like is Israel-Palestine, Iraq and to some extent the Afghanistan war. It’s hard not to blame them for hating that. Too bad they are forced to violence to get their point across.

Cole is confident that the US withdrawal from Iraq will be welcomed by the Muslim world and bring new opportunities for repairing US’ relationship with those countries. However, something must be done about Palestine. We haven’t seen much there at all. People are waiting to see practical steps.

Gaza is a humanitarian disaster, and it is the result of deliberate policy. Also, it’s an obvious warcrime going on over there. They are starving Palestine’s children to get a political result, which is just sickening. And now the Israelis have plans for 75 000 new housing units in the West Bank, and Hillary Clinton says: ”We’re gonna restart the peace process”.
How the hell can you have a peace process when there’s land theft going on in front of everybody’s eyes?
The right wing government forming in Israel right now has clearly rejected the whole idea of giving back the West Bank. That issue will continue to fester and it will continue to cause terrorism.

Cole says that Israeli policy is digging its own grave and soon must suffer sanctions from Europe. Its economy is dependent on its relationship (economic, technological and diplomatic) with Europe and Israel simply cannot ignore sanctions. The problem is that it’s not happening.

Fact is that the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are stateless.
Cole says:
”The minimum necessity for a dignified life in the contemporary world is citizenship in a state. Without citizenship, without a state, an individual has no real rights. You can see this, because Palestinian property is being taken at will everyday. It’s unacceptable that 3,5 million people in the West Bank and Gaza should be without citizenship, nor that refugees in Lebanon and elsewhere remain that way. And you know, it’s ironic because in 1938-39 Hitler stripped the Jews in Czechoslovakia from citizenship and they became stateless. And at the same time in 1939 the British government called for restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine. And there was an uproar that you now have 100 000 newly stateless Jews and the British are not letting them go to the one place where they could get papers. So statelessness was a human rights issue in 1938-39. Statelessness should be a human rights issue today”.

>Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva: “This is a crisis that was caused by people, white with blue eyes. And before the crisis they looked as if they knew everything about economics. Once again the great part of the poor in the world that were still not yet [getting] their share of development that was caused by globalisation, they were the first ones to suffer. Since I am not acquainted with any black bankers, I can only say that this part of humanity that is the major victim of the world crisis, these people should pay for the crisis? I cannot accept that. If the G20 becomes a meeting just to set another meeting, we’ll be discredited and the crisis can deepen.”
The Independent

Let’s say a president said “XXX was caused by black people”. Whoa! Hello race war!
To me this isn’t about race or the colour of the skin. It’s about power and extreme capitalist ideology, and yes, the crisis is the fault of Western bankers and Western politicians – but the traits of greed, corruption and ignorance are definitely colour blind.

One of the comments to the article concludes: “Politicians created the bloody regulatory environment, banks abused it and foreign governments of the developing World milked it.”

And the worst is yet to come…

>

The yellow parts are uninhabitable desert.
The brown parts are uninhabitable due to
floods, drought or extreme weather.

If the planet warms by 4 °C – as it might by 2099 – it will change beyond all recognition, says Gaia Vince in an article in New Scientist. The article closes with the quote of Nobel prizewinning atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen: “I would like to be optimistic that we’ll survive, but I’ve got no good reason to be. In order to be safe, we would have to reduce our carbon emissions by 70 per cent by 2015. We are currently putting in 3 per cent more each year.”

Reducing emissions by 70 per cent in six years? That will never happen. Never. Mankind is simply too dumb.
People will definitely be forced to migrate in order to survive. It will require “a wholesale relocation of the world’s population according to the geography of resources”, meaning moving people where the water is. In the northern hemisphere they’ll end up in Scandinavia, Siberia and Canada. In the southern hemisphere, “Patagonia, Tasmania and the far north of Australia, New Zealand and perhaps newly ice-free parts of the western Antarctic coast”.
Like a friend of mine just said: “Soon you’ll be begging us to let you move to Sweden”…

You might also want to read A survey of the the sea: Troubled waters, a series of nine articles in The Economist. Start with the first one, Troubled waters, and read on.
“It is clear, in any event, that man must change his ways. Humans could afford to treat the sea as an infinite resource when they were relatively few in number, capable of only rather inefficient exploitation of the vasty deep and without as yet a taste for fossil fuels. A world of 6.7 billion souls, set to become 9 billion by 2050, can no longer do so. The possibility of widespread catastrophe is simply too great.”