Unlike last time, I'll try to keep today's post brief.  I'd like, however, to build on the last post, so it's essential that you read that first if you haven't already done so.

It is without a doubt that corruption in the Middle East & North Africa (MENA) needs to come to a halt.  This double edged sword is not only a challenging feat, but one that will likely change the political landscape for the entire World.   It is no secret that despite all the negative publicity & media, Islam is the fastest growing religion (by conversion & by birth rate, etc.).  Unlike the stereotypes out there, Islam continues to spread by the action of its practitioners; and not by the sword or as much as a twist of an arm, of anyone.  Reverts to Islam, as they're commonly known, are doing so all on their own ... and in huge numbers.

Where am I going with this ... Indulge me please.

I may have mentioned this before, and I know I've done so on Twitter, but we (the US) give more to Israel than we do the rest of the World combined!  As an American, a tax-paying American, I would love to know why.  It gets worse.  Do you know who receives our next biggest financial support?  Egypt does.  Hmmm ... I wonder why.   As an American, especially given our current economic state, our decades-on-end-long health care issues, etc. I say that money belongs here ... belongs within our borders.  It is no surprise that our foreign policies in the MENA region in particular are unsuccessful.

Let me paint a picture of my theory for you, if I may ...
I once asked (it doesn't matter who) why we give so much to Israel and was told that it's to minimize the number of Jews in the country.  Now many won't agree with what I'm about to say (especially some Muslims), but American Jews have the right to be here like all other non-Christians.  I'll elaborate on the "non-Christian" part here shortly.  The foundation of this country is free of religious bias and as such American Jews not only deserve to be here, but have the right to be here.  So why, you might wonder, would we (certain members of our government) want the Jewish population minimized?  Surprisingly, I was told (in no exact quote) "to look at history and what the Jews have done in every country they've inhabited.  They usually run the financial system and bring with them, in due time, some sort of major events (wars, etc.)."  First and foremost, I denounce that mentality and will never support a stereotype.  That's right, it's a stereotype to think that what might have been caused by a few (especially in the past) will repeat by people of the same race, gender, religion, etc.

I was also told that, Biblically-speaking, the return of Jesus Christ will not take place until all of the Jews have returned to Israel.  But we (again, the US) have a system of separation between "church" and State!?  Hmmm, let me think about this a little more ...  We have predominately Christian country that fundamentally knows that Jews don't believe in their message or Messenger, much less in the divinity, trinity, etc.  One that could want to support the Jews to either "minimize" them or to fulfill a Biblical prophecy, and a Jewish population that's all for the result of creating a Jewish State .... hmmmm.

Yet, ask any person why we support Israel and the likely answer you'd get is one fed by the media, and likely by the very groups that likely support my theory above, that it's to support the only democracy in the region.  As in my analogy at the end of the last post, Israel (which if you haven't figured out from my analogy is the Canada in that example), is no democracy.  It is the only nation to violate its own laws; but more importantly, violating the many resolutions of the UN.  No other country has defied so many resolutions, and lived to tell about it without major regime/political change that most likely was spearheaded by the US, NATO or the UN itself.  I could go into why Israel can get away with it, but I can summarize all of that into one short sentence:  The US has veto rights in the UN, and it uses them when it comes to the benefit of Israel.

So let's take that analogy from my last post a bit farther:  It's a fact that we (again, the US) supply Israel most, if not all, of its weapons; down to each bullet.  And let's put my theory above aside for now, since it is a theory ... All neighboring countries of Israel, many within Israel itself (including some Jews), the many (albeit vetoed) UN resolutions and more importantly than all the political hogwash put together is the state of people within Israeli borders show that Israel is not democratic.  It may hold democratic elections for its head of state, but even Iran holds elections and it's not democratic by any US-standards.  And if anyone should argue that many of the people within Israel's borders aren't the responsibility of the Jewish State, especially since they launch attacks back Israel, then I ask why is there a wall, why aren't those people independent, why aren't they allowed to have their own country, etc.?  Don't let the news outlets tell you what to think.  Don't let them mix up what Hamas or Fatah is or is not.  Forget those power-hungry and misled wanna-be political factions who take prisoners from each other (in violation of Islamic teachings) ... forget them.  Instead, look at the people.  Look at where they get their resources from.  The "West Bank" has a wall two-thirds around it, and the one-third is the border between Israel and Jordan created by a natural border first (the Jordan river), which they don't have access to use.  The only way to survive is to grow what they have, and capture as much water from the often interrupted water supply that Israel is generous enough to allow them to have at its will.  Those on the southern tip of Israel, in Gaza, are in even worse condition.  They're occupied by more than one force:  In one hand, you have Israel controlling its borders from the land and sea  —Literally shooting down anything that might cross in or out without their permission.  In another hand, you have the two hypocrites each pushing its own agenda:  Fatah and Hamas.  And finally, you have the one international border that they (in Gaza) have, the border with Egypt  —Which is controlled by Israel and Egypt.  So looking at it politically, they're surrounded and the mercy of others.

Those who got out of either the West Bank or Gaza are usually watching the rest of their families from the outside conflicted with happiness to not be there and with great pain for what they're experiencing.  Go back to that analogy from my last post and tell me what would you do?  It's not like you can go to any of the neighboring country rulers, they're corrupt.  It's not like you can talk to the UN —Others mightier have tried.  It's not like you can go to the US.  But that's your mother still in there.  That's your sister.  Your youngest son and wife are still there.  You can't keep strolling the borders thinking of what to do.

In all of this, you're likely imagining Muslims.  But this is the birthplace of Jesus and Christianity.  Make no mistake that many of the Christian Arabs ... the Christian Palestinians ... are the ones that are being silenced just the same.  Israel can't afford to have their screams get out.  Like their Muslim cousins, Christian Arabs mistakenly start to direct their anger towards Jews initially; and all that's done in the name of "democracy" next —Specifically, towards us here in the US.  And it may come as a surprise to many of you, especially based on what I read on Twitter, that Muslims believe in Jesus, in his miraculous birth, in his virgin mother Mary and in the Bible.  Muslims also believe in The Torah (the book of the Jews).  Not only believe in them, but they cannot be Muslims without believing in them.  Muslims have a chapter of the Qur'an named after Mary, the mother of Jesus; as well as a Chapter named after her family (the family of Imraan).  It may even surprise you more to learn that Jesus was mentioned more times than the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, in the Qur'an.  Back to the topic ...

Christians, however, don't have a religious location as a possible point of dispute with Israel.  Israel wouldn't dare, given the far reach and the power of Christendom.  The Vatican alone could raise war against Israel should any of those locations get harmed.  But that's not the case with Muslims.  Muslims don't have a "center" to represent them.  They've allowed themselves to be separated by foreign imposed borders.  And don't let the media fool you once again into thinking that Saudi is in any way that center.  Makkah is the holy land, which happens to be in current-day Saudi Arabia.  Saudi as a government is perhaps at the base of all the corruption I mentioned in the MENA region.  With what one of their princes has for lunch for him and his guests, most of which is untouched & is thrown out, he can easily feed a starving village.  Not just any village, but a Muslim village; perhaps even a small town.  Saudi has more than 25% of its own citizens under the line of poverty.  And that's no joke!  If they're not amongst the families (as extended as that may be) of the 5000+ princes and tribesman ("royals"), then they're not entitled to the oil money that gets distributed.  That's a book in and of itself, but others have done a much better job.  As you can see Saudi is definitely not the "center" of Islam, if they had one.

For Muslims to have such a "center" would require something similar to the Vatican.  Muslims would call that the Khilafah; at the head of which is a Khalifah (aka a Caliph)  —Best, but loosely, translated as an entrusted successor.  Again, don't let the media, and all who control it, teach you what you ought to learn on your own.  Heck, don't even take my word for it; instead, go read about whatever it is you have doubts about, questions, etc.  And rest assured that I'm more than happy to answer any of your questions as best I can.  So why don't the Muslims have a Khalifah?  Let me make this other point of reference and circle back to that answer, if you don't mind.

As I mentioned in my last post (sorry for the repeated reference), most of the countries in the MENA region should not be countries in the first place.  They remain as such by corrupt leaders and governments despite what the people want.  And unlike Christendom, an accepted Khalifah would reside over all Muslims eventually (after being a Khalifah over the main sect of Islam: Sunnis, and quickly accepted by all others who are sure to follow); which is over one-fifth of the World population.  Whereas the Vatican, despite its wealth and power, is mainly limited to Catholics (out of the many "sects" in Christianity, that is).  To protect our (the US) interests in the region, whether that be oil, strategic location or even (going back to my theory above) the source of Christianity (despite the supposed separation of State and "church"), we simply couldn't allow that.  We, the US, could not allow a center state and/or figure of Islam to rise as it will very likely result in the unity of all Muslims rendering potentially one-fifth of the entire World under one banner.  Regardless of what that banner might be, one-fifth of the World across such a strategic and economic area covering what used to be the Muslim Empire, would literally mean the US is no longer the superpower it is today.  Even without any conflicts what-so-ever, the US as a superpower would be a distant second in the World arena.  The number of nukes we would have would be useless unless we want to destroy the planet as a whole.

To allow the people of the corrupt MENA region to rise against their governments would mean a convergence towards what unites them all.  And while Arabic as a language might be the common factor, it's not the likely fabric of their unity.  It most likely will be the dominant religion of the entire region:  Islam.  Once Muslims start to unite, which would only take two or three countries to do so, it won't be long at all before a Khilafah would surface.  And as I mentioned in the last paragraph, that's not really in the best interest of any power, super or not.  That includes England (why do you think they split up the MENA region into their current borders in the 1st place?), the US, France, Spain, etc.  Don't be a cynic, or an absolute ignorant buffoon, and suggest like many of the uneducated, that a unity within Islam would mean a military war that Muslims would rage against all its neighbors with the intent for World domination.  That's absurd.  Go back and look at history.  Islam, like all other religions tries to spread its message.  Yes; but that's no different than the missionaries led by the LDS church, the Catholic church, the Baptist church, Christianity as a whole, etc. today.  But I'm more than happy to talk about that should anyone chose to go down that path ... just drop me an email.

The question that you must ask yourself is:  If we allow the people to chose what they want, isn't that democracy at its finest?  Or it's only democratic if we dictate it to them?  Or is it only democratic as long as they don't pick Islam?  Listen to what you're really saying.  Listen to the message you might be inflicting in your tone even if you don't say it.

Let's circle back and tie a few loose ends, shall we?

Islam is spreading now despite the corruption in the MENA region, the negative media frenzy, and the efforts of so many.  And it's amongst the fastest spreading religions out there (looking at conversion alone); although I cannot say with certainty that it is the fastest spreading religion out there based on conversion (reverts) alone.  The fact remains that it is growing.   And as such, a day might come when that number will make a difference for Muslims!  Until then, it's not too difficult to fathom that some population control might be exercised.  Pick any region in the World, and it won't be a surprise that Muslims are being killed or have been killed there (click on picture #9 in this link for another example).  You can be naive and think that Muslims bring it on themselves; but that's no different from saying that a woman brings it on herself to be raped ... Neither is acceptable or true.  To stereotype Muslims and think that they're all terrorists, and as such deserve being killed, makes you no different than Hitler.  And if we're judging the actions of the few to represent the many, then the same can be said about Christians, and based on the above, about Jews too. 

The fact is, that religion aside, the MENA region is kept under control by allowing the status quo.  And as long as we as a nation continue to support the likes of Egypt and Israel, we will always be the target of hate, the reason of oppression in the region and the bad cops.  Instead, we need that money here, in house.  We need that money to support our growing elder community (baby boomers are almost all at that age), to renovate a much needed infrastructure (highways, etc.), revamp our health care system, and many others.  By keeping our own money in-house and redefining our foreign policy, we will emerge as the good guys by sheer inertia.  We stand to lose a few friends, but we'd gain back our security and rightful place in the World arena.  The likes of Israel, Egypt and Saudi (and probably much of the Persian Gulf) undoubtedly will cease to exist without our direct intervention and direct financial help; but they need to be independent to call themselves sovereign.  Our interests in the region will be served with partnerships, understanding and collaboration; not with pushing our weight around as a super power.  And if we couldn't work it out with the region, then we have enough resources to be independent.  And all of this would force us to be more international and instead of operating (as we are commonly viewed) in silos where we think the World revolves around us.  But all of this will require that we cease and desist all financial and military help in the region first, followed by a major redefinition of our currently-passive-aggressive foreign policy.

I can't wait until Obama holds true to his words and allows for true transparency in every dime our government spends.  I would love to see how much goes to the likes of Israel & Egypt; and how he, Congress, House, Senate, etc. would answer for that.

So much for keeping this post short.
I welcome your comments.