>> "Robert Houghton" <robert45@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:000701c897f2$8f3a1f90$537089c3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> DKleinecke <dkleine...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Apr 20, 12:59 pm
<snip> ...
>> Peace, for orthodox Muslims, is just an interlude ...
<snip> ...
> The second duty is a large weasel (a wolverine at least). Of course,
> nobody expects the Muslims to obey any treaty "except under compulsion
> and necessity." Nor do they expect Jews to obey them "except under
> compulsion and necessity."
> The first duty is mere rationalization. If a treaty is invalid then
> why waste a moment on it? Except under compulsion and necessity. As
> to the third - just exactly how a treaty is "overthrown" is a mystery
> to me. I can understand violations and abrogations. If "overthrow"
> means "abrogate" then there is nothing stopping one except the same
> old compulsion and necessity.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Obviously this "Peace, for orthodox Muslims, is just an interlude"
generalization is a load of cobblers. Any serious reader who has any
intelligent understanding of history in the Middle East would realize that
about this "Treaties" fabrication. The certainty of the ignorant one could
successfully argue.
For example, let's look at the Ottomans in fairly modern times regarding
this "Treaties" object. According Efraim Karsh and Inari Karsh:-
<Quote>
Despite the persistent efforts of a small number of Ottomanists, the
general
approach to late Ottoman history has been limited to explaining it within
the context of the so-called Eastern Question, which in effect describes a
great game among the great powers of Europe who were eager to partition
the
estate of a sick man. This approach finds it unnecessary to take internal
factors into consideration, since they lack the im****tance of a single
'note
verbale' from the foreign office of a great power. This approach is also
rather convenient: it saves the student of history from the burden of
examining the records of the "sick man," since they have no value in
understanding the great game. Thus the studies that attempt to explain
what
happened in this periphery are heavily based on European sources. Although
no one would give credence to a work on modern Spanish history depending
solely on British Foreign Office papers, such works have become standard
on
the late Ottoman Empire in European and American academia.
Interestingly, while many challenges to this approach by Ottomanists have
fallen on deaf ears, a challenge coming from within has caused an
unmistakable stir in the aforementioned academic circles. ... [Efraim
Karsh
and Inari Karsh - "Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the
Middle East 1789-1923] ...
<Unquote> ...
This book by Efraim Karsh and Inari Karsh has the merit of providing some
of the basic information about late Ottoman history that was sidelined by
traditional essays on the Eastern Question, which maintained that the main
bone of contention between the Ottomans and the European powers was
religious, stemming from Ottoman ill-treatment of their non-Muslim
subjects.
The authors argue that "there was no clash of civilisations" and that
Middle
Eastern political actors, including the Ottoman leader****p, often sought
"infidel" sup****t. Ottoman treaties of alliance with Christian powers, for
instance, go back as far as 1536. During the Wahhabi revolt, the Ottoman
government seriously considered soliciting the sup****t of the Royal Navy
to
defeat rebels who had gained the upper hand in the Persian Gulf.
In addition, Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain emerged as autonomous regions
within
the Ottoman Empire as a result of the grant of British protection to them,
and almost every sheikh sought British sup****t against the centralization
program of the Ottomans. The so-called Idrs state in Asr also owed its
short-lived existence to Italian and later British sup****t for Muhammad
bin
Al al-Idrs.
AND :-
<Quote> ...
Macfie's chronological approach examines Great Power involvement in the
Near
East from the Russo-Turkish War of 1768-1774 to the Treaty of Lausanne in
1923. Twelve short chapters treat such Eastern episodes as tsarist
expansion
in the Black Sea area, Napoleon's invasion of Egypt, the Greek War of
Independence, Mehmet Ali and the Egyptian Question, the Crimean War, the
Eastern Crisis of 1875-1878, the Bosnian Annexation of 1908, the Balkan
Wars
of 1912-1913, the Great War, and the Peace Settlement of 1918-1923. The
do***ents section includes clauses of landmark treaties, such as
Kutchuk-Kainardji (1774) between Russia and Ottoman Turkey; decrees by
government ministries and committees on Great Power reactions to Eastern
crises; and re****ts by diplomatic and consular officials on the status of
the Ottoman Empire. ... [A. L. Macfie. The Eastern Question, 1774-1923.]
<Unquote> ...
Interested readers can do their own independent historical research into,
for instance, the Treaty of Carlowitz, Treaty of Kuchuk Kainardji, Treaty
of
The Defensive Alliance, Treaty of Tillsit, Treaty of Bucharest, Treaty of
London, and the Congress of Vienna, to check out these "Treaty" facts for
themselves.
--
Peace
--
The opinion of the intelligent is worth more than the certitude of the
ignorant. [Arab Proverb]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko.azumazi@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
