Warily Eyeing Egypt, Israelis Feel Like Spectators

[oberliner]

JERUSALEM — After the Tunisian revolution and the emergence of a Hezbollah-backed government in Lebanon, Israelis are confronting another major jolt to the system as mass protests rock Egypt, the partner in Israel’s oldest and most important Middle East relationship.

While the recent upheavals have not been about Israel, they could have a potentially momentous impact on its future. Yet Israel, often a major player, now finds itself in the less familiar, and somewhat unnerving, role of spectator.

“When we say we are following events closely,” said an Israeli official, who insisted on anonymity because of the delicacy of the diplomatic situation, “That is the truth. There is not much else we can do.”

Israel has a special stake in Egypt’s stability. The two countries share a long border and signed a historic peace treaty in 1979, a cornerstone of the regional balance that has endured more than 30 years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/world/middleeast/27israel.html

[old mark]

1. Must be very interesting there...as if we were watching a violent revolution in Canada...nt

[oberliner]

2. The end of Mubarak's rule could be the end of Egypt-Israel peace agreements

The consequences could be far-reaching.

Especially if Muslim Brotherhood are the victors in all this.

[Hardrada]

3. Can't prop up tyrants forever.

[oberliner]

4. Hopefully one tyrant won't be replaced with another tyrant

I guess we will all have to wait and see how everything plays out.

[Ken Burch]

8. Mubarak's regime was never going to be eternal.

Dictatorships CAN'T be.

And this makes it even MORE crucial for Israel to end all repression against the people of Palestine.

[sabbat hunter]

25. Egypt has had

a dictatorship ever since the 50's when Nassar took over. Saudi Arabia has had one since the country was founded. China has had one since 1949. (either a singular one with Mao or a collective one with more recent leaders)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

26. Dictators can't be eternal.

But e.g the UK was a dictatorship (or dictatorships) for over a thousand years.

Do you have reasons to think that what follows Mubarak will be better rather than worse?

[Ken Burch]

30. I have reason to hope. Of course it always could be worse

But nothing can ever get better if Mubarak survives and hands over power to his son. There's no good reason for Egypt to be a perpetual one-party state or for the Egyptian presidency to be an imperial throne.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

31. Hope is a lousy way to make predictions.

If there are two chances in three things will get worse and one they'll get better, hope is no justification for taking the gamble.

[Ken Burch]

32. fear is no justification for leaving an unjust and untenable status quo in place.

Israel can't depend on peace deals made with tyrants. At some point those tyrants will be overthrown.

Israel needs to support everyone on the planet that's working for their own liberation, and stop being a puppet of U.S. imperialism.

And it needs to end the Occupation. There cannot be peace as long as the Occupation goes on and the settlements remain.

None of this is too much to ask.

Stability can only be built on a foundation of justice. You can't hold the people down forever. They couldn't even manage that in Eastern Europe.

What possible good could it do for Israel or those who claim to be "pro-Israeli" to support Mubarak and hope he hangs on? The man's turned the Egyptian presidency into a revival of the pharonic throne, and something like that can't be sustained in this day and age.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

33. I'm not convinced the consequences for Israel should determine Egyptian politics.

The question I would need to be confident of the answer to before joining calls for Mubarak to go is "what are the chances that what followed him would be better than him, and what are the chances it would be worse?".

That you talk about "hope" (and talk dismissively of fear) makes me worry that you may be trying to avoid thinking about that question, or at least that your attempts to answer it may not as objective as they might be.

I'm all in favour of replacing dictatorships by democracies, even ones with policies I don't like. I'm not in favour of overthrowing dictatorships if all that's going to result is another totalitarian state.

[Ken Burch]

34. Consequences for Israel shouldn't be the main consideration, of course

(I referenced that because this is the Israel/Palestine forum).

We can't know that things will be better if Mubarak goes. What we CAN know is that things can never be better if he stays in power. The whole point of Mubarak's career has been to prevent Egypt from having a secular, democratic political system. If he passes power on to his son, what chance is there of Egypt breaking from the status quo(Mubarak's insistence on forcing Egyptians to choose between his ONE party and a crazed ultra-religious opposition)at all? Mubarak is forcing Egyptian politics into a replication of the situation in late 1970's Iran-and why should anyone aid or abet him in that?

The point is, the only chance for improving things is to get rid of what now exists. There's nothing sustainable in the Egyptian status quo and no possibility that leaving Mubarak in power would ever lead to the development of a positive Egyptian political system for the future.

At the moment, it's back the protesters...or give up all hope. There IS no "pragmatic middle way".

[Donald Ian Rankin]

35. Things can get worse as well as better, and you seem to be talking around that.

What makes you think things getting better is more likely than things getting worse?

[Ken Burch]

36. OK...things could get worse if Mubarak falls.

But it's equally true that nothing can EVER get better if he survives, and you're talking around that. If Mubarak passes power on to his son, any chance for Egypt ceasing to be a police state if over for decades. You can't think that anything could be worth giving up on even the CHANCE to end the tyranny. If Mubarak wins, the next time the Egyptian people will decide that it's the Muslim Brotherhood or nothing. Is there anything that could possibly be worth THAT risk? Delaying the end of the Mubarak regime can't have any positive outcome at all.

There is nothing positive at all in the Egyptian status quo, and no possibility of there ever being change if it survives. You know that as well as I do.

[aranthus]

38. Classic leftist thinking.

I'm no supporter of Mubarak, and I hope the Egyptians dump him. But it simply isn't true that the only way things can get better is if Mubarak goes. In fact, things are likely to get worse if he goes, both for Egyptians and the rest of the Middle East. But it is typical of the Left to want to tear down what currently exists in the hope that something better can built on the ashes, and the conviction that the current system must be destroyed to make anything better. Both ideas are false to the point of being delusional. Did the Russian Revolution make life better for Russians? No, it made things worse. Did it make the world a better, safer place? Hardly. How about the revolutions in China, Cuba, the take over of North Korea, Cambodia, the overthrow of the Shah of Iran? Please. History is full of examples of what revolutions bring in their wake. The only way things get better is if people do the hard slow work of making them better from within. It takes the building of real civil societies, and moderate political ideals. I hope there has been enough of that laid down in Egypt for a revolution to succeed, but only a fool would bet that way.

[azurnoir]

39. are you equating Ken with Pol Pot ?n/t

[Ken Burch]

42. Probably.

n/t.

[azurnoir]

44. things seemed to have stabilized in Egypt

regardless of Mubarek being a tyrant or perhaps because of his being a tyrant, but think about this what if Egypt was to be totally destabilized and/or taken over by a government that did not meet with 'approval' of the US/Israel , during the time the peace accords were reached Egypt was under the auspices of the USSR who were apparently out bid by the US and the Israel was and still is under the US's now if the US were to withdraw it's support from Egypt who would they turn to Iran?

What would Israel do to protect it's 'security', of course?

[aranthus]

45. How do you get that?

I in no way equated Ken to anyone, let alone Pol Pot. What I was pointing out is that revolutions usually produce an outcome worse that the system they replaced. The French Revolution led to Napoleon. By saying that, am I equating you with Napoleon? Of course not. Nor am I saying that I want Mubarak to stay. What matters is how he goes, and what there might be around to replace him. Right now, the seriously organized power lies with the Muslim Brotherhood. If they gain control of Egypt, they will be so bad as to almost make Mubarak look like a good guy. What I am arguing for is a sense of realism.

[Ken Burch]

47. Keeping Mubarak in power can't possibly WEAKEN the Muslim Brotherhood

The longer he stays in, the stronger they inevitably get. Stalling for time achieves nothing.

There is no way to build anything democratic WHILE Mubarak stays in office. That's the point you're missing.

[tavalon]

149. I was saying that same thing a day or so ago

and the response I got was let the Egyptians decide what they get. Perhaps, nay, probably, it won't look like Western Democracy (which is looking awfully cracked and peeling lately - have you noticed?) but if it works for them and even if it includes a small faction of the Muslim Brotherhood, so be it.

[azurnoir]

53. then you seem to equate 'Leftists' to some of histories worst mass murders

did you forget Hitler I've heard that in some quarters he was a Leftist too.

[aranthus]

55. I'm not equating anything. Where do you get these ideas?

First as to Hitler. He was elected. He didn't take power in a popular revolution, so his example is not only noxious; it's totally irrelevant. Let's be clear. The question which I have put to you and Ken and the board is why Leftists seem to support revolutions of any stripe even though they have a very bad track record of success. You don't seem to have an answer to that, and so you have sidetracked the thread by falsely accusing me of noxious comparison and equating. Can you deal with the issue or not?

Let me try one last time and make this clear. Napoleon was not a Leftist, true? Did the people who supported the French Revolution think for even a second that it would lead to someone like Napoleon and over a decade of war? No. I doubt if anyone could have imagined it. The French Revolution is an example of a revolution which ended badly. Was Stalin a Leftist? Of course he was on the Left. Was the Russian Revolution supported by the Left, but not the Right? Of course it was. Did those Leftists who supported the Russian Revolution have an inkling that it was going to lead to Stalin and the Gulag? No they didn't. But the Russian Revolution is another example of a revolution which failed. Was Mao a Leftist? Of course he was. Was the Chinese Revolution supported by the Left, but not the Right? Of course it was. Did those Leftists who supported the Chinese Revolution have an inkling that it was going to lead to to the Cultural Revolution? No they didn't. But the Chinese Revolution is another example of a revolution which failed. I could say the same thing about Cuba. Was the Ayatollah Khomeini a Leftist? No, far from it. Was the Iranian revolution supported by the Left and not the Right? Yes, it was. Did those on the Left have an inkling that the Iranian Revolution was going to turn out so badly for Iran and the world? No they didn't. but after all the failed revolutions that came before, maybe they should have. Do you see the pattern now? It isn't that Leftists support horrors like the gulag or the Cultural Revolution. It's that they support each new revolution in the false hope that this time it won't end up like most of the revolutions before it. Why is that?

[Ken Burch]

73. Ok...we get it....upheavals have sometimes ended badly

In the case of China and Russia(the primary "left" revolutions)the problem was the vanguardist structure of the revolutionary party, a structure that had no accountability and no means to rein in any leaders who went on a power trip.

On today's Left, not much of anybody IS a conspiratorial vanguardist in the rigid sense that Mao and Lenin's inner circles were.

And the key factor you're forgetting, when it comes to this situation(other than the fact that we, sitting at our computer screens, have no real control over events in Cairo or anywhere else in the Middle East)is that, even if there were doubts about where things may go after Mubarak, there is no doubt that the pre-last week status quo in Egypt can't be preserved anyway, and even if it could be, there was no space within that status quo for the type of gradual political reform process you claim to support to occur. There simply IS no "civil society" in the Egypt of Hosni Mubarak, and there never was one.

[aranthus]

86. No. They mostly end badly.

Successful revolutions are very rare in history, and don't just happen.

[Ken Burch]

95. The Sandinista Revolution wasn't a repressive nightmare

And only ended because of the decade of brutal U.S. retribution against the people of Nicaragua. Allende's government was an electoral revolution, and would have succeeded(again)if only the U.S. had left Chile alone.

The Cuban model was far less repressive than the Soviet version(although it was still too repressive). And what you forget is that ALL those revolutions happened in situations in which no other realistic path to change was available. Clearly, Russia had to embrace some form of socialism in order to give the majority of people there a decent life, and clearly the wealthy were never going to allow that to happen democratically. Same thing in China(sadly), same thing in Cuba.

You are basically saying that the dispossesed should just give up and know their place.

As to saying that successful revolutions "don't just happen", well, what DOES make them happen? The American Revolution was just as brutal to Native Americans and African Americans, and in many respects working-class white Americans(in the latter case until the 1930's) as Stalinism was to those he repressed. That repression ONLY ended(assuming it has totally ended)in the 1960's, almost TWO HUNDRED YEARS after the revolution took power, and those who called for the end of such repression were accused of being "un-American"(or, in effect "counter-revolutionary")by those who wanted the repression kept in place or who(today)want it put BACK in place.

[azurnoir]

40. what about the Amerian Revolution that seems to have been a

success or will you claim otherwise somehow? your equating "leftists" with mass murders is IMO disgusting

[aranthus]

48. That's one out of how many failed revolutions just in the 20th century?

And I wasn't equating Leftists with mass murders (unless you believe Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were Leftists). Seriously, you have completely missed the point. The point being that it is the height of folly for Leftists to support virtually every revolution that comes down the pike (including at the time those in Russia and China), when most of them do lead to terrible things, including mass murder.

[Ken Burch]

61. You haven't presented any alternative to supporting the overthrow of Mubarak

You can't honestly believe that democracy could ever emerge while the existing one-party state stays in power.

[Ken Burch]

41. NO "hard slow work" CAN be done while Mubarak remains in power

He's always going to be against any change...just as the Shah was against any change.

Authoritarian regimes CAN'T evolve into democracies.

There's simply nothing to build ON in Mubarak's Egypt. There are no independent institutions, no "civil society", no indepedent media. And such things never develop while a dictatorship is in power.

Mubarak has never wanted a democratic Egypt, and we know that neither he nor his son can ever be MADE to accept one. His son will have to be just as repressive as he is(as was the case with Assad's son).

The groundwork for freedom can't be done under a police state.

[Ken Burch]

43. Oh, and no one on the left of today supports anything remotely like Pol Pot or Stalin.

So I'm waiting for your apology to all of us.

Besides, in terms of the Russian situation, what was the alternative? It couldn't have led to democracy and social justice to back Kerensky and stay in the insanity of World War One. Kerensky was always going to be controlled by the neo-Czarists and the consequences of the "Great War" were exclusively right-wing.

[aranthus]

46. I never said that.

So I don't owe you or anyone an apology. What I was doing is showing some of the numerous historical precedents for my point; revolutions usually lead to something worse. Look at most of the great revolutions of the last few centuries. The French Revolution led to Napoleon. No, I'm not suggesting that you supported Napoleon. It's just an example of a revolution gone wrong. The Russian Revolution led to Lenin, Stalin and the gulag. No, I'm not suggesting that you support any of that. It's just another of many examples of revolutions gone wrong. Likewise China, Korea, Cuba, Iran, etc. Are the conditions in Egypt any better than they were in those countries for the development of a mature democratic society out of the ashes of a revolution? No, they aren't. Yes, things could get better, but don't bet on it. What I was commenting on was the ability of some to support revolutions like this in spite of history, and without any real idea as to how a better society will result when the dust settles.

[Ken Burch]

49. There is risk in revolt. There is equal risk in non-revolt.

There's nothing safe OR redeeming in the Egyptian status quo.

[aranthus]

52. I believe that you are wrong.

What is safe about the status quo is that it can be changed peacefully by pressure from within. Revolutions are a shortcut to change, and are sometimes necessary. But they are extremely risky,and unless the groundwork for them has been carefully laid (as has not happened in Egypt), they are a very bad bet.

[Ken Burch]

57. There can't BE "pressure from within" in a system like Mubarak's

What part of "there's no space at all in the status quo" do you not get? Also, the opponents of the regime are unarmed, so they are acting peacefully in their rebellion. All the violence has come from the government side.

Basically, you're relying on the political analysis of Jeane Kirpatrick...and that's nothing any sane person SHOULD rely on, since relying on it puts you in the horrible position of hoping that most of the world remains locked under tyrannical rulers.

[LeftishBrit]

84. The status quo cannot always be changed peacefully from within.

I don't think there's a universal rule here. Sometimes revolution and regime change lead to something even worse (e.g. that which we imposed in Iraq!) Sometimes they lead to something much better.

But if someone is truly a dictator, how can one necessarily change the regime from within? People who try to, get dumped and marginalized at best, murdered or imprisoned at worst.

I am very aware of all the times when revolution has led to something worse, or just 'revolved 360 degrees', and led to a new boss the same as the old boss. But I have been racking my brains to think of any occasion where a dictatorship was replaced by democracy *just* by waiting for the dictator to retire or die, and supporting reform from within. I can only think of ONE example that could possibly come into that category: Spain in the 1970s which moved rapidly to democracy after Franco's death, with some of the groundwork having already been laid. But the circumstances were very different; for one thing Spain was unusual as being a rare dictatorship located amid liberal democracies, whereas most other Middle Eastern countries are no more democratic than Egypt.

[shira]

87. LB, there needs to be a strong secular movement in Egypt to carry out what we all want to see...

Sadly, that's lacking:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=342422&mesg_id=342649

In Tunisia, there's a strong middle class and a weak Islamist movement. THAT has a chance at succeeding.

Egypt is just the opposite and chances are things would get much worse.

[aranthus]

91. Exactly. n/t

[Ken Burch]

98. Keeping Mubarak in power couldn't possibly strengthen the secularists.

And what you're missing is that the status quo couldn't be preserved anyway, not without soaking the streets of Cairo with blood, a choice that even you would have to admit would make whatever Mubarak did after that inherently illegitimate.

[shira]

111. The Muslim Brotherhood in power would weaken the secularists more & make life worse for the region.

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[azurnoir]

99. Muslim Brotherhood chanting Allah Akbar. Crowd stopped them

chanting louder "Muslim, Christian, we're all Egyptian

ttp://twitter.com/democracynow


of course it is only twitter from those who are there in Egypt hardly as dependable as Barry Rubin, who is where right now?

[azurnoir]

104. Mohamed ElBaradei: Egypt's Potential Future Leader?

Mohamed ElBaradei's return to Egypt amidst protests seems to have become a rallying cry for democracy in Egypt.

The reasons for his widespread support are many, and the Nobel Peace Prize winner's credentials are impressive. The Egyptian expatriate was under self-imposed exile from Egypt until he returned to Cairo on Jan. 27. He is currently being detained by Egyptian authorities.

As head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), ElBaradei dedicated his career to the peaceful use of nuclear technology. He received the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in 2005, but chose not to run for a fourth term at the post in 2008.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/28/mohamed-elbaradei_n_815529.html

[Ken Burch]

97. And in Spain, fascism was ALMOST restored in two different coup attempts, in 1981 and 1982

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/23-F
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Spanish_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_attempt

[aranthus]

51. I think it's remarkable

that the first thought of both Ken and azurnoir was that I was somehow comparing an individual on this board to a mass murderer, or that I was accusing a person of this board of supporting someone like Stalin. Neither accusation is true, and I have no clue as to how either of you saw that in what I wrote. There is no such accusation in the post at all. As I have posted elsewhere, the examples given are some of the numerous revolutions around the world which have not merely failed, but have produced worse governments than they replaced. That's all the examples show, and all that they were intended for.

[LeftishBrit]

70. Not 'leftist' in particular

Supporting revolutions can, depending on the circumstances, be a characteristic of the left, right, or anything in between.

It was Right-wingers who toppled numerous governments, e.g. in Chile in the 1970s.

It was Right-wingers who took up arms to rebel against and secede from the United States government in 1861.

On a less extreme level, it was mostly conservatives such as Reagan who insisted on forcing the pace of change in the last days of the Soviet Union, instead of encouraging Gorbachev to carry out more gradual reforms from within: it's at least possible that the latter would have resulted in a more democratic Russia today.

It is the right-wing Tea Party that express the most revolutionary sentiments against the American government today.

It was right-wingers (Bush) and supposed centrists (Blair) who invaded Iraq to topple Saddam without considering that they might end up with something even worse.

Of course, leftists also often support regime change without sufficient attention to what may replace a regime. Some of this may IMO be happening on this thread. But it does not define the left in particular. Left-wingers and right-wingers differ mainly in terms of what sort of society they want: not in terms of how they wish to achieve it. Gradualism vs revolution; violence vs non-violence; desire to overthrow a bad regime vs considering that sometimes it may be best to 'keep a hold of Nurse/ For fear of finding something worse' - all of these distinctions can be found on both right and left.

And while I tend to support peaceful, gradualist solutions when they are possible, and am very aware that overthrowing a bad government often does result in just getting a worse a worse one - would you not agree that *some* revolutions have been necessary and/or successful? What about the American Revolution?

[aranthus]

85. As a general rule

the Right supports coups from above, while the Left supports bottom up revolutions. Chile was a coup. The overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran was a coup. Of course there are exceptions. The "advantage", if you can call it that, of a coup is that you generally know what you're going to get. In Iran, the US got the Shah, and decades of stability, which is what it wanted. Short sighted and evil, of course, but the US got what it intended to get for the most part. With a popular revolution, anything can happen, especially because they aren't well planned, if they are planned at all.

"On a less extreme level, it was mostly conservatives such as Reagan who insisted on forcing the pace of change in the last days of the Soviet Union, instead of encouraging Gorbachev to carry out more gradual reforms from within: it's at least possible that the latter would have resulted in a more democratic Russia today."

I completely agree with you on this. However, were the Republicans trying to create a real democracy in Russia or simply bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union?

And yes, there have been successful revolutions. However, they have been few and far between. Will those now sweeping the Middle East succeed? It's way too early to tell. I'm simply suggesting that people don't get their hopes up.

[LeftishBrit]

9. Agreed.

I had thought for a long time that the danger of what might eventually happen in Egypt, after the elderly Mubarak dies, might be the greatest threat to Israel ultimately, though everyone has been focussing on Iran. Now it looks as though the danger might be accelerated. I hope not - let's hope that this results in greater democracy for Egypt, or at least not in the replacement of one tyrant by an even worse tyrant.

[oberliner]

13. What is your feeling on how this will play out?

Any sense of it?

[aranthus]

37. Mubarak will likely survive for a while.

He's always been pretty good at keeping control. However, his son probably won't last. After that, the probable outcome is worse than Mubarak. Depending on how much worse, the peace with Israel could be over quickly or it could take a while. Of course, if I'm wrong, Mubarak could be out in a week, and then things are likely to go South very fast. Remember that most revolutions fail of their promise.

[sabbat hunter]

54. people didnt think that

Asad's son would survive in Syria. But President Dr Asad has been in power now for almost 11 years. If the army supports Mubarak's son, then he will survive. If not then there will be turmoil in Egypt, with any number of possible outcomes.

[aranthus]

56. You're correct, however,

Egypt isn't as closed a society as Syria, and isn't as tightly controlled. Also, Egypt has more in the way of dissident groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood. And yes, there are all manner of possible outcomes in Egypt, including even a stable popular democracy. I fear, however, that that particular end is not very likely.

[Ken Burch]

76. What's the outcome of Mubarak surviving, however?

You can't honestly believe that he would EVER allow multi-party democracy to emerge.

And obviously it's intolerable to just have Mubarak's false choice of only HIS "party" or the Muslim Brotherhood.

[aranthus]

90. He won't.

The possibility would not be that a multi-party democracy would emerge, but that the moderate opposition would be better organized to take over once Mubarak dies. This has taken a lot of people by surprise, including in Egypt.

The choice here is not merely between Mubarak and the Muslim Brotherhood, of course. But who is as well organized and ready to take over when Mubarak goes? I'm not saying that are not other possibilities; merely that the most likely one is a move toward the Islamists. A lot depends on how violent this gets before Mubarak leaves, and how capable El Baradei (or someone like him) is at keeping to a moderate path.

[Ken Burch]

60. The thing is, the status quo isn't sustainable.

We can assume that neither Mubarak nor his son will allow secular opposition parties to be formed. We can assume they won't ever allow a free press, or end torture of political prisoners.

You have no alternative to offer. No good can come of keeping things as they are and hoping that good can be built amid the repressive status quo.

Jeane Kirkpatrick had it wrong. Authoritarian states CAN'T "evolve" into non-authoritarian ones.

[oberliner]

64. The largest opposition party by far in Egypt is not secular

The Muslim Brotherhood is by far the most popular opposition group. Can you imagine how well they would have done in elections if they weren't banned as a political party and their membership wasn't arrested in large numbers?

They'd have probably done at least as well as Hamas did in the last Palestinian legislative elections.

[Ken Burch]

66. They're the largest opposition party BECAUSE Mubarak banned all secular opposition parties

The ban on secular opposition can never possibly be lifted while Mubarak and his mob remain in power. Can't you see that by now? If he hasn't allowed secular opposition in THIRTY years, he never will!

All keeping him in power can do is to cause the Brotherhood to grow, in the same way that the U.S. achieved nothing but the elevation of the Ayatollah's forces by keeping the Shah in power even after it had been clear for decades that the Iranian people wanted him out.

[oberliner]

67. They were banned as well

Not sure that your logic follows.

Why do you think secular parties would be more popular than religious ones?

[Ken Burch]

75. They were banned, but somehow also allowed enough backing(and possibly guns)

to survive DESPITE the ban.

It's all part of Mubarak's strategy:

He's always been determined to reduce the choices for the Egyptian people to either himself OR The Muslim Brotherhood.

That's why, while the Brotherhood's been technically banned, it's never faced anywhere close to the level of repression that's been imposed on secular opposition parties(particularly secular left-wing parties).

[oberliner]

80. Why do you think secular parties would be more popular than religious ones?

I'm not sure I understand why you don't think religious parties such as the Muslim Brotherhood would be as successful as secular parties in an Egyptian election.

[Ken Burch]

94. Because most Arabs, like most people anywhere else, aren't natural religious extremists

Religious extremism, like the political variant, tends to gain support in situations in which people see no other way to escape from the misery of their conditions. If the U.S. hadn't propped up the Shah for all those decades(and put him back in power for no good reason in 1953) the mullahs would have had no traction at all in Iran.

[oberliner]

101. In Egypt, 64% think Sharia must be the only source of legislation

Excerpt:

Egyptians' views about the role of Sharia contrast dramatically with those of Iranians. Almost two-thirds (64%) of Egyptian men and women say Sharia should be the only source of legislation, while about one-quarter (24%) of men and women think it should be one of the sources. Few Egyptians, 3% of men and 2% of women, say it should not be a source of national law.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108724/iranians-egyptians-turks-contrasting-views-sharia.aspx

[Ken Burch]

102. That can change, as opinions have thanged in Iran

But nothing can moderate WHILE Mubarak stays in power. Extending a tyranny never makes its opponents grow LESS extreme.

[oberliner]

105. That is quite dismissive of people's deeply held religious beliefs

It seems offensive to suggest that the people of Egypt only hold the religious beliefs that they do because Mubarak is in power.

Do you think Iran, for instance, became less extreme once Pahlavi was overthrown?

Haven't you noted that religious extremists are gaining ground in Israel in spite of the fact that there are elections and a relatively open political system?

What examples can you point to that illustrate your argument?

[Ken Burch]

106. In the U.S., we've gone back and forth between excess relgious fervor

and secular tolerance(this has been repeated several times).

England and France have done the same, as has most of Europe.

These things are fluid and influenced by a variety of factors.

And even if Egyptians do have those feelings, keeping an authoritarian regime like Mubarak's in place couldn't possibly reduce them.

[oberliner]

109. When has the US ever had a theocratic government?

Isn't "never" the correct answer?

And, to clarify, I am not arguing that keeping Mubarak's regime in place will reduce the religious feelings of most Egyptians.

I am arguing that the end of Mubarak's regime will not dissipate the religious feelings of most Egyptians.

If the Egyptian people are finally able to vote in a free and fair election, I would imagine that they would vote for candidates who espouse the values that most accurately reflect their own. Wouldn't you?

[Ken Burch]

118. You can't assume that they'll put religious fervor before all else

when they vote in an election.

They'll be thinking about jobs, education, and a lot of the same things we think about.

Egyptians, and Arabs in general, are not alien beings. They are not devoid of common humanity.

And most Muslims, even DEVOUT Muslims, don't think and act like the Taliban.

[azurnoir]

107. So you are claiming that Egyptians desire something like the Muslim Brotherhood as leaders?

based on what a Pew Poll?

[oberliner]

108. What other than poll/survey data can be used to ascertain what Egyptians desire?

Here are some findings from the Pew poll referenced:

About eight-in-ten Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan (82% each) endorse the stoning of people who commit adultery.

Muslims in Pakistan and Egypt are also the most supportive of whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery; 82% in Pakistan and 77% in Egypt favor making this type of punishment the law in their countries.

When asked about the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion, at least three-quarters of Muslims in Jordan (86%), Egypt (84%) and Pakistan (76%) say they would favor making it the law.

In Egypt, Pakistan and Jordan, majorities of Muslims who say Islam is playing a large role in politics see this as a good thing, while majorities of those who say Islam is playing only a small role say this is bad for their country.

In Egypt and Nigeria, however, most Muslims who see a struggle in their countries say they identify with Islamic fundamentalists (59% and 58%, respectively).

A narrower majority (54%) of Muslims in Egypt also support making gender segregation the law in their country.

http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

[Ken Burch]

119. That poll phrased the question as "fundamentalists vs modernizers"

It may well be that those who answered the poll interpreted "modernizers" as meaning Mubarak and his party. They may NOT have meant secular opposition parties at all.

Had the question been "If you had the choice between the Muslim Brotherhood, Mubarak's party, or something else", you could well have had a very different result.

And the Pew Foundation has a bias towards elite control of politics, including global politics, which has to be factored into these results.

[azurnoir]

124. Yes thank you that poll is gaining some notarity

earlier this morning Candy Crowley and John Negroponte were discussing it on CNN and seemed to reach a similar opinion, that it was indicator of the wishes of the people of Egypt, there was also this guy named Edward Walker who was an ambassador or something during the Clinton Administration who seemed to insist that there was no central defining figure from the Muslim Brotherhood that Egyptians would be likely to rally around like Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran so it was an unlikely thing the MB would take control of Egypt, but what does he know huh?

[shira]

88. Egypt's populace supports extremists more than the secular movement.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=342422&mesg_id=342649

Unfortunately, the majority of Egyptians would rather see tyranny and totalitarianism rather than a secular, liberal democracy.

[Ken Burch]

93. Again, you're over-invested in demonizing Arabs.

You can't possibly know that they would be anti-democratic.

[shira]

112. I'm citing a PEW Poll. Are the pollsters at PEW demonizers of Arabs? NT

[Violet_Crumble]

130. What a stupid question. Of course they're not...

People can and do use reputable sources in their quests to demonise...

[shira]

131. I don't see how citing a poll or a fact is demonizing. Now exaggerating, lying, hyperbole....

....methods used to paint Israel and its citizens in the darkest colors, THAT'S demonization.

[Violet_Crumble]

133. I'm pretty sure polls are cited to demonise Jews...

Just the same as polls can be used in order ot demonise Arabs. While the polls can be factual, it's how that information is used that can sometimes cause it to be demonising. I'm not sure why you aren't agreeing with something that's very easy to understand...

btw, exaggerating, lying hyperbole methods are also used to paint Palestinians in the darkest colors, and that's also demonisation...

on edit: fixed crappy sentence structure in last line...

[shira]

137. Do you believe this PEW poll is unfair criticism (demonization) of Egyptians?

The questions should never have been asked or reported, or is it the way in which some people are using those numbers?

[Violet_Crumble]

138. I thought the point I was making was very clear. What don't you understand?

Legitimate information in polls can be used to demonise groups of people, as the intent of some using the information can be to demonise. I think I've said that more than once and I don't understand what yr not understanding about it. I don't know how else to explain it to you in an even easier way to understand...

[shira]

140. So explain to me with an example how legit information from polls has demonized Israelis, please. NT

[Violet_Crumble]

141. I'm sure you've got time to google it for yrself...

Or you could just wander over to Stormfront and you'll probably find some examples there. I'm not doing it for you, though...

[shira]

142. So how should the PEW data be utilized? What does it tell you, if anything? How is it useful? N/T

[Violet_Crumble]

143. I think they should be set to music and turned into an opera....

Pretty damn useful for opera buffs.

Do you understand what I've been explaining to you in earlier posts? It's just those 'questions' yr firing off now have nothing to do with what I was pointing out to you and if yr just going to fire more 'questions' around, then I might go hang out in GD for a while since this 'exchange' seems to have run it's course several posts back...

[azurnoir]

151. yep Candy Crowley and John Negroponte certainly found that Pew poll useful

but we know your certainly not on the same side as them you are a bonafide liberal who only has the best wishes for Egypt at heart

[LeftishBrit]

79. I have no real idea

It could result in a secular democracy.

It could result in a bad undemocratic government that is nevertheless better than Mubarak.

It could result in something worse than Mubarak.

It could end in Mubarak staying in power and perhaps tightening repression further.

I don't really have a feel for what will happen, but hope it will end well for Egypt.

[oberliner]

81. You think it could result in a secular democracy?

What makes you think that might be a possibility? (Other than - anything's possible!)

[LeftishBrit]

92. I was giving the most favourable possible outcome

Many countries in the former Soviet bloc did end up as secular sort-of-democracies, despite having, in most cases, little democratic tradition, and quite a lot of nationalist and other unpleasant undercurrents. Then - Yugoslavia, one of the least repressive countries under the old regime, blew up into ethnic cleansing, civil war and massacres. So such things can go in more than one way.

The protesters, or at least many of them, seem to want something more democratic than the old regime. That doesn't, of course, mean that it's what they'll get. But there's a chance.

FWIW, I think the most likely outcome is either the second or fourth of my possibilities: an undemocratic regime but better than the previous one; or Mubarak maintains power with greater repression - until the next time.

I think that the chances of takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood- which is probably what is behind a lot of the more anxious responses here - is *not* all that high: such groups don't seem to have the same popularity in Egypt now as they did in 1970s Iran. But, as you say, anything is possible. (And even if they don't take over, they could seize the opportunity to cause trouble.)

[oberliner]

100. In Egypt, 64% think Sharia must be the only source of legislation

This is from a recent Gallup poll but there is also a recent Pew Research poll with similar findings:

Iranians, Egyptians, Turks: Contrasting Views on Sharia

Excerpt:

Egyptians' views about the role of Sharia contrast dramatically with those of Iranians. Almost two-thirds (64%) of Egyptian men and women say Sharia should be the only source of legislation, while about one-quarter (24%) of men and women think it should be one of the sources. Few Egyptians, 3% of men and 2% of women, say it should not be a source of national law.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108724/iranians-egyptians-turks-contrasting-views-sharia.aspx

[Ken Burch]

7. What this shows is that you can't build real security through alliances with dictators

Security can ONLY be built through obtaining the support of the world's grassroots, and that requires that the global majority be let in out of the cold.

The day of all-power-to-the-elites needs to end.

[oberliner]

12. Who else could Israel have made peace with other than dictators?

Not a lot of other options in the neighborhood.

[Ken Burch]

14. If they'd treated the Palestinians decently, they could have made peace

with rank-and-file Arabs.

You can't build your security hopes on alliance with people who are bound to be overthrown at some point.

Vietnam and Iran and Nicaragua proved that.

[oberliner]

19. How can you sign a peace treaty with "rank-and-file" Arabs?

I'm not sure I understand how that would have been logistically possible.

[Ken Burch]

21. What you do is to sign something with whoever is governing

That won't be considered a betrayal of the Palestinian people by those in the rank-and-file.

You try to focus on what those below would want, as well as the elites, since the grip on power of those elites is tenuous at best.

[oberliner]

28. Are you saying Israel should not have signed a peace agreement with Egypt?

Do you see that as a betrayal of some kind?

[Ken Burch]

29. No...what I'm saying is that Israel shouldn't EVER have tried to prevent

the establishment of a Palestinian state or ever tried to delegitimize the PLO as the voice of the Palestinian people. That Begin should never have put forward his insulting proposals for Tibetan-style "autonomy" for Palestine(it would never have been real autonomy, and Israel reserved the right to end the autonomy and restore military rule at any time under the proposal).

The Israeli government always KNEW that Palestinians were a nation and would have to get self-determination. There was never any good reason for the Israeli government, no matter who was leading it at the time, to try to prevent Palestinian self-determination when it always knew there was no alternative and that it was never realistic to expect the Arab states, as a group, to make peace with Israel WITHOUT the creation of a Palestinian state.

[shira]

89. Ken, do you support a repressive, totalitarian and fascist Palestinian state?

Because if not, what do you think should be done to assure that never happens?

[Ken Burch]

103. Of course not. I oppose all those things

The best way to prevent that is to begin, NOW, the process of ending the Occupation and, to return the land the West Bank settlers have taken(by whatever means), to acknowledge that Palestinians have legitimate grievances against the Israelis and to address those grievances.

Doing THOSE things reduces support for groups like Hamas(a group I dislike as much as you do). Keeping the Occupation in place can NEVER reduce the liklihood of the Palestinian state having a repressive character.

But then, from all your posts, you clearly believe that Arabs are pathologically incapable of governing themselves democratically or behaving as civilized human beings, so you're going to defend Israeli repression against them until the bitter end. You aren't really concerned about Palestinians at all...you just want your side to be able to say "We crushed them!"

And it's truly sickening that you want the existing repression to go on in Egypt(even though you know that keeping Mubarak in power can't do anything but make the situation worse). If you were Egyptian, YOU would back the revolution. All the population of that country OTHER than Mubarak's cronies are doing so.

[shira]

113. But ending the occupation in Gaza and Lebanon only strengthened Hamas and Hezbollah

So why do you think ending it in the West Bank will be much different, and result in less support for extremist groups?

Let's say it ends next year and nothing changes with the Palestinian government. It's still repressive, totalitarian, and fascist 6 months later, 2 years later, 5 years later.... What do you recommend?

You wouldn't back such a state?

[old mark]

20. Actually, I think the Arabs are at least as much to blame as the Israelis - they swore to

eradicate Israel even before it became a country, and have NEVER recanted that...how would you react to being surrounded by larger enemies who hate your very existance?


mark

[LeftishBrit]

16. Unfortunately...

the days of 'all power to the elites' show no sign of ending in most Middle Eastern countries. The question in most countries is *which* elites are going to rule, rather than elitism vs democracy. Some on the Right do argue that Israel has no suitable peace partners because of the rarity of democratic countries in the ME. I would argue instead that they have to negotiate with whoever is available, or they will have no peace partners at all.

[Ken Burch]

17. What Israel has to do is negotiate something that the rank-and-file, as well as the elites,

could accept. The elites are more likely, potentially, to sell the Palestinians out. The rank-and-file never will, and they are right not to. The Palestinians ARE the great victims in this, having been forced out of their homes, essentially, because of what Germany did. Israel, at a bare minimum, even if it doesn't accept full RoR, MUST apologize to those who were forced out in 1948 and 1967 and must admit that those people did nothing to deserve being expelled. That apology and that admission would do a lot to change the dynamic.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ken Burch]

74. Actually, that's an absurdly slanderous description of "The Arabs" position

Those same Arabs had large Jewish communities in all their countries right up until 1948. A variety of events(not all of which were the fault of the Arabs themselves)caused those communities to leave.

You are basically acting as if the Arabs are the successors to the Nazis and inherently incapable of behaving as civilized human beings. If you believe that, than you are arguing for a policy of eternal war against all Arabs, a policy that is untenable. And in any case, Arab/Islamic countries, while not utopias, were often far more hospitable to Jewish communities than were the lands of "Christian" Europe.

Demonizing and dehumanizing hundreds of millions of people is simply not a workable outlook.

[houstonintc]

78. Self Determination...

First, being nicer then Christian Europe is not some grand achievement, people say hospitable.... yes there were not routine burnings and massacres at the same frequency or virulence (Though often happened still and other forms of humiliation and degradation were still common).

Perhaps the Islamic rulers shouldn't have done that to the Mizrahi in their lands, I note it is the Jews of who once dwelt with these Arab nation that are the most hawkish and militant. Why is that?

Those communities were expelled..... but I think my statement on the Arabs position stands as you did nothing to state how my assessment is inaccurate. Calling something slander is a lot easier then proving I am being inaccurate.... unkind, perhaps.... but untrue? I don't think so.

As I have said their is nothing to negotiate. The Arab world wants the Israelis to give up their holy places, their nationhood and even their self determination. That is asking a lot in my opinion.

[Violet_Crumble]

110. Yr 'assessment' of Arabs is one that's revolting and ignorant...

Yes, because we're all aware that those nasty Arabs just want to go all Hitler on Jews and do a sequel to the Holocaust!! What an ugly vision totally devoid of reality you've got of Arabs. What yr saying in yr post is incredibly incorrect. It seems to have passed yr notice that Israel is carrying out a brutal occupation of the Palestinian people, that Israel and Jordan colluded to divvy up the areas allocated to an Arab state between themselves, that the Arab Peace Plan is remarkably devoid of any of the ugly nonsense that you claim is what the 'Arab world' wants, and that Israel has peace treaties with two of the Arab states. I'd suggest you try to learn at least a little bit about the conflict and the people of the region. A good book to start with would be 'The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World' by Avi Shlaim.

[houstonintc]

115. My Assessment is apt, however unpleasant.

I state their intention is control over the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean on the part of the Palestinians.... is this not an objective and a "dream"?

I recall 1948 and the goal to drive those Jews into the sea, and demands for control over Jewish holy places. I also seem to note that the Jews would have been given no such kindness like the "brutal occupation" had they lost in '48... or any of these wars. Also only two state leaders have made peace, Israel's peace is with Mubarak and the King of Jordan.... as Ken noted the "rank and file" still hate their guts.

I know what the conflict is about, I know what has happened. So far I have seen calls for the Israeli's to turn over their holiest places to the same people who raped them when they controlled them last, or calls to turn over that speck of a homeland they have acquired and hope for benevolent overlords (Like the Jews have been lucky historically in finding those right?), or heck even rewrite their history and redefine Jewishness.

What is their position? The "right" to settle their population with Israel and be default take it over?

A second state to boot along with Israel?

And control over the Jewish holy places?

Considering the opinions held throughout the Arab world about the Jews, I believe my opinion holds merit. Sure it isn't a kind opinion, I will admit that. But it is an opinion.

As I have said, there is nothing to negotiate.

[Violet_Crumble]

120. It's not apt or accurate. What it is however is incredibly ugly and generalising...

This massive group of seething humanity all poised to murder Jews in some genocidal replay of the Holocaust isn't what the reality is at all, and anyone with even the slightest bit of knowledge of the Middle East would know that. Who are you claiming has a goal (I notice you downgraded the goal from full-on Holocaust II to a mere controlling of territory) of controlling the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean? 'The Arabs'? That's just as ridiculous and ugly as claiming 'The Jews' have a goal of controlling the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. Do you need me to spell out why it's not acceptable or apt to say that about either group? I'm nore than willing to...

If you can recall 1948 through those selective-vision glasses, then you must be very, very old indeed. The Arab states didn't have stated war-aims, let alone some crap about 'driving Jews into the sea'. As I said, and you ignored, the Zionists colluded with Jordan, which totally blows away some fantasy vision of Jew-hating Arabs frothing at the mouth to go all genocidal....

I see you've now changed yr tune from 'the Arabs' wanting to destroy Israel, to acknowledging there's peace treaties in place between two of the largest and most powerful Arab states and Israel, but now yr complaining coz there's only two of them. The Arab states have offered Israel a normalisation of relations when Israel ends the occupation and leaves territory that doesn't belong to Israel. That's a very reasonable thing to want, but clearly Israel is more interested in controlling the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean than having normal relations with other countries...

What is their position? The "right" to settle their population with Israel and be default take it over?

Who are you referring to? The massive supposedly seething Jew-hating mass of humanity that is 'the Arabs', who unlike all other humans, think exactly the same as each other?

I have some questions for you. Do you support a viable and independent Palestinian state? Are you a supporter of Israeli settlements in the West Bank?

Also, after reading yr response, I'm even more convinced yr knowledge of the conflict and the people of the region is severely limited and strongly urge you to read the book I recommended to get a basic knowledge that doesn't involve painting either Arabs or Jews as genocidal maniacs...

[houstonintc]

121. I see...

First, yes because ethnic strife and cleansing hasn't been a historical trend for the region? Did you know that originally all Arabic speaking peoples lived solely in the Arabian peninsula? How o' How then did all of the Middle East become... the Arab World anyway?

Second, Controlling that territory? What will happen to the conquered? I doubt anything good considering past calls and extremists flares.

Third, They may have colluded with a King, as many have noted the "Rank and file" are often left out.

Fourth, Considering popular opinion.... should the Israeli's have any reason to believe anything good for them can come from Palestinian demands to populate with Israel? Not likely, and I think your fooling yourself to think it would be any good for the Jews living there.

Fifth, I actually support the Geneva Accord as the most likely solution that will be palatable to either side. The Israelis will never let their country be overrun willingly with Palestinians.... and likely would never turn over the Wailing Wall or the totality of Jerusalem's old city to rule by another. Not after how the Jordanians ran it. A viable Palestinian state is a grand idea, however all ideas that would at the very least be swallowed to the Israeli's is pure poison for a Palestinian leader to suggest. Just look at the outcry against Abbas allegedly throwing the "right of return" out the window? Honestly we both know they can never get that in a million years without conquering Israel and forcing it.

Sixth, I seem to know a bit about Israel and what's in it's interests, In this conflict I always factor that as how the deal making will go down. Israel will never compromise it's Jewishness, or it's survival above all else. At least two major Palestinian and/or Arab world demands would require doing just that for the sake of some sort of "Peace".

[Violet_Crumble]

122. Let me get you to confirm this. When you refer to 'them' yr referring to the Arab population?

Just want to make sure I've got you absolutely clear on that...

You don't appear to have answered the questions I asked you. I'll ask them again and group them by number so you can reply to each and every one separately...

1. Who are you claiming has a goal (I notice you downgraded the goal from full-on Holocaust II to a mere controlling of territory) of controlling the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean? 'The Arabs'? That's just as ridiculous and ugly as claiming 'The Jews' have a goal of controlling the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. Do you need me to spell out why it's not acceptable or apt to say that about either group? I'm nore than willing to...



2. You talked about 'them' in reference to 'their' position. I asked: 'Who are you referring to? The massive supposedly seething Jew-hating mass of humanity that is 'the Arabs', who unlike all other humans, think exactly the same as each other?'

3. Do you support a viable and independent Palestinian state? Are you a supporter of Israeli settlements in the West Bank? (note, they're what I actually asked you, not whether or not you support the Geneva Accord, which appears to gain some support from extremists on both sides)...

I'm sorry, but since when has 'knowing' anything about Israel been enough when it comes to having a knowledge of the Middle East? I'm aware that there's quite a few Americans who only care about Israel, but there's a whole lot more people in the Middle East who you've cast some seriously ugly and untrue generisations at

How on earth is wanting Israel to end it's brutal occupation of the Palestinians in any way compronisimg it's Jewishness or endangering it's survival? That's what the 'Arab world' is demanding, and it's not just the 'Arab world' but just about everywhere but the US and Israel...

[houstonintc]

125. Settlers need to go, duh

Them, they, their, as in folks who are not me.

Next, Settlements can just be told to clear out and rejoin the the Jewish state in Israel or be left to a likely vengeful Palestine.... What happens happens.

The tendency for those I share the left with is to focus on Palestinian concerns, while ignoring or marginalizing Israeli concerns. I figured balance would be welcomed.... I suppose not.

"Right of Return" is a pretty toxic demand for Israel and it's interests and demands for the control over Jerusalems Old city, especially the Wall is never going to be accepted by Israeli's. That is the major compromising demand I see as a thread. The idea that their Holiest Place on Earth is to be trusted by others is probably more then most would ask, especially when those "others" have shown a flippant and malicious disregard for it. As for the claim to RoR, essentially overrun and take as I see it. To positions that can never be accepted willingly by Israeli's but are often demanded by the Arab world.

As for my belief that the Arab world is hostile to Jews, well the words of leaders and clerics give me reason to believe that a defeated Israel would mean many millions of dead Israeli's. I.E. another Shoah.... Shall I pull out quotes for this or is it common knowledge a dislike of Jews is common place in amongst Arabic speaking peoples?

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

139. I think you missed the point...

The problem with using quotes from extremists of one group to judge the entire population is that same standard should be used to judge other groups, and it's a safe bet that people who do so only want to use that standard for one group and not the other. I'm not sure how pointing that out makes me like a Republican. Don't Democrats do it? I'm not either, and I'm surprised in the US it's something that is split along party lines...

I've got a few more recommendations for you so that you can learn about Arabs if you ever want to:

'The Palestinian People: A History' by Baruch Kimmerling & Joel S. Migdal
'A History of the Arab People' by Albert Hourani

And then just as a point of reference and a bit of light entertainment, there's this clip on the Tunisian revolution by Charlie Brooker (start it at 3:30 to see the clip).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKTAFx-IHdc&feature=related

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tavalon]

148. I think most believe they will have a piece of a coalition type government

but not a large piece.

[azurnoir]

5. after reading the article I must ask

did the author mis-spell Speculator, in the title?

[Ken Burch]

6. Israel needs to stop doing back-room agreements with Arab tyrants

It should ally itself with the forces of liberation, as Zionism was originally meant to.

[oberliner]

11. I sincerely doubt an alliance with Israel would be welcomed by those forces

What about you?

[Ken Burch]

15. If they accepted a REAL Palestinian state

it's possible.

What Israel can't depend on is an security based on holding the majority of the Arab population under the bootheels of tyrants.

That never produces stability.

It's as foolhardy as the alliances with South Africa and fascist Guatemala back in the day.

Security can only be built on a foundation of justice.

[oberliner]

50. Which Arab populations are not under the bootheels of tyrants?

Can you identify which countries those would be?

[Ken Burch]

58. At the moment, Lebanon and Jordan aren't necessarily in that status

What I'm saying is, those tyrants won't be in power forever and there needs to be some kind of resolution to all of this that WON'T just be cast aside the moments those tyrants are overthrown.

Otherwise, any "peace deal" is about as valueable as the fact that the Shah recognized Israel. Which is to say, of no value at all, since those deals put Israel in the untenable position of hoping that the rest of the Middle East will remain forever under the most stifling of dictatorships.

[oberliner]

59. Israel did make peace with Jordan

The leadership of Lebanon, however, has vowed that it would be the last country in the region ever to recognize Israel.

It seems that you are suggesting that agreeing to the Saudi Peace Plan, for example, would have been a bad idea since the plan was formulated by the Arab League countries which are made up mainly of tyrants/dictators such as the leader of Egypt and the Saudi leader himself.

[oberliner]

10. Egypt's Protests Turn Ugly as the Regime Changes Tactics

The momentum that swept thousands of Egyptians into the streets on Tuesday to protest, hit a wall on Wednesday — at least temporarily. As the day began, the regime of President Hosni Mubarak moved swiftly to try to prevent a repeat, with the Interior Ministry declaring "No provocative movements or protest gatherings or organizing marches or demonstrations will be allowed."

Rows of dark green troop carriers and police trucks lined the large thoroughfares and traffic circles, and stood positioned outside major government buildings in Egypt's major cities. Thousands of riot police stood at alert, shields and batons readied. In some districts of Cairo, units of a hundred or more uniformed men each could be seen marching through the streets.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2044558,00.html#ixzz1CC9AsQpi

[Ken Burch]

18. That headline is misleading

It should be "Egyptian government responds brutally to protests", not "Egypt's protests turn ugly". It was the regime's cops bringing the ugliness, not the protesters.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

144. LOL Ken... depends on what side you're on, doesn't it?

[Alamuti Lotus]

22. Poor Israel, their favourite tyrants appear to be falling like flies

bin `Ali and Hariri have already fallen.. Mubarak, Abbas, Kings Abdullah-squared, Saleh to follow;--not looking good for the US/Israel-friendly dictators.

[Hardrada]

23. And high time too. The world is sick of the old charade.

Power to the dispossessed!

[oberliner]

24. Their least favorite tyrants appear to be holding strong

No sign of collapse in Iran or Syria.

[Alamuti Lotus]

62. Yes, seems like they really backed the wrong horse on this one

[oberliner]

63. If they had agreed to the Saudi Peace Plan they could have been in good with almost all the tyrants!

Good thing they held steadfast against that Arab League sponsored initiative.

[Ken Burch]

68. No....rank-and-file Arabs would have accepted THAT peace settlement

There's no reason for you to be using this situation as a case for Israel NOT making peace.

[oberliner]

69. Do you think so?

What are you basing that on?

[Ken Burch]

72. The fact that it would've been fair to Palestinians

This would have given the deal much more credibility than anything that Bibi could ever come up with, since his government AND Kadima are STILL both basically committed to preventing the establishment of a viable Palestinian state.

[shira]

83. Ken, you don't think the Geneva Initiative plan is fair for Palestinians? NT

[Ken Burch]

96. Yes, but it's the ISRAELI government that won't back it.

You can't blame the Palestinians or the other Arabs for that one.

You still don't get it that Netanyahu doesn't WANT peace. He wants "victory", and damn the cost. Bibi was raised a "in blood and fire Judea was born" type, and he's never changed. Lieberman and Barak are basically the same. For the love of God, accept the fact that THEY can't be trusted.

[shira]

114. Olmert's offer was so similar to the GI that the GI endorsed it.

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x339669#340032

So the liberal folks in charge at the Geneva Initiative thought Olmert's offer was fair.

Why don't you?

[shaayecanaan]

116. Again, this statement is a lie

The Geneva Initiative never endorsed Olmert's offer. Their full list of position papers is on their website. They never endorsed his offer. Significantly, the GI proposal called for Israel to return Ariel and Maale Adumim to the Palestinians, and Olmert and Israel have always refused to do this.

The Palestinian offer detailed in the Palestinian papers is much closer to the Geneva Initiative, to the extent that their website remarks that the Palestinian papers proposal is only "slightly" different (the only real difference is Har Homa which the GI proposes would remain in Israeli hands).

If you support the Geneva Initiative (and I understand that Oberliner does) then you would by necessity support the Palestinian proposal for peace with only slight variations.

[shira]

123. Hilarious cartoon video "I will make a lot of peace in the Middle East".

Someone who cannot admit al-Jazeera and the Guardian are shit-stirring and fabricating accounts is calling out lies?

Classic!

:)

The GI enthusiastically endorsed Olmert and his plan (not officially) by devoting several articles on their official website to him and his proposal, as well as making him their keynote speaker for their annual conference.

The PA made no offer whatsoever and repeating such nonsense does not make it true.

The GI folks say Olmert's offer was very similar to the Geneva Accord, but Abbas walked away and never responded to Olmert's offer. If, as you say, Abbas' offer was closer to the GI then he could have at the very least counter-offered or called immediately for the USA to bridge the few gaps that there were. Of course, Abbas walked away without a counter-proposal (just like Arafat at CD 10 years ago) because he wasn't interested in cutting a deal. As these leaks reveal, Abbas would be among the first to be lynched for making offers that concede pretty much anything. To believe there was ever such an "offer" is to believe Abbas and his henchmen are delusional, suicidal idiots.

This isn't news. If the PA were half the "peace partner" some idiots say he is, then his PA wouldn't deliberately incite terror and hatred, celebrate it, and reward it (especially DURING the time this make-believe offer by the PA was made).

Here's the proof:
http://www.palwatch.org/

The PA cannot prepare its people for "peace" while continuing its state-sponsored hatred, incitement, and terror. Just the opposite, they continue to prepare the Palestinians of the W.Bank for more war and conflict while appeasing the USA with endless talks that go nowhere.

No one serious buys into the Muslim Brotherhood backing, al-Jazeera Koolaid. Well, maybe the goofy al-Manar fanbase. They'll eat up any shit that mideast tyrants want them believing.

:eyes:

[shira]

126. Title in last post should just be "Hilarious".

Seems my computer remembered an old title I wrote over a week ago starting with 'hilarious'.

[shaayecanaan]

127. This is what the Geneva Initiative website says now...

"A series of maps found among the trove of secret documents on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process leaked this week suggest a Palestinian plan for Jerusalem based on Geneva Initiative maps, with slight modifications.'

That's far closer to an endorsement than anything that was said about Olmert's offer.

The GI website hosts or includes links to various stories about the Israel/Palestine issue from both sides of the aisle. Reference to or publication of those articles does not imply any endorsement by the Geneva Initiative.

[shira]

132. Non-recognition of a Jewish state, no mention of what happens with the Temple Mount, etc...

....cannot possibly lead anyone to believe there was a PA offer that came closer to the GI than Olmert's.

Again, if there was a magnanimous offer made by the PA, let's see the whole entire package...

:)

I'll wait.

[shaayecanaan]

136. Olmert's offer did not mention recognition of Israel as a Jewish state either...

the requirement that Palestine recognise Israel as a Jewish state was never seriously proposed until Netanyahu started requiring it as a precondition for talks. In his case it was simply an attempt at obstruction.

Again, if you consider by that criterion that the Palestinian offer was "incomplete" then by necessity you must thereby consider Olmert's offer to have been incomplete as well.

[oberliner]

82. No one can beat Iran's tyrants when it comes to crushing dissent

Iran hangs two activists

Jafar Kazemi and Mohammad Ali Hajaghaei were executed for taking part in protests after the disputed 2009 elections.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/01/201112514128271328.html

[azurnoir]

27. Didn't Israel give up some rather productive oil fields

to Egypt in the peace treaty?

[Alamuti Lotus]

65. Yes, in Sinai, a land they occupied and colonized following their invasion

[Ken Burch]

77. They never had that many people in SInai, though, did they?

My impression was that it was mainly about having the place as a buffer zone.

[aranthus]

135. More military than civilians.

Ironically, the Israelis discovered that the Sinai made a better buffer zone with the Egyptians controlling it. The Israelis did get some value out of the Abu Rudeis oil fields, which they gave up.

[bemildred]

117. Warily eyeing Israel, Egyptians feel like actors. nt

[ProgressiveMuslim]

145. LOL!

Isn't it hard to imagine 1 million people marching against tyranny -- against their own crummy, craven, corrupt government -- and feeling badly about it?

[bemildred]

147. Freedom is for everybody!

And what is Freedom, but the right and obligation to be a political actor, to have political rights and to exercise them in public?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

150. Those here who are tacitly defending the status quo should be ashamed.

I tuned in to see what the discussion about these looked like. I could have written the script myself.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

146. I suspect the "only democracy" would like to keep it that way! nt