Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumArabs Believe Israel Just Attacked Egypt
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/Arabs-Believe-Israel-Just-Attacked-Egypt-8-19-2012.aspby James Dunnigan
Egyptian media, and Arab media in general, are pushing the theory that the recent Islamic terrorist attack on an Egyptian border post was somehow staged by Israel. There is no evidence and senior government officials, who might have to face Western officials or journalists, avoid this story with the Westerners. But this sort of thing has long been popular in the Arab world. Not just the automatic accusations against Israel but shifting blame for a failure in an Arab nation to some evil foreign conspiracy. This technique is heavily used by Islamic radicals, who preach that good Moslems cannot be wrong and all their troubles are caused by evil infidels (non-Moslems).
Egypt has admitted that Israeli intelligence did warn that there might be a major attack and ignored it. Egyptian intelligence officials said they could not believe that fellow Moslems would attack other Moslems who were having the post-fast Ramadan meal.
To placate Islamic conservative political parties, Egypt had reduced restrictions on Islamic terrorists operating in Gaza and made it possible for them to travel more freely between Gaza and Egypt. Facing reality, those policies have now been reversed. Ignoring the threat of terrorism is one thing, not responding to the violence and death is another. However, Israeli diplomats who have served in Egypt believe that after a few weeks or months of activity, the tighter security in Sinai and Gaza will be loosened and the Islamic terrorists will again be able to move freely. Decades of anti-Israeli propaganda and support for Palestinian terrorism have created a fundamental belief in Egypt that ultimately the Islamic terrorists will only attack Israel. This has never been the case, but this sort of selective amnesia has long been a problem in Egypt and the Arab world in general. Further complicating the situation are the Islamic conservative political parties in Egypt, who control about a quarter of the seats in parliament. These are the most fervent believers in the anti-foreigner conspiracies and that religion alone will solve all of Egypt's problems. Most Egyptians do not believe this but the Islamic conservatives can be violent and there is no general desire for another civil war against them, as happened in the 1990s (after an outbreak of Islamic terrorism against Egyptian targets).
There has been growing violence in the Sinai for the last few years, as Egyptian police and soldiers sought to shut down Bedouin smuggling gangs. This caused many Bedouin to, in effect, rebel. Attacks on Egyptian government officials and truck traffic moving through the area (much of it headed for Israel) are much more common now. Israel faces a similar problem in the West Bank and Gaza, where terrorist groups are allowed, by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, to operate. The terror groups there only get into trouble if they attack the Palestinian Authority or Hamas. The Palestinian Authority and Hamas tolerate constant Israeli raids against the terrorists (which the Palestinian officials also see as unpredictable and dangerous). Palestinian public opinion supports the terrorism, even though the Israelis have defeated the ability of the terrorists to make attacks inside Israel. This self-destructive attitude by the Palestinians, who, officially, are seeking a peace deal with Israel, has been created by decades of anti-Israel propaganda within the Palestinian community (in the mass media and the schools). The propaganda insists that Israel has no right to exist and all Israeli territory is actually part of Palestine. This angle is constantly stressed in Palestinian electronic and print media. Many of these attitudes are popular in Egypt and just as self-destructive.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
shira
(30,109 posts)holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... Israel should have the Sinai back in a few months.
shira
(30,109 posts)No one will challenge them or be successful in getting Egypt to back down. Israel will have to use force.
And that goes to show Israel cannot trust anyone to help maintain a future peace deal with the Palestinians and greater Arab world.
Therein lies the single most important truth about this conflict. And Israel has leadership who understands this and most Israelis finally understand this. Hopefully this has not happened too late.
aranthus
(3,400 posts)and Egypt doesn't want to be at war with israel (for now).
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)Funny how Israel rarely gets what it wants.
I believe it's inevitable that Egypt will once again attack Israel. Made more likely that the for the past 40 years they have been spinning their defeat in '73 in an alleged victory for Egypt.
When it does happen, and the inevitable Egyptian defeat that will follow, Israel will once again end up in control of the Sinai. And, hopefully, not be so keep to relinquish it for the empty promise of "eternal peace".
Oh yes -- they'll hate Israel for it -- but, they'll hate Israel no matter what Israel does.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The truth is, Israel NEEDED and continues to need hostile relations with the Arab world to justify the massive U.S. funding it gets. And Israel needed antisemitism to continue to exist, because without it, there'd be no justification for Israel's existence at all.
Israel is NOT an innocent victim of a country. And its uses of force aren't any more inherently justified than those of any other country.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... organizations who run women's shelters NEED domestic violence to exist? People who run homeless shelters NEED a homeless problem? So, what's your point?
I'm not sure where you're going with your thinking here? Are you suggesting that Israel wants to be attacked for money - conspiring with Hamas to shoot rockets for dollars? Is it your suggestion that Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan an Lebanon attacking Israel on multiple occasions since 1948 was part of an Israeli scheme. Is nearly 50 years of PLO/Hamas sponsored attacks around the globe is for the benefit of Israel?
Or, that Jews promote antisemitism to ensure a justification for Israel? Are you suggesting that 2,000 years of Jewish persecution was just a long-con for a real-estate swindle? Interesting thoughts here. You may be onto something.
US Aid to Israel isn't any more "massive" than Aid to Israel's enemies -- collectively speaking -- so why would the Arab world want to so obligingly give Israel a reason to receive US Aid? If anything, they should make BFF's with Israel, then they would get more Aid and Israel gets nothing. Obviously the Arab world isn't clued into the Zionist Conspiracy theories as well as you.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Israel's founders, on the other hand, made "the existential threat" the organizing principle of their society. Figures like Ben-Gurion never wanted Israel to live at peace with the Arab world(they are distinct from the views of rank-and-file Israelis on that point). The Israeli side never made any serious efforts to reach out to Arab countries between 1948 and the time of Camp David...and even at Camp David, Begin did all he could to avoid having to sign an agreement with Egypt by raising pointless technical objections to every detail in the Accord, over and over and over again.
Also, Israel as a country has nothing in common with the victims of domestic violence, so you need to retract that particular comparison.
It's absurd for you to keep acting like that country is the innocent victim in the Israeli/Arab and Israeli/Palestinian disputes...always virtuous and right while its opponents are always wrong. No other international dispute on the planet works that way-so this one doesn't either.
The people of Israel do want peace...it's their leaders who don't. Netanyahu's whole career has been built on preventing peace and NEVER resolving the dispute with the Palestinians at all.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)They're not? They look Jewish. The can play the violin and haggle with the best of us.
You said clearly (and I quote), "Israel needed antisemitism to continue to exist..." Is it your belief that antisemitism only happens against Israelis? That Jews who aren't Israelis aren't subject to antisemitism?
Do you believe that if Israel went away overnight that antisemitism (or, if you prefer Judenhass) would cease to exist?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)They are not synonymous with the world's Jewish communities in their entirety, or to the growing number of people in those communities who are coming to reject what Israel does in the name of "security".
And I said that Israel needed antisemitism to continue...a point that puts the interests of Israel in opposition to the interests of the Jewish communities of the Earth. Jewish communities and individuals need antisemitism to die out, so that they can live their lives in peace and security. Israel, as a county, kind of needs it to continue in order to justify the demands it makes on those communities and the demands it makes on the North American and European countries for unquestioning support of its security policies.
And of course antisemitism is visited on Jewish people in the Diaspora... I never said it wasn't. It is probable, however, that the way the Israeli government treats Palestinians exacerbates antisemitism and keeps it alive in places where it might otherwise die out or at least be a much smaller phenomenon. And I think that the insistence of Israeli officials and some pro-Israeli people(a majority of whom would be pro-Israel gentiles) insist on equating Israel as a country WITH "The Jews". Israel is NOT "The Jews". It is simply a state that purports to represent part of the world's Jewish communities. It's not fair to either to Jewish people in other countries or to those Israelis who don't take a position of unquestioning support for what the Israeli government does to use that formulation. It needs to stop.
And no, I don't believe that the end of Israel(which is something I don't actually want to see, btw)would be the end of antisemitism. It's disgusting that you'd even think I'd think such a thing.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)"Israeli government treats Palestinians exacerbates antisemitism and keeps it alive in places where it might otherwise die out or at least be a much smaller phenomenon."
Was there a lot of Israeli government mistreatment of Palestinians in 1938, in 1492, in 1290, in 70CE?
If anything -- there is LESS antisemitism now than then -- so I'm not sure if your causative relationship is really there.
You say that Jews are persecuted because of Israel (a specious argument) but that Israel isn't representative of Jews -- that kind of makes antisemites idiots, doesn't it?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I've never heard of an intelligent antisemite, nor do I ever expect to.
That is not a new idea...as you no doubt know, Eduard Bernstein himself called antisemitism "the socialism of fools".
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... Israel should formulate its policies and actions to placate the perceptions of idiots?
As government policy creation methodologies go, it's probably not the WORST I've ever heard. I'm just not sure how practical that is when you are, as Israel is, a state surrounded by enemies who want to see them destroyed AND have the means (or are hellbent on acquiring them) to do that.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Israel should formulate its policies to avoid placing the people Israel purports to exist in the name of in greater danger.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... Israeli policy and global antisemitism are sine qua non is demonstrably wrong.
If they were, if there were any kind of cause and effect relationship, then we would see a marked RISE in global antisemitism compared to any other point in history prior to the creation of Israel. But, we see in fact there is LESS.
But -- I'm intrigued by your argument that the LESS Jews in Israel defend themselves -- the SAFER Jews around the world will be. I tend to think just the opposite.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Then you haven't been paying very close attention. One does not have to be dumb to hold despicable views. Nowhere is there any study that shows an inverse correlation between intelligence and intolerance. Attempts at minimizing any positive traits held by anti-semites are nothing more than ad hominem attacks and they offer nothing useful to the debate. There are/were plenty of intelligent anti-semites that you have undoubtedly heard of. Hitler, Eichmann and Mengele to start. Through history there was George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, Edgar Degas, T. S. Eliot, Cicero, Voltaire, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Martin Luther, David Duke, The grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, Yassir Arafat, Assad the elder, both Ayatollahs, Lindbergh. The list goes on and on.
The truth is, Israel NEEDED and continues to need hostile relations with the Arab world to justify the massive U.S. funding it gets.
No it doesn't. That statement is a prime example of circular reasoning and is thus nonsensical on its face, (Israel must make the Arabs hostile towards them to justify aid from the US that Israel spends on weapons to protect themselves from the hostile Arabs.) Israel cares about getting weapons because of Arab hostility. You have the causation backwards. It also supposes that US aid to Israel is directly linked to levels of Arab hostility towards Israel. There is no evidence to support this theory.
And Israel needed antisemitism to continue to exist, because without it, there'd be no justification for Israel's existence at all.
This one is far less sensible than even its predecessor. What in the world makes you think that Israel relies on anti-semitism to justify its continued existence? Israel is already a state. It no longer needs to convince anyone of its necessity. You say this as though ANY state has a list of reasons that justify their existences. It just flat out makes no sense. It's likely the most poorly reasoned conspiracy theory ever invented.
Bradlad
(206 posts)Some other very intelligent anti-semites who actively peddle their Jewish conspiracy theories and make good money doing so include Noam Chomsky, Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer. These were/are PhD professors at major universities who delivered countless talks and TV interviews and published many books pushing the Jewish conspiracy theories that they constructed. Of course there's also Edward Said who no longer enjoys the fame and income he generated from his toxic illiberal anti-Western views. Before he died he managed to destroy Middle East Studies at most universities in the world and turned progressive students from supporters of Israel to its worst enemies. From reading their works one can see that they are all very intelligent. Intelligence has little to nothing to do with being right. In the case of these folks it means they had the intellectual ability to convince others (mostly students lacking life experience) that their anti-semitic beliefs about Israel and its Jews were credible.
The other two of Ken's tropes you address are themselves two of the most virulent anti-semitic conspiracy theories that have been supported and/or in some cases concocted by the same notable intelligent anti-Israel leftists you mentioned as well as the four I added.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)"looking Jewish"? albeit if Ken or I had said that or something like there would be howls of antisemitism, but I guess it's okay when you do, however I am curious just what do you define that as being
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And I choose to take it as a compliment.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)And rightfully so.
In the meantime, I have neither the time nor the inclination to teach Azurnoir the rich bounty that is Jewish humour.
If you're keen to learn more about Jewish humour, take a trip to your local library and check out "The Joys of Yiddish"
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I'll read the book.
As a child, we had Yiddish humor books in my house in Salem, Oregon(probably given to us by my late uncle, Leon Granoff...he converted to Presbyterianism when he married my aunt but I don't think that would have thrown the Cossacks off the trace).
My favorite example is the definition of chutzpah:
"the man who kills his parents and then, at his trial, pleads for mercy because he's an orphan".
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and a bit of curiosity about how you'd explain your way out of it lol , but I do understand why you'd think it's okay for you to make such a statement
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... I forgive you.
Just so you learned something.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)but it was a nice try
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)pelsar
(12,283 posts)so were back to the "leaders" who dont mind having their children and grandchildren killed in the wars because our they themselves prefer the wars?
I guess were still back to the lsraeli leaders are some kind of unfeeling monsters. BTW these "leaders" you the ones that came up from the poor neighborhoods or from the farms, and many, through the army, became the "leaders" members of the knesset, do they no longer count as "one of the people?" and when exactly does this transformation occur?
you really have to get off your narrow "moral superiority" horse here and accept that israel is NOT the united states, it has a different culture and you should learn about it before making statements that show simply your disdan for the locals.
We've been through this before, about who actually makes up the members of the knesset and how israel unlike your country, has shown how its underclass does have upward mobility to influence, how the lawmakers understand very well that their policies affect the lives of their own families, just as they do others.
we have here via your posts a classic case of refusal to accept new information....accepting might cause one to re-evaluate ones beliefs, and that I understand is always very difficult if not impossible for many
very dissapointing ken....
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)holden said nothing factual that I was unaware of(other than the violin thing...is Bibi actually a musician?).
I'm aware that Israel has had, historically, a more egalitarian culture than the U.S.(although that egalitarianism has receded badly since 1977). What does that have to do with how Israel treats Palestinians or how Palestinians react to Israeli policies? The West Bank Occupation has nothing to do with egalitarianism, and Palestinians don't resist Israeli authority because Israeli society was at one time more egalitarian than the U.S. I admire the egalitarian ideals of Labor Zionism...and the kibbutzim remain some of my political heroes...but the ideals Israel held IN THE PAST have nothing at all to do with what we're talking about here.
Nobody in the Netanyahu government could be considered a man or woman of the people. They are upper-class types and privatization freaks. They are not working-class. They are developing the same elite mentality that the career political class develops in every country in the world. Why pretend otherwise? Nobody in that government gives a damn anymore when their intransigence gets Israelis killed. Bibi's arrogant demands for a missile strike on Iran, an action he knows would likely lead to horrific physical blowback on rank-and-file Israeli citizens, is proof of this. You have to see these guys for what they are, pelsar...and what they are are cynical political careerists like politicians in all other countries. They have no claim to greater purity or humanity than any other elected officials anywhere else. And I strongly suspect they don't care how many of your fellow soldiers they send to an early grave. Wise up and see them for what they are.
And from what I've seen, the Israelis who still hold to egalitarian values are the ones who are the most vehemently opposed to the Occupation and the settlements(unlike the kibbutz, there are no egalitarian values in the West Bank settlements whatsoever...they are like bland Southern California suburbs from the pictures I've seen of them and most settlers would, again from what I've seen, vote Republican and be Chamber of Commerce types if they lived in the states.) It's deeply inconsistent to call yourself egalitarian and, at the same time, defend the idea of keeping another country under perpetual military occupation. And you know it. You KNOW the Occupation is anti-egalitarian.
btw...you spelled "disappointing" wrong.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)your still sticking to your "mindset"......i was just explaining to you again in 2012 our "leaders" still have families and friends that have to fight those wars that you claim our leaders want.
you seem to have a hard time with that concept.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... Israelis have a leadership caste.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The evolution of a political elite is a natural part of the creation of any state. I didn't say Israel was the ONLY country that had that.
And I didn't say that that fact makes Israel evil...Israel isn't evil or an inherently illegitimate country...but it is a country governed by the same sort of people that end up governing other countries...politicians.
Why pretend otherwise?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)That doesn't automatically mean they're going to care about the consequences any more than any other leaders would. Netanyahu's demands for attacks on Iran, attacks that would put those families and friends in massive danger of being killed in an Iranian or Hezbollah counterattack, kind of puts the notion that Israeli leaders automatically have more humanity than any other country's leaders into question.
You're making a severe gamble in trusting the leaders of your country to care whether you and your fellow soldiers live or die. All leaders, wherever they are, are capable of deciding that it doesn't matter who lives or who dies. I myself don't WANT you or any of your comrades-in-arms to be wounded or killed, as I don't want Palestinians to be wounded or killed. As to your leaders...like the leaders of any other country...I'm not sure...and, for your own safety, you should learn not to be sure either.
The interests of Israeli political leaders are NOT the same as the interests of the ordinary citizens, or the ordinary soldiers, of Israel. It's naive, indeed "religious", to believe otherwise, to think that the fact that those leaders happen to be leading your particular country automatically makes them immune to the things that make the leaders of other countries make negative, destructive choices. Yes, they may weep at the funerals, but they don't take the steps needed to make the funerals stop happening. And the funerals don't stop happening, do they?
As is the case with government officials everywhere, the interests of your country's leaders, among other things, include the maintenance and expansion of international relevance. They wouldn't have that relevance if there was peace with the Palestinians or co-existence with the Arab world. They wouldn't figure in geopolitics then. Nobody would care when they showed up in Washington(when was the last time, for example, that anyone noticed when the Swiss foreign minister visited the White House?) This doesn't make them evil...it simply means that they are naturally going to act, in at least some ways, like the leaders of any other country would...like politicians anywhere else would...seeking to maintain their own importance.
Be loyal to your country...but keep your eyes open. You are not governed by saints, just as no one else is governed by saints.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)does this stuff come out of some kind of book or something?..because if so, you need a new one, because your using phrases that come of out the classic religious texts:
the interests of your country's leaders, among other things, include the maintenance and expansion of international relevance.
what an incredibly simplistic statement based on an arrogant viewpoint or moral superiority. There are countries that simply take care of their own and have no interest in expanding their international relevance. Once you mention a few of those societies, inorder to retain your opinion your going to have to explain how they really arent different just that they have "special circumstances" (greenland as one obvious example)
OK, so they have familes and friends who are in the fight...That doesn't automatically mean they're going to care about the consequences
Israel is not iran (sending kids into mine fields) its not the US, (50,000 dead in vietnam). Our politicians actually see the neighbors kids go to the army, they actually have weekend dinners with their kids, whos own children couldnt join them because hamas shot some rockets over the border and they are on alert. They get visits from their neighbors to help out personally when one of their kids in the army needs some help.
you have so little idea of what your writing about it, its amazing just how arrogant you are. You can't even fathom even tolerate the idea that somehow there are societies/countries that have different cultures than you own.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)If they cared about the lives of the troops, they wouldn't keep expanding the damn settlements, when that expansion has no positive consequences and endangers the lives of you and your fellow soldiers.
If they cared about the lives of the troops, they wouldn't make choices that keep getting the people you serve with killed. The only people who do care about stopping the killing are the ones who oppose the hardline status quo on security, since it's that hardline status quo that gets the soldiers killed(and that gets Palestinian civilians killed too, but I'll assume you don't particularly care about that, given your "SFW?" comment in an earlier post in which I pointed out that justifying the Occupation by claiming that it's good for the Palestinian democracy movement actually puts Palestinian democracy activists in mortal danger by allowing extremists on the Palestinian side to claim that those people are collaborating with the IDF).
At a bare minimum, if those leaders really didn't want you and your fellow soldiers to get killed, they'd impose a permanent settlement expansion freeze-that freeze is what the Palestinian side has asked for, is ALL they've asked for, to get the talks started again. Bibi arrogantly insists that they be willing to negotiate WHILE PALESTINIAN LAND CONTINUES TO BE STOLEN. Can you not see how little regard Bibi has for the lives of you and those who serve with you when he insists on continuing to expand the settlements? Can anyone deny that the settlements have already taken all the land they could ever justify taking?
It's you who are religious and arrogant in your views, pelsar...you simply hold to the myths and ask no questions. You pretend you live in the only country in the world where the leaders care when soldiers die. The continued expansion of the settlements, despite the danger it puts IDF troops in, is proof, absolute proof, that they DON'T care.
Face reality, my friend. Your leaders don't care if they get you killed. They'll show up at your funeral and pretend to weep, but then they'll go right back and do even more of the shit that sent you to that grave. Just like the leaders in every other country.
And yes, there are countries who simply take care of their own. Your country, at this point, is NOT one of those countries. Neither is mine. Both are backing a horrible right-wing privatization agenda that is actually immiserating a lot of "their own". Bibi doesn't give a damn about ordinary Israelis, and neither does anybody else in his government. The Occupation is the opposite of taking care of one's own. It harms Israels, forces further cuts in social benefits, drives up unemployment and diverts resources that COULD be used to take care of Israelis towards the completely unjustified goal of annexing the West Bank, a goal Bibi STILL hasn't given up on.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)Just curious -- how many Israeli soldier have died as a DIRECT result of settlement expansion?
How many Israeli soldiers (and civilians) as a result of attacks on Israel PRIOR to the policy of settlement expansion.
How many since then?
I think you will find -- if you compare numbers for similar time periods -- you have to either admit the policy of settlement expansion is actually SAVING the lives of Israelis or admit there is no connection at all between the two things.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It endangers those lives by keeping the tensions high.
Without the settlement expansion, the Palestinian leaders would be in talks with Israel at this point. Keeping the expansion going deprives the Israeli government of any moral right to even ask Palestinians to negotiate. Anything that makes it harder to start negotiations is going to put lives at risk. That isn't brain surgery.
There's no justification at all for settlement expansion. It serves no positive purpose. The settlements are big enough. They don't need to keep going until East Jerusalem is Arabrein(which is the only reason settlements are being expanded there now, since there's no other need to expand them there). All settlement expansion does is to empower the extreme right-wing in Israeli politics, a part of the political spectrum that already has unjust and totally negative influence in the current Israeli government. Why encourage the hawks and the arrogant?
No East Jerusalem Palestinians alive today bear any responsibility for what the JORDANIAN authorities did between 1948 and 1967. Only the Jordanians were to blame for that, and all of the Jordanians who were responsible are dead now. So the vindictive displacement of East Jerusalem Palestinians needs to stop.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)You said -- "If they cared about the lives of the troops, they wouldn't keep expanding the damn settlements, when that expansion has no positive consequences and endangers the lives of you and your fellow soldiers. "
That means you believe(d) there to be a direct relationship between settlement expansion and the risk of life to Israeli soldiers.
However, the numbers say that for an equal time period BEFORE the policy of settlement expansion, MORE Israeli soldiers were killed by Palestinian incursions than AFTER. So, by YOUR OWN argument -- not mine -- settlement expansion empirically saves lives of Israeli soldiers.
So, you either have to admit to an INVERSE relationship between settlement expansion and risk to Israeli soldiers -- OR -- which is more logical -- no relationship at all between the two.
If you now -- as you seem to want to do -- want to change you argument as to the legitimacy of settlement expansion, that is fine -- make your argument. I can make an argument in favour of settlement expansion -- both being opinions. However don't link your argument to a risk to Israeli soldiers if your evidence supports the opposite of what you are arguing.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)because, with the two facts, you have correlation but not causation. There's no way to prove that the settlement expansion policy(btw, settlement expansion has been almost continous, even during Oslo, so your argument there is spurious) actually caused a reduction in soldier deaths.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... did you not read what I wrote?
Of course there is no relationship -- your assertion that settlement expansion risks the lives of Israeli soldiers is specious.
Thank you for acknowledging that.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)If Israel did take the Sinai back, wouldn't Egypt have every right to fight to regain it? Wouldn't they have the same rights on that as would any other country that had its territory invaded by any other country?
You can't seriously argue that Israel would have more right to take the Sinai from Egypt than would any other country to take any other country's territory.
shira
(30,109 posts)But now I ask you: If Egypt reneges on Camp David and starts attacking Israel in yet another war of attrition, what should be done about that?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)and you sounded as if you were saying that it would be an injustice for the world NOT to support Israel re-taking the Sinai from Egypt. Did I get you wrong on that?
Israel would have the right to defend itself against Egyptian attack...but that defense could not legitimately include re-taking the Sinai. Israel doesn't NEED the Sinai for defensive purposes...and Israeli control of the Sinai didn't stop Egypt from launching the Yom Kippur War(the war in which Israel came closer to losing to an Arab country than any of the others).
shira
(30,109 posts)I wasn't discussing the re-taking of Sinai with Holden when you posted your question.
Why's it so difficult for you to admit error?
What I said is it would be an injustice for the world NOT to hold Egypt accountable to the CD peace treaty. Notice the world is pretty silent once again, just as they were in 1967 when Egypt had no business running UN troops out of the Sinai in order to line their armory along the Sinai/Israel border.
It's happening again and there you are totally okay with it. Israel will just have to stand on high alert for as long as it takes.
Seriously, what kind of mideast peace do you want when it's perfectly okay in your opinion for the Arab world to not keep it? Why should Israel agree to such nonsense?
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)come back tomorrow, when I'm sure our right-wing friends will manage a similarly revealing statement, yet again.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and this articles reads like one of his games
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)the overall tone is of an armchair general sitting resplendent in front of a pile of coffee table books ordered off the History Channel. But my comment was more aimed at our friend cheering on Israel to "take back" the Sinai.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)muttering to himself who to bomb, who to bomb, so many choices so little time
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)the Desert Dictators' Charity fund or somesuch.
shira
(30,109 posts)Egypt is becoming more rightwing and fanatical than ever. And you support that, don't you?
So tell me, if there was Jewish Spring in which the Kahanists took control and knocked Netanyahu out, would you be cheerleading that one too? Telling us they're really quite moderate like the MB elsewhere throughout the mideast?
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)but I guess its good to get some honesty at last.
I don't think that it would be much different from now.
shira
(30,109 posts)....until the PA and Hamas decided to hold off elections indefinitely.
And one election does not a democracy make.
You know that.
I don't think that it would be much different from now.
I asked if you'd be cheerleading that democratic process. If you'd be claiming the Kahanist movement is actually quite moderate and pragmatic, like the MB.
==============
ETA:
You say theres not much difference b/w Netanyahu and the Kahanist movement and expect to be taken seriously here?
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)The Kahanist National Union is part of Netanyahu's governing coalition, along with other far-right-but-not-quite-there parties such as Yisrael Beteinu.
The Kahanists have no affection for the peace process, just like Netanyahu, but I guess they would want to at least pay lip service to it to keep in good shape with Uncle Sucker, just like Netanyahu.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And nothing would be better if he had been, since he'd have handed the country over to his Bashir Assad-like sons and that would have made everything worse-just as it would have made everything worse to try and keep the Pahlevis in power in their phony royal dynasty in Iran.
It was never a workable strategy to back up "benign tyrants". There was never any such thing as a benign tyrant anyway. All tyrants are the same.
shira
(30,109 posts)...and fanatical and you're for that? It's what's best for all involved?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)There wasn't any liberalism or secularism in Mubarak's era...and it's not as if there won't be more elections.
I'm in favor of helping secular opposition parties learn how to get more votes...the main reason they lost was because they backed right-wing austerity economics, thus making it impossible for working-class Egyptians to support them(Mubarak had wiped out the secular left parties those working-class voters likely would have preferred). The way to defeat the MB government next time is to encourage the actual revival of the secular Egyptian left(most of the Tahrir Square protesters were actually some stripe of leftist, and were not supporters of the MB, btw).
Would you prefer to see the U.S. try to overthrow the MB by force? It's not as if that could work, y'know.
Bradlad
(206 posts)Egypt has seen its last election - at least until the next bloody insurrection which will only come when Morsi becomes fat and lazy and enough that some of his "loyalists" will see their chance to play pharaoh for a while. All in the name of democracy, of course. And you and your friends will be cheering them on because you know that "deep down" everyone just wants to be free and is yearning for true democracy. Now let's all sing Kumbaya for Morsi.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's not as if it was even possible to have saved Mubarak...and it's not as if anything would be better if Mubarak were still in power or had been replaced by one of his greedy, fascistic sons.
Dropping the 101st Airborne into Tahrir Square was not an option.
shira
(30,109 posts)...moderate and a great step towards democracy. That's what nearly EVERY news outlet, NGO, and government was saying at the time.
You read it here during that time from Israelis and people who just knew better that was all a pile of shit.
Cover for extreme, psychopathic, fascist movements is NOT progressive/democratic in any way.
Why not report it for what it was rather than cover for the MB, and make them believe they can do whatever they want?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Wed Aug 22, 2012, 04:43 PM - Edit history (1)
The MB had nothing whatsoever to do with the Tahrir Square occupiers. Those people were and are pro-democracy AND progressive and they were and are ANTI-MB.
Those were the folks most of us were calling progressive...not the MB.
Do you really believe that the only choices anyone could make in Egypt were to be pro-Mubarak or pro-MB? How can you be so narrow-minded about that? Why can't you accept that Mubarak and the MB were not and are not the totality of Egyptian politics?
You will agree that there was no way to keep Mubarak in power, right? And that trying to so couldn't have made anything better? If Mubarak had avoided being overthrown, he'd have handed power over to his sons, turning Egypt into a hereditary dictatorship like Iran under the so-called Shah. Can you not see that everything would be worse if that had happened?
The only reasonable choice the outside world had was to get the hell out of the way.
shira
(30,109 posts)...had moderated itself greatly.
Can we at least agree that the media, NGO's, and government officials who claimed the MB was/is moderate did a GREAT disservice to millions of people? You realize that when that happens, there's no need for a TRULY moderate/liberal Arab coalition. How do you think they feel? Betrayed and fed to the lions, no doubt!
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And you know perfectly well that the Tahrir Square rebels were totally independent of the MB, so what anyone may have said about the MB really doesn't matter(I didn't say they were "moderate"...I said they had moderated their positions...that's not the same thing as being "moderate", and, for whatever its worth, the MB has not been extremist in government(I still don't like them being IN power, but it's not the end of the story and there's a good chance that a more secular opposition will emerge and gain more support in the next election...an election the MB is not going to get away with cancelling without causing a massive popular uprising, an uprising the MB won't be able at all to put down. The key to getting a liberal alignment elected is to get Egyptian liberals to give up their support of market economics and austerity...it was those positions, rather than the liberals positions on political democracy, that cost them the election-people voted MB because it was the only way to vote AGAINST austerity and privatization...Mubarak, aided by the CIA, had wiped out the secular democratic left as a political force years earlier.)
And again...is this really about what anybody said about the MB, or is it about your inability to accept that there was no possible way to keep Mubarak in power? You seem to be obsessed with getting people to say "things would be better if Mubarak still ran Egypt". Why? You know perfectly well that, even if Mubarak had defied reality AND the laws of physics and somehow managed to avoid being deposed, he would have imposed one of his sons as leader...and that transfer of power would have totally made a democratic future impossible.
BTW...you can't seriously think that keeping Mubarak in power could in any way have helped create a "TRULY moderate/liberal coalition". The pattern in all cases in which a dictator's reign is extended through outside intervention, especially outside military intervention, is that leadership of the opposition ends up falling to groups that are more extreme and less reasonable. That's what happened in Iran. If Mossadegh hadn't been put back in power and the U.S. hadn't backed the Shah with massive arms deals for the next twenty-six years, the mullahs would have been much less likely to take power, and secular liberals would have had a much greater chance of replacing the Pahlevis.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Since there is no such thing as a benign tyrant, and all tyrants are the same, what action ought to be taken to support those Iranians who, at great risk to themselves, are bravely and courageously standing up to their tyrannical regime and asking the world for help?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)to help them) in whatever ways they WISH to be assisted-people need to listen to them, not dictate TO them. And it would help a lot if Netanyahu would shut the hell up and stop calling for missile strikes on Iran(every time he does that, he increases domestic support for Ahmadinejad). I don't actually have a specific answer on what would help the Iranian opposition...but the LAST thing that could possibly help them would be to have the U.S. or Israel intervene militarily(especially if the objective of such intervention was to try to put one of the surviving Pahlevis back into power or to create another Shah-like leader...and remember, the Pahlevis ONLY ever held power in Iran because the West(The British, specifically)decided to put them there. Nobody in Iran actually wanted the restoration of the ancient-but-long-abandoned Peacock Throne. And the mullahs never would have come to power had it not been for decades of Western backing for the Shah(including his restoration after the CIA murdered Mossadegh in 1953).
There really isn't such a thing as a benign tyrant(you know this as well as I do). And what happened in Iran in 1979 and Egypt last year are the inevitable results of pretending that "benign" tyrants exist and that it's possible to craft a sustainable policy out of allying your country with them. The Shah was always bound to fall sometime, as was Mubarak, as was Somoza, as were the kleptocrats in Saigon, and as was every other murderous, greedy, corrupt thug the U.S. ever declared to be "OUR son-of-a-bitch". Is it asking too much to expect everybody to learn the lesson of history here?
Oberliner-you're a reasonable person...you DO accept that there's no possible way that Mubarak could have been kept in power last year, don't you? That even sending in the Marines couldn't have saved the guy? And that nothing would have been better if Mubarak had somehow been saved, since all that would have meant was that he'd have handed off power to his Bashir Assad-like sons? How can any serious-minded person disagree with ANY of that?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Don't mean to pull things too far off topic, but it does seem like you don't really have an answer for the Iran situation, which is understandable. I do think human rights groups especially have a responsibility to speak out against the ruling tyrant there, irrespective of whatever the US or Israel is saying about it. The Supreme Leader is an unelected dictator, and human rights in Iran are abominable. What kind of government would the people of Iran vote for if given the chance? It's worth finding out the answer to that question in my opinion.
With regard to your question about Egypt, I agree that Mubarak was destined to be deposed. In fact, I predicted that would happen just when the Tunisian business began. I always thought it was rather tenuous in Egypt. Everyone always called Egypt moderate because of Mubarak, but really their population was probably the least moderate of any in the Middle East. The election results confirm that, and now the people there have a government that more accurately reflects their will. Unfortunately for countries like Israel and the US, that probably means a less friendly relationship with Egypt, but such is the nature of elections.
From a purely political perspective, countries would in some cases rather have friendly allies who are dictatorial than belligerent governments who were elected freely. Those dictators, as you point out, however, tend, inevitably to fall. Lord knows what might happen were, for example, something similar to happen in Saudi Arabia. That relationship (Saudi-US) is one of the least examined but most significant ones in the region.
In any case, I support free elections everywhere - and I support holding those elected leaders to some universal standards of human rights. Everywhere. Very few countries, unfortunately many democracies among them, do not live up to these standards.
I think it is interesting that some folks are very keen on some revolutions and less on others. As you must have noticed, there is often some serious inconsistency there.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)one of your better posts, obers.
Response to Ken Burch (Reply #58)
Post removed
burnsei sensei
(1,820 posts)nt