Author Topic: Israel, and its neighbors  (Read 981291 times)

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #1100 on: January 04, 2011, 06:24:18 PM »
To an extent, it is a bribe. At the same time, Israel would stomp a mudhole in Egypt's ass in another war, both sides know it. The world's worst kept secret is Israel's nuclear weapons. Israel has no dreams for expansion, conquest. Israel just wants to survive and not be the subject of endless threats and attacks. Israel protects islamic holy sites, including the dome of the rock mosque from those that would destroy it to bring about the "end times", despite the way Jews are treated in the muslim world.

Israel protects christians and other religious minorities in Israel. Christians elsewhere in the middle east enjoy no such protections, even under "dhimmi" status.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #1101 on: January 04, 2011, 06:32:11 PM »
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xv6NWbVyAc&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Good parenting here. Preparing them to live in peace?

JDN

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2004
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #1102 on: January 04, 2011, 06:40:36 PM »
As a Christian, I am grateful that that Israel does protect religious minorities; mine being on of them.   :-)

I agree, Egypt would lose again, nevertheless, a united Arab front including Egypt would only make it more difficult and costly for Israel.
And yes, everyone seems to know Israel has nuclear weapons, but I can't imagine them being used unless all else fails and they are about to
be overrun.  Even then, to be the first to use nuclear weapons (without being threatened by nuclear weapons) would open up a Pandora's Box and
would have severe repercussions. 

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #1103 on: January 04, 2011, 06:44:35 PM »
Yes, Israel is a sober and responsible custodian of it's nukes. Any surrounding neighbors you'd want to have nukes, JDN?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Egypt Cuts a Deal: Christians Fed to Muslim 'Lions'
« Reply #1104 on: January 04, 2011, 06:56:16 PM »
Egypt Cuts a Deal: Christians Fed to Muslim 'Lions'

by Raymond Ibrahim
Hudson New York
October 18, 2010

http://www.raymondibrahim.com/8081/coptic-persecution-mubarak

For centuries, the Copts — Egypt's Christian, indigenous inhabitants — have been subject to persecution, discrimination, humiliation, and over all subjugation in their homeland (etymologically, "Copt" simply means "Egyptian").  In the medieval era, such treatment was a standard aspect of sharia's dhimmi codes, first ratified under Caliph Omar in the 7th century and based on Koran 9:29.  Conversely, during the colonial era and into the mid 20th century, as Egypt experimented with westernization and nationalism, religious discrimination was markedly subdued.  Today, however, as Egypt all but spearheads the Islamist movement — giving the world Sayyid Qutb, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Aymen Zawahiri in the process — that is, as Egypt reverts to its medieval character, the Copts find themselves again in a period of severe persecution.

And there appears to be no one to stop it — not even those most accountable: America's friend and ally, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and his government.  Indeed, recent events indicate that the Mubarak regime is intentionally inciting Egypt's Muslims against the Copts.

Consider: on September 15, prominent Egyptian  Muhammad Salim al-Awwa, ex-secretary general of the International Union for Muslim Scholars, appeared on Al Jazeera and, in a wild tirade, accused the Copts of "stocking arms and ammunitions in their churches and monasteries"— imported from Israel, no less, since "Israel is in the heart of the Coptic Cause" — and "preparing to wage war against Muslims."

He warned that if nothing is done, the "country will burn," urging Muslims to "counteract the strength of the [Coptic] Church."  Al-Awwa further charged that Egypt's security forces cannot enter the monasteries to investigate for weapons — an amazing assertion, considering that Coptic monasteries are not only at the mercy of the state, but easy prey to Islamist/Bedouin attacks.

Needless to say, these remarks have inflamed Muslim passions (not to mention paranoia) against Egypt's Christians, who make approximately 12% of the population.  To make matters worse, right on the heels of al-Awwa's "monastery-conspiracy-theory," Islamist leaders began to circulate baseless rumors that the Church and Pope Shenouda III "kidnap" Coptic women who willingly convert to Islam, and trap them in desert monasteries, "torturing" and "re-indoctrinating" them back to Christianity — even when the women in question publicly insist they never converted to Islam.

Due to all these allegations, since last month, there have been at least ten mass demonstrations in Egypt — most numbering in the thousands — condemning the Copts, the Coptic Church, and Pope Shenouda.  The "Front of Islamic Egypt" issued a statement promising the Copts a "blood bath."  Most recently, on October 8, Muslim demonstrators chanted "Shenouda, just wait, we will dig your grave with our own hands," while burning the 86 year-old pope's effigy.

At the very least, the usually intrusive Mubarak regime could have easily dispelled the absurd rumor that Coptic monks, among Egypt's most humble figures, were stockpiling weapons for an imaginary coup d'état in Egypt, by formally investigating and clearing the monasteries of the charge.  Same with the ludicrous rumors that the Pope is kidnapping and torturing Coptic women who freely convert to Islam — an especially odd rumor considering the reverse is true: in Egypt, Christian women are regularly kidnapped and compelled to embrace Islam.

To further exasperate matters, on September 26, Al Azhar, a formal state body of Egypt, denounced a remark on Koran 5:17, which accuses Christians of being "infidels," made by a Coptic clergyman at an internal meeting on dogma, as "blasphemous."  It further took this opportunity to state formally that citizenship rights in Egypt "are conditional to respect for the Islamic identity" of Egypt, thereby reversing any modern progress made regarding Egyptian equality and reinforcing the Copts' historical role as dhimmis (i.e., conditionally tolerated religious minorities). Pope Shenouda was further compelled to publicly apologize "if our Muslim brothers' feelings were hurt."

All this in a nation where Christian and Jewish scriptures are systematically denounced as fabricated.  Indeed, mere weeks earlier, a well known publishing house in Egypt issued a book dedicated to "proving" that Christians had forged the Bible.  Such double standards are well entrenched: after all, whereas the Coptic clergyman privately remarked on a Koranic verse, the Egyptian government openly interferes with Christian doctrine, while preventing Muslims from converting to Christianity, in accordance to sharia's ridda, or apostasy, laws.  For example, Mohammad Hegazy is one of many Egyptians who tried formally to change his religion from Muslim to Christian on his I.D. card —in Egypt, people are Gestapo-like categorized by their religion — only to be denied by the Egyptian court. (Many other such anecdotes abound.)

Considering the citizenship rights Copts enjoyed in the early to mid 20th century, how did things come to this pass?  Much of this can be traced to Mubarak's predecessor, Anwar Sadat, who altered Egypt's Constitution — by adding Article 2, "sharia is the principle source of legislation" — only to be rewarded, ironically, with assassination by the Islamist "Frankenstein monster" he had empowered.  Since then, there has been a tacit agreement between the government and the Islamists.  As Youssef Ibrahim puts it, the agreement "turned over to Islamists control in media, education, and government administrations in return for allowing Mr. Mubarak's rule to go on unchallenged, setting the stage … for his son, Gamal, to succeed him. As part of the deal, [Mubarak] agreed to feed Egypt's Christians to the growing Islamic beast."

Hence the dire situation the Copts find themselves in.  Magdi Khalil, a human rights activist at the forefront of the "Coptic question," states that "Egypt is on the verge of chaos and change of regime and there is a plan for Copts to pay the price of this predicted chaos, by directing the surplus violence, hate and barbarism towards them."   This redirection onto the Copts is obvious even in subtle things: aside from the habitual anti-Copt indoctrination that goes on in mosques — all of the aforementioned demonstrations occurred immediately after Friday's mosque prayers — Egypt's state run public education system also marginalizes, if not ostracizes, the Copts (see, for example, Adel Guindy's "The Talibanization of Education in Egypt.")

More obvious proof of the government's complicity is the fact that, not only has it not prevented or dispersed the increasingly rabid demonstrations against the Copts — the way it viciously and unequivocally does whenever any protests are directed against itself — but Egyptian security, as Magdi Khalil affirmed in a phone conversation, actually facilitate, and sometimes participate, in these mass demonstrations.  After all, Islamists who publicly call for the death of the Pope do so, writes Ibrahim Eissa, "knowing quite well that State Security will not touch them, since demonstrations are directed against the Pope and not the President, the Church and not the inheritance issue [Gamal Mubarak as successor of his father]. Those who go out in Jihad against 'inheritance,' democracy and election fraud are beaten mercilessly by security forces but those who go out to incite sectarian violence between Muslims and Christians believe …that they are the friends and 'buddies' of the police and the State Security."

As history teaches, whenever a majority group casts all its woes onto a minority group, great tragedy often follows. This is especially so when the majority group in question begins taking on an Islamist—that is, intolerant, violent, and medieval — character.  Yet if Egypt's "secular" government and U.S. ally is willing to sacrifice the Coptic scapegoat to appease the ever-burgeoning Islamist monster it has been nurturing for some four decades, to whom can Egypt's Christians look for relief?

Raymond Ibrahim is associate director of the Middle East Forum, author of The Al Qaeda Reader, and guest lecturer at the National Defense Intelligence College.

JDN

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2004
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #1105 on: January 04, 2011, 07:55:25 PM »
Yes, Israel is a sober and responsible custodian of it's nukes. Any surrounding neighbors you'd want to have nukes, JDN?

If you are referring to Iran, short of using nuclear weapons Israel is welcome to attack (defend itself) and destroy any nuclear weapon installations in Iran.
God bless them. 

Frankly, if most of the Middle East (Arab countries) sank into the the Mediterranean or Arabian Sea I don't think in the long run we would be worse off.
Maybe better...

But you harp on the Copts. 
Besides sympathy (doesn't buy you a cup of coffee), is there something you suggest we do?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #1106 on: January 04, 2011, 11:55:52 PM »
We could start by noting that the hatred of Israel and the Jews really has little to do with what Israel does and does not do; the hatred simply is of anything not Islamic.  Such an awareness should inform the criteria by which we judge Israel.   Our society's ideas about racism are formed in the context of the majority dealing with minorities.  OTOH Israel is surrounded by vastly superior numbers of those, many/most of whom wish to wipe it out.  Given its size, the margin of error for Israel is quite small.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #1107 on: January 05, 2011, 05:12:20 AM »

"But you harp on the Copts.
Besides sympathy (doesn't buy you a cup of coffee), is there something you suggest we do?"

**Prepare to take in a bunch if Egypt decides to get Armenian on them.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #1108 on: January 05, 2011, 10:27:39 AM »
http://www.mefacts.com/cache/html/wall-ruling_/11362.htm

As a result of the policies of Teddy Kollek, the mayor of Jerusalem from 1966 to 1993, facilities were provided for the Arab minority of East Jerusalem far beyond anything introduced under Jordanian rule, including a sewer and piped water system, clinics, libraries, parks and gardens. Access to Israeli hospitals was unrestricted. The Arab neighborhoods also grew in both size and prosperity. The Christian Arab communities declined, however, with many leading Christian Arab families emigrating, as they had in what had been largely Christian Bethlehem, because of Muslim hostility.

The Christian communities inside Jerusalem have suffered throughout the centuries from chronic disagreements among themselves, and from frequent hostility and neglect by the city's rulers. With reunification in 1967, Israel pledged to uphold freedom of access and worship, and this pledge has been kept. The Via Dolorosa is among the city's busiest routes. Christians of every denomination (there are more than thirty in the city) worship at their holy places, which are often divided between two or more denominations, and were in the past much fought over, amid blows and curses. Those in search of the Garden of Gethsemane can ,choose among three different sites, depending on the branch of their faith. Two different sites, one inside and one outside the present Old City walls, are both claimed as the true Calgary. Within the Holy Sepulchre, where the most visited of these Calgarys is located, six separate Christian denominations have their custodians; each has its own altars and places of worship. Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholics, Greek Catholics, Armenians, Protestants and Copts are the main Christian groups in the city. Each has its own needs, aspirations, properties, leaders and worshipers. For several years a Mormon university has been an impressive feature of Mount Scopus, adjacent to the Hebrew University.

Under Israeli rule, Christian worship is unimpeded. Churches can now be freely built and freely repaired. Outside Christian interests are continually asserted. This summer, the first Vatican emissary to Israel since 1948 asked for special consideration of Roman Catholic needs. Within a month, an emissary from President Boris Yeltsin of Russia pressed the concerns of the new Russia for a voice. Israel responded by agreeing to continue to uphold the needs of all Christian religious denominations. Foreign Minister Shimon Peres informed the Russian emissary that whereas political rights, of which the Russians also had spoken, must be retained by Israel, the spiritual rights of all religious groups would be scrupulously upheld.

JDN

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2004
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #1109 on: January 05, 2011, 03:34:55 PM »

"But you harp on the Copts.
Besides sympathy (doesn't buy you a cup of coffee), is there something you suggest we do?"

**Prepare to take in a bunch if Egypt decides to get Armenian on them.


LA already took their fair share of the Armenians....
You can have the Copts...    :-)

Seriously, what do you think we should do?
Or are you just lamenting the plight of the Copts, yet still think we should give money to Egypt?

Action has repercussions. 

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #1110 on: January 05, 2011, 03:44:11 PM »
Forgive me for interjecting here, but as best as I can tell the point is the standards to which Israel should be held.  The question is not what the US should do about Egypt and the Copts, the point is that the treatment of Christians throughout the mid-east, including Egypt and Iraq shows a pronounced proclivity to Islamic animus towards anything not Islamic.  In that Israel is surrounded by such folks, standards need to be formulated in a way that does call for Israel to prepare the way for its own destruction.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #1111 on: January 05, 2011, 03:51:41 PM »
The problem is Egypt is very brittle. Were the Muslim Brotherhood to take over, things for the Copts, as well as average Egyptians would be much worse off. Keep in mind that those who could take power in Egypt see the pyramids and other artifacts there as something they'd like to destroy, just as the Taliban destroyed the Buddhas in Bamiyan. And, like the talibs, the destruction of artifacts would be the least of the horrible things done by them.

Egypt used to be very westernized, now salafism is taking deep root in the population. This does not bode well for the future. Classic Egyptian things, like belly dancing are going away because they are "unislamic".

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #1112 on: January 05, 2011, 04:18:05 PM »
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/04/ap/middleeast/main7213241.shtml

Anti-Christian Drumbeat Loud Before Egypt Attack
In Church Attack, Egypt Looking At Islamic Hard-liners At Home, Possible Al-Qaida Influence


(AP)  CAIRO (AP) - In the weeks before the New Year's Day suicide bombing of an Egyptian church, al-Qaida-linked websites carried a how-to manual on "destroying the cross," complete with videos on how to build a bomb and the locations of churches to target - including the one that was attacked.

They may have found a receptive audience in Alexandria, where increasingly radicalized Islamic hard-liners have been holding weekly anti-Christian demonstrations, filled with venomous slogans against the minority community.

The blast, which struck Saturday as worshippers were leaving midnight Mass at the Mediterranean city's Saints Church, killed 21 people.

President Hosni Mubarak has accused foreign groups of being behind the attack, which has sparked a wave of angry protests by Christians in Egypt.

But on the ground, investigators are searching in a different direction - scrutinizing homegrown hard-liners, known as Salafis, and the possibility they were inspired by al-Qaida.

Only two or three days before Saturday's bombing, police arrested several Salafis spreading fliers in Alexandria calling for violence against Christians, a security official said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media.

According to authorities, the strong belief among investigators is that local extremists who knew the area and the nature of their target were behind the blast. The Egyptian weekly Al-Youm Al-Saba said police were examining photos of the Salafis' weekly protests for suspects.

In the weeks before the attack, al-Qaida militants on the Web spewing calls for "jihad," or holy war, on Egypt's Christians laid out everything anyone would need to carry out a bombing.

One widely circulated posting includes a so-called "Jihadi Encyclopedia for the Destruction of the Cross," with a series of 10 videos describing how to build a bomb.

In the videos, an unidentified militant in a white lab coat and a black mask is shown listing the ingredients to make TNT and mixing up the chemicals in beakers.

The site lists Coptic Christian churches in Egypt, along with phone numbers and addresses - including Alexandria's Saints Church. "Blow up the churches while they are celebrating Christmas or any other time when the churches are packed," it says.

Security officials say they were aware of the online "how-to manual" before the church bombing and are examining any links between it and the material posted on Islamic websites.

One main Salafi group, the Salafi Movement in Alexandria, issued a statement condemning the bombing, saying its preachings "reject such practices."

The ultra-conservative Salafi ideology has been gaining followers throughout Egypt in recent years, preaching a return to the ways of early Muslims. It calls for strict segregation of the sexes and rejection of any religious "innovations," such as permitting boys and girls to attend school together or collecting interest on bank loans.

The movement has spread across class lines, among wealthy businessmen, the middle class and urban poor. Men grow long beards and shave off mustaches, to imitate the Prophet Muhammad. Women wear the black niqab robes and veil, which envelop the entire body and face, showing only the eyes.

In many ways, it resembles the doctrine of al-Qaida, with one major difference - while it advocates jihad against "foreign occupiers" in Iraq or Afghanistan, it rejects holy war inside Egypt, at least for now.

But many observers warn that some members are growing more radicalized and have begun to advocate jihad within the country, providing fertile ground for al-Qaida influence.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #1113 on: January 05, 2011, 04:26:08 PM »
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/todaysfeatures/2006/April/todaysfeatures_April5.xml&section=todaysfeatures

Fatwa against statues triggers uproar in Egypt
(AFP)

3 April 2006
CAIRO -A fatwa issued by Egypt’s top religious authority, which forbids the display of statues has art-lovers fearing it, could be used by Islamic extremists as an excuse to destroy Egypt’s historical heritage.

Egypt’s Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa, the country’s top Islamic jurist, issued the religious edict which declared as un-Islamic the exhibition of statues in homes, basing the decision on texts in the hadith (sayings of the prophet).

Intellectuals and artists argue that the decree represents a setback for art -- a mainstay of the multi-billion-dollar tourist industry -- and would deal a blow to the country’s fledgling sculpture business.

The fatwa did not specifically mention statues in museums or public places, but it condemned sculptors and their work.

Still, many fear the edict could prod Islamic fundamentalists to attack Egypt’s thousands of ancient and pharaonic statues on show at tourist sites across the country.

“We don’t rule out that someone will enter the Karnak temple in Luxor or any other pharaonic temple and blow it up on the basis of the fatwa,” Gamal al-Ghitani, editor of the literary Akhbar al-Adab magazine, told AFP.

Wave of criticisms

Gomaa had pointed to a passage from the hadith that stated: ”Sculptors would be tormented most on Judgment Day,” saying the text left no doubt that sculpting was “sinful” and using statues for decorating homes forbidden.

Gomaa’s ruling overturned a fatwa issued more than 100 years ago by then moderate and highly respected mufti Mohammed Abdu, permitting the private display of statues after the practice had been condemned as a pagan custom.

Abdu’s fatwa had “closed the issue, as it ruled that statues and pictures are not haram (forbidden under Islam) except idols used for worship,” Ghitani pointed out.

Novelist Ezzat al-Qamhawi said Gomaa’s ruling would “return Muslims to the dark ages.”

Movie director Daud Abdul Sayed said the fatwa “simply ignored the spiritual evolvement of Muslims since the arrival of Islam... Clearly, it was natural that they forbid statues under early Islam because people worshipped them.

“But are there Muslims worshipping statues nearly 15 centuries later?” he asked.

The notion sounds “ridiculous,” Yussef Zidan, director of the manuscript museum at the prestigious Bibliotheca Alexandrina, told AFP.

“Why would anyone even bring up the issue (of the statues) in a country where there are more than 10 state-owned institutions that teach sculpting and more than 20 others that teach the history of art?”

Ghitani added: “It’s time for those placing impediments between Islam and innovation to get out of our lives.”

The wave of criticisms against the fatwa has put clerics on a collision course with intellectuals and artists, who say that such edicts only reinforce claims -- particularly in the West -- that Islam is against progress.

Some, including Sayed, compared Gomaa’s edict to a similar one issued by the former fundamentalist rulers of Afghanistan, the Taleban, that led to the destruction of statues of the Buddha despite an international outcry.

**Snip

Gomaa has already put out a few contentious decrees and appears set to break his predecessor mufti Wasel’s record on notorious fatwas.

Wasel stirred a controversy in July 2001 for issuing a fatwa against a popular television show, the Arab version of “Who wants to be a millionaire?” that was airing on Egyptian television, saying it was forbidden by Islam.

“These contests are a modern form of betting,” Wasel had said.

The show was eventually cancelled, although it was not clear if the move was related to the fatwa.

In another fatwa in May 2001, Wasel ruled that beauty pageants in which women appear half-naked in front of panels of male judges are haram. The authorities played deaf and Egypt continues to host them.

Wasel slapped a fatwa on watching solar eclipses and another on bullfights, but refused to support rights activists in their campaign to outlaw female genital mutilation.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #1114 on: January 05, 2011, 04:40:26 PM »
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/may/10/islam-sufi-salafi-egypt-religion

Salafi intolerance threatens Sufis

Egypt's peaceful Muslims are being denied religious freedoms as the influence of conservative Salafism grows


          o Baher Ibrahim
          o guardian.co.uk, Monday 10 May 2010 09.00 BST
       
Whenever religious freedom is discussed in Egypt, the topic inevitably turns to the status of the Christian Copts. Thousands of articles have been written about Egypt's Copts and how they are denied their religious freedoms, but it almost never occurs to anyone that even Sunni Muslims are being deprived of their basic rights to religious freedom and worship.

That is exactly what happened at the end of last month when the ministry of awqaf (religious endowments) decided to ban Egypt's Sufi orders from holding gatherings for the performance of dhikr – rituals devoted to the remembrance of God. Sufis have been performing these rituals for centuries, so a ban at this particular time is absurd.

The ministry's excuse is that the ban is intended to pre-empt undesirable behaviour at Sufi gatherings, such as the shouting of invocations and late-night loitering in mosques. In a city such as Cairo where the noise of traffic is a constant background, it just doesn't make sense. Clashes took place at Cairo's al-Husayn and al-Sayyida Zeinab mosques between members of Sufi orders and security forces who forced them to evacuate the two shrines.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #1115 on: January 05, 2011, 05:07:32 PM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahilia

Jahiliyyah, al-Jahiliyah or jahalia (Arabic: جاهلية) is an Islamic concept of "ignorance of divine guidance" or "the state of ignorance of the guidance from God"[1] or "Days of Ignorance"[2] referring to the condition Arabs found themselves in pre-Islamic Arabia, i.e. prior to the revelation of the Qur'an to Muhammad. By extension it means the state of anyone not following Islam and the Qur'an.

**It's this concept that spawned the destruction of the Bamiyan statues. Anything pre-islamic or seen as un-islamic is thought of as having no value.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #1116 on: January 05, 2011, 06:54:20 PM »
Now you've done it JDN, he's on a rampage!  :lol: 

More seriously now, wouldn't you love to have these folks as your neighbors and marrying your daughters?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Credit where credit is due
« Reply #1117 on: January 06, 2011, 06:42:05 PM »
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/95/3216/Egypt/Attack-on-Egypt-Copts/Egypt-Muslims-to-act-as-human-shields-at-Coptic-Ch.aspx

Egypt Muslims to act as "human shields" at Coptic Christmas Eve mass
Coptic Churches around the country expect an influx of Egyptian Muslims to share with the country's Christians their Christmas Eve mass

**It would be nice to see this as the start of something important. It won't stop the jihadists though.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #1118 on: January 06, 2011, 06:53:25 PM »
Whatever happens, it will be interesting. 

The Adventure continues!

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #1119 on: January 07, 2011, 03:31:43 AM »
CAIRO — A deadly suicide bomb attack outside a Christian church in Alexandria on Saturday has forced the government and religious leaders here to acknowledge that Egypt is increasingly plagued by a sectarian divide that could undermine the stability that has been a hallmark of President Hosni Mubarak’s nearly three decades in power.

A church in Shoubra, a Cairo neighborhood where many Christians live. Security is being tightened for celebrations of Coptic Christmas on Thursday and Friday.
As Egypt’s Christians headed to church under heavy security Thursday night to observe Coptic Christmas Eve, the nation was struggling to come to terms with a blast that killed at least 21 people, highlighted a long list of public grievances with the government and prompted concerns that national cohesion was being threatened by the spread of religious extremism among Muslims and Christians. (I've not heard of extremism amongst the Copts.  Anyone know what POTH is talking about here?)

“I have heard this a lot, that this type of incident might be the first in a series, turning Egypt into another Iraq — that is the fear now,” said Ibrahim Negm, the chief spokesman for Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa, the nation’s highest religious official. “There is a paradigm shift here that says we have to do something about the sectarian issue.”

The bombing, which the authorities said bore the characteristics of an operation by Al Qaeda, has increased the likelihood that Mr. Mubarak, who is 82 years old and has had health problems, will seek a sixth six-year term this year, in order to preserve the status quo. Yet, it is precisely that stability — or, some say, stagnation — that many Egyptians now cite as perhaps the nation’s greatest underlying problem.

“The regime fooled us for many years with the illusion of ‘stability,’ ” wrote Magdy el-Gallad, in the independent daily newspaper Al Masry Al Youm. “We neither progressed nor has our situation remained stable.”

After the bombing and the ensuing riots, political experts, politicians, commentators, opposition leaders and average citizens said that the very steps taken by the president in the name of stability — including preservation of an emergency law that allows arrest without charge — had produced a state with weak institutions, weak political parties and a bureaucracy unable to resolve the social, political and economic problems that helped cultivate extremism.

“It is very clear that the government totally lost control — of everything,” said Muhammad Aboulghar, a professor at Cairo University medical school and a liberal activist. “The only control they have is on the security of the president, the group around him, and few other party figures. That’s it.”

But for all the criticism it unleashed, the blast appears to have forged a consensus that Egypt, despite its historic tradition of moderate Islamic thinking and multicultural tolerance, has in recent years become overwhelmed by fundamentalist religious identification, a position that until now the government strongly denied.

That view has reinforced the growing belief that President Mubarak was not ready to surrender the reins of power, people here said. Mr. Mubarak underwent surgery in Germany last year, and appeared frail for months afterward, leading to speculation about who might succeed him. But people who have recently met with him said that he appears to have regained his strength and seems to have no intention of giving up power.

There is also a belief among those in the political elite, the military, the business community and the governing National Democratic Party that with so much uncertainty — even before the bombing — this is not the time for the party to nominate Mr. Mubarak’s son, Gamal, to run in September’s presidential election.

“If Mubarak disappears tomorrow, you will have the Islamists as the strongest political force in the country,” said Mohammed Salmawy, head of the Arab Writers Union. “The political parties, even lumped together, do not have the power to take over, and you have the army, which will not allow the country to go into chaos. Worse yet, you might have military Islamic rule because there is no reason to suppose the army is any different than society.”

When the bomb exploded shortly after New Year’s Eve Mass, the government moved with unusual speed and certainty. Within hours, President Mubarak made a televised address urging national unity. Muslim religious leaders, like Mr. Gomaa, quickly condemned the attack and reached out to the leader of the church, Pope Shenouda III.

===========

Page 2 of 2)



Within days there were pop songs on the radio calling for unity; billboards around the nation displaying the crescent moon and the cross, symbols of both faiths; and promises that government officials would this time follow through on plans to prevent more violence and correct the underlying problem.

But the effort was widely dismissed here as window dressing by an out-of-touch elite.

“While Egyptian officials fell in love with numbers — of streets paved, of hospitals built, the number of hotels and so on — somewhere the symbolic or the ideological mission of the state withered away,” said Ali Eddin Helal, a senior official in the National Democratic Party. “No state can live just by figures or by numbers. You have to give people meaning.”

The talk of unity failed to stop Christians and their supporters from pouring into the streets by the thousands.

“The government is corrupt!” shouted Mina Magdy, 23, who joined one of the demonstrations in the Shoubra neighborhood of Cairo on Tuesday. “If there was justice, nobody would dare do this. But the people who kill are not being held accountable.”

The bombing opened the floodgates of frustration among Christians who had long chafed under what they saw as discriminatory laws.

Many complained that the government had allowed unrestricted construction of mosques while restricting even the restoration of churches. They complained that no one had yet been tried in a Christmas Eve shooting last year in Nag Hammadi, a town in Upper Egypt where a Muslim gunman fired on Christian worshipers, killing 7 people and wounding 10. And they complained about the last parliamentary elections, in which the opposition emerged with fewer than 20 seats out of a total of 518 in Parliament, fueling widespread accusations of fraud and vote rigging, which the government has denied.

“This sectarian atmosphere is driving young people to retreat and lock themselves within the framework of the church,” said Gamal Asaad, a Coptic Christian and member of Parliament. “There is no room for political participation, which makes them susceptible to the conservative religious discourse. If there were real elections, if there was real representation, if there was any real participation by the people, then the political decisions could be more appropriate and address all these problems.”

In the last few years, Egypt has struggled through a seemingly endless series of crises and setbacks. The sinking of a ferry left 1,000 mostly poor Egyptians lost at sea, an uncontrollable fire gutted the historic Parliament building, terrorists attacked Sinai resorts, labor strikes affected nearly every sector of the work force and sectarian-tinged violence erupted, including last year’s shooting in Upper Egypt.

And in nearly every case, the state addressed the issue as a security matter, deploying the police, detaining suspects, dispersing crowds. That was also true in 2010, even as evidence mounted of growing tension between Egypt’s Muslim majority and a Christian minority that includes about 10 percent of the approximately 80 million Egyptians.

“I think that 2010 was a very, very bad year in the history of Egypt,” said Mona Makram-Ebeid, a former member of Parliament from a prominent Christian family. “Will this be a national awakening? If not, it might portend very, very dangerous days to come.”

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

rachelg

  • Guest
Not a fait accompli, after all
« Reply #1121 on: January 21, 2011, 01:30:01 PM »
Editor's Notes: Not a fait accompli, after all
By DAVID HOROVITZ 
01/21/2011 16:24
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=204578
Dagan’s final act, backed up by the reported success of Stuxnet, was to shatter the illusion that Iran's drive for nuclear weapons is unstoppable.


Two weeks ago, the departing Mossad chief, Meir Dagan, gave an extraordinary briefing to about two dozen senior Israeli journalists. Extraordinary for two reasons: First, because the head of an organization engaged in clandestine activities all over the world had not previously made a habit of taking large groups of local reporters into his confidence. And second, because he vouchsafed the assessment that Iran, which had hitherto been understood to be perhaps a year away from a nuclear weapons capability, was now unlikely to reach that goal before the middle of the decade.

Dagan’s briefing, his radical departure from years of secretive Mossad scheming in the country’s defense, was not supposed to have been for attribution: He was providing information that the reporters could use in their writing, it was made clear to the assembled journalists, but that was not to be presented in his name. Every news outlet that was present at the briefing, The Jerusalem Post included, faithfully honored this understanding. Except for one, Yediot Aharonot, which, on its front page the following day, splashed a story headlined “Outgoing Mossad chief Meir Dagan warns: ‘Don’t hurry to attack Iran,” complete with a picture of Dagan and a sub-headline that quoted him as saying that various “actions against Iran have pushed it away from a bomb until 2015 at the earliest.”

On Monday of this past week, Dagan made another appearance, before the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, and backpedaled a little. There were, he now took pains to stress, “certain scenarios” under which the ayatollahs could “shorten the time” it would take them to go nuclear. Certainly, he noted, there was no room for complacency. North Korea, he cautioned, was a case study in the dangers of an inadequate international response to a rogue state’s nuclear ambitions.

It has been speculated that Dagan’s uncharacteristic venture into the media minefields was designed by this shrewdest of operators to undercut Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s relentless drumbeat regarding Teheran. It was notable that shortly after Dagan’s press briefing, Netanyahu rushed to play down the 2015 timeline as merely representing “intelligence estimates.”

Dagan, it is argued, considers that premature military intervention in Iran would be a grave strategic mistake. Yediot, indeed, directly quoted him as saying “One should go to war only if the sword is at the throat.”

But Dagan may also have had another, related aim in going semi-public: reversing what until recently had been the growing sense, around the world, that in the absence of high-risk military intervention, by Israel or anyone else, a nuclear Iran was a fait accompli.

Teheran has worked hard to create that sense – hyping each ostensible technological advance, publicizing every expansion of its uranium-enrichment capacity, repeatedly asserting its membership in the select nuclear club. Its working hypothesis, plainly, was that if it could persuade the watching world that its nuclear drive was unstoppable, it would undermine the international will to thwart it, via sanctions and other pressures. Image and hype would gradually become reality.

Dagan’s press briefing went a good distance toward countering the defeatist mindset Teheran has been trying to inculcate among its worldwide opponents. Iran, he made clear, had been several years away from a nuclear weapons capability when he took office in 2002. And now, more than eight years on, although it had made immense strides forward, it was still several years away.

Clearly, ran the Mossad chief’s inference, there was nothing inevitable about a nucleararmed Iran, after all. And, by implied extension, there was every incentive to intensify both clandestine activities against the nuclear program, and overt international sanctions against the fundamentalist regime that is pursuing it. Iran can certainly be stopped, and without resort to military action, ran Dagan’s message – a message both directed at his own prime minister and designed to further invigorate international sanctions pressure.

DRAMATICALLY BOLSTERING this contention have been the flood of foreign reports in the course of Dagan’s time at the Mossad of sabotage in the Iranian program – reports culminating in the last few days in unprecedented revelations about the effects of the Stuxnet computer virus, apparently deeply embedded in Iran’s nuclear computer systems.

Over the years, we heard first about a strange fire breaking out at an Iranian laboratory, about a plane linked to the nuclear program crashing, about various equipment malfunctions. Then nuclear scientists started disappearing. A year ago, nuclear physicist Massoud Ali Mohammadi was killed by a remote-controlled bomb. Two months earlier, his colleague Majid Shahriari, a quantum physicist, was assassinated by an explosive device affixed to his car by a passing motorcyclist. A third top scientist, Fereydoon Abbasi Davani, narrowly escaped the same fate in a similar operation that same morning.

But Stuxnet has elevated the reported impact of sabotage to an entirely new level. In recent weeks, the Post has carried several articles detailing the ostensible damage achieved by this fiendishly sophisticated computer worm, quoting international experts suggesting that it has set back the uranium enrichment program by two years. The virus reportedly caused the motors driving the enrichment centrifuges at Iran’s Natanz facility to speed up to the point where the centrifuges smashed into each other, and the expert opinion was that Iran would have to replace all of its computer equipment if it wanted to be freed of Stuxnet’s catastrophically contagious attentions.

Our reports, and some in other newspapers, cited speculation that Israel may have had a hand, or more pertinently a head, in the ultra-sophisticated virus assault. But no Israeli officials were taking any credit.

Then, last weekend, The New York Times firmly rooted Stuxnet in Israeli territory. It reported that the Dimona complex, “the heavily guarded heart of Israel’s never-acknowledged nuclear arms program,” had become “a critical testing ground in a joint American and Israeli effort to undermine Iran’s efforts to make a bomb of its own.”

Specifically, it went on, Israel had constructed at Dimona a centrifuge network “virtually identical to Iran’s at Natanz,” and used it to test and refine Stuxnet, which it called “the most sophisticated cyberweapon ever deployed.”

“To check out the worm, you have to know the machines,” it quoted an unnamed American expert on nuclear intelligence as saying. “The reason the worm has been effective is that the Israelis tried it out.”

So effective had Stuxnet proved, the Times further reported, that it “appears to have wiped out roughly a fifth of Iran’s nuclear centrifuges and helped delay, though not destroy, Teheran’s ability to make its first nuclear arms.”

Adding rich detail to what was already known of Stuxnet’s origins and capabilities, the article elaborated that, apart from accelerating the centrifuge motors to send them “spinning wildly out of control,” the virus “also secretly recorded what normal operations at the nuclear plant looked like, then played those readings back to plant operators, like a pre-recorded security tape in a bank heist, so that it would appear that everything was operating normally while the centrifuges were actually tearing themselves apart.”

Unsurprisingly, the Times article was short on named sources for its information. It relied, it said, on “intelligence and military experts familiar” with the operations at Dimona. How remarkable that the Times would produce an enormously detailed article on the dramatic impact of Stuxnet, based on information from experts “familiar” with the workings of Dimona, precisely when the outgoing head of the Mossad was uncharacteristically breaking cover to declare that Iran was still a good few years from the bomb. What a fortuitous coincidence.

IF STUXNET has indeed had the reported dramatic impact – and the Times story went on to assert that “some experts who have examined the code believe it contains the seeds for yet more versions and assaults” – then plainly Iran has now been hit by a strike as potent as any military operation might have been. A spectacular blow achieved, moreover, without the potentially cataclysmic repercussions of a military attack.

When Israel blew up Saddam Hussein’s nuclear core at Osirak in 1981, the bombing wound up permanently thwarting his nuclear plans, but the working assessment here had been that it would only put the program out of action for a few years.

Where Iran is concerned, the limitations of a military attack are far greater: There is no certainty that the location of all key nuclear installations is known, and therefore vital facilities might not be targeted; it is widely assessed that Iran, unlike Saddam’s Iraq, would have the technological expertise to rebuild; and the regime, again in contrast to Saddam, would have an array of options – including missile fire, terrorism and utilization of Hamas and Hizbullah – to retaliate for any such attack.

In sum, that means the resort to a high risk military strike is in no way perceived as a panacea. Given that context, the reported success of Stuxnet – an invisible invader that has rendered Iran’s Osirak-inspired physical defenses completely irrelevant – is all the more dazzling and significant an achievement.

There is, it should be stressed, no comparing the smashed Iraqi and the virus-infected Iranian nuclear programs. Saddam was utterly reliant on overseas assistance, and was making a dash for the bomb when thwarted; Iran has painstakingly assembled domestic expertise and adopted a careful, gradual approach. It will not abandon that effort easily.

But the setback is more than practical. Stuxnet would appear to also be a huge psychological success.

Iran’s scientific boffins cannot have been too comfortable seeing colleagues bumped off in the streets of Teheran. An article in Der Spiegel just this week, indeed, quoted Dagan as saying those killings had directly slowed the program, and sown fear within the Iranian nuclear scientists’ community. Many scientists, it reported Dagan as saying, had stayed away from work in the days after the assassinations. Iran’s showcased TV appearance last week by purported Mossad recruit Majid Jamali Fash, the self-confessed assassin of physicist Mohammadi, may have been intended to reassure Iranians, and especially Iranian scientists, that the regime had smashed the alleged Mossad ring of operatives, but it probably had the opposite effect – bringing home to potential Iranian targets how vulnerable they are in their own land. “The man widely believed to be responsible for much of Iran’s program, Mohsen Fakrizadeh, a college professor,” the Times reported in its recent article, “has been hidden away by the Iranians, who know he is high on the target list.”

In this fevered climate, with colleagues dead or in hiding, Stuxnet must have drastically exacerbated the nuclear team’s concerns, sharply denting any certainties about attaining the nuclear goal.

No warplanes have targeted Iran’s nuclear sites. Instead, a stealth weapon of a far subtler nature has delivered a devastating payload. And its full impact is still unfolding.

Far from credibly peddling the sense that the bomb is a fait accompli, and that the rest of the world will have to live with, or rather capitulate to, a nuclear-emboldened Islamist Iran, the combination of sabotage and assassinations may now have left the regime with the opposite challenge on its hands: scrambling to persuade its own key scientists that they can do it.

IT WOULD be foolish, deeply so, to believe that thwarting Iran is now a fait accompli either. The Iranians have shown ferocious tenacity in pursuing their nuclear weapons goal thus far. They consider its attainment to be transformative for their regional and even global status. There are, as Dagan indicated on Monday, other avenues they can follow. And they will not abandon the nuclear arms quest unless they truly come to believe that its pursuit has become an imminent risk to their very hold on power.

The onus, therefore, should now be on the international community, via intensified economic pressure, to bring the regime to precisely that realization. As Meir Dagan has signaled, and as the reports on Stuxnet appear to confirm, Iran most certainly can be outwitted, pressured and ultimately stopped.

The balance has tilted.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Dershowitz
« Reply #1122 on: January 26, 2011, 09:55:59 AM »
By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
Although I have opposed Israel's civilian settlements in the West Bank since 1973, I strongly believe that the United States should veto a resolution currently before the U.N. Security Council that would declare illegal "all Israeli settlement activity in the Occupied Palestinian Territory." This condemnatory resolution is being supported by all members of the Security Council other than the U.S. So it will pass unless the U.S. exercises its veto power.

There is a big difference between a government action being unwise, which the Israeli policy is, and being illegal, which it is not. Indeed, the very Security Council resolution on which proponents of the condemnation rely makes it clear that the legal status of Israel's continued occupation isn't settled.

Passed in 1967, Resolution 242 (which I played a very small role assisting then-U.N. Ambassador Arthur Goldberg in drafting) calls for Israel to return "territories" captured during its defensive war of 1967. The words "all" and "the" were proposed by those who advocated a complete return, but the U.S. and Great Britain, which opposed that view, prevailed.

Even partial return of captured territories is conditioned on "termination of all claims of belligerency" and "acknowledgment of the sovereignty . . . of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

Resolution 242 does not mention the rights of nonstates, such as the Palestinian Authority, Hamas or Hezbollah, the latter two of which do not accept the conditions of the resolution. (Nor do Iran and several other states in the region.) It would be wrong for the Security Council retroactively to rewrite Resolution 242, which is the foundation for a two-state solution—Israel and Palestine—44 years after it was enacted.

But the real reason the U.S. should veto this ill-conceived resolution is that it is inconsistent with U.S. policy, which has long advocated a negotiated resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has put it: "We continue to believe strongly that New York is not the place to resolve the longstanding conflict."

A negotiated resolution will require the Palestinian Authority to acknowledge that some of the land captured by Israel from Jordan, after Jordan attacked Israel, rightfully belongs to Israel. These areas include the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem and the Western Wall—which were illegally captured by Jordan in its aggressive and unlawful 1948 war calculated to undo the U.N.'s decision to divide the area into Jewish and Arab homelands. Additionally, there will have to be land swaps that recognize the realities on the ground. Areas such as Ma'ale Adumim and Gilo, for example, have become integral parts of Jewish Jerusalem.

Finally, Resolution 242 explicitly requires that Israel have "secure and recognized boundaries," an implicit recognition that its pre-1967 boundaries were neither secure nor recognized. Some territorial adjustments will be essential if Israel is to remain more secure than it was in the lead-up to the 1967 war.

The Palestinian Authority seems to understand at least some of these realities, as reflected in the recent disclosure of 1,600 internal documents by Al Jazeera. In one 2008 document, Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Qurie is quoted proposing that Israel annex all settlements in Jerusalem, with the exception of the Jewish areas of Har Homa and part of the Old City of Jerusalem. Some on the Security Council, however, clearly don't understand.

The current draft of the proposed resolution condemns "all Israeli settlement activities." Read literally, this condemnation would extend to the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, the Western Wall, and those areas that even the Palestinian Authority concedes must remain under Israeli control. Israel will not, and should not, return "all" such territories. The U.S. does not believe it should, nor do reasonable Palestinians.

So what then is the purpose of the utterly unrealistic resolution now under consideration? It simply gives cover to those Palestinians who do not want to sit down and negotiate directly with Israel. It is also a stalking horse for the Palestinian effort to secure a further U.N. resolution unilaterally declaring Palestinian statehood—a result that neither Israel nor the U.S. would recognize.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has offered to negotiate without any preconditions. He promises generous proposals, which could lead to Palestinian statehood relatively quickly. The Palestinian Authority, however, has set preconditions to any negotiations, most specifically a second freeze on all West Bank and East Jerusalem construction. While I favor such a freeze, I do not believe that it should be a precondition to negotiations.

Let serious discussions begin immediately about the borders of the two states. As soon as the borders are decided, Israel will stop building in all areas beyond them. This is the only way toward peace. A Security Council resolution unilaterally deciding the central issue of the negotiations will only make matters worse.

Mr. Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard. His latest novel is "The Trials of Zion" (Grand Central Publishing, 2010).


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Sh*t meets fan
« Reply #1123 on: January 26, 2011, 06:49:04 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Stratfor intel guidance for Egypt
« Reply #1124 on: January 27, 2011, 12:15:16 PM »

Editor’s Note: The following is an internal STRATFOR document produced to provide high-level guidance to our analysts. This document is not a forecast, but rather a series of guidelines for understanding and evaluating events, as well as suggestions on areas for focus.

Let’s use the Iranian rising of 1979 as a model. It had many elements involved, from Communists, to liberals to moderate Muslims, and of course the radicals. All of them were united in hating the Shah, but not in anything else.

The Western press did not understand the mixture and had its closest ties with the liberals, for the simple reason that they were the most Western and spoke English. For a very long time they thought these liberals were in control of the revolution.

For its part, the intelligence community did not have good sources among the revolutionaries but relied on SAVAK, the Shah’s security service, for intelligence. SAVAK neither understood what was happening, nor was it prepared to tell CIA. The CIA suspected the major agent was the small Communist party, because that was the great fear at that time — namely, that the Soviets were engineering a plot to seize Iran and control the Persian Gulf.

Meanwhile, Western human rights groups painted the Shah as a monster, and saw this as a popular democratic rising. Western human rights and democracy groups, funded by the U.S. government and others, were standing by to teach people like Bani Sadr to create a representative democracy.

Bani Sadr was the first post-Shah president. He was a moderate Islamist and democrat; he also had no power whatsoever. The people who were controlling the revolution were those around the Ayatollah Khomeini, who were used by the liberals as a screen to keep the United States quiet until the final moment came and they seized control.

It is important to understand that the demonstrations were seen as spontaneous, but were actually being carefully orchestrated. It is also important to understand that the real power behind the movement remained opaque to the media and the CIA, because they didn’t speak English and the crowds they organized didn’t speak English, and none of the reporters spoke Farsi (nor did a lot of the intelligence agency people). So when the demonstrations surged, the interviews were with the liberals who were already their sources, and who made themselves appear far more powerful than they were — and who were encouraged to do so by Khomeini’s people.

It was only at the end that Khomeini ran up the Jolly Roger to the West.

Nothing is identical to the past, but Iran taught me never to trust a revolutionary who spoke English; they will tend to be pro-Western. When the masses poured into the streets — and that hasn’t happened in Egypt yet — they were Khomeini supporters who spoke not a word of English. The media kept interviewing their English-speaking sources and the CIA kept up daily liaison meetings with SAVAK — until the day they all grabbed a plane and met up with their money in Europe and the United States. The liberals, those who weren’t executed, also wound up in the United States, teaching at Harvard or driving cabs.

Let’s be very careful on the taxonomy of this rising. The Western human rights groups will do what they can to emphasize its importance, and to build up their contacts with what they will claim are the real leaders of the revolution. The only language these groups share with the identified leaders is English, and the funding for these groups depends on producing these people. And these people really want to turn Egypt into Wisconsin. The one thing I can guarantee is that is not what is going on.

What we have to find out is who is behind this. It could be the military wanting to stage a coup to keep Gamal Mubarak out of power. They would be doing this to preserve the regime, not to overthrow it. They could be using the demonstrations to push their demands and perhaps pressure Hosni Mubarak to leave voluntarily.

The danger is that they would be playing with fire. The demonstrations open the door for the Muslim Brotherhood, which is stronger than others may believe. They might keep the demonstrations going after Hosni leaves, and radicalize the streets to force regime change. It could also be the Muslim Brotherhood organizing quietly. Whoever it is, they are lying low, trying to make themselves look weaker than they are — while letting the liberals undermine the regime, generate anti-Mubarak feeling in the West, and pave the way for whatever it is they are planning.

Our job now is to sort through all the claimants and wannabees of this revolution, and find out who the main powers are. These aren’t spontaneous risings and the ideology of the people in the streets has nothing to do with who will wind up in power. The one thing to be confident of is that liberal reformers are the stalking horse for something else, and that they are being used as always to take the heat and pave the way.

Now, figure out who is really behind the demonstrations and we have a game.



Read more: Intelligence Guidance: The Situation in Egypt | STRATFOR

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #1125 on: January 27, 2011, 12:24:26 PM »
I'll bet that the Muslim Brotherhood is pulling the strings on these protests. If Egypt were to fall to them, it would be catastrophic.

It, in essence would be the victory Osama was looking for in the wake of 9/11.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #1127 on: January 27, 2011, 08:47:20 PM »
I would offer for our consideration another line of analysis here.

Bush sought to get us out of the supporting bastards because they were our bastards line of policy e.g. look out how well Kissinger's embrace of the Shah worked out.  I suppose we could blame the moron Carter, but does that not evade the central question presented?

Did not Hamas' victory in Gaza meant that Israel could finally take a hard line?

Was not one of the core premises of the Iraq War to enable democracy?  Yes the Dems have managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, but what if we had not thrown away the success of the Surge?  Would we not be esconced on Iran's western border with Iraq as a beacon of the possible for the Arab (Muslim) world?

I lack the knowledge to opine on the implications of the MB taking over in Egypt, but as Stratfor points out, geopolitics are geopolitics and Sunni and Shia (Iran) seem to be oil and water.  I do think policies based upon backing unpopular bastards have their risks.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Stratfor: Egypt
« Reply #1128 on: January 27, 2011, 09:58:24 PM »
A 'Day of Rage' Turns All Eyes to the Egyptian Military

With tensions running high in Egypt ahead of the planned Jan. 28 “Day of Rage,” a street agitation campaign organized by the multi-faceted opposition, speculation is rising in the country and internationally over the regime’s next moves. The regime faces a very basic dilemma. After three decades of emergency rule in which Cairo’s iron fist was sufficiently feared to keep dissent contained, the wall of fear is crumbling. The task at hand for the ruling National Democratic Party, the military and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is to rebuild that wall as quickly as possible and to spread enough fear among those Egyptians who are gathering the courage to come out into the streets in protest.

Preparations to rebuild the wall of fear have begun. Internet access and cell networks are cutting out in major cities while the more technologically savvy Egyptian youth are advising each other on how to circumvent the state censures and remain online. Anonymous, 26-page glossy documents are also being distributed in Cairo containing a basic how-to guide for the Friday protestors. Pre-emptive round-ups were reportedly underway on Thursday night in an attempt to take some of the wind out of Friday’s demonstrations. So far, the security forces deployed consist of uniformed local police, plainclothes police and Central Security Forces (black-clad paramilitaries equipped with riot gear). Though these security forces have been working long hours over the past three days, Egypt still appears to have plenty of police resources to throw at this crisis.

“If the Egyptian security apparatus does not succeed in transforming the Day of Rage into a Day of Fear, the trigger for army intervention will not be far off.”
While the streets are being readied downtown, heavy discussions are taking place just a few miles away in the presidential palace and the central military high command in greater Cairo. STRATFOR sees two key trends developing so far. One in which the Mubarak name is being gradually de-linked from the core of regime and another where the military is gaining a much larger say in the governance of the state.

Among the more revealing statements made by the NDP coming out of the Jan. 27 meeting, which also included security officials, was the following: “The NDP is not the executive, just a party, and itself reviews the performance of the executive.” A report from the Egyptian daily, Al Mesryoon, also claimed that during a Jan. 25 Cabinet meeting, an unnamed minister called for Mubarak to appoint a vice president from the military, resign as president of the NDP and cancel all plans to have his son, Gamal, succeed him as president.

This report has not been verified, but it fits into a trend that STRATFOR has been tracking over the past several months in which the military and old guard of the ruling party have been heavily pressuring the elder Mubarak to give up on his plans to have his son succeed him, arguing that ‘one of their own’ from the military needed to take the helm to lead the country through this precarious period of Egyptian history. STRATFOR also cannot help but wonder why both Mubarak and his son have been mysteriously quiet and absent from the public eye throughout the crisis, especially as rumors have run abound on Gamal allegedly fleeing the country, gold being smuggled out of the country and funds being transferred to overseas banks.

Over the next 24 hours, the military’s moves are critical to watch. Cairo is obviously the center of activity, but our eyes will also be on the city of Suez. Suez has been the scene of intense protests over the past three days, with police and fire stations being raided and firebombed by demonstrators and three demonstrators killed in protests. This is the only city we know of thus far where STRATFOR sources have reported that the military is deploying alongside the police in an effort to restore calm. Civil-military relations are traditionally the strongest in Suez, the historic scene of battle for Egypt, where soldiers are still viewed by many as unsung heroes. If the military succumbs to the protestors in Suez, control of Cairo then comes into serious question.

This is still an exercise in scenario building. Even the most hardcore opposition protestors on the street will admit that the reality of the situation is that the army remains in control. Amid all the unknowns, one thing is near certain: If the Egyptian security apparatus does not succeed in transforming the Day of Rage into a Day of Fear, the trigger for army intervention will not be far off.



---------------------
The Strategic Implications of Instability in Egypt

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called on the Egyptian government on Wednesday to engage in political, economic and social reforms as part of an effort to heed to the legitimate demands of the Egyptian people. Clinton’s statement came a day after the Middle East’s largest Arab state experienced its most extensive protest demonstrations in 34 years. Unlike the unrest in 1977, these protests were not about the price of bread; rather the agitators are seeking the ouster of the Egyptian government — at a time when the regime is already in a state of transition, given that President Hosni Mubarak is at an advanced age and is ailing.

For three decades, the Mubarak government has sustained Egypt’s status as an ally of the United States and the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty — a position that was realized during the days of Mubarak’s predecessor, Anwar Sadat. It was under Sadat that Cairo moved away from its opposition to Washington, which was the hallmark of the regime presided over by Sadat’s predecessor, Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was also the founder of the modern Egyptian republic. The key American concern is that when all is said and done, Cairo will remain pro-Western and at peace with Israel.

“The problem with democratic reforms is that they can potentially bring to power political forces that at the very least do not define their country’s national interest in line with U.S. strategic interests in the region.”
It is not certain that a post-Mubarak Egypt will necessarily become hostile to the United States and Israel. But it is also not certain that status quo will be sustained in a post-transition Egypt. What exactly will happen will be based on the ability (or the lack thereof) of the Egyptian military to ensure that there are no fundamental changes in policy — regardless of whether or not the current ruling National Democratic Party is in power.

Washington realizes that the public discontent within Egypt and the region creates for a very tricky situation that the Egyptian military may or may not be able to manage. The United States cannot come out and openly oppose the drive toward democratic governance, mainly for public relations purposes. But Washington doesn’t want to be caught in a situation akin to a 1979 Iran when the Shah fell, bringing to power a regime that has emerged as the biggest strategic challenge to U.S. interests in the region.

The options for the Egyptian government are to work with the military while trying to manage reforms to placate the masses. The problem with democratic reforms is that they can potentially bring to power political forces that at the very least do not define their country’s national interest in line with U.S. strategic interests in the region. As it is, the United States is struggling to deal with an Iran empowered because of the collapse of the Baathist regime in Iraq.

At a time when Iran is projecting power across Mesopotamia and into the Levant, a less than stable Egypt will massively amplify the United States’ Middle East problems. Regime change in Egypt also has implications for the stability in other major countries in the region such as Israel, Syria, Jordan and Yemen. It is this gravity of the situation that would explain why Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal on Wednesday issued a very odd statement in which he expressed a lack of confidence in the ability of the Egyptian state to handle the public uprising.

The United States and much of the rest of the world will be watching how the Egyptian government manages the protests, the military and the succession question. Thus, everything depends on whether or not there will be regime change in Egypt.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #1129 on: January 28, 2011, 03:24:38 AM »
I would offer for our consideration another line of analysis here.

Bush sought to get us out of the supporting bastards because they were our bastards line of policy e.g. look out how well Kissinger's embrace of the Shah worked out.  I suppose we could blame the moron Carter, but does that not evade the central question presented?

Did not Hamas' victory in Gaza meant that Israel could finally take a hard line?

**Aside from that, how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln?


Was not one of the core premises of the Iraq War to enable democracy?  Yes the Dems have managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, but what if we had not thrown away the success of the Surge?  Would we not be esconced on Iran's western border with Iraq as a beacon of the possible for the Arab (Muslim) world?

**There was a window where a west-friendly democracy movement had a chance to develop, like the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon. However, our enemies, both foreign and domestic killed it in the crib. I fear that what could happen in Egypt would be "One man, one vote, one time.**

I lack the knowledge to opine on the implications of the MB taking over in Egypt, but as Stratfor points out, geopolitics are geopolitics and Sunni and Shia (Iran) seem to be oil and water.  I do think policies based upon backing unpopular bastards have their risks.


**The need to back unpopular bastards sucks, but it sucks less than losing the center of gravity in the arab world to jihadist control.**

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Wikileaks
« Reply #1130 on: January 28, 2011, 06:31:43 AM »
Agreed that the risks of "One man, one vote, one time" are considerable.  So too are the risks of being married to bastards when the day comes , , ,

Anyway, FWIW here's POTH excerpts from Wikileaks:
===============

WASHINGTON — It was Hillary Rodham Clinton’s first meeting as secretary of state with President Hosni Mubarak, in March 2009, and the Egyptians had an odd request: Mrs. Clinton should not thank Mr. Mubarak for releasing an opposition leader from prison because he was ill.

 
In fact, a confidential diplomatic cable signed by the American ambassador to Egypt, Margaret Scobey, advised Mrs. Clinton to avoid even mentioning the name of the man, Ayman Nour, even though his imprisonment in 2005 had been condemned worldwide, not least by the Bush administration.
The cable is among a trove of dispatches made public by the antisecrecy group WikiLeaks that paint a vivid picture of the delicate dealings between the United States and Egypt, its staunchest Arab ally. They show in detail how diplomats repeatedly raised concerns with Egyptian officials about jailed dissidents and bloggers, and kept tabs on reports of torture by the police.

But they also reveal that relations with Mr. Mubarak warmed up because President Obama played down the public “name and shame” approach of the Bush administration. A cable prepared for a visit by Gen. David H. Petraeus in 2009 said the United States, while blunt in private, now avoided “the public confrontations that had become routine over the past several years.”

This balancing of private pressure with strong public support for Mr. Mubarak has become increasingly tenuous in recent days. Throngs of angry Egyptians have taken to the streets and the White House, worried about being identified with a reviled regime, has challenged the president publicly.

On Thursday, Mr. Obama praised Mr. Mubarak as a partner but said he needed to undertake political and economic reforms. In an interview posted on YouTube, Mr. Obama said neither the police nor the protesters should resort to violence. “It is very important,” he added, “that people have mechanisms in order to express legitimate grievances.”

It is not known what Mrs. Clinton said to Mr. Mubarak in their first meeting, at the Red Sea resort of Sharm el Sheik. But she set the public tone afterward, when she was asked by an Arab television journalist about a State Department report critical of Egypt’s human rights record.

“We hope that it will be taken in the spirit in which it is offered, that we all have room for improvement,” Mrs. Clinton said, adding that Mr. Mubarak and his wife, Suzanne, were friends of her family, and that it was up to the Egyptian people to decide the president’s future.

The cables, which cover the first year of the Obama presidency, leave little doubt about how valuable an ally Mr. Mubarak has been, detailing how he backed the United States in its confrontation with Iran, played mediator between Israel and the Palestinians and supported Iraq’s fledgling government, despite his opposition to the American-led war.

Privately, Ambassador Scobey pressed Egypt’s interior minister to free three bloggers, as well as a Coptic priest who performed a wedding for a Christian convert, according to one of her cables to Washington. She also asked that three American pro-democracy groups be granted formal permission to operate in the country, a request the Egyptians rejected.

However effusive the Americans were about Mr. Mubarak in public, the cables offered a less flattering picture of Egypt’s first lady, Suzanne Mubarak. During a visit to the Sinai, one reported, she commandeered a bus that had been bought with money from the United States Agency for International Development and that had been meant to carry children to school.

Egyptian state security was concerned enough about American activities in Sinai, according to another cable, that it surreptitiously recorded a meeting between diplomats and members of a local council.

Yet many more of the cables describe collaboration between the United States and Egypt. In her 2009 visit, Mrs. Clinton was trying to revive the moribund peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. Mr. Mubarak was central to this: the cables detail his efforts to broker a cease-fire between Israelis and the militant group Hamas in Gaza, as well as American pressure on him to curb the smuggling of weapons to Hamas from Egypt through tunnels.

Mrs. Clinton was also laying out Mr. Obama’s rationale for engaging Iran — an overture, the cables report, that Mr. Mubarak predicted would fail. A May 2009 cable before Mr. Mubarak’s first visit to the Obama White House noted that Egyptian officials told a visiting American diplomat, Dennis B. Ross, that “we should prepare for confrontation through isolation.”

Like other Arab leaders, Mr. Mubarak is depicted in the cables as obsessed with Iran, which he told American diplomats was extending its tentacles from “the Gulf to Morocco” through proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah. He views these groups — particularly Hamas, a “brother” of Egypt’s banned Muslim Brotherhood — as a direct threat to his own rule.

In a meeting with General Petraeus on June 29, 2009, Mr. Mubarak said the Iranian government wanted to establish “pockets” of influence inside Egypt, according to a cable. General Petraeus told him the United States was responding to similar fears among Persian Gulf states by deploying more Patriot missiles and upgrading its F-16 fighter jets stationed in the region.

Despite obvious American sympathy for Mr. Mubarak’s security concerns, there is little evidence that the diplomats believed the president, now 82, was at risk of losing his grip on power. The May 2009 cable noted that riots over bread prices had broken out in Egypt in 2008 for the first time since 1977. And it said the growing influence of the Muslim Brotherhood had prompted the government to resort to “heavy-handed tactics against individuals and groups.”

==========

But the cable, again signed by Ambassador Scobey, portrayed Mr. Mubarak as the ultimate survivor, a “tried and true realist” who would rather “let a few individuals suffer than risk chaos for society as a whole.”

“During his 28-year rule,” the cable said, “he survived at least three assassination attempts, maintained peace with Israel, weathered two wars in Iraq and post-2003 regional instability, intermittent economic downturns, and a manageable but chronic internal terrorist threat.”
Another cable, dated March 2009, offered a pessimistic analysis of the prospects for the “April 6 Movement,” a Facebook-based group of mostly young Egyptians that has received wide attention for its lively political debate and helped mobilize the protests that have swept Egypt in the last two days. Leaders of the group had been jailed and tortured by the police. There were also signs of internal divisions between secular and Islamist factions, it said.

The United States has defended bloggers with little success. When Ambassador Scobey raised several arrests with the interior minister, he replied that Egypt did not infringe on freedom of the press, but that it must respond when “people are offended by blogs.” An aide to the minister told the ambassador that The New York Times, which has reported on the treatment of bloggers in Egypt, was “exaggerating the blogger issue,” according to the cable.

American diplomats also cast a wide net to gather information on police brutality, the cables show. Through contacts with human rights lawyers, the embassy follows numerous cases, and raised some with the Interior Ministry. Among the most harrowing, according to a cable, was the treatment of several members of a Hezbollah cell detained by the police in late 2008.

Lawyers representing the men said they were subjected to electric shocks and sleep deprivation, which reduced them to a “zombie state.” They said the torture was more severe than what they normally witnessed.

To the extent that Mr. Mubarak has been willing to tolerate reforms, the cable said, it has been in areas not related to public security or stability. For example, he has given his wife latitude to campaign for women’s rights and against practices like female genital mutilation and child labor, which are sanctioned by some conservative Islamic groups.

Still, Mr. Mubarak generally views broader reforms as an invitation to extremism. “We have heard him lament the results of earlier U.S. efforts to encourage reform in the Islamic world,” said a cable, noting that he often invoked the shah of Iran — a secular leader who came under pressure from Washington, only to be replaced by an even more repressive, hostile government.

Even the private encounters with Mr. Mubarak have layers of sensitivity. While Mrs. Clinton was advised to steer clear of mentioning Ayman Nour, the cable signed by Ambassador Scobey suggested she might broach the topic of Saad Eddin Ibrahim, an Egyptian-American author and critic of Mr. Mubarak who fled Egypt after being found guilty of defaming the country.

“If you have any one-on-one opportunity with President Mubarak,” the ambassador wrote, “you may wish to suggest that annulling these cases and allowing him to return to Egypt would also be well received by the new administration.”

It is not clear whether Mrs. Clinton did so.




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Another one from POTH
« Reply #1131 on: January 28, 2011, 06:35:24 AM »
ALEXANDRIA, Egypt — Demonstrators in Egypt have protested against rising prices and stagnant incomes, for greater freedom and against police brutality. But religion, so often a powerful mobilizing force here, has so far played little role.

That may be about to change.

With organizers calling for demonstrations after Friday prayer, the political movement will literally be taken to the doorsteps of the nation’s mosques. And as the Egyptian government and security services brace for the expected wave of mass demonstrations, Islamic groups seem poised to emerge as wildcards in the growing political movement.

Reporters in Egypt said on Friday that, after rumors swept Cairo late Thursday that the authorities planned to throttle the protesters' communications among themselves, access to the Internet, text messaging services and Twitter was not possible on Friday morning in Cairo, Alexandria and possibly other cities.

Heightening the tension, the Muslim Brotherhood, the largest organized opposition group in the country, announced Thursday that it would take part in the protest. The support of the Brotherhood could well change the calculus on the streets, tipping the numbers in favor of the protesters and away from the police, lending new strength to the demonstrations and further imperiling President Hosni Mubarak’s reign of nearly three decades.

“Tomorrow is going to be the day of the intifada,” said a spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood here in Egypt’s second largest city, who declined to give his name because he said he would be arrested if he did. The spokesman said that the group was encouraging members of its youth organization — roughly those 15 to 30 years old — to take part in protests.

But Islam is hardly homogeneous, and many religious leaders here said Thursday that they would not support the protests, for reasons including scriptural prohibitions on defying rulers and a belief that democratic change would not benefit them. “We Salafists are not going to participate in any of the demonstrations tomorrow,” said Sheik Yasir Burhami, a leading figure among the fundamentalist Salafists in Alexandria.

While the largest demonstrations have taken place in the capital, Cairo, and the most chaos Thursday was to be found in Suez, Alexandria has been a focal point for past protests. The beating death of a young businessman named Khaled Said last year led to weeks of demonstrations against police brutality and calls to overhaul the security services.

The city on the Mediterranean, long Egypt’s gateway to the outside world, has mirrored the country’s steady erosion over decades of authoritarian rule. It has gone from being a cosmopolitan showcase to a poor, struggling city that evokes barely a vestige of its former grandeur. The New Year’s bombing of a Coptic church here was a reminder of the direction of the city, identified by European intelligence services as a hub for radicalizing students who come to study Arabic. Many of the most radical Salafists — those who would support the use of violence — were arrested by the government after the bombing.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, Sheik Gaber Kassem, leader of the mystic Sufi community here, said the Sufis were discouraging their followers from taking part in the demonstrations, which the government has deemed illegal.

“We are going to be in the mosque and we’re going to be in front of the mosque, but we are not going to march in the streets,” said Mr. Kassem, adding that they were in favor of freedom of expression and had taken part in legal protests Tuesday, but that they were against the violence and chaos that were likely on Friday.

Relative calm prevailed here on Thursday, as activists said they were preparing for Friday’s demonstrations. With riot police and plainclothes security personnel watching, dozens of lawyers protested in front of the courthouse, calling for two of their colleagues who had been arrested at Tuesday’s demonstration to be set free and shouting, “People, people, take to the streets.”

Hamid Said, 29, who founded the Nasar Center for Human Rights in Alexandria, said that to date the protests here had not been led by Muslim groups, as the government claimed. “You did not have the Muslim Brotherhood protesting here, you had normal people protesting against their problems,” said Mr. Said, a lawyer who said he had been arrested five times since 2008, but never detained for more than a few days.

Mr. Said cited political oppression and police brutality as the leading causes of frustration among the people. He said that he had once applied for a position for which he was well qualified, but that he lost out to the son of a government minister.

Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, a Muslim cleric known as Abu Omar, said that many conservative Muslims would not support a secular politician like Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel Prize winner and former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. “ElBaradei and the others, they have no connection to religion. If Hosni Mubarak goes, they will replace him with someone else like him,” said Abu Omar, who came to prominence after it was disclosed that he had been kidnapped by the Central Intelligence Agency from Milan in 2003.

Religious leaders like Mr. Kassem said they could not rule out that many of their followers would join the protests.

The spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood in Alexandria said that efforts by the government to hinder groups from gathering, like blocking access to social networking sites, would no longer be effective.

“It’s already clear that we will go out tomorrow. The message is already out,” he said. “Tomorrow all the Egyptians are going to be on the streets.”


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Lebanon
« Reply #1132 on: January 28, 2011, 07:05:31 AM »
Looks like it may be a busy day on this thread!

Plenty of POTH commentary mingled in this piece-- Marc

ALMOST exactly six years after the Cedar Revolution led to a rapid withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, the United States’ dream that it could use this fragile country as a launching pad for a New Middle East — one with a decidedly pro-American bent — has seemingly collapsed.

One could argue that it crumpled at exactly 11:58 a.m. on Tuesday, when a Christian member of the Lebanese Parliament from the Bekaa Valley named Nicola Fattoush strode into the presidential palace and cast his ballot against Prime Minister Saad Hariri. Mr. Hariri is the son of Rafik Hariri, a former prime minister whose assassination in February 2005 is the basis for soon-to-be-expected indictments by the United Nations Special Tribunal for Lebanon.

Although the new prime minister, Najib Mikati, didn’t need Mr. Fattoush’s support to defeat Saad Hariri — the militant Shiite movement Hezbollah and the Parliament’s largest single bloc of Christians, headed by Gen. Michel Aoun, along with some Sunni Muslim and Druze members, provided the numerical edge — Mr. Fattoush’s vote held particular significance. Not only had he been an ally of Saad Hariri’s, but he had just days before received a widely publicized visit from the United States ambassador, Maura Connelly, in his home district.

That a small-time figure known for his political horse-trading would spurn a superpower’s attempt to retain his vote for its man provides an exclamation point on just how poorly Washington’s policy of “maximalism” — applying sporadic bouts of pressure on its allies while refusing to sincerely negotiate with its adversaries — has fared in Lebanon and the Middle East as a whole. The Obama administration is going to need a very different approach when it comes to dealing with the “new” Lebanon.

Unfortunately, though, such a change will be far more difficult today than it would have been just six years ago, when Hezbollah had its political back against the wall, lacking support outside its Shiite base and the insurance of Syrian troops in the country.

In April of that year, Hezbollah went so far as to send one of its affiliated politicians, Trade Hamade, to meet with State Department officials to work out a modus vivendi. He left Washington empty-handed: the Bush administration believed that American influence was on the rise in Lebanon and that Hezbollah could be cornered into agreeing to disarmament before any substantive negotiations.

Instead of undermining Hezbollah’s political support by broadening alliances with pro-American figures in Lebanon and addressing the concerns held by many Lebanese — the sentiment that Israel still occupied Lebanese territory in the south, that there were Lebanese in Israeli jails and that the country needed a stronger national defense — the Bush administration cultivated a narrow set of local allies and pursued a “with us or against us” strategy aimed at eliminating Hezbollah. Sadly, it took this policy less than a year to result in a botched Israeli invasion that killed and wounded thousands of Lebanese citizens and gave Hezbollah unprecedented popularity in the region.

(MARC:   At the time I posted here of the grave historical error that IMO Israel was committing by pulling up short.)

Today, Syria has regained much of its hegemony in the country — this time without the cost of stationing troops — and is again at the center of regional politics. Hezbollah’s military capacity, by all accounts, has soared, and many of its leaders seem to harbor the dangerous belief that they can decisively win a “final” confrontation with Israel. The Party of God has also deftly maintained and even expanded its political alliances — including one with about half the Christians in the country — that gave it the power to change the government this week by constitutional means.

Perhaps most frustratingly, Hezbollah has largely succeeded in undermining the legitimacy of the United Nations tribunal in the Arab and Islamic worlds. In this effort it had unintentional American help. As a recent report from the International Crisis Group put it, the manner in which the investigation was established, “pushed by two Western powers with clear strategic objectives” — the United States and France — “contaminated” the process.

So, what can the United States do to reverse Hezbollah’s new momentum? Its options are limited. Given the change of government, Congress may well try to cut off all aid to Lebanon and the Lebanese Army. The Obama administration will likely reiterate its support for the tribunal and push for any indictments of Hezbollah figures. But neither step would have much of an impact on Hezbollah’s core calculations or desires.

=========

Hezbollah will continue to increase its military power, edging ever closer to what Israeli officials have called a “redline” of capabilities that would prompt Israel to mount a major “pre-emptive” attack. Such a move would, as it was in 2006, be devastating for Lebanon, probably for Israel and certainly for United States interests in the region, not least because Hezbollah would likely survive and even gain new adherents among those affected by Israeli strikes on Lebanese infrastructure and civilian areas.

Still, there is a way for Washington to stake out a reasonable, nonviolent alternative: by pushing for the immediate revival of peace talks between Syria and Israel. Eleven years ago, a peace agreement between the two countries that would have included the disarmament of Hezbollah fell apart, largely because the Israeli prime minister at the time, Ehud Barak, found it too politically difficult to hand over to Syria the last few hundred yards of shoreline around the northeast corner of the Sea of Galilee bordering the Golan Heights.

Although a new deal on the Golan would not lead to the end of Hezbollah in the immediate term, it would contain the movement’s ability and desire to use violence, as Syria would need to commit to cutting off the supply routes by which Iranian (and Syrian) weapons are now smuggled into Lebanon. Militarily weakened, and without Syrian or much domestic political backing to continue in its mission to liberate Jerusalem, Hezbollah would find it extremely difficult to threaten Israel’s northern border.

Certainly some Israelis see the benefits of such a deal. Ilan Mizrahi, a former deputy chief of the Mossad and national security adviser to former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, told an interviewer recently that on his first day on the job, he recommended that Mr. Olmert make a deal with Syria because it would “change the security situation in the Middle East.” He said he still believed that.

When asked if a pullout might create a threat to Israel along the Golan, Mr. Mizrahi answered: “Our chief of staff doesn’t think so. Our head of intelligence, military intelligence, doesn’t think so ... the best Israeli generals are saying we can negotiate it, so I believe them.”

Would pressuring Israel into a full withdrawal from the Golan be politically difficult for President Obama? Surely — as it would be for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. But given the alternatives for Lebanon, Israel and the United States, anything less would be merely setting up temporary roadblocks to an impending regional disaster.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #1133 on: January 28, 2011, 07:21:30 AM »
"Still, Mr. Mubarak generally views broader reforms as an invitation to extremism. “We have heard him lament the results of earlier U.S. efforts to encourage reform in the Islamic world,” said a cable, noting that he often invoked the shah of Iran — a secular leader who came under pressure from Washington, only to be replaced by an even more repressive, hostile government."

**Don't you wish we had kept the Shah in power, bastard that he was?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Israel Fears Regime Change in Egypt
« Reply #1134 on: January 28, 2011, 12:27:33 PM »
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,742186,00.html

Israel Fears Regime Change in Egypt

By Gil Yaron in Jerusalem
Riot police in Cairo (Jan. 26 photo): Israel is afraid of regime change in Egypt.
Zoom
REUTERS

Riot police in Cairo (Jan. 26 photo): Israel is afraid of regime change in Egypt.

Israel is watching developments in Egypt with concern. The government is standing by autocratic Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, out of fear that the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood could take power and start supplying arms to Hamas.

Israel is usually a country where politicians have an opinion on any topic, and vociferously so. But in recent days, Israel's leadership has been unusually silent on a certain question. No one, it seems, is willing to make an official comment on the ongoing unrest in Egypt, where protesters have been holding anti-government rallies. It's not because Israel does not care about the riots ravaging its southern neighbor -- on the contrary, Israeli news channels, normally prone to parochialism, have been closely following recent events in the Arab world, from Tunisia to Lebanon.

Radio, television and newspapers constantly report the courage of the demonstrators in the streets of Cairo, not only relishing the historic spectacle, but openly expressing sympathy with Egypt's struggle for democracy.

But the Israeli government is keeping quiet. "We are closely monitoring the events, but we do not interfere in the internal affairs of a neighboring state," was the curt answer from the Israeli Foreign Ministry to requests for comments.

So for journalists looking for quotes, it is a happy coincidence that Israel's former Industry and Trade Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer resigned from the Israeli cabinet last week and can now freely express his opinions as a member of the opposition Labor Party. "I don't think it is possible (for there to be a revolution in Egypt)," Ben-Eliezer told Israeli Army Radio. "I see things calming down soon." The Iraqi-born former minister is a renowned expert on Israeli-Arab relations and is a friend of the Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman.

Ben Eliezer's statement is consistent with the assessment of members of Israel's intelligence community and Middle East experts, who point to the strength of Egypt's army. In his remarks to Army Radio, Ben-Eliezer also explained Israel's position on the protests. "Israel cannot do anything about what is happening there," he said. "All we can do is express our support for (Egyptian President Hosni) Mubarak and hope the riots pass quietly." He added that Egypt was Israel's most important ally in the region.

Uneasy Peace

Egypt was the first Arab state to sign a peace treaty with Israel, in 1979, but the relationship between the neighboring countries remains delicate. Good relations are limited to government circles. The regime in Cairo attempts to curtail the establishment of closer links between the countries' civil societies. The professional associations of doctors, engineers or lawyers, for example, require their members to declare that they will not contribute to normalizing relations with Israel.

Even 30 years after the peace agreement, annual trade between the neighboring countries only amounts to a value of $150 million (€110 million). (For comparison, Israel's trade with the European Union was worth around €20 billion in 2009.)

A recent incident involving the vice governor of the Sinai Peninsula reveals how many Egyptians think about Israel. After a shark attack off the coast, the official said that it could not be ruled out that the deadly fish had been released by Israeli intelligence to harm Egypt's tourism industry. After the bloody attack on a church in Alexandria on Jan. 1, a spokesman for Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood speculated that Israel could be responsible for the attack, with the intention of sowing discord between Christians and Muslims.

Indeed, the Muslim Brotherhood is one of the main reasons why official Israel seems to support Mubarak so keenly. It is considered the most popular political movement in Egypt, and its position regarding the peace treaty with Israel is clear: They want it revoked immediately. "Democracy is something beautiful," said Eli Shaked, who was Israel's ambassador to Cairo from 2003 to 2005, in an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE. "Nevertheless, it is very much in the interests of Israel, the United States and Europe that Mubarak remains in power."

For Israel, more is at stake than the current so-called "cold" peace with Egypt and a few tens of millions of dollars in trade. "Never before have Israel's strategic interests been so closely aligned with those of the Sunni states as today," says Shaked, referring to Arab countries whose populations are mainly Sunni Muslim, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The recent publication of the US diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks showed what he means: Much of the Arab world, and especially Mubarak, sees Shiite Iran and its allies, such as Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Hezbollah in Lebanon, as an existential threat, just as Israel does.

Potential Serious Danger

"If regime change occurs in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood would take the helm, and that would have incalculable consequences for the region," says Shaked. The Israeli government has noted with concern the fact that, even after 30 years of peace, Egypt's army is still equipped and trained mainly with a possible war against Israel in mind.

A cancellation of the peace treaty would open up a new front with the 11th largest army in the world, which is equipped with modern American weapons. But what Israel fears more than a -- somewhat unlikely -- armed conflict with Egypt is an alliance between an Islamist regime in Cairo and Hamas, which considers itself an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Today the Egyptian army tries to stop -- albeit hesitantly -- weapons smuggling from Sinai to Gaza, the main supply route for Hamas. An Egyptian regime that opened the border with Gaza for arms deliveries would pose a serious danger to Israel.

Shaked considers the West's demands for more openness and democracy in Egypt to be a fatal mistake. "It is an illusion to believe that the dictator Mubarak could be replaced by a democracy," he says. "Egypt is still not capable of democracy," he adds, pointing out that the illiteracy rate is over 20 percent, to give just one example. The Muslim Brotherhood is the only real alternative, he opines, which would have devastating consequences for the West. "They will not change their anti-Western attitude when they come to power. That has not happened (with Islamist movements) anywhere: neither in Sudan, Iran nor Afghanistan."

Ultimately the choice is between a pro- or an anti-Western dictatorship, says Shaked. "It is in our interest that someone from Mubarak's inner circle takes over his legacy, at any cost." In the process, it is not possible to rule out massive bloodshed in the short term, he says. "It would not be the first time that riots in Egypt were brutally crushed."

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #1135 on: January 28, 2011, 12:52:46 PM »
The problem is Egypt is very brittle. Were the Muslim Brotherhood to take over, things for the Copts, as well as average Egyptians would be much worse off. Keep in mind that those who could take power in Egypt see the pyramids and other artifacts there as something they'd like to destroy, just as the Taliban destroyed the Buddhas in Bamiyan. And, like the talibs, the destruction of artifacts would be the least of the horrible things done by them.

Egypt used to be very westernized, now salafism is taking deep root in the population. This does not bode well for the future. Classic Egyptian things, like belly dancing are going away because they are "unislamic".

Almost like I knew what I was talking about.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
What next? Disco?
« Reply #1136 on: January 28, 2011, 01:55:12 PM »


Stagflation? Check.

A incompetent leftist president dithers while we get ready to lose a vital ally to jihadists? Check.

Spiking gas prices? Check.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
The pragmatic fantasy
« Reply #1137 on: January 28, 2011, 05:32:26 PM »
Jewish World Review Jan. 28, 2011 / 23 Shevat, 5771
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0111/glick012811.php3

The pragmatic fantasy

By Caroline B. Glick


   
   

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Today the Egyptian regime faces its gravest threat since Anwar Sadat's assassination thirty years ago. As protesters take to the street for the third day in a row demanding the overthrow of 82-year old President Hosni Mubarak, it is worth considering the possible alternatives to his regime.

Thursday afternoon, Egyptian presidential hopeful Mohammed ElBaradei, the former head of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency returned to Egypt from Vienna to participate in anti-regime demonstrations. As IAEA head, Elbaradei shielded Iran's nuclear weapons program from the Security Council. He repeatedly ignored evidence indicating that Iran's nuclear program was a military program rather than a civilian energy program. When the evidence became too glaring to ignore, Elbaradei continued to lobby against significant UN Security Council sanctions or other actions against Iran and obscenely equated Israel's purported nuclear program to Iran's.

His actions won him the support of the Iranian regime which he continues to defend. Just last week he dismissed the threat of a nuclear armed Iran telling the Austrian News Agency, "There's a lot of hype in this debate," and asserting that the discredited 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate that claimed Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003 remains accurate.

Elbaradei's support for the Iranian ayatollahs is matched by his support for the Muslim Brotherhood. This group, which forms the largest and best organized opposition movement to the Mubarak regime is the progenitor of Hamas and al Qaida. It seeks Egypt's transformation into an Islamic regime that will stand at the forefront of the global jihad. In recent years, the Muslim Brotherhood has been increasingly drawn into the Iranian nexus along with Hamas. Muslim Brotherhood attorneys represented Hizbullah terrorists arrested in Egypt in 2009 for plotting to conduct spectacular attacks aimed at destroying the regime.

Elbaradei has been a strong champion of the Muslim Brotherhood. Just this week he gave an interview to Der Spiegel defending the jihadist movement. As he put it, "We should stop demonizing the Muslim Brotherhood. …[T]hey have not committed any acts of violence in five decades. They too want change. If we want democracy and freedom, we have to include them instead of marginalizing them." The Muslim Brotherhood for its part has backed Elbaradei's political aspirations. On Thursday it announced it would demonstrate at ElBaradei's side the next day.


Then there is the Kifaya movement. The group sprang onto the international radar screen in 2004 when it demanded open presidential elections and called on Mubarak not to run for a fifth term. As a group of intellectuals claiming to support liberal, democratic norms, Kifaya has been upheld as a model of what the future of Egypt could look like if liberal forces are given the freedom to lead.

But Kifaya's roots and basic ideology are not liberal. They are anti-Semitic and anti-American. Kifaya was formed as a protest movement against Israel with the start of the Palestinian terror war in 2000. It gained force in March 2003 when it organized massive protests against the US-led invasion of Iraq. In 2006 its campaign to get a million Egyptians to sign a petition demanding the abrogation of Egypt's peace treaty with Israel received international attention.

Many knowledgeable Egypt-watchers argued this week that the protesters have no chance of bringing down the Mubarak regime. Unlike this month's overthrow of Tunisia's despot Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, they say there is little chance that the Egyptian military will abandon Mubarak.

But the same observers are quick to note that whoever Mubarak selects to succeed him will not be the beneficiary of such strong support from Egypt's security state. And as the plight of Egypt's overwhelmingly impoverished citizenry becomes ever more acute, the regime will become increasingly unstable. Indeed, its overthrow is as close to a certainty as you can get in international affairs.

And as we now see, all of its possible secular and Islamist successors either reject outright Egypt's peace treaty with Israel or will owe their political power to the support of those who reject the peace with the Jewish state. So whether the Egyptian regime falls next week or next year or five years from now, the peace treaty is doomed.

Since the start of Israel's peace process with Egypt in 1977, supporters of peace with the Arabs have always fallen into two groups: the idealists and the pragmatists.

Led by Shimon Peres, the idealists have argued that the reason the Arabs refuse to accept Israel is because Israel took "their" land in the 1967 Six Day War. Never mind that the war was a consequence of Arab aggression or that it was simply a continuation of the Arab bid to destroy the Jewish state which officially began with Israel's formal establishment in 1948. As the idealists see things, if Israel just gives up all the land it won in that war, the Arabs will be appeased and accept Israel as a friend and natural member of the Middle East' family of nations.

Peres was so enamored with this view that he authored The New Middle East and promised that once all the land was given away, Israel would join the Arab League. Given the absurdity of their claims, the idealists were never able to garner mass support for their positions. If it had just been up to them, Israel would never have gotten on the peace train. But lucky for the idealists, they have been able to rely on the unwavering support of the unromantic pragmatists to implement their program.

Unlike the starry-eyed idealists, the so-called pragmatists have no delusions that the Arabs are motivated by anything other than hatred for Israel, or that their hatred is likely to end in the foreseeable future. But still, they argue, Israel needs to surrender.

It is the "Arab Street's" overwhelming animosity towards Israel that causes the pragmatists to argue that Israel's best play is to cut deals with Arab dictators who rule with an iron fist. Since Israel and the Arab despots share a fear of the Arab masses, the pragmatists claim that Israel should give up all the land it took control over as a payoff to the regimes, who in exchange will sign peace treaties with it.

This was the logic that brought Israel to surrender the strategically priceless Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in exchange for the Camp David accord that will not survive Mubarak.

And of course, giving up the Sinai wasn't the only sacrifice Israel made for that nearly defunct document. Israel also gave up its regional monopoly on US military platforms. Israel agreed that in exchange for signing the deal, the US would begin providing massive military aid to Egypt. Indeed, it agreed to link US aid to Israel with US aid to Egypt.

Owing to that US aid, the Egyptian military today makes the military Israel barely defeated in 1973 look like a gang of cavemen. Egypt has nearly 300 F-16s. Its main battle tank is the M1A1 which it produces in Egypt. Its navy is largest in the region. Its army is twice the size of the IDF. Its air defense force constitutes a massive threat to the IAF.

And of course, the ballistic missiles and chemical weapons it has purchased from the likes of North Korea and China give it a significant stand-off mass destruction capability. Despite its strength, due to the depth of popular Arab hatred of Israel and Jews, the Egyptian regime was weakened by its peace treaty. Partially in a bid to placate its opponents and partially in a bid to check Israeli power, Egypt has been the undisputed leader of the political war against Israel raging at international arenas throughout the world. So too, Mubarak has permitted and even encouraged massive anti-Semitism throughout Egyptian society.

With this balance sheet at the end of the "era of peace," between Israel and Egypt, it is far from clear that Israel was right to sign the deal in the first place. In light of the relative longevity of the regime it probably made sense to have made some deal with Egypt. But it is clear that the price Israel paid was outrageously inflated and unwise.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
This too, Glenn Beck's fault
« Reply #1138 on: January 30, 2011, 06:47:58 AM »
http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=205797

If Brotherhood takes over, IDF will face formidable enemy
By YAAKOV KATZ
30/01/2011    
Analysis: This year is turning into critical one for Israeli isolation in the Mideast. Turkey is gone and Egypt appears to be on way.
 
The collapse of Hosni Mubarak’s regime in Egypt is not yet about Israel but soon will be, depending on his successor.

If the Muslim Brotherhood grabs the reins in the massive Arab country, Israel will face an enemy with one of the largest and strongest militaries around, built on some of the most advanced American-made platforms.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19756
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #1139 on: January 30, 2011, 05:02:32 PM »
It is remarkable to see how all the experts disagree as to what is going on and what is going to happen.

Everywhere I read I read something different about what is going on.  The experts on cable don't seem to have a clue what they are talking about.  They almost sound like idiots in their prostilatizing. [spelling?]

John Bolton was on Marc Levin radio around two nights ago and said this guy, Mohammed ElBaradei was basically important ONLY in the West but is not a factor in Egypt at all.  He stated he is "manufactured" in Western media.  I was under the impression from the media that the US likes this guy yet now we are reading he is now forming alliances with the Muslim Brotherhood (sounds like the name of some sort of prison gang doesn't it?).  We have some who say the MB is a minority (no more than 30% or so of the vote) and not much threat, we have others saying they are.

It sounds like near total chaos.

It is obvious Obama is not sure which way to go.  I would not jump to conclusions that any of this was his fault as the region is so complex there probably is no perfect answer.  I think the total lack of any coherent understanding of what is happening now or where it will go from all the talking heads makes it clear how complex the region is.

I do think it a good question to ask that in general terms is a weak President ala Carter, and now Obama something that leads to more instability in the Middle East or just a coincidence that Iran, Turkey, and possibly now Egypt have coups during Democratic Presidents reigns something that has contributed to this instability?

Another question with no definite answer is should the US be supporting the  unpredictable results of Democracy or leaders who align their countries  more in keeping with our interests?

I don't know the answer and no one else does either.  I know only one thing.  Hillary Clinton won't help.   


JDN

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2004
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #1140 on: January 30, 2011, 06:16:57 PM »
CCP; I think that sums it up.  Everyone seems to "disagree as to what's going on" and what should be done.  Also, another key as you pointed out is...

"Another question with no definite answer is should the US be supporting the  unpredictable results of Democracy or leaders who align their countries  more in keeping with our interests?"

We do and others on this forum have consistently said we should focus on promoting democracy.  We've even justified previous intervention as the "right thing to do".  Yet time will tell...
Personally, I think there is something to be said for acknowledging dictators/kings, if they are our dictator/king so to speak.  Or at least if they are aligned with our interest or at minimum are  benign. 
America first is my motto.

I think your analysis is fair; Obama is not sure which way to go.  And I think there are pros and cons.  It's easy to criticize, but either way he goes is fraught with problems....

Oddly enough, overall I think Hilary Clinton has done a reasonable job as Secretary of State.  Better than I expected from her.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #1141 on: January 30, 2011, 06:36:37 PM »
I would much prefer a free and democratic Egypt with the rule of law, free markets and protection of minorities.

That's not going to happen here. So, I'd rather have Mubarak or another that will preserve the status quo of an authoritarian ally rather than a major domino of the caliphate falling into place, and setting up other middle eastern allies to fall as well.

The MSM is badly misleading the public right now. Losing Egypt will shape the future, and not in a good way for anyone on the planet.

I hope I'm wrong. I really do. I'll take no joy seeing my predictions coming true.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19756
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #1142 on: January 31, 2011, 07:39:49 AM »
"Mohammed ElBaradei"

Yesterday someone pointed out that some of the professional Egyptians (probably those who reside in the West) know of him but the average Egyptian has no clue who he is mostly confirming John Bolton's point of view. 

Yet somehow the media is promoting him out of know where as some sort of important leader here.  I don't know who is helping him, State Dept, WH or liberals in the media?

I have to read about him.  If I recall he is no friend of Israel.

We should start a party in the US:

Brothers and Sisters for American Ideals.  Any citizen of the US no matter what religiion, ethnicity, where ever they where born, as long as they aspire to traditional American ideals they can join.

As for Hillary listening to her is a waste of time.  She just sits and makes obvious statements.  IMHO she is not doing a good job, just doing her job.  A titan of foreign policy she is not. 
 

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #1143 on: January 31, 2011, 09:40:32 AM »
Those of us who espouse spouting bastards because they are our bastards (apologies to John Foster Dulles's quote about Somaza of Nicaragua) need to acknowledge that the day comes when difficult questions are presented.  This happened in Iran where the US played a pivotal role in putting the Shah in power, and then, under Kissinger-Nixon, in building him up.  Yes, Carter and his crew were profoundly clueless, but it must be acknowledged they faced a truly difficult situation.

The same can be said here, including the part about Baraq being clueless (tangent:  Where does this meme about Hillary doing a good job, which seems to pop up from time to time, come from?  Not from any evidence of which I am aware :-P )

In my humble opinion, when things get this far, it may well be too late already.

The time for the Dems to have been concerned about democracy in the Arab world, and the US's respect, was when the Surge was in play and was working.  Instead, for transient personal political advantage Baraq, Hillary, et al through it away.  Naturally the various Iraqi players read the writing on the wall , , , just as the various Afpakia players are doing now.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #1144 on: January 31, 2011, 10:50:38 AM »
"Naturally the various Iraqi players read the writing on the wall , , , just as the various Afpakia players are doing now."

As are the players in Egypt, Jordan and elsewhere in the ME.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Bastards
« Reply #1145 on: January 31, 2011, 11:04:29 AM »
In much of the world, you are stuck with the choice between one version of a corrupt thug and his crew and a worse thug and worse crew. Just as we had to ally with Stalin to beat Hitler, then ally with various strongmen bastards across the globe as we faced down the Soviets, the realpolitik can and should be informed by our morals and long term strategy.

I wouldn't want to be an Iranian under the Shah, but I'd like even less to be an Iranian under the Mullahs. I wouldn't want to live under Mubarak, but I don't see a better life for the Egyptians waiting in the wings. Not now anyway.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
I'm not shocked
« Reply #1146 on: January 31, 2011, 12:54:44 PM »
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/31/us-egypt-israel-usa-idUSTRE70U53720110131

Israel shocked by Obama's "betrayal" of Mubarak

 

By Douglas Hamilton

JERUSALEM | Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:54pm EST

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - If Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak is toppled, Israel will lose one of its very few friends in a hostile neighborhood and President Barack Obama will bear a large share of the blame, Israeli pundits said on Monday.

Political commentators expressed shock at how the United States as well as its major European allies appeared to be ready to dump a staunch strategic ally of three decades, simply to conform to the current ideology of political correctness.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has told ministers of the Jewish state to make no comment on the political cliffhanger in Cairo, to avoid inflaming an already explosive situation. But Israel's President Shimon Peres is not a minister.

"We always have had and still have great respect for President Mubarak," he said on Monday. He then switched to the past tense. "I don't say everything that he did was right, but he did one thing which all of us are thankful to him for: he kept the peace in the Middle East."

Newspaper columnists were far more blunt.

One comment by Aviad Pohoryles in the daily Maariv was entitled "A Bullet in the Back from Uncle Sam." It accused Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of pursuing a naive, smug, and insular diplomacy heedless of the risks.

Who is advising them, he asked, "to fuel the mob raging in the streets of Egypt and to demand the head of the person who five minutes ago was the bold ally of the president ... an almost lone voice of sanity in a Middle East?"

"The politically correct diplomacy of American presidents throughout the generations ... is painfully naive."

Obama on Sunday called for an "orderly transition" to democracy in Egypt, stopping short of calling on Mubarak to step down, but signaling that his days may be numbered.

**History will reflect that the biggest anti-semites in the US were those that voted for Obama, no matter the intent.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Muslim Brotherhood Wants War With Israel
« Reply #1147 on: January 31, 2011, 02:20:58 PM »
http://www.forexcrunch.com/muslim-brotherhood-wants-war-with-israel/

Mohamed Ghanem, one of the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, calls Egypt to stop pumping gas to Israel and prepare the Egyptian army for a war with it’s eastern neighbor.

Speaking with Iranian television station Al-Alam, Mohamed Ghanem blamed Israel for supporting Hosni Mubarak’s regime. Ghanem also said that the Egyptian police and army won’t be able to stop the Muslim Brotherhood movement.

There are doubts about the loyalty of the Egyptian army to president Mubarak. If the brotherhood takes control over Egypt, it will be very messy from the whole region.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19756
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #1148 on: January 31, 2011, 03:25:53 PM »
AS John Bolton asks,
If we think Iran is a problem now can anyone imagine what they would be like with nuclear weapons?
One can now ask the same for Egypt.

I notice the Egyptians are riding around the streets in Abrams tanks - great. :cry:

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #1149 on: January 31, 2011, 03:53:42 PM »
It's my understanding that the only place in the world currently producing M1-Abrams tanks is the factory in Egypt.