Egypt: What's happening?

[De Selby]

Expansion? Let's see. They got the West Bank, Gaza and the Sinai after defeating Egypt, Syria and Jordan in the Six Day War (which kinda makes me question your "demise" statement, when they can defeat three countries at once), and have agreed to give 97% of the West Bank and Gaza land won in the 1967 war to the Palestinians. That agreement keeps getting rebuffed by Hamas in the form of rocket attacks.

I did a Google search for "Israel expansion" and the first page of results were from socialist websites. Funny how that works.

Well, certainly they did not "agree to 97 percent for the Palestinians" - there's a new wikileaks type scandal with that.  The released documents show the Israelis rejecting offers of pretty much every important territory by the Palestinians, and then saying "look, it's government policy to just keep building until its ours.  You will have to live with it."  The release of the documents basically destroyed the Palestinian Authority, because the concessions they were offering made them look so weak.

But apart from your version of the facts or mine, obviously the people who are engaging in these revolutions do not agree with you. Their perceptions matter for this purpose, and they are clearly of the opinion that Israel is an aggressive, expansionist state.  They do not recognise any right of people to come to that land from Europe just because they're Jewish.

And yeah, the six day war is a good example of dictatorship fail.  Jordan hardly counts - the Hashemites have relied on Israel since its inception.  There would be no Jordanian monarchy but for Israel today.  The rest of those nations were, to a t, badly managed dictatorships (with the possible exception of Egypt.)  And Israel's greatest success was of course starting the war - by hitting first, they took out all air opposition.  How do you think Arabs today view that?

Micro, it isn't the Muslim Brotherhood that is a threat.  Islamism never was to Israel, which is why Israel has been more than happy to cooperate with Islamists, including Hamas (originally funded by Israel) and Saudi Arabia (maintains close ties with the Mossad).  Islamism simply does not have enough mass appeal in the Arab world to motivate big changes.

The real threat is secular Arab reform.  That kind of change will get the numbers and motivation to threaten the existence of the state.

[Monkeyleg]

And yeah, the six day war is a good example of dictatorship fail.

And Israel's greatest success was of course starting the war...

Once again my blue sky is your green sky.

Egypt kicked out the UN Emergency Force that had been guarding the Straits of Tiran and stationed Egyptian troops there, and closed the straits to Israeli shipping. Egypt then massed troops along Israel's border on the Sinai peninsula. Jordan allowed Iraqi troops to deploy against Israel along the Jordanian/Israeli border. Syria and Egypt signed a mutual defense agreement, bringing Syria into the fray.

Sure sounds like Israel started it to me. 

Winning a war isn't the same as starting it.

So, how again is Israel a dictatorship?

[HankB]

This is because it's policies of expansion and refusal to grant Palestinians equal rights or statehood self preservation, rejecton of Sharia law, rights for women, and religious tolerance have made it irretrievably sinister in the eyes of Arab populations nearby Isalamofascists. 

FIFY.

. . . And Israel's greatest success was of course starting the war - by hitting first, they took out all air opposition.  How do you think Arabs today view that?

The same way they view the Crusades and Reconquista -  - by discounting consideration of things like the Moorish invasions of Europe that came first, because Islamic agression is ordained by Allah, and resistance by infidels is an abomination.

[MicroBalrog]

This is because it's policies of expansion and refusal to grant Palestinians equal rights or statehood

Hank:

As an inhabitant of Israel, I feel you misunderstand the situation in the Occupied Territories quite a bit.

Rights of women, rejection of Sharia? In Israel [though of course like every other nation in the region, we DO have Sharia courts], including Israeli-Arab women. Not in Palestine.

Now, IN NO WAY DO I JUSTIFY THE SORT OF THING PALESTINIAN TERRORISTS DO.

But. What would you do if England invaded America again, and ruled - for example! - that the I-95 Highway was closed off to Americans, and only Subjects of the Queen could travel on it? I bet you'd be taking your rifle out of the basement.

The Palestinians have legitimate grievances against Israel. There will never be peace until we address these in a calm manner.

[Monkeyleg]

The Palestinians have legitimate grievances against Israel. There will never be peace until we address these in a calm manner.

It appears to me that at least some of your leaders have tried to address the issue calmly, but the Palestinian leaders (Arafat, Hamas, etc) haven't bargained in good faith. Or am I wrong on that?

It just seems that you'll never have peace unless you can get a Palestinian leadership that will honor an agreement.

[De Selby]

I'm not sure how what I wrote got interpreted as "Israel is a dictatorship".  It obviously is not, although it's far from a liberal democracy as well.

[Monkeyleg]

I'm not sure how what I wrote got interpreted as "Israel is a dictatorship".  It obviously is not, although it's far from a liberal democracy as well.

I guess I misinterpreted what you were saying.

Just out of curiousity, which countries in the world would you categorize as "liberal democracies"? Would the US count?

[MicroBalrog]

It appears to me that at least some of your leaders have tried to address the issue calmly, but the Palestinian leaders (Arafat, Hamas, etc) haven't bargained in good faith. Or am I wrong on that?

In a sense, yes.

Yes, the peace treaties have been violated - by all parties. But: to the extent that they have been observed, they've benefited ISrael greatly. Israel is safer today against terrorism than it ever was, in terms of how likely terrorist attacks are to succeed.

The current FATAH leadership is doing what appears to us to be a genuine effort to comply, and to root out Hamas operatives in their part of the Occupied Territories, Hamas and Islamic Jihad are being their usual selves. But right now, the issue with negotiations is not as much compliance but agreeing on the specifics.

If we could agree on a specific border line, pull out any settlements beyond that line, and build a solid concrete wall on it, then that would make Israel far safer from a military perspective than it has ever been in its history.

[Blakenzy]

Here is a nifty map of Israeli settlements by decade:

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/fullMaps_Sa.nsf/luFullMap/E75C8388391FEB01852573E20076305A/$File/fmep_SET_pse080201.pdf

You can't deny expansion there... What is not diagrammed is the crisscross network of "Israeli only" highways that interconnect these settlements, roads which Palestinians cannot use or cross, which compound the problem: Palestinians can't move freely about in their "own" territory.

A "two state solution" looks rather bleak since pulling out all those settlements doesn't seem to be on Israel's short list at all... I mean, even if there was the will to do so,  does any Israeli leader have the political capital to pull that off?

[Monkeyleg]

Any reason why the Jordanians or Syrians or Egyptians won't take the Palestinians? Could these countries have been directing all the hatred toward Israel to avoid having the Palestinians move into their countries?

[MicroBalrog]

Why should the Palestinians be made to abandon their homes in Gaza, Ramallah, Schem, Sodom? Because we want to live there?

[De Selby]

Any reason why the Jordanians or Syrians or Egyptians won't take the Palestinians? Could these countries have been directing all the hatred toward Israel to avoid having the Palestinians move into their countries?

The Palestinians don't want to be expelled from their own country - they view that as ethnic cleansing, the project of expelling Arabs and leaving only Jews.

[De Selby]

I guess I misinterpreted what you were saying.

Just out of curiousity, which countries in the world would you categorize as "liberal democracies"? Would the US count?

Yes the US would count, although it has extremely dangerous security state trends - I don't think anyone on APS would disagree that the "OMG Terror! I better imprison you without charge and search your kids' diapers" is out of hand. 

Most of Western Europe are, Australia certainly is.  Canada too, of course.  I judge it based on freedom of speech, integrity of elections, and minimal intervention of the state into matters of private conscience.  So those countries let you worship how you want, sleep with who you want to, do what you want in your home, etc, which in my mind makes them liberal democracies.

[Monkeyleg]

So those countries let you worship how you want, sleep with who you want to, do what you want in your home, etc, which in my mind makes them liberal democracies.

I haven't heard of any pagans or Hindus or dog worshipers being persecuted in the US, or gays being arrested, or anyone being arrested for lathering his/her partner with whipped cream in his/her home, or having a latex party. Have you?

The only behavior I've seen outlawed on your own property is smoking, but that's happened even in the "liberal democracies" that you mention.

[longeyes]

The Palestinians have legitimate grievances against Israel. There will never be peace until we address these in a calm manner.

Israel's been around for six decades.  Islam has been a problem for the West for 14 centuries.  Israel is not the issue in the Middle East, the prospective global Caliphate is.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Yes the US would count, although it has extremely dangerous security state trends - I don't think anyone on APS would disagree that the "OMG Terror! I better imprison you without charge and search your kids' diapers" is out of hand.  

Most of Western Europe are, Australia certainly is.  Canada too, of course.  I judge it based on freedom of speech, integrity of elections, and minimal intervention of the state into matters of private conscience.  So those countries let you worship how you want, sleep with who you want to, do what you want in your home, etc, which in my mind makes them liberal democracies.

Off topic, but I find this to be a fascinating insight.  

Conspicuously absent from your conception of free/liberal societies is any mention of access to weapons or self-defense.  

You bring up terrorism responses as a negative descriptor, but make no mention of the ability to keep the product of your own labor.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

or gays being arrested, or anyone being arrested for lathering his/her partner with whipped cream in his/her home, or having a latex party. Have you?

yes  we've had court cases over it

[SADShooter]

Any modern executions?

[P5 Guy]

They never had the middle east, and these revolutions are proof that religious radicals are far less influential than secular refomers

Sorry, "retake" was the wrong term.
Still from what I have read and seen the Moslem Brotherhood has had a strong presence in the civil unrest.

[MicroBalrog]

Yes the US would count, although it has extremely dangerous security state trends - I don't think anyone on APS would disagree that the "OMG Terror! I better imprison you without charge and search your kids' diapers" is out of hand. 

Most of Western Europe are, Australia certainly is.  Canada too, of course.  I judge it based on freedom of speech, integrity of elections, and minimal intervention of the state into matters of private conscience.  So those countries let you worship how you want, sleep with who you want to, do what you want in your home, etc, which in my mind makes them liberal democracies.

In my mind, this is actually a fairly narrow rating. It's almost like these people who cry out America is 'fascist' because they don't have quite all the freedoms they want.

I may disagree with the way Europe conducts things - in fact I think the EU is morally depraved and should fall - but it would be silly if I described America as the world's only free society. Equally I think it is wrong to describe Asian or Middle-Eastern democracies as failed just because they're not quite as shiny as a modern Western country.

I recommend a different descriptor: The Freedom House rating.

[De Selby]

Off topic, but I find this to be a fascinating insight.  

Conspicuously absent from your conception of free/liberal societies is any mention of access to weapons or self-defense.  

You bring up terrorism responses as a negative descriptor, but make no mention of the ability to keep the product of your own labor.

Yes, that's because to make firearms and taxes primary would make a farce of any assessment- try to name a place you would want to live other than the US.  You won't be able to find a credible alternative that has firearms rights to the same degree. 

Monkeyleg, I was including the US in " these countries"

[MicroBalrog]

Yes, that's because to make firearms and taxes primary would make a farce of any assessment- try to name a place you would want to live other than the US.  You won't be able to find a credible alternative that has firearms rights to the same degree. 

De Selby is right here. America is the freest country in the world. If we defined "free" as "as free as America", everybody else would fail.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Yes, that's because to make firearms and taxes primary would make a farce of any assessment- try to name a place you would want to live other than the US.  You won't be able to find a credible alternative that has firearms rights to the same degree.  

You'd be hard pressed to find an alternative with the same respect for property, either, which is arguably a much bigger problem.  If you don't own the product of your own labor, what are you?

And yet, the rest of the world still seems perfectly willing to call those places liberal democracies, and harp on the US over terrorism responses.  As long as you can screw whoever and however you want then everything's cool, eh?

[MicroBalrog]

Technically, at least 8 countries have a freer economy than the United States.

http://www.heritage.org/Index/

[De Selby]

You'd be hard pressed to find an alternative with the same respect for property, either, which is arguably a much bigger problem.  If you don't own the product of your own labor, what are you?

And yet, the rest of the world still seems perfectly willing to call those places liberal democracies, and harp on the US over terrorism responses.  As long as you can screw whoever and however you want then everything's cool, eh?

The ironic thing about this is that almost no one "owns the product of his labor" in a modern economy.  The guy who builds a car rarely owns it and decides how it will be used or sold. 

Wages are not products, obviously.  But yes, being able to keep your wage is important, and the US is not special in this regard. It also has a higher risk than other free places of your money being reduced to nothing by unscrupulous financiers.  The freedom to be fleeced by failing banks or dishonest investment houses is hardly a measure of property rights