Hosni Mubarak splits Israel from neocon supporters

[shira]

As Israeli leaders worriedly eye the protests and street battles in neighboring Egypt, they’ve been dismayed to find that the neoconservatives and hawkish Democrats who are usually their most reliable American advocates are cheering for Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s fall.

The Egyptian autocrat has kept his side of a chilly peace agreement with Israel for thirty years, permitting an era of relative stability in the Jewish state. And as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made clear in a cautious speech to the Knesset Wednesday, Israel is deeply worried what will happen to that relationship when Mubarak departs.

“We expect any government of Egypt to honor the peace. Moreover, we expect the international community to expect any government of Egypt to honor the peace. This must be clear, along with the discussions about reform and democracy,” he said.

Other prominent Israeli voices are wondering why President Barack Obama didn’t back Mubarak against massive protests that – while not focused on Israel – featured some signs depicting Mubarak with a Star of David on his forehead.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48747.html#ixzz1D81xaKx0

[DURHAM D]

1. tut-tut nt

[saras]

2. And Israel should...?

Isn't there a saying about getting the beam out of one's own eye before worrying about the mote in someone else's?

[aquart]

3. The good news is the Egyptians don't give a damn about the Palestinians.

Or, it seems, the Bedouins. So as scary and lawless as it may look for a while, it might not end up making much of a difference.

[shira]

4. "No such thing as an Israeli Neo-con"

Those head-scratching neocons should know—as I'm sure most of them do—that there's no such thing as an Israeli neocon. The Israeli establishment never believed in promoting democracy in the Arab world, and it still doesn't. It never much cared about Arab democracy, period. In Israel—if you feel an urgent need to make such comparisons—the establishment tends to reflect American pragmatic (some would say cynical) "realism." America's "freedom agenda" was anathema to Israelis, even when President George W. Bush—whom they respected and liked much more than they like President Obama—was in power. It was anathema to them not because Arab democracy isn't a tempting notion, and not because they want Arabs to live forever under Mubaraks and Assads and Husseins. They just think it's a pipedream, a wonderful idea that the people of Tel Aviv might pay a high price for.

http://www.slate.com/id/2283737/

[whosinpower]

7. In other words

We got ours.....and to hell with the little brown people. It isn't that we want them to have to live under tyrants, it is only that we could care less. Because if they get theirs, we might have to accept that we might have to concede on some issues that we really do not want to....and that would be the settlements, and the palistinian issue.

You know that is what it comes down to. On the Egyptian street, the citizen says it time and time again....Israel in itself is not the issue - it is how it treats the palistinians, it is how it bulldozes homes, displaces people, takes orchards and olive trees, expands its settlements on disputed land.

And now those same people see with crystal clear eyes how Abbas and Erekat would deal away the entire future of the palistinians given the palistinian papers, and how fraudulent the entire process has been all along.

And worse, when the people have real disputes with their leadership in regards to repression, extreme poverty, and corruption, and they protest that leadership....Israel AGAIN disregards their grievances to prop up that dictator.

Put another way, Israel can stomach making friends with a few at the top, but worries how it will manage to make friends wtih 80 million, and so it will not even try.

BUT, we should not entertain delusions that the protesters prime motive had anything to do wtih Israel. It is the pluto of a wide range of issues that face the egyptian populace - the most immediate concern being inequality, poverty and high food prices.

[shira]

11. Real genuine liberal democracy of course, but not another Gaza 2005 "democratic" election. Why....

...is this so difficult to comprehend?

Are you overjoyed that Palestinians got to vote in Hamas for life 5 years ago? How'd that work out?

:shrug:

[whosinpower]

12. You don't get to choose

Any more than I do, what the next regime of Egypt will look like.

And I think you would agree that the policy Israel has taken in regards to Hamas - starving the beast, economic starvation, has also not worked out either. Not one bit. In fact, it had the opposite effect - pushing Gaza into the arms of Iran.

There is always a chance, in every single nation, and every corner of society, that even a liberal democracy can be overtaken to a brutal repressive regime. You, of all people should know this.

I understand Israel's quandry. But you don't get to choose. Egyptian people are the only ones with the authority to state what their leadership will look like. Sure, I hope they will embrace a liberal democratic model. But I would not deny them that choice, just because there is a chance they won't.

[shira]

14. 2 points...and a question for you.

1. Chances are (like 99%) that conditions for Egyptians will either remain the same or get worse. There's almost no chance anything significant will improve, not even economically, as the theocrats of that region couldn't care less about improving economic conditions.

2. Israel's policy WRT Hamas was due solely to the fact that the rockets increased once Israel pulled out of Gaza. Let's not pretend Israel just didn't like the election results and started penalizing Hamas and Gaza as a result.

Now the question:

What if the true will of the Egyptian populace, in a democratic election, is that it opposes peace with Israel and wants to renew hostilities?

[whosinpower]

28. counter points

In regards to #1. Yesterday's protest in terms of POPULAR support would indicate that all those hundred's of thousands of people would look at your odds as saying acceptable - they will hang on to that 1 percent. And if you think for one moment, that the theocrats are not looking at the situation very closely, you are utterly blind. Protests spanning several arab nations are forcing those uncaring theocrats to address the situation, their people's adject poverty, their economic conditions, their lifestyle and society. The cat is out of the bag, and even they, cannot put it back. Their leadership is questioned, argued, debated - and perhaps for the first time, openly, defiantly. I find it almost funny in bittersweet irony, that Khamenai tried to foist Iran up at this time, and now the green revolution rears its head again, it's youth motivated by the Egyptian experience.

You try ever so hard to pin all these protests on the existance of Israel somehow affecting the populace. Well, here you go then. The average salary of an Egyptian is $6000/per year. 40 percent of Egyptians survive on 2 dollars a day. Egypt made peace with Israel and recieves annual aid from America in the tune of almost 2 billion/year. Mubarek honoured the deal. His palaces and personal wealth grew to almost 70 billion and they, the people are subject to emergency laws, repressive rule, and grinding poverty. They see him as a betrayer to their interests. So does the green revolution in Iran. So did the youth in Tunis, the people of Jordan; so do the women in SAUDI ARABIA - even they have begun.

Egyptians have only to look a short distance to see the benefit of a real democratic government in action, in the Middle East. If Israel is to be the blame - then it is because it's government is subject to the will of the people - and Egyptians want to have a voice too. So do many others across the middle east. I am not suggesting that they admire or love Israel - they don't, but it cannot be denied that the Israel model of democracy has left the other dictatorships sorely lacking. That is fact.

#2. Israel's policy wrt the rockets flying has not worked. The rockets still fly. The tunnels proved to be a lucrative sideline source of income to Hamas, and the people, the gazans, survive on the goodwill of Iran. That is what happened. Even you must admit, the policy failed. It failed to marginalize Hamas. It failed to stop the rockets. And, at its worse, it helped Iran's standing.

Now to your question - Well - Israel, its government and its people need to work harder making friends with 80 million Egyptians then to offset that possibility. And there is an immediate situation brewing that Israel can engage on - so with all the protest in Egypt going on, it appears that the gaza tunnels have lost their market source....it would appear everyone is in the square! What can Israel do to alleviate that?

[shira]

35. Please answer my question first - if it's the will of the people to bring about theocracy and war

...vs. Israel, you're fine with that?

So be it?

[whosinpower]

45. Again - you obscure

In any society - there will be dissent about the leadership - regardless if it is a theocracy, autocracy or democracy. In the case of a theocracy or an autocracy, the dissent is stifled, and repressed - but it is still there....you cannot silence it by wishing it away, or even declaring it illegal.

There is a reason why Egypt broke into an 18 day historic protest against Mubarek. There is a reason why the green revolution broke out in Iran, and threatens to do so again, if it has not already occured. There is a reason why the government of Tunisia fell. There is a reason why Jordan struggles with its own protest movement.

I believe in democracy. I believe its strength is that the people have a platform from which to dissent - from which to make their desires known, and to make changes in the leadership to reflect that. I also believe its strength in that it allows for vigorous debate about controversial issues. I cannot beleive that an autocracy, or a theocracy would ever embrace ideals such as equal rights, women's rights, a minimum wage, labour laws on their own merits, unless forced to do so...through a democratic model. If real elections occured in Iran - the current leadership would of been tossed out - you know it as well as I do.....it was rigged, and the result was the green revolution. That was the will of the people ignored. A democracy allows for its people to publically, and rightfully complain when their leaders are not working in their best interests.

Now you worry and fret that it will be the will of the Egyptian people to have a theocracy, instead of a democracy. You worry that it will be the will of the Egyptian people to go to war against Israel. You worry so much about this, that you cease to listen to what the protestors are saying. You cease to listen to what they want in terms of democratic reform. The status quo within the Middle East just changed in dramatic and inspiring way. This is a historic opportunity to change with it. Change IS coming Shira, and that means Israel has to adapt to its new neighbors.

I worry too what the outcome may be - but the future is not written. I prefer to hope for the best for all and would work towards that end. Egyptians do not have the benefit of democratic institutions in place and so they have a long row to hoe to find what they seek. They do have the benefit of seeing exactly what happened in Iran and how that has worked out for the average Iranian. But, at long last, Egyptians have found their voice - I cannot fathom how they would allow it to be silenced again within a theocratic model.

[shira]

46. There are no indications genuine liberal democratic reform is happening in Egypt...

...only that things will either remain the same (at best) or worse.

I wouldn't ask such a question if there was a really decent chance of genuine liberal democracy breaking out.

If there was a really good chance Kach would win an election in Israel or that the Nazi party would win in a democracy, you'd be for the will of the people - so be it?

[whosinpower]

58. Do you honestly think

That the Kach/Kahane party would win an election in Israel? Honestly? Wow. Even I have more faith in the people of Israel than that.

But the question is out there so I will address it. Would I accept the will of the people - even if they voted in favour of the Kach/Kahane party in Israel.

Well, first of all, I must say that I find this scenario highly unlikely because one of the strengths of the israeli society is their audacious, rambunctious, vigorous debating skills and vocal opposition. I admire that. And, I do not believe that Kach would be able to silence it. It is the one thing that gives me hope of Israel's future. But, back to the question at hand....would I accept the will of the people of Israel - should they choose Kach. I would, but it would not silence me.

What would you do?

[shira]

78. No, I don't think Kach would stand a chance winning in Israel....

I'm against Kach, the Nazi party, Hamas, KKK, etc... running in any election anywhere throughout the world.

Too many wars and hundreds of millions of lives destroyed are enough. Freedom of speech rightfully has its limitations and I believe the same applies here.

[Ken Burch]

80. I'm against having those parties get elected, or gain support by OTHER means

I believe there needs to be eternal vigilance against them, and that people need to campaign against them, but banning them doesn't actually harm those parties. In fact, at times, it does them the greatest possible favor-giving them the ability to claim that they are repressed "dissidents", and letting themselves present themselves, falsely, as the only real "opponents of the regime".

When they DO run in elections, such parties usually do quite badly. It forces them out in the open, makes them tell people what their real views are, and exposes them to ridicule and well-worded political attack. This makes support for such parties fall quite quickly.

The real way to keep such parties from growing is to make sure that the countries they operate in don't create the conditions that allow such parties to grow-that is, to avoid replicating the conditions of Weimar Germany, or of Palestine under the brutality of the Occupation. Fascist groups never grow in societies where everyone has at least a decent standard of living.

I'm as anti-Nazi as anyone, shira. We just disagree on tactics. So kindly don't ever bait me on this issue again. I didn't deserve the inquisition, and it was totally inappropriate to bring the question of "Nazi" parties into a discussion of Middle East politics. It was Europeans who built the death camps, shira-not Arabs. ONLY Europeans bear the taint of Hitler's crimes.

[shira]

82. Fair enough - but realize I consider all those political parties to be openly racist, hateful...

...and intolerant. They have no business running any countries IMO.

I didn't bring up the Nazis to bait you, anymore than I brought up Kach.

And FYI, the MB (which includes Hamas) is by definition not only fascist, but WRT Jews/Israel is as antisemitic and Nazi-like than any other political organization since WW2. The MB did in fact work with Hitler before and during WW2. The Grand Mufti al-Hussayni was himself wanted by Yugoslavia, being responsible for organizing Muslim SS units that murdered b/w 14-15,000 Jews. If you doubt how insanely antisemitic the MB and Hamas are, there are websites online that translate what they spew.

[Ken Burch]

85. I agree that those parties SHOULDN'T be running any countries.

But the way to stop them is to make a case against them and beat them in the war of ideas-and, as I said, by avoiding creating and re-creating the conditions that spawn such parties.

In Europe, this means opposing all efforts to impose austerity budgets, because austerity, coupled with the loss of job security, coupled with the recent unwillingness of the center-left parties that are SUPPOSED to defend the social wage to actually do so is what gave the neo-nazis the fertilized soil in which they've gained such support as the have.

In Palestine, the way to stop Hamas is to ease the Occupation, let Palestinians have the sense that they really ARE moving close to quickly gaining a state, and to tell the IDF, while they're still their, to dial back the brutality.

In Egypt, the answer is the creation of a democratic political culture(which, to my mind, the heroes of Tahrir Square are TRYING to do)and the lifting of the state of emergency, especially to the point that multiple opposition parties are allowed and encouraged to grow. This will do more than anything else to lower support for the Muslim Brotherhood, a group a lot of people in Egypt were probably driven towards because it was the only tolerated opposition group under Mubarak. Egypt is NOT Iran, and the people there have no Ayatollah Khomeini figure who has the capacity of galvanizing support for the Brotherhood in the way that Khomeini was able to do so for the mullahs on the strength of his personal charisma. There is every reason to be optimistic, especially if the U.S. can also be persuaded to do the sensible thing and forgive Egypt the debts incurred by the Mubarak tyranny. An Egypt with growing democracy, full employment and a strong social welfare and public education systems would be a place where the Brotherhood would gain no traction at all.

[shira]

128. But if those parties win and remain in power, so be it? Oh well? n/t

[Ken Burch]

130. Those parties can't be stopped by barring them from elections

They'd just switch to the armed struggle instead.

Your condescending "oh well" is not justified.

No party in Egypt equates to the Nazis anyway.

[Ken Burch]

53. You can't assume that that IS the will of the people

And it's impossible to ETERNALLY keep a people from governing itself.

You seem to think that it's an unchallengeable assertion that the people of Egypt are obsessed with destroying Israel to the exclusion of any practical concerns about issues relating to their own lives. What do you BASE this conclusion on?

And how, when this movement has declared itself repeatedly in favor of multi-party democracy and free speech, can you continue to assert that "there's no evidence" that a democratization process is being made to happen from below?

And, if you were right about that, please explain how keeping Egypt under Mubarak or a Mubarak-type(like his son)would EVER lead to the country giving up the objectionable beliefs you're convinced they hold? When has keeping a country under a tyrant EVER lead to that country becoming MORE liberal? Can you point to any period in ANY country's history where that worked? That certainly wasn't the case in Ataturk's Turkey. The only reason THAT country ever developed a democratic tradition was that Ataturk was decent enough to drink himself to death. Had he lived on, dictatorship would have lived on with him until the day he DID die.

Finally, if you really do want the Arab/Muslim countries to make peace with Israel(an honorable goal, but one we both know CAN'T be achieved BEFORE or WITHOUT the establishment of a Palestinian state)how do you think you are assisting that goal by acting as if all Arabs are patholigically incapable of living democratically or living in peace? Do you really think the constant claims by the Israeli government that "we're BETTER" than the Arab/Muslim countries have any positive effect? How could INSULTING the countries Israel claims it wants to make peace with possibly lead them to consider peace with Israel to be a good thing? Did you ever even think about that? Nations don't make peace with other nations whose leaders perpetually disrespect them.

[Ken Burch]

51. That last question is meaningless.

If that were the true will of the Egyptian people, at some point Mubarak himself would have had to bow to it. You can't assume that Mubarak could forever have stood against such a feeling. And you still haven't explained how keeping Mubarak in power would ever had led the Egyptian people to give up such feelings if they DID hold them.

Time can't be stopped. History can't be stopped. No one has the right to say to an ENTIRE country "we can't LET you rule yourselves". There's no historical precedent for that, save for postwar occupation of a defeated country, and that situation doesn't obtain here.

[azurnoir]

13. another Gaza 2005 "democratic" election. you mean the one held

in both Gaza and the West bank? The one that elected Abbas as President of the PA? The election thaat gave Hamas the majority of seats in the Palestinian Parliament was held in 2006 in both Gaza and the West Bank, but still Fatah held the leadership position'

I must say I am shocked that you appear ignorant of the facts surrounding this

[Ken Burch]

22. Why is it so difficult for YOU to comprehend

that keeping Mubarak in power can NEVER lead to Egypt getting "real, genuine liberal democracy"?

Hasn't the fact that there's never been a voluntary handover of power from a tyrant to a genuinely democratic leadership made ANY impression at all?

If the Tsar had stayed in power in 1917, Russia would still have an absolute monarchy.

If the Shah had survived in 1979, Iran would be lead by one of his corrupt sons and would STILL be just as repressive as it was before the mullahs showed up(there was no freedom under the Pahlevis, in case that fact has escaped you).

And, since you haven't mentioned Cuba in awhile, if Batista had survived, someone like him would STILL be running Cuba. None of the wealthy pure-blooded Spaniards who surrounded him then and helped him keep the nonwhite majority oppressed, before escaping to luxury in Miami, would EVER have allowed "real genuine liberal democracy".

Why are you the last person on the planet who STILL believes Jeane Kirkpatrick? My God, do you ALSO think we could've "won" in Vietnam if only we'd bombed another two million more innocent civilians to death?

[shira]

24. Do you believe Hamas coming to power and weakening PLO rule is a good thing?

After all, "even YOU would have to admit" the PLO is easily as bad as Mubarak.

You're for Hamas in power if that's the will of Palestinians? A religious conflict that cannot be resolved b/w the 2 sides?

[Ken Burch]

25. It couldn't have been legitimate to forbid Hamas from coming to power after it won the election.

What legitimacy would a Palestinian government that governed solely as a result of Hamas being undemocratically excluded have had?

Such a government could never win the support of the people. Such a government would never have the ability to credibly take part in a peace agreement.

Are you really saying that Israel should have the right to decide who leads the Palestinians?

Do you even think it would be possible for a peace deal to be made with a Palestinian leadership that held power on such terms?

And you know perfectly well that I don't LIKE Hamas OR Fatah. But it's been proven that keeping the Occupation going can NEVER lead to either being replaced by a more moderate Palestinian leadership. Every country that seeks to make peace always agrees to negotiate with a leadership of the OTHER country's choosing...not a leadership imposed by itself.

[shira]

26. Hamas should not have been allowed to run...

Just as Israel banned the Kahane party and liberal democracies banned the Nazi party from running in elections.

Do you think Israel could ever cut a genuine peace deal with Hamas?

[Ken Burch]

27. Kach was a much smaller party than Hamas

And Hamas, unlike Kach, is not a party based solely on hatred.

By definition, an election in which a major party is banned from running cannot have democratic legitimacy. You have to let parties stand in elections in order to GET them to give up other tactics. That's how it worked in Northern Ireland. Clearly, in that country, there could never have been democratic legitimacy to the Assembly elections if Sinn Fein had been barred from running or barred from sharing power if its vote-share entitled it to.

And if Hamas HAD been banned from running, the result could ONLY have been MORE violence in Palestine. It wasn't possible to isolate them and "crush them".

In Israel, Menachem Begin was allowed to stand in EVERY Israeli election even though, at the birth of the state, he took part in an armed putsch against Ben-Gurion(by attempting to arm an army within the IDF by bringing weapons to the Irgun brigades within the IDF aboard the Altalena).

And that example doesn't even hold for Egypt.

You can't equate EVERY opponent of Mubarak with Hamas, or seriously argue that Mubarak is right to ban ALL opposition parties from standing in Egyptian presidential and legislative elections. One-party elections cannot build "genuine liberal democracy".

You don't seem to realize what your long-standing defense of the Occupation has now done to your worldview and your political analysis. You now speak as if you were leading the parole board of the Arab world, personally qualified to determine whether anyone in any wing of the prison can be worthy even of severely-restricted freedom. Worse yet, you see keeping them under restriction as being "for their own good".

As to a genuine peace deal...Hamas, whatever you think of it, MUST be part of any peace agreement if that agreement is to have a chance. Your fantasy of just having peace with Fatah and then somehow crushing Hamas by brute force has NEVER been achievable. Peace requires agreement with everyone you are at war at. The days of "unconditional surrender", World War II-style, are over(and the peace with Japan wasn't even "unconditional" surrender-they insisted on keeping their Emperor and the U.S. agreed to that).

[whosinpower]

31. If only it were that easy

I BAN YOU FROM RUNNING IN ELECTIONS. And hope and pray that this would make their ideology, their hate disappear from the annals of time. Sadly - it does not.

snip - Was Kahane right?

Interestingly, in an October 2004 survey commissioned by Israel's Channel 2 TV, it revealed that 58% of adults aged 18-22 support "transfer" (the expulsion of Arabs from Israel), 26.4% believe the slain Kach Party founder, Rabbi Meir Kahane, was correct in his call to expel the Arabs, while one-third believe the Kach Party should be declared a legal organization once again. According to a concurrent Maariv report, a survey questioning 500 Israelis (representing a cross-section of society) revealed that 13.1% favor a national leader like Rabbi Meir Kahane (pro-Jewish, strong, and consistent).

http://www.think-israel.org/pasko.polls.html

[shira]

34. Do you believe the Nazi party should be allowed to run in any liberal democracy - as well as Kach

....in Israel?

[LeftishBrit]

43. Neo-Nazi parties are allowed to run in many liberal democracies

The BNP are a legal party in Britain though I'm happy to say they've never done particularly well, and one of the few really satisfying aspects of our last General Election is that the BNP were absolutely *trounced*!

LePen's National Front runs regularly in France, and came closer than comfortable in 2002.

[shira]

47. As bad as the BNP is, they're hardly the Nazi party. Now would you support Israel legalizing

...the Kach party in order to run in elections again?

[Ken Burch]

61. Are you ever going to let this line of questioning go?

If you favor banning parties from running in an election, you don't actually support democracy at all. And it wouldn't matter if Kach DID run, because many, if not all, of their ideas are backed not only by Beitenyu but also by large segments of Likud. It's not as if Israel is some bastion of antiracist purity, shira.

[shira]

62. So Ken, you'd support Kach being legalized as a political party again in Israel?

Since banning them means non-support for democracy?

Right?

[Ken Burch]

65. Why are you so OBSESSED with this question of banning parties?

On principle, I basically don't think actually banning parties is a good idea-much better to fight groups like Kach on the merits of their issues, which is not difficult to do.

Banning Kach hasn't actually achieved anything.

[shira]

67. Thank you for answering. Now how about allowing the Nazi party to run? For or against? N/T

[Ken Burch]

70. Irrelevant. Please stop with this.

There was NEVER any good reason for this line of questioning. You're trying to discredit me and you've failed.

Nobody in Egypt or Palestine is comparable to the Nazis, anyway.

Please, for the love of God, stop with this. It serves no purpose. The questions you've asked have no relevance to the situation.

Just accept that.

[shira]

73. I'm not equating Egyptians with Nazis, so stop with the strawman.

Since banning parties is undemocratic to you, I can only assume you're for allowing the Nazi party to run politically anywhere it wants throughout the world, right?

[Ken Burch]

76. It doesn't matter. Stop this. It's abusive

It's enough that I'm antifascist.

[shira]

105. If you don't want to answer questions, then stop following me around with your strawmen. n/t

[Ken Burch]

123. Implying that I "don't want to answer questions" is ITSELF a strawman.

I'm not against answering questions. I was against answering unreasonable questions that were solely designed to imply that I was soft on fascism and bigotry. I'm soft on neither.

Besides which, the questions weren't relevant to what we were discussing.

[shira]

127. You need to look up the definition of straw man. n/t

[Ken Burch]

129. I don't accuse of you positions you don't hold

I respond to positions you DO hold.

You DO defend the Occupation, the Siege of Gaza, the settlements and the separation wall.

You DO refuse to accept that the people of Egypt are capable of creating a democracy(a position based solely, from what I can see, on ONE meaningless poll and a ton of prejudice).

[Shaktimaan]

49. you have to admit...

your examples aren't exactly going to do much to comfort anyone. They are all instances where there was an uprising of the people and what followed was worse than the initial despotic government.

Besides, you say stuff like this, If the Tsar had stayed in power in 1917, Russia would still have an absolute monarchy. but the reality is that we have no idea what would have happened.

My God, do you ALSO think we could've "won" in Vietnam if only we'd bombed another two million more innocent civilians to death?

That's actually a great example of the folly of replacement govenment.

Cambodia did not do so well after ousting King Sianhouk either. Can you really argue against the fact that Lon Nol's government was far worse than the dictator's that preceded it? As with Russia. As with Iran. And as with Cuba. This is not an argument in favor of dictatorships, just that reality is usually far messier than our best intentions.

Sianhouk did a great job of staying out of that mess almost entirely. Lon Nol and Lon Non welcomed the US to bomb the crap out of it's countryside only in the end to get toppled by the Khmer Rouge and eventually RESCUED (then occupied) by the Vietnamese. Had Sianhouk stayed in power millions of Khmer lives might have been spared.

[OHdem10]

5. Which Neocons????

[shira]

6. Neocons who are for the spread of democracy, or just electing different tyrants, in rogue regimes.

[Ken Burch]

9. Why are you so obsessed with the notion that elections in Egypt can ONLY lead

to "the election of a tyrant"?

Can you NOT understand that it serves no purpose for you to keep spreading that destructive meme?

And can you please accept that Israel is NOT the victim in this, or even the point?

Throughout the protests, the protestors have made it clear that they do NOT regard the Muslim Brotherhood as their leaders. Can't you just admit, at long last, that the notion that the only options are Mubarak or the Brotherhood has now been totally discredited?

It's sick to fear the idea of a nation liberating itself from a tyrant.

[shira]

15. Chances are like 99% that things remain about the same in Egypt or get worse...

...with a new boss in charge.

There is zero evidence of anything signifantly improving for Egyptian citizens with a new leadership in charge.

But here's a question for you:

What if the true will of the Egyptian populace opposes peace with Israel and wants to renew hostilities?

[Ken Burch]

16. Then the best way to prevent war is to do what they want

And give the Palestinians the right to self-determination(which MUST include the acceptance of the creation of a Palestinian state WITHOUT Israeli interference).

BTW, the statement that "chances are like 99% that things remain about the same in Egypt or get worse, with a new boss in charge" is actually a totally meaningless statement.

Those "chances" are nothing more than YOUR personal opinion-an uninformed opinion, one that has consistently refused to acknowledge that what is happening in Egypt right now is spontaneous, is driven by grass-roots support for democracy(and NOT by "The Muslim Brotherhood", a group that has had little if any involvement in the events at Tahrir Square or those in Alexandria), and is not concerned, or at least not much concerned, with Israel at all.

But then, you have no interest in understanding the ACTUAL situation in Egypt, OR in acknowledging the reality that the people of the Arab world are now liberating themselves(and thus undermining Israel's "the Only Democracy In The Middle East" narrative), or of achieving peace at all. Your agenda, in discussing the events in Egypt AND Tunisia, has been solely

1)to spread paranoia about "what this means for Israel";

2)to deny that the Arab people and the Arab world are capable of political reform and self-emancipation;

3)to make a bitter end case for all-out support of Mubarak AGAINST not only his own people but, in the end, against reality...the reality that the tyrant's day is done and that nothing at all can save him(to say nothing of the fact that leaving him in power could NEVER lead to the democratization of Egypt, because the man has spent his entire career doing all he could to PREVENT Egypt from ever becoming a democracy).

[shira]

17. And what is it they want? What if they want more conflict with Israel, more war?

What makes you believe most of the movement stands for western liberal standards and not far rightwing ideology?

[Ken Burch]

18. Their own words and deeds.

In thirty years, the Muslim Brotherhood NEVER made any serious effort to overthrow Hosni Mubarak. What's happening now is NOT THEIR show. And what's happening now is proving that Arabs are just as capable of breaking their shackles and freeing themselves as anyone else.

You are terrified of the thought of admitting that to yourself. And you're obsessed with seeing Israel as being the VICTIM in this and being the victim in everything.

Let's get this straight, once and for all:

The fact that, in Europe, Jews were historic victims of barbaric oppression, oppression that is STILL a badge of shame on European history, does NOT mean that a state CLAIMING to represent them can always claim that IT is the victim, or that said state is entitled to use the horrid acts of Europeans as eternal justification for oppressing the Palestinians and equating all other Arabs with Nazis. No one is entitled use the acts of one people to justify hating and oppressing a DIFFERENT people.

Besides, you can't still believe that it would even be possible to keep Mubarak in power now. We both know the Egyptian people will never accept him as a legitimate leader again.

In every situation, the way to end war is to end injustice. In the Israel/Palestine crisis, and the general Israeli/Arab dispute, NEITHER side is pure, neither side is morally superior, and neither has an exclusive claim to victimhood. Israel's leaders have got to accept those three assertions if there is to be any hope at all of peace in the region...and that's assuming those leaders really want peace. It's almost impossible to believe that Bibi wants it...and difficult to think that Tzipi Livni does
either(there are some who do, people like Gideon Levy and Amira Hass, the people who know what has to be done, but it goes without saying that no politician who defends the Occupation and the settlements can honestly claim to want peace. Those that do that just want to "crush the foe", even though they know the foe can't BE crushed without creating even worse foes. The leaders YOU defend, shira, don't give a damn about saving the Israeli people from permanent war. They just want the bullshit to go on, they want the mythical "existential crisis" to go on, they want the paranoia to go on...and it's only logical that they would...ending those things would end the career of everyone in the current Israeli political elite, because an Israel at peace wouldn't need anyone like Netanyahu, Livni, Barak and his microparty, or Lieberman.)

And, as to the United States, if you read the posts in any OTHER section of DU, you know perfectly well that I'm even more critical of the warmongering political culture we have here. I've never held Israel to a higher standard than I hold this country.

[shira]

19. What are their words? What liberal values do they stand for? n/t

[Ken Burch]

40. Free elections and democracy.

BTW, is there anything they COULD say on the subject that you'd actually accept as proof? You're not going to argue that they should have to be obsessively anti-Hamas just to be allowed to be free of Mubarak, are you?

It's too late to discuss the question of whether Hamas should have been allowed to participate in the Palestinian elections. The simple fact is, no election is legitimate in which a party with THAT much support is denied the right to participate.

And before you mention "Kach" again...Beitenyu is standing on essentially the SAME platform as Kach(the differences are trivial between them)and is part of the governing coalition. That takes away any right the Israeli elections officials have to argue that Kach's exclusion-in-name gives them a claim to moral superiority. They have also excluded Arab parties whose only crime was supporting the creation of a democratic state in which Arabs and Jews live as equals(as they can't now).

[shira]

48. What kind of democracy? With basic civil rights, separation of powers, checks/balances, etc.?

How about gay rights, women's rights, equal rights for all religious minorities? Real liberal values? Can you point to anything like this WRT the Egyptian protests and if not, why not?

As much as he sucks, Lieberman is not Kach. Lieberman has said he's for 2 states and that he'd personally move out of the settlement he lives in if it would result in a peace deal.

Are you for legalizing the Kach party so that they can run in Israel elections?

[Ken Burch]

50. Kach values are winning in Israeli politics anyway.

Banning the party hardly matters.

And I DO want all of the above...but, since none of those things existed under Mubarak, you can't really attack the opposition if it hasn't mentioned them as yet. Getting Mubarak out of power HAD to be the first priority. I suspect it will be far easier to win THOSE battles without Mubarak than it would ever have been if he stayed on. The man ruled by decree for thirty years and there was no liberalism under his regime.

And there's no guarantee that banning Hamas would have led to anything "liberal" in Palestine. It would, however, have led to far greater violence and an impossible military situation(since Hamas can't be crushed without killing thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of innocent Palestinian bystanders).

It's too late to go on about Hamas' legitimacy. The only thing to do is to allow Palestinians the space to run their own lives...only THEN can a real opposition to Hamas/Fatah emerge. Liberalism can't be imposed through a continued Israeli military occupation...especially since that occupation has never displayed any liberalism or tolerance towards Palestinians themselves.

All of life contains risk. The creation of Israel included the risk of a fascist takeover(the one Begin tried to lead from the Altalena). You can't just stop history because of such "risks".

[shira]

54. That's not an answer, not to mention you don't know what you're talking about

1. When Likud and Beteinu are both talking about 2-states, liberal values are taking over, not Kach values.

2. There's no reason to believe with Mubarak gone and the Muslim Brotherhood empowered that liberal values will be easier to implement in Egypt.

3. As bad as the occupation was, the fact is that by all measures life for Palestinians improved under Israeli occupation (health, education, freedoms, economy, etc.). In fact the only country in the middle east where Palestinians enjoy equal and liberal basic rights is within Israel.

[Ken Burch]

55. You're STILL obsessed with saying Hamas shouldn't have been allowed to run

There's no reason to still be harping on about that. NO elections without them COULD have been legitimate. You'd have had half the voters, at a minimum, boycotting the vote and probably violent Hamas attacks on polling stations. No PA leadership elected in such a "vote" would have had any credible authority to negotiate with Israel.

1)Likud and Beitenyu aren't serious about a two-state solution. IF they were, they wouldn't be trying to make the Palestinian state as small as possible and Bibi wouldn't be insisting that the Palestinian side accept the continued presence of IDF troops deep within the Palestinian state AFTER the state was established. No independence movement anywhere would accept that, and Bibi knows it. Beitenyu, for its part, wants to use population transfer to deprive Israeli Arabs of their rights as Israeli citizens WITHOUT those people leaving the places they currently live. How is THAT "liberal values". And how is it "liberal" for Beitenyu to try to forbid anyone in Israel from using the word "Nakba"?

2)They protesters in Egypt have announced over and over again that they want democracy and real elections. That is the starting point for anything liberal. There was no way liberalism would EVER have occurred under a continued Mubarak regime...nothing that had been forbidden for THIRTY years under that regime would have been allowed now. Face it, Mubarak was NEVER a "benevolent despot" and no one else ever was, either. You've been shown proof that the anti-Mubarak movement wants democracy over and over again and all you do is to keep implying that this isn't anything but a Muslim Brotherhood plot. When are you going to get out of denial about the legitimate democratic aspirations of this movement? And the Brotherhood isn't empowered at all. In fact, by its premature decision to negotiate with Mubarak last weekend, the Brotherhood weakened itself and cost itself support among anti-Mubarak Egyptians, most of whom had been keeping their distance from the Brotherhood.
In any case, none of this would have happened if Mubarak hadn't kept a completely unjustified state of emergency in place for THIRTY YEARS. You simply can't deny a people self-governance for that length of time and expect them to just accept this as the natural state of affairs.


3)An Occupation is always illiberal. There may have been some modest increases in living standards while it occurred, but you can't assume that those were the RESULT of the Occupation. It's equally possible that Palestinians themselves were just getting better at running their society. You won't acknowledge that because you are heavily invested in the narrative that Palestinians and all OTHER Arabs are incapable of self-improvement.

[shira]

56. Hamas is clear that they never want peace with Israel or 2 states...

...so are you for Hamas becoming even more powerful via Palestinian "democracy"? I mean, if Palestinians prefer Hamas over the PA, who are we to argue - right? Even if that means no peace b/w Israel/Palestine for another generation or more? Possibly more sharia law, etc...

:shrug:

Your other points and strawman arguments are too silly to address.

[Ken Burch]

59. What is your alternative?

Barring Hamas from the elections would have discredited the elections, since they'd have left no alternative party to Fatah in the race.

And Hamas hasn't been totally rigid on its opposition to 2 states. At times, it's been willing to consider the idea.

You still haven't answered the basic question of how ANY election, if a MAJOR party in the polity in question is barred from standing in that election, can be truly democratic and credible. Or how any Palestinian leadership elected in an election in which Hamas was barred from standing could credibly enforce its part of a peace agreement.

You know perfectly well that it's impossible to militarily crush Hamas. Therefore, the only alternative is engagement with it. Just as the only realistic choice in Northern Ireland was for the Unionists to engage with Sinn Fein.

[shira]

63. So you're for democratically electing Hamas - an organization that once in power remains in power?

And if that's what the people want, you're okay with that?

Hamas has been very clear that under no conditions will they (or Iran) accept a 2-state solution in peace side by side with Israel.

Your position is anti-democracy and anti-peace, Ken.

[Ken Burch]

66. It could NEVER be "pro-democracy" to ban a party from contesting elections

Everything in the West Bank would be worse if Hamas had been banned.

Please stop with this McCarthyite line of questioning-it serves no purpose.

If you had banned Hamas, you'd have had half the Palestinian electorate boycotting the elections. None of those who did would ever accept a peace deal made by whoever won an election in which Hamas WAS banned. How would anything be improved by this turn of events?

I oppose Hamas. But the way to fight them is to contest their ideas. Palestinians would likely reject them if Israel left Palestine alone.

[shira]

69. How can it be democratic to vote a party in that will never allow itself to be voted out? n/t

[Ken Burch]

72. How can it be democratic to ban a whole party?

Nobody else would have any right to ask those who support Hamas to vote for them instead. And because those people wouldn't have anyoe to vote for, the election would be invalid and meaningless.

It's better to have Hamas contest elections than to bar them. You can't really think a PA election without Hamas could still have had democratic legitimacy.

[shira]

75. So you believe it's democratic to vote an un-democratic party into power that will never allow

...itself to be voted out?

That's not the beginning of a democracy, it's the end of it.

[Ken Burch]

77. I'm not supporting the ELECTION of Hamas.

There's a HUGE difference between saying that a party has the RIGHT to stand in elections, on the one hand, and wanting that party to win. I never WANTED Hamas to win. I don't have to support barring Hamas from running to prove THAT, for God's sake.

Can you not understand that, if you ban whole political parties, you cease to HAVE a democracy? Besides, Israel hasn't JUST banned Kach. At times it has banned parties just for supporting turning Israel into a nonsectarian state. Even if you oppose THAT idea, you can hardly equate it to Nazism or Kachism. And it didn't serve any greater democratic good to ban that party.

[shira]

79. Another strawman as I'm not suggesting you support Hamas, only that you support...

....the most non-democratic political parties to run in an election.

Movements that would END democracy once elected to power.

THAT, Ken, is undemocratic.

Using democracy to end democracy is also illiberal.

[Ken Burch]

81. No strawman. In a post just above this, you asked me the following:

"So you believe it's democratic to vote an un-democratic party into power that will never allow

...itself to be voted out?"

That question clearly implied that I SUPPORT Hamas. You know perfectly well that I don't. Defending their right to stand in an election is NOT the same as supporting them IN the election. And you damn well know it.

You still haven't explained how an election in which the party which, for better or worse, clearly has the support of most of the electorate(as Hamas did in the last round of PA voting)was barred from standing could possibly have any democratic legitimacy. How could anyone consider the results of such a contests to be democratically valid?

What matters now is making sure that the next elections ARE held...something that Fatah has as much control over as does Hamas. That is where the energies of concerned parties should go-not on the pointless question of who should and who shouldn't be allowed to run.

I only defended the right of Hamas to stand in the last PA elections because the elections would have been a mockery had they been barred. Nothing could have made such a result legitimate in the eyes of the Palestinian people. That should matter to you.

[shira]

83. Oh please, I never implied any such thing...

Whether it's Hamas or Mubarak's goons being "democratically elected", neither party is democratic and would END democracy once in power - refusing to ever be voted out.

And to answer your question, I don't consider it democratic to vote either a "king for life" into power or any totalitarian regime.

Tell me Ken, how democratic is it to vote in a "king for life" and what's the difference between that and voting in a totalitarian regime?

[Ken Burch]

87. It's not democratic to vote in a "king for life":

What you HAVEN'T demonstrated is how you can reduce support for bad parties by preventing elections(as Mubarak has effectively done with his "you can vote for me...or you can just stay home" elections)or by barring particular parties from contesting elections.

And your posts STILL reflect the notion that Arabs, as an ethnicity, simply cannot be TRUSTED with free elections as yet. If they can't be trusted with them now, shira, how will keeping them under dictators like Mubarak make them trustworthy of elections in the future? What could possibly happen in "a generation"(the time-frame that anonymous Israeli cabinet minister laid out in that Time Magazine link in another thread in this forum)of police state rule to make support for the Brotherhood, assuming it's really all that high right now, decline? You can't REPRESS a people into liberalism, you know.

[shira]

88. Ken, here's the reason the choice is only between Mubarak's regime and the MB...

Arab Dictators and Radical Islam
by Khaled Abu Toameh

http://www.hudson-ny.org/1877/arab-dictators-radical-islam

For decades, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and other Arab dictators used to tell Americans and Europeans that if they did not support them, the result would be Muslim extremists coming to power.

This is why these dictators never took drastic measures against Islamic fundamentalist groups in their countries. Even though Egypt and some Arab countries occasionally cracked down on these groups, they always made sure that the Islamists would stay around.

In Egypt, for example, the Muslim Brotherhood organization had been outlawed for many years. However, this did not stop the organization and its supporters from operating under different labels.

In Jordan, similarly, the authorities played a cat-and-mouse game with Islamist groups and their followers. One day the Muslim Brotherhood in the kingdom would be good guys, on another day they would be bad guys.

This pattern gave the Muslim Brotherhood a chance to grow and win over more supporters, as the local people became more and more disgusted both with their dictators and the Western governments who supported them

Instead of focusing their attention on the Islamists, Arab dictators chose to chase secular reformists, liberals, democrats, newspaper editors and human rights activists; by suppressing the emergence of these people, the Arab dictatorships paved the way for the rise of radical extremists.

It's not that Arabs can't be trusted to make the right choice, Ken.

Mubarak and other dictators around that region have made it virtually impossible for any significant secular, liberal movement to come into power. Keeping the economy poor and the middle class a small minority is another way to suppress secular or liberal movements.

[Ken Burch]

89. And you've just made the case for REMOVING Mubarak.

You've admitted that getting him out is the first step towards creating a democratic Egypt. And you've admitted that democratic traditions could never have grown as long as he or anyone remotely like him remains in power. Now, they CAN grow, especially since the military's going to lift the state of emergency and, by definition, actually ALLOW secular, democratic parties to form. Can't you admit that it's at least POSSIBLE that something good could now happen in Egypt(whereas no hope of democracy could ever have come from keeping the country under Mubarak OR a Mubarak-type?)

The hundreds of thousands in Tahrir Square had nothing to do with the Brotherhood. If they'd backed the brothehood, they'd be planting bombs or they'd have tried to assassinate Mubarak, not organizing peaceful protests and calling for free elections, something the Brotherhood hasn't called for at any time in the past, to my knowledge.

[shira]

90. Nope. I just made the case that a secular/liberal movement won't fill the void....

....and that at best, another Mubarak like regime will take over. If not, something on the order of a theocratic MB reign.

When either regime takes power, that's the end of democracy and neither political movement will allow secularism or liberalism to grow and threaten their power.

I don't have an easy answer, Ken. What I don't want is for things to get worse, get it?

[Ken Burch]

91. In other words, you have no respect at all for what the Egyptian people just did.

Disgusting.

You refuse to look at the truth of their achievement.

Could anything, anything at ALL, POSSIBLY prove to you that you're wrong about Egypt?

How can you be so bloody certain about there being no good that can come of this?

[shira]

92. Yet another strawman. n/t

[Ken Burch]

93. No. I responded to the substance of what you've said.

You reject even the possibility that Egypt could achieve democracy...and apparently, you do so just because it's an Arab country.

Disgusting. And racist.

Arabs are just as capable of changing their societies for the better as any other race.

[shira]

96. You're creating strawmen and knocking them down, Ken. Now please stop attributing positions to me..

...that I do not hold.

Now back on topic, since Mubarak has all but guaranteed that a secular/liberal movement will be no threat in an upcoming election against his party and the MB, what makes you believe things will get better in Egypt as a result of him being replaced?

[Ken Burch]

97. Mubarak is no longer able to guarantee that.

Now, the door is open to ALL possibilities.

Now, secular parties can grow. You still haven't ever explained how keeping Mubarak in power could ever have weakened the MB OR encouraged the growth of secular parties...are you now willing to admit that keeping Mubarak in power could NEVER have led to democracy at all?

[shira]

100. Right, Suleiman and the Egyptian military will guarantee that now.

And if the MB gains power, they'll help to ensure a secular, liberal party will never grow.

Maybe people like yourself need to go to Egypt to strengthen the secular, liberal movement there.

[azurnoir]

103. then let's stop playing games do you believe Arab societies as they exist today

can achieve a democratic society-yes or no?

[shira]

106. Read the article in #88 and that will answer your question. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

109. You were asked if you believe Arab societies as they exist today...

..can achieve a democratic society-yes or no? I didn't spot anything in that article that mentioned you and whether or not you believe Arab societies as they exist today can achieve a democratic society. I'd be interested in yr answer to the question Az asked...

[shira]

110. Depends, Tunisia yes, Egypt no...

The article explains it well.

Electing another tyrant or dictator in is anti-democratic, not democracy.

[Violet_Crumble]

112. How is it possible to know for certain that a democracy can never emerge?

Note: I'm replying to the post you wrote initially where you answered no and spoke of Arab regimes making it so democracy can't emerge, as you came back and edited yr post while I was responding to it. I'll wait an hour in future before replying to ensure you don't change yr mind about what you've said.

That's a big call, so I'm wondering what you think was the trick those Arab regimes pulled in order to ensure that there would never ever be a real genuine democracy? It must be one hell of a thing, as even militaristic Japan became a democracy after WWII.

btw, I've been following an interesting thread today in LBN on the same issue.

Former Bush-Cheney National Spokesman Thinks Muslims Are Incapable Of Democracy

[shira]

113. The question was whether it could emerge as things currently exist in the Arab world

That's a far cry from saying democracy can never emerge, which is a strawman you're attributing to me. If you need me to explain the difference, let me know.

I'm curious about your idea of democracy - Do you believe electing a totalitarian regime into total power is democratic or undemocratic, due to the fact that totalitarian regime won't allow itself to be elected out of power once in?

[Violet_Crumble]

114. You said it in the post I replied to before you edited it...

You said that the Arab regimes had ensured that democracy can never emerge. I realise from the cosntant use of the word 'strawman' throughout this thread that it's a new and very impressive sounding word, but it does help to use it in a way that shows there's an understanding of what it means...

Oh, here's a copy of yr post in case you go and edit it and change it completely: 'The question was whether it could emerge as things currently exist in the Arab world
That's a far cry from saying democracy can never emerge, which is a strawman you're attributing to me.'

[shira]

115. I guess you forgot to wait an hour before responding, or are you going to edit that one out now?

Here's what you wrote just minutes ago:

Note: I'm replying to the post you wrote initially where you answered no and spoke of Arab regimes making it so democracy can't emerge, as you came back and edited yr post while I was responding to it. I'll wait an hour in future before replying to ensure you don't change yr mind about what you've said.

And FYI, I responded to Azurnoir's question, not your strawman.

Are you aware of the difference between the 2 questions?

=========

Note that in your above quote, you claim I wrote democracy can't emerge - not that it can never emerge. So you're making 2 different claims now about what I wrote....

:shrug:

[Violet_Crumble]

116. I was being sarcastic. I didn't think you'd take it literally...

I guess you forgot to wait an hour before responding, or are you going to edit that one out now?
Here's what you wrote just minutes ago:




Note: I'm replying to the post you wrote initially where you answered no and spoke of Arab regimes making it so democracy can't emerge, as you came back and edited yr post while I was responding to it. I'll wait an hour in future before replying to ensure you don't change yr mind about what you've said.


And FYI, I responded to Azurnoir's question, not your strawman.

Are you aware of the difference between the 2 questions?



Uh, thanks for reposting what I posted, which is something I've got no intention of editing out. It's really helpful and all!


What on earth are you going on about? I repeated Az's question to you. You answered it and originally said that Arab regimes made it so democracy could never emerge, then edited it all out as I was replying to the post and changed it to something else.I then asked you a question based on the answer I originally saw. Asking you a question about the answer I saw from you is not a strawman. For it to be a strawman, it would have to be a question where yr being attributed with something you didn't say. In this case you did say it, so it's not a strawman at all. BTW, for anyone playing along at home and participating in the Strawman Drinking Game, this is a big 4 drink post! Get drinking!!

[shira]

117. I answered Az's question and did not make the claim you're attributing to me.

Democracy cannot emerge in Egypt now (see the article), not to say that it will never emerge.

I don't see the point continuing this, as I've already made it quite clear we live in 2 alternate realities. We can't even agree on basic facts...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=342720&mesg_id=343133

So this, like that other thread, is pointless.

[Violet_Crumble]

118. You most definitely did say that Arab regimes made it so democracy can never emerge...

I answered Az's question and did not make the claim you're attributing to me. n/t


And where has anyone said you haven't answered Az's question? They haven't. At last count there's been three different answers, including the one you edited out and now try to say you never said. I'll leave you to yr own devices now, so have an exemplary and strawman filled evening...

[azurnoir]

119. if you can not answer that is fine, it is an answer in it self n/t

[shira]

120. See #110. n/t

[shira]

20. Also, don't you realize the PLO is scared to death about regime change in Egypt?

They realize with more theocratic rule in the region, that strengthens Hamas and threatens their power.

With Hamas taking the PLO out of power (maybe that's the will of Palestinians so be it, right?) that turns the I/P conflict into a religious war which cannot rationally be settled.

What do you think about that?

Are you for keeping the corrupt, dictatorial PA in power, and if so why - since they're at least as nasty as Mubarak's government? I'm looking for consistency here, Ken.

[Ken Burch]

21. No you're not.

You're looking for a case for the U.S. to betray everything it stands for, once again(as it did in Iran in 1953 when it restored the Shah to the throne for no good reason)and defend Mubarak no matter what.

Doesn't it bother you at all that Mubarak, at this point, can ONLY be kept in power by soaking the streets of Cairo and Alexendria with the blood of the democratic youth and the millions of other Egyptians who are peacefully working to liberate themselves?

Why are you convinced that Arabs are incapable of freeing themselves? Do you see them as subhuman?

[shira]

23. Can you please answer my question first? n/t

[Ken Burch]

60. Your question is demagogic, racist and unworthy of answer.

It assumes that Arabs are Nazis and MUST, alone among the peoples of the earth, be denied the right to govern themselves simply because of their ethnicity. This is a bigoted view and the events in Egypt show that it doesn't have anything to do with reality.

[shira]

64. The answer is that for the sake of peace, human rights, and real democracy...

...no one in their right mind should prefer, tolerate, or accept Hamas dominion over the Palestinian people.

[Ken Burch]

68. Real democracy can never come from banning large political parties

No government elected in an election in which Hamas was banned could have had legitimacy and none could have won the votes of those who had wanted to vote for Hamas(many of those who did vote for it did so as an anti-corruption vote and in thanks for the social service network Hamas once ran).

Can you NOT accept that it's too late to still be debating this?

[shira]

71. Hamas is as non-democratic a political org as it gets. I don't see how it's pro-democratic to elect

....a totalitarian regime into power, Ken.

There's nothing progressive or liberal about Hamas or the MB, as they have zero in common with anything liberal.

To tolerate their ascendance to power seems to me a pro-war, anti-human rights, anti-democratic position.

[Ken Burch]

74. Barring them would discredit any Palestinian election.

There would have been no other way for Palestinians to vote AGAINST Fatah, which a lot of them wanted to do. No other significant opposition parties existed at the time.

I wish one had been, but you and I are both outsiders so it's not OUR place to say who these people should and should NOT be allowed to vote for.

[shira]

84. Voting them into power makes a mockery out of "democracy". n/t

[Ken Burch]

86. Which is why I wouldn't VOTE for them.

Supporting their right to run is NOT the same as wanting them to be elected. I want them defeated, but that can only happen if a credible, independent democratic alternative(of the sort Barghouti could create, given the chance)is given the breathing space of working in an indepedent Palestine, or at least a Palestine that was clearly assured of gaining independence and being free of the IDF soon.

[Ken Burch]

8. At some point, you're going to have to face reality.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to establish peace between Israel and the rest of the Arab world as long as the Israeli government keeps Palestinians under its bootheel. ONLY when the Palestinians are actually allowed the natural right of EVERY other nation on Earth, the right to self-determination, can the rank-and-file Arab people who are now finding their voice and breaking their chains be expected to live in peace with Israel.

How could you ever have thought it was reasonable to expect them to make peace as long as the Occupation continued and the settlements remained in place?

[Shaktimaan]

29. A few things...

1. Since when has every other nation gained self-determination? The Kurds? The Chechens? The Basque?

2. The average Arab doesn't care about the well being of the Palestinians. They never have. The Palestinians being most viciously oppressed are living in the Arab world.

3. It is tempting to look at the conflict through the sole lens of Israelis oppressing Palestinians because that simplifies matters but the reality is far more complicated. It's a regional conflict that demands a regional solution.

4. Israel can not give the Palestinians a state. The Palestinians have to build their own state. Thus far they have not made the most out of the opportunities they have had.

How could you ever have thought it was reasonable to expect them to make peace as long as the Occupation continued and the settlements remained in place?

Sure. Why not?

[shaayecanaan]

30. All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others...

"Since when has every other nation gained self-determination? The Kurds? The Chechens? The Basque?"

Amazing how this equivocation over the right to self-determination appears only when we are discussing the Palestinians.

[Shaktimaan]

32. Don't misunderstand.

My issue is with the mischaracterization of a lack of self-determination as unique to the I/P conflict. It is not something that EVERY other nation has. To represent it as a freely occurring state of being that the Israelis deny to the Palestinians alone is both untrue and dishonest. Self-determination depends on more than a few independent factors, the rule has historically been against it. Gaining self-determination is far from an assumed right, more often than not it does not occur. It is frequently an accident of history; luck, opportunity and sacrifice all converging at once.

My issue is not that I oppose self-determination for the Palestinians but the belief that it is Israel who has denied it to them. Pointing out that self-determination is far from a given is not the equivalent of opposing it.

[shaayecanaan]

33. I doubt you would be making that speech in 1947...

when Zionists were solemnly invoking the inherent right of a people to self-determination.

Saeb Erekat (I think) once said to the Israelis: "You can appeal to the morality of the master, or the morality of the slave, but generally not to both at the same time."

In saying this, he was reflecting upon the tendency of Israeli Jews to posture before Westerners as beleaguered victims who deserved the world's compassion, while at the same time in their dealings with the Palestinians acting as regional strongmen who could impose their will through force, irrespective of the morality of the situation.

Accordingly, Israeli politicians (and advocates such as yourself) tend to employ the rhetoric of realpolitik rather selectively. The Europeans could force an agreement on Israel quite easily (denying access to airspace would probably result in Israel buckling within a week), but this would prompt the usual histrionic shrieking from pro-Israel quarters that putting any pressure on Israel is terribly unfair and beyond the pale.

On the other hand, whenever Israel twists the Palestinians' arms, we are told that this is the way the world works, the strong do what they can and the weak do what they must.

[oberliner]

36. Which side would you have been on in that debate in 1947?

Would you have supported or opposed the Zionists invoking those rights?

[shaayecanaan]

37. The same side I am now...

1. I believe that people have a right to territory and security and to not be colonised against their will

2. I believe that people have a right to equality, a full democratic franchise and to elect their representatives, and that those representatives should be sovereign in all matters of policy

3. I do not believe that people, necessarily, have the right to redraw international borders to encompass their own ethnic enclave and exclude others, and I do not believe that people have the inherent right to ethnic supremacy within a state, unless these things are absolutely necessary in order to secure Objectives 1 and 2, above.

This is my position in relation to Armenia, East Turkistan, Tibet, Transnystria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Northern Ireland, Palestine, Western Sahara, Somaliland, Puntland, Kosovo and any other ethnic land dispute you would care to mention.

After all, at least I do endeavour to be consistent. Can you say the same for yourself?

[oberliner]

38. None of those points are responsive to the question

You specifically referenced Zionists and speeches they may have been making in 1947.

In light of the events of the early 1940s, do you think that the Jewish people had a right to self-determination as expressed by the Zionist movement that was active at the time?

[shaayecanaan]

39. I've answered your question

The population that lived in the "Jewish" section of Palestine under the 1947 partition was 55% Jewish and 45% Arab.

I do not believe that the 45% of Arabs had the right to impose their identity on 55% of Jews, or vice versa. Self-determination, broadly, means the right to be governed by a representative government. It does not mean that people have a right to live in an ethnocracy.

In relation to your question, I believe that the Jewish people had exactly the same rights as their Arab counterparts.

[pelsar]

41. no...you avoided the real question...

and the reason for zionism.

post WWII, jews were still in DP camps because the JEW quotas from the US, New Zealand, etc were all filled up....
zionim being a direct result of anti semistim and the jews forcibly removed from their own country many years ago. (obviously you also restrictions on your definition of 'self determination".....

from you posts and avoidance of the issues, i suspect that you were against those jews going to Palestinian, creating a democracy and with the consequence of them remaining in the camps.

actually you seem to be against immigration.....freedom of movement

[pelsar]

42. a revision of my previous post....you do believe you answered

excuse my last post, it was a reflex. I've learned over the time spent here and elsewhere to understand better the "idealistic progressive mindset"

and the difference between that and a liberal israeli or a pro israeli liberal.

basically it comes down to reality and the limited options of geographic politics vs idealism. For instance the liberal israeli will look at gaza and the missiles falling, talk to friends there, and discuss actual options, long term and short term or look at 1967 and the threats and see his mothers or aunts fear of a 'redo of wwII and look at the actual options that will produce or force results that can be seen and felt immediately. (Pieces of paper with marks on them do not constitute much in this point of view.)

Different scenarios than appear in his or her mind, what if x does something not planned, what if plan y doesn't work or didnt work., what about the unknown factors, how to react to them when they appear. The israeli will then look at the new set of options, the new geopolitical set of values and modify the plan to fit the change

this is in contrast to to the idealistic progressive: the plan never changes, events have no affect on the plan. Asking for answers on a specific scenario will not change the idealistic progressives plan. Its not based on events, its based on an ideology, hence one answer fits all.
_________________

an example of a real conversation with a very liberal jewish prof at an ivy league school:
he was for the gaza pullout, didnt believe there would be missiles on israel after the pullout. More so once the westbank Palestinians saw how great gaza was going, they would be "jealous" and basically ask for the same.

once he did accept that gaza failed (a hamas takevover was incomprehensible to him), he then explained that the Palestinian gazans are not the same as those in the Westbank an the same pullout should be done in the westbank. Since this would obviously work, the gazans would then be jealose of the westbank Palestinians, overthrow hamas and start the process for an independent Palestinian state. That is a example of how belief overtakes actual events and ignores all the possible points of failure......

Where as he couldn't comprehend a gaza failure before the pullout, he still cant comprehend the possibility of a westbank failure...even while admitting that gaza did not produce the club med that he envisioned- such is life with ideology, answers are alway easy.

[shira]

57. Kudos on your description of the "idealistic progressive"

"this is in contrast to to the idealistic progressive: the plan never changes, events have no affect on the plan. Asking for answers on a specific scenario will not change the idealistic progressives plan. Its not based on events, its based on an ideology, hence one answer fits all."

This type of progressivism is akin to faith based religion, and the opposite of liberal values - ie, self criticism, ability to adapt/change when the situation demands it.

[Ken Burch]

95. It can't be consistent with "liberal values" to take a harder and harder line with Palestinians

OR to defend the settlements, OR the Occupation, OR to try to make the Palestinian state as small as possible. None of those ideas are liberal, and none of them even make pragmatic sense, since they all stand in the way of actually ending hostilities. Neither Benny Morris NOR Ehud Barak represent liberal values in any sense at all.

[shira]

98. It is consistent with liberal values to take a hard line against Hamas, the MB, and other fascist...

...racist, warmongering organizations.

And no regular here at DU defends the settlements, occupation, or making the Palestinian state as small as possible so you've set up yet ANOTHER strawman and knocked it down all by yourself.

Even YOU would have to admit that.

:)

[Ken Burch]

99. Bullshit. A lot of people here defend the settlements.

You've defended them with the hairsplitting "it's only growth within existing settlements" position. And you've defended the Occupation repeatedly. Anyone can go back through your posts and find repeated defenses of those positions, and of the "land swaps" that ARE designed to make the Palestinian state as small as possible.

[shira]

101. And again you're attributing positions to me that I don't hold. Let's do a Q and A....

Are you for the immediate end of the Israeli occupation, abandonment of all settlements, and all Jews forcibly moved back to Israel?

[Ken Burch]

102. I favor the end of the Occupation, and the abandonment of all settlements.

As to Israelis being allowed to stay...they should be allowed to, IF they take up Palestinian citizenship and are willing to accept that it is land for them to SHARE, but not MORE their land than it is that of the Palestinians-but not ON the settlements-rather they should live at a level of equality with everyone else. I'd be MORE comfortable with allowing the descendants of indigenous Jewish people to move back than allowing the settlers to stay...since the settlers NEVER had a tradition, unlike the indigenous, of trying to live in harmony or equality with their Palestinian neighbors.

If the settlements were allowed to remain, they would take up so much of the territory of Palestine that they would make it impossible to establish a Palestinian state. That was the whole point of BUILDING those settlements in the first place-to make a Palestinian state impossible.

The real issue that Palestinians had was, specifically, with the settlers. Not "The Jews", the settlers. There's a HUGE difference between the two.

And that's the LAST question you're entitled to ask me. You've been acting like a prosecuting attorney towards me all day in this thread and I've done nothing to deserve such treatment.

[shira]

107. Me too, but I asked about the immediate end to occupation and settlements.

FYI, I'm always open to questions as I have nothing to hide. I've repeatedly said I'm for the Geneva Initiative.

If you fear answering direct questions from me, then stop following me around in multiple threads with your strawman arguments.

[Shaktimaan]

52. Nah, you are dodging the question big time.

You mention partition... is this something you would have supported? How about before then? Would you have supported Zionism's aims and goals? Jewish immigration to Palestine?

It's very easy to say you support lots of well-meaning ideologies but when the reality of the situation demonstrates conflicting resources and land disputes it is dishonest to merely hide behind platitudes.

[shaayecanaan]

121. Quite obviously, the answer is no...

as I have indicated before, I don't believe that Britain had the right to transfer large numbers of Europeans to Palestine against the wishes of its inhabitants, any more than it had the right to transfer large numbers of Ulster Presbyterians to Northern Ireland against the wishes of Irish Catholics.

The Jewish refugee problem could have been much more ably settled by offering the emigres residence in the former British colonies (the US, Canada, and Australia). Overwhelmingly, Jews have demonstrated a preference for moving there rather than Israel - for example, the recent wave of Venezuelan Jews moved to Florida despite Israel begging them to move there.

[Shaktimaan]

44. why not?

It applies just as accurately then as now.

People may deserve the right to self-determination but unless they can build a functional state and provide for its citizens then it's an exercise in futility. Israel faced far greater barriers than Palestine has or does today.

The Europeans could force an agreement on Israel quite easily (denying access to airspace would probably result in Israel buckling within a week), but this would prompt the usual histrionic shrieking from pro-Israel quarters that putting any pressure on Israel is terribly unfair and beyond the pale.

You say this as though Europeans ever provided the opposite in Israel's favor. In 47-48 Israel was denied weapons to defend itself by Europe and the US, (with the exception of Czecheslovakia), during the British Mandate Jewish refugees were prevented from emigrating or purchasing land, during widespread boycotts from the Arab world there was no reaction. Even today Israel is the sole UN member denied an opportunity to serve on the security council or participate in committees held outside of the NY offices.

The issue is not that Israel denies the Palestinians their own state but that the two nations can not agree on the terms. There has been no shortage of opportunities for the Palestinians to build their own state.

Morality is highly subjective. For example you seem to have no issue with the idea that every single denomination of Arab people should qualify for their own state, yet every conceivable variety of Jew should share a single one. (If you even believe in such a thing as even one Jewish state.) Or are you in favor of a second, mostly sephardic Jewish state opened up in Iraq or Morocco? At the very least the Jewish refugees from Iraq should qualify for oil rights, right? Probably not. A hundred nations for the Arabs is justice and half a state for the Jews is a crime.

[Violet_Crumble]

111. The Palestinians have as much right to self-determination as Israelis do...

I've got absolutely no issue with the Palestinian people having their own state and expecting the same level of respect as Israel and Israelis are. There is no selection criteria for self-determination that insists there must be a functioning state in place for them to be able to exercise their right to self-determination, at least there wasn't a few years back when East Timor gained independence. That fledgling state teetered and tottered clumsily for a long time, even with the support and assistance of other countries. Why would Palestine be treated differently than that?

On Europe - yeah, I see what yr saying. It's not like any European country has helped Israel out with nuclear technology, or even that individual European countries have good relationships with Israel. And don't get me started on the Eurovision Song Contest, or not being able to hang out in Paris with the members of the OECD! Europe is so hating on Israel and it's so not fair!!

The issue is not that Israel denies the Palestinians their own state but that the two nations can not agree on the terms.

Of course. As soon as the Palestinians agree that the settlements aren't being removed and that they'll have to settle for a 'state' that's not really independent, and where they play the role of a town council answering to Israel who calls all the shots on security and military issues, and that they're going to have to settle for an Israel that's a fair bit larger than it is now, and a Palestine that's a fair bit smaller, than both nations will be able to agree and there'll be nothing standing in the way of a Palestinian state...

[shaayecanaan]

122. At least I am consistent...

"A hundred nations for the Arabs is justice and half a state for the Jews is a crime."

No, they are all crimes.

Any establishment of a state is a crime since invariably it must involve the theft of land from a pre-existing state and people. The United States, Canada, etc are all crimes. So are Turkey and all of the Turkic countries which resulted from the Mongol invasions.

The only states that are certifably not crimes are those founded by first inhabitants that stole the land from no one. So Iceland might qualify. Nauru. A few others, perhaps. Palestine might not be in that category, exactly, but the Palestinians are the closest thing that exists to an indigenous people, as far as Palestine is concerned.

There are plenty of middle-Eastern people who seemingly do not qualify for their own state. The Kurds are the most obvious, even though there is a semi-autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan. The Assyrians are another, even though their history goes back further than the Jews, as does their history of being persecuted. I asked the question previously: if the Jews are entitled to a state, why not the Assyrians? I dont think I ever received a reply.

Ultimately, as Saeb Erekat says, you need to choose between the morality of the master or that of the slave.

If you want to assert that Israel earned its right to exist by outfighting the Arabs for the same patch of territory, that is fine. But to do so is to admit that Israel is no different from the US or Canada, that it was built on the ruins of what and who came before. And if, in future, someone else may outfight you in turn, such is life.

If, on the other hand, people have the right to self-determination, then it follows that Palestinians are entitled to one of two things: full democratic rights within Israel, or a state in the West Bank.

When the western powers supported Kosovo's push for independence, they didnt sit down with Serbia and work out the borders of the new state, and offer Serbia the right to keep a suburb here or there. They said that Kosovo's people had overwhelmingly voted for independence, and that the people's wishes must be respected.

Now, I suspect that a referendum on independence in the West Bank would go the same way - but westerners are habitually hypocritical when it comes to these things.

"You say this as though Europeans ever provided the opposite in Israel's favor. In 47-48 Israel was denied weapons to defend itself by Europe and the US, (with the exception of Czecheslovakia), during the British Mandate Jewish refugees were prevented from emigrating or purchasing land, during widespread boycotts from the Arab world there was no reaction."

Well, the British had spent the best part of three years confiscating weapons from Jewish and Arab militias, and having its soldiers murdered in terrorist attacks by Jewish militias in response. That Britain would decline to supply weapons to those same militias (both Arab and Jewish) strikes me as a perfectly understandable impulse. Perhaps you think that Israel should supply weapons to Hezbollah so that it can defend itself?

But this goes to the heart of my question: you seem to believe that the North Americans and Europeans have a moral obligation towards the Jews, but that as far as the Jews and Palestinians are concerned, its a dog-eat-dog world.

[pelsar]

124. actually your not consistent...

The only states that are certifably not crimes are those founded by first inhabitants that stole the land from no one. So Iceland might qualify. Nauru. A few others, perhaps. Palestine might not be in that category, exactly, but the Palestinians are the closest thing that exists to an indigenous people, as far as Palestine is concerned

REALLY?..care to produce your criteria and sources.....

not to mention what does "closest thing" actually mean?...any DNA testing done on the first inhabitants and their ancestors?

-----

face it, this is just one of those "made up criteria" to justify a political/ideological view point. I would betcha that DNA testing of arab israelis and Palestinians would find a find greater percentage of them as coming from other parts of the arab lands than " first inhabitants"

and of course since when do 'first inhabitants" have superior rights?- did god decide that or some humans within a specific culture?...if first inhabitants are cannibals and throw their virgins in to volcanos as a ritual, as part of their culture, as far as im concerned that negates their "first inhabitant rights." i.e those "rights" are conditional.

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

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

[Ken Burch]

94. Because rank-and-file Arab people, despite the cynicism of their leaders

are universally in solidarity with their Palestinian brothers. Thus, any Arab state that made peace without making sure Palestinians gained the right to self-determination would fall. Ordinary Arab people simply wouldn't tolerate seeing the Palestinians betrayed. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

And why take the risk when it would be perfectly simple to achieve peace with the Palestinians through accepting their right to self-determination, something that would make it MUCH easier for the rest of the Arab world to end hostilities with Israel.

It's about justice.

[pelsar]

104. are you for real?...i know ideology blinds people but this is absurd...

arab solidarity with the Palestinians include:

Lebanon: May 21, 2007
Lebanese soldiers used artillery on a crowded Palestinian refugee camp
anybody in the arab street protest?
-----------
Jordan: sept 1970: jordan attacks and kills over 10,000 Palestinians
anybody in the arab street protest?
------------
Egypt: April 2010
gases Palestinians in the tunnels
anybody in the arab street protest?
------------
1991 Kuwait expelled some 450000 Palestinians
anybody in the arab street protest?
------

i could go on and on..but if you really believe that the arab street really cares about the Palestinians then you have to make up a really good excuse why we havent seen real convoys headed toward gaza via egypt to break the egyptian siege and help the starving gazans.

there have been a few attempts and when push comes to shove the Egyptians do open the border, but it appears no one really cares to push the Egyptians that much....because they "really care"

[shira]

108. They're universally for the Palestinian cause, not so much the Palestinian people.

That's why you never see mass demonstrations in the Arab world for Palestinians suffering under real apartheid conditions in places like Lebanon for example...

"As Palestinians in Lebanon we have no rights. We just want to live with dignity," said Palestinian Imtithal Abu Samra, 29, who lives in the Beddawi refugee camp in northern Lebanon.

Some 425,000 Palestinians are registered as refugees in Lebanon by UNRWA, the U.N. agency responsible for Palestinian refugees. Many live in 12 camps across Lebanon in conditions the U.N. has described as deplorable and appalling.

Palestinians in Lebanon are barred from working in dozens of professions and are generally paid lower wages than their Lebanese counterparts when they do find jobs. They are not allowed to benefit from public social or medical services.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2010/06/27/idINIndia-49694220100627

Neither do we see masses of international Palestinian supporters protesting such conditions.

They're for the Palestinian cause and couldn't give a shit about Palestinians.

[bemildred]

10. More of this here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x586938