What is the future of Egyptian-Israeli relations?

[BrainGlutton]

Mohammed Morsi (or Morsy), the Muslim Brotherhood/Freedom and Justice Party candidate, has won the Egyptian presidential election. The MB would also be the largest party in Parliament, if the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces and its puppet Constitutional Court had not recently dissolved it. Also, the SCAF has decided to allow the president only limited powers.

Now, I'm pretty sure that if this situation ends with the MB in actual power, they are not going to set up an Iranian- or Saudi-Arabian-style theocracy, or stone adulterers, or make women quit their jobs and wear burqas in public. That would be Al-Nour, with which the MB has hostile relations, and has stated the MB would not even consider forming a coalition government with Al-Nour.

But what about Egyptian relations with Israel?

The SCAF apparently values the enormous financial aid the U.S. gives Egypt every year ($1.5 billion in 2010; $3.1 billion to Israel that year), which is essentially a bribe for Egypt to continue recognizing Israel and keeping peace with it. They don't want to do anything that would make that aid dry up, they're practical (and greedy and corrupt).

But the MB are ideologues. The late leader of the MB in Egypt, Mohammed Mahdi Akef, was quoted as saying, "We believe that Zionism, the United States, and England are gangs that kill children and women and men and destroy houses and fields. .... Zionism is a gang, not a country. So we will resist them until they don't have a country." Is that actually going to be the policy of the MB now? Are even they crazy enough to de-recognize Israel, let alone risk yet another war with it?

[Captain Amazing]

I don't think anyone knows, which is why both Israel and the US are so nervous.

[Simple Linctus]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

"We believe that Zionism, the United States, and England are gangs that kill children and women and men and destroy houses and fields. .... Zionism is a gang, not a country. So we will resist them until they don't have a country." Is that actually going to be the policy of the MB now? Are even they crazy enough to de-recognize Israel, let alone risk yet another war with it?

What an odd thing to say. UK policy is pro-Palestinian mostly

[Farmer Jane]

I really don't think the answer is going to change, no matter how many times you ask. It's too early to tell, but it doesn't look that bright. Morsy still has to work with the Egyptian army -or rather, go up against it.

It also depends on what Israel's leadership looks like in the future.

[Simplicio]

The military still seems be in control of the country, and US aid makes up something like a quarter of the Egyptian military budget. I suspect the fact that the military council allowed Morsi to be President means they're relatively certain he won't do anything to endanger that funding, and thus either they're convinced he won't go overboard on the anti-Israel schtick, or at least that they can stop him if he tries.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Confused dart cum

What an odd thing to say. UK policy is pro-Palestinian mostly

Not from the POV of Middle Easterners.

[BrainGlutton]

Apparently, Iran approves of this result, and Israel ain't too pissed.

On the campaign trail, [Morsi] promised to institute Islamic law. One of his supporters, cleric Safwat el-Hegazy, issued a direct challenge to Israel, calling for a Muslim super-state across the Middle East with Jerusalem as its capital.

Morsi, 60, distanced himself from the cleric’s comments, but they trailed him on the campaign despite his assertion that he will respect international treaties, including the 1979 peace accord, on which much U.S. aid depends. He said he will not, however, meet with Israeli officials, according to the BBC.

He has also pledged to form an inclusive government to appeal to the many Egyptians, including a large Christian minority worried about potential religious rule. He has repeated that he would maintain his independence from the Brotherhood and not turn Egypt into a theocracy.

<snip>

Iran's Foreign Ministry congratulated Egyptians on Sunday for Morsi's victory, saying Egypt was in the final stages of an "Islamic Awakening."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office released a statement saying he "appreciates the democratic process in Egypt and respects its outcome."

"Israel expects continue cooperation with the Egyptian administration on the basis of the peace accord between the two countries, which is in the interest of the two peoples and contributes to regional stability,'' the statement said.

[Simple Linctus]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Not from the POV of Middle Easterners.

Well that's silly really. Yeah, I know balfour declaration blah de blah but objectively speaking in recent time there is no question that the policy of the UK has been pro-Palestinian.

For example, take a look at the remarks of the ambassador to the PA in Extreme Rambling: Walking Israel's Separation Barrier. For Fun. by confirmed left-winger and very pro-Paelstinian Mark Thomas. Had the ambassador been pro-Israeli Thomas would not have hesitated to report such. And I very much doubt the British Ambassador is a loose cannon.

Clearly the sympathies are with the opressed.

Of course if the "POV of Middle Easterners" is just that Israel shouldn't exist full stop, that's retraded - fuck em. But more reasonable educated ones have a friend in the United Kingdom.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Confused dart cum

Well that's silly really. Yeah, I know balfour declaration blah de blah but objectively speaking in recent time there is no question that the policy of the UK has been pro-Palestinian.

The UK also has diplomatic relations with Israel, recognizes it's existence, the word "Israel" appears on maps of the Middle East/Near East in the UK and the UK's attitude towards Jews is substantially different than that of most Middle Eastern Muslims and Christians, and I don't believe that "Zionism" is considered a bad word, much less a racist philosophy in the UK.

From the Middle Eastern POV, you have to do far more than merely criticize Israeli actions to be viewed as "pro-Palestinian".

[Alessan]

It's not just Israel. Egypt was once a de facto British colony; and it was the British - along with the Israelis and the French - who invaded Egypt in 1956. Even without Israel, the Egyptians wouldn't like the UK that much.

[newcomer]

Originally Posted by Confused dart cum

Well that's silly really. Yeah, I know balfour declaration blah de blah but objectively speaking in recent time there is no question that the policy of the UK has been pro-Palestinian.

For example, take a look at the remarks of the ambassador to the PA in Extreme Rambling: Walking Israel's Separation Barrier. For Fun. by confirmed left-winger and very pro-Paelstinian Mark Thomas. Had the ambassador been pro-Israeli Thomas would not have hesitated to report such. And I very much doubt the British Ambassador is a loose cannon.

Clearly the sympathies are with the opressed.

Of course if the "POV of Middle Easterners" is just that Israel shouldn't exist full stop, that's retraded - fuck em. But more reasonable educated ones have a friend in the United Kingdom.

Name one policy or official statement of UK Government that indicates or proves your claim or any substantial criticism of the way state of Israel treats Palestinians. Well, don't bother - there isn't one.

You are mistaking ability of an MP to speak his mind freely with an official policy.

In fact, quite the opposite is true that UK Government is just repeating Israeli and US talking points, does not make any statement or official policy that strays away from the script. Existence of pockets of "free speech" in UK which can call Israel for what it really are remnants of socialist anti-imperialist flavour of the Labour Party generally understood to be impotent.

[Simple Linctus]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

the UK's attitude towards Jews is substantially different than that of most Middle Eastern Muslims and Christians,

Anyone who has a different "attitude towards Jews" to the UK can go fuck themselves tbh. I don't see why bigots are worth listening to.

Even though the Middle Eastern "man on the street" probably is an anti-semite, is it really the case that that is government policy in Egypt? Even if those thoughts are held privately by politicians how can they express such things in public?

[Simple Linctus]

Originally Posted by newcomer

Name one policy or official statement of UK Government that indicates or proves your claim or any substantial criticism of the way state of Israel treats Palestinians. Well, don't bother - there isn't one.

I found this on Google in ten seconds. I could find millions more, it's just the first to come up.

Edit: I also never said anything about an MP. Mark Thomas is a comedian and ambassadors are not MPs.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Confused dart cum

I found this on Google in ten seconds. I could find millions more, it's just the first to come up.

Edit: I also never said anything about an MP. Mark Thomas is a comedian and ambassadors are not MPs.

Criticizing Israel is hardly enough to be considered "pro-Palestinian".

The US government under George H. W. Bush was far more openly critical of Israel than any UK government of the past several decades yet no one would argue that the US of that time was more "pro-Palestinian" than it was "pro-Israel."

[newcomer]

Originally Posted by Confused dart cum

I found this on Google in ten seconds. I could find millions more, it's just the first to come up.

I asked for a policy - set of agreed principles, laws and actions Government enacts when it wants something done about an issue generally understood to require Government action — not for a nonsensical posturing that looks almost as written by an Israeli foreign minister.

Originally Posted by Confused dart cum

Edit: I also never said anything about an MP. Mark Thomas is a comedian and ambassadors are not MPs.

I may have mixed him up with someone else so the point is probably lost when applied to this guy.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Now, I'm pretty sure that if this situation ends with the MB in actual power, they are not going to set up an Iranian- or Saudi-Arabian-style theocracy, or stone adulterers, or make women quit their jobs and wear burqas in public.

According to a Pew Research Center Study released December 2, 2010, in Egypt 82 percent of Muslims favor stoning adulterers, 77 percent favor whipping or cutting off the hands of robbers, and 84 percent favor the death penalty for Muslims who leave the Islamic faith.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/...and-hezbollah/

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

But the MB are ideologues. The late leader of the MB in Egypt, Mohammed Mahdi Akef, was quoted as saying, "We believe that Zionism, the United States, and England are gangs that kill children and women and men and destroy houses and fields. .... Zionism is a gang, not a country. So we will resist them until they don't have a country." Is that actually going to be the policy of the MB now? Are even they crazy enough to de-recognize Israel, let alone risk yet another war with it?

Yes. I think they are just that crazy. That is why I think we should not be using military force to spread democracy in the Mid East.

[truthSeeker2]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

According to a Pew Research Center Study released December 2, 2010, in Egypt 82 percent of Muslims favor stoning adulterers, 77 percent favor whipping or cutting off the hands of robbers, and 84 percent favor the death penalty for Muslims who leave the Islamic faith.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/...and-hezbollah/

Strange how even the educated people are blinded by islam. I was watching a youtube video showing policemen shooting dead a petty thief in karachi, a comment from a paki read - they shouldn't have killed him. They should have chopped his hands off as per sharia.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by truthSeeker2

Strange how even the educated people are blinded by islam. I was watching a youtube video showing policemen shooting dead a petty thief in karachi, a comment from a paki read - they shouldn't have killed him. They should have chopped his hands off as per sharia.

Are you sure it was a "paki" and not a nigger, spic, or kike?

[truthSeeker2]

Yes, quite sure.

*Paki* used in short for Pakistani, not in a derogatory sense.:-)

[Ibn Warraq]

NM.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

Yes. I think they are just that crazy. That is why I think we should not be using military force to spread democracy in the Mid East.

Sounds like you're saying that nobody should be doing anything to spread democracy in the Middle East because they're not ready for democracy and probably never will be. Am I reading you wrong?

[Marley23]

We're getting off topic here. The subject is the future of relations between Israel and Egypt, not U.S. foreign policy, Islam, or democracy in the Middle East in general except in the context of Egyptian-Israeli relations.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Sounds like you're saying that nobody should be doing anything to spread democracy in the Middle East because they're not ready for democracy and probably never will be. Am I reading you wrong?

I'm not sure why he feels that way since, according to him, Middle Easterners are "white" and therefore, presumably part of the master race.

http://www.eatbees.com/blog/images/youngmoroccans.jpg

http://www.agamecalledjustice.com/wp...nawa-music.jpg

http://mathildasanthropologyblog.fil...-egyptians.png

http://www.bugbitten.com/images/8609...t-3397648.jpeg

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Marley23

We're getting off topic here. The subject is the future of relations between Israel and Egypt, not U.S. foreign policy, Islam, or democracy in the Middle East in general except in the context of Egyptian-Israeli relations.

Sorry Marley.

I was typing up my post while you were posting this.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by truthSeeker2

Yes, quite sure.

*Paki* used in short for Pakistani, not in a derogatory sense.:-)

Racial slurs are racial slurs.

Spic is short for hispanic and nigger comes from negro, but that hardly makes them acceptable to use unless one is doing so to make a point.

I'll also be honest and say I find it rather dubious that someone from India was unaware that the term "Paki" was a racial slur.

That strikes me as being about as plausible as claiming that someone from Texas was unaware that "spic" was a racial slur not just a shorthand way of saying "hispanic."

[florez]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Racial slurs are racial slurs.

Spic is short for hispanic and nigger comes from negro, but that hardly makes them acceptable to use unless one is doing so to make a point.

I'll also be honest and say I find it rather dubious that someone from India was unaware that the term "Paki" was a racial slur.

I remember a few years ago reading that Prince Harry was sent to an army racial/diversity awareness course after referring to someone as a "Paki"

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by florez

I remember a few years ago reading that Prince Harry was sent to an army racial/diversity awareness course after referring to someone as a "Paki"

Paki is certainly considered a racial slur in the UK.

In Harry's case, he clearly didn't show any animosity and clearly thought of the man as his friend and I don't think he was anymore racist than the average person, however that doesn't mean that it's not a racial slur anymore than the fact that some white people used to talk affectionately about "our niggers" meant that nigger isn't a racial slur.

Similarly, Jesse Jackson most certainly wasn't an anti-Semite, but that didn't mean that referring to New York City as "hymietown" wasn't a racial(or ethnic for the pedants) slur.

Also, I don't think Prince Harry had to go to any racial/diversity awareness type course(that's more an American thing), though he was forced to apologize and it was clearly embarrassing for him.

[tomndebb]

Marley has already instructed everyone to stay on topic for the thread.

There will be no more discussion of whther or not paki is an insult in this thread.

[ /Moderating ]

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Marley has already instructed everyone to stay on topic for the thread.

There will be no more discussion of whther or not paki is an insult in this thread.

[ /Moderating ]

You're right.

I really shouldn't have continued, but convinced myself that since Marley hadn't specifically mentioned the "paki" phrase I could do so without violating the rules.

That was obnoxious and disrespectful to Marley so let me apologize to him and the rest.

My only defense is that "Paki" is used not only against "Pakistanis" but just about all South Asian Muslims, including my father, who heard it on multiple occasions in the UK, so to me seeing a poster casually referring to a "paki" is somewhat like a black poster reading another poster referring to "niggers".

Also, with all due respect, saying "there will be no discussion over whether or not paki is an insult" is like saying "there will be no discussion over whether or not nigger is an insult" and to me reading someone question whether or not Paki is an insult is very much like a black or Jewish person reading someone question whether or not nigger or kike are insults.

"Paki" is just as much a racial slur and an insult as "nigger" is. It's simply more common in the UK than in the US for very obvious reasons. Obviously many people argue that neither word is a racial slur and reasonable people could argue the case for paki being a racial slur and an insult is stronger than that of nigger since many blacks regularly refer to each other as niggers and do so affectionately while, by contrast, few if any "pakis" refer to each other as "pakis". In fact, it's very possible most uses of the term "nigger" in the US are not intended as insults while the same is very much not true regarding the term "Paki" in either the UK or India.

I recognize you meant no offense and I take none, but just as a black person would probably ask you to rephrase your post from "there will be no discussion over whether or not nigger is an insult" to "there will be no further discussion over the use of the term nigger" I'd request that you rephrase your post to "there will be no further discussion over the use of the term Paki."

[Ibn Warraq]

Anyway, back to the OP.

Morsi will make noises, but in the end Egypt needs the US aid so there will be some bellicose rhetoric to throw raw meat to the base, but there's not going to be a dramatic change in the relationship between Israel and Egypt which was already, in the words of Benjamin Netanyahu "a cold peace."

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Sounds like you're saying that nobody should be doing anything to spread democracy in the Middle East because they're not ready for democracy and probably never will be. Am I reading you wrong?

I am not saying they never will be ready for democracy. I am saying right now that the United States should not be promoting democracy over there. Democratic governments have more prestige than dictatorships. It is easier to oppose a dictatorship that is doing something horrible than it is to oppose a democracy that is doing the same thing with broad popular support.

At the same time I do not think we should be defending dictatorships against popular insurrections like we did during the Cold War. I think we should leave those countries alone.

I am firmly committed to the defense of Israel.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Anyway, back to the OP.

Morsi will make noises, but in the end Egypt needs the US aid so there will be some bellicose rhetoric to throw raw meat to the base

Especially if Egypt and Iran are really thinking about a rapprochement of some sort across the Sunni/Shi`a divide.

It seems that whenever anything happens to increase the potential influence of Iran in the MENA region, everybody involved bangs real hard on the anti-Israel drum to reinforce the notion of pan-Muslim "common ground" and defuse sectarian anxieties.

Hence Ahmedinajad's anti-Israel and antisemitic dick-waving when people started to notice a few years into the second Gulf War that Iran was now a major player in Iraqi politics.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

I am not saying they never will be ready for democracy. I am saying right now that the United States should not be promoting democracy over there. Democratic governments have more prestige than dictatorships. It is easier to oppose a dictatorship that is doing something horrible than it is to oppose a democracy that is doing the same thing with broad popular support.

At the same time I do not think we should be defending dictatorships against popular insurrections like we did during the Cold War. I think we should leave those countries alone.

I am firmly committed to the defense of Israel.

When you talk about "leaving Egypt alone" does that mean that you think the US shouldn't have been giving Egypt 1.5 billion dollars a year(more foreign aid than is given to any nation other than Israel) since the Camp David agreements under Carter which is what propped up the Mubarak government and preserved the peace between Egypt and Israel?

I will say that I think that US had national security interests in insuring peace between Egypt and Israel and that this was something good for the world, the Middle East, and, for that matter, the Palestinians.

Please explain why do you think the AID was a bad thing or why you think giving a country 1.5 billion dollars in aid is "leaving it alone."

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Especially if Egypt and Iran are really thinking about a rapprochement of some sort across the Sunni/Shi`a divide.

It seems that whenever anything happens to increase the potential influence of Iran in the MENA region, everybody involved bangs real hard on the anti-Israel drum to reinforce the notion of pan-Muslim "common ground" and defuse sectarian anxieties.

Hence Ahmedinajad's anti-Israel and antisemitic dick-waving when people started to notice a few years into the second Gulf War that Iran was now a major player in Iraqi politics.

Agreed.

The only thing I'll add is that I think many in the West misunderstand the Sunni/Shi'a divide".

There a number of countries where it's an issue(I.E. Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and a few others) but in Sunni countries with no significant number of Sunnis, such as Egypt, it's not an issue to anyone but the Salafists.

Khomeini was actually quite popular and still is quite popular(though posthumouslyl) in much of the Sunni Arab world.

You'll notice that Hamas and Hezbollah, despite one group being Shia and the other Sunni are allies with no significant issues.

[Marley23]

I don't think Morsi's promise to get Omar Abdel-Rahman released is going to play well in Israel. Or the United States. Or anywhere outside of Morsi's base, really. Rahman is serving a life sentence for ties to Al Qaeda and plotting terrorist attacks in the aftermath of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I don't think Morsi's promise to get Omar Abdel-Rahman released is going to play well in Israel. Or the United States. Or anywhere outside of Morsi's base, really. Rahman is serving a life sentence for ties to Al Qaeda and plotting terrorist attacks in the aftermath of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Well, to be honest, I don't think the Israelis would give a shit about him because he was more concerned with killing Muslims he didn't like than killing Jews.

Moreover, those statements are for domestic consumption not foreign.

Similarly every American President when running for election promises to move the American Embassy to Jerusalem, but none ever do.

Beyond that demanding to free the Blind Sheikh is his way of giving the finger to the Mubarak supporters since the Sheikh was widely believed to be involved with the killing of Sadat.

[Ibn Warraq]

Oops, sorry for the double post. Would one of the mods mind deleting the first.