That’s very close to “I do not want Middle Eastern countries other than Israel to enjoy freedom and democracy, because they could decide to threaten Israel.” I also think that it’s possible that the Muslim Brotherhood might take power and Egypt, and I don’t know what would happen then. But I’m still willing to let the Egyptian people choose who their leaders should be.
Can you explain this (especially what I bolded, but maybe the rest as well, if you can). I’d heard that Barak had left his former party because of disagreements about security policy, but I didn’t know he’d shifted so far. Can you describe his change of beliefs, and what it means (in your opinion) for Israeli politics?
Yes, it is. That’s exactly what she said, that the MB gaining power in Egypt would not lead to an era of peace. And you oddly snipped the line right before that bit, which was, emphasis mine:
It’s not at all close to saying that nations aren’t allowed democracy. There’s also nothing inherent his/her statement that she wouldn’t “let the Egyptian people choose”, merely that she/he didn’t think that a peaceful outcome was at all likely. It should also be noted that if the MB does gain power, it’s unlikely that Egypt will gain the freedom and democracy that they want. And even if it was saying that Egypt should be ruled by a dictatorship (which it wasn’t), that’s still nowhere close to the absurd fiction that she/he was supporting Apartheid.
I mean, seriously.
Saying that people shouldn’t have rose colored glasses on and that the MB may seize power and lead a violent regime is hardly anti-democracy, and it’s even less pro-Apartheid. But that does serve as a good demonstration of that smear in action. In response to a supposition that the MB may seize power, someone claims that it’s “Apartheid” politics.
Except, of course, that s/he’s saying nothing of the sort - that’s your rather inaccurate paraphrase.
S/He’s claiming that “ivory tower” types are hoplessly unrealistic about the possible future benefits of the revolution; and that those who live in that part of the world (“our 'hood”) are more pessimistic.
There is, as far as I can see, absolutely nothing objectionable about any of that.
No-where is he saying any of what you find offensive - that Egyptians ought not to enjoy freedom or democracy. I dunno where you are getting that gloss from. You simply invented it.
I think you’ve mixed up your South African metaphors.
A better comparison would be to the way that while calling for Democracy in South Africa, various ANC figures such as Chris Hani supported the crushing of the Solidarity movement in Poland because they preferred having Poland run by a Communist dictatorship which would support them over a Democracy that might not.
Of course the metaphor isn’t perfect because Poland wasn’t on South Africa’s border and a Democratic Polish government wasn’t likely to invade and try and destroy the ANC.
The last part is not meant to suggest that a democratic Egypt is likely to invade Israel, just that a Democratic Egypt is potentially more of a threat to Israel than a Democratic Poland was to the ANC.
chappachula does seem to believe that democracy in Egypt is bad news for the region and for the world, at least for the time being. He didn’t say “regime change in Egypt could lead to negative consequences, so we have to remain vigilant”, which would definitely be unobjectionable. He said that “liberal professors in ivory towers” (the classic conservative smear) think Egyptian democracy is good and will lead to improved peace, but Israelis and other right-thinking people aren’t buying it and know it’s likely to lead to war.
Sure, chappachula didn’t say anything should be done to keep Mubarak in power, but he’s obviously doing more than just expressing worry at the possible consequences.
Can you explain what “smear” you’re talking about here, and who it’s supposedly pointed at?
“I think South Africa during the apartheid just gave a call: they want you back.”
Pretty clearly a smear and not a “smear”.
That’s exactly what he/she said. He/she said that the MB will probably take power, and that would be bad.
No… “the Ivory Tower” is simply the common term for those in academia. It’s not a smear any more than Hesse was “smearing” academicians with The Glass Bead Game. And yes, again, the statement is that if the MB gains power there won’t be peace. Hardly surprising seeing Qutb’s influence on the MB and the fact that Hamas are their descendants. It’s fairly simple, and I’m not sure where you’re having problems understanding it.
Ivory tower type folks say that Egypt’s revolution will lead to peace and democracy.
2, But that may be rose-colored-glasses-thinking and wrong.
The “smear” here is comparing a perfectly reasonable opinion to supporting aparthied. It’s as absurd an over-reaction as I’ve ever seen in GD, which is saying something.
I’m seeing absolutely no basis for this, and none for the notion that chappachula is taking any position (much less any objectionable position) on whether Egyptians ought to enjoy freedom or democracy.
After they got the entire Sinai desert in that peace treaty, they’re still going to play this game? Look at the size of Egypt’s land, and then look at Israel…this is like the 6’6, 350 pound stud kicking sand on a scrawny 12 year old.
My point is that it seems like Egypt got a pretty good deal in that peace treaty. Israel gave them the Sinai desert - which they had taken in a war that Egypt participated in.
Frankly, I think Israel was a lot more happy with the US giving them a couple of billion bucks every year since Sadat to play nice with Israel than with getting the Sinai back.
Sorry, reminds me a lot of the shit whites used to say about when the ANC would take over. Note the total absence of conditional, there’s no ifs or possibly or maybe, it is crystal clear certainty.
Followed by:
Give democracy to the brownies or the blackies and you end up with chaos and mayhem.
And so the Middle East is in truth Israel’s street and those brownies are the local hoods. Keep them down, I say.
Sorry but this shit is a rehash. If you’re gonna be bigoted at least go for originality points.
This is actually a very good example of the type of hysterical exageration that typifies certain more… overblown… criticisms. Based on the flimsiest of reasons, we get a narrative completely out of proportion of a simple claim about anti-democratic forces seizing power in Egypt.
This is an interesting game of Free Association.
Someone thinks that the Muslim Brotherhood will take over, then it must be like Apartheid. Certainty, evidently, is Apartheid. Or something.
Someone thinks that the Muslim Brotherhood will take power, why, they’re not just advocating Apartheid, but they’re racist.
Ironically enough, Zombie has argued quite strongly against people being “commissars” and “inquisitors” when they point out that anti-Jewish conspiracy mongering is kinda racist. But he seems comfortable accusing someone of not just being a racist, but actually supporting Apartheid if they’re convinced that the Muslim Brotherhood will seize power.
It’s a curiously fickle opposition to “commissars” and “inquisitors” that’s behind Zombie’s argument.
Have you a reference for this? The items I’m finding are talking about the white South African miners’ union, also sometimes known as Solidarity, and the intersection of race and class politics in South Africa which had made being “communist” in South Africa more complicated than in many places well before Hani was born. If Hani expressed a position toward the Polish Solidarity, I’d be interested to know what the context was.
It’s pretty obvious that Zombie isn’t a native speaker of English.
With a comment about how Israelis “know their neighborhood”, he decides that anybody is calling the Egyptians “hoods” who should be “kept down”.
(Has anybody even used the term “hood” to mean “thug” outside of the 1970’s?)
What was actually said about those “brownies” and “keeping them down” (for serious?) was:
Heavens forfend, someone wants Egypt to have a chance at real democracy but thinks that the Muslim Brotherhood will seize power and that will lead to violence. How Apartheidy! Apartheidalicious! Apartheidtastic! (Zombie sure has seized on a useful smear, boy howdy.)
Obviously, a lack of understanding or even saying the opposite thing as to what’s being claimed isn’t something that’s going to get in the way of Zombie’s curiously-divorced-from-reality claims.
Chris Hani was the General Secretary of the South African Communist Party and they received massive amounts of aid from the Soviet Union and their satellite states, including Poland.
Why would you be remotely surprised that he’d support the crushing of the group trying to overthrow one of his allies.
Next, you’ll be shocked to learn that Nelson Mandela was a huge fan of Khaddafi, Castro, and Arafat.
