In short, the only people immune to realpolitik are dilettantes with no personal stake in the issue.
A general note to everyone: comments about anyone’s attitude toward the situation in Egypt are fair game, but comments about other posters (such as suggesting they are bigots) is not. Stick to discussing the arguments and not the people posting them.
I dont get it, if you can comment about someone’s attitude, then you can discuss the bigotry of one’s arguments.
I’m not unaware of the general configuration of late-apartheid South African politics, thank you, and I didn’t say I was surprised. I said I’d like to read more about the context of the specific statements you were thinking of–what did he say, who did he he say it to, what was going on in Poland and South Africa at the time. Or did you mean simply that Hani “supported the crushing of the Solidarity movement” by not objecting to his allies’ actions in another part of the world?
I am saying you need to make it clear you are talking about the arguments and not the poster him or herself. “If you’re gonna be bigoted” is a comment about the person.
Oh I am quite sure that the average Israeli is concerned about what regime change in Egypt may mean for them and would view any rise in the MB’s influence with some trepidation. That is different than thinking that it is going to translate to the MB controlling the military, or, bluster aside, that any sizable portion of the Egyptian populus wants a war with Israel.
No poll to cite but what I can find is this range of opinion pieces -
On the Right you have the stuff the JPost puts out. Note that while it is very concerned about agression, conventional military attacks are not in the list of worries.
To the more liberal Haaretz take:
The danger is not that the MB will, with popular will, create an Islamicised state. It is that they, being the most organized element among the protestors, will sieze the opportunity to effectively take control of the movement.
While it is a very different situation, the example of Iran is instructive. The original anti-Shah revolt was a popular one and consisted of many secular groups totally unaffiliated with the Ayatollahs … but they were ruthlessly put down after the Shah was deposed.
Or, in a very different situation, the fate of the Russian Constituent Assembly election in 1917 at the hands of the Bolsheviks.
What worries some (and I think with some validity) is that we here in the West are applauding and hoping for what may amount, to use an analogy, to a “Russian Constituent Assembly election” of Egypt’s own, and discounting their equivalent of the Bolsheviks as a serious concern because (as in that Russian election) they only have a minority (in the case of Bolsheviks, 22%) of the population on their side. Naturally, the majority of the Egyptian population does not support any sort of extreme radical islamicization. Most are in fact totally against it. But the majority are not organized.
The French revolution, the great-grandaddy of populist revolutions, saw a similar trajectory of course. It appears to be a consistent concern in popular uprisings - the danger being vastly increased where, as here, the great mass of the protestors have no obvious leadership and the minority of extremists does.
The fear is that the unorganized majority will create a weak and compromised attempt at democratic reform which will fail to bring any immediate substantive benefits (remembering that Egypt has no tradition of democracy and is economically in serious trouble), and thus be vulnerable to a minority of well-organized extremists.
…
Of course, in expressing this concern what I’m really saying is that I wish to bring back Aparthied, Jim Crow, and, quite possibly, the use of Egyptians for slave labour in pyramid-building. 
Be afraid - be very afraid. The scary, terrifying people of Egypt - the Brown Menace, as it were - might actually get a measure of influence over their own affairs. How knows what they’ll do? It could be the Mummy of all islamist revolutions! A veritable pyramid scheme… of doom!
Well, guess what: Mubarak just stepped down, and he says all the protesters’ demands will be met.
A long time a go, somebody else confronted the pharaoh and asked him to let his people go. And, eventually, even thought the pharaoh’s hard was hard as the stone at the center of a pyramid, they were set free. It wasn’t the end of the world then, and it won’t be this time either.
You know, you seem to be obsessed with the Egyptian’s race. Do you have some sort of problem with North Africans? Because my Algerian in-laws would like a word with you.
It`s ironic – if not hypocritical - how a country where extreme religious right holds the power and refuses peace by eroding any good will and patience is accusing the neighbouring secular country of possibility to become like them.
Yeah, like expressing concern about the French revolution demonstrated infamous anti-French bigotry. Can’t trust those White peasants!
Well, if you can’t trust Mubarak about meeting protester’s demands, who can you trust? 
I have no doubt Mubarak will step down - the guy is after all 82, so sooner or later that was inevitable - but whether the protestors will like the shape of the regime to follow is another story. We will see.
Yeah, but that was a myth. Reality might be a trifle more complex.
It’s ironic - if not hypocritical - how uninformed some people are on the subject of Israel.
-
The extreme religious right does not hold “the power” in Israel. Israel has freedom of worship and belief. Israel has gay pride parades (despite protests and vitriol from the Jewish and Muslim religious factions), while Egyptian gays are persecuted under the “secular” Mubarak regime. Calling Israel religious and Egypt secular is laughable.
-
Half of the extreme religious right in Israel couldn’t care less about the West Bank, Golan, and Gaza as long as their religious institutions receive government funding. They consistently voted in favor of things like the Oslo accords and Gaza withdrawal as long as they got paid off.
-
The reason most Israelis are wary of major territorial concessions and the creation of a Palestinian state is fear for their security, not a religious belief in greater Israel.
Well, I for one will get down my knees and pray …
I’d like to publicly thank Alessan and others who answered the OP’s question before this thread turned completely to shit.
(I guess the corollary to the rule that you can’t talk Middle East without things turning into an Israel shoutfest is that you can’t talk Israel without things turning into an Israel & the Middle East shoutfest).
It’s never you. It could never be YOU. It’s always someone else. Sure, whatever.
Khm… for example, Shas, the ultra-orthodox party, key to Netanyahu government. Party leader has some fine words for Arabs (just recent in 2010):
“It is forbidden to be merciful to them. You must send missiles to them and annihilate them. They are evil and damnable.”
It’s also lovely to read his letter of praise to Mubarak.
Let me preclude your response - yeah, I have no idea what I’m talking about, I will read more about it and I know, it’s complex issue. There, saved you some typing.
Thank you for your substantive refutation. Shas, of course, did not oppose the Oslo Accords and in any case is less than 10% of the Knesset. It’s also absurd to justify your description of Israel as a religious state by quoting Ovadia Yosef, when he’s rather famous in Israel for making these sorts of statements and then being roundly mocked for them in the free overwhelmingly secular press.
There you go again. Mucking up his clear understanding with facts. 
To be fair though, the problem remains that few coalitions can afford to tell the far RR to fuck off. Because their few votes are needed to put the numbers of a coalition over the edge needed to form a government, they have power disproportionate to their numbers and get concessions. And those concessions have eroded the possibilities for a real peace settlement.
On edit: no that is not quite like the concern over the MB.
You’re welcome. I try to bring somethig new to these threads: either some actual information that hasn’t already been chewed to death, or some novel opinion or point of view.
Then I usually bail - because seriously, what’s the point?
Yes, to a certain extent that’s true. But on the other hand most of the extreme religious can be bought off - that’s Shas and UTJ with a combined 16 seats. Meanwhile, the actual religious Zionists who have religious/ideological objections to territorial compromise have a mere 8 seats, and the largest “far-right” party in the Knesset is Yisrael Beitenu, which is relatively anti-religious.
Its always nice to see you guys work in tandem to really obfuscate and make fun of the poster even though its all made up.
1st one says:
And then the other, with no real interest in checking anything confirms with somewhat extatic pronouncemet:
When in fact I did not claim that Israel is religious country. I said
And now, for some of them facts – Right-wing parties in 2009 elections: Likud 9%, Shas 16% and Yisrael Beiteinu 9%. The differences are in name only.
That`s 34% – one third.
Therefore, right-wing government.