gotcha. The moderator quotes threw me.
This very attitude of “we’re not responsible for anything - we’re just victims” you’re displaying is exactly what’s held the Arab world back all these years.
Not commenting on the moderation or trying to raise this hijack, but I’ll provide a TLDR for those who may be confused: the thread it directly spawned was this one.
The facts were: thestory was actually about a decade old, and had been very well reported on, by the time the Guardian “broke” it. Thecases involved one hospital(in which pretty much all of the bodies of murder victims had to go due to the medical network in Israel) where the Chief Pathologist abused his position and apparently acted alone for financial gain and/or may have had an underling or two knowingly carrying out improper orders, but I’m not aware that was ever alleged let alone proven. He used both Israeli and Palestinian corpses for organ harvesting and the story was essentially broken (a decade ago) because of harvesting he’d performed on an IDF soldier. He was eventually punished but not as quickly or as severely as many would have hoped.
/TLDR
I of course agree 100% and I’m not saying Israel should do anything more than the apology already sent - there’s not really anything more to do, unfortunately. I’m also not advocating burning any embassies ever. An embassy is a key element in not being in war with people you hate and as such all the more important for Egypt.
But is it really so that this is serious stuff because the regime changes? I thought it is serious stuff because a country kills five soldiers of another country? I think that should always be serious stuff. If iot wasn’t serious stuff in Mubarak years then it’s a change for the better.
By the way, IDF has shown a growing incompetence in the last years and almost none of their operations go flawless like they used to go. Considering how often these kinds of situations arise, this is a bigger threat to Israel safety than any regime change in the neighbouring countries. When Israel used to play outside the rules and the dead guys always turned out to be terrorists, I always thought that we need to give them some slack. I don’t think they care about my slacks, but I don’t see them the way I used to.
Could be an Israeli slogan (depending on who they’re talking to).
That’s bullshit. A quick look at our public discourse would show you that we’re among the most self-critical people in the world.
In what universe did Israeli operations always go flawlessly? In all matters military, screwing up is always a possibility, and Israel is no exception - see for cogent example the “victory disease” that followed the '67 war and lead directly to the initial disasters of the '73 war.
In reality, the biggest Israeli advantage has always been, not infallibility (Israel was never that), but a willingness to acknowledge and learn from mistakes.
Getting back to the OP - it is still too soon to evaluate Egypt’s revolution. The vreal question is - did the revolt merely remove the dictator and his immediate cronies, leaving the country ruled by a shadowy cabal of military leaders, or are we witnessing a true transition to democracy? Only time will tell.
Stuff like an angry mob that allegedly started out as a rally against the military government, but ended up attacking the Israeli embassy, is not encouraging - not because it is “against the interests of Israel and the US”, but rather because using Israel as a convenient scapegoat and distraction from the "street"s’ anger against the government itself is an old, old tactic in the ME (Syria attempted a rush against the Israel border early in its own revolt, but the Syrians, alas for the government, were not buying).
In short, when one sees such an attack, the natural suspicion is that the government has decided on distraction rather than reform. Assuming this is true, this is bad, not for Israel, but for the citizens of Egypt. It indicates their chances of actually getting reform are the less.
Where did I say the Arabs are not responsible for anything? Where did I say they are just victims?
This is the standard Israeli claim. Of course it has a great deal of truth in it. But I said nothing like this.
Turkey is not Middle East. In any case, it is a silly thing to raise when the USA has been funding the convenient dictatorships in the region. I can understand why, but it is a stupid thing to hold against the egyptiens and the others when you give billions to anti-democrats.
This shows of course you know nothing and are merely making prejudiced comments. The Egyptians are free to exrpess themselves for the first time in many years, and have much more freedom of expression and of associaiton. It is of course a great challenge to make this transition, maybe it will fail, but to say that there is only freedom to riot is ignorant contempt.
I do not think it is necessary to think of government conspiracy for this attack - and the attack was very stupid I must say. Th eEgyptians have so long been impregnated with conspriacy thinking about Israel that it is a very popular thing all by itself. Some of the conspiracy thinking is true in that the egyptian government would do one with with Israel and then lie to its population about it. The cancerous behaviours of Mubarek created this, his double language, etc Egyptian can not get over this in just a few months.
What is revealing is that for these problems expected, the anti-democracy in Arab region people immediately jump on it for negative conclusions.
I say it is a suspicion that the anti-Israeli riot was steered by the Egyptian gov’t, not of course as a certainty.
It is certainly awfully convenient for them that a rally originally against them transforms into one against the Israeli embassy, and such tactics are hardly unknown in the ME - indeed, the very reason the Egyptian population is so primed for Israel-hate is at least partly because of this. Certainly Nasser, in the past, used drumming up anti-Israeli sentiment for boosting his own popularity - indeed, the run-up to the 6 day war is only explicable when viewed as basically a public relations move by him, rather than a serious attempt at provoking war (which Egypt was in no way prepared for).
As for why people “jump to negative conclusions” - it is hard to see anything positive emerging from a riot which trashes an embassy, with the government either unwilling, or unable, to prevent it. At best it demonstrates continued instability and lawlessness. At worst, a government that has seemingly chosen scapegoating and distraction over reform.
Yes, it is possible the egyptian government allowed this - I do not think they needed to manufacture, but it is strange they did not prevent it.
Dislike of Israel does not need government prograganda but the Mubarek regime profited from using it.
But one riot is not the revolution, id iis silly to make conclusoins from one incident. The problem is more if the military will exploit this to justify emergency rule. and maybe they allowed it for this reason.
I beg your pardon?
I don’t think we disagree on this. I opened my original post by saying it is too soon to evaluate Egypt’s revolution.
In pithy form: Freedom is seized, never given.
Nonsense. The Canadians are no less free than the Americans and they never had to seize nuttin’; they just convinced the Brits it was time to cut the cord. American slaves got emancipation without, themselves, fighting for it (though their descendants had to fight hard for other things). Etc. Of course freedom can be given.
I never said the seizing had to be violent.
I heard that opinion delivered quite vehemently on a Palestinian talk show, and I still do not understand.
Nevertheless, it does appear that in Libya, at least, there will be a democratic government well-disposed to the West. And certainly an interim government well-disposed to the West.
I thought I explained what I thought pretty well in that post the first line of which you quoted. What part of it don’t you grok ?