Egypt's Crisis: Israel Backs Mubarak's regime - Polidicks

[IMG]http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2011/1101/israel_egypt_0128.jpg[/IMG][I] Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, left, and Egyptian demonstrators[/I] [URL="http://www.time.com/time"][IMG]http://img.timeinc.net/time/rd/trunk/www/web/feds/i/logoTimeSpecials.png[/IMG][/URL] [URL="http://www.cnn.com/"][IMG]http://img.timeinc.net/time/rd/trunk/www/web/feds/i/logoCnnSpecials.png[/IMG][/URL] [URL]http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2044929,00.html[/URL] [quote=TIME] With a deep investment in the status quo, Israel is watching what a senior official calls "an earthquake in the Middle East" with growing concern. The official says the Jewish state has faith that the security apparatus of its most formidable Arab neighbor, Egypt, can suppress the street demonstrations that threaten the dictatorial rule of President Hosni Mubarak. The harder question is what comes next. "We believe that Egypt is going to overcome the current wave of demonstrations, but we have to look to the future," says the minister in the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.[B] Israel enjoys diplomatic relations and security cooperation with both Egypt and Jordan, the only neighboring states that have signed treaties with the Jewish state. But while it may be more efficient to deal with a strongman in Cairo — Mubarak has ruled for 30 years — and a King in Amman, democracies make better neighbors, "because democracies do not initiate wars," he says.[/B] [URL="http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,2044357,00.html"](See pictures of Egypt's protests.)[/URL] [B] "Having said that, I'm not sure the time is right for the Arab region to go through the democratic process," he adds.[/B] The minister, who spoke on condition of not being identified by name or portfolio, cites the Gaza Strip as a signal warning of the risk that comes with asking the people what they want. The seaside territory, home to some 1.5 million Palestinians, elected the militant Islamist group Hamas in a 2006 election that had been carried out at the urging of George W. Bush, when the President was casting the invasion of Iraq as a mission to introduce democracy to the Middle East. [URL="http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2033593,00.html"](How strong a mediator is Mubarak?)[/URL] All well and good in the long run, according to the official, but Arab societies demand "a longer-term democratization process," one accompanied by education reforms that would encourage the election of moderates. "You can't make it with elections, especially in the current situation where radical elements, especially Islamist groups, may exploit the situation," he says. "It might take a generation or so." [URL="http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/01/27/is-the-arab-world-ready-for-democracy/"](Is the Arab world ready for democracy?)[/URL] The official's assessment, which came before raucous demonstrations Friday, Jan. 28, in Cairo, Suez and Alexandria, may strike many in the region as paternalistic at best. Along with oil, Israel is the major factor in U.S. policy that for decades has helped protect "moderate Arab regimes" now endangered by a populist wave that began in Tunisia. In a region whose national borders were drawn by colonial powers after World War I, the Jewish state is frequently framed by critics as itself a colonial undertaking, conceived in Europe, midwifed by Great Britain, coddled by Washington and imposed on an Arab region that sees Israel itself as colonizing through settlements and industrial zones the Palestinian land it has occupied militarily since 1967. For their part, Israeli governments pride themselves on clear-eyed assessments of the risks they face. The official saw no special peril, for instance, in Lebanon's new government. Though supported by Hizballah, the Shi'ite movement backed by Iran, "we don't consider it a Hizballah government," the official says. But the Israeli government was duly impressed by the simultaneous outbreaks of instability across the region: citizen uprisings in Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt and Yemen; unrest in Jordan and the Kurdish section of Syria; and a secession vote in Sudan's south that most likely will split the country in two. "It seems now we have quite an earthquake," says the Cabinet member, paying respects to the al-Jazeera satellite news channel and digital technologies that have dispersed the power to communicate and organize. "In the time of [former Egyptian President and pan-Arabist] Gamel Abdel Nasser, Egypt had one radio channel, and transistor radios were all allowed to listen to one channel." [URL="http://www.time.com/time/video/player/0,32068,764257619001_2044755,00.html"](Watch a video explanation of Egypt's protests.)[/URL] A retired major general found other metaphors — and more cause for concern. "We need to understand that we are living on a volcano," Ya'acov Amidror, former head of the Israel Defense Forces' Research and Assessment Directorate, told the Jerusalem [I]Post[/I]. "Conditions can change from today until tomorrow. We must ask ourselves, What is the worst-case scenario? We are on thick ice, but even that melts eventually." Friday's events offered little comfort for worried Israelis. At least twice that day, hundreds of Cairo protesters dropped to their knees in impromptu prayer sessions, lending the demonstrations both a measure of piety and a specific religious cast lacking in previous days — and in the Tunisian rebellion altogether, at least at first. The Israeli minister cautions against drawing many parallels between Egypt and Tunisia, from which a President fled after 27 years in office. "Mubarak is not Zine el Abidine Ben Ali," he says. "It's a huge difference. His regime is well rooted in the military and security apparatus. He and his wife are not criticized like the Tunisian couple." The official adds, "We do believe the regime is strong enough to overcome it." [/quote] No oppressive dictatorships should be backed at all to be honest, even if they assist you in wailing Gazans in and share complicity with you in managing an illegal blockade.

Democracies do not initiate wars? Have they ever heard of the United States?

Of course Israel supports the current regime. The people of Egypt is mostly against Israel, and a democratic rule could be a major blow to Israel.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;27714839]Democracies do not initiate wars? Have they ever heard of the United States?[/QUOTE] But the United States fights for [b][i]FREEDOM[/i][/b] :911: :patriot: I'm uneasy on how all of this is going to turn out.

[QUOTE=LarparNar;27714874]Of course Israel supports the current regime. The people of Egypt is mostly against Israel, and a democratic rule could be a major blow to Israel.[/QUOTE] You see, this is what I have a problem with. 1. Israel shouldn't run around la-dee-da doing whatever they want, burning down whatever. 2. The people who are against Israel shouldn't attack it. 3. US needs to actually stay out of politics in the middle east and stop waving the giant democracy finger.

No doubt that Israel would support Mubarak - but their support is useless. It's clear that the Egyptian Government is going to be overthrown and there will be a successful revolution. Good on Egyptian people - their Government needs to be represented by the people, and it hasn't been done so, so this revolution is more than needed. However, once a new Government is instilled, I can only hope and wish for the continuance of peace (between Israel and Egypt) and the continuance of the accords and treaties that the previous Governments had agreed to.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;27714984]However, once a new Government is instilled, I can only hope and wish for the continuance of peace (between Israel and Egypt) and the continuance of the accords and treaties that the previous Governments had agreed to.[/QUOTE] Agreed, I also hope that this new government stops assisting with that illegal blockade at least.

"OMG, yuo haet isreal!" Seriously though, I'm interested in what is going to happen in Jordan and Egypt now that everyone is protesting.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;27714839]Democracies do not initiate wars? Have they ever heard of the United States?[/QUOTE] USA is not a democracy.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;27715287]USA is not a democracy.[/QUOTE] It's what the world knows as "democracy". The US is a republic, I know. But we're the closes damn thing to a democracy.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;27715334]It's what the world knows as "democracy". The US is a republic, I know. But we're the closes damn thing to a democracy.[/QUOTE] Democracy is a fucking bad thing. Democracy is a form of tyranny, I have no idea why we use that word lovingly.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;27715287]USA is not a democracy.[/QUOTE] It's a Representative Democracy. With this many people pure democracy could never work.

Because its tyranny with representation, which most other forms of government don't have / don't have alot of.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;27715398]Democracy is a fucking bad thing. Democracy is a form of tyranny, I have no idea why we use that word lovingly.[/QUOTE] The people that vote are tyrants?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;27715398]Democracy is a fucking bad thing. Democracy is a form of tyranny, I have no idea why we use that word lovingly.[/QUOTE] We use the word so lovingly because most people's definition of a democracy isn't the actual definition. The US government is what most people consider what a democracy is.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;27715334]But we're the closes damn thing to a democracy.[/QUOTE] A 2-party state is hardly a role model for democracy. Sweden or Switzerland would be a better one. [editline]28th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE='[sluggo];27715437']The people that vote are tyrants?[/QUOTE] I think he's referring to the phrase "[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority]Tyranny of the majority[/url]".

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;27715471]We use the word so lovingly because most people's definition of a democracy isn't the actual definition.[/QUOTE] It a homonym, it has multiple meanings. One of them being synonymous with republic.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;27715536]A 2-party state is hardly a role model for democracy. Sweden or Switzerland would be a better one. [/QUOTE] None the less, we're closer to a democracy than a monarchy or dictatorship. [editline]28th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=noctune9;27715573]It a homonym, it has multiple meanings. One of them being synonymous with republic.[/QUOTE] I've never heard it suggested that way. I was always explained that people simply had the wrong definition.

Ultimate democracy can only be achieved in very small groups.

I have my doubts that a real democracy (AKA not representative) would work even for just a group of 2 people. Best system would be Illuminated Tyranny, but even if you do find one benevolent, intelligent, capable and just tyrant, good luck finding one each time the current has to be replaced.

[QUOTE=acds;27715853]I have my doubts that a real democracy (AKA not representative) would work even for just a group of 2 people. Best system would be Illuminated Tyranny, but even if you do find one benevolent, intelligent, capable and just tyrant, good luck finding one each time the current has to be replaced.[/QUOTE] Plato's Philosopher Kings?

[QUOTE=acds;27715853]I have my doubts that a real democracy (AKA not representative) would work even for just a group of 2 people. Best system would be Illuminated Tyranny, but even if you do find one benevolent, intelligent, capable and just tyrant, good luck finding one each time the current has to be replaced.[/QUOTE] Your right. The leader would not be a tyrant then though, he would be a benevolent dictator.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;27714839]Democracies do not initiate wars? Have they ever heard of the United States?[/QUOTE] Well it needs to be a democracy to fit into that rule.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;27715868]Plato's Philosopher Kings?[/QUOTE] Pretty much (not sure if philosophers are the best leaders though, but the basics of the idea are the same nonetheless), I definitely agree with his "societies form because individual humans are not self-sufficient/autonomous". Though this would work great in theory, it's like communism, in practice it just makes a huge fuck-up, because finding a single individual fit to lead the country in a just and benevolent way is hard enough, replacing him relatively often is near impossible, sooner or later you end up with a psychotic dictator.

[QUOTE=acds;27716047]Pretty much (not sure if philosophers are the best leaders though, but the basics of the idea are the same nonetheless), I definitely agree with his "societies form because individual humans are not self-sufficient/autonomous". Though this would work great in theory, it's like communism, in practice it just makes a huge fuck-up, because finding a single individual fit to lead the country in a just and benevolent way is hard enough, replacing him relatively often is near impossible, sooner or later you end up with a psychotic dictator.[/QUOTE] Let alone the fact that there will be different factions inside the nation pushing in opposite directions. No matter how benevolent and intelligent the ruler is, it would be impossible to appease 100% of the populace.

[QUOTE='[sluggo];27715901']Your right. The leader would not be a tyrant then though, he would be a benevolent dictator.[/QUOTE] Yeah that's true, the word "Tyrant" has a very different meaning nowadays, so in today's world it might not be a good idea to use it. The ancient Greeks used it in a much more general way though (unless I'm mistaken, it just defined the individual that held power of the nation/state/society).

Communism is not good in theory. It does not allow for anyone to become successful. A complete idiot is the same as a genius.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;27716078]Let alone the fact that there will be different factions inside the nation pushing in opposite directions. No matter how benevolent and intelligent the ruler is, it would be impossible to appease 100% of the populace.[/QUOTE] This is true, appeasing everyone is absolutely impossible. Which is also one of the good things of democracy, even if that 40% of the populace does not get what it wants, they still have the feeling that they had their say in the matter (which, with a dictatorship be it benevolent or not, doesn't happen).

what the fuck happened to my thread

[QUOTE=Starpluck;27716173]what the fuck happened to my thread[/QUOTE] Were WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYY of topic.