Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 9 (since 2009-09-16 11:43:29)


Showing comments 9 - 1

  • Israel's defenders oppose Egyptian democracy (out of concern for Egypt of course)
    • Ah, found it. It's part of the Camp David Accords.

      Egypt seems to have agreed to the change, but I haven't found that agreement yet, if it exists.

      We can see that Egypt and Israel are cooperating on the partial blockade of Gaza, so I assume the two countries are in agreement on Gaza policy, and Egypt does not see Israel in violation, but I'm still checking.

    • I am unable to find the text you quote in the treaty. Here are two links to the treaty of 26 March 1979, one from Egypt, one from Israel. Neither has your text:
      Egyptian text (English).
      Israeli text (English).

      Can you tell us where you got the text you quote?

    • Your description of laws vs treaties is not correct. The UN charter is a treaty. It is called "International law" for the same reason that other treaties and agreements are called that. None of the UN General Assembly resolutions are called "International law" because they have no force. UN Security Council resolutions can have the force of international law under some conditions. The conditions aren't totally clear, but the resolutions must be made under "Chapter VII" of the UN Charter. I don't think many (or any?) UNSC resolutions mention Chapter VII specifically.

      The requirements of resolution 242 don't just fall on Israel. The state of belligerency, for example, still exists, but not with Egypt.

      Israel has kept the peace treaty with Egypt, according to all parties, including Egypt.

    • Nobody outside of Egypt, and few inside, are familiar with all of the other forces. The consensus of analysts I see on many different sites on the web is that the Mubarak regime crushed all the opposition but the Muslim Brotherhood. There was, for example, the Kefaya movement, in opposition to the government, but they have dwindled away. They probably are re-activating right now, and I guess that's the hope of the Obama administration, in asking for an "orderly transition" in Egypt; to give Kefaya time to organize.

      "Organized enough" would mean having the funds, the charismatic leaders, the popularity, and the skills to run for office and be elected, all while fending off the remnants of the Mubarak regime.

    • The letter to the editor of the Times was actually quite moderate, I don't see the problem:

      It would also be tragic if we failed to realize that the Muslim Brotherhood likely won’t deliver the democracy that the Egyptians (and we, on their behalf) crave.

      Also, both the Army and the Muslim Brotherhood are right-wing and autocratic, but in different ways.

    • The MB has long said the peace treaty must be "re-examined", as in this summary. They are also widely quoted as saying they would"join a transitional government in order to cancel the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, as it 'offends the Arabs' dignity and destroys the interests of Egypt and other Arab states.'"

      Ridding Egypt of its dictatorship is not "All about" the peace treaty. But its the survival of the peace treaty that worries Israelis. Netanyahu says he welcomes democracy but hates the turmoil. See here.

      There are 2 forces in Egypt organized enough to form a new government, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Army (the current regime). Neither one is likely to bring about democracy. We all hope for a better result, though.

    • The bottom line is that the Israelis (and friends) want to keep the peace treaty with Egypt, but the Muslim Brotherhood says clearly that the treaty must go.

      So which side are you on: Keep the treaty or end it?

  • This wave will sweep Israel too-- Soros hints in the Washington Post
    • There are two groups in Egypt that are organized and strong enough to possibly provide leadership in the future. Probably in the next elections:
      1. The Army.
      2. The Muslim Brotherhood.

      All other groupings have been suppressed by Mubarak. Neither of these two are great believers in democracy or individual liberty.

      There is, I suppose, the possibility of an Atatürk somewhere in the military, who would emerge as a dynamic leader creating a secular democratic state opposed to the religious fanatics. But that seems unlikely.

      So the prospects for democracy in Egypt do not look good. The choice appears to be between a pro-western government and a pro-Iranian government.

      Note: Popular uprisings and new democracies often bring in tyrants: Nasser in Egypt, the Ayatollahs in Iran, Hamas in Gaza, Hitler in Germany, Peron in Argentina, and on and on.

      If it comes down to street-fighting instead of elections, the Army has a clear advantage. This is so obvious, that I don't think it will go that way.

  • 'Forward': Israeli army doctors warned in '03 that CS gas in high concentrations could kill
    • Abu Rahmi was out of doors and not near the CS ignition point. She could only have gotten a few whiffs of gas. This isn't enough to cause death. But: Apparently she was already ill with something else. I've read that she had been receiving cancer treatments. If there had been an autopsy, we could be certain.

      Given the circumstances, the death appears to be quite accidental. If that low concentration of CS gas normally caused death, then thousands and thousands of people would have died of it at protests and such all over the world. The Israelis don't make their own CS, they buy standard police equipment overseas, so there would be plenty of bodies if the stuff was that dangerous.

Showing comments 9 - 1