Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 9:00 AM ET, 02/ 1/2011

Egypt's revolution has nothing to do with Israel

By Jennifer Rubin

The Obama administration and many elite liberal opinion makers seem to be certain that the Middle East is really all about Israel. The Jewish State, in their eyes, is largely the cause or the recipient of most of the region's woes. In that vein, the New York Times conducts a forum on the following:

What does the crisis in Egypt mean for the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations? How crucial is Mr. Mubarak to dialogue between Israel and its neighbors? Will change in the Egyptian regime make progress in Mideast peace talks even less likely?

There is something otherworldly about this. WHAT peace process? And by the way, while the media and many diplomatic types have touted how important Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has been to the peace process, there has been no evidence in decades of his positive intervention, let alone any sign of his success in bringing the parties together.

The participants in the Times forum certainly do come up with some remarkable answers. Amjad Atallah from the New America Foundation chirps, "In light of the terminal state of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, democracy -- or at least the beginnings of representative government in Egypt -- might just be what is needed to resurrect chances of an actual end of occupation." (No word on whether it would resurrect chances of cessation of terrorism by the Palestinians.) He is bent on rescuing the seemingly helpless Palestinians from the need to participate in "unconditional talks" (oh, the horror!), but it's not at all clear Egypt has anything to do with that.

David Makovsky posits that in the best of scenarios, a new Egyptian government under Egyptian intelligence chief and newly appointed Vice President Omar Suleiman could help to broker a peace deal. But how? Is Suleiman any more persuasive than the Obama team? (Well, probably, but not enough to overcome the real barriers to peace.)

The premise of the question and of most of the answers is a false one. It is not Egypt that holds the key to a Palestinian-Israeli peace deal. Let's be clear that we have two distinct issues here. On one hand, we have an aging dictator about to be toppled by Egyptians fed up with his oppressive rule. And we have a separate issue, the failure to reach a Palestinian-Israeli peace deal. The latter is, as it has been for over 60 years, attributable to the Palestinians' unwillingness to accept a Jewish state, refusal to give up the right of return, and insistence on clinging to the dream of a one-state solution. The Egyptian issue will resolve itself on the streets of Cairo. The latter will take a wholesale revision in the thinking of the Palestinian people and in the development of a civil society that might be able to keep the peace.

To the extent Egypt becomes an Islamist, aggressive state that certainly poses a threat to Israel. But that threat, like the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iranian regime, is one that affects the entire region and the U.S. It is not, contrary to conventional wisdom, all or only about Israel.

By Jennifer Rubin  | February 1, 2011; 9:00 AM ET
Categories:  Israel  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Morning Bits
Next: Obama's failure of imagination

Comments

If Egypt has nothing to do with Israel, then why are you promoting Elliott Abrams, one of the leading advocates of Israel in this nation, as your "expert" on the matter? In fact, the ONLY Egyptian you have spoken about since the start of the crisis (aside from Mubarak) is Mohamed El-Baradei and that was only to call him an opportunist!

How strange to be an advocate of Egyptian dmemcracy who doesn't know any Egyptians and doesn't talk about opposition leaders except to denigrate them!

Posted by: johnmarshall5446 | February 1, 2011 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Yes, the Egyptian revolution doesn't appear to be motivated by Arab-Israeli conflicts, but the consequences of Eqypt returning to a Nasser-era attitude toward Israel, which is reasonably likely under any regime that more closely reflects popular positions on religion and politics (e.g. 80% popular support for stoning adulterers and the death penalty for apostate Muslims) will be very deep. Goodbye Camp David accords. There won't be another Sadat.

Posted by: raskolnik | February 1, 2011 9:23 AM | Report abuse

You obviously understand NOTHING about sharia. That's what this is all about, and what will happen. You're being very ignorant by not taking everything in to consideration, these are PEOPLE we're talking about, when have PEOPLE ever been practical?

Posted by: daughterofthelocusts | February 1, 2011 9:43 AM | Report abuse

The big question is whether Egypt will declare the peace treaty null and void, and, if they do so, will they withdraw from the Sinai, as that was the consideration paid by Israel for the treaty in the first place. Also, if they renege without returning the land, how can anyone ever ask Israel to return land for peace with any Arab nation or prospective nation that is not a functioning democracy. If successors to autocrats can pocket the gains but take back the costs, why should Israel deal with the likes of Abbas and Assad?

Posted by: pella5 | February 1, 2011 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Jennifer is at it again, the ultimate apologist for Israel. I just love her comment in the section mentioning who she is "nearly all the wisdom in the world can be found in Godfather movies and the Torah". That about says it all for Israel. We have former Israel Chief Rabbi Yosef,leader of the Shaa Party, claim that non-Jews were created, like donkeys, to serve the Jews. We have the popular book
"Torat Hamelech" ,written by two Rabbis,which is a justification to kill non-Jews and even their babies pre-emptivly
because non-Jews are not compassinate. These views were based on the Torah and other religious texts. Some wisdom.
The leaked documents by Al-Jazeera clearly show that Palestinian negotiaters were willing to give much more than Israel was contrary to Ms.Rubin's assertion. Also
contrary to her assertions everything is the Mideast has been about Israel such as the puppet governments in Egypt and Jordan that we've bribed with billions and billions. Look at how Netanyahu is scrambling to try to keep Mubarak in power.
As for you Ms. Rubin from your writing everything is only about your Jewish identity and blind support of Israel.It is all about Israel. Give up your bias and stop lying.

Posted by: treetopsfarm | February 1, 2011 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Actually, treetopsfarm, the only religion which deliberately sends it children out to commit suicide is Islam and the people who made this famous were the Palestinians. Of course now Moslems throughout the world send their children out to commit suicide. This is in keeping with the routine Moslem murder of their own womenfolk in so called honor killings, which as near as I can tell is countenanced by no other people, religion, or belief system except Islam and Moslems.
Your rather silly slanders and hateful anti Semitic myths about Jews and Israel are only that and no more.

Posted by: Beniyyar | February 1, 2011 10:39 AM | Report abuse

treetopsfarm is clearly a Nazi puppet. That kind of vile Jew hatred has no place on a mainstream site.

Posted by: pella5 | February 1, 2011 10:45 AM | Report abuse

@ pella5 - Egypt should "withdraw from" the Sinai, which Israel "the consideration Israel paid" them as a consideration for the peace treaty?! You can't be serious. Israel took, forcibly, the Sinai in a 1967 war in which Israel struck the first blow; and then chose to hang onto it and even began to colonize it - all illegally, in the eyes of any international law you'd care to consult (unless you consider Biblical nonsense or Genghis Khan to be proper yardsticks of international law). Some would call that aggression. And have you forgotten that when Israel tried to pull similar nonsense during the 1956 Suez War, Mr. Eisenhower - a much braver president than the one we have now - compelled Mr. Ben-Gurion to pull his troops out?

Posted by: rober1jf | February 1, 2011 11:21 AM | Report abuse

The new Egyptian government will face the complete loss of over $1 billion if it breaks its treaty with Israel. If that's worth it to them, let them go ahead and start another war with Israel. (I doubt that people who want jobs, a decent future, and free elections will have much stomach for it, but that's their call.) The loss of US aid means that Egypt will be plunged even further into poverty, which will lead to the government's loss of power. I have little doubt that the new Egyptian leaders will prefer to keep the $1 billion in US aid, and the stability that it brings, both to them personally and to their country.

Posted by: WashingtonDame | February 1, 2011 11:28 AM | Report abuse

rober1jf,

Even assuming what you say is all true, which is clearly debatable, the formula for Arab-Israeli peace was "land for peace." Israel gave Egypt back the land in consideration for a peace treaty. If Egypt vitiates that treaty Israel should take the land back, as they did no receive the benefit of the bargain.

By the way, you neglected to mention that Israel conquered the Sinai in 1967 to prevent the Egyptians from throwing the Jews into the sea. Since you are so fond of international law, what does international law say about genocide?

Posted by: pella5 | February 1, 2011 11:28 AM | Report abuse

It sure didn't take long to be called an "anti-semite" or a "nazi puppet". You didn't comment on anything I said. Can you deny that Rabbi Yosef said what I claim or the book I mentioned is not what I claimed. I mentioned these because Israel has been taken over by religious fanatics that are more than the matching ayatollahs. Other Israeli Rabbis call for the annhilation of all Arabs, using Palestinian children as human shields,don't sell or rent to non-Jews
etc. The government remains quiet about these comments since many like Rabbi Yosef are part of the coalition government. I fear that unless Israel can rein in it's religious fanatics it is doomed. I cannot think of any anti-semitic myths I presented.I hardly support honor killings in the Arab world but I do see the desperation of suicide bombers. We have it in the US where some one guns down their r family,neighbors co-workers,strangers
and then turns the gun on themselves. The Arabs hardly invented suicide bombing since we had kamikazi pilots in WWII. Do you deny that the Jews were the first terrorists in the Mideast with Irgun blowing civilian targets like the King David Hotel? In conclusion, I simply despise religious zealots of all types and their supporters. How many Shaa members,the Ultra Orthodox and settlers believe Rabbi Yosef's words or the views of the book mentioned?

Posted by: treetopsfarm | February 1, 2011 12:06 PM | Report abuse

To be fair the revolution was likely started by the business and better educated working classes, with radicals like the Muslim Brotherhood joining in once it looked to be working and now the poor masses seems to be slowing adding to it.

While Israel-Palestinians convict is not the direct cause of this revolution, it does provide a strong undercurrent for recruiting and a focus to rally against for obtaining funds and weapons.
A ME peace deal is long over due yet no one is willing to act like a Judge and step up to decide a compromise that is reasonable, like Solomon when 2 mothers claimed the same child but unlike a child the land and refugees can be divided up.

The biggest problems is the ME is lack of education, power and economical sharing.
With out an educated public then a dictator or military rule is the only way to keep a country stable, while a strong economy is needed to keep the people happy and their families stable.

Posted by: Bloodyscot | February 1, 2011 12:13 PM | Report abuse

@robert1jf

Israel took the Sinai in an incontrovertibly lawful defensive war, immediately expressed willingness to return it for peace and did so as soon as a plausible facsimile of peace was available. The difficulties and legitimate grievances of the Egyptian people are - to anyone not sharing those views - are obviously in no way related to anything having to do with Israel, although their separate views of the latter are no doubt shaped in part by the constant bombardment of anti-Semetic propaganda which indeed anti-dated the creating of Israle. Indeed, Egypt enthusiastically supported Hitler and hosted many senior Nazis after the war as they worked to together to finish the Fuhrer's work.

Posted by: cavalier4 | February 1, 2011 12:18 PM | Report abuse

clearly ms rubin has heard nothing about the palestinian papers. there is no peace deal because israel does not want peace. and the egypt uprisings do not have anything to do with israel but they shall surely show israel's policy of obstructing meaningful negotiations was shortsighted and against its interests

Posted by: femite | February 1, 2011 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Oh please. Those Pali paper are such a red herring. It is obvious to all that Abbas, even if he did make such overtures, had no mandate to do so. Let him make the offer publicly to Israel in front of his people and then we will know it is not BS.

Posted by: pella5 | February 1, 2011 2:15 PM | Report abuse

"Israel took the Sinai in an incontrovertibly lawful defensive war, immediately expressed willingness to return it for peace and did so as soon as a plausible facsimile of peace was available"

Very funny Cavalier. About as defensive as Hitler taking Poland. Sadly for you, 2 Israeli Prime ministers have since admitted there was nothing defensive about the war.

As for their willingness to return the land for peace, Israel rejected overtures from Egypt. It was only after the humiliation of 1973 that Israel came to the table. Mind you, they should blame Kissinger for advising them not to do a deal.

Posted by: Shingo1 | February 1, 2011 2:46 PM | Report abuse

"Oh please. Those Pali paper are such a red herring. It is obvious to all that Abbas, even if he did make such overtures, had no mandate to do so."

The sane could be said for Olmert's offer.

The papers do debunk the myth that Israel has had Bo partner for peace.

Posted by: Shingo1 | February 1, 2011 2:49 PM | Report abuse

"The papers do debunk the myth that Israel has had Bo partner for peace."

If the so called partner could never deliver than the statement that Israel had no partner is 100% true. Abbas would have been killed or exiled if he made that offer public. That is why he is running from it now.

Posted by: pella5 | February 1, 2011 2:53 PM | Report abuse

So after spending a whole post (filled with falsities and omissions) insisting the uprising in Egypt has nothing to do with Israel, Jennifer concludes it's not ONLY about Israel.

Just to set the record straight:

1. Egypt brokered the 2008 ceasefire, that Hamas held to until Israel broke it

2. Jennifer blames  the Palestinians for not accepting a Jewish state, refusing to give up the right of return, and clinging to the dream of a one-state solution, all of which are clearly ore conditions, yet Jennifer complains that the Palestinians won't agree to talks without pre conditions.

Needless to say that her main argument, that Egypt has nothing to do with Israel, I'd laughable. Mubarak has remained in power because of US support. That support has been incumbent upon Egypt's slavish cooperation with Israel.

There's no point ignoring the elephant in the room Jennifer.

Posted by: Shingo1 | February 1, 2011 3:46 PM | Report abuse

"If the so called partner could never deliver than the statement that Israel had no partner is 100% true."

No, because Abbas' offer went beyond Olmert's offer, yet Olmert rejected it, which proves there was nothing Abbas could give Israel that they would have accepted.  

"Abbas would have been killed or exiled if he made that offer public. That is why he is running from it now."

You mean like what happened to Rabin?

Posted by: Shingo1 | February 1, 2011 3:52 PM | Report abuse

"the failure to reach a Palestinian-Israeli peace deal. The latter is, as it has been for over 60 years, attributable to the Palestinians' unwillingness to accept a Jewish state, refusal to give up the right of return, and insistence on clinging to the dream of a one-state solution."

It is disarming how easy it is to create facts when you ignore the ones everyone else who reads a newspaper knows. The Palestinian leaked papers showed Abbas willing to accept 10,000 returning refugees a year from the diaspora, ie 100,000 in ten years. His willingness to give up parts of what was East Jerusalum that now has Jewish minoirities, to give up Israel's settlement blocks which make the new Palestinian state looked like a Dickensian jerimandered voting district. He offered to let an international NGO run the dome of the Rock. There wasn't anything left for him to give up except the Arab sheephereders themselves imprisoned between Israel's new settler roads and bew Israeli settlements. There was no deal as the leaked papers showed becase Israel doesn't want one anymore. The truth can be painful Ms. Rubin which is why it is so often hidden. The truth can be embarrassing which is why it is so often denied. But the truth in this case is at least now know to the Arabs, but thanks to you less known to your readers. Anyway I'm sure that by sparing your readers you also spare yourself the fate of messengers of painful news. So perhaps you're just smart, but if so then you are not doing anyone but yourself a favor.

Posted by: lastrebelstanding | February 1, 2011 4:29 PM | Report abuse

"Israel took the Sinai in an incontrovertibly lawful defensive war, immediately expressed willingness to return it for peace and did so as soon as a plausible facsimile of peace was available"

Very funny Cavalier. About as defensive as Hitler taking Poland. Sadly for you, 2 Israeli Prime ministers have since admitted there was nothing defensive about the war.

As for their willingness to return the land for peace, Israel rejected overtures from Egypt. It was only after the humiliation of 1973 that Israel came to the table. Mind you, they should blame Kissinger for advising them not to do a deal.

Posted by: Shingo1
----------------------
Shingo, shame on you for comparing the Six Day War to Hitler's invasion of Poland. Poland hadn't surrounded Nazi Germany with troops massed at its borders and closed German shipping lanes. From Wikipedia:

After the 1956 Suez Crisis, Egypt agreed to the stationing of a United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) in the Sinai to ensure all parties would comply with the 1949 Armistice Agreements.[10] In the following years there were numerous minor border clashes between Israel and its Arab neighbors, particularly Syria. In early November, 1966, Syria signed a mutual defense agreement with Egypt.[11] Soon thereafter, in response to PLO guerilla activity,[12][13] including a mine attack that left three dead[14] the IDF attacked the city of as-Samu in the Jordanian-occupied West Bank.[15] Jordanian units that engaged the Israelis were quickly beaten back.[16] King Hussein of Jordan criticized Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser for failing to come to Jordan's aid, and "hiding behind UNEF skirts".[17] In May 1967, Nasser received false reports from the Soviet Union that Israel was massing on the Syrian border. Nasser began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19) and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran.[18][19] Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or justification for war.[20][21] Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping on May 22–23. On May 30, Jordan and Egypt signed a defense pact. The following day, at Jordan's invitation, the Iraqi army began deploying troops and armored units in Jordan.[22] They were later reinforced by an Egyptian contingent. On June 1, Israel formed a National Unity Government by widening its cabinet, and on June 4 the decision was made to go to war. The next morning, Israel launched Operation Focus, a large-scale surprise air strike that was the opening of the Six-Day War.

Israel completed a decisive air offensive in the first two days, then carried out three successful land campaigns. The air campaign caught Egyptian aircraft still on the ground. It crippled the Egyptian, Syrian and Iraqi air forces, destroyed Jordan's Air Force, and rapidly established complete air supremacy ...

Posted by: eoniii | February 1, 2011 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Shingo, here's Wiki's factual summary of the Yom Kippur War. It doesn't meet your description of an Israeli "humiliation". Not even close. After initial setbacks from the surprise attack (such as we experienced at Pearl Harbor or on 9/11), the Israelis re-grouped and would have destroyed the much larger but out-manned Arab armies if not for US intervention.


The Yom Kippur War, Ramadan War or October War (Hebrew: מלחמת יום הכיפורים‎; transliterated: Milẖemet Yom HaKipurim or מלחמת יום כיפור, Milẖemet Yom Kipur; Arabic: حرب أكتوبر‎; transliterated: ħarb Aktoobar or حرب تشرين, ħarb Tishrin), also known as the 1973 Arab-Israeli War and the Fourth Arab-Israeli War, was fought from October 6 to 25, 1973, between Israel and a coalition of Arab states led by Egypt and Syria. The war began when the coalition launched a joint surprise attack on Israel on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in Judaism, which coincided with the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Egyptian and Syrian forces crossed ceasefire lines to enter the Israeli-held Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights respectively, which had been captured and occupied since the 1967 Six-Day War. The conflict led to a near-confrontation between the two nuclear superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union,[19] both of whom initiated massive resupply efforts to their allies during the war.

The war began with a massive and successful Egyptian attack across the heavily fortified Suez Canal during the first three days, after which they dug in, settling into a stalemate. The Syrians attacked the Golan Heights at the same time and initially made threatening gains against the greatly outnumbered Israelis. Within a week, Israel recovered and launched a four-day counter-offensive, driving deep into Syria. To relieve this pressure, the Egyptians went back on the offensive, but were decisively defeated; the Israelis then counterattacked at the seam between two Egyptian armies, crossed the Suez Canal, and advanced southward and westward in over a week of heavy fighting. An October 22 United Nations-brokered ceasefire quickly unraveled, with each side blaming the other for the breach. By 24 October, the Israelis had improved their positions considerably and completed their encirclement of Egypt's Third Army. This development prompted superpower tension, but a second ceasefire was imposed cooperatively on October 25 to end the war. At the conclusion of hostilities, Israeli forces were 40 kilometres (25 mi) from Damascus and 101 kilometres (63 mi) from Cairo.

Posted by: eoniii | February 1, 2011 4:46 PM | Report abuse

@eoniii wrote: "....The air campaign caught Egyptian aircraft still on the ground. It crippled the Egyptian, Syrian and Iraqi air forces, destroyed Jordan's Air Force, and rapidly established complete air supremacy."

America was similarly ambushed and had its Pacific naval and air forces destroyed by a cowardly surprise attack, no warning, no ultimatum, no war declaration, on December 7, 1941. It is considered one of the most cowardly acts by a country in history. It is known as "A day that will live in infamy."

So Israel does the same as the Japanese but celebrates their infamous attacks as a great moral and military victory. One would think Israel and its apologists whould avoid bringing up the subject; rather they should cower in shame.

But we know very well, and we are reminded every day, some people have no shame.

Posted by: Lazarus40 | February 1, 2011 5:42 PM | Report abuse

"So Israel does the same as the Japanese but celebrates their infamous attacks as a great moral and military victory. One would think Israel and its apologists whould avoid bringing up the subject; rather they should cower in shame."

"But we know very well, and we are reminded every day, some people have no shame."

Lazarus40,

You mean the way the Arabs celebrate the sneak attack on Yom Kippur. LOL!!!!

Posted by: pella5 | February 1, 2011 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Lazarus, if you read the Wiki timeline, Egypt had already committed acts of war, and four Arab armies were mobilized and massed on Israel's borders. If you look at a pre-war map of Israel's almost indefensible borders, you will see that Israel's very existence was in dire danger. But Israel's enemies who planned to drive them into the sea were themselves routed and destroyed -- a result that was Biblical in its swift justice!

Posted by: eoniii | February 1, 2011 6:13 PM | Report abuse

eoniii you are full of it. There were no Arab armies massed on Israel's borders. Any Egyptian Army units that were there had been there for years. Israel's surprise, indeed treacherous, attack was planned by its government months in advance so as to take over the West Bank, the Siani, and the Golan Heights. If you were to make your claim to anyone then in the Israeli government or military they would laugh you out of the country. Manachem Begin even admitted that they knew Nasser was not about to attack Israel, which would have given Israel cover to implement their war plans, so "we attacked him."

Please, take your cheap propaganda to Fox the News web site. There are a lot of stupid, gullible people over there and you will feel right at home.

Posted by: Lazarus40 | February 1, 2011 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Well put Lazarus40,

Eonii is reeling this BS straight from the Hasbara manual. It's pathetic isn't it?

PM Eshkol: "The Egyptian layout in the Sinai and the general military buildup there testified to a military defensive Egyptian set-up, south of Israel."

Meir Amit, chief of Mossad: "Egypt was not ready for a war and Nasser did not want a war."

Menachem Begin: "In June, 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrat­ions in the Sinai did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." (NYT, 21 August 1982

Posted by: Shingo1 | February 1, 2011 6:51 PM | Report abuse

"You mean the way the Arabs celebrate the sneak attack on Yom Kippur. LOL!!!!"

Just like the Israelis celebrated the sneak attack in 1967.

LOL!!!!

Payback can be nasty.

Posted by: Shingo1 | February 1, 2011 6:56 PM | Report abuse

"You mean the way the Arabs celebrate the sneak attack on Yom Kippur. LOL!!!!"

Just like the Israelis celebrated the sneak attack in 1967.

LOL!!!!

Payback can be nasty.

Posted by: Shingo1 | February 1, 2011 6:58 PM | Report abuse

"...a result that was Biblical in its swift justice!"

So it turns out that not only is eonii a Zionist, but an Evangelical Zionist at that!

You might as well give up now Lazarus. You're not going have any luck using facts an logic on this one.

Posted by: Shingo1 | February 1, 2011 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Shingo, I'm not an "Evangelical Zionist". In fact, I'm neither. Why do you keep trying to put me in a box, as if you can rebut facts and logic with ad hominem attacks?

Posted by: eoniii | February 1, 2011 7:42 PM | Report abuse

eoniii,

What facts have you employed? I've seen plenty of hysteria, paranoia and Zionist revisionism (ie. talking points) (long since debunked) but very few facts.

As for whether you're a "Evangelical Zionist", you know what they say when it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck and looks like one....

Posted by: Shingo1 | February 1, 2011 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Lazarus, if Egypt wasn't ready for war, then it shouldn't have kicked out the UNEF peacekeepers in the Sinai, massed its troops on the Israeli border, and cut off Israeli shipping through the Strait of Tiran (an act of war under international law). After taking such provocative actions, the foolish Arab dictators were caught with their pants down. Their air forces were destroyed on the ground and their armies -- used to oppressing their own citizens rather than fighting someone who can actually fight back -- broke and ran. Here's a delightful 7 minute documentary from the History Channel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E63AKJpa1Tk

Posted by: eoniii | February 1, 2011 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Here's an article that sums up the contradictory attitudes of Egyptians, 90% of whom favor freedom of religion but 84% of whom favor the death penalty for anyone who leaves the Muslim religion. The take away:


Analysts with a hopeful view of events in Egypt see a society that, if Hosni Mubarak departs the scene, will lean toward modernity. "There has always been a modernist current in Egypt, and it has always battled against the religious alternative," says Fouad Ajami, director of the Middle East Studies Program at Johns Hopkins University. "The deciding vote in that fight between the modernists and the religious types was always cast by the state, and if I look at the next phase in Egypt, my feeling is that the army, which is an extension and expression of the middle class, will check the Muslim Brotherhood."
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/01/egypts-conflicting-views-democracy-and-religion#ixzz1ClKipWw5

Posted by: eoniii | February 1, 2011 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Eonii,

If Israel were so concerned about the peace keepers, there was nothing stopping them from allowing them to reside on Israel's side of the border.

The blockade was a non event:

Major General Idar Jit Rikhye, Commander UN Emergency Force: "[The Egyptian] navy had searched a couple of ships after the establishm­ent of the blockade and thereafter relaxed its implementa­tion."

Egypt allowed Israeli ships to pass so long as they agreed not to fly the Israeli flag. Israel rejected the offer.

As Menachem Begin and Yitzak Rabin both admitted, the presence of troops in the Sinai was not an act of war.

If Nasser had prepared for war, he would not have been caught with his pants down.

On June 3, 2 days before the war, the head of Israeli intelligence, Meir Amit, visited Washington. He met with the Americans who said Nasser was not going to attack. Amit responds by sayuing "We do not dispute any of your findings, any of your projections".

That means June 3 he agrees no chance Nasser will attack and, if by some weird twist of fate he does, “you’ll whip their ass” to quote President Johnson.

You might as well give up eonii. You're just embarrassing yourself. No point in doing that unless you're a Zionist.

Posted by: Shingo1 | February 1, 2011 9:07 PM | Report abuse

Shingo, if the Egyptians weren't prepared for war with tensions at such a level, then they were fools. You don't menace your enemy and commit a cassus belli if you're not prepared to fight.

This very interesting article states that none of the parties really wanted war. Rivalries and suspicions among the Arabs played a major role in escalating the crisis, as did disinformation from the USSR. They told Nasser falsely that Israel had massed troops on the Syrian border, causing him to kick out the UN and move into the Sinai.

When Nassar stupidly moved the bulk of his air force and army into the Sinai and within range of Israel's much smaller air force, Israel decided to wipe them out. When two armies mobilize for war, often the first to strike has the advantage. David didn't wait to engage Goliath in hand-to-hand combat. ;)
http://info.jpost.com/C003/Supplements/SixDayWar36/abrahr1.html

Posted by: eoniii | February 1, 2011 11:38 PM | Report abuse

Eoniss,

If the Egyptians weren't prepared for war with tensions at such a level, then it simply measn there was no reason to haev such a war. The tensions were manufactgured and hyped, just as they were with the build up to the atatck on Iraq - another war based on lies.

Meir Amit's meeting in Washington reveal that Israel was not being menaced at all.

"This very interesting article states that none of the parties really wanted war."

Well, it just happens to bhe historically false. Israel was tryhing to goad Nasser into a war since 1954, 55 and 56. It true that Nasser dod nto want war, but Israel certainlydid.

General Chaim Herzog, a founding father of Israel’s Directorate of Military Intelligence (who went on to become Israel’s ambassador to the UN and eventually the state’s president) said that “If Nasser had not been stupid enough to give us a pretext to go to war, we would have created one within a year or 18 months.”

"Rivalries and suspicions among the Arabs played a major role in escalating the crisis, as did disinformation from the USSR.

Again false. Israel and the CIA were on the same page and both agreed that Nasser was not going to attack and that even if he did, he had no chance of success.

Youp've simply chosen to switch off your brain and slavishly accept a false narrative.

Posted by: Shingo1 | February 2, 2011 6:27 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company