Egyptians Storm Israeli Embassy

[Ajidica]

I'd stand by Israel instead of supporting a mobocracy in Egypt.

God Save the King!

 

[Winner]

As I subtly hinted, I'm just hoping Egypt doesn't become the next Iran.

Why would Egypt become ' the next Iran'? The situations are radicaly different and have developed in very different ways.

As I said when the so-called Arab spring began - this will end up like Iran in 1979 in many countries. Events seem to be moving in that general direction.

“Egypt is not going toward democracy but toward Islamicization,” said Eli Shaked, a former Israeli ambassador to Cairo who reflected the government’s view. “It is the same in Turkey and in Gaza. It is just like what happened in Iran in 1979.”

A senior official said Israel had few options other than to pursue what he called a “porcupine policy” to defend itself against aggression. Another official, asked about Turkey, said, “There is little that we can do.”

(...)

The growing hostility from Egypt could require a radical rethinking of Israel’s defense doctrine which, for the past three decades, counted on peace on its southern border. As chaos in the Sinai has increased and anti-Israel sentiment in Egypt has grown, military strategists here are examining how to beef up protection of the south, including by the building of an anti-infiltration wall in the Sinai.

A threat by Turkey last week to challenge Israel’s plans for gas exploration in the eastern Mediterranean could threaten Israel’s agreement with Cyprus on gas drilling and could worsen tensions with Lebanon on drilling rights.

Initial Israeli fears about the Arab Spring uprisings have begun to materialize in concrete ways. When the uprisings began in Tunisia and Egypt at the start of the year, little attention was directed toward Israel because so much focus was on throwing off dictatorial rule and creating a new political order.

Traditionally, many Arab leaders have used Israel as a convenient scapegoat, turning public wrath against it and blaming it for their problems. The faint hope here was that a freer Middle East might move away from such anti-Israel hostility because the overthrow of dictators would open up debate.

But as the months of Arab Spring have turned autumnal, Israel has increasingly become a target of public outrage. Some here say Israel is again being made a scapegoat, this time for unfulfilled revolutionary promises.

Full article

---

No, clearly the point is this isnt a ZOMG they are going to attack Israel moment unless you also think the new "People's Jihadi State of Horrific West Hating Egypt" is also going to attack Saudi Arabia. basically people are trying to sensationalize a very simply story about protestors going to far. Both protests had legitimate beefs against the embassies, then went too far.

Sigh. This is not the first time the embassy was attacked. The first attack was rather funny, actually, with one guy ending up climbing up and replacing the Israeli flag with an Egyptian one.

Fine, they made their point - the don't like Israel, we see that. As a result, the security was strengthened - a wall was built around the embassy (never a sign of cordial relations, I might add). And then an angry violent mob laid siege to the embassy which lasted many hours, with the security forces first unwilling to intervene, then unable to prevent the damage from being done.

At best, this is a major screw-up on the Egyptian side, at worst it demonstrates the unwillingness of the new regime to go to great lengths to protect peace with Israel. I tend to the latter view, not only because while the siege was under way, Netanyahu tried to talk with the Egyptian military leader who now runs the country, but his phone calls were rejected. This is a clear sign that Egypt is already becoming more hostile.

It will get worse after the Islamists secure a majority in the upcoming election.

 

[Ajidica]

As I said when the so-called Arab spring began - this will end up like Iran in 1979 in many countries. Events seem to be moving in that general direction.

It is not moving in that direction. In Iran after the Shah was overthrown, nobody really knew who was going to take power, so when Khomeini, the leader of a very minor party stepped in nobody really challenged him because most of the Shahs administration had fled. In Egypt it is completely different. Mubarak left, but his security and administrative apparatus is still going strong. The reason the Egyptian police appears even more incompetant has many reasons, but I suspect they are part of the general anarchy you get after a autocrat is thrown out combined with a sense among some select groups that a small mass action can inspire a mass movement (like what happened against Mubarak). If it becomes a mass movement against Israel (which is unlikely), then Israel has itself to blame for managing to turn the Egyptian people against them, despite Mubarak and Sadat's best efforts to remain allies to Israel.

 

[Winner]

It's very similar in broad outlines. The original revolution was against autocracy (check), it enjoyed broad public support (check), and it was later hijacked by extremists (that's in progress).

Frankly, many Egyptians had this naive notion that getting rid of Mubarak would solve all the country's problems. Now they're beginning to realize that it was just a pipedream, and they're angry. The Islamists, so far patiently waiting on the sidelines, will now be able to seize the opportunity and become the dominant political power in the country. The army will have no option but to submit, or face another round of public uprising, this time aimed against them.

A textbook scenario, really. Once the Islamists are sure they have a firm grip on power, they'll begin purging the military and other armed forces in the country of secularists and supporters of he former regime.

The revolution is not yet over. It won't stop until the Islamists rule Egypt. All kinds of "fun" will ensue then.

then Israel has itself to blame for managing to turn the Egyptian people against them, despite Mubarak and Sadat's best efforts to remain allies to Israel.

This is getting tiresome - try for just a moment and consider the fact that there isn't a lot Israel can do to convince the Arabs to tolerate it and accept it as a neighbouring state that's there to stay, not just as an historical aberration, a Western imperialist experiment that will end one day. Generations of both state-sponsored and grassroots propaganda campaigns has made pretty much all of them inherently hostile to all things Israeli. What Sadat and Mubarak did changed nothing about how the people felt. They just decided that peace was favourable at the moment, but did nothing to extinguish the smouldering anti-Israeli sentiments among their people.

Now when they're gone, these feeling can be expressed publicly again, and it shows.

 

[Ajidica]

It's very similar in broad outlines. The original revolution was against autocracy (check), it enjoyed broad public support (check), and it was later hijacked by extremists (that's in progress).

If you go broad enough, you can make Hitler's siezure of power look like Cromwell ignoring Parliament.

Frankly, many Egyptians had this naive notion that getting rid of Mubarak would solve all the country's problems. Now they're beginning to realize that it was just a pipedream, and they're angry.

Any proof this is the case? One of the good things about Egypt is that on the whole, it is pretty well educated and the revolution occured mainly among the middle class. I find it suspect that they would expect all of their problems, most of which have been building up for the last generation, to disapear overnight.

The Islamists, so far patiently waiting on the sidelines, will now be able to seize the opportunity and become the dominant political power in the country. The army will have no option but to submit, or face another round of public uprising, this time aimed against them.

This is just fearmongering. From The Guardian:

Most experts predict that if free elections were held in Egypt, the Ikhwan might win 25-40% of the vote, though that would depend on the ability of smaller rival democratic and secular parties to carve out the space deliberately denied them by the Mubarak regime.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/06/egypt-muslim-brotherhood
40% of the vote is not enough to 'become the dominant political power in the country' unless you are living in Oceania where 2+2=5.
Additionaly:

Nowadays it eschews violence and is attacked by al-Qaida for urging young Muslims to vote in elections instead of taking up jihad. Its hostility to Israel and Zionism remain unchanged.

"Although the Brotherhood entered the political system in order to change it, it ended up being changed by the system," commented the American scholar Carrie Rosefsky Wickham on the website Foreign Affairs. "The Brotherhood is too savvy, too pragmatic and too cautious to squander its hard-earned reputation among Egyptians as a responsible political actor or invite the risk of a military coup by attempting to seize power on its own."

In a multiparty system the Brotherhood would certainly voice its hostility to the peace treaty with Israel. But it is hard to imagine that any party exercising responsible power in a democratic, post-Mubarak Egypt would seek to return to the bad old days of a permanent war with the country's unassailably powerful neighbour.

Before you go "Ah ha! It says they are hostile to Zionism and Israel, therefore they are going to plunge the country into a war with Israel", hostility does not equal open war. America was very hostile toward the USSR, but we never entered into open war with them and on many occasions were able to work well together.

A textbook scenario, really. Once the Islamists are sure they have a firm grip on power, they'll begin purging the military and other armed forces in the country of secularists and supporters of he former regime.

The military is staunchly secular as a result of the leftover Pan-Arabism and Baathism that was prevalent in Egypt. If by some convoluted occurance the Muslim Brotherhood got enough political power to start purging the military, the military would likely throw them out, ban them like Mubarak, and hold another set of elections.

The revolution is not yet over. It won't stop until the Islamists rule Egypt. All kinds of "fun" will ensue then.

I honestly don't get your obsession over the 'Islamist Danger' when a far more likely outcome is a continued military dictatorship/autocracy. Mubarak may be gone, but his administration and security ministries are largely untouched and run by the same individuals.

try for just a moment and consider the fact that there isn't a lot Israel can do to convince the Arabs to tolerate it and accept it as a neighbouring state that's there to stay

Israel could, you know, make an honest effort to work with the PLO and comply with UNSCR 242 and 338. That may be a bit much to ask, so perhaps they could halt settlement construction? Or, easiest of all, they could apologize when they kill civilians instead of saying it was collateral damage or that they were 'in the way'. If they wanted to do real good, they could work with the UN to import electrical generators, water purifiers, and building materials so normal life can resume in Gaza. There are many things Israel could do without compromising their security which would gain them less hostility.

 

[Ahovking]

I'd stand by Israel instead of supporting a mobocracy in Egypt.

ill back that up to the hill

 

[jtb1127]

Let's keep hoping they get repressed by the military and puppets of the US instead. That worked out so well in Iran before they finally threw out a similar individual.

Iran: Land of Freedom

 

[Formaldehyde]

At least it is no longer Iran and Egypt: Lands of corrupt puppet dictators.

 

[classical_hero]

Lands of corrupt Theocrats instead. A wonderful substitution.

 

[Ajidica]

I wasn't aware the secular Egyptian military currently in power was a bunch of theocrats.

 

[aelf]

No they are both wrong.

Why is there right and wrong in this?

As I subtly hinted, I'm just hoping Egypt doesn't become the next Iran.

In what sense exactly?

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

It's a military junta. Period.

Removing figureheads like Mubarak was only a cosmetic change, really.

 

[Silurian]

Why is there right and wrong in this?

The Saudi embassy and Israeli embassies should be able to carry out their lawful business without being stormed. Embassies are needed to promote peace and trade between nations. If embassies are being stormed all the time they cannot promote peace and trade which is bad. If a country decides it does not want another countries embassy then the government should tell them to remove the embassy.

 

[aelf]

The Saudi embassy and Israeli embassies should be able to carry out their lawful business without being stormed. Embassies are needed to promote peace and trade between nations. If embassies are being stormed all the time they cannot promote peace and trade which is bad. If a country decides it does not want another countries embassy then the government should tell them to remove the embassy.

I think one can dispute the idea that these embassies "promote peace". The protesters certainly do. It's a pretty extreme course of action to take, but I don't think it constitutes wrongdoing as long as the people working in the embassies were not harmed.

The legal way of looking at things is always limited by the legal structure, within which bad but influential elements can operate quite naturally. Given that, I think hiding behind what is legal and illegal is not very satisfactory from a moral standpoint. Therefore, I don't think it's simply the case that the embassies and their countries are in the right and the protesters are thus in the wrong for violating their sanctity.

Finally, "If embassies are being stormed all the time" sounds like the beginning of a slippery slope argument. I think slippery slope arguments on their own are typically quite weak.

 

[kramerfan86]

As I said when the so-called Arab spring began - this will end up like Iran in 1979 in many countries. Events seem to be moving in that general direction.



---



Sigh. This is not the first time the embassy was attacked. The first attack was rather funny, actually, with one guy ending up climbing up and replacing the Israeli flag with an Egyptian one.

Fine, they made their point - the don't like Israel, we see that. As a result, the security was strengthened - a wall was built around the embassy (never a sign of cordial relations, I might add). And then an angry violent mob laid siege to the embassy which lasted many hours, with the security forces first unwilling to intervene, then unable to prevent the damage from being done.

At best, this is a major screw-up on the Egyptian side, at worst it demonstrates the unwillingness of the new regime to go to great lengths to protect peace with Israel. I tend to the latter view, not only because while the siege was under way, Netanyahu tried to talk with the Egyptian military leader who now runs the country, but his phone calls were rejected. This is a clear sign that Egypt is already becoming more hostile.

It will get worse after the Islamists secure a majority in the upcoming election.

Oh jesus, you are going to claim something that would constitute a prank in most countries an "attack"? You also ignore the fact they were protesting Israel accidentally killing multiple cops, that would likely happen on every nation on Earth. Did it get out of hand? Sure, but Im pretty sure that could happen in any country where the government recently was overthrown. But since its Israel you instantly assume they are just out to get them. Sure they did the same thing to Saudi Arabia, but they arent going to get them, its going to be Israel!

And why is it when Israel gets a civilian killed and reacts by slapping the crap out of Gaza its fine, but when Turkey and Egypt get angry oooooooohhhh no they've gone crazy on the islamist juice?

 

[Winner]

And why is it when Israel gets a civilian killed and reacts by slapping the crap out of Gaza its fine, but when Turkey and Egypt get angry oooooooohhhh no they've gone crazy on the islamist juice?

No need to get agitated. You're again drawing comparisons between totally different events.

When a militant kills Israelis by firing missiles from Gaza, it's of course a perfectly legitimate reason to retaliate against terrorists in that area.

When a bunch of Turkish fanatics who have refused all Israeli attempts to solve the crisis peacefully die after attacking Israeli soldiers with knives and clubs, well, good riddance. I can tell you that if a bunch of armed Czech lefties died on that ship under similar circumstances, I'd harbour no ill will against Israel, just as Israelis don't mind if we arrest or shoot an Israeli mobster in Prague who threw a grenade under a car.

Turkey is clearly (I mean it's CLEAR AS DAY) trying to boost its cred in the Middle East, which is why it is making such a fuss about the whole thing. If you truly believe that their politicians give a damn about the killed morons, that you are a bit naive.

 

[Dachs]

I'd stand by Israel instead of supporting a mobocracy in Egypt.

Ochlocracy.

Also, you're pretty involved in CFC for somebody who's allegedly seceded.

 

[Archbob]

Israel could, you know, make an honest effort to work with the PLO and comply with UNSCR 242 and 338. That may be a bit much to ask, so perhaps they could halt settlement construction? Or, easiest of all, they could apologize when they kill civilians instead of saying it was collateral damage or that they were 'in the way'. If they wanted to do real good, they could work with the UN to import electrical generators, water purifiers, and building materials so normal life can resume in Gaza. There are many things Israel could do without compromising their security which would gain them less hostility.

They just might do that when, you know, the Arab states next to them actually put effort into stopping and putting their terrorist group in jail instead of letting them shooting rockets at Israel. Shooting rockets into my territory is a hostile action and can be seen as an act of war.

Israel could do all of that and even give them the Gaza strip, that won't stop the muslim world from wanting to push them into the sea.

 

[kramerfan86]

No need to get agitated. You're again drawing comparisons between totally different events.

When a militant kills Israelis by firing missiles from Gaza, it's of course a perfectly legitimate reason to retaliate against terrorists in that area.

When a bunch of Turkish fanatics who have refused all Israeli attempts to solve the crisis peacefully die after attacking Israeli soldiers with knives and clubs, well, good riddance. I can tell you that if a bunch of armed Czech lefties died on that ship under similar circumstances, I'd harbour no ill will against Israel, just as Israelis don't mind if we arrest or shoot an Israeli mobster in Prague who threw a grenade under a car.

Turkey is clearly (I mean it's CLEAR AS DAY) trying to boost its cred in the Middle East, which is why it is making such a fuss about the whole thing. If you truly believe that their politicians give a damn about the killed morons, that you are a bit naive.

The fact Israel is justified is irrelevant to the argument that people protesting are being reasonable. If one sovereign country killed the citizens of another sovereign country, other citizens are going to get angry and protest. It hardly is some overreaching sign that Egypt or Turkey are going to the dark side. That is especially true in terms of Egyptians, but obviously these ones went too far, which is prone to happening in many a protest.

And of course the Turkish government is trying to boost its cred with the muslim world. That offers far more advantages than a relationship with Israel. Poking at Israel will upset far less countries, muslim and western, than being a staunch ally would be. In the grand scheme of thing being a close ally/friend of Israel offers few advantages and many negatives, especially considering how pugnacious and hardheaded they can be.

 

[Winner]

The fact Israel is justified is irrelevant to the argument that people protesting are being reasonable.

No, they're not. Attacking and looting an embassy is not what I picture under the term "reasonable protest".

If one sovereign country killed the citizens of another sovereign country, other citizens are going to get angry and protest. It hardly is some overreaching sign that Egypt or Turkey are going to the dark side. That is especially true in terms of Egyptians, but obviously these ones went too far, which is prone to happening in many a protest.

Again, you're entirely missing the point. Under Mubarak, this wouldn't have happened. The security forces would have dispersed the crowd before it could cause any real damage.

If the government practically lets an angry mob invade another country's embassy and chase away its staff (some of whom were attacked and beaten) including the ambassador (who should be protected by the host country), it's a clear sign that said government doesn't really care about its diplomatic relationship with the country whose embassy was attacked.

I wonder how would the "bash-Israel" brigade react if the Israeli government let a mob of angry religious-right pro-settler morons raid and loot the Egyptian embassy after an Egyptian border guard accidentally shot an Israeli patrol while pursuing terrorists. We'd hear an endless litany about how the apartheid fascist Israeli government undermines peace with its neighbours. But when Arabs do it, then nooo, it must be excused by any means necessary.

It's surreal, all the double-standards of those who claim to be objective and impartial.

And of course the Turkish government is trying to boost its cred with the muslim world. That offers far more advantages than a relationship with Israel. Poking at Israel will upset far less countries, muslim and western, than being a staunch ally would be.

Eh, what? Pouring oil into the fire will not win Turkey any favours in Europe, I can guarantee you that. I'd say most European politicians are horrified by the recent Turkish aggressive rhetoric and military posturing.

In the grand scheme of thing being a close ally/friend of Israel offers few advantages and many negatives, especially considering how pugnacious and hardheaded they can be.

Good to see you understand the hypocrisy of it. Of course, you seem to be approving this, which is less good.