Middle East

[smc]

Originally Posted by The Conquistador

C'mon smc! What is so wrong about the Jews having some beachfront property?

It's interesting that you bring up the effects that Israel and Zionism have had on the Middle East. It seems that before the emergence of the Hebrew state in the Middle East(pre-1940's), it was a pretty cool and adventureous place to visit. After reading the works of T.E. Lawrence and others who chronicled their trips to the Middle East, there was no mention of Jihadism, radical Islam, anti-Semitism or anti-western sentiment. It seems all that came about after the the foundation of Israel and was a response to the spread of Zionism in the region.

I am neither for nor against the Jews. This is purely my observation.

Being against Zionism has nothing to do with being against Jews. It's the Zionists who deliberately confound the two because it serves their interests. Think of how much easier it is to win sympathy when you can cry "anti-Semite" at those who oppose Zionism, as opposed to if it was always clear that it was about colonialism and oppression.

Zionism is the main cause of anti-Semitism in the world today. And that statement comes from a Jew.

[randolph]

Well, the news from Washington amply demonstrates the hypocrisy of our foreign policy. Obama talked Democracy on his trip to the Middle east, now it's the "D" word. No body in Washington is talking Democracy. Everybody is holding their breath and hoping the uprisings will blow over and we can keep our authoritarian buddies happy. The uprisings are an early warning, our policies are doing nothing but encouraging radical Islam. We will ultimately pay a very high price for our hypocrisy.

[Enoch Root]

It is quite telling when a country that never ceases to claim it is democratic does not support democratic movements as in Egypt's case. That should be the default position of a free society.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

It is quite telling when a country that never ceases to claim it is democratic does not support democratic movements as in Egypt's case. That should be the default position of a free society.

The explanation lies in the difference between democracy and what we have in the United States -- bourgeois democracy.

It is the democracy of the rich. Think about it:

-- We have so-called "universal suffrage," but there are all manner of qualifications and requirements for voting that are used to suppress democracy when it serves the interests of all or some of those who truly control the country. In the meanwhile, the system perpetuates the illusion of true democracy.

-- We have those in power deciding who can or cannot run for office (decisions exercised through ballot access rules that preclude the formation of alternatives that can challenge the parties owned by the rich).

-- There is a inexorable link, politically and financially, between those in power and those who disseminate information.

These are but a few of the "conditions" of our bourgeois democracy, which exists because those in power find it convenient as a means of retaining relative social peace. Have no illusions that it would remain should genuine challenges to the rule of the rich be mounted. Be it in the name of national security, or a terrorist threat, or some kind of "emergency," what few democratic rights we do enjoy will be taken away -- or at least, the attempt will be made -- in an effort to ensure the continuation of bourgeois rule.

[Enoch Root]

Brain food! Yummy.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

It is quite telling when a country that never ceases to claim it is democratic does not support democratic movements as in Egypt's case. That should be the default position of a free society.

To my earlier post in response to this should be added that the lack of genuine support for democratic movements such as in Egypt is precisely linked to the economic interests of the ruling rich in this country. "Democracy" elsewhere serves no useful purpose for them unless it is the only way to ensure the social stability that they need to exploit the resources of another country, or to ensure that another country plays its particular assigned role in a region, and so on. Dictatorships are no problem; they can always be excused for their "strategic" importance, for their "necessity to U.S. interests" (interests that, you can probably discern, are not really yours and mine).

[Enoch Root]

A second helping!

[Trogdor]

The Egyptian are not happy yet, they want that clown out now, not at the end of his term.

[Enoch Root]

The gall of the man, eh? I won't step down but I will get rid of my cabinet. As if it made a fucking difference.

I don't even want him to leave Egypt. I want the people to throw him in jail and make of him an example.