Advertisement

Opinion

Opinion

Islamic victory looks likely in Egypt

May 22, 2012

Advertisement

— In Tahrir Square, the only reminders of last year’s Arab Spring are a handful of tattered tents and the hawkers who sell leftover trinkets from the revolution.

Many secular Egyptians who once demanded democracy now fear that they ousted a secular autocracy only to see it replaced with an Islamic one — ushered in by the ballot. Yet the liberals, leftists, and moderate Muslims who organized the revolt failed to do the one thing that would block an Islamist victory — unite around a single candidate for the presidency in the first round of elections on Wednesday and Thursday.

“We made a revolution only to go now from one dictatorship to another,” is the gloomy prediction of telecom tycoon Naguib Sawiris, who bankrolled liberal and leftist secular parties that emerged during the Arab Spring. (In response, the still-powerful military, hostile to liberals, harassed him and his family.)

Sawiris says that if democrats had formed one coalition and endorsed a single candidate, “people would have had a clear idea of what we wanted” in terms of the economy and social justice. He says such a candidate certainly could have made it into a runoff election for the top two vote-getters, scheduled for June.

Instead, the political newcomers who emerged from the revolution promoted their own candidacies or started their own splinter parties. The splits among the Tahrir Square rebels make it possible for an Islamist to win.

This prospect is sobering because of the sharp veer to the right of the Muslim Brotherhood, an 82-year-old group that had been banned from politics for years but now seems eager to take over just about every government institution.

Once violent, the group has long espoused a peaceful, long-term path to establishing an Islamic state. Its tightly organized leadership had pledged that it would not contest more than 30 percent of parliamentary seats — and would not field a candidate for president. Egyptian journalists and ex-Brotherhood members tell me the group’s leaders made a deal with the military to operate within limits.

But the Brotherhood quickly reneged on all its pledges. It contested almost all parliamentary districts and won 47 percent of the seats, in large part because of its extensive network of members and social service projects in rural areas. And it set its sights even higher when the ultraconservative Islamist Nour party unexpectedly won an additional 25 percent of the seats, giving Islamists an overwhelming majority.

“The Muslim Brotherhood became too greedy,” says Hani Shukrallah, the English online editor for the daily Al-Ahram newspaper. “Their tone changed when they realized how weak everyone else was.”

Soon the Brothers sought to monopolize the drafting committee for a new constitution. It then named a presidential candidate and faced down the military when challenged.

“They feel confident they are very near to taking over Egypt,” Sawiris says. “They have bullied the army, which has shown it doesn’t want to confront them.”

At huge political rallies, the Brotherhood’s candidate, Mohammed Morsi, has become much more outspoken on the subject of Islamic sharia law — an issue that unnerves many Egyptian women, Coptic Christians, and moderate Muslims. “We will not accept any alternative to sharia,” he told supporters at a Cairo University rally. “The Quran is our constitution.”

Brotherhood political leaders talk of revoking a women’s legal right to divorce and extol the virtues of circumcising young girls — a dangerous and widely used practice that has been legally outlawed. The Brothers would presumably take control of the Interior Ministry if Morsi becomes president, and they are already wooing the police officer corps.

Liberals’ fears of an Islamist takeover may be exaggerated. Morsi will have to split the Islamist vote with an independent candidate, physician Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh, who was expelled from the Brotherhood last year. The doctor is more moderate and has run a big-tent campaign, winning support from some liberals — and from the Salafist Nour party, which dislikes the Brothers. Some analysts here believe the Brothers’ overreach will alienate many religious voters.

And, for the many Egyptians who are desperate for a restoration of stability there are two secular candidates with ties to the past regime: former Foreign Minister Amr Moussa and ex-Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq. Various polls have shown one or the other leading the race, although most Egyptian election polls are not considered reliable, and up to 40 percent of the voters are undecided.

Speculation is rife on whether Shafiq has the military’s backing. In these new times, however, it is unlikely that the voting can be massively rigged, even if the military desires it. Moussa and Shafiq will split the non-Islamist vote, while more of it is peeled off by Aboul Fotouh and by a Nasserite throwback named Hamdeen Sabahi, who sounds as if he’s still living in the 1960s.

Morsi’s strong suit is that he can draw on the Brotherhood’s network of followers all over the country. It has cadres who knock on doors and will use social networks and their sisterhood to woo rural voters.

If Egyptians tap an Islamist as president, it won’t mean the public wants an Islamic state, but it will mean the revolutionaries offered them no clear alternative. But whoever wins will then have to deliver the economic goods, or an empowered public won’t support him for long.

— Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial board member for the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Comments

FalseHopeNoChange 2 years, 3 months ago

"Yet the liberals, leftists, and moderate Muslims"....stop right there. This is all that needs to be said to 'know' what will become of Egypt.

Good job Flex. Your 'Jihad' is spreading and right on track.

Complex Liberals agree, All Kansas needs is "Sharia Law" to help Flex along.

0

Keith 2 years, 3 months ago

Is there a translation available for this poster? Or is it better left in its original frontier gibberish?

0

jonas_opines 2 years, 3 months ago

"Is there a translation available for this poster?"

"Yargh Obama, Yargh Leftists!" This is the basic translation of all of his posts.

That's about it, but the translation needs one translation. "Leftists" in that context pretty much means: "anybody who does not get all of their news from internet right-wing punditry blogs."

0

geekin_topekan 2 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Alyosha 2 years, 2 months ago

It's just a silly person looking for attention. Zero ability to discuss things like an adult. Free speech, though. Not all speech is worthy of anyone's attention.

0

Mixolydian 2 years, 3 months ago

"Frontier gibberish" Too funny! Got to like someone who can pair Blazing Saddles with current events.

0

ljwhirled 2 years, 3 months ago

Well, you can't say that they didn't pick their poison.

Too bad.

The Egyptions had a shot at a free and open democracy and instead are picking sharia.

I sincerely hope this works out for them, but doubt that it will.

0

Liberty275 2 years, 3 months ago

This was a danger from the moment the uprising began. If they choose to be another Iran, Israel won't give them a chance. In the end, this just means more brown people killing each other and NATO covering Israel's flank by taking out all of Iran's military and nuclear capabilities. It could get ugly for a few months.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 3 months ago

The only way that Israel has been able to "control" what Egypt does over the last several decades was to get the US to prop up a military dictatorship there.

0

Liberty275 2 years, 3 months ago

That's irrelevant. The puppet is gone. All that matters now is that Israel will not hesitate to militarize their border with what may become another Iran, a skirmish will turn into a war over gods and people will die. At some point Iran will become involved and America will not hesitate to neutralize them. All we need is an excuse to do what we have planned on doing since Iran humiliated America under Carter anyway.

I was and remain all for Egypt becoming some sort of democracy, but the people there should keep in mind that Israel is not afraid of war and America will not abandon Israel.

0

Abdu Omar 2 years, 2 months ago

Well we should give them a chance. The guy who is in the lead is a very moderate and progressive Muslim and I think he will not turn the country into a Taliban type theocracy. He has supported the freedom of speech and press movement and I think we should just wait and see. I, too, am opposed to a radical Islamic state. But Sharia is not what you think. Islam promotes the idea of equality for women and clearly is opposed to female mutilation and burying girl babies alive. Let's watch and see. I will hope for the best and so should you.

0

Liberty275 2 years, 2 months ago

Level-headed, non-judgemental. I like it.

0

jonas_opines 2 years, 3 months ago

I wonder how many revolutions, throughout history, have led to a free and open democracy. I can't imagine it's a very high percentage.

0

Liberty275 2 years, 3 months ago

The National Socialist revolution in Germany led to an open democracy, but it took the scenic route.

0

booyalab 2 years, 3 months ago

“Their tone changed when they realized how weak everyone else was.”

that about sums up everything in Middle East politics

0

booyalab 2 years, 2 months ago

I disagree slightly, just because I think Western politics is increasingly "their tone changed when they realized how weak they could make everyone else"

0

asixbury 2 years, 2 months ago

Christians are liberals too.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 3 months ago

He recognized that Egypt is a largely muslim country? What a genius that Glennnn is!!!

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 2 months ago

So, you're saying that it'd have been better if the military dictatorship (a rather radical one, at that) should have stayed in power, with the US taxpayers continuing to prop it up?

BTW, I doubt that any of the "radicals" who get elected are any more radical than Glenn Beck would be if he were ever in a position of power.

0

RogueThrill 2 years, 3 months ago

You guys do realize that the article points out that the liberals lost and the conservatives won, right? Egypt will now be ran by the North African / Middle Eastern equivalent of conservative christians.

0

jhawkinsf 2 years, 3 months ago

But whereas we have a Constitution to moderate the conservative Christian (or any other) voice, their tradition is ... ?

0

RogueThrill 2 years, 3 months ago

That doesn't appear to be working out for us. I don't know that it moderates either side, in fact.

They'll have to figure out their tradition themselves. It's not like we did a particularly good job of it ourselves for the first 100 years or so. Slavery was still legal under our constitution, we committed a genocide and, in one of the more oft over looked violations of delegated constitutional authority, we purchased a large parcel of land from the french that now constitutes 1/3 of our landmass.

If Egypt is anything like America or France then it will get sorted out. Eventually. The people know that want something different and are working towards that. They just haven't got it all sorted. The question is how messy will they be in the process. If we're any indication it will be messy as hell.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 3 months ago

"we purchased a large parcel of land from the french that now constitutes 1/3 of our landmass."

And the hundreds of thousands if not millions of Indians who lived there didn't recognize the right of the French to sell their land.

0

jhawkinsf 2 years, 3 months ago

Do those Native Americans consider you a settler on occupied territory?

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 3 months ago

Some do, some don't. But if you're trying to get me to agree with you that what happened in the Americas over the last 5 centuries somehow justifies what Israel has done/is doing over the last century, it ain't gonna work.

0

jhawkinsf 2 years, 3 months ago

What I'm saying is that you're behaving in exactly the same way as people you criticize. I think there's a word for that. Can you think it?

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 3 months ago

You're welcome to your opinion, even if it is baseless.

0

jhawkinsf 2 years, 3 months ago

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, Bozo.

0

jhawkinsf 2 years, 3 months ago

You sound upset. Is this a topic you'd rather not discuss. Has it touched a nerve. Are we getting into a subject that is a little too close to home. What's the problem, Bozo. Let's discuss this topic at length. Let's explore every aspect. Let's dig deep. Let's find every nuance so that we might understand why your behavior is acceptable while the same behavior of others are war crimes, crimes against humanity.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 3 months ago

There is no topic-- just your name-calling. I rarely let others' childish behavior upset me.

0

Liberty275 2 years, 2 months ago

When are you going to stop living on land taken from native Americans?

0

jhawkinsf 2 years, 2 months ago

Perhaps it's not a topic you'd like to discuss. Are you certain you won't indulge me with a pleasant conversation? Hypocrisy and double standards are accusations you've made often in the past. I just want to give you the opportunity to explain your apparent contradictions. You do have an explanation, don't you?

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 2 months ago

"You do have an explanation, don't you?"

No, I have no explanation why you're so obsessed with this whiny straw man crap.

0

jhawkinsf 2 years, 2 months ago

You've accused me of having double standards many times, and each time I've tried to explain my position. You've accused me of being hypocritical, and again I've tried to explain my position. I am now saying that your positions seem hypocritical and fraught with double standards. You admitted as much when you said "some do, some don't". I'm asking for an explanation, not to be called the king of France.
Of course, the problem is that you can't explain it unless you twist logic until it looks like a limp piece of spaghetti. Not that I'm blaming you either. Sometimes, sh*t happens, as in you're forced into a situation. With you, and I, we are here despite the fact that Native Americans got royally screwed. And neither of us is going anywhere because, hey, that's just the way it is. The exact same is true over there. And in several other places on this planet. You can't explain it. You have just as much, exactly equal entitlement to be here as the Israelis have to be there. You know it, I know it. Certainly the Native Americans know it.
You do have an explanation, Bozo. You just don't like it. So you remain silent, hoping it will just go away. And if you arguments were intellectually honest, I too might just drop the subject. But you've been less than honest, many, many times. So again, why do you criticize people for actions very similar to your own? Why are their war crimes, their crimes against humanity not your war crimes, your crimes against humanity? Why the hypocrisy? Why the double standards? I have always gone to great lengths to explain my positions. I ask nothing more of you.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 2 months ago

"I am now saying that your positions seem hypocritical and fraught with double standards."

Which positions are those? Please be specific. Otherwise, you're just whining.

0

jhawkinsf 2 years, 2 months ago

I've mentioned them before, but I'll do it again. You've been highly critical of Israelis for living on lands that were conquered from their native inhabitants. Yet you live on lands that were conquered as well. Why is your existence here any different than their existence there? And while you're asking for specificity, let me say that there is a long list that I can make that shows your double standards in that region. We could parse each example for days. But I'll limit my inquiry for now to just the one topic that involves you personally, as I would really like to know why their actions are crimes of war, crimes against humanity, words you've thrown out there frequently, why are their actions so deplorable, and yours are not?

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 2 months ago

I've consistently said that the solution to the Israeli/Palestinian issue can't include the removal of Israelis from Israel/Palestine.

But that doesn't mean that Israelis should be allowed to act with total impunity in subjugating the Palestinians from whom they have taken land.

0

jhawkinsf 2 years, 2 months ago

Then why not criticize those that say they will wipe them off the face of the planet. Just the other day you quite begrudgingly admitted that Egypt's closing of an international waterway way a "technical act of war". Yet it led directly to events that caused the deaths of thousands. You minimized those acts. Yet the blockade of Gaza, which certainly causes hardships, is an act of war, a crime against humanity, your words. Why as an analogy compare the killings of tens of millions in the final solution to the asking of homeless drunks to be responsible for their own behavior. You have criticized me for for comparing apples to oranges when we speak of the numbers of dead on each side. Yet you compare millions dead to telling someone to get a job. Apples/oranges?
A common rhetorical tactic is to for the racist to call someone a racist, the hater to call someone a hater. Deflection. You've called me a hypocrite and accused me of having double standards, though I've always been willing to explain my positions. But your tactics are transparent. It is you who are being hypocritical and using double standards. Should you fail to explain yourself, you leave the reader the freedom to come to their own conclusions. I'd rather hear your explanation.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 2 months ago

Jeez, that is just too much whining to deal with, j.

0

jhawkinsf 2 years, 2 months ago

Translation: Every single word I've said is true. You know you're a hypocrite and I know it. And everyone else knows it as well. You use a double standard all the while you accuse others of using double standards. You have no explanation because there is none. You lie. You cheat the honest reader. You cheat the truth. There, fixed that for you, Bozo.

0

jafs 2 years, 2 months ago

The fact that this nation was founded on genocide and slavery is deeply disturbing to me - how about you?

I'm not sure I feel "entitled" to be here - I'm just here, having been born here.

It would be very interesting to know what would have happened if we had managed to co-exist with the NA population instead of destroying them.

And, the genocide and slavery that were present at our beginning have repercussions over time, just as similar things at Israel's beginning have - all actions have consequences.

0

jhawkinsf 2 years, 2 months ago

My feelings aren't going to be much different than your feelings. No one can go back in time and undo certain events. And sometimes, trying to do so will just create further hardships. Sometimes, it's just time to move on. Where we might deviate a bit is in that I don't believe that the sins of the father are inherited by the children. If Adolph Hitler's child were at an event that I was at, I would treat that child as I would any other. I am responsible for my behavior, not those of my ancestors. And while the genocide of Native American and the slavery of African Americans should not be forgotten, nor should it be diminished, but quite frankly, my people were having troubles of their own. I no more blame today's Germans than do I accept blame for those other events. Tragedies all, not to be forgotten and hopefully, not to be repeated.

0

jafs 2 years, 2 months ago

I'm not looking to blame people today for the sins of the past.

And, my ancestors were probably having their own troubles as well.

But, it's much harder, and perhaps impossible to "just...move on", without dealing with those repercussions, which continue over time.

0

Phoghorn 2 years, 3 months ago

Let me know when conservative Christians start stoning adulters to death, okay? I don't think we have done that since the times of the Old Testament - when there techically were no Christians.

Let me know when conservative Christians begin sponsoring female circumcision.

Let me know when conservative Christians start killing people for their beliefs or lack thereof. (we gave that up a few centuries ago).

I may not agree with the hard right on everything but to compare them to the likes of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other terrorists is a hyperbolic stretch.

0

asixbury 2 years, 3 months ago

Maybe when you compare violent acts. But when you compare conservative Christians to the terrorists based on their willingness and desire to push their religion into our governmental laws, the two aren't that different after all! Both believe they worship the only true god. Both believe their god's laws should be the way of the land. Who is right? Or are they both wrong?

0

jonas_opines 2 years, 2 months ago

In a systemic way, or by individual example? World wide, or just here in the US?

Certainly, there is no systemic condoning, or legal exhorting, of Christians to commit acts of violence against other people here in the US, but I think if you look you'll find more than a couple instances of violence by individuals who identified as Christians and believe that they are following a moral mandate. The abortion doctor killings come to mind, and other abortion related violence.

World-wide, you have the Bosnian cleansings, Serbian Orthodox Christian on Muslim, that occurred not to long ago, historically speaking. There was also the Ireland troubles period, between Catholics and Protestants (different religions and different sects in the same religion can often be looked at by the adherents in the same way). I'm sure you can find other examples.

Not that I think this vilifies Christianity, no more than I would vilify Islam as the culprit in the troubles in the Middle East. Religion is just another tool, used for good or ill by good or bad people, but it does provide organization and power to do those acts, and provides a nice gloss of righteousness for those who wish to do bad things and can use its name.

Which is why the 1st amendment is so important. Because it allows everybody to equally practice their own religious practices, but not to force those practices or dictates on anybody else.

But I agree. Mentioning religious conservatives here (even those who use the force of violence inherent in voting) in the same breath as terrorist organizations who commit acts of violence or death against other people does nothing but pollute the dialog, and damages the credibility by proxy of those who still fear the tendency of Christians in this country to try to force other people to their own way of thinking through laws, and votes that strip others of certain freedoms that others get to enjoy.

0

Abdu Omar 2 years, 2 months ago

Egypt is not a terrorist state. They have not implemented the things you accuse them of. I am sorry, but Muslims do not follow your ideas, they follow their own. Stoning was a Christian and Jewish thing, not Islamic. Some countries have that law, but perhaps Egypt won't.

The problem with most people is that they attribute the bad things that are tradition as being Islamic. That simply is not the way it is. The fact that Saudia Arabia prohibits women from driving is not an Islamic principle. It is their law. And the fact that women can't be members of government is Saudi law, not Islam. Saudi Arabia is a very tradition oriented country but in some cases their laws are unIslamic. Period. SO lets not jump to conclusions and wait to see what the Moderate Muslims will do in Egypt.

0

jonas_opines 2 years, 2 months ago

It should maybe also be mentioned that the extremity of the social structure there is a fairly recent development as well.

0

jhawkinsf 2 years, 3 months ago

Starvation as official U.S. policy? Stalin did that in the Ukraine. Are you certain that emulating Stalin's genocide ought to be our policy?

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 3 months ago

Israel certainly does with regards to Gaza.

0

jhawkinsf 2 years, 2 months ago

"Israel certainly does with regards to Gaza"

Stalin's actions caused millions to die. Gotland called for a population reduction of 70%. Exactly how many have staved to death in Gaza? I'll give you a hint. It's less than one.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 3 months ago

Why, yes, if we'd just be willing to starve all those millions of grubby brown children, that'd whip 'em into shape. Much cheaper than nuking them off the planet.

0

Flap Doodle 2 years, 2 months ago

Bickering bozo is in fine fettle today.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 2 months ago

"Egypt used to send grain shipments to Rome as tribute."

And remarkably, almost nothing else has changed at all in the last two millennia or so.

You know what they say-- The more things stay the same, the more things stay the same. I sure miss me some Egyptian bread.

0

Richard Heckler 2 years, 3 months ago

"Islamic victory looks likely in Egypt"

So what? That is what happens when the CIA starts messing with people's governments around the world.

War keeps escalating which is the only way the USA military industrial complex keeps stockholders happy.

0

Flap Doodle 2 years, 3 months ago

Looks like a bad time to be in Egypt if you are the wrong kind of Muslim.

0

Abdu Omar 2 years, 2 months ago

GW Bush said that the terrorists hate our democracy. What a lie. They hate our terrorism. So they terrorise us. We need to stop funding their enemies. Yes, the enemy is Israel who has taken their land, killed hundreds of thousands of people just to claim they have Jerusalem. They have promoted the Jewish people to be kings in that land while the Arab Muslims and Christians die from starvation and in a constant battle to get back their land where they have olive trees, their home and their heritage. The people of Israel are foreigners to that land. They are not the same people as the Children of Israel who have remained on the land and become Christian or Muslim.

0

jhawkinsf 2 years, 2 months ago

Everybody winds up on lands that were once somebody else's. Assuming you're here in this country, then you're occupying lands once owned by Native Americans. And as they live on reservations, you are free here, free to own land, free to go wherever. How do you sleep at night knowing you occupy their land?

0

Abdu Omar 2 years, 2 months ago

It was not my ancestors that stole this land nor was it my ancestors who killed the natives. My family came here in 1907 and were not part of the wars between the natives and the settlers. I was born here, therefore I am native of this country. I sleep at night knowing that I wouldn't have taken their land by force, I would have purchased it from them. The Israelis do not purchase the land, they kill for it, made millions refugees and refuse to allow them a return to their own land. We provide freedom to the native americans, allow them to purchase land, to have freedom of speech and freedom to assemble. Is that same right given to Palestinians? No, they are treated like dogs and are killed or imprisoned for being Palestinian.

0

jhawkinsf 2 years, 2 months ago

Interesting logic. So if the Israelis just hold onto the land for a little while longer, until those who did take the land die of old age, then the land will belong to the next generation. And you'll be O.K. with that, since that's how you gain legitimacy here. That's how you absolve yourself from responsibility. I guess that's fine. Your attitudes will change I'm sure as the generation that did seize lands are quickly dying of old age. BTW - The settlers that came prior to WW II, into British Palestine, did in fact buy land and live on that land. They were met with violence. So it doesn't seem to matter whether they buy land or not, whether they came with peaceful intentions or not, they were met with violence. You know Ariel Sharon was born on the family farm just outside Tel Aviv while Yasser Arafat was born in Egypt. Now tell me, who belongs and who does not.

0

Abdu Omar 2 years, 2 months ago

I am not talking about those who legitimately bought land, am I? I am talking about the Israeli settlers who have the government build them houses on Palestinian land and hold it with violence.

Anyway, the violence was caused by the terrorist groups that killed and killed so that the Palestinians would be afraid of them and the major Arab violence came when the usurpers claimed that Israel was a nation. It is not, never will be, but they will fight to defend their land grab.

Lets talk about the land grab of the americas. The Indians ( Native Americans) did not own the land, they had no title to it, they occupied it in a nomadic way. Along comes the Europeans to settle the land as well. There were wars and the white eyes won because we killed the buffalo, killed the water sheds and then conquered the people. It could have been done in a better way and we both know that. Migration is a natural thing. But lets look at the Israelis. The land was owned by specific families not a nomadic situation at all. Then the Israelis called this their land, got a hold of the American media and made the lies they tell seem like the truth (you repeat it enough and someone will believe you). They made themselves look like the victims while they condemned a house, told the occupants to leave (if they didn't they killed them, then bulldozed the house sometime with people still inside. I have been there dude, I saw it with my own eyes.

Where is the freedom for the Palestinians? Why can't they move about the country like the Native Americans can? Why are there 30 checkpoints to cross Jerusalem? The Israelis just took the land, imprisoned the objectors or killed them and made it look like they are the victims. Who is in the right here? You, no way. All the Jews that migrated to Palestine, with a few exceptions, came because they claim that God gave them this land.

Arafat, who I will admit made many mistakes, was born of Palestinian parents who, like millions of others, were refugees because of the Israeli take over of the land.

Your Ariel Sharon was the biggest butcher of the whole conflict. He is in the league of Ghengis Khan or others of that stature.

0

jhawkinsf 2 years, 2 months ago

Arafat was born twenty years prior to the creation of the state of Israel. As was Sharon. ( Making Sharon a Palestinian and Arafat an Egyptian. :-) ) And while Palestinians were not nomadic, neither were they a country with title, much the same as our Native Americans. Palestine as a country has never existed. And those who came after WW II were refugees in the truest sense of the word. Expecting them to stay in Europe, given Europe's history of anti-Jewish activities that spanned centuries,would be foolish. Given the violence in British Palestine when Jews bought land and then had the audacity to live on that land, perhaps they should have known that more violence would follow. Listen, I have no problem having civil discussions. However, you have to get your facts straight.

0

yourworstnightmare 2 years, 2 months ago

Funny. It seems to be human nature to choose the yoke when given a choice.

Egyptians will vote into power religious conservatives who will likely start taking away rights and establishing their own ideology as the law of the land.

Sound familiar?

0

asixbury 2 years, 2 months ago

+1. A concept that is sadly lost on fanatical Christians.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.