Freedom in Egypt = war with Israel?

[c1ue]

Good thing this isn't on the ballot...

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=218265

A diplomat who served as Egypt’s ambassador to Israel for over a decade said the peace treaty between the two countries has brought untold benefits to both Egyptians and Israelis and must under no circumstances be annulled.

In an interview Thursday with the pan-Arab daily Asharq Alawsat, Mohamed Basuny said the 1979 peace treaty not only returned the Sinai Peninsula from Israel, but cut Egypt’s military spending, increased foreign investment and enhanced the country’s ties with the West.

“Bilateral relations between Egypt and Israel are different from any other bilateral ties because of two interconnected issues,” said Basuny, Egypt’s envoy in Tel Aviv from 1988 to 2001. “First is the march to peace – we must maintain good relations with Tel Aviv and strong lines of communication first and foremost to serve the Arabs, especially given the ongoing occupation of Arab lands and the many difficult issues that remain outstanding. The second is relations with the United States – relations that must pass through Israel. Fundamental to our relationship with Israel is the national interest and security of Egypt.”

Basuny said that in his 13 years in Israel he had never once considered stepping down. “I fought as a soldier in two wars and participated in the planning of the [1973] October War,” he said. “When [Mubarak] asked me to go to Tel Aviv, I considered it a war of another kind – of political ideas, not of arms.”

“The treaty has achieved significant gains for us,” he added. “First: the liberation of Egyptian land. Second: the evacuation of settlements in the Sinai - the most important issue of any. Third: the recovery of oil fields. Fourth: the regularization of navigation in the Suez Canal. Fifth: cutting the military budget. And sixth: increased foreign investment in Egypt,” he said. “It’s win-win – we both gain from the treaty. Politics is a game of wits – it must be beneficial to all parties. I’m totally opposed to abolishing the treaty.”

In Israel, meanwhile, at least one lawmaker responded to Wednesday’s apparent attack on the Sinai pipeline that transmits natural gas to Israel by calling for Jerusalem to rethink the treaty. National Union MK Michael Ben-Ari wrote a letter Wednesday to Shaul Mofaz, chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, urging the government to convene an urgent discussion on Israel’s peace treaties with its neighbors. “Mubarak’s ouster from the Egyptian leadership revealed the hostility towards Israel of the Egyptian people, most of whom hope to see the treaty annulled,” Ben-Ari wrote.

A Pew Research Center poll released Monday showed more than half of Egyptians favor overturning the 1979 peace agreement. "By a margin of 54 percent to 36 percent, Egyptians say their country should annul the treaty with Israel," the survey by the Washington-based group said.
Views on retaining peace with Israel varied according to income and education. Six in ten Egyptians with lower incomes supported overturning the agreement, while 45 percent of high-income Egyptians agreed. Fifty-nine percent of those with primary education or less favored annulling the treaty, while 40 percent with a college education or more felt the same way.

Interestingly, not much mention of this attack...

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsCont...t-gas-cut.aspx

Jordan said Thursday it will seek help from "brotherly and friendly" countries to cope with its energy needs after Egyptian gas supplies came to a halt following an attack on a Sinai pipeline.

"The Council of Ministers decided to contact brotherly and friendly states to provide Jordan with needed supplies of heavy fuel and diesel," the state-run Petra news agency reported. "It discussed ways of finding alternative energy sources, as well as measures to ration electricity and fuel use."

Energy Minister Khaled Tuqan on Thursday confirmed that Egypt's gas supplies had been halted after the attack, which took place at dawn near the village of Al-Sabil in the El-Arish region.

Jordan, which imports about 240 million cubic feet (6.8 million cubic metres) of Egyptian gas a day, or 80 per cent of its electricity needs, "has enough supplies of heavy fuel and diesel for two weeks," he said.

Affecting also Israel, the new attack is expected to cost Jordan $3.5 million (2.4 million Euros) a day, officials said.

The pipeline was previously sabotaged on 5 February, six days before former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak was forced to resign amid a popular uprising.

Supplies of gas to Israel and Jordan from that attack resumed on 16 March.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Freedom in Egypt = war with Israel?

Some of the major blunders of the Obama Administration: 1.) Letting Mubarak be deposed in Egypt, apparently by Al Qaide; 2.) Letting Dr. Chou (from the Sierra Club) run the U.S. Dept of Energy; 3.) Supporting green energy projects; 4.) Banning drilling in the Gulf of Mexico; 5.) Re-appointing Bernanke to head the FOMC; 6.) Funding the EPA; 7.) "Too Big To Fail" bail-outs; 8.) Record deficits; 9.) A confused foreign policy; 10.) Covertly de-valuing the dollar; 11.) Failure to provide leadership, or even to offer a viable alternative of any kind; 12.) Playing politics with everything; 13.) Offering wishful-thinking as a programme; 14.) Failure to cut the Education Department and the Agriculture Department; 15.) Not understanding economics; 16.) Not supporting NAFTA and free trade; 17.) Failure to confront his opposition in the Congress by speaking in the Congress, weekly; 18.) Letting the start of Obamacare be delayed until 2014; 19.) Unlike the New Deal of FDR, the Obama Adminstration had no 100-day accomplishments, nor even a plan; 20.) Failure to unite the Democratic Party; 21.) Failure to support America's allies in the world.

[goodrich4bk]

Re: Freedom in Egypt = war with Israel?

Some of the major blunders of the Obama Administration: 1.) Letting Mubarak be deposed in Egypt, apparently by Al Qaide; 2.) Letting Dr. Chou (from the Sierra Club) run the U.S. Dept of Energy; 3.) Supporting green energy projects; 4.) Banning drilling in the Gulf of Mexico; 5.) Re-appointing Bernanke to head the FOMC; 6.) Funding the EPA; 7.) "Too Big To Fail" bail-outs; 8.) Record deficits; 9.) A confused foreign policy; 10.) Covertly de-valuing the dollar; 11.) Failure to provide leadership, or even to offer a viable alternative of any kind; 12.) Playing politics with everything; 13.) Offering wishful-thinking as a programme; 14.) Failure to cut the Education Department and the Agriculture Department; 15.) Not understanding economics; 16.) Not supporting NAFTA and free trade; 17.) Failure to confront his opposition in the Congress by speaking in the Congress, weekly; 18.) Letting the start of Obamacare be delayed until 2014; 19.) Unlike the New Deal of FDR, the Obama Adminstration had no 100-day accomplishments, nor even a plan; 20.) Failure to unite the Democratic Party; 21.) Failure to support America's allies in the world.

This list persuads nobody and only reveals the author's shallow thinking. Given the conflicting and confused assumptions implicit in your policy critique, I suspect there is not a single person on the planet who you would support for President. This is because such a person, by your own standards, would:

1. Support NAFTA and free trade (whatever that means)
2. Unite his party
3. Confront his opposition party on a weekly basis
4. Not play politics
5. Despite #3,4 and 5, accomplish much in his first 100 days in office
6. Invade Egypt to prevent its citizens from chosing their own leader
7. Somehow accomplish #6 while not "confusing" this new foreign policy with the American ideal of self-government and democracy
8. Ignore public safety concerns from the worst spill in history and allow unlimited drilling
9. Even though a majority of Americans vote for him and support green energy, do nothing to promote it (but somehow unite your party anyway)
10. Even though your opponents fund the EPA and your party support it, cancel its funding
11. Fire your predecessor's Fed Chairman and terminate your predecessor's bank bailout program, but somehow explain you are not playing politics and, when the banking system collapses and leaves nationalization as the only remaining solution, you do nothing for fear that you will be called socialist
12. Cut the Education Department and the Agricultural Department even though neither you nor your opponent ran on such a platform
13. Forget the wishful thinking and tell it like it is, i.e., we're going into financial collapse and there is not a damn thing anybody can do about it. But then make sure you provide leadership...

Did I miss anything Steve?

[BigBagel]

Re: Freedom in Egypt = war with Israel?

Some of the major blunders of the Obama Administration: 1.) Letting Mubarak be deposed in Egypt, apparently by Al Qaide;

Maintaining our ties with an 82 year old corrupt dictator in the face of a popular revolt sounds like a great option.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Freedom in Egypt = war with Israel?

This list persuads nobody and only reveals the author's shallow thinking. Given the conflicting and confused assumptions implicit in your policy critique, I suspect there is not a single person on the planet who you would support for President. This is because such a person, by your own standards, would:

1. Support NAFTA and free trade (whatever that means)
2. Unite his party
3. Confront his opposition party on a weekly basis
4. Not play politics
5. Despite #3,4 and 5, accomplish much in his first 100 days in office
6. Invade Egypt to prevent its citizens from chosing their own leader
7. Somehow accomplish #6 while not "confusing" this new foreign policy with the American ideal of self-government and democracy
8. Ignore public safety concerns from the worst spill in history and allow unlimited drilling
9. Even though a majority of Americans vote for him and support green energy, do nothing to promote it (but somehow unite your party anyway)
10. Even though your opponents fund the EPA and your party support it, cancel its funding
11. Fire your predecessor's Fed Chairman and terminate your predecessor's bank bailout program, but somehow explain you are not playing politics and, when the banking system collapses and leaves nationalization as the only remaining solution, you do nothing for fear that you will be called socialist
12. Cut the Education Department and the Agricultural Department even though neither you nor your opponent ran on such a platform
13. Forget the wishful thinking and tell it like it is, i.e., we're going into financial collapse and there is not a damn thing anybody can do about it. But then make sure you provide leadership...

Did I miss anything Steve?

1.) Was Obama's campaign slogan, "Buy American" supporting free trade or supporting NAFTA? It looks like Obama was pandering to nationalists, perhaps in the South, to get votes. But "Buy American" is not a plan, nor should it be a plan.
2.) The liberals now are abandoning Obama because of his failure to be a liberal.
3.) Instead of hiding-out in the White House, maybe Obama should go to the Congress and present a programme. But this might take leadership.
4.) When has Obama not played politics? He already is campaigning for the 2012 election. But what is his programme?
5.) What did the Obama administration accomplish in their first 100-days? What was their plan for America?
6.) Why did America not support Mubarek in Egypt--- a loyal ally of America? Why doesn't America now strongly support King Abdullah in Jordan, another loyal ally? King Faisal in Saudi-Arabia, another loyal ally? Netenyahu in Israel, another loyal ally?
What is the plan of the Obama Administration for the Middle East region?
7.) The Tehran gangsters always have used the code word, "democracy" for over-throwing regimes and then launching a reign of terror. I met them at UC Berkeley in 1969, and all that they talked about was their idea of setting-up the world's first "Islamic Republic" in Iran, their code-words: "democracy", "green revolution", "justice for 1953", etc.
8.) Drilling is the key to getting oil because there is no free lunch;
9.) What is the energy plan of the Obama Administration? Hope? Faith? Wishful-thinking about green energy? Preserving bird habitat and calling that "an energy plan", as Dr. Chou did in the Energy Department?
10.) Surprise me: Cut the funding to the EPA and hold them to account for their abuse of power in America. But this would take leadership and a plan.
11.) Why isn't Paul Volcker running the Fed, not Ben Bernanke? Why aren't CD rates now 8%, not 0.0012%? Why punish savers and screw the elderly?
12.) Why fund the Department of Education because all that they stand for is standardized timed-testing, drilling, rote- memorizations, flag-salutes, national standards, English-only, cursive, drills, and speed-reading. Why continue this?
13.) What is the economic plan of the Obama Administration to end the Great Recession: Is it running the printing-press and creating Zimbabwe dollars? De-valuation? Hope? Doing more of what banana republics used to do, and hoping for a different result?

[Starving Steve]

Re: Freedom in Egypt = war with Israel?

Maintaining our ties with an 82 year old corrupt dictator in the face of a popular revolt sounds like a great option.

Al Qaide had a majority of support in Egypt? This is news to me.

The Obama Administration (and BBC in London) should have known that the bunch swinging nooses in the streets and calling for democracy were Al Qaide. And when they came to power, the first thing they did was threaten Egypt's religious minorities. So what kind of democracy was this?

I always thought democracy was all about respect for human rights, limited government, tolerance for minorities, freedom of religion, a secular state, and certainly not mob rule. But again, I see that "democracy" in the Middle East is just a code word for Al Qaide rule.

[goodrich4bk]

Re: Freedom in Egypt = war with Israel?

I'm not going to respond to every point, Steve, but here is my response to your #5. Here is Obama's list for the first 100 days:

Passing the "largest" economic stimulus bill in American history.
Ordering the closing of Guantanamo Bay military detention facility and abolishing "enhanced interrogation techniques."
Setting a fixed timetable for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq.
Ordering 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and enlisting, with modest new assistance, European allies in a new multi-layered strategy there and in Pakistan.
"Returning science to its rightful place" by lifting the Bush restrictions on federally funded embryonic stem cell research.
Signing laws to expand children's health insurance (financed by a 61-cent per pack increase in the federal cigarette tax the adviser did not tout).
Signing a law meant to improve the ability of women who allege pay discrimination to sue their employer.
Diminishing the role of lobbyists in the White House
"Forge a meaningful statement from the United Nations" criticizing North Korea's launch of a ballistic missile.
Lifting travel and remittance restrictions for Cuban Americans who seek to travel more frequently to the island and send more US currency to their immediate family.
Engaging world leaders in Europe, Turkey, Latin American and the Caribbean with "strength and humility."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...#ixzz1Kt1RUqzD

It may not seem like much to you, but a couple of these things meant a lot to many Americans. The stock market reached a low of 666 in March 2009, just two months after he took office and it is today almost double that. The economy is growing, not shrinking as it was under Bush. And that little stem cell research thingy? I'm a type 1 diabetic for whom that research might be extraordinarily helpful. I remember how betrayed I felt when Bush, based upon nothing other than his private religious beliefs, barred scientists from finding a cure for my disease. What the hell was that about? In a unilateral decision on which he did not even campaing, he ordered valuable human tissue to be thrown in the trash rather than used to cure a miserable disease.

That alone justifies my vote for Obama, but I will presume you do not share that sentiment.

As to economic policies, I agree he has shown way too much deference to Wall Street. But is there any question that the alternative would have been much worse? There would have been no financial reform at all, no consumer protections whatsoever. Perhaps you prefer unregulated financial markets. I do not. I prefer capitalism to crony corporatism or socialism, which is where unregulated financial markets lead us.

Yes, unregulated financial markets lead to crony corporatism and, eventually, to socialism. What do you think preceded Casto? Unregulated financial markets under Batista. Who came before the Viet Cong? Unregulated financial markets under Diem. The list of crony capitalists and their unregulated financial enablers is long and consistent: they don't know when to stop until a populist revolution occurs. Unfortunately, by the time the dust settles, the usual suspects often hijack the populist movement under the "democracy" slogans you correctly describe from the Iranian revolution.

In short, the moderation of a mixed economy is our greatest defense to tyranny. And the moderation of our mixed-race President has, on balance, been the tonic for our times.