Shouldn't America be returned back to the Native Americans ( Red Indians ) ?

Well I have some Questions and I arranged them them into points to make my idea clear :

Question 1 :

-Shouldn't America be returned back to the Native Americans ( Red Indians ) ?
-Shouldn't Australia be returned back to the Indigenous Australians ?

If your answer is No then proceed to the next question .

Question 2 :

Isn't this considered Land theft ? Both countries have been occupied by the Europeans so Americans have no rights to live there and take the countries wealth and lands . Would you clarify why you said "No" although it's unfair !!

Question 3 :

Well if you believe they shouldn't be returned to their Native residents ( Red indians or whoever ) , Why do you accept the Invasion of Palestine by the Israelis ? Hundreds of thousands killed just because they want to make a Jewish state - ( A state for people from a single religion or ethnicity , Isn't this Racism ? If I'm not correct what does this mean " Israel is a Jewish state " ? )-
Also to add , Yeah I admit some Jews lived Together with Arabs there , It has never been only for Jews though , Arabs didn't drive them out , many of the Jews just immigrated out of the middle east , Many have never even lived there nor their ancestors did . So What gave them the right to Steal the country from its inhabitants? Who gave them the right for "Mass immigration to Palestine " ? Who gave them the right to continue building settlements ignoring any resolutions ? Do you just support them because you don't like Muslims ? Is it right to be unfair with somebody just because you don't like him ?


Sorry for my English ! Thanks !

 

I think you're right.

USA to native. (get the white out)
Australia to arborigenes. (Get the white out)
Mexico to Mayas/Incas (Get the Mexicans out)
England to english. (Get the Arabs, Pakistani, Turkish, Indians out)
France to French. (Get the Arabs, Pakistani, Turkish Indians out)
Belgium to Belgian. (Get the Arabs, Pakistani, Turkish Indians out)
Germany to German. (Get the Arabs, Pakistani, Turkish Indians out)
Israel to Palestinians. ( Israelis and Arabs are the same people, living there since thousands of years as brothers until 1948, so not sure who should get out)
Etc...
Etc...
Etc...

If you have another stupid question, feel free to post it here.

 

If you are segregating the issue to Religion, the counterbalance of hostility between Judaism, Christianity and Islam is the real issue rather than territory.

In fact most people have likes and dislikes about all three religions and working out the differences through competition within the Garden is the game plan, particularly the idea of the triumph of good over evil being the final outcome.

All three religions are misguided pretexts of after death rather than the goal for the solution while living that is the only real means for Remission.

 

Literally, laughed so hard I shat myself. Thanks for that. -1 rep for having to clean up the mess.

@Elbenergy: Outside of your ridiculous questions, I thought you made one legitimate point. I too am not a huge fan of the words "Jewish state", though I understand why the words are used and am more or less OK with it. My question to you is, are you outraged at the UAE for having an ethnicity as part of their country's name? Isn't that racist?

 

Well , The UAE is the least racist country in the middle east to tell . "Arab" because The spoken official language is Arabic so no surprise - PS : Arab here refers to language not to ethnicity - UAE -= الامارات العربية not امارات العرب , should the country have more than one official language ? , Outside of the wrong example you gave , Generally Is it ok to do something wrong just because others do it ? Is it okay to be a racist just because others are ? Well that got me to my point then , you admitted it's a racist based country but you wanted to say UAE is aswell , isn't this your point ?

And regarding my questions being "ridiculous" , Well I think I got to my point again . You couldn't find a Logic answer to my questions so you called them ridiculous , Thank you

 

No, I just didn't want to cap up on Cody, who did a perfectly adequate job of demonstrating how ridiculous your questions were. They were ridiculous for many other reasons outside of the points he made, but at some point, it gets to be like kicking the crap out of a cripple. Its embarrassing.

I'm sure you were just trying to cover your bases here, by first arguing that UAE is not racist, then falling back on, "Just because they are racist, does that make it OK for anyone else to be racist?". Perhaps it struck you half way though your post that hebrew(jewish) is a language as well. In either event, you didn't answer my question. Why only outrage directed at Israel, a nation filled with Jews claiming to be a Jewish state.

Why no posts about the myriad of nations in the middle east, jam packed with Arabs, practically all of which claim to be "Arab states"? Most of those nations have atrocious humans rights records and religious prejudice and persecution is a daily activity. Hell, Syria is massacring it's own people and you are busy complaining about Israel. Sounds like you have a special place in your heart for the Jews. The irony of a guy like you using the word "Racism" is not lost on me.

 

Regarding your claim that I contradicted myself when I said " Is it ok to do something wrong just because others do it ? "

My answer is : I guess I already said " Outside of the wrong example you gave , Generally Is it ok ....... ? " If you take 1 min to think , you'll understand that I mean that you are giving wrong examples and also the point you want to reach by giving that example is wrong , your point is " Other middle easter states are racist so Israel has the rights to be racist too , you gave a wrong example though to demonstrate your idea .

I never really knew that Jewish is Hebrew , Why don't they say a Hebrew state ? Well Jewish state here is exactly similar to Iran being Islamic state but the difference here is that Iran didn't occupy lands to establish a state for specific people from a certain religion , It's their country that they live in already - though I don't agree with some stuff in Iran like forcing women to cover head or so -

Regarding Syria , Yeah agree he is a massacre , Who said that we agree with him ? We are all against the Crimes he does . It has nothing to do with Religion by the way lol .Also I don't hate Jews , infact I have some Jewish friends from Netherlands but this doesn't mean that occupying lands causing hundreds of thousands of deaths in 60 years just to establish a Jewish state to be considered right !!

 

Sure they did :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Persia

 

You still haven't answered my question? Why aren't you starting threads about Syria, or Libya, or any of these other dark, oppressive and racist places? You've singled a nation with a far better track record on most civil and human rights issues than most of it's neighbors, to call racist. Why? Hell, you should have chosen the US to call racist. This country is filled with racists from all walks of life . Doesn't make it right, but at least we are not stoning people to death based on religious intolerance. I'll cede you the point that Israel has some issues with racism if you'll cede me the point that your priorities are completely screwed up.

Your friend's name isn't "Token" by chance, is it? I think you need to acquaint yourself with a history book before you start bandying about words like "causing hundreds of thousands of deaths", or you will sound sorely uninformed. Don't you find it odd that while you admit Syria is busily butchering it's own people (just like Libya), you are whining about racism in Israel?

 

Yes, the Europeans are illegal in occupying the North/South America as well as the Australia, New Zealand, South Africa. The irony of it is, they try to do their best to alienate the right full owner of said lands.

A legislation was made just recently in Arizona that it would be illegal for an American born to an illegal to be a citizen even though there's a law that says if you are born in the U.S you are an American.

Technically, Americans are not legal to be here in the North or South America as they were never issued an papers by the Native people of this land and all of it's babies from the very beginning are considered illegal. But as we all know that the native could never be able to in force this because they are powerless and the chances of ever are pretty slim.

As far as the Jews in the Middle-East? I believe they had always been there since day one and in my opinion have the right to be there, because the Arabs went to war with them in the 60's where they ended-up losing lands to the Jews, I find that to be game. Not the same as with the other lands that the Europeans had stolen.

 

Muslims didn't drive Persians out , They converted to Islam and they are the original citizens my dear . Plus I was using it as an example to demonstrate my point , so "Iran" isn't the point in my topic here anyway to debate about .

Well , I answered your question already . I don't agree with the massacre in Syria or in Libya , In fact I support democracy . Why start a topic if you already know that they are massacres ? What information should I add ? Here I'm demonstrating my idea regarding the Illegal Jewish Occupation of Palestine . Why don't you make Topics about people killed in the USA by non-muslims ( Thieves , etc ... ) or is it only that you post Muslims crimes ? . Well I have always been living here in the middle east and never saw a person get "Stoned" , Seriously dude these should be very rare cases lol , Have you even read the Egyptian laws ? . Here in Egypt I have never seen something like that , I believe do what you want as long as you don't harm others .

Besides , You didn't answer any of my "ridiculous" questions . You are trying to change the topic point to talk about other countries .Well put your head in the sand , you don't want to hear the truth that Israel is a country based on Racism . Why does any Jew has the right to take the citizenship very easily and others not ? WTF is this racism !! And you agree about it !!

 

Where Europe expanded they brought civilization and freedom and to this very day the natives live as normal citizens . If you want more examples from the Middle East i got plenty of them . Also the subject at hand is rights of the ancient owners of the land .

You try to pull in some gargle but you fail epically here's why . The Jews are the original owners of the land and the arab ethnics are just invaders. So ya return America to the natives , Iran to the Persians , Egypt to the Egyptians , North Africa to the Namibians and Cartageans , Turkey to the Greeks and so on .

 

As a Muslim, I certainly don't go around creating such threads, though I acknowledge that there are definitely problems in certain nations with populations of highly uneducated people who so happen to be Muslim.

When I start a thread, it tends to focus on problems that impact me here in the US, not on the fact Russia's government is secretly endorsing gangs that roam it's inner cities beating on all foreigners and minorities, or the fact Syria is killing off thousands of my Muslim brothers who long for Democracy Do these other topics concern me? Sure, but we have big enough problems to deal with here at home that I really don't need to borrow any trouble.

As you sit there in Egypt, I have a hard time seeing how the exact same philosophy doesn't apply to you. Right now you live under an interim dictatorship run by the military that "promises" to cede power once a Democracy takes shape. You have the Muslim Brotherhood pushing hard to be a major player in that Democracy, and if that happens, your country is going to look a lot like Syria is today: A poorer more oppressive, less educated nation.. With all that crap going on, you are busy starting threads fretting over anything Israel is doing? Your value system is completely jacked my friend.

 

Where does God say this piece of land belongs only to this group of people forever and only to them? If God has said so it could have been so. Obviously all land belongs equally to all people if we follow God's law of "Love one another".

All these borders are human invention not God's.

 

LOL Jews are the owners of land ?? You gotta be kidding me .You have no clue on what you are talking about . How old is Judaism ? Plus I admit the Jews lived there besides Arabs , It had never been Only for Jews though , "Arabs" doesn't proportion to "Muslims" my dear , Arabs existed before The message of Islam was revealed to prophet Mohamed . Also if your ancestors -who lived 1000 years ago- were living in Greece , Does this give you the f**ken right to invade their country now ! ?


--------------
@Obamanation ,

Well first of all the Military here is very democratic , They do everything that is supposed to be right and supported by the majority of people , Atleast they didn't kill any citizens during the revolution . It's just a transitional government By the way .

No worries , With our braveness I don't expect we can have a dictator . The army here protects the citizens unlike Syria . What Bashar is doing is Syria isn't Islamic BTW . Also you are trying to change the Topic's point which means you are on the Weak side now It's not bad to admit that you were mistaken , But it's very bad to continue in those mistakes ( Defending Israel with no clues ).

I'm also surprised how you call yourself Muslim were infact you are " Atheist " . Maybe you were just mentioning me by giving example on yourself anyway I don't care for whatever you believe in , this doesn't concern me much .

 

In contrast to the American legal system, the Israeli legal system lacks the myth of constitutionalism. The founding fathers of the Jewish state were interested in nationalist ideology, not in the ideals of the Enlightenment. Shimon Peres, a student of David Ben-Gurion, once said in a television interview that the task of Zionism was to transform the Jew from a “Man of the Book” into a “Man of the Land.” The understanding of law by Israel’s founders was very directed: to secure recognition from the existing superpowers of the ambitious project to rule in the densely Arab-populated Palestine. Law in the State of Israel, then, was never, for the founding fathers and ruling elites, an agenda in and of itself. Internationally, law was essentially a nuisance that had to be dealt with through creative diplomacy. There is no doubt that with developments in international law in recent years, particularly through the jurisprudence of universal jurisdiction, Israel will have to take law and rights more seriously than it has in the past.
In this short essay I will explore the potential, and many limitations, of litigating Palestinian human and civil rights in the Israeli legal system. I do this by examining three distinct, yet interconnected, categories of Palestinians: Palestinian displaced, Palestinians under military occupation, and Palestinian citizens of Israel.

Return and Property

The concept of Palestinian return is understood in Israel not in historical or legal terms, but apocalyptically. The denial of Israel's responsibility for what happened to the Palestinians in 1948 persists among Israel’s elites and broad public opinion alike. The dilemma posed both by the actual project of return and by the right to return is conveniently turned into an existential threat. Great efforts are made to demonstrate not only that return to areas inside the Green Line is not feasible, but that there is no such thing as a right of return for Palestinian refugees. Some Israelis go so far as to turn the Palestinian demand for this right on its head, demanding Palestinian acknowledgment of the historical right of the Jewish people in Palestine as a precondition for any agreement with them. Thus, according to former head of Mossad, Ephrayim Halevi, "If [the Palestinians] want a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders, we should demand [their] relinquishing the right of return. Further: what we should demand from the Palestinians is their recognition of Zionism's legitimacy. Not the fact of Zionism, rather its legitimacy."1
Israeli law, basing itself on a historical biblical notions of Jewish presence in what came to be Palestine, recognizes only the Jewish right to return to the geographic area Jews had inhabited thousands of years earlier. Similarly, religious affiliation in Israel crucially affects citizenship status, with citizenship virtually automatic for Jews from the outside and withheld from non-Jews with established ties to the land—a fact that clearly undermines the claim made by the High Court of Israel’s former chief justice, Meir Shamgar, that the Jewishness of Israel is the same as the Frenchness of France.
In Israel, the right of return is denied not only to Palestinians outside Israel’s borders, but even to those inside, that is to say, to those Palestinians forced to leave their homes during or after the 1948 war but who remained inside the new state, becoming citizens. Yet the High Court of Israel had in effect created a right of return for this particular category in the early 1950s, when it ruled that the Israeli military’s “temporary expulsion” in 1948 of the residents of the village of Iqrit was illegal. In 1995, after waging a long struggle to have the court's ruling implemented, the villagers finally managed to obtain the government's approval for their claims. Needless to say, their struggle was not part of the Palestinian national liberation movement. Rather, it relied on the citizenship status of the residents and the fact that they had a High Court of Israel decision favoring their claim.
Ultimately, though, the state was unable to tolerate even this very limited and specific application of return. When no action was taken allowing the villagers to return, the Iqrit case was resubmitted to the High Court in the late 1990s. But by the time the court was ready to deliver a decision in 2003, Ariel Sharon was prime minister. An affidavit in his name was submitted to the court asking that it not allow the villagers to return. His main argument was that such a move would be a strategic error, with damaging implications for the issue of refugee return in the final status negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel. The court approved Sharon's position, though it added its hope that a change in political situation might lead the government to find it appropriate to reach a different decision.2
The fate of property belonging to refugee and displaced Palestinians, which was controlled by the Custodian of Absentee Property created under the 1950 Absentees’ Property Law, was similarly “put on hold” in an earlier (April 1994) High Court ruling, this time until the conclusion of negotiations between Israel and the Arab countries. The case dealt with the request of Israeli land dealers to free up property then under the control of the custodian, and which they had purchased from the legal owners. The court rejected the petition, and its extraordinary ruling made explicit that holding property for the original owners was not the custodian’s task. Rather, the ruling stated, the purpose of the Absentees’ Property law is

to fulfill the state's interests in these property: the ability to use it for the advancement and the development of the country, while preventing an absentee under the law from using this property, as well as to possess this property (or its value) until political settlements are reached with the neighboring countries, which will determine the fate of this property on the basis of reciprocity.3

Occupation and International Law

The official Israeli position with regard to its 1967 conquest of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza is that it is not an occupation, because these territories were not seized from a state. Notwithstanding, after the Israeli military’s redeployment from Gaza, Israel has tirelessly sought international recognition for its "end of occupation in Gaza."
Legal challenges to Israel’s occupation policies against the Palestinian civilian population are as old as the occupation itself. Under international law, belligerent occupation is understood to be temporary and of short duration. The fact is, however, that Israel’s 1967 occupation continues and is increasingly entrenched. The dominant response in Israel to the legal challenges against the occupation has been rejection. The military courts, established in the wake of the occupation to prosecute Palestinian resistors, were a parody of due process and accepted legal procedures, while the dominant role of the High Court of Israel has been to rubber stamp with domestic legitimacy even the most egregious actions of the occupation.4
In the last few years, however, Israel has been faced with new challenges on the international legal front. The most dramatic of these was the ICJ’s 9 July 2004 advisory opinion on the separation wall, which hit the Israeli legal system (more than the political system) with a veritable effect of “shock and awe.” It was the unfolding deliberations in the ICJ that prompted domestic litigation against the wall, with legal challenges brought by Palestinian villagers whose lands were affected. A week before the ICJ delivered its opinion, the High Court of Israel ruled on a 40-km segment of the wall in the Jerusalem area, recommending some modification in routing so as to lessen the hardship on the affected villagers, even while affirming the wall to be legal. This exercise in anticipatory damage control did not succeed in changing the ICJ’s advisory opinion, which ruled the wall to be illegal and called for its immediate dismantlement. Ultimately, the High Court endorsed the official Israeli position rejecting the ICJ's opinion on the rather problematic grounds of (a) the temporary nature of the wall and (b) absolute military necessity. Neither argument is difficult to refute. With regard to the wall’s “temporary nature,” Israeli officials now acknowledge openly, almost on a daily basis, that the wall’s path is the future Palestinian-Israeli border in the West Bank. As for the second argument, absolute military necessity is traditionally invoked to rationalize immediate military action in order to confront an imminent threat, and is thus hardly applicable in this case: construction of the wall is certainly not an immediate action, and it is very doubtful that the construction fits the definition of a military operation.
Another significant development that has made the Israeli legal establishment take international legal challenges more seriously is the upsurge in lawsuits and complaints lodged against Israeli military commanders in recent years in various parts of the world using the principle of universal jurisdiction. The first of these was the interesting but failed complaint in June 2001 in Belgium against Ariel Sharon for his responsibility for the Sabra and Shatila massacres in September 1982 in Lebanon.5 Next were complaints in England in October 2002 against former Israeli chief of staff and defense minister Shaul Mofaz, who, according to media reports, was asked to leave London to avoid a potential arrest warrant against him. More recently, a British arrest warrant was issued in September 2005 against former Israeli General Doron Almog on the basis of a complaint concerning his responsibility, inter alia, for unlawful killings and extensive home demolitions in Gaza during the al-Aqsa intifada. Around the same time, two civil law suits were brought to court in Washington, DC, the first, in November 2005, against former Israeli chief of staff Moshe Ya’alon for his role (as chief of military intelligence) in the 1996 bombing of civilians in Qana, Lebanon, and the second in December 2005 against Avi Dichter, former head of the Israeli General Security Service (Shin Bet), for his responsibility in the bombing of a densely populated residential neighborhood in Gaza in July 2002.
The importance of these legal developments cannot be underestimated. Their effect is reaching High Court justices and creating concern in the Justice Ministry and the attorney general’s office, which represents state officials charged with human rights abuses. Some lawyers arguing in the domestic arena are now emphasizing the international law dimension of the violations against their clients, suggesting other avenues for seeking redress; the international legal activism has thus created what can be called a “jurisprudence of deterrence.” The state, aware that outside legal authorities could use universal jurisdiction mechanisms against Israeli perpetrators of breaches of international law not held accountable in Israel, will have to treat allegations in domestic cases seriously. Thus, despite the fact that Israel, like the United States, consistently refuses to ratify the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC), the enforcement of international law through domestic jurisdiction mechanisms can become as effective as if Israel had given the ICC jurisdiction to deal with such cases.

Equality and Superiority

Litigating for equality in Israel by Palestinian citizens is a relatively new phenomenon. The framework for such litigation is Israeli citizenship. Since Israeli law does not acknowledge collective rights for the Palestinian minority (apart from some religious rights, in keeping with Israel’s foundations as a sectarian state), legal claims in court are usually based on administrative and constitutional law arguments as made and interpreted by the High Court of Israel.
A case that caused a significant uproar among Israeli legal and nonlegal elites in 2002 was one that called for all signs in towns in which both Arab and Jews reside to be written in Arabic as well as Hebrew. Up to that time, signs were in Hebrew only. In a two-to-one decision, the High Court accepted the demand of the petitioners, though in the same decision all three judges reaffirmed the superior status of Hebrew as a matter not merely of fact but of law. The resentment among the Jewish population caused by this case seems unwarranted, not only because of the court's clear preservation of Hebrew as a superior language, but also because the Arabic on the signs will be no more than an exact transliteration of the Hebrew names: “Herzl Street,” for example, will simply appear in Arabic letters, and there is no question of return to the original pre-1948 names.
A number of major elite organizations in Israel were disturbed by this limited court decision. For example, the Israeli Democracy Institute (IDI), a main promoter of a written constitution for Israel (which to date has not adopted one), held that the court should not have pronounced on this issue, since it is up to the Knesset to decide the status of the languages when it adopts a constitution. The IDI’s proposed draft accords the Arabic language an even lower status than the High Court ruling. In the IDI draft, "Hebrew is the language of the state," whereas "Arabic is an official language," and "its usage by official bodies of the state will be regulated by or according to law."
Several motives can be read into the IDI’s vigorous advocacy of a constitution founded more on Israeli Jewish consensus than on liberal democratic principles. The first is to use the process to reconcile disputing groups within the Jewish majority, mainly secular and religious nationalists, exacerbated by the settlement issue and the disengagement from Gaza. The second is the perception that the High Court is acting too liberally and that a supreme document like the constitution would constrain its supposed liberal judicial activism by outlining its limits. The recruitment of former chief justice Shamgar to head the campaign for advocating such a constitution makes this purpose more evident.
The current drive is not the first attempt to create a constitution in Israel, but it is certainly the most serious one to date, considering the immense resources, financial and symbolic, put to the task of advocating it. All the attempts have failed so far mainly because of the internal Jewish debate over the status of religion in society, especially with regard to issues of equality and the rights of women. The IDI’s proposed constitution has the best chance to pass in the Knesset because it aims at the lowest common denominator in Israeli Jewish society. Indeed, its main purpose is to formulate an Israel attractive to its Jewish citizenry only and to ratify the state’s special relationship with the Jewish citizens of other countries. It is essentially based on ideas and principles that are far from the enlightened ideals enshrined explicitly in the South African constitution or in the Canadian one. In adopting such a constitution, Israel may argue, particularly to foreign audiences, its official transformation to a constitutional democracy. Domestically, however, it will simply open a new phase of struggle against Israeli discrimination, racism, and domination.



source

 

Since when jerusalem belong only to jewish ? it is belong to all religions, u can't just declare war and say it is mine, what happening in palesting, it is not israiil stealing there land, they took there homes by force, no one will accept that someone else take his home who worked hard for it by force, the one who accept that is better for him to die, when u talk about the dictators in arabic lands, well just say they are better than letting the USA or another country to enter the lands, when we are talking about bachar , i wouldn t say that those ppl that are demonstrating are peacefully, if we say bachar is gone, who is the next one gonna come ? no one is with the dictators, but does the ppl are ready to choose?

 

@long poooooptalk: TL;DR - you plan to destroy the opposition by boring everyone to death ?

Fixed that for you .

1st off the Jews have been in the land for quite some time :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel#Early_Israelites_.281200.E2.80.93950_BCE.29 .

Way before the Arabs :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_people

As for my people we're quite ancient 42.000 year old to be more exact :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania#Prehistory_and_antiquity

 

Thank you so much for proving my point So I'll suppose that Jews have existed for 3000 years , Who was there before they came ? From the links you provided , It states " The first written attestation of the ethnonym "Arab" occurs in an Assyrian inscription of 853 BCE, " so around 2900 years , So how could you say " way before Arabs existed " which is Wrong ? , plus who are the ancestors of Arabs ? They had ancestors so we should take them in consideration that they lived there so their descendants "Arabs" have the right to live there , Same goes for Jews .

Man , My point is : If everybody is going to take other people's lands just because his ancestors lived there , Then the World will end up to miserable wars because Humans have been immigrating since the beginning of Humanity so everybody owns others lands . So Nobody has the right to invade a country just because his ancestors were living there too . Am I correct ? or you disagree ? BTW my grandmother was Jewish before she converted to Islam so I don't have smth bad - as of personally - about Jews but Palestinians Lives should be respected , No building of settlements or occupying lands , A realistic nice solution would be returning back to 1948's borders

 

As measured by what? You feel the rule by the Military is democratic because they are doing what you want them to do right now. When that changes, do you plan to vote them out of office ? I don't know of anyone who would call rule by the military a "Democratic" system. I'm also not an opponent of benevolent dictatorships. As Singapore has demonstrated, they can be a good thing, and are perhaps the most efficient form of government known.

Yes, your military performed admirably during the revolution. Almost made me feel good about my tax dollars that pay their salaries. We'll see how transitional the government is when the the time to transition arrives.

You are the one changing the topic. I made several points and you've avoided all of them to accuse me of being an atheist who changes the topic. Let me remind you of my points again:

1) Egypt has much bigger problems to worry about than what Israel is doing in the West Bank.
2) If your problems were so small as to allow you time to be concerned about someone else's problems, one would figure you would be more concerned about Syria.

Egypt becoming a progressive secular Democracy is going to take time, and will probably be painful. I'd say you have a little under 50/50 odds of success, and that is being generous. I only brought up the Brotherhood in reference to Syria because the stated objective of the Brotherhood is to use Democratic means to bring about an undemocratic government, and I'm not talking about a benevolent dictatorship like Singapore. The more you guys busy yourself with Israel, rather than your own problems, the more likely your little experiment in Democracy is to fail.