Israel to assist Egypt's fragile economy

[mike2000 is back]

Don't act dumb, you know exactly why you replied. Next time grow up and continue on with life when you get beat in an argument instead of stalking the person and constantly harassing them with bullshit.


Radicals are never going to get power but I bet you dream of it in your MB fantasies don't you. You're an idiot if you think that Radical Jihadists can gain power in Egypt. They have a lot of choices, Like the ones who ran against Sissi in the 2012 elections. Their are Numerous Egyptians who can run for president jackass, they aren't 2 Egyptians in the entire world.


You need to stop acting and thinking like a 12 year old hilter youth. And grow up cause your dumbass fantasies aren't going to happen.



But the land still belongs to us doesn't it? Therefore who cares. We even placed SAMs in the Sinai, So much for the treaty.

You are the one who is delusional. i don't often have the time to carry on making senseless arguments with someone who has a preconceived idea on his head, since i know its futile. It will just be a to and fro argument and constant repetition. lol As far as i have made my point clear to everyone i often leave it there if i see there is no reason to waste my time carrying on repeating same argument especially if the other side already has a preconceived idea in mind. lol There are often many other more useful threads. So, you are the one thinking like a 12 year old hitler youth or whatever that means. lol

One other funny fact is that you don't even seem to understand my statements or sometimes sarcasm. lol Maybe because i often say things in a funny way on here. lol So according to you i am a Muslim brotherhood Supporter huh?? Of all people you believe i'm supporting a radical Islamic group like MB?? Me of all people. lol

I couldn't care any less about Islamic groups killing each other. the more they do the better for mankind. Couldn't care one bit about how many of their members Egypt's military rulers/military kills/massacres. The more the better. Doesn't affect me one bit, on the contrary.
As for Sinai, Everybody knows the current situation and understanding with Israel. WIN-WIN for both sides.

 

[EgyptianAmerican]

You are the one who is delusional. i don't often have the time to carry on making senseless arguments with someone who has a preconceived idea on his head, since i know its futile. It will just be a to and fro argument and constant repetition. lol As far as i have made my point clear to everyone i often leave it there if i see there is no reason to waste my time carrying on repeating same argument especially if the other side already has a preconceived idea in mind. lol There are often many other more useful threads. So, you are the one thinking like a 12 year old hitler youth or whatever that means. lol

Good, You need to stop harassing me with this bull. You realized the truth and recognized it. There will be no Jihadists controlling Egypt, CASE CLOSED.

One other funny fact is that you don't even seem to understand my statements or sometimes sarcasm. lol Maybe because i often say things in a funny way on here. lol So according to you i am a Muslim brotherhood Supporter huh?? Of all people you believe i'm supporting a radical Islamic group like MB?? Me of all people. lol

Do you want me to Quote all the times you supported the MB? I have it all.

 

[19887]

Is this the bull they teach you in Israeli schools?



http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...ttack-on-egypt-in-june-67-was-not-preemptive/

Israel’s attack on Egypt in June ’67 was not ‘preemptive’

In a meeting with Nasser, Johnson’s special envoy to the UAR, Robert B. Anderson, expressed U.S. puzzlement over why he had massed troops in the Sinai, to which Nasser replied, “Whether you believe it or not, we were in fear of an attack from Israel. We had been informed that the Israelis were massing troops on the Syrian border with the idea of first attacking Syria, there they did not expect to meet great resistance, and then commence their attack on the UAR.”

Anderson then told Nasser “that it was unfortunate the UAR had believed such reports, which were simply not in accordance with the facts”, to which Nasser responded that his information had come from reliable sources (presumably referring to intelligence information passed along by the USSR).

Nasser added that “your own State Department called in my Ambassador to the U.S. in April or May and warned him that there were rumors that there might be a conflict between Israel and the UAR.”

U.S. intelligence had indeed foreseen the coming war. “The CIA was right about the timing, duration, and outcome of the war”, notes David S. Robarge in an article available on the CIA’s website.

On May 23, Director of Central Intelligence Richard Helms presented Johnson with the CIA’s assessment that Israel could “defend successfully against simultaneous Arab attacks on all fronts … or hold on any three fronts while mounting successfully a major offensive on the fourth.”

In an document entitled “Military Capabilities of Israel and the Arab States”, the CIA assessed that “Israel could almost certainly attain air supremacy over the Sinai Peninsula in less than 24 hours after taking the initiative or in two or three days if the UAR struck first.”

Additionally, the CIA assessed that Nasser’s military presence in the Sinai was defensive, stating that “Armored striking forces could breach the UAR’s double defense line in the Sinai in three to four days and drive the Egyptians west of the Suez Canal in seven to nine days. Israel could contain any attacks by Syria or Jordan during this period” (emphasis added).

Although the Arabs had numerical superiority in terms of military hardware, “Nonetheless, the IDF [Israeli Defense Force] maintain qualitative superiority over the Arab armed forces in almost all aspects of combat operations.”

Johnson himself told the Israeli Foreign Minister, Abba Eban, “All of our intelligence people are unanimous that if the UAR attacks, you will whip hell out of them.”

Israel meanwhile claimed that it was “badly outgunned”, apparently presuming, Robarge writes, “that Washington accorded its analyses such special import that US leaders would listen to its judgments on Arab-Israeli issues over those of their own intelligence services.”

Yet “Helms had the Office of National Estimates (ONE) prepare an appraisal of the Mossad assessment”, which stated: “We do not believe” that the Israeli claim of being the underdog “was a serious estimate of the sort they would submit to their own high officials.”

Neither U.S. nor Israeli intelligence assessed that there was any kind of serious threat of an Egyptian attack. On the contrary, both considered the possibility that Nasser might strike first as being extremely slim.

The current Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Michael B. Oren, acknowledged in his book “Six Days of War“, widely regarded as the definitive account of the war, that “By all reports Israel received from the Americans, and according to its own intelligence, Nasser had no interest in bloodshed”.

In the Israeli view, “Nasser would have to be deranged” to attack Israel first, and war “could only come about if Nasser felt he had complete military superiority over the IDF, if Israel were caught up in a domestic crisis, and, most crucially, was isolated internationally–a most unlikely confluence” (pp. 59-60).

Four days before Israel’s attack on Egypt, Helms met with a senior Israeli official who expressed Israel’s intent to go to war, and that the only reason it hadn’t already struck was because of efforts by the Johnson administration to restrain both sides to prevent a violent conflict.

“Helms interpreted the remarks as suggesting that Israel would attack very soon”, writes Robarge. He reported to Johnson “that Israel probably would start a war within a few days.”

“Helms was awakened at 3:00 in the morning on 5 June by a call from the CIA Operations Center”, which had received the report “that Israel had launched its attack” and that, contrary to Israel’s claims that Egypt had been the aggressor, Israel had fired first.

Yitzhak Rabin, who would later become Prime Minister, told Le Monde the year following the ’67 war, “I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent to the Sinai, on May 14, would not have been sufficient to start an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.”

Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin acknowledged in a speech in 1982 that its war on Egypt in 1956 was a war of “choice” and that, “In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

Despite its total lack of sustainability from the documentary record, and despite such admissions from top Israeli officials, it is virtually obligatory for commentators in contemporary mainstream accounts of the ’67 war to describe Israel’s attack on Egypt as “preemptive”.

[Correction, August 26, 2014: as originally published, Yitzhak Rabin in this article was quoted as saying “The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war.” Rabin’s actual statement was: “The two divisions which he sent to the Sinai, on May 14, would not have been sufficient to start an offensive against Israel.” The misquote has been corrected. This does not affect the substance of the article or the purpose for using the quote here. Rabin goes on in the interview to note that additional divisions were moved into the Sinai after closing the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. Rabin’s explanation for this, however, is not that Nasser intended to attack Israel. On the contrary, he stated that, “judging by the seven divisions which he sent to Sinai after the closure of Aqaba, he knew that we would consider his gesture to be a casus belli.” In other words, the reason additional forces were sent into the Sinai, in Rabin’s assessment, was because Nasser feared Israel might attack Egypt. A translation of the interview from the French original can be found here.]

Why a false understanding of the ‘Six Day War’ still matters
http://mondoweiss.net/2014/06/understanding-still-matters/


On June 5, 1967 Israel invaded Egypt, Jordan, and Syria and took possession of the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights. The accepted orthodoxy of this war, and the occupation that followed, is that it was justified because Egypt, Jordan, and Syria had massed troops “vastly outnumbering Israel” along the border, and that Israel, threatened with its very survival, launched a necessary pre-emptive attack on its neighbors, gaining a great and unexpected victory in just six days. This is the official position of AIPAC. Alan Dershowitz argues for this version of events with gusto in his “The Case for Israel” and at every opportunity. Ari Shavit repeats this story in his book My Promised Land, where it fits well with his “concentric circles of threat” surrounding Israel.

In The Six Day War and Israeli Self-Defense: Questioning the Legal Basis for Preventive War, John Quigley, a professor of international law at Ohio State University, presents a clear and compelling case that the orthodox story is wrong. Quigley’s book draws on evidence recently declassified by the four main powers involved in the lead up to the war: France, Britain, Russia, and the United States. He concludes that, contrary to the orthodox story, Israel’s army substantially outnumbered the Arab troops at the borders, and that Israel did not expect an attack. In short, Quigley asserts that Israel’s invasion of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria in 1967 cannot be justified as self-defense; Israel seized upon an opportunity to wage a war of aggression in violation of international law and in violation of the commitment Israel had made by joining the community of nations under the auspices of the UN Charter.

The Lead Up to War—Israel Sees an Opportunity

After the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 the belligerent parties executed armistice agreements, resulting in Israel asserting sovereignty over all areas within the green lines, and Jordan asserting sovereignty over the West Bank. Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank was officially recognized by Great Britain, and generally accepted, if not formally recognized, by the World community. Between 1948 and 1967 Jordan administered the West Bank peacefully as an integral part of its Kingdom, and Jordan extended full citizenship to Palestinians living in the West Bank. [See Gerson, Israel the West Bank and International Law, p. 79]

Quigley reviews how, throughout the 1950’s, cross-border violence was a common occurrence as military units of the displaced Palestinians raided Israel from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Israel’s defense forces responded with counter-raids. In 1956, of course, Israel, in conjunction with France and Britain, invaded Sinai. Both the USSR and the United States denounced this invasion and pressured Israel, Britain, and France to withdraw. Israel withdrew from Sinai in the spring of 1957 and the United Nations installed multinational military units to monitor the Israel-Egypt cease-fire line.

By 1966, says Quigley, a more assertive Syrian government was providing additional support to the Palestinians for an armed struggle against Israel. Syria became a base of operations for Fatah, and between early 1965 and June 1967, Fatah launched more than one hundred attacks into Israel, some with fatal consequences. Yitzhak Rabin, Chief of Staff of the IDF at that time, deemed the raids emanating from Syria as more consequential because he felt they were state-supported, unlike raids originating in Egypt, Jordan, or Lebanon.

On November 11, 1966 a land mine killed three soldiers near the West Bank Jordanian village of Samu. In response, the IDF sent tanks and troops to Samu, and when Jordanian troops attempted to intercept, the IDF forces killed several civilians and about 12 Jordanian soldiers. Once in control of the village, the IDF spent four hours blowing up one hundred houses in the village of Samu.

During the first four months of 1967 Fatah raids along the Jordanian border intensified, as did cross-border clashes with Syria, some deliberately provoked by Israel. Quigley quotes Moshe Dayan, soon to become defense minister: “We would send a tractor to plow the earth in some plot you couldn’t do anything with, in a demilitarized zone, knowing in advance that the Syrians would start shooting…. And then we’d fire back, and later send in the Air Force.” By mid May, it was the assessment of the American Ambassador in Egypt, Richard Parker, that Israel was threatening to take more aggressive reprisal actions against Syria.

Quigley presents evidence that Nasser increased troop strength in the Sinai in response to Israel’s threats against Syria, and Syria’s request that Egypt do more. In mid-May, however, Nasser assured the Soviet Ambassador that Egypt would move militarily against Israel only if Israel were to invade Syria. Although sympathizing with Israel’s need to stop cross-border raids originating in Syria, Quigley reports that Walter Rostow, Lyndon Johnson’s security adviser, counseled that the United States try to restrain Israel. Right up until Israel’s surprise attack on June 5, 1967, both the United States and the USSR worked behind the scenes to calm the situation and urged that neither party attack.

Britain’s ambassador to Israel, Michael Hadow, after meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol reported to London that Israel agreed with the British assessment “that Nasser’s new posture posed no real threat.” Nevertheless, Israel responded with additional deployments of its own in the south.

In connection with the increase of its troop strength in Sinai, Egypt asked the UN to withdraw its observer force from the area. However, says Quigley, Egypt, the UN and the United States all offered to Israel that the observer force could be stationed in the Sinai on Israel’s side of the line. Israel refused.

On May 21, Egypt briefly sent two Mig-21 jets over Israeli airspace, making a low pass over Israel’s nuclear complex at Dimona in the Negev desert. The planes departed before Israeli jets could scramble.

As tensions mounted, Jordan’s King Hussein became concerned that Israel might take advantage of the situation to grab the West Bank. Hussein reasoned that “Israel has certain long range military and economic requirements and certain traditional religious and historic aspirations” that “they have not yet satisfied or realized” (per Quigley’s citation to Findley Burns, the U.S. ambassador to Jordan). And, indeed, as Ezer Weizman, then Chief of Operations of the IDF General Staff, later recorded in his memoirs: the IDF Central Command was discussing the possibility that Israel might find an opportunity to take the West Bank.

Israel anticipated that Egypt might attempt to curb shipping at Sharm el-Sheikh. Both Rabin and Dayan contemplated that if Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to shipping, Israel would seize the opportunity to attack Egypt. Their main concern was that the Security Council might call for a cease-fire before they achieved their objectives. Nasser obliged on May 22, announcing that he would close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli flagged shipping and other vessels carrying strategic goods to Eilat. However, Quigley indicates that there was also an indication that any vessel accompanied by a warship would be exempted.

Not Justified Self-Defense Under International Law

Quigley concludes that the facts of May-June 1967 did not justify a pre-emptive strike by Israel in accordance with international law. There was no existential threat as the AIPAC video, above, asserts. Closing the Straits of Tiran posed no real threat to Israel in the short term, and both Britain and the United States were working diligently to solve the Tiran Straits issue. Here are just a few of the points reviewed by Quigley that seem sufficient to make the case:

• 
  
  
  • In April 1967 Robert McNamara reported to President Johnson that “the present and prospective military balance in the Middle East strongly favors Israel” and that “Israel will be militarily unchallengeable by any combination of Arab states at least during the next five years.” This was clear to everybody.
  • On May 25, General Ariel Sharon, who then commanded Israel’s troops in the south, told Prime Minister Eshkol and Yigal Allon (labor minister) that Israel had a historic opportunity to destroy Egypt’s army, and that Egypt could be attacked under circumstances that appeared defensive.
  • In the vicinity of the borders, Israel’s troops (~280,000) substantially outnumbered the troops of the Arab states (~117,000). According to a CIA assessment, Egypt had only increased its troops in the Sinai from 30,000 men to 50,000. This was not sufficient to mount an offensive, and Israel knew it. In 1968, Yitzhak Rabin gave an interview to Eric Rouleau at Le Monde, stating: “I do not believe that Nasser wanted war…. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.”
  • In 1972, Israeli General Mattityahu Peled told an audience at the Zavta political-literary club in Tel Aviv that the idea that Israel was fighting for its existence was “a bluff born and developed only after the war.” He went on: “All those stories that were put out about the great danger that we faced because of the smallness of our territory, an argument advanced only after the war was over, were never taken into consideration in our calculations before the hostilities.”
  • In 1982 when Menachem Begin was attempting to persuade the country to support his invasion of Lebanon, he explained that the reason Israel needed to invade Lebanon was not an immediate concern about attacks from Lebanon, but a need to ensure against possible attacks in the future. Begin said that the same aim had led Israel to initiate the 1967 war: “In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.” Begin had been in the cabinet in 1967, as a minister without portfolio.

Why It Still Matters

As Jerome Slater observed in his review of Shavit’s book: “It is hard to think of another long-standing conflict in which the irrefutable facts, long well-known to anyone who has seriously studied the issue, seem to matter less than in the Arab-Israeli conflict.” Although the true facts about the 1967 war have been known to many from the outset, and have been reported in Le Monde and elsewhere, this has not dampened enthusiasm for the “justified self-defense” story. The facts propagated by Israel have not been critically examined by the world community.

Having the wrong facts is not helpful. Critically, from Quigley’s standpoint as a scholar of international law, the erroneously assumed facts have allowed The Six Day War to become a “prime example” of the use of defensive war. As a result, says Quigley, the law of pre-emptive war has been unduly expanded in a manner that is counterproductive to the goal of preserving peace between nations. Israel relies on the false example of The Six Day War to assert a right of self-defense in invading Lebanon in 1982. It is the corrupted example of The Six Day War that makes plausible the case for invading Iraq based on putative “weapons of mass destruction.” It is the corrupted example of The Six Day War that makes it possible to speak of pre-emptive strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

With respect to Israel’s occupation, the false narrative that Israel faced an existential threat in May and June 1967—because “can this hatred ever be overcome” as Shavit suggests in his book—poisons any hope of ever finding a solution. It’s important to have the real facts seep into public consciousness because if The Six Day War is more properly seen as a continuation of the War of Independence in 1948-49, it changes the frame of discussion.

As the United States falls away as a peace broker because it is not politically able to take necessary steps to pressure both sides equally, we could do worse than to refocus everyone on the laudable aspirational goals embodied in the UN Charter.





What do you mean sensitive Suez zone? The Suez Canal BELONGS TO US!

How was this at ALL PROVOCATIVE! IT'S OUR LAND!

Who cares about the Naval blockade, that's not enough for war. Did we attack you first? NO THEREFORE IT WAS STARTED BY ISRAEL!

CASE CLOSED.

Do you war-mongers always make excuses like this to explain your war-like ways?

After the 1956 Suez Crisis, Egypt agreed to the stationing of a United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) in the Sinai to ensure all parties would comply with the 1949 Armistice Agreements.[22] In the following years there were numerous minor border clashes between Israel and its Arab neighbors, particularly Syria. In early November 1966, Syria signed a mutual defense agreement with Egypt.[23] Soon thereafter, in response to Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) guerilla activity,[24][25] including a mine attack that left three dead,[26] the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) attacked the village of as-Samu in the Jordanian-occupied West Bank.[27] Jordanian units that engaged the Israelis were quickly beaten back.[28] King Hussein of Jordan criticized Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser for failing to come to Jordan's aid, and "hiding behind UNEF skirts".[29][30][31]

In May 1967, Nasser received false reports from the Soviet Union that Israel was massing on the Syrian border.[32] Nasser began massing his troops in two defensive lines[33] in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19) and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran.[34][35] Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or justification for war,[36][37] and Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping on May 22–23.[38][39][40] On May 30, Jordan and Egypt signed a defense pact. The following day, at Jordan's invitation, the Iraqi army began deploying troops and armoured units in Jordan.[41] They were later reinforced by an Egyptian contingent. On June 1, Israel formed aNational Unity Government by widening its cabinet, and on June 4 the decision was made to go to war. The next morning, Israel launched Operation Focus, a large-scale surprise air strike that was the opening of the Six-Day War.

 

[EgyptianAmerican]

After the 1956 Suez Crisis, Egypt agreed to the stationing of a United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) in the Sinai to ensure all parties would comply with the 1949 Armistice Agreements.[22] In the following years there were numerous minor border clashes between Israel and its Arab neighbors, particularly Syria. In early November 1966, Syria signed a mutual defense agreement with Egypt.[23] Soon thereafter, in response to Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) guerilla activity,[24][25] including a mine attack that left three dead,[26] the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) attacked the village of as-Samu in the Jordanian-occupied West Bank.[27] Jordanian units that engaged the Israelis were quickly beaten back.[28] King Hussein of Jordan criticized Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser for failing to come to Jordan's aid, and "hiding behind UNEF skirts".[29][30][31]

In May 1967, Nasser received false reports from the Soviet Union that Israel was massing on the Syrian border.[32] Nasser began massing his troops in two defensive lines[33] in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19) and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran.[34][35] Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or justification for war,[36][37] and Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping on May 22–23.[38][39][40] On May 30, Jordan and Egypt signed a defense pact. The following day, at Jordan's invitation, the Iraqi army began deploying troops and armoured units in Jordan.[41] They were later reinforced by an Egyptian contingent. On June 1, Israel formed aNational Unity Government by widening its cabinet, and on June 4 the decision was made to go to war. The next morning, Israel launched Operation Focus, a large-scale surprise air strike that was the opening of the Six-Day War.

read my comment again.

 

[19887]

read my comment again.

My friend egypt always was the agressive untill anuar sadat(pbuh) the one who make the peace

 

[EgyptianAmerican]

My friend egypt always was the agressive untill anuar sadat(pbuh) the one who make the peace

Wrong, and Wrong and why are you saying Peace be upon him for Sadat?



Israel was the aggressor and the murderers. Israel is still an Illegal state.

 

[19887]

Wrong, and Wrong and why are you saying Peace be upon him for Sadat?

I respect him and his courage

Israel was the aggressor and the murderers. Israel is still an Illegal state.

Ok,come to arrest me pharaoh

 

[Osman Pamukoglu]

You are the one who is delusional. i don't often have the time to carry on making senseless arguments with someone who has a preconceived idea on his head, since i know its futile. It will just be a to and fro argument and constant repetition. lol As far as i have made my point clear to everyone i often leave it there if i see there is no reason to waste my time carrying on repeating same argument especially if the other side already has a preconceived idea in mind. lol There are often many other more useful threads. So, you are the one thinking like a 12 year old hitler youth or whatever that means. lol

One other funny fact is that you don't even seem to understand my statements or sometimes sarcasm. lol Maybe because i often say things in a funny way on here. lol So according to you i am a Muslim brotherhood Supporter huh?? Of all people you believe i'm supporting a radical Islamic group like MB?? Me of all people. lol

I couldn't care any less about Islamic groups killing each other. the more they do the better for mankind. Couldn't care one bit about how many of their members Egypt's military rulers/military kills/massacres. The more the better. Doesn't affect me one bit, on the contrary.
As for Sinai, Everybody knows the current situation and understanding with Israel. WIN-WIN for both sides.

Mike, how do you feel about Syrians moving to England? Is it a problem for the native Bretons??
If the Muslims fight each other, a lot will end up in Britain, so, how can you not care?

 

[mike2000 is back]

Mike, how do you feel about Syrians moving to England? Is it a problem for the native Bretons??
If the Muslims fight each other, a lot will end up in Britain, so, how can you not care?

Genuine Syrians refugees wanting to flee war and chaos in their country is understandable to be honest. Even though i don't understand why they will leave all their peaceful stable Muslim ummah brothers neighboring countries in the region to travel all the way across the Ocean to mainland Europe and across our islands the other corner of the world. However, i(like most brits) will still prefer or understand genuine Syrian refugees coming here than opportunistic economic migrants who come from stable/peaceful countries without any war, but pretend to be from Syria or other war torn countries or lie about fleeing 'oppression/persecution' in their countries just so we can let them in. This is what many people here are against. Since these fake refugees opportunistic impostors are damaging the peoples trust in asylum systems and making it harder for genuine refugees to get help.

To be honest though,we have taken very little Syrian refugees or even immigrants under these schemes compared to other major European countries. That's precisely because we are increasingly aware that the vast majority are/ aware that the vast majority are not genuine refugees, but economic migrants fleeing poverty, as such we have no obligation to let them in here. Our choice.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ars-85-year-just-one-five-war-torn-Syria.html

As for Muslim killing each other, well what can we do? There's a lot of bad blood between actors in the region and sectarian mindset as well. There's little countries like U.S,U.K,France,Russia can do other than watch and be careful in protecting their interests in the region. As far as Sunni powerhouse Saudi Arabia and Shia powerhouse Iran continue their struggle for power, influence and who's version of Islam is the best in the region, then this sectarian bloodshed will carry on.

Image from Japan Today

we can only watch.

 

[mike2000 is back]

Do you want me to Quote all the times you supported the MB? I have it all.

lool As i said before you don't seem to understand sarcasm. I was being sarcastic in the way you use double standards in considering Muslim brotherhood rightly as a terrorist group(which they are) while considering their offshoot Radical Islamic terror group Hamas as a freedom fighter(simply because of Israel. lol ). LMAO. If Hamas isn't a terror group, then its father Muslim brotherhood cant be considered a terror group.

Anyway, its good both countries(Egypt and Israel respectively) are tackling radical Islamic groups like the Muslim brotherhood and their offshoot Hamas. The more they get rid of them the better for mankind.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/...hood-leader-killed-egypt-161004081124124.html
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-egypt-court-mursi-idUKKCN12M0G4
http://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-troops-destroy-home-of-henkin-murder-mastermind/

Good, You need to stop harassing me with this bull. You realized the truth and recognized it. There will be no Jihadists controlling Egypt, CASE CLOSED..

It can happen, Radical Islamist groups like Muslim brotherhood and their affiliates can use popular discontent to foment trouble and gain power mate, Just like the MB did recently when Morsi came to power. In fact, if not for your top military leaders, they will probably still be in Power.

 

[Gomig-21]

Here's the problem IMHO - Egypt has had it pretty tough since 1956. If you put all the events in order that happened since and it's not difficult to see that it started out with a war that had the UK (upset at the Nasser's decision to nationalize the Suez Canal) ending up along with France fighting a war with Israel invading the Sinai and taking control of it. Not until extensive pressure by the US and the international community did all 3 have to withdraw and Nasser basically got his wish. Became a hero.

Here in lies the problem is that ever since then, Egypt has been fractured in so many ways, internally, economically and by the need to get full control of Sinai back after 1967. The fact that Sadat started the 1973 war only 6 years after it's invasion and basically won it (I know we can argue that till the cows come home,) he knew that no matter what happens from here on, Israel was going to be backed up by the largest superpower in the world. He chose not to fight anymore because he knew he would be basically fighting a superpower. He chose peace to get the land back. He paid for that peace with his life as we all know it. Then came Mubarak with his vaunted corruption and not much of a need to improve Egypt's interior and essentials (except for some highways etc.) but not much for the sake of its people. So now there was this internal struggle between the people and the government while the military made sure it was under its own jurisdiction and completely separated from any other governmental institution. As the years passed, Israel did it's thing and with the Palestinian conflict which is still presently going on and all Egypt could do was put political pressure and dissatisfaction to the point where it has fragmented the peace treaty which was never blessed by most of the other Arab and majority Muslim countries to begin with. The compilation of the two along with all the restrictions the peace treaty imposed on the Egyptian military's control of the peninsula has put it in a very difficult position. This has alienated the Egyptian people even more from Israel and even from some of our Arab friends whom some have slowly come around, even if it is partial. But many have continued to dislike us for making peace with Israel. Many chose that we would not accept the PT and keep fighting but we were in no position to do that. Russia was not going to back us up like the US would Israel. This, slowly and through many years brought about the 2011 revolution and the rising from of the Egyptian MB from obscurity. Then when we have the first, democratically elected president, who wins? Morsi! A figurehead and puppet of the MB. I personally knew along with many other Egyptians that it was going to be a disaster. Then Sissi accomplishes his coup, has "elections" and becomes the most powerful man in Egypt today. But we still have all the interior problems that started from 1956 and on but add the level of the people who do not approve of the PT but recognize it needs to abide by it but there is a large desire for there to not have a friendship and economic partnership with Israel that has grown through the years. The coup brought about the uprising and insurgency and fighting and killing in Sinai that the military is dealing with now and probably for a long time but it has deeply affected one of the 2 major sources of this country's economy in tourism. Not to mention the issues Egypt will have to deal with when when the dam is completed in Ethiopia.

So when you put all of that together (and there is a lot more I just didn't want to make this very long as it already is,) you can see how difficult the predicament that Egypt has been in for so long and how difficult and unpopular it would be to seek help in any manner from Israel at this point. Whether one believes it or not, this is the reality.

I, as an Egyptian can only hope that with the newly found gas fields and good cooperation with European and Asian nations and sound, economic decision making along with control of the rise of the fighting in Sinai that Egypt eventually finds prosperity. I don't think that Israel should be involved in this because the PT is fragile with the way the people feel about it. Forget about GDP and PPP and whatever. It has been EXTREMELY difficult for Egypt to prosper as a nation with it's geo-political position and the events it has had to endure for 60 years! Maybe now it can start?

1) 1956 Suez Crisis and war with Great Britain, France and Israel invading the Sinai.
2) 11 years later the war of 1967 and the devastation of our military
3) 6 years later with a new president starting a war that's argued till today as to who won it but leads to point 4
4) Re-opening of the Suez Canal and withdrawal of Israeli forces almost halfway through Sinai and eventually peace with Israel
5) The unpopularity of that treaty by most other Arab counties making us disliked by them. I see it until today
6) The restrictions on that PT especially for the military and control of Sinai
7) Sadat pays for peace with his life exposing a whole new underground movement against peace with Israel
8) Corruption and lack of care or effort for the growth of the country by Mubarak for 30 years!
9) Revolution in the streets and the unprecedented toppling of the president by the people in under a month!
10) Huge fall and major collapse in the fragile economy that sets Egypt behind financially for a long time to come and on the brink of economic failure.
12) Military takes control and tries to have democratic elections.
13) Muslim Brotherhood representative wins after all that!
14) Morsi gets deposed shortly after that by Sissi and he latter becomes president and basically the same as the Mubarak rule has returned in many ways.

So here we stand and most of us try to distract ourselves by looking at how powerful the military is becoming as a hobby and a distraction and something to talk about but the bottom line is that this country has gone through A LOT in 6 decades. I just hope people take that into consideration when discussing such an issue and I always make it a rule to try to stay away from hate and rudeness and things like that, even in disagreement. But it would be very difficult to accept any help from Israel at this point and honestly, there are many other countries capable and willing to help so why inflame the situation any more? But the history of this country's last 60 years must be taken into consideration. Cheers.

 

[Amun]

Here's the problem IMHO - Egypt has had it pretty tough since 1956. If you put all the events in order that happened since and it's not difficult to see that it started out with a war that had the UK (upset at the Nasser's decision to nationalize the Suez Canal) ending up along with France fighting a war with Israel invading the Sinai and taking control of it. Not until extensive pressure by the US and the international community did all 3 have to withdraw and Nasser basically got his wish. Became a hero.

Here in lies the problem is that ever since then, Egypt has been fractured in so many ways, internally, economically and by the need to get full control of Sinai back after 1967. The fact that Sadat started the 1973 war only 6 years after it's invasion and basically won it (I know we can argue that till the cows come home,) he knew that no matter what happens from here on, Israel was going to be backed up by the largest superpower in the world. He chose not to fight anymore because he knew he would be basically fighting a superpower. He chose peace to get the land back. He paid for that peace with his life as we all know it. Then came Mubarak with his vaunted corruption and not much of a need to improve Egypt's interior and essentials (except for some highways etc.) but not much for the sake of its people. So now there was this internal struggle between the people and the government while the military made sure it was under its own jurisdiction and completely separated from any other governmental institution. As the years passed, Israel did it's thing and with the Palestinian conflict which is still presently going on and all Egypt could do was put political pressure and dissatisfaction to the point where it has fragmented the peace treaty which was never blessed by most of the other Arab and majority Muslim countries to begin with. The compilation of the two along with all the restrictions the peace treaty imposed on the Egyptian military's control of the peninsula has put it in a very difficult position. This has alienated the Egyptian people even more from Israel and even from some of our Arab friends whom some have slowly come around, even if it is partial. But many have continued to dislike us for making peace with Israel. Many chose that we would not accept the PT and keep fighting but we were in no position to do that. Russia was not going to back us up like the US would Israel. This, slowly and through many years brought about the 2011 revolution and the rising from of the Egyptian MB from obscurity. Then when we have the first, democratically elected president, who wins? Morsi! A figurehead and puppet of the MB. I personally knew along with many other Egyptians that it was going to be a disaster. Then Sissi accomplishes his coup, has "elections" and becomes the most powerful man in Egypt today. But we still have all the interior problems that started from 1956 and on but add the level of the people who do not approve of the PT but recognize it needs to abide by it but there is a large desire for there to not have a friendship and economic partnership with Israel that has grown through the years. The coup brought about the uprising and insurgency and fighting and killing in Sinai that the military is dealing with now and probably for a long time but it has deeply affected one of the 2 major sources of this country's economy in tourism. Not to mention the issues Egypt will have to deal with when when the dam is completed in Ethiopia.

So when you put all of that together (and there is a lot more I just didn't want to make this very long as it already is,) you can see how difficult the predicament that Egypt has been in for so long and how difficult and unpopular it would be to seek help in any manner from Israel at this point. Whether one believes it or not, this is the reality.

I, as an Egyptian can only hope that with the newly found gas fields and good cooperation with European and Asian nations and sound, economic decision making along with control of the rise of the fighting in Sinai that Egypt eventually finds prosperity. I don't think that Israel should be involved in this because the PT is fragile with the way the people feel about it. Forget about GDP and PPP and whatever. It has been EXTREMELY difficult for Egypt to prosper as a nation with it's geo-political position and the events it has had to endure for 60 years! Maybe now it can start?

1) 1956 Suez Crisis and war with Great Britain, France and Israel invading the Sinai.
2) 11 years later the war of 1967 and the devastation of our military
3) 6 years later with a new president starting a war that's argued till today as to who won it but leads to point 4
4) Re-opening of the Suez Canal and withdrawal of Israeli forces almost halfway through Sinai and eventually peace with Israel
5) The unpopularity of that treaty by most other Arab counties making us disliked by them. I see it until today
6) The restrictions on that PT especially for the military and control of Sinai
7) Sadat pays for peace with his life exposing a whole new underground movement against peace with Israel
8) Corruption and lack of care or effort for the growth of the country by Mubarak for 30 years!
9) Revolution in the streets and the unprecedented toppling of the president by the people in under a month!
10) Huge fall and major collapse in the fragile economy that sets Egypt behind financially for a long time to come and on the brink of economic failure.
12) Military takes control and tries to have democratic elections.
13) Muslim Brotherhood representative wins after all that!
14) Morsi gets deposed shortly after that by Sissi and he latter becomes president and basically the same as the Mubarak rule has returned in many ways.

So here we stand and most of us try to distract ourselves by looking at how powerful the military is becoming as a hobby and a distraction and something to talk about but the bottom line is that this country has gone through A LOT in 6 decades. I just hope people take that into consideration when discussing such an issue and I always make it a rule to try to stay away from hate and rudeness and things like that, even in disagreement. But it would be very difficult to accept any help from Israel at this point and honestly, there are many other countries capable and willing to help so why inflame the situation any more? But the history of this country's last 60 years must be taken into consideration. Cheers.

I don't know if you are living in Egypt or not.....and if you ever visited Egypt between Jan25,2011 to June30,2013 or not...?!
Because your judgment will change in different aspects.
About this thread.....what Israel can offer regarding Egyptian Economy..?!
When we want Nuclear Energy power planets we went to Russia....electric power we went to SEIMENS...Oil and Gas fields ENI and BP...etc.
I know that Israel economy is stable and growing but Egyptian Economy potentials is beyond the ability of Israel.

 

[DavidSling]

I don't know if you are living in Egypt or not.....and if you ever visited Egypt between Jan25,2011 to June30,2013 or not...?!
Because your judgment will change in different aspects.
About this thread.....what Israel can offer regarding Egyptian Economy..?!
When we want Nuclear Energy power planets we went to Russia....electric power we went to SEIMENS...Oil and Gas fields ENI and BP...etc.
I know that Israel economy is stable and growing but Egyptian Economy potentials is beyond the ability of Israel.

China and Russia and the U.S are funding Israeli projects in billions, and buying firms every Tuesday and sunday, u have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Amun]

China and Russia and the U.S are funding Israeli projects in billions, and buying firms every Tuesday and sunday, u have no idea what you are talking about.

Calm down..... I know they support you to survive..... Like US military aid, German discounts on Subs and ships..etc,.
I know that all....also I know that Israel has some advanced technology in some aspects.....but no one can say that Israel can have a major role in the Egyptian Economy progress ..... That is a FACT....because as I said before...
IT IS BEYOND ISRAELI CAPABILTIES.

 

[Gomig-21]

I don't know if you are living in Egypt or not.....and if you ever visited Egypt between Jan25,2011 to June30,2013 or not...?!
Because your judgment will change in different aspects.
About this thread.....what Israel can offer regarding Egyptian Economy..?!
When we want Nuclear Energy power planets we went to Russia....electric power we went to SEIMENS...Oil and Gas fields ENI and BP...etc.
I know that Israel economy is stable and growing but Egyptian Economy potentials is beyond the ability of Israel.

I was mostly referring to the history of things in general and why it would be tough to work with Israel on any economic projects of any knid. It just hasn't been easy, that's all and while the potential is great, there is still quite a bit of adversity.