| ▲ | slibhb 19 hours ago |
| Virtually all Arabs hate Israel but Arab governments are more varied. The modern Egyptian state is oriented toward close partnership with the US, and a large part of that was peace with Israel post '73. So yes, the UAE could align with both. |
|
| ▲ | shykes 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > Virtually all Arabs hate Israel This is true, but Emiratis are a notable exception. The UAE may be the only Arab country where Jews are not only allowed to live, but can do so safely without fearing either their neighbors or their government. For example, last year when a rabbi was murdered, the Emirati government reacted forcefully and made a point to sentence the perpetrators to death. Note, the perpetrators were not Emiratis. > The modern Egyptian state is oriented toward close partnership with the US, and a large part of that was peace with Israel post '73. While also true, the relationship between Israel and Egypt has been tense lately. They are at peace, and the border is stable. And economic integration is tightening, for example with the recent $35B gas deal [1]. So it's plausible that UAE could align with both, as you say. But at the same time, it's just as plausible that this alignment will become increasingly complicated for geopolitical reasons. As Israel grows stronger in the region, Egypt seems to have adopted a strategy of indirectly undermining them. For example, Egypt's handling of the Gaza war has indicated that they were playing a double game - openly containing Hamas, while covertly allowing them to grow stronger. When the IDF captured Rafah in 2024, they uncovered massive smuggling tunnels under the Egypt-Gaza border, which could not possibly have been unknown to Egypt. Sisi is also known for having cracked down on the Muslim Brotherhood domestically, as they were his primary political rival. But externally, he has shown a willingness to support them as a tool to weaken his rivals, including Israel. This is a dangerous game which could easily backfire. One more example: just this week Egypt is conducting a live fire military exercise 100m from the Israel border - a deliberate decision that is escalating tensions. [2] [1] https://www.egyptindependent.com/all-you-need-to-know-about-... [2] https://defencesecurityasia.com/en/egypt-live-fire-drills-is... |
| |
| ▲ | myth_drannon 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | By the way that's just Qatari propaganda meant to put a wedge between Israel and Egypt. Qatar(Muslim Brotherhood) hates Egypt (that cracked down on MB) and hates Israel. They paid Netanyahu's advisors to push those lies about Egypt's double game and the cross border tunnels. Netanyahu the clown he is, "leaked" those lies to journalists. Qatar also paid Haaretz journalist to push those lies.
The current situation with Egypt is good. They need to pretend to be somewhat cold to satisfy the hostile to Israel population, but there is cooperation and good relationship. | | |
| ▲ | shykes 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | I did notice that Al-Jazeera was actively covering this issue. So your explanation would make sense. What about the military exercise though? Al-Jazeera is eagerly covering it, but it is in fact happening... I'm thinking that two things can be true at once - Egypt sees Israel as a "soft rival" and will undermine it when it can, without risking the peace itself; and Qatar is actively trying to put a wedge between them. No? (thanks for the thoughtful discussion). | | |
| ▲ | myth_drannon 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | The military exercises too, just pure nonsense. Sinai peninsula has complicated security issues that they are trying to control. Egypt depends on Israel for cheap gas and really there is no indication whatsoever for any attempts to undermine. They do exercise soft power and play regional games. Egypt had and has very good leadership (with Sadat being the greatest modern leader in the middle east). |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | ifwinterco 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Various Arab states maintain this balancing act between a virulently anti-Israel population and a US-aligned (in most cases, US-installed) regime that’s tacitly okay with the existence of Israel. It’s actually surprising it’s achievable for so long but in the long term doesn’t feel stable given the direction things are headed |
| |
| ▲ | slibhb 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Which Arab regimes, today, are "US installed"? Iraq is the only plausible answer. As far as stability, I don't know. My view is that Arab democracies are unstable because they will elect Islamists. Dictatorship/monarchy has proven far more stable. Syria is trying to buck the trend; we'll see how it goes. | | |
| ▲ | ifwinterco 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Maybe more accurate to say “Western-installed” although generally I don’t like grouping Europe and the US together as some coherent entity in this case it’s probably accurate. All of the Gulf monarchies as well as Jordan are essentially western creations that were created as states mostly by the British and then heavily reinforced by the US from the 70s onwards | |
| ▲ | oa335 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Arab democracies are unstable because they will elect Islamists. why does that imply instability? | | |
| ▲ | slibhb 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Fundamentalists tend not to be pragmatists. | | |
| ▲ | oa335 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | i don't think you know much about islamist parties and are just grasping for reasons to justify suppressing democracy in certain places. ennahada (tunisia), pks (indonesia), jui (pakistan) are all examples of islamist parties that have compromised or reached across
the aisle at various points
just off the top of my head. besides, isn't the point of democracy to allow people to be led by those who represent their principles? if they are in power, why should the majority expect their elected
leaders to compromise
those principles? |
| |
| ▲ | troad 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Because every Islamic theocracy to date has been profoundly destabilising for its neighbours and the world, and always ends up imprisoning and immiserating its own people. No one wants more Irans or Afghanistans. (Or Saudi Arabias, though that's not said out loud as often.) | | |
| ▲ | oa335 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | but neither Saudi Arabia nor Afghanistan's leaders were voted in ... and secular/socialist/monarchic dictatorships have arguably worse effects on their neighbors and citizens - e.g. Saddam, Assad, Nasser, MBZ in UAE, MBS | | |
| ▲ | troad 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, there are a lot of bad options in the Middle East; Islamic theocracy has no monopoly on awfulness. I think the broader point is that a democracy is unstable when the electorate just votes for their favourite warlord / cleric, who promptly ends / rigs any further elections. In the Middle East, there appears to be a pattern of electorates voting for / staging a revolution in favour of Islamists, which either leads to a terrible Islamist regime, or leads to an elite coup, which of course destroys the democracy in the process. Worst case scenario all of this happens at once in different places, and you get a terrible civil war. Democracy is great, but it requires an electorate that actually wants to sustain and retain a democracy. Those appear to be few and far in between. | | |
| ▲ | oa335 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > In the Middle East, there appears to be a pattern of electorates voting for / staging a revolution in favour of Islamists, which either leads to a terrible Islamist regime, or leads to an elite coup, which of course destroys the democracy in the process. that pattern is hardly unique to middle east/islamists though. look at central/south america. guatemala, chile, brazil etc all had democracies overthrown by "elite" coups. like almost every instance in the
middle east, there is actually a common denominator between these coups... resistance to the US-led order magically seems to invite instability. | | |
| ▲ | troad 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | That seems rather Whataboutist to me. I never claimed this only ever happens in the Middle East. We are, however, talking about the Middle East, so local examples would seem apposite. You seem to desire to make this conversation so abstract that it becomes about nothing. > resistance to the US-led order magically seems to invite instability Or perhaps 'resistance' is an awfully popular rallying cry for demagogues who bring instability, and the US is just the hegemon du jour. "It's the US' fault your crops are wilting! And international capital! And immigrants! And, oh, I don't know, the gays, why not. Rise up for El Generalissimo! Enlist your sons in the blood struggle, that will definitely improve things!" /s Much sexier to be a revolutionary fighting shadowy foreign forces than to actually fix any of your own problems. No, no, tomorrow's problems will be America's fault too. | | |
| ▲ | oa335 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I never claimed this only ever happens in the Middle East. you said > Arab democracies are unstable because they will elect Islamists. whereas my claim is that governments (democracies or not) that run afoul of their local hegemon tend to have a short shelf life. this is not unique to US hegemony. see: Brezhnev doctrine (USSR), or the canonical example of Athens and Melos from Peloponnesian war > Rise up for El Generalissimo! Enlist your sons in the blood struggle, that will definitely improve things!" /s
Much sexier to be a revolutionary fighting shadowy foreign forces than to actually fix any of your own problems. No, no, tomorrow's problems will be America's fault too. I'm sorry, you seem triggered by this discussion, it doesn't seem productive to continue on my end. | | |
| ▲ | nixon_why69 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Real heads know that the strong do what they can while the weak suffer what they must. | | |
| ▲ | oa335 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | lol yes exactly. Realism has more way explanatory power in geopolitics than idealism. Idealist explanations are typically incoherent (e.g.
above thread). |
| |
| ▲ | troad 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I'm sorry, you seem triggered by this discussion, it doesn't seem productive to continue on my end. I suppose shall have to make do without 101-level instruction in Chomskyian anti-Imperialism, woven through with whataboutism and international conspiracies. > whereas my claim is that governments (democracies or not) that run afoul of their local hegemon tend to have a short shelf life. this is not unique to US hegemony. Wow, big if true. Someone let Iran know. How many trillions of dollars and gallons of blood did the US expend to make Afghanistan non-Taliban, or Vietnam non-Communist? And who rules Afghanistan and Vietnam today? You mention the Brezhnev doctrine, and yet literally not one of these countries is Russian-aligned today. The Russian invasion of Afghanistan failed just as hard as the British and American ones, all at the height of those respective countries' powers. Not very powerful, these alleged hegemons. My overall point is that the Middle East (and Latin America, etc) has many local issues (e.g. corruption, misgovernance, sectarianism, organised crime), and an unhelpful habit of blaming some ill-defined global hegemony for misfortunes that are readily explicable as the consequences of these local phenomena. The US is no innocent lamb, but it does no service to the people of any of these regions to pretend that another hundred years of anti-Imperialist rhetoric will somehow bring benefits that the previous hundred years did not. In these countries, this brand of tired anti-Imperialism is a figleaf for authoritarians. In the West, it is masturbatory politics for a certain type of narcissistic Westerner with a saviour complex, who fundamentally believes only Westerners have agency in the world, and everyone else are just motes of dust floating in the West's shadow. It's this confluence that results in absolute travesties like Chomsky supporting the Khmer Rouge, a far greater evil than all the worst allegations against America stacked together. If you want to help the Middle East, get involved in civil society building efforts that help bridge the gap between sectarian communities; support charitable and poverty relief efforts that are not affiliated to the Muslim Brotherhood; get involved in civil rights advocacy on behalf of the oppressed in the Middle East (women, LGBT communities, religious and ethnic minorities, the list goes on); partake in initiatives aimed at tackling corruption, organised crime, etc. Or at the very least encourage and support the people who do these things, rather than regurgitating half-remembered anti-Imperialist tropes from your polsci 101 class, as though that were a contribution of any value whatsoever. The one thing that will absolutely not help them, at all, is more meandering, false narratives about how they have no agency in the face of shadowy global hegemons, and how should just lie down and wait impassively for some sort of new, more just world to be given to them by their Western betters. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | nkmnz 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | cma 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If they join a religion that isn't on the state approved list, they can't get married there and hard or extra expensive to get buried. There are some limits on religious freedom. | | |
| ▲ | dlubarov 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They can just get married abroad. There are even online ceremonies now. A decent number of Israeli Jews have to do that as well, since Israel recognizes Jewish marriages only under orthodox rabbis. Some Israeli Jews are not even considered Jews under strict orthodox rules. | | |
| ▲ | cma 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > They can just get married abroad. They don't have to if they are one of the approved religions. That's a restriction on religious freedom. > since Israel recognizes Jewish marriages only under orthodox rabbis I don't get how is this evidence of religious freedom. | | |
| ▲ | wolvoleo 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | And religion and marriage really shouldn't have anything to do with one another. Atheists can marry too. | | |
| ▲ | nkmnz 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | They can. It’s called a civil union. Complaining about marriage laws in Israel in this uninformed way is just an antisemite dog whistle. | | |
| ▲ | wolvoleo 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | A civil union is not the same as a marriage. And I'm not just talking about Israel. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | IAmBroom 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | So, not a religiously free state, as OP said. |
| |
| ▲ | nkmnz 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That’s a lie. You can form a civil union, which is very similar to the religious marriage. On the other hand, does Hamas recognise a Jewish marriage? | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | > You can form a civil union, which is very similar to the religious marriage. Yeah, we tried "separate but equal" here too. > On the other hand, does Hamas recognise a Jewish marriage? Being the good guys is about more than being "second worst". | | |
| ▲ | nkmnz 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | You might be surprised, but a civil union is the only legally binding form of marriage in many countries, e.g. Germany. The Churches - even though they are state churches - aren’t even allowed to provide a wedding ceremony if the civil union hasn’t been performed beforehand. Which different legal provisions do you think make the „religious marriage“ vs. „civil union“ morally equal to „separate but equal“? > Being the good guys is about more than being "second worst". If you cannot think about any group that’s not as bad as Hamas, but worse than Israel, I‘m happy to help… just ask! | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | > You might be surprised, but a civil union is the only legally binding form of marriage in many countries, e.g. Germany. That's great. That's not Israel's setup. > If you cannot think about any group that’s not as bad as Hamas, but worse than Israel, I‘m happy to help… just ask! "Others are worse" is not the moral standard one should aspire to, either. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | watwut 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Arabs dont have equal standing and treatment in israel. Also, Israel is increasingly far right and best estimate is less rights in the future. | | |
| ▲ | perpetualpear 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There are 2 million muslim, mostly arab, citizens who are officially and legally equal to jews. They are distinct from the arabs in Gaza or the west bank, who are not citizens. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Penalty_for_Terrorists_L... > The law imposes the death penalty on persons convicted of fatal terrorist attacks. In military courts, the death penalty is the "default"; only Palestinians are tried. In civilian courts, both Israelis and Palestinians are tried, but the law applies only to those who "'intentionally cause the death of a person with the aim of denying the existence of the State of Israel'—a definition designed to exclude Jewish terrorists". It therefore "effectively enshrines capital punishment for Palestinians alone". And to preempt the "but that's Palestinians, not Israeli Arabs" bit, nope: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terms_for_Palestinian_citizens... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel lists all sorts of other smaller inequities: > In 2005, the Follow-Up Committee for Arab Education said that the Israeli government spent an average of $192 a year on Arab students compared to $1,100 for Jewish students. > In the 2002 budget, Israel's health ministry allocated Arab communities less than 1% of its 277 m-shekel (£35m) budget (1.6 m shekels {£200,000}) to develop healthcare facilities. | | |
| ▲ | perpetualpear 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't think I implied they are not discriminated. But they do, generally, enjoy the same rights. I just thought to correct what I perceive as factually incorrect. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | These are explicit government actions, not random civilians doing discrimination. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | nkmnz 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I agree that we should hold Israel to highest standards (which are, unfortunately, eroded especially by the US, these days). Nevertheless, you should always ask yourselves: would you prefer being an gay Arab in Tel Aviv or a gay Jew in Gaza? |
|
|