OK, for years, people who claim to be my intellectual betters on foreign policy (and pretty much everything else), and particularly about the Middle East, have been telling me that the root cause of the problems in the Middle East is the “occupation” of disputed territories in the West Bank and Gaza, and that we won’t be able to make any progress without solving that issue. It is what motivates Arab anger, and animates their protests. Well, surely if this is the case, with all of the apparent anger and ongoing revolt in Cairo, we should be seeing many reports on the ground of protesters with angry signs against the Zionist entity, right? Or have I just missed them somehow?I know, I keep calling it the "Near East", but that is because if names are going to mean anything, that can't be too broadly applied.
Rand Simberg
While I don't think a successful democratic revolution in Egypt will make the Israeli and Palestinian issues go away, it will help clarify that it isn't all about Israel and Palestine.
Hat tip to Samizdata.
Regards — Cliff
1 comment:
The existence of other issues surely does not invalidate any particular question at hand. By this logic, the opposition of certain colonial farmers to the tax unfairnesses beset upon them by their local merchant class couldn't possibly have prompted the Shays Rebellion right after the Revolutionary War. (Or vice versa).
It's possible for many things to be wrong, and for many things to foment unrest. Rand Simberg would seem to have badly confused his agendae here.
Post a Comment