23 replies to this topic

[Kafkaesque]

http://rt.com/usa/ne...nai-israel-435/

"Israel and Palestine are momentarily at a ceasefire, but the potential reasoning behind the recess could have some real international implications. Israel’s Debka reports that the pause in fighting comes after the US promised to send troops to Sinai.

According to Debka, US troops will soon be en route to the Sinai peninsula, Egyptian territory in North Africa that’s framed by the Suez Canal on the West and Israel on the East. In its northeast most point, Sinai is but a stone’s throw from Palestinian-controlled Gaza, and according to Debka, Hamas fighters there have been relying on Iranian arms smugglers to supply them with weaponry by way of Egypt.

Debka reports this week that Sinai will soon be occupied by US troops, who were promised by President Barack Obama to Israel’s leaders as a condition that a ceasefire be called. Once deployed, the Americans will intervene with the rumored arms trade orchestrated by Iranians, ideally cutting off supplies for Hamas while at the same time serving as a thorn in the side of Iran."

[The New Richard Nixon]

Um you do realise that Russia Today is anti American?

[QuiteContrary]

That would be an awfully bold and antagonizing move right now.
I do not see it as a Clinton/Obama or is that Obama/Clinton move.
But then again, I quit betting on politician's choices years ago.

Edited by QuiteContrary, 23 November 2012 - 10:09 PM.

[Marks_Thoughts]

Supposing that this is true, and US soldiers are deployed, what will be our response when and if a large contingent of those soldiers are attacked and perhaps killed? There has to be some serious thought about this because it could come from either Iranian or Egyptian sponsors, but would necessarily take place on what is now Egyptian territory. If the security situation is not handled any better than what we saw in Benghazi and at some 20 other diplomatic missions on 09/11/2012 this is going to be a huge point.
I don't see it happening. The House would be crazy to approve the funding for this - remember that all spending bills must originate and come out of the House first.

[Kafkaesque]

The New Richard Nixon, on 23 November 2012 - 09:44 PM, said:

Um you do realise that Russia Today is anti American?

But it's still a fact Obama's moving troops.

[meryt-tetisheri]

If this is true, then it would explain a lot of what is going on in Egypt now. Has a deal been struck, turning a blind eye to a new dictatorship in exchange for the presence of troops in Sinai; and for how long? Instead of occupying Sinai, if Obama is serious about stemming the flow of arms to Hamas, he should take a sterner stand with their main supporters or rather their "headquarters" in Cairo.

[Corp]

All depends on how many troops are involved, if the report is accurate. Doesn't look like anyone else is reporting on this.

[meryt-tetisheri]

Corp, on 23 November 2012 - 11:01 PM, said:

All depends on how many troops are involved, if the report is accurate. Doesn't look like anyone else is reporting on this.

This is not the kind of thing that can remain secret for long, but if true, it will shred any remaining credibility of Mursi and MB. He will come to be regarded as a dictator and a traitor.

[Kafkaesque]

Well, let's look at the sequence of events..

1. The US has been pressing sanctions against Iran for a while now. Obama and Romney were similar on the foreign policy against Iran. The UN has been all over Iran.
2. Violence erupted between Palestine and Israel, not that any of us are surprised.
3. A ceasefire was reached with the help of President Morsy of Egypt and Secretary of State Clinton of the US.
4. President Morsy proclaimed expanded centralized presidential powers that override the Judicial branch of Egypt until a new Constitution can be created, which may be a 6 month time period.
5. Obama made an agreement with President Morsy of Egypt and President Netanyahu of Israel to place US troops in Egyptian-territory for several reasons

* As a condition of the Israel/Palestine ceasefire
* To disrupt the arming of Hamas by Iran
* To have another foothold to further surround Iran with US military bases in the region
* To back up Israel in case Iran is extremely aggressive

In a way, it makes sense Morsy proclaimed his new powers directly after the conditions of the ceasefire were announced, after Clinton visited, and after the Obama negotiated terms. The US seems to be sponsoring the new temporary Egyptian dictatorship so Egypt won't attack the US in a possible US/Israel vs Iran/Hamas conflict; on top of giving the US a strategic position extremely close to the proximity of Israel's border.

Edited by Drayno, 24 November 2012 - 12:16 AM.

[lightly]

Drayno, on 23 November 2012 - 11:57 PM, said:

Well, let's look at the sequence of events..

1. The US has been pressing sanctions against Iran for a while now. Obama and Romney were similar on the foreign policy against Iran. The UN has been all over Iran.
2. Violence erupted between Palestine and Israel, not that any of us are surprised.
3. A ceasefire was reached with the help of President Morsy of Egypt and Secretary of State Clinton of the US.
4. President Morsy proclaimed expanded centralized presidential powers that override the Judicial branch of Egypt until a new Constitution can be created, which may be a 6 month time period.
5. Obama made an agreement with President Morsy of Egypt and President Netanyahu of Israel to place US troops in Egyptian-territory for several reasons

* As a condition of the Israel/Palestine ceasefire
* To disrupt the arming of Hamas by Iran
* To have another foothold to further surround Iran with US military bases in the region
* To back up Israel in case Iran is extremely aggressive

In a way, it makes sense Morsy proclaimed his new powers directly after the conditions of the ceasefire were announced, after Clinton visited, and after the Obama negotiated terms. The US seems to be sponsoring the new temporary Egyptian dictatorship so Egypt won't attack the US in a possible US/Israel vs Iran/Hamas conflict; on top of giving the US a strategic position extremely close to the proximity of Israel's border.

[meryt-tetisheri]

Drayno, on 23 November 2012 - 11:57 PM, said:

Well, let's look at the sequence of events..

In a way, it makes sense Morsy proclaimed his new powers directly after the conditions of the ceasefire were announced, after Clinton visited, and after the Obama negotiated terms. The US seems to be sponsoring the new temporary Egyptian dictatorship so Egypt won't attack the US in a possible US/Israel vs Iran/Hamas conflict; on top of giving the US a strategic position extremely close to the proximity of Israel's border.

In the meanwhile, Mursi would have been able to pass and enforce an unrepresentative, corrupt, and divisive Wahhabi constitution which would not only relegate women, as well as all ethnic and religious minorities to second class citizen status, but also grant him and his organization unlimited power. All parties except the MB and the Salafis withdrew from the constitutional assembly because it would catapult Egypt to the middle ages for decades to come. Are the liberty and welfare of 90 million so easily shrugged off as 'collateral damage'? I find it shocking and astounding that the US is sounding its concern for democracy, women, and minorities while laying the plans for entrapping them.

There will be nothing 'temporary' about an Islamist dictatorship which is aiming for a Caliphate; and yet the US is enabling and empowering an organization that is bound to turn on it in the future...shooting itself in the foot? This is, once again, an ill thought out strategy based on short-term, half-baked vision!  Your post is an eye-opener.

[and then]

Corp, on 23 November 2012 - 11:01 PM, said:

All depends on how many troops are involved, if the report is accurate. Doesn't look like anyone else is reporting on this.

DEBKA is notorious for being wrong.  But if it is true then it sets some soldiers up for being targeted by terror groups just like in Benghazi so I guess I wouldn't be overly surprised.  As you said - how many troops?  To do the job in a place that large it would take thousands just to patrol effectively and have a degree of security while doing so.  Will it be multinational?  Many questions and this is the first I've heard of it - no US news that I've seen mentioning it.  If true it's like begging to be brought into direct confrontation in the Palestinian/Israeli mess with Egypt and possibly even Syria thrown in for good measure - big mistake.

[Harte]

meryt-tetisheri, on 24 November 2012 - 03:05 AM, said:

There will be nothing 'temporary' about an Islamist dictatorship which is aiming for a Caliphate

Similar comments could have been made concerning their previous government.

I don't recall Mubarak being considered as "temporary" either.  But he was.

The Egyptians are already back out in Tarhir Square over Morsi's recent "promotion" to a dictatorial position with say so over the judiciary.

The people of Egypt have a government in mind, and it ain't the Muslim Brotherhood.

IMO, it's possible the Egyptians will largely handle their own problems.  It's also possible that the same thing might happen in Iran.

And the story in the OP?  I'm not buying it today.

Harte

[Kafkaesque]

meryt-tetisheri, on 24 November 2012 - 03:05 AM, said:

In the meanwhile, Mursi would have been able to pass and enforce an unrepresentative, corrupt, and divisive Wahhabi constitution which would not only relegate women, as well as all ethnic and religious minorities to second class citizen status, but also grant him and his organization unlimited power. All parties except the MB and the Salafis withdrew from the constitutional assembly because it would catapult Egypt to the middle ages for decades to come. Are the liberty and welfare of 90 million so easily shrugged off as 'collateral damage'? I find it shocking and astounding that the US is sounding its concern for democracy, women, and minorities while laying the plans for entrapping them.

There will be nothing 'temporary' about an Islamist dictatorship which is aiming for a Caliphate; and yet the US is enabling and empowering an organization that is bound to turn on it in the future...shooting itself in the foot? This is, once again, an ill thought out strategy based on short-term, half-baked vision!  Your post is an eye-opener.

Egypt and Israel have a messy history, to say the least.

My profile quote is pretty relevant in response to your post..

"By definition, a government has no conscience. Sometimes it has a policy, but nothing more." - Albert Camus

[meryt-tetisheri]

Harte, on 24 November 2012 - 03:22 AM, said:

Similar comments could have been made concerning their previous government.

I don't recall Mubarak being considered as "temporary" either.  But he was.

The Egyptians are already back out in Tarhir Square over Morsi's recent "promotion" to a dictatorial position with say so over the judiciary.

The people of Egypt have a government in mind, and it ain't the Muslim Brotherhood.

IMO, it's possible the Egyptians will largely handle their own problems.  It's also possible that the same thing might happen in Iran.

And the story in the OP?  I'm not buying it today.

Harte

As an Egyptian I can tell you that I sincerely hope and wish this story is wrong, but it seems to explain why the US had always maintained 'friendly' contact with the MB even before the fall of Mubarak, why Tantawy choice of the MB legislator to chart the first referendum even though there are many others who are more capable, the visit of an MB delegation to Washington during the early days of the revolution, the speed of Clinton's negative reaction to the dissolution of the MB majority parliament and Mursi's subsequent failed (and illegal) attempt to override the court decree...Is it a coincidence that every time she visits the area Mursi immediately attempts to usurp more power? That the MB has been backed by the US is something all Egyptians are sure of, even before the last crisis.

The Egyptian people are not only back in Tahrir, but also in Alexandria, Suez, Benha, Damanhour, Qena, Assiut...some offices of the MB have been burned down; they are the X factor that was forgotten. The kind of government they have in mind is a moderate liberal one that respects and protects the rights of all, and they are entitled to that.

Edited to add that the difference between Mubarak's regime and the MB is the use of religion. Not only did they represent themselves as the sole spokesmen of Islam, but they represent any opposition as being anti-Islam: "if you are a believer, you support us; if you disagree with us, you are 'kafir' and anti-Islam".  What they are trying to pass in the constitution is the sunni version of wellayet al faqih.

Edited by meryt-tetisheri, 24 November 2012 - 04:19 AM.