Egyptian Struggle-Updates and Discussions

[Solomon2]

For instance if Israel was located in Europe and pursued the same policies that they are doing currently they would not be allowed to join the EU. Simply because they would not be qualified for that.

The post-WWI and post-WWII policy of Europe was that empires are bad and their nationalities would be divided into nation-states. The Mandate of Palestine, however, held that rather than compelled migration Jews should be encouraged to "closely settle" Palestine while Arabs should respect Jewish communities elsewhere.

What happened is that the Arabs kicked the Jews out of countries outside Palestine and demanded Palestine as well while the Jews of Palestine were compelled to live with this somewhat-antagonistic population intermingled and in close quarters. So if Israel was to follow the European example it would have to kick the Arabs out of Palestine-mandate areas, at least until only a very small minority remained, then look around and make clucking noises about the supposed failures of others to observe human and civil rights among their minority groups.

As we've discussed before, Saudi Arabia kicked the Jews out of territory it conquered from Yemen after WWII. Just for being Jews.

Note that the places in Europe where nationalities remained intermingled after WWI became the flashpoints or rallying cries for future wars: Danzig, the Saarland, the Sudentenland, Trieste, Yugoslavia, etc. By contrast, there are no more conflicts between Germans and Poles in Breslau because the Germans aren't there anymore, or between Danes and Germans because the Danes yielded Schleswig to Germany, or between Czechs and Germans, etc. etc.

 

[al-Hasani]

You're right but bare in mind that it was difficult to organise elections for illiterate peasants in 1880's for example.We had a system in which people who paid a certain amount of taxes could vote.If i'm not mistaken general vote was allowed right after WW1.And yes,there was no absolute monarch,even from the official establishment of Romania in 1859,the "Prince"(kingship was established in 1881) couldn't make decizions without his ministers and Parliament.

So you see,we have 155 years of modern Romania,42 of them=totalitarian communimn,3 yeasr-totalitarian regime of king Carol the Second,3 years-totalitarian regime of General Antonescu,107 years=Democracy.Democracy wins by a long shot,just that communism was more recent,so people get stuck in it.

Yes. I mean without talking badly about South Asia then a part of the lack of progress etc. is bound in the fact that such a big percentage of the people are still illiterate and not contributing to the economy due to poverty etc. That's why India's system of rule is not functioning as well as it should have and why I personally believe that they would be better off with a system similar to the one the Chinese have.

In the ME or the GCC the problem is not illiteracy (98% of all people can read and write as of 2014) but more the fact that people are getting pampered. They live in welfare states with high infrastructure, all modern necessities, have higher GDP per capita than the average in EU, don't pay taxes, live in countries with very low crime levels, no wars in a otherwise unstable region (ME). etc. The only thing that is required is for the regimes (in this case monarchs) to rule according to Islam (of course the rules apply differently to them on some instances) and they will have most of the peoples support or at least the older generations.

In previous years and throughout Arab history most people were rather independent (personal independence has a long history in the Arab world) but again religion was an important tool and in old times only a minority of people had any power like everywhere else.

I think that UAE has shown the light for many GCC countries. Hell Singapore is not a bad role model on the short round either.

@Solomon2

Cousin I really don't bother today.

 

[Solomon2]

More to the point: if democratic values aren't widespread you can't have a democracy. In the extreme case, in a society without a moral foundation at some level of loving your neighbor rather than being purely selfish the only possible government is dictatorship where values are imposed - by compulsion - from above. If I recall my history correctly, America's Founding Fathers realized this, saying that they were not so perfect as to think the Republic could work unless Americans had a good moral foundation.

 

[al-Hasani]

More to the point: if democratic values aren't widespread you can't have a democracy. In the extreme case, in a society without a moral foundation at some level of loving your neighbor rather than being purely selfish the only possible government is dictatorship where values are imposed - by compulsion - from above. If I recall my history correctly, America's Founding Fathers realized this, saying that they were not so perfect as to think the Republic could work unless Americans had a good moral foundation.

Pun aside then that's correct.

Just out of pure curiosity are you Americans taught that part of history in schools regarding the Founding Fathers?

 

[Steve781]

Pun aside then that's correct.

Just out of pure curiosity are you Americans taught that part of history in schools regarding the Founding Fathers?

Say, pardon me!