Oh, come on—you’re going against the narrative! The WaPo ends an article about Israel’s view of the Egyptian protests with this:
To Israeli officials, the unrest across the region, with Israel on the sidelines, proves an assertion that has been a point of contention with the Obama administration.
“For us it is very clear,” Yaalon said, “the core of this instability in the Middle East is not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
Let’s get serious. If Israel and the Palestinians had made peace, there would be no protests in Egypt, Yemen, or Tunisia. Jordan’s King Abdullah wouldn’t be shaking in his boots right now. (Oh, look. Protests in Jordan too, today.) This is all because there is no Palestinian state. Get with the narrative, Joel Greenberg. Your Journolist pals are going to excommunicate you.
Wow. Southern Sudan hearts Israel: Ha’aretz profiles Israel’s ties with southern Sudan going back to Levi Eshkol. Read it all. But this is the heart of the matter:
“When we are independent, we will forge relations with whomever we want to,” Lagu says. “And we still remember who our old friends are.”
It’s that common enemy thing, though they were betrayed by Ariel Sharon (according to this article), who was in turn betrayed by the northern Islamists.
Iran: It’s all about us. Shyeah. A “senior Iranian cleric” (don’t you love that title? Me, I’m a senior American blogger) says that the current unrest in the Mideast is because Arabs were inspired by the Iranian revolution. Because it’s not like they’re demanding freedom and democracy. Nope. Not at all. Cedar Revolution? Never happened. (Unfortunately, if the Muslim Brotherhood gets its way in Egypt, he’s going to wind up being right.)