With the blessing of Israel:
JERUSALEM - Egypt has sent a large shipment of weapons through Israeli territory to shore up forces loyal to the embattled Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, Israeli security officials said Thursday — an extraordinary show of support by both countries for his efforts to renew peacemaking with Israel.
The Haaretz daily meanwhile reported that "a load of 2,000 Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifles as well as 20,000 cartridge clips and two million bullets were transferred to Fatah's armed groups in the Gaza Strip, in coordination with the Israeli army."
The paper said the arms had been transported by a convoy of four trucks from Egypt into Israel vie the Kerem Shalom crossing point to the south of the Gaza Strip, and had then been taken to the Karni crossing further north where they were received by Palestinian Authority security services loyal to Abbas.
So we have arms from Egypt to Fatah on the surface in a convoy of trucks and we have arms going from Egypt to Hamas through tunnels.
And we have a conflict between Fatah and Hamas! I think it is safe to predict that the weapon dealing business in Egypt is about to flourish.
Hell it should at least be good for the economy.
Waldorf
Thursday, December 28, 2006
No veils in shops, say Pune jewellers
Why? Well women were using burqa as cover to steal jewellery:
Pune: Pune's jewellery shops are becoming off-limits for burqa-clad customers in the New Year.
The Jeweller's Association has decided to debar them from the shops as even tight security, including use of close circuit cameras, failed to stop a rise in thefts. The association says only those who don't cover their faces can shop for jewellery.
And it really worked:
But police says jewellery shop thefts have gone down drastically in Pune. As against 39 cases last year, only 25 jewellery shop thefts were reported this year. Burqa-clad women were involved in not more than five of them. Yet, police says it won't intervene.
And sure enough Muslim women were not happy about this:
Meanwhile, Muslim women, not surprisingly, are expressing outrage at the move of the jewelers.
Making out a single solution or pointing out fingers at some people is not right. There are surely other solutions - like they have CCTVs. They can have more people to look after burqa-clad people. They can't ask us to remove are veil if we are comfortable with it, says a resident of Pune, Muntaha Khan.
BTW Pune is in India where 35% of the population are Muslims.
Waldorf
Pune: Pune's jewellery shops are becoming off-limits for burqa-clad customers in the New Year.
The Jeweller's Association has decided to debar them from the shops as even tight security, including use of close circuit cameras, failed to stop a rise in thefts. The association says only those who don't cover their faces can shop for jewellery.
And it really worked:
But police says jewellery shop thefts have gone down drastically in Pune. As against 39 cases last year, only 25 jewellery shop thefts were reported this year. Burqa-clad women were involved in not more than five of them. Yet, police says it won't intervene.
And sure enough Muslim women were not happy about this:
Meanwhile, Muslim women, not surprisingly, are expressing outrage at the move of the jewelers.
Making out a single solution or pointing out fingers at some people is not right. There are surely other solutions - like they have CCTVs. They can have more people to look after burqa-clad people. They can't ask us to remove are veil if we are comfortable with it, says a resident of Pune, Muntaha Khan.
BTW Pune is in India where 35% of the population are Muslims.
Waldorf
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Sinai is not part of Egypt!
So first we have MPs in the Egyptian Parliament claiming Eilat is part of Egypt.
And now this article is claiming that the whole of Sinai was never part of Egypt anyway:
The Egyptians who raise the matter of Eilat are skating on thin ice. For the Sinai, which Egypt has convinced the world is historically part of its domain, was always a corpus separatum.
How many of you have ever seen the map, reproduced in the Diaries of Colonel Meinertzhagen, that show how much of the Sinai became Egyptian only in the 1920s? Egypt had no historic or legal title to the Sinai except that provided by Great Britain. Britain was perfectly willing to diminish unilaterally the territory intended for the Mandate for Palestine by lopping off all of historic Palestine east of the river Jordan. It was also perfectly willing to curry favor with Egypt, at the very moment when the British who had come under Lord Cromer to improve the civil service were leaving, by handing over the Sinai to an Egypt that had never before been thought entitled to it.
So why did the Israelis hand back Sinai after the camp David treaty? ahh well they were so helpless and Naive and could not resist the immense pressure put by Jimmy Carter (who by the way turned out to be antisemitic!!)
This was not an argument that was made by the Israelis at Camp David. They were beaten about by Jimmy Carter, who was the same Carter then as he his now. At the time, however, all kinds of Jewish leaders were falling all over themselves praising the antisemitic Carter as a veritable prince of peace.
So who should claim Sinai then? Well either I'm a bit slow or the author doesn't really say it out loud but rather implies that it should be to Israel!!
OK this is just bogus, so what if Sinai was never part of Egypt and was handed by the Britts in 1920, wasn't the same story for the state of Israel in 1948?
And if that was the case why the hell did the Egyptians claimed Taba, a part of Sinai that was still under Israeli control until 1989 through an international panel of arbitrators?
Give us a break.
Waldorf
And now this article is claiming that the whole of Sinai was never part of Egypt anyway:
The Egyptians who raise the matter of Eilat are skating on thin ice. For the Sinai, which Egypt has convinced the world is historically part of its domain, was always a corpus separatum.
How many of you have ever seen the map, reproduced in the Diaries of Colonel Meinertzhagen, that show how much of the Sinai became Egyptian only in the 1920s? Egypt had no historic or legal title to the Sinai except that provided by Great Britain. Britain was perfectly willing to diminish unilaterally the territory intended for the Mandate for Palestine by lopping off all of historic Palestine east of the river Jordan. It was also perfectly willing to curry favor with Egypt, at the very moment when the British who had come under Lord Cromer to improve the civil service were leaving, by handing over the Sinai to an Egypt that had never before been thought entitled to it.
So why did the Israelis hand back Sinai after the camp David treaty? ahh well they were so helpless and Naive and could not resist the immense pressure put by Jimmy Carter (who by the way turned out to be antisemitic!!)
This was not an argument that was made by the Israelis at Camp David. They were beaten about by Jimmy Carter, who was the same Carter then as he his now. At the time, however, all kinds of Jewish leaders were falling all over themselves praising the antisemitic Carter as a veritable prince of peace.
So who should claim Sinai then? Well either I'm a bit slow or the author doesn't really say it out loud but rather implies that it should be to Israel!!
OK this is just bogus, so what if Sinai was never part of Egypt and was handed by the Britts in 1920, wasn't the same story for the state of Israel in 1948?
And if that was the case why the hell did the Egyptians claimed Taba, a part of Sinai that was still under Israeli control until 1989 through an international panel of arbitrators?
Give us a break.
Waldorf
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
On freedom of religion
I was misfortunate enough yesterday to be listening to Radio Sawa and part of their program is something called Sawa Chat where they go out on the streets and ask different people the same question to get different reactions.
Yesterday's question was "Do you believe that a person should be free to choose his own religion?"
And the answers went like this (all Egyptian people):
Man: yes any person should be free to choose based on readings and understandings of other religions but in the end one must choose Islam as it is the true religion.
Woman: Well I am lucky to be born a Muslim girl and any Muslim person should know that his religion is the true one so one should never think of changing but as for the Christians yes I think they should be free to become Muslims as it is the better religion
Man: A child is born and raised to be what his parents are, but when he becomes older he should read about all religions and be allowed to choose as long as he chooses Islam.
Me (to myself): May God have mercy on the man who doubts what he's sure of.
Waldorf
Yesterday's question was "Do you believe that a person should be free to choose his own religion?"
And the answers went like this (all Egyptian people):
Man: yes any person should be free to choose based on readings and understandings of other religions but in the end one must choose Islam as it is the true religion.
Woman: Well I am lucky to be born a Muslim girl and any Muslim person should know that his religion is the true one so one should never think of changing but as for the Christians yes I think they should be free to become Muslims as it is the better religion
Man: A child is born and raised to be what his parents are, but when he becomes older he should read about all religions and be allowed to choose as long as he chooses Islam.
Me (to myself): May God have mercy on the man who doubts what he's sure of.
Waldorf
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Bring back Eilat
The MPs in the Egyptian parliament are debating for the past two days whether Eilat the Israeli port city should belong to Egypt!!
"Eilat, or by its former name Umm Rashrash, belongs to the Palestinians," he said, representing the opinion of the Egyptian Foreign Ministry.
A-Nasser's response was meant to calm tempers in the rowdy debate in the Egyptian parliament, after dozens of opposition representatives demanded holding negotiations to have Eilat returned to Egyptian sovereignty
Significantly, in the debate among the Egyptian MPs, the experts and the Foreign Ministry officials, no mention is made of possible legitimate Israeli sovereignty of Eilat. The debate in Cairo is between two camps: the Egyptian Foreign Ministry which claims that Eilat belongs to the Palestinians, and the opposition MPs who claim that Eilat belongs to Egypt.
Hehehehe, so Eilat is either Egyptian or Palestinian.
I say flip a coin for it and the looser goes and claim Eilat from Israel!!
Waldorf
"Eilat, or by its former name Umm Rashrash, belongs to the Palestinians," he said, representing the opinion of the Egyptian Foreign Ministry.
A-Nasser's response was meant to calm tempers in the rowdy debate in the Egyptian parliament, after dozens of opposition representatives demanded holding negotiations to have Eilat returned to Egyptian sovereignty
Significantly, in the debate among the Egyptian MPs, the experts and the Foreign Ministry officials, no mention is made of possible legitimate Israeli sovereignty of Eilat. The debate in Cairo is between two camps: the Egyptian Foreign Ministry which claims that Eilat belongs to the Palestinians, and the opposition MPs who claim that Eilat belongs to Egypt.
Hehehehe, so Eilat is either Egyptian or Palestinian.
I say flip a coin for it and the looser goes and claim Eilat from Israel!!
Waldorf
Saturday, December 23, 2006
The "Angered upon" and the "Led astray"
I recently came across this:
Nevertheless, the idea that Christian belief and observance is illegitimate is deeply rooted within Islam. The Islamic prophet Muhammad composed for the Muslims a brief prayer, known as the Fatiha (Opening), that became the cornerstone of Muslim prayer (it is recited seventeen times a day by the Muslim who performs the five daily prayers) and the first sura of the Qur’an:
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds,
The Beneficent, the Merciful.
Master of the Day of Judgment,
Thee (alone) we worship; Thee (alone) we ask for help.
Show us the straight path,
The path of those whom Thou hast favoured;
Not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray. (Qur’an 1:1-7)
Even this, which has a status among Muslims analogous to the centrality of the Lord’s Prayer for Christians, has a polemical edge. Traditionally Muslim divines have identified those who have earned Allah’s anger with Jews and those who have gone astray with Christians. The Qur’anic commentator Ibn Kathir (1301-1372) explains that “these two paths are the paths of the Christians and Jews, a fact that the believer should be aware of so that he avoids them. The path of the believers is the knowledge of truth and abiding by it. In comparison, Jews abandoned practicing the religion, while the Christians lost the true knowledge. This is why ‘anger’ descended upon the Jews, while being described as ‘led astray’ is more appropriate of the Christians” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, vol. 1, 87).
I really can't tell if this is true or not, and if it is, do all the Muslims in the world know it I mean do they know that they are cursing Christians and Jews 5 times a day, every day of their lives?
Not only then but even in their funerals and wedding proposals and mostly any type of agreement?
So yes my son I would love to give you my daughter as your future wife and while we're at it let's curse the Christians and Jews!!!
Waldorf
Nevertheless, the idea that Christian belief and observance is illegitimate is deeply rooted within Islam. The Islamic prophet Muhammad composed for the Muslims a brief prayer, known as the Fatiha (Opening), that became the cornerstone of Muslim prayer (it is recited seventeen times a day by the Muslim who performs the five daily prayers) and the first sura of the Qur’an:
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds,
The Beneficent, the Merciful.
Master of the Day of Judgment,
Thee (alone) we worship; Thee (alone) we ask for help.
Show us the straight path,
The path of those whom Thou hast favoured;
Not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray. (Qur’an 1:1-7)
Even this, which has a status among Muslims analogous to the centrality of the Lord’s Prayer for Christians, has a polemical edge. Traditionally Muslim divines have identified those who have earned Allah’s anger with Jews and those who have gone astray with Christians. The Qur’anic commentator Ibn Kathir (1301-1372) explains that “these two paths are the paths of the Christians and Jews, a fact that the believer should be aware of so that he avoids them. The path of the believers is the knowledge of truth and abiding by it. In comparison, Jews abandoned practicing the religion, while the Christians lost the true knowledge. This is why ‘anger’ descended upon the Jews, while being described as ‘led astray’ is more appropriate of the Christians” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, vol. 1, 87).
I really can't tell if this is true or not, and if it is, do all the Muslims in the world know it I mean do they know that they are cursing Christians and Jews 5 times a day, every day of their lives?
Not only then but even in their funerals and wedding proposals and mostly any type of agreement?
So yes my son I would love to give you my daughter as your future wife and while we're at it let's curse the Christians and Jews!!!
Waldorf
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Ahmadinejad: What would Jesus do today?
The question came in his new year greeting to the Christian world:
"My one question from the Christians is: What would Jesus do if he were present in the world today? What would he do before some of the oppressive powers of the world who are in fact residing in Christian countries? Which powers would he revive and which of them would he destroy?" the Iranian president asked.
I would like to answer for that:
If JC was present today, he would have done nothing to the oppressive powers you are speaking about, nor he would have revived or destroyed either powers, why? Well if you have read anything regarding the life of JC you would have known that he came and went in peace, he never used any force in his mission nor he has taken sides and for sure he did not destroy any powers that existed back then.
But I'm willing to bite and assume that nowadays he will take sides and destroy the vicious power he sees deemed.
Sure you are right, he will take the side of the Muslim world against the oppressive powers of the west, I mean how dare they allow their people to practice personal freedom even if it means disobeying him in certain matters? Why would they not give privilege to people who follow him and discriminate those who don't? How dare they alienate his church from state like this, I know he said to give what belongs to Caesar to Caesar and what is God's to God but not like this. And why did they have to become so rich, didn't they know that JC loves the poor.
But on the other side, the Muslim world they do not allow people to commit acts that anger God and all they want is to live in peace and of course they treat his followers real nice no persecution or anything. So yes I do agree that Jesus would have taken the Muslim side.
Then he asks another question:
"If Jesus were present today, who would be facing him and who would be following him?" He added.
Now that's an easy question I do not need to answer, but if the answer I have in mind is true, well wouldn't this make today's Muslims to become infidels?
Someone please answer my question.
Waldorf
"My one question from the Christians is: What would Jesus do if he were present in the world today? What would he do before some of the oppressive powers of the world who are in fact residing in Christian countries? Which powers would he revive and which of them would he destroy?" the Iranian president asked.
I would like to answer for that:
If JC was present today, he would have done nothing to the oppressive powers you are speaking about, nor he would have revived or destroyed either powers, why? Well if you have read anything regarding the life of JC you would have known that he came and went in peace, he never used any force in his mission nor he has taken sides and for sure he did not destroy any powers that existed back then.
But I'm willing to bite and assume that nowadays he will take sides and destroy the vicious power he sees deemed.
Sure you are right, he will take the side of the Muslim world against the oppressive powers of the west, I mean how dare they allow their people to practice personal freedom even if it means disobeying him in certain matters? Why would they not give privilege to people who follow him and discriminate those who don't? How dare they alienate his church from state like this, I know he said to give what belongs to Caesar to Caesar and what is God's to God but not like this. And why did they have to become so rich, didn't they know that JC loves the poor.
But on the other side, the Muslim world they do not allow people to commit acts that anger God and all they want is to live in peace and of course they treat his followers real nice no persecution or anything. So yes I do agree that Jesus would have taken the Muslim side.
Then he asks another question:
"If Jesus were present today, who would be facing him and who would be following him?" He added.
Now that's an easy question I do not need to answer, but if the answer I have in mind is true, well wouldn't this make today's Muslims to become infidels?
Someone please answer my question.
Waldorf
Keep the guy alive
The Americans are trying to keep alive Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman the mastermind of the 1993 World trade center bombing and who is gravely ill.
Why?
Well they think that his death might spark a wave of terror attacks as his latest message to his followers went like this:
“My Brothers...If they [the Americans] kill me, which they will certainly do – hold my funeral and send my corpse to my family, but do not let my blood be shed in vain. Rather, extract the most violent revenge, and remember your brother who spoke the truth and died for the will of God...The Mujahid Sheikh Omar Abdel al Rahman. In the name of God the kind and merciful.”
So even if the guy dies from a natural cause, this would not be the will of Allah but rather the doing of Americans (you know the bastards can make it look like the work of god) but the true believers and followers of the Sheikh would know better as he already told them what would happen and what to do.
So please keep the guy alive as long as you can.
Waldorf
Saturday, December 16, 2006
AJ & the Holocaust
For some reason I failed to understand, Ahmadinejad and his gang think that The Resolution of the Holocaust Issue Will End in the Destruction of Israel!!!
Iran Holocaust Denial Conference Announces Plan to Establish World Foundation for Holocaust Studies – To Be Eventually Based in Berlin and Headed by Iranian Presidential Advisor Mohammad-Ali Ramin Who Has Said: 'The Resolution of the Holocaust Issue Will End in the Destruction of Israel'
Ehh Berlin as in Germany? these guys are a real treat.
Waldorf
Iran Holocaust Denial Conference Announces Plan to Establish World Foundation for Holocaust Studies – To Be Eventually Based in Berlin and Headed by Iranian Presidential Advisor Mohammad-Ali Ramin Who Has Said: 'The Resolution of the Holocaust Issue Will End in the Destruction of Israel'
Ehh Berlin as in Germany? these guys are a real treat.
Waldorf
A stand-off
Finally it's happening a stand-off between the MBs and the Government, the reason as you all know it the the Hamas like parade which went on inside Al-Azhar university to protest the expelling of 6 of the MBs student.
So it's official now and out in the open, the MBs have a military wing and have training camps and they are not afraid to show it, and all this happened because our government is being such a big pussy with its handling of the MBs and was just concentrating on breaking down any liberal party or movement thinking that they represent the bigger threat.
Meanwhile the MBs were gaining huge ground and testing the government every once in a while, from organizing demonstrations to hot statments like the famous TOZ Fy Masr (Screw Egypt), and the kicking of any opposition to the MBs by the shoes, to the declaration that the MBs are ready to send a squad of 10,000 men to fight with Hizbollah against Israel, and the declaration that the MBs are ready to rule Egypt, up to the parade.
But apparently the latter was an overshot that the government could not take so they cracked down hard on the MBs arresting 120 of them including their number 3 man and their spokesman.
Now I really hope it wouldn't end there and the government would get scared of any further escalation and reach a deal with the MBs, instead I truly wish they would enlarge the scale of the operation and probe where the hell these people are getting their huge finances and cutting them off, something like what Nasser did in the 50s after the MBs tried to assassinate him, he really beat the shit out of them.
I know I know, human rights people and anti-torture and blah blah, but the thing is we are violating these rights anyway and with the wrong people, shouldn't we like do it to someone who really deserve it?
Waldorf
So it's official now and out in the open, the MBs have a military wing and have training camps and they are not afraid to show it, and all this happened because our government is being such a big pussy with its handling of the MBs and was just concentrating on breaking down any liberal party or movement thinking that they represent the bigger threat.
Meanwhile the MBs were gaining huge ground and testing the government every once in a while, from organizing demonstrations to hot statments like the famous TOZ Fy Masr (Screw Egypt), and the kicking of any opposition to the MBs by the shoes, to the declaration that the MBs are ready to send a squad of 10,000 men to fight with Hizbollah against Israel, and the declaration that the MBs are ready to rule Egypt, up to the parade.
But apparently the latter was an overshot that the government could not take so they cracked down hard on the MBs arresting 120 of them including their number 3 man and their spokesman.
Now I really hope it wouldn't end there and the government would get scared of any further escalation and reach a deal with the MBs, instead I truly wish they would enlarge the scale of the operation and probe where the hell these people are getting their huge finances and cutting them off, something like what Nasser did in the 50s after the MBs tried to assassinate him, he really beat the shit out of them.
I know I know, human rights people and anti-torture and blah blah, but the thing is we are violating these rights anyway and with the wrong people, shouldn't we like do it to someone who really deserve it?
Waldorf
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
"A very jihady Xmas" the album
The new Jingle Bell:
Oh, infidels, infidels
In the Holy Land!
Oh what joy it brings to cut
Off an ear nose head or hand!
Go Listen to the song.
Waldorf
Oh, infidels, infidels
In the Holy Land!
Oh what joy it brings to cut
Off an ear nose head or hand!
Go Listen to the song.
Waldorf
Behead people who don't pray 5 times daily
This is not a joke:
MOGADISHU, Somalia — Residents of a southern Somalia town who do not pray five times a day will be beheaded, an official said Wednesday, adding the edict will be implemented in three days.
Shops, tea houses and other public places in Bulo Burto, about 124 miles northeast of the capital, Mogadishu, should be closed during prayer time and no one should be on the streets, said Sheik Hussein Barre Rage, the chairman of the town's Islamic court. His court is part of a network backed by armed militiamen that has taken control of much of southern Somalia in recent months, bringing a strict interpretation of Islam that is alien to many Somalis.
Those who do not follow the prayer edict after three days have elapsed, "will definitely be beheaded according to Islamic law," Rage told The Associated Press by phone. "As Muslims we should practice Islam fully, not in part, and that is what our religion enjoins us to do."
I don't think I can comment.
Waldorf
MOGADISHU, Somalia — Residents of a southern Somalia town who do not pray five times a day will be beheaded, an official said Wednesday, adding the edict will be implemented in three days.
Shops, tea houses and other public places in Bulo Burto, about 124 miles northeast of the capital, Mogadishu, should be closed during prayer time and no one should be on the streets, said Sheik Hussein Barre Rage, the chairman of the town's Islamic court. His court is part of a network backed by armed militiamen that has taken control of much of southern Somalia in recent months, bringing a strict interpretation of Islam that is alien to many Somalis.
Those who do not follow the prayer edict after three days have elapsed, "will definitely be beheaded according to Islamic law," Rage told The Associated Press by phone. "As Muslims we should practice Islam fully, not in part, and that is what our religion enjoins us to do."
I don't think I can comment.
Waldorf
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Best play of the season
Translation:
The National Democratic Party presents
This season's play
"We are the hijab people"
Written by: Ahmed Ezz
Starting: Zakaria Azmy
With the great actor: Kamal Elshazly
Directed by: Fathy Sorour
Special thanks to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Saturday, December 02, 2006
The MBs "we are ready to rule Egypt"
So says their number 2 man Mohamed Habib in an interview with the Lebanese newspaper Al-akhbar.
Here is a translation of some of their interesting views:
Q: So when you reach power will you allow other secular parties to exist?
A: Yes but it will be allowed but only by law
Q: But you will be writing the laws and it will be Islamic?
A: The justice system will rule on these parties
Q: But the judges will rule with your laws which will prevent any opposition as it is an Islamic law?
A: This is natural, as we won't allow anything to go against the religion; can we allow a party for gays? Can we allow a party that promotes bars and dance clubs?
Q: What about tourism and foreigners?
A: We will deal with this when the time comes.
Q: But personal freedom is mandatory by the universal declaration of human rights?
A: We will take from the declaration what suits our culture, it is suitable for the west but there are many points we disagree with.
Q: Yes but Egypt already signed the declaration in 1948?
A: We're not committed to that and we can quit the declaration all together as long as it's against our culture.
Q: And what will you do with the treaties signed by Egypt, like Camp David with Israel?
A: It is well known in politics that a country reviews its signed treaties every while to set it on course, and that's what we'll do, we'll set up a committee from national security and economists and politicians to advise the free democratic parliament which should decide
Q: What about recognition of Israel which is stated in Camp David?
A: We object to that because we refused Camp David and see that recognition of Israel should be only by agreement with all Arab and Muslim nations.
Had enough? I know I did
Waldorf
Here is a translation of some of their interesting views:
Q: So when you reach power will you allow other secular parties to exist?
A: Yes but it will be allowed but only by law
Q: But you will be writing the laws and it will be Islamic?
A: The justice system will rule on these parties
Q: But the judges will rule with your laws which will prevent any opposition as it is an Islamic law?
A: This is natural, as we won't allow anything to go against the religion; can we allow a party for gays? Can we allow a party that promotes bars and dance clubs?
Q: What about tourism and foreigners?
A: We will deal with this when the time comes.
Q: But personal freedom is mandatory by the universal declaration of human rights?
A: We will take from the declaration what suits our culture, it is suitable for the west but there are many points we disagree with.
Q: Yes but Egypt already signed the declaration in 1948?
A: We're not committed to that and we can quit the declaration all together as long as it's against our culture.
Q: And what will you do with the treaties signed by Egypt, like Camp David with Israel?
A: It is well known in politics that a country reviews its signed treaties every while to set it on course, and that's what we'll do, we'll set up a committee from national security and economists and politicians to advise the free democratic parliament which should decide
Q: What about recognition of Israel which is stated in Camp David?
A: We object to that because we refused Camp David and see that recognition of Israel should be only by agreement with all Arab and Muslim nations.
Had enough? I know I did
Waldorf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)