Egypt ready to re-establish diplomatic ties with Iran

One has to be aware that if despair becomes widespread, it will be followed by a great number of Westerners saying, "I cease to care". Since Islam does not allow for neutrality, "I cease to care" is for all intents and purposes the same as saying, "I'd rather switch than fight". In your very good post on tribalism and its mentality, it is clear that we either fight or die; there are no higher stakes. This is a time for poets, and I have always thought that The Free Men of England need to look to their poets of the past for inspiration and a willingness to die for that which they hold dear.
These stupid wars are sapping our strength and resolve, and all for nothing. From another post:

When the West finally realizes that they are in exactly the same situation as Sisyphus and finally leave Afghanistan behind, it won't matter where the boulder is on the hill; it will immediately roll down to the abyss of 7th century Islam with Afghan accents. Any "progress" will collapse like a house of cards.
For those who might not know the myth, Sisyphus was a king punished by the gods and compelled to roll an immense boulder up a hill, only to watch it roll back down, and to repeat this throughout eternity; the word "sisyphean" means endless and unavailing, as labour or a task.
If anyone has a compelling military reason against getting out of Afghnanistan, they don't know the full capabilities of modern weapons when the handcuffs are taken off.
Q: How’s it going in Afghanistan?
A: Ask General Sisyphus.
As for all of Islam, we require a Hercules to clean out the Augean stables that that cult is. A couple of rivers will not be able to do the job, but the greatest of tsunamis can. I am for Hercules if you know what I mean. Until we conclude that this is an emergency requiring emergency ethics and emergency actions, the rot will continue unabated, but with increasing rapidity.
The solution ain’t gonna be pretty, but it will be far prettier than the alternative.
These are all fine words and thoughts. My fallback is a trust in secret weapons that are muslim specific.

"To Muslims, all relationships are of dominance/submission."

You're so right. Rules of the Middle East:

Rule or be ruled.
Kill or be killed.
It's either you or me.
Compromise is a shameful defeat.
Shame cannot be tolerated.
Honor is something to kill and die for.

Everything is total. Compromise is unbearable, recognizing the other side might have a point is unheard of, self criticism is almost non-existent, and if someone does any of these he's a traitor that must die.

"Moderate" ElBaradei already said that if he's elected president, then if Israel attacks Gaza Egypt will go to war against the "Zionist regime". He's just trying to get elected, you see, and this is the way to get elected in the Middle East. It means that if Gaza starts massive rocket attacks again and Israel responds then ElBaradei will take Egypt to war again.

Jordanian king Abdallah is also issuing warnings/threats. Well, he has problems at home.

But as I said here before, the west worries me even more than the Muslims, which is a lot to say. The West is out of his mind and I don't see how we are going to survive it. I see how you are going to survive it because your people will get some sense when things get more intense and will elect other leaders. But how do we survive till then?

Iran has already announced their desire to restore relationship. as for your last common I am not sure how it is going to play out with Israel and the new regim.
m

Yes, Mubarak did keep the peace with Isreal, I doubt that he wanted to ever jeapordize the millions that the USA gives to Egypt in aid. This same money would be used to keep the peace with these new yahoo rulers in egypt.
As Doom n gloom said, anti Isreal and anti zionist talk is used in the middle east to get people elected, because these muslims are all anti jew and anti Isreal. for this reason Isreal can never let it's guards down.

Hello Doom-and-gloom. You wrote, in part:
"To Muslims, all relationships are of dominance/submission."
You're so right. Rules of the Middle East:
Rule or be ruled.
Kill or be killed.
It's either you or me.

In electronic terms, it seems to me that the Muslims are digital, either one or zero. By contrast, we in the West are analog, that is, having time varying features where small fluctuations are meaningful. I will think on this to see whether it has any merit beyond what I have said.

It's zero-sum game in honor/shame societies vs. positive sum game in civil societies. Richard Landes has several atricles/essays on the subject, such as this one.

Doom and Gloom wrote:

It's zero-sum game in honor/shame societies vs. positive sum game in civil societies. Richard Landes has several atricles/essays on the subject, such as this one.
..........................

I agree with your observations and those of Pokermutt on Islam being a "zero-sum game".

Generally, the model Israel and the West follow is "win-win"—where people interact with each other as equals. Most encounters can be positive for both parties—where an mutually beneficial trade is made.

Now, of course, this is not always possible—even in the best, most egalitarian societies, people at times disagree.

Even here, though, we prefer to regard our opponents as "the loyal opposition" or "our colleagues from across the aisle" whenever possible—people who are rational and essentially mean well, even if we disagree with their views.

This, at least, is the basic ideal in the civilized West.

But in shame/honor cultures, people have to walk away from virtually every encounter with a triumphant aggressor and a humbled loser.

Hence you find such insane rhetoric from Muslims as referring to themselves as "humiliated" over the most work-a-day manner of setbacks. They believe that if they are not in full, oppressive control, that they must be—perforce—oppressed and crushed by someone or other.

Overall, Richard Landes' article was excellent. I would only take issue with one point. He wrote:

For example, no honourable warrior would ever advertise (and exaggerate) his injury so as to get the sympathy (pity) and support (charity) of bystanders, all the more so if the sources of pity were enemies (Christians, modern liberals). And yet the treatment of the Palestinian refugees, the constant appeal to world opinion for intervention in the conflict, the systematic adoption of a posture of victimization, all characterize the Arab reaction to the humiliation of the Naqba. All this serves to illustrate the enormous psychological catastrophe that Israel’s very existence constitutes for the Arab world, in particular for its public and political culture.
..........................

I don't believe this has anything to do with the "Naqba" or Muslim "trauma" over the existence of the state of Israel.

I think it has primarily to do with the state of the modern West. The reason warriors traditionally would *never* exaggerate any injury—and would minimize or hide that injury if possible—is that their equally barbaric enemies would use such weakness against them, as an occasion to attack.

The civilized West is generally a sympathetic culture, concerned about the weak, injured and abused. Muslims were not the first to exploit this essentially decent tendency in the modern West—our own worst citizens beat them to the punch.

But Muslims are in a virtual category of their own in their unpleasant combination of whining and threat.

In other words, Muslims now seek to manipulate the West with claims of victimhood *because it works*. And, far from considering themselves in a subordinate position when they play the victim card, they believe they are triumphantly exploiting our weakness and foolishness.

Except for this point, though, I found Landes' article to be excellent in its analysis. Thanks for posting it.