Egypt Erupting

Remove all ads!

It is true the Egyptian diplomacy with the US has improved since Obama took office. Also, the public opinion of Egyptians towards the US has improved since Obama took office. However, it's not like things were exactly bad when Bush was in office either. Egypt has pretty much been on OK terms with the US since the Camp David Accords in 1979, following which Egypt and Israel signed a peace treaty. So pretty much from the end of Carter's term, through Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama we have had diplomatic relations with Egypt.

 

Oh, I wasn't presuming anything, just reminding everyone that things can go south. I've noticed in the news that there's something of a 'relax and watch' attitude going on. That's dangerous. Democracy is the cry of the moment, but the situation bears careful watching.

It looks like the Muslim Brotherhood is throwing it's weight in with Baradei, but whether that means they've settled for moderation or that Baradei is making political comprimises before he's even in power is uncertain.

 

Well then US will be extremely popular in those countries among the oppressed and the poor you know for being a great hypocritical country ( is that term correct ? ) . Some great success of the " crawl into bed with some pretty unsavory types " policy like Iran spring to mind here .

 

I find statements like that indicative of a quite presumptious attitude. So what do you expect the media to call for - except, of course, to let people know that these countries are not safe for vacations right now? Sovereign countries, and their people, don't particularly appreciate foreign countries from half across the world trying to affect politics there. Sometimes messing in their stuff does backfire; Iran, as incarnate mentioned, would be a prime example. I rather doubt its foreign policy would be the same if the US hadn't backed the Shah, and then supported Iraq in the war of the 80s.

 

I actually meant the comment boards in response to the news. Sorry for not being more precise.

 

Incarnate, if you think the US has a lock on hypocritical behaviour, you are dead wrong. I don't care where you go in the world, necessity, practicality, and reality frequently take precedence over idealism.

As for your comment about Iran, fair enough. Show me a country that has a perfect track record when it comes to foreign policy and allegiences and I'll eat my shorts.

Of course, what you might be aiming at is that the US often promotes itself as a bastion of goodness and decency, superior to all other nations in terms of its moral uprightness. Criticizing that hubris is a reasonable thing to do.

 

Scott Horton on US reporting on Egypt when contrasted to European and Middle Eastern media:

Anyone who has ever seen CNN domestic in contrast to CNN International* and then, say BBC for instance, and indeed, Al Jazeera, can't help but agree. US domestic coverage of international events is superficial to the point of being embarrassingly misleading, and CNN International (which is a tad better but apparently (or because of that) not deemed fit for domestic consumption) is usually far away from the events at the ground.

Spoiler

* I specifically recall an episode of some Afghan woman MP critical of the US being interviewed by both; on CNN International the interview was calm and professional, on CNN domestic the anchor scolded her for daring to express a viewpoint critical of US actions - after all, didn't the US bring freedom to Afghanistan? I thought "WTF?"

 

It seems that the situation between protesters and counter-protesters has become more violent today - hopefully this can be resolved with minimum of bloodshed and extremism.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12345656

 

I've been catching what I can on this topic through public radio-NPR and WPR (Wisconsin Public Radio).

The Muslim Brotherhood (of Nod..... sorry felt an urge to put that in there) is sort of like the Christian right in the USA.

They have organization, members, and are a force in their nation but don't constitute a majority of the population-some of whom are wary of a "Islamic state" being imposed on Egypt.

The Muslim Brotherhood may grow in power without the current dictator but it will probably be contained by others who disagree with it.

Yes not everyone agreed with the mullahs in Iran and they seem to have quickly snuffed out the opposition to grab power after the Shah fell but, by themselves, the don't have the ability to grab power. It may only happen if there are missteps by locals who disagree with the MB as well as other nations.

The fact that they are johnny-come-latelys to the demostrations show they don't run the opposition already.

 

You misunderstood i understand necessity i an not an idealist i was just trying to say that in a practical way supporting a dictator is worse then opposing him in the long run .

 

If I had to bet, my wager would be that when this is over the Western world will not be happy with the results and we will see a far more repressive regime than this "dictator" everyone is railing against.

 

I rather doubt it, actually. While I don't doubt that in an election they could get a few seats (and I guess that's more than they have now), that in itself wouldn't get them all that far - especially if, as is often the case, the army views them with distrust. In general, I think that there is a bit of a catch regarding the MB and other similar extremists: the more perception there is of the "West" (or anyone else) messing in Egypt's affairs there is, the stronger the radicals' position as the "defenders" against such interference will be. Perceived pressure usually brings out a defensive reaction.

No one cares if you're going to fight the depredations of sharks to your last breath if you're in the middle of the Sahara and sharks aren't an issue.

So yeah, if I were to bet, my money would be on "another inefficient and likely corrupt government - likely less repressive, possibly more inefficient."

 

I'll double down on that bet. I'm not sure it will necessarily be worse than the current regime, I just have little confidence that it will much of an improvement. That said, I think it's going to happen. I don't see how this blows over, unless Mubarak pulls an Ahmadinejad on the populace.

I also noticed that the current clashes are not really between civilians and the military/police. It's more pro-Mubarak and anti-Mubarak factions. We know the organizations behind the anti-Mubarak forces, but who, exactly, is pro-Mubarak? I'm not saying there aren't any - I'm just wondering if they are in any way organized, or just people who are unconvinced a change would be for the better?

 

Depends on who you ask, if you ask the regime it is normal dissatisfied citizens who wants peace and quiet and thinks Mubarak has done a kick-butt job.

If you ask anyone else it is the security police who has paid a bunch of poor suckers to go scream how much they love Mubarak and generally paid and organized people.

Oh and Snook, you never ceases to amaze me. In what way is Mubarak a "dictator" in quatation marks? Are Mugabade, Ahmandinejad and Lukashenko also "dictators"? What are your criteria to be a dictator without the quatation marks? Maybe if we get a proper government in Egypt it can express what the populace really feels about Israel and lend the aid to the Palestinians that they want, that would be interesting.

 

Sorry, I probably should have explained that. People (and especially the media) love to throw around that word as if by definition the person is evil. If as I surmise Egypt turns into another Islamic nation I think there will be plenty of people in Egypt (such as women, gays, intellectuals, businesspeople, non muslims, etc.) who will be missing the "good olde days" when they were ruled by a dictator.

As to supporting the Palestinians and sticking it to Israel, it is the same thing. Under the "dictator" they have been at peace with Israel for many years. The populace may not like the results of their wishes.

 

First, define "another Islamic nation." Technically, the Egyptian people are Islamic by a large majority - so yes, that would impact their national character, probably more than any other factor. That the dominant interpretation of Islam might be different from that in Saudi Arabia (not that that's stopped anyone of doing business with them) or Turkey is another story. If "dictator" (which does entail the curtailing of various groups' rights) is not inherently evil, then neither is "Islamic".

Yes, things can get worse for some of the social groups - change generally tends not to be equally good for everyone - but I'm not expecting an Iranian-style theocracy, and even a religious regime probably wouldn't go the same way in Cairo as it did in Tehran. As for voters not necessarily liking what their choice entailed, well, Egypt would hardly be alone for that.

Personally, for me a much more likely government (although I still consider the most likely outcome a pseudodemocratic parliament, if with a stronger voice for the conservative religious parties than they enjoy now) would be a military junta, for several reasons. First, Mubarak had already appointed a lot of top guys from the forces in his cabinet, so they have quite a bit of inside influence and can be considered somewhat of a heir apparent. Second, so far they have been perceived as a peacekeeper and a guarantee of security between the two sides in the protests, thus making them legitimate in the eyes of many of the protesters. They are also generally considered non-religious, thus are palatable to most outside forces. Last, well, they are the army - the group that has the biggest capacity for violence in any country, and one that no government can function without. Having God on your side is all good and well, but having the tanks on your side tends to be necessary more often than not.

 

Let me re-emphasise: ... the dominant interpretation of Islam is different from that in Saudi Arabia and Turkey - and that is strongly suggesting that an Islamist Regime will look different in Egypt than in Saudi Arabia (strongly influenced by the Wahhabi tradition), Iran (strongly influenced by the 12er Shia tradition) or Turkey (under a different influence again).

It's worth reminding oneself once in a while, that we are currently seeing in the US what can fairly be described as an Islamophobic hysteria (funded by pro-Israeli and neo-conservative groups (keyword: Frank Gaffney)). Among other things we are being told that that the Muslim Brotherhood is subverting the intelligence community, that they are infiltrating the Conservative Movement, that the Muslim Brotherhood is now partnering with the socialist left in the US ("socialist left" is apparently meant to include Liberals, Progressives, Democrats, Stalinists and Nazis) .... and then there was that Mosque in New York.

Or take the fear of Sharia law. Ohio, population 3,7 million, has banned Sharia law in the state - which has a population of 15.000 Muslims. Clearly, Ohio barely avoided them imposing Sharia law on the rest of them.

It is often ignored that Sharia law, has very differing traditions, and, reflecting that Islam, like medieval Christianity, encompasses all the aspects of life - and thus is about civil law as well. A Muslim cleric performing an Islamic marriage in a wedding is applying Sharia law. So, the horror, Sharia law is applied in the US as well, much like Roman Catholic canonic law is being applied on US soil.

Saudi Arabia and Iran have, in keeping with the domestic traditions, a localised interpretation of what Sharia law is, and it is unlikely that it will find much appeal when exported (to a somewhat lesser extent for the Saudi interpretation, the Saudis have massively funded Wahhabi missionary efforts), as Al Qaeda missionaries/terrorists had to realise then they tried to impose Wahhabi views on Sharia law on Iraq's Sunni tribes, for instance by killing goats for indecently showing their genitals. The Iraqis killed them.

A Turkish acquaintance, who is studying Islamic Studies, speaks of the Wahhabis as 'the Arabs', which is to be understood as dismissive and scornful, and say they're crazy people, really hard core, who scold him for, take that, not being a Muslim when he is smoking (if they knew he is drinking Scotch as well ...).

 

There is a huge difference between a national majority being X and the nation being X. The US is mostly white, but that doesn't make us a white nation. It's also largely Christian, but the argument that it's a Christian nation (which is BS, btw) has never been that most of us are Christain. It has always been that the nation was founded on Christian principles.

A 'Muslim nation' implies one that defines itself as Muslim among it's first unifying characteristics. That immediately implies that anyone who isn't Muslim isn't represented by the government. You expect things like Islamic law, and Islamic courts being legal courts. If it's merely a nation of mostly Muslims, then that isn't necessarily expected.

Wow, Ragusa, you found some kind of crazy on there. Although, as I understand it, the ban on Sharia law was actually sparked by a Judge considering Sharia law in a restraining order, dealing with rape, against a Muslim man. His reasoning was that, since the Muslim man percieved he had an unmitigated right to his wife, it wasn't really rape, because the man didn't realize he didn't have consent. That decision was overturned on appeal, and the judge took a real thrashing over it, but that really scared some people.

 

Snook, if they would miss those days then they would just have another dictator.

 

Easily done. One just needs to know where to look to find it. If you really want to see crazy, go read the World Net Daily. The only thing kookier than the articles themselves are the advertisements for how to prepare for the end times or civil war and the like. Just to get a feel for what I mean:

Will your family survive a global currency collapse?
Pro-Brotherhood CAIR [Council on American-Islamic Relations] lobbied against Mubarak
Stylized Reagan banners, pins, bumper stickers from WND Superstore
New commandment: Thou shalt pack heat
Is Obama constitutionally eligible to serve?
etc pp