Click here And let's hope that, insh'Allah, Milani is on the protesters side.
|
The scary thing is that I think Egypt is just the beginning. According to CNN the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the group that really started to ramp everything up since yesterday, has offshoots in Yeman, Saudi Arabia, and a few other places. If they bring Egypt down then by then end of next week the whole face of the Middle East could look a whole lot different.
The scary thing is that I think Egypt is just the beginning. According to CNN the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the group that really started to ramp everything up since yesterday, has offshoots in Yeman, Saudi Arabia, and a few other places. If they bring Egypt down then by then end of next week the whole face of the Middle East could look a whole lot different.
Wow. I did not know that.
I am not saying that this is the case, it is sort of a worst case scenario. However, I am certain that something is brewing. After all, the problems in Egypt were spawned by the uprising in Tunisia. It almost feels like there is a larger plan in motion here.
Sadly you might be right. Someone is always willing to use others at patsies to do their dirty work for them.
The U.S. needs to take sides.
The Americans chose sides long ago. For 25 years its been American policy in the region to keep the Muslim Brotherhood out of power. There usually is a pretty easy test for this sort of thing - if a countries military is made out of American equipment that tends to indicate that America likes them (or did in the recent past). Currently the US's best hope is probably that the 1 billion or so they have promised in foreign aid is enough to get the Egyptian Army to take over - call for for free and fair elections...except the Muslim Brotherhood...which remains an illegal organization.
If the Egyptian people really do take over and have a fair election then the Muslim Brotherhood should win - they poll better in Egypt then any other group, same with Jordan...not sure about Tunisia but its likely.
Notice that the remaining core of protesters Tunisia tend to have links to the Muslim Brotherhood and their wandering around chanting for religious freedom.
Just glanced over the Egyptian order of battle and the Isreali's must be freaking out.
The backbone of Egypt's army is 1000 M1 Abrams, IFVs are mostly YPR-65s, air force is F-16s, thousands of TOWs and TOW IIs as well as stingers.
If there really are free and fair elections Israel should probably invade before they have a chance to get their act together and start coordinating with Syria...and especially before democracy spreads to Jordan. A peoples revolt that spreads through the region is pretty much Israel's nightmare scenario.
Ohhh...check it out - quotes from Israel.
Time magazine talks to "a minister in the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu," and reports that Israel appears to be backing the Mubarak regime:With a deep investment in the status quo, Israel is watching what a senior official calls "an earthquake in the Middle East" with growing concern. The official says the Jewish state has faith in the security apparatus of its most formidable Arab neighbor, Egypt, to suppress the street demonstrations that threaten the dictatorial rule of President Hosni Mubarak. The harder question is what comes next.
"I'm not sure the time is right for the Arab region to go through the democratic process."
I am not saying that this is the case, it is sort of a worst case scenario. However, I am certain that something is brewing. After all, the problems in Egypt were spawned by the uprising in Tunisia. It almost feels like there is a larger plan in motion here.
I would not underestimate Al-Jeezera's influence. Egypt and other Arab nations can shut off the internet but to many of them have cable TVs with satellite feeds and Al-Jeezera is running this story near non stop. Lots of exciting shots of protesters in the streets with government building burning in the background. That kind of imagery stirs people to action and reminds them that they are not alone. Its hard to crush a popular revolt if you can't control the airwaves.
I don't think the Muslim Brotherhood planned this - the initial triggering event just seems to spontaneous for that. They are, however, exactly the organization most capable of reacting to this sort of thing. They already maintain influence, illegally, outside the jurisdiction of the government in these nations. Their key members have access to safe houses and such that allow them to escape from a crack down. They are popular among the people, and can expect the population to try and hide them from the government. All in all they are well suited to sample the winds of change in this sort of environment and then run to the front. Expect them to be taking as much credit as possible as the 'heroes' of the revolution if this popular revolt succeeds.
The Muslim brotherhood is a Sunni Pan-Islamist organization. If it really starts to take off (that is state after state fall under its influence) then the obvious counter balance is Iran - probably first and foremostly by increasing the strength and pervasiveness that Iran has of the Shia majority of Iraq.
I am not saying that this is the case, it is sort of a worst case scenario. However, I am certain that something is brewing. After all, the problems in Egypt were spawned by the uprising in Tunisia. It almost feels like there is a larger plan in motion here.I would not underestimate Al-Jeezera's influence. Egypt and other Arab nations can shut off the internet but to many of them have cable TVs with satellite feeds and Al-Jeezera is running this story near non stop. Lots of exciting shots of protesters in the streets with government building burning in the background. That kind of imagery stirs people to action and reminds them that they are not alone. Its hard to crush a popular revolt if you can't control the airwaves.
I don't think the Muslim Brotherhood planned this - the initial triggering event just seems to spontaneous for that. They are, however, exactly the organization most capable of reacting to this sort of thing. They already maintain influence, illegally, outside the jurisdiction of the government in these nations. Their key members have access to safe houses and such that allow them to escape from a crack down. They are popular among the people, and can expect the population to try and hide them from the government. All in all they are well suited to sample the winds of change in this sort of environment and then run to the front. Expect them to be taking as much credit as possible as the 'heroes' of the revolution if this popular revolt succeeds.
I would say that is a good assessment.
|
|
I am not saying that this is the case, it is sort of a worst case scenario. However, I am certain that something is brewing. After all, the problems in Egypt were spawned by the uprising in Tunisia. It almost feels like there is a larger plan in motion here.I would not underestimate Al-Jeezera's influence. Egypt and other Arab nations can shut off the internet but to many of them have cable TVs with satellite feeds and Al-Jeezera is running this story near non stop. Lots of exciting shots of protesters in the streets with government building burning in the background. That kind of imagery stirs people to action and reminds them that they are not alone. Its hard to crush a popular revolt if you can't control the airwaves.
I don't think the Muslim Brotherhood planned this - the initial triggering event just seems to spontaneous for that. They are, however, exactly the organization most capable of reacting to this sort of thing. They already maintain influence, illegally, outside the jurisdiction of the government in these nations. Their key members have access to safe houses and such that allow them to escape from a crack down. They are popular among the people, and can expect the population to try and hide them from the government. All in all they are well suited to sample the winds of change in this sort of environment and then run to the front. Expect them to be taking as much credit as possible as the 'heroes' of the revolution if this popular revolt succeeds.
The Muslim brotherhood is a Sunni Pan-Islamist organization. If it really starts to take off (that is state after state fall under its influence) then the obvious counter balance is Iran - probably first and foremostly by increasing the strength and pervasiveness that Iran has of the Shia majority of Iraq.
I am sure that the Muslim Brotherhood is just taking advantage of the unrest that is going on. If there is a bigger scheme, then I would see the Brotherhood as a cog rather than the one behind the scenes. There may not even be a behind the scenes. On the other hand, if Al-Jeezera is helping stir the pot then maybe there is a larger plan. John Esposito wrote in his book "Unholy War" about how the Muslim intellectuals who lead a lot of these groups all were educated together and tended to run in the same social circles. I am not suggesting that there is an "Islam Illuminati" that is running things, but that the different groups all have similar goals and so would work toward similar purposes ad use parallel methods. CNN is now reporting that Jordan, Yemen, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and perhaps even Iran are the "next dominoes to possibly fall."
|
|
The thing that bugs me about the way the crisis in Egypt is being covered is that everyone acts shocked that the government cut off the internet. I keep hearing people ask, "is this the new way that war will be fought?" It is not new, one of the maxims of warfare that is as old as war itself is that one of the first things you do is try and cut your enemy's supply and communication lines. I have no idea why this is being treated as a new thing.
The thing that bugs me about the way the crisis in Egypt is being covered is that everyone acts shocked that the government cut off the internet. I keep hearing people ask, "is this the new way that war will be fought?" It is not new, one of the maxims of warfare that is as old as war itself is that one of the first things you do is try and cut your enemy's supply and communication lines. I have no idea why this is being treated as a new thing.
+1
Ohhh...check it out - quotes from Israel.
Time magazine talks to "a minister in the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu," and reports that Israel appears to be backing the Mubarak regime:With a deep investment in the status quo, Israel is watching what a senior official calls "an earthquake in the Middle East" with growing concern. The official says the Jewish state has faith in the security apparatus of its most formidable Arab neighbor, Egypt, to suppress the street demonstrations that threaten the dictatorial rule of President Hosni Mubarak. The harder question is what comes next.
"I'm not sure the time is right for the Arab region to go through the democratic process."
The US and Israel are both pretty invested in the current dictatorship/autocracy.
I am sure that the Muslim Brotherhood is just taking advantage of the unrest that is going on. If there is a bigger scheme, then I would see the Brotherhood as a cog rather than the one behind the scenes. There may not even be a behind the scenes. On the other hand, if Al-Jeezera is helping stir the pot then maybe there is a larger plan. John Esposito wrote in his book "Unholy War" about how the Muslim intellectuals who lead a lot of these groups all were educated together and tended to run in the same social circles. I am not suggesting that there is an "Islam Illuminati" that is running things, but that the different groups all have similar goals and so would work toward similar purposes ad use parallel methods. CNN is now reporting that Jordan, Yemen, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and perhaps even Iran are the "next dominoes to possibly fall."
Oh I agree with you here. Lots of the elite want to see a Pan Islamic movement - at least among the Sunni's. The devil is in the details but there is a great deal they can all agree on before they get down to divisive details.
Beyond that the Muslim Brotherhood should win any free and fair elections but that does not mean there is not a large minority that look to the West that won't exactly love that (Burkha's for every female). After all Hamas is probably the only government in the Arab World that really operates in a manner that reflects the Muslim Brotherhood, its goals, and aspirations. So Hamas is the model for what we will likely see if the people have their way.
Iran would be interesting. They are the one country on your list that does not have a Muslim brotherhood - they'd also have the opposite kind of a revolt. Instead of it being one led by a conservative religious organization we'd see a western looking reformist movement. All that said I think the Iranians won't face this issue in a big way until the next election since the peoples grievances could potentially be resolved at the ballot box. Also sanctions on Iran and cyber attacks on their nuclear power program have eroded support away from the Iranian reformists - no one wants to be mistaken for supporting America and the reformists are seen as being pro-west.
I have been following this all very closely; mostly since Tunisia, but as my wife is from Syria and I do speak some Arabic; I have been watchin a lot of Aljazeera TV. Did you see todays MSN post of a guy with a sign in Eypgt that says something like USA go home; we are tired of your hypocrocy; hehe I wanted to send the guys a "heck yea, we are tired of our hypocrocy too, but the glass is always half empty or half full; so, we do the best we can.
Ok. Then lest us pull back. Also, let us stop ALL of the foreign aid and assistance to these countries. And let us get repaid all the loans that we have made to these ingrates. We help out so many people around the world for very little. Fine. Let us stop it NOW. And then we will see how long it is before people start to crawl back asking for help. We are trying to make the world a better place.
Ok. Then lest us pull back. Also, let us stop ALL of the foreign aid and assistance to these countries. And let us get repaid all the loans that we have made to these ingrates. We help out so many people around the world for very little. Fine. Let us stop it NOW. And then we will see how long it is before people start to crawl back asking for help. We are trying to make the world a better place.
I would like that, but I think we have made a lot of terrible blunders that have cost many hundreds of billions of dollars. Even if the governments intentions are good, I don't think the outcomes have been good. We don't have the right to impose our will on the world, and we certainly cannot afford the cost any more.
...and we owe hand over fist to the Chinese.
Interesting article from Time.
The US and Israel are both pretty invested in the current dictatorship/autocracy.Ohhh...check it out - quotes from Israel.
Time magazine talks to "a minister in the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu," and reports that Israel appears to be backing the Mubarak regime:With a deep investment in the status quo, Israel is watching what a senior official calls "an earthquake in the Middle East" with growing concern. The official says the Jewish state has faith in the security apparatus of its most formidable Arab neighbor, Egypt, to suppress the street demonstrations that threaten the dictatorial rule of President Hosni Mubarak. The harder question is what comes next.
"I'm not sure the time is right for the Arab region to go through the democratic process."
We (Israel) have a very crappy government at the moment, so of course CNN had no trouble finding a minister to say something stupid.
Israel's best interest is that a STRONG democracy takes over Egypt. Egypt has no (logical) reason to break the peace treaty with Israel, and as a modern democracy it will probably turn to its neighbour and finally get commerce going.
HOWEVER, A weak democracy or a sham democracy will just bring about a fundamentalist takeover. Since this has already happened in Iran, Lebanon and Gaza, it makes sense that Israel fears that the same will happen in Egypt.
A pro-western democracy in Egypt is Israel's wet dream. Most of us don't like the dictators that surround us (except for King Abdulla of Jordan. He's just so cool) but the most probable alternative is a islamistic violent regime.
I wonder whose next?
1. Syria- not going to happen. No internet and no middle class. Maybe a military coup to switch dictators to a more pro-west one.
2. Saudi Arabia- they walk a tight line already, playing all sides. Very explosive
3. Iran - a best case scenario is that the student revolt rekindles in Iran. I can safely assume that there is no worse option than the current regime and the Iranian people truly want democracy and have the means to actually pull this off (very large middle class, educated people and son on )
The US and Israel are both pretty invested in the current dictatorship/autocracy.Ohhh...check it out - quotes from Israel.
Time magazine talks to "a minister in the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu," and reports that Israel appears to be backing the Mubarak regime:With a deep investment in the status quo, Israel is watching what a senior official calls "an earthquake in the Middle East" with growing concern. The official says the Jewish state has faith in the security apparatus of its most formidable Arab neighbor, Egypt, to suppress the street demonstrations that threaten the dictatorial rule of President Hosni Mubarak. The harder question is what comes next.
"I'm not sure the time is right for the Arab region to go through the democratic process."
We (Israel) have a very crappy government at the moment, so of course CNN had no trouble finding a minister to say something stupid.
Israel's best interest is that a STRONG democracy takes over Egypt. Egypt has no (logical) reason to break the peace treaty with Israel, and as a modern democracy it will probably turn to its neighbour and finally get commerce going.
HOWEVER, A weak democracy or a sham democracy will just bring about a fundamentalist takeover. Since this has already happened in Iran, Lebanon and Gaza, it makes sense that Israel fears that the same will happen in Egypt.
A pro-western democracy in Egypt is Israel's wet dream. Most of us don't like the dictators that surround us (except for King Abdulla of Jordan. He's just so cool) but the most probable alternative is a islamistic violent regime.I wonder whose next?
1. Syria- not going to happen. No internet and no middle class. Maybe a military coup to switch dictators to a more pro-west one.
2. Saudi Arabia- they walk a tight line already, playing all sides. Very explosive
3. Iran - a best case scenario is that the student revolt rekindles in Iran. I...
What characteristics distinguish a strong democracy from a weak one in this context?
Bitter Thorn wrote: What characteristics distinguish a strong democracy from a weak one in this context?
Good question. I guess it is expressed by the amount of time it will take non-democratic entities to take over. So if you go for election and everybody votes for the gun-wielding religious organization that makes it quite clear that these had been the LAST elections, you know you had a weak democracy.
If there are elections and a government is formed based on the rule of law and standards of equality, human rights and so on, and there are mechanisms in place to keep it viable for a long time than you have a strong democracy.
In other words- only time will tell
What characteristics distinguish a strong democracy from a weak one in this context?
I'd say a good example would be France in 1962 - when the officer corps in Algeria wanted to depose de Gaulle their paratroopers didn't even make it to airport because the conscript soldiers blocked the roads.
Now there's a peace of history I know nothing about. I will read up on it tomorrow. Its 1:30AM on both the african and asian sides of the Suez canal...
I hope all our Egyptian friends get a good night sleep and that no more people get hurt tomorrow.
|
|
[non-serious link]Why you may want to take anything Fox News says about Egypt with a pinch of salt.
Something tells me that the picture was photoshopped or that somewhere you could find examples of that on other networks as well. I am generally a CNN guy, but the Fox News people are generally better than that. I don't agree with many of their opinion staff, even though I am a conservative, but I have great respect for the daytime straight news people.
It seems that there is a big group of young people in Egypt that wants freedom and progress, with the old regime standing in their way. In Tunisia, it is similar, but the young had better education overall, so that makes a difference. The continued support for the Egypt regime by the western world helps them remain in place. One expert stated that the western world mistakes stagnation for stability, and with half of the Egyptian populace being counted as poor, there is probably a point to this. Democracy is not easy there, as existing democracies there show, but many of the young people have no truck with the religious fanatics, even if western media often paint a very different picture. Sure, the Muslim Brotherhood is a threat to democracy, but if there is a fair election, there is a chance that they don´t win. And if they win? Well, the world has to deal with that. But seeing that the world has little trouble dealing with Russia, where the elections are not very democratic as well, there will be a way. If extremists suddenly have political responsibility, they can´t just run amok any longer.
Stefan
|
It seems that there is a big group of young people in Egypt that wants freedom and progress, with the old regime standing in their way. In Tunisia, it is similar, but the young had better education overall, so that makes a difference. The continued support for the Egypt regime by the western world helps them remain in place. One expert stated that the western world mistakes stagnation for stability, and with half of the Egyptian populace being counted as poor, there is probably a point to this. Democracy is not easy there, as existing democracies there show, but many of the young people have no truck with the religious fanatics, even if western media often paint a very different picture. Sure, the Muslim Brotherhood is a threat to democracy, but if there is a fair election, there is a chance that they don´t win. And if they win? Well, the world has to deal with that. But seeing that the world has little trouble dealing with Russia, where the elections are not very democratic as well, there will be a way. If extremists suddenly have political responsibility, they can´t just run amok any longer.
Stefan
What ever it takes to draw attention from Israel's back door threat to nuke Palestine if the Palesinians didnt concede their claim on Jerusalem and israeli Occupied Territories...
I love the idea of 'young people' who want freedom and democracy. If you recall the Rise of the Ayotola and fall of the Shar of Iran...that started with a bunch of young people who wanted freedom from the pro american tyranny too. It ended in a fundamentalist regime run by just another minority.
The t*@+s running this Riot should all bugger off and get jobs digging irrigation ditches to reforest Egypt.
Now if you were to show me a riotous crowd of Women running around Egypt demanding freedom from Male rule - I say give them Nukes and guns to spread the Matriarchy.
There's no option to flag a post for being too stupid, so...
Yes. I am sure Israel would like to throw nuclear bombs on areas less than 5 minutes from their own most populated areas. That wouldn't be the tiniest bit stupid.
Honestly, try listen to some of the various reports coming in from people who are, you know, actually talking to the people taking parts in the demonstrations, quite a few of whom are, in fact, women.
Ok. Then lest us pull back. Also, let us stop ALL of the foreign aid and assistance to these countries. And let us get repaid all the loans that we have made to these ingrates. We help out so many people around the world for very little. Fine. Let us stop it NOW. And then we will see how long it is before people start to crawl back asking for help. We are trying to make the world a better place.
One of the problems with this as a foreign policy is China tends to step into the void. Egypt has good natural gas reserves and China certianly could use that. China's foreign policy deals don't come with strings attached like 'must toe the line in human rights' or 'must play nice with Israel'.
Hence the issue becomes one of surrendering influence without clearly gaining much in return. Maybe more importantly a lot of the deals America works on have at least a significant domestic component. No one wants to be the guy that 'lost Egypt' or any other significant state. Especially if this really does turn into domino's - loose Saudi Arabia to an anti-American regime and the West is back to where we where they where in the '70s, under threat of an oil blockade. America worked pretty hard to defang OPEC and that is in significant danger of unraveling.
|
|
Ok. Then lest us pull back. Also, let us stop ALL of the foreign aid and assistance to these countries. And let us get repaid all the loans that we have made to these ingrates. We help out so many people around the world for very little. Fine. Let us stop it NOW. And then we will see how long it is before people start to crawl back asking for help. We are trying to make the world a better place.One of the problems with this as a foreign policy is China tends to step into the void. Egypt has good natural gas reserves and China certianly could use that. China's foreign policy deals don't come with strings attached like 'must toe the line in human rights' or 'must play nice with Israel'.
Hence the issue becomes one of surrendering influence without clearly gaining much in return. Maybe more importantly a lot of the deals America works on have at least a significant domestic component. No one wants to be the guy that 'lost Egypt' or any other significant state. Especially if this really does turn into domino's - loose Saudi Arabia to an anti-American regime and the West is back to where we where they where in the '70s, under threat of an oil blockade. America worked pretty hard to defang OPEC and that is in significant danger of unraveling.
Agreed. Going from a superpower to Switzerland is not a good option.
We (Israel) have a very crappy government at the moment, so of course CNN had no trouble finding a minister to say something stupid.
Israel's best interest is that a STRONG democracy takes over Egypt. Egypt has no (logical) reason to break the peace treaty with Israel, and as a modern democracy it will probably turn to its neighbour and finally get commerce going.
HOWEVER, A weak democracy or a sham democracy will just bring about a fundamentalist takeover. Since this has already happened in Iran, Lebanon and Gaza, it makes sense that Israel fears that the same will happen in Egypt.
A pro-western democracy in Egypt is Israel's wet dream. Most of us don't like the dictators that surround us (except for King Abdulla of Jordan. He's just so cool) but the most probable alternative is a islamistic violent regime.I wonder whose next?
1. Syria- not going to happen. No internet and no middle class. Maybe a military coup to switch dictators to a more pro-west one.
2. Saudi Arabia- they walk a tight line already, playing all sides. Very explosive
3. Iran - a best case scenario is that the student revolt rekindles in Iran. I can safely assume that there is no worse option than the current regime and the Iranian people truly want democracy and have the means to actually pull this off (very large middle class, educated people and son on )
Finding Israeli officials making such statements ain't that hard, even with a gag order. For example.
They'll break the treaty, to a greater or lesser extent because that's what their people will demand - or more accurately the people will demand that the Egyptian government support the Palestinians and will be stirred up in that regard every time Al-Jeezera does a news piece focusing on Palestine. Unless Israel pretty much surrenders on every major point of dispute with Palestine this will remain the basic situation on the 'Arab street'. Democracy does not make the Egyptian people pro-Israeli, it allows them to express their anti-Israeli stance through the ballot box.
Likely this starts with Egypt opening the border with Gaza...to which Israel can either respond by doing nothing and allowing all sorts of things to flow into the area (including materials that either directly are, or could easily be converted to, weapons) or Israel enrages the Egyptian population by taking over the Egyptian-Gaza border themselves.
No does Democracy mean that there will likely be more commerce with Egypt. Ever since the Camp David Accords where signed there has been every opportunity for the two states to engage in commerce. The result has not been particularly dramatic and there is no reason to think that Democracy will change that.
There is a tendency to believe that Western Style Democracy leads to economic development but there is no real evidence that this has ever been true. Fundamental economic factors don't change for the better in a Democracy, in fact, if anything, there is significant danger that they get worse as the politicians implement anti-capitalist reforms (like gas and food subsidies) in an attempt to get elected.
There are examples of nations developing under western style democracies (Brazil, Japan) but there are pretty much an equal number that developed under authoritarian regimes (South Korea, Taiwan, China). Generally speaking its not Democracy that leads to development but the reverse. Once enough of the population rises out of dire poverty and some significant form of middle class comes into existence they generally start demanding more democratic political reform.
Finally, I'd lay 2-1 that it'll be the Muslim Brotherhood that substantially wins any free and fair election. They have huge support among large numbers of the population, especially the poor and they are much better organized than any alternative party that might come into existence to challenge them. This is especially true because there would likely be some kind of split in the vote between some form of pro-west political party and a status quo 'we liked the old regime' party. The Muslim Brotherhood just needs to be bigger then either of these two alternatives.
Furthermore, in the unlikely event that the Muslim Brotherhood where to lose the election this time around, its likely that no political party can really solve Egypt's economic woes in the next four years - meaning that the Muslim Brotherhood would get another shot down the road. In some sense the Muslim Brotherhood has an unbeatable advantage - they are the only party not promising the people a better future they have no actual means of delivering.
Agreed. Going from a superpower to Switzerland is not a good option.Ok. Then lest us pull back. Also, let us stop ALL of the foreign aid and assistance to these countries. And let us get repaid all the loans that we have made to these ingrates. We help out so many people around the world for very little. Fine. Let us stop it NOW. And then we will see how long it is before people start to crawl back asking for help. We are trying to make the world a better place.One of the problems with this as a foreign policy is China tends to step into the void. Egypt has good natural gas reserves and China certianly could use that. China's foreign policy deals don't come with strings attached like 'must toe the line in human rights' or 'must play nice with Israel'.
Hence the issue becomes one of surrendering influence without clearly gaining much in return. Maybe more importantly a lot of the deals America works on have at least a significant domestic component. No one wants to be the guy that 'lost Egypt' or any other significant state. Especially if this really does turn into domino's - loose Saudi Arabia to an anti-American regime and the West is back to where we where they where in the '70s, under threat of an oil blockade. America worked pretty hard to defang OPEC and that is in significant danger of unraveling.
I'm not sure I agree.
The US supported brutal anti communist dictators through out the cold war. We installed Castro and the Shah. Now we support brutal and repressive regimes and engage in preemptive war for oil or stability or the GWoT. We have done some great things in the world too. I rather like how South Korea has turned out. On the whole, however I'm not sure our global interventionism (or global leadership) has had a winning record. We have made it pretty clear that human rights are our lowest foreign policy concerns IMO, and we have spent a God awful lot of money on projecting our power globally and global leadership. We are tens of trillions of dollars in debt, and we are significantly subsidizing the militaries of wealthy nations.
It seems to me that being a bit more like Switzerland and less like an imperial power is looking better every fiscal year.
Finding Israeli officials making such statements ain't that hard, even with a gag order. For example.
They'll break the treaty, to a greater or lesser extent because that's what their people will demand - or more accurately the people will demand that the Egyptian government support the Palestinians and will be stirred up in that regard every time Al-Jeezera does a news piece focusing on Palestine. Unless Israel pretty much surrenders on every major point of dispute with Palestine this will remain the basic situation on the 'Arab street'. Democracy does not make the Egyptian people pro-Israeli, it allows them to express their anti-Israeli stance through the ballot box.
Likely this starts with Egypt opening the border with Gaza...to which Israel can either respond by doing nothing and allowing all sorts of things to flow into the area (including materials that either directly are, or could easily be converted to, weapons) or Israel enrages the Egyptian population by taking over the Egyptian-Gaza border themselves.
No does Democracy mean that there will likely be more commerce with Egypt. Ever since the Camp David Accords where signed there has been every opportunity for the two states to engage in commerce. The result has not been particularly dramatic and there is no reason to think that Democracy will change that.
There is a tendency to believe that Western Style Democracy leads to economic development but there is no real evidence that this has ever been true. Fundamental economic factors don't change for the better in a Democracy, in fact, if anything, there is significant danger that they get worse as the politicians implement anti-capitalist reforms (like gas and food subsidies) in an attempt to get elected.
There are examples of nations developing under western style democracies (Brazil, Japan) but there are pretty much an equal number that developed under authoritarian regimes (South Korea, Taiwan, China). Generally speaking its not Democracy that leads to development but the reverse. Once enough of the population rises out of dire poverty and some significant form of middle class comes into existence they generally start demanding more democratic political reform.
Finally, I'd lay 2-1 that it'll be the Muslim Brotherhood that substantially wins any free and fair election. They have huge support among large numbers of the population, especially the poor and they are much better organized than any alternative party that might come into existence to challenge them. This is especially true because there would likely be some kind of split in the vote between some form of pro-west political party and a status quo 'we liked the old regime' party. The Muslim Brotherhood just needs to be bigger then either of these two alternatives.
Furthermore, in the unlikely event that the Muslim Brotherhood where to lose the election this time around, its likely that no political party can really solve Egypt's economic woes in the next four years - meaning that the Muslim Brotherhood would get another shot down the road. In some sense the Muslim Brotherhood has an unbeatable advantage - they are the only party not promising the people a better future they have no actual means of delivering.
I'm don't think I concur with grouping RoK with Taiwan and China, but I may be biased by time there.
I'm also having trouble sorting out how much of a threat the Muslim Brotherhood is. The reporting runs the gamut of extremes and everything in between. Can you point me toward some links please?
Finding Israeli officials making such statements ain't that hard, even with a gag order. For example.They'll break the treaty, to a greater or lesser extent because that's what their people will demand - or more accurately the people will demand that the Egyptian government support the Palestinians and will be stirred up in that regard every time Al-Jeezera does a news piece focusing on Palestine. Unless Israel pretty much surrenders on every major point of dispute with Palestine this will remain the basic situation on the 'Arab...
True, that's the most probable route.
I was trying to be a tad optimistic. Breaking a peace treaty is a deceleration of war.If the revolution does indeed stem from economical strife it will be pretty stupid of the Egyptians to start a military confrontation. Egypt has more power supporting the Palestinians as a friend of Israel than as an enemy. And it always has supported the Palestinians diplomatically. If the masses will shout for Egypt to "liberate" Palestine by force, that is because they are, well, masses. Not thinking individuals.
Using the "we represent the true rights of the Palestinians" is a method utilized by lots of violent entities in the middle east that don't give a s@%* about Palestine (Iran, Hizballa, factions in Turkey). The only people who actually understand this are the Palestinians themselves. Going against Israel =/= supporting the Palestinians.
Egypt was never considered a true friend to Israel, but was respected (by the government and media) due to their adherence to the peace treaty.
A violent Egypt is what started the occupation in the first place. A strong, democratic Egypt (or if not a democratic one, a pragmatic one) can truly serve the Palestinian cause by getting involved as a stabilizing force, negotiator and supporter.
Seeing the news yesterday and hearing radio today, it seems that some decision will come today, with probably a million protesters. The military stated that they won´t use force, but that remains to be seen. The protesters shown yesterday seemed to be middle-class rather than poor, and there were several middle-aged men visible. In the last few days, newspapers here showed women as protesters as well. So, it seems that the protests are borne mainly by a middle class, consisting of people from, say, 15 to 45 (judging from the looks, mainly). If the number of a million protesters is true, then it will probably encompass people from all walks of life.
I don´t think that these protesters, who show courage and a strong desire to change things, will be patronized by the muslim brotherhood (or any other radical islamic force) easily. The muslim brotherhood, by its very nature, will espouse the dominance of men over women - and with young women being part of these protests, this won´t be as easy anymore. I don´t say that the radical islamic forces are no danger, far from it. But I don´t think that they will it have as easy as some fear - mind you, the threat of the muslim brotherhood was of course painted in vivid colors by the current regime, as this suited their goals - easy to justify force against anyone suspected to be part of it (or just against unwanted elements), and telling the western world just how dangerous they are to curry favors, monetary or otherwise, and to make the regime indispensable as a bulwark against the muslim threat. These islamic forces are dangerous, but I think they can be contained.
Stefan
|
|
I just saw a message cross the wires that Iran is publicly encouraging the protests in Egypt as they see parallels between this and their own revolution in the 70's. There was a report just a few minutes ago on CNN that the Egyptian government claims that Iran has infiltrated the protests. Now that might not be true, but considering the historical Arab/Persian rivalry it might be a good tactic to use if they want to sow distrust among the protesters.
Seeing the news yesterday and hearing radio today, it seems that some decision will come today, with probably a million protesters. The military stated that they won´t use force, but that remains to be seen. The protesters shown yesterday seemed to be middle-class rather than poor, and there were several middle-aged men visible. In the last few days, newspapers here showed women as protesters as well. So, it seems that the protests are borne mainly by a middle class, consisting of people from, say, 15 to 45 (judging from the looks, mainly). If the number of a million protesters is true, then it will probably encompass people from all walks of life.
I don´t think that these protesters, who show courage and a strong desire to change things, will be patronized by the muslim brotherhood (or any other radical islamic force) easily. The muslim brotherhood, by its very nature, will espouse the dominance of men over women - and with young women being part of these protests, this won´t be as easy anymore. I don´t say that the radical islamic forces are no danger, far from it. But I don´t think that they will it have as easy as some fear - mind you, the threat of the muslim brotherhood was of course painted in vivid colors by the current regime, as this suited their goals - easy to justify force against anyone suspected to be part of it (or just against unwanted elements), and telling the western world just how dangerous they are to curry favors, monetary or otherwise, and to make the regime indispensable as a bulwark against the muslim threat. These islamic forces are dangerous, but I think they can be contained.
Stefan
I don't have any particular insight into the events occuring in Tunisia and Egypt, but regarding your second paragraph I would just hasten to mention that the Iranian revolution that brought Khomeini and his ayatollahs into power wasn't started by Islamic fundamentalists either.
The people who started the revolt against Shah Pahlavi, demographically, were identical to the protestors in Egypt, except with probably a lot more Maoists than there are today. A simple place to see this is in the comic book-later-movie Persepolis.
|
|
Seeing the news yesterday and hearing radio today, it seems that some decision will come today, with probably a million protesters. The military stated that they won´t use force, but that remains to be seen. The protesters shown yesterday seemed to be middle-class rather than poor, and there were several middle-aged men visible. In the last few days, newspapers here showed women as protesters as well. So, it seems that the protests are borne mainly by a middle class, consisting of people from, say, 15 to 45 (judging from the looks, mainly). If the number of a million protesters is true, then it will probably encompass people from all walks of life.
I don´t think that these protesters, who show courage and a strong desire to change things, will be patronized by the muslim brotherhood (or any other radical islamic force) easily. The muslim brotherhood, by its very nature, will espouse the dominance of men over women - and with young women being part of these protests, this won´t be as easy anymore. I don´t say that the radical islamic forces are no danger, far from it. But I don´t think that they will it have as easy as some fear - mind you, the threat of the muslim brotherhood was of course painted in vivid colors by the current regime, as this suited their goals - easy to justify force against anyone suspected to be part of it (or just against unwanted elements), and telling the western world just how dangerous they are to curry favors, monetary or otherwise, and to make the regime indispensable as a bulwark against the muslim threat. These islamic forces are dangerous, but I think they can be contained.
Stefan
I don't have any particular insight into the events occuring in Tunisia and Egypt, but regarding your second paragraph I would just hasten to mention that the Iranian revolution that brought Khomeini and his ayatollahs into power wasn't started by Islamic fundamentalists either.
Exactly. There was a four stage process during the Iranian Revolution. This is stage one. Stage two was the establishment of a moderate but ultimately weak secular government. It remains to be seen if this is what happens or if the Egyptians will establish a stronger transition government. The third stage was the inclusion of radical Mullahs in the government, and the final stage was the Mullahs taking over. This played out over several months; we are still less than a week into the Egypt crisis. I think the most telling thing right now is what I posted earlier; that Iran is saying this looks like the Iranian Revolution.
Yeah, I see the danger to a parallel development to Iran clearly. It is indeed much too early to say anything now. The protesters won´t be satisfied with Mubarak staying in office until september, that much is certain. Obviously, Mohammed El Baradei already had talks with foreign ambassadors about a transition government, and opposition parties of all colors try to place themselves for the coming race. But I would not underestimate the power of the people here: They seem to be able to bring Mubaraks downfall about all by themselves, and according to news reports it seems that there is a well-educated and young part of society who want freedom from the oppressive system, and there is a seemingly big number of young women among the protesters, who want freedom. If Iran touts the parallels to its own revolution too strongly, it might have the opposite effect, as I think the egytians are knowledgeable enough to see what came of that, and might be very wary to let it come that far. The danger is there, and it is very real, of course.
Either way, we can´t do much about it right now, only waiting to see what develops, and if the opportunity presents itself, making the influence of the west known and try to push a little in the right direction - but this has to be done very carefully, as it could easily backfire.
I think Egypt is closer to the "west" than Persia was - there are historical reasons for this, and tourism is a big factor today (there were one million German tourists in Egypt in 2009, and tourism brings billions of dollars each year). Note that I´m not talking about the leading politicians, but rather the populace in general.
The Al Azhar University is an important force in Egypt and the whole islamic world, and has followed a rather worldly and liberal course in its interpretations of Islam. Nearly half of the 375000 students are women. So, I think the starting situation of Egypt is quite different than that of Persia was.
Stefan
there were one million German tourists in Egypt in 2009
I think you'd be hard-pressed to name a country that doesn't get a million German tourists a year! When I'm lost anywhere in the world, I just wait until I hear the sound of German -- had no problem getting around Bulgaria and Serbia with only German and English.
I think you'd be hard-pressed to name a country that doesn't get a million German tourists a year!
Heh. Yeah, Germans have been labeled travel world champions in the past, and not for nothing. (I think Burma/Myanmar probably does not get that many tourists, but you never know...)
It was proposed jokingly to make Mallorca the 17th federal state, as it was tightly controlled by Germans anyway, buying houses and land all over the island. Somehow, many Germans view their own country as dreadful and try to get as far away as often as they can afford.Stefan
Somehow, many Germans view their own country as dreadful and try to get as far away as often as they can afford.
Last summer I had a stopover in Frankfurt -- my first time back to my home country in 20 years! -- and I think my wife and I were the only non-Arabic-speaking passengers in the entire airport. If that's reflective of the rest of the area now, I can see why Germans would need to go abroad -- just to hear their native language!
I wish the Egyptian people well.
Somehow, many Germans view their own country as dreadful and try to get as far away as often as they can afford.Last summer I had a stopover in Frankfurt -- my first time back to my home country in 20 years! -- and I think my wife and I were the only non-Arabic-speaking passengers in the entire airport. If that's reflective of the rest of the area now, I can see why Germans would need to go abroad -- just to hear their native language!
Well, Frankfurt Airport is about as international as it gets, being the largest airport in Germany and one of Europes main hubs. So, there are of course a lot of foreigners there. Otherwise, it depends. There are parts of Berlin that are basically a Turkish enclave, and have been for decades. I think Berlin has the largest Turkish community outside Turkey. But for the most part, Germany has an average level of people who have a "migratory background", a term being used for everybody with some foreign blood, back to the grandparents. So, if one of your grandparents was a foreigner, you have a "migratory background", which makes the term being used too far-ranging IMO. Small wonder we have 20% of the populace with such a background, even if about 90-95% of the populace seem to speak German only... In reality, the perceptions about the number of foreigners is off for the most part, but of course, in a 99% white caucasian population, every face looking foreign sticks out, be they turkish, arabian, black, asian or whatever.
No, I think the reason is homemade: The Germans learned for 60 years to hate their country for the crimes committed in the last war, and thus are fleeing it in droves for a short time - just to complain about how much better everything is in Germany, and wanting to come back. Germans want to have a relaxed attitude, but when people demonstrate what that means, they start complaining about the laxness. Sometimes, my fellow citizens are just crazy and somewhat schizophrenic.
Stefan