Jump to content

Egypt


Citizen X

Recommended Posts

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 264
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2044929,00.html?hpt=T2

 

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.

 

"We believe that Egypt is going to overcome the current wave of demonstrations, but we have to look to the future," says the minister in the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Israel enjoys diplomatic relations and security cooperation with both Egypt and Jordan, the only neighboring states that have signed treaties with the Jewish state. But while it may be more efficient to deal in with a strongman in Cairo — Mubarak has ruled for 30 years — and a king in Amman, democracies make better neighbors, "because democracies do not initiate wars," he says. (See pictures of Egypt's protests.)

 

"Having said that, I'm not sure the time is right for the Arab region to go through the democratic process."

 

The minister, who spoke on condition of not being identified by name or portfolio, cites the Gaza Strip as a signal warning of the risk that comes with asking the people what they want. The seaside territory, home to some 1.5 million Palestinians, elected the militant Islamist group Hamas in a 2006 election that had been urged by George W. Bush, when the president was casting the invasion of Iraq as a mission to bring democracy to the Middle East. (How strong a mediator is Egypt's Mubarak?)

 

All well and good in the long run, according to the official, but Arab societies demand "a longer term democratization process," one accompanied by education reforms that would encourage the election of moderates. "You can't make it with elections, especially in the current situation where radical elements, especially Islamist groups, may exploit the situation," he says. "It might take a generation or so. " (Is the Arab world ready for democracy?)

 

The official's assessment, which came before Friday's raucous demonstrations in Cairo, Suez and Alexandria, may strike many in the region as paternalistic, at best. Along with oil, Israel is the major factor in U.S. policy that for decades has helped protect "moderate Arab regimes" now endangered by a populist wave that began in Tunisia. In a region of national borders drawn by colonial powers after World War I, the Jewish state is frequently framed by critics as itself a colonial undertaking, conceived in Europe, midwifed by Great Britain, coddled by Washington, and imposed on an Arab region that sees Israel itself as colonizing through settlements and industrial zones on Palestinian land it has occupied militarily since 1967.

 

For their part, Israeli governments pride themselves on clear-eyed assessments of the risks they face. The official saw no special peril, for instance, in Lebanon's new government. Though supported by Hizballah, the Shi'a movement backed by Iran, "we don't consider it a Hizballah government," the official says. But the Israeli government was duly impressed, however, by the simultaneous outbreaks of instability across the region: citizen uprisings in Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt and Yemen; unrest in Jordan and the Kurdish section of Syria; and a secession vote in Sudan's south that likely will split the country in two.

 

"It seems now we have quite an earthquake," says the cabinet member, paying respects to the Al Jazeera satellite news channel and digital technologies that dispersed the power to communicate and organize. "In the time of [Egyptian president and Pan-Arabist] Gamel Abdel Nasser, Egypt had one radio channel and transistor radios were all allowed to listen to one channel." (Watch a video explanation of Egypt's protests.)

 

A retired major general found other metaphors — and more cause for concern. "We need to understand that we are living on a volcano," Ya'acov Amidror, former head of the Israel Defense Forces' Research and Assessment Directorate, told the Jerusalem Post. "Conditions can change from today until tomorrow. We must ask ourselves, what is the worst case scenario. We are on thick ice, but even that melts eventually."

 

Friday's events offered little comfort for worried Israelis. At least twice Friday, hundreds of Cairo protestors dropped to their knees in an impromptu prayer sessions, lending the demonstrations both a measure of piety and a specific religious cast lacking from previous days — and from the Tunisian rebellion altogether, at least at first. The Israeli minister cautioned against drawing many parallels between Egypt and Tunisia, where a president fled after 27 years in office. "Mubarak is not Zine El Abidine Ben Ali," he cautions. "It's a huge difference. His regime is well rooted in the military and security apparatus. He and his wife are not criticized like the Tunisian couple." The official adds, "We do believe the regime is strong enough to overcome it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i wouldn't doubt if they knew, just like mubarak wasted little time pulling the plug on the net after seeing what it was doing.

people are savvy.

and i think people are a lot more savvy in that region than they are given credit for.

 

i remember a guide of mine ini cairo telling me people in cairo drive insanely because it's the only place they have freedom. that was a year ago, and i can tell you i had no idea what kind of pressure cooker they live in. just a tremendously friendly, wonderful people

i wish them the best in this, and have been glad to see that they aren't yet following iran's lead with brutal violence.

 

i'll be thrilled if the military defies mubarak. it'll be over for him if they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah i think for sure that they knew, after mubarak spoke about an hour ago, the protesters gathered in front of the al jazeera bureau's camera with their chants (you can tell i've been glued to this thing all day, its been cool to watch a regime crumble before my eyes)....

 

it's funny that you mention that anecdote, i've spent a lot of time in places where the opportunities for people of our generation are very limited, and they all tend to drive crazy, and i have heard that same anecdote in other places as well (including panama, where im currently staying...)

 

it seems as though egypt is following more or less the same cues as tunisia, and look how that turned out. you can't negotiate with a mob, and it seems as if mubarak just tried to low-ball the people - ill fire everyone except myself. and like you said, people aren't stupid, especially in egypt where they're so under-employed that they have nothing to do except debate amongst themselves when they should be working.

 

wishing them the best.

 

i wouldn't doubt if they knew, just like mubarak wasted little time pulling the plug on the net after seeing what it was doing.

people are savvy.

and i think people are a lot more savvy in that region than they are given credit for.

 

i remember a guide of mine ini cairo telling me people in cairo drive insanely because it's the only place they have freedom. that was a year ago, and i can tell you i had no idea what kind of pressure cooker they live in. just a tremendously friendly, wonderful people

i wish them the best in this, and have been glad to see that they aren't yet following iran's lead with brutal violence.

 

i'll be thrilled if the military defies mubarak. it'll be over for him if they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/01/2011130165636218719.html

 

Mohamed ElBaradei, a leading opposition figure, has joined thousands of protesters in Cairo's Tahrir Square, in continued demonstrations demanding an end to President Hosni Mubarak's 30-year rule.

 

The former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency told the crowd on Sunday night that "what we have begun cannot go back" referring to days of anti-government protests.

 

The National Coalition for Change, which groups several opposition movements including the Muslim Brotherhood, wants ElBaradei to negotiate with the Mubarak government.

 

"The people want the regime to fall," protesters chanted as ElBaradei walked to the centre of the square, holding hands with some demonstrators.

 

The show of continued defiance by the people came on a day when air force fighter planes flew low over Cairo along with helicopters and extra troop lorries appeared in the central square.

 

 

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/01/30/us.egypt/?hpt=T2

 

In her CNN interview, Clinton called the presidential elections scheduled for later this year an "action-enforcing event that is already on the calendar."

 

"I don't think the Egyptian people want to see what is a very clear effort to obtain political and economic rights turn into any kind of new form of oppression or suppression or violence or letting loose criminal elements," she said. "That's not what they're in the streets protesting for."

 

 

..i'd like to see some more support from our government

but who knows what the future holds for israel in the wake of 'regime change'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every country spies on other other countries, the UN just being one playing field. IF the US didn't spy they would be at a disadvantage to everyone else who does spy.

 

 

 

Some reading on the fundamentals at play in Egypt from a guy who knows stuff.

 

 

 

 

The Egypt Crisis in a Global Context: A Special Report

January 30, 2011 | 2253 GMT

 

By George Friedman

 

 

It is not at all clear what will happen in the Egyptian revolution. It is not a surprise that this is happening. Hosni Mubarak has been president for more than a quarter of a century, ever since the assassination of Anwar Sadat. He is old and has been ill. No one expected him to live much longer, and his apparent plan, which was that he would be replaced by his son, Gamal, was not going to happen even though it was a possibility a year ago. There was no one, save his closest business associates, who wanted to see Mubarak’s succession plans happen. As his father weakened, Gamal’s succession became even less likely. Mubarak’s failure to design a credible succession plan guaranteed instability on his death. Since everyone knew that there would be instability on his death, there were obviously those who saw little advantage to acting before he died. Who these people were and what they wanted is the issue.

 

Let’s begin by considering the regime. In 1952, Col. Gamal Abdel Nasser staged a military coup that displaced the Egyptian monarchy, civilian officers in the military, and British influence in Egypt. Nasser created a government based on military power as the major stabilizing and progressive force in Egypt. His revolution was secular and socialist. In short, it was a statist regime dominated by the military. On Nasser’s death, Anwar Sadat replaced him. On Sadat’s assassination, Hosni Mubarak replaced him. Both of these men came from the military as Nasser did. However their foreign policy might have differed from Nasser’s, the regime remained intact.

 

Mubarak’s Opponents

 

The demands for Mubarak’s resignation come from many quarters, including from members of the regime — particularly the military — who regard Mubarak’s unwillingness to permit them to dictate the succession as endangering the regime. For some of them, the demonstrations represent both a threat and opportunity. Obviously, the demonstrations might get out of hand and destroy the regime. On the other hand, the demonstrations might be enough to force Mubarak to resign, allow a replacement — for example, Omar Suleiman, the head of intelligence who Mubarak recently appointed vice president — and thereby save the regime. This is not to say that they fomented the demonstrations, but some must have seen the demonstrations as an opportunity.

 

This is particularly the case in the sense that the demonstrators are deeply divided among themselves and thus far do not appear to have been able to generate the type of mass movement that toppled the Shah of Iran’s regime in 1979. More important, the demonstrators are clearly united in opposing Mubarak as an individual, and to a large extent united in opposing the regime. Beyond that, there is a deep divide in the opposition.

 

Western media has read the uprising as a demand for Western-style liberal democracy. Many certainly are demanding that. What is not clear is that this is moving Egypt’s peasants, workers and merchant class to rise en masse. Their interests have far more to do with the state of the Egyptian economy than with the principles of liberal democracy. As in Iran in 2009, the democratic revolution, if focused on democrats, cannot triumph unless it generates broader support.

 

The other element in this uprising is the Muslim Brotherhood. The consensus of most observers is that the Muslim Brotherhood at this point is no longer a radical movement and is too weak to influence the revolution. This may be possible, but it is not obvious. The Muslim Brotherhood has many strands, many of which have been quiet under Mubarak’s repression. It is not clear who will emerge if Mubarak falls. It is certainly not clear that they are weaker than the democratic demonstrators. It is a mistake to confuse the Muslim Brotherhood’s caution with weakness. Another way to look at them is that they have bided their time and toned down their real views, waiting for the kind of moment provided by Mubarak’s succession. I would suspect that the Muslim Brotherhood has more potential influence among the Egyptian masses than the Western-oriented demonstrators or Mohamed ElBaradei, the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who is emerging as their leader.

 

There is, of course, the usual discussion of what U.S. President Barack Obama’s view is, or what the Europeans think, or what the Iranians are up to. All of them undoubtedly have thoughts and even plans. In my view, trying to shape the political dynamics of a country like Egypt from Iran or the United States is futile, and believing that what is happening in Egypt is the result of their conspiracies is nonsense. A lot of people care what is happening there, and a lot of people are saying all sorts of things and even spending money on spies and Twitter. Egypt’s regime can be influenced in this way, but a revolution really doesn’t depend on what the European Union or Tehran says.

 

There are four outcomes possible. First, the regime might survive. Mubarak might stabilize the situation, or more likely, another senior military official would replace him after a decent interval. Another possibility under the scenario of the regime’s survival is that there may be a coup of the colonels, as we discussed yesterday. A second possibility is that the demonstrators might force elections in which ElBaradei or someone like him could be elected and Egypt might overthrow the statist model built by Nasser and proceed on the path of democracy. The third possibility is that the demonstrators force elections, which the Muslim Brotherhood could win and move forward with an Islamist-oriented agenda. The fourth possibility is that Egypt will sink into political chaos. The most likely path to this would be elections that result in political gridlock in which a viable candidate cannot be elected. If I were forced to choose, I would bet on the regime stabilizing itself and Mubarak leaving because of the relative weakness and division of the demonstrators. But that’s a guess and not a forecast.

 

Geopolitical Significance

 

Whatever happens matters a great deal to Egyptians. But only some of these outcomes are significant to the world. Among radical Islamists, the prospect of a radicalized Egypt represents a new lease on life. For Iran, such an outcome would be less pleasing. Iran is now the emerging center of radical Islamism; it would not welcome competition from Egypt, though it may be content with an Islamist Egypt that acts as an Iranian ally (something that would not be easy to ensure).

 

For the United States, an Islamist Egypt would be a strategic catastrophe. Egypt is the center of gravity in the Arab world. This would not only change the dynamic of the Arab world, it would reverse U.S. strategy since the end of the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. Sadat’s decision to reverse his alliance with the Soviets and form an alliance with the United States undermined the Soviet position in the Mediterranean and in the Arab world and strengthened the United States immeasurably. The support of Egyptian intelligence after 9/11 was critical in blocking and undermining al Qaeda. Were Egypt to stop that cooperation or become hostile, the U.S. strategy would be severely undermined.

 

The great loser would be Israel. Israel’s national security has rested on its treaty with Egypt, signed by Menachem Begin with much criticism by the Israeli right. The demilitarization of the Sinai Peninsula not only protected Israel’s southern front, it meant that the survival of Israel was no longer at stake. Israel fought three wars (1948, 1967 and 1973) where its very existence was at issue. The threat was always from Egypt, and without Egypt in the mix, no coalition of powers could threaten Israel (excluding the now-distant possibility of Iranian nuclear weapons). In all of the wars Israel fought after its treaty with Egypt (the 1982 and 2006 wars in Lebanon) Israeli interests, but not survival, were at stake.

 

If Egypt were to abrogate the Camp David Accords and over time reconstruct its military into an effective force, the existential threat to Israel that existed before the treaty was signed would re-emerge. This would not happen quickly, but Israel would have to deal with two realities. The first is that the Israeli military is not nearly large enough or strong enough to occupy and control Egypt. The second is that the development of Egypt’s military would impose substantial costs on Israel and limit its room for maneuver.

 

There is thus a scenario that would potentially strengthen the radical Islamists while putting the United States, Israel, and potentially even Iran at a disadvantage, all for different reasons. That scenario emerges only if two things happen. First, the Muslim Brotherhood must become a dominant political force in Egypt. Second, they must turn out to be more radical than most observers currently believe they are — or they must, with power, evolve into something more radical.

 

If the advocates for democracy win, and if they elect someone like ElBaradei, it is unlikely that this scenario would take place. The pro-Western democratic faction is primarily concerned with domestic issues, are themselves secular and would not want to return to the wartime state prior to Camp David, because that would simply strengthen the military. If they win power, the geopolitical arrangements would remain unchanged.

 

Similarly, the geopolitical arrangements would remain in place if the military regime retained power — save for one scenario. If it was decided that the regime’s unpopularity could be mitigated by assuming a more anti-Western and anti-Israeli policy — in other words, if the regime decided to play the Islamist card, the situation could evolve as a Muslim Brotherhood government would. Indeed, as hard as it is to imagine, there could be an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood designed to stabilize the regime. Stranger things have happened.

 

When we look at the political dynamic of Egypt, and try to imagine its connection to the international system, we can see that there are several scenarios under which certain political outcomes would have profound effects on the way the world works. That should not be surprising. When Egypt was a pro-Soviet Nasserite state, the world was a very different place than it had been before Nasser. When Sadat changed his foreign policy the world changed with it. If Sadat’s foreign policy changes, the world changes again. Egypt is one of those countries whose internal politics matter to more than its own citizens.

 

Most of the outcomes I envision leave Egypt pretty much where it is. But not all. The situation is, as they say, in doubt, and the outcome is not trivial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...