Egyptian riots

If you're referring to the 1967 war, Israel shot first. They like to paint it as 'defense', but all Egypt, for instance, had on the border was two battalions... nowhere near enough to mount a credible attack. They were most likely a defensive force, not an offensive one. They had closed the Suez Canal to Israeli shipping, and the soldiers were probably there as a buffer.

No, the Egyptians had all seven of their divisions (infantry and tanks), plus four brigades of infantry and four brigades of armor, on the Sinai border. About 100,000 of their 160,000 troops were in place with plans to attack. (The operation was called off after the Americans asked the Soviets to stand down the Egyptians, about a week before the war started. The forces were still in place at that time and while the Egyptians had not attacked, neither had they given up the opportunity.) Not only that, but it was clear what they were doing - the operation plans changed several times in a month, necessitating movements by the forces within the staging areas.

It was defensive. How else do you explain the facts? Nasser was falsely told by his Soviet sponsors that Israel was massing troops on it's Syrian border, and Egypt responded by kicking out the UN buffer forces and taking over their positions (thus establishing a military threat opposite the Syrian border and removing the UN as a warning force). The Israelis then repeated earlier statements that closing the Suez Canal would be viewed as an act of war, and a few days later it was closed. Then Egypt and Jordan sign a defense treaty, Iraqi forces begin massing in Jordan, and even an Egyptian unit shows up there. Several days after that, the Israelis attacked, notably by air only for the first two days. It was preemptive.

Both the Iraqis and the Egyptians announced that if the Israelis attacked Syria or Egypt, they would wipe out Israel. The Iraqis referred to Israel as "a mistake" which they would rectify and noted that almost no Jews would survive. They believed the Israelis were prepping for war, but of course they were not. Indeed, they were largely responding the Egyptian, Iraqi, Jordanian and Syrian preparations for war, in an atmosphere in which Israel perceived itself to be surrounded by enemies promising to push it into the sea.

I have to say that Al Jazeera is fascinating and is embarrassing American media. Watching it on my iPhone it strikes me as odd that this is how to get the most current news.

Mubarak swears in the first Vice President in 30 years. Also a new Prime Minister. It doesn't sound like this is what protesters are asking for. Different garnish around the same main course.

Please please please please please please please please please please don't turn this thread into something about Israel.

garion333 wrote:

Please please please please please please please please please please don't turn this thread into something about Israel.

Here you go. At thread just for Israel walls of text.

http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/107355

I know there is context with regards to Egypt when it comes to Israel. But I saw we put that talk in another thread.

From Salon.com. I love this contrast regarding commentary in the US.

Bill O'Reilly fears the great, big, Muslim unknown:

The problem is that if Mubarak is overthrown, who will take his place? The fear in Washington is that the Muslim Brotherhood will seize power - they are jihadists who hate America and who will help Al Qaeda all day long. There is real danger here for you and me and every American. If countries like Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt and perhaps Jordan are taken over by Muslim fanatics, we will have a true world war on our hands.

Paul Krugman reveals that even he has an intellectual blind spot:

I don’t know anything, have no expertise, haven’t even ever looked at the economic situation. Hence, no posting. If there comes a point when I have something to say, I will.

Krugman has it right. If you don't know what you're talking about, don't speak just to speak.

DSGamer wrote:
goman wrote:

Biden says Mubarak is not a dictator.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/polit...

JIM LEHRER: The word -- the word to describe the leadership of Mubarak and Egypt and also in Tunisia before was dictator. Should Mubarak be seen as a dictator?

JOE BIDEN: Look, Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things and he's been very responsible on, relative to geopolitical interests in the region: Middle East peace efforts, the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing the relationship with Israel.

That's major parsing there. I'm not going to say he's not a dictator, but let me tell you about some awesome things he does.

He says that now at the same time the government considers pulling the plug on aid to Mubarak. If it looks like he is on his way out, I wouldn't be surprised if the Obama administration gives him a helpful shove out the door. With popular sentiment dead set against Mubarak, the US would want its hands as clean as possible.

I wonder if the US will give him the "Marcos" treatment: special protection and transport to US soil, ongoing residential visa, and political asylum.

I'm calling it now, "President" Mubarak won't last the weekend.

I know there is context with regards to Egypt when it comes to Israel. But I saw we put that talk in another thread.

No problem.

Watching it on my iPhone it strikes me as odd that this is how to get the most current news.

Most American news services have drastically cut their overseas coverage. The only ones that have been updating frequently are CNN and NPR (which I believe has the biggest foreign corps of any American news service.)

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/eLNq6.jpg)

Latest interesting news to me. Apparently roving bands of "thugs" are looting and intimidating protestors. Sound familiar?

http://tinyurl.com/kujaax

Also, apparently the police let them free. This is terrible if Mubarak saw the example of Iran and decided to emulate it. Help create a state of severe insecurity and wait for people to be cowed into submission.

DSGamer wrote:

Latest interesting news to me. Apparently roving bands of "thugs" are looting and intimidating protestors. Sound familiar?

http://tinyurl.com/kujaax

Also, apparently the police let them free. This is terrible if Mubarak saw the example of Iran and decided to emulate it. Help create a state of severe insecurity and wait for people to be cowed into submission.

Irony alert!

In Iran, meanwhile, Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said Egyptian authorities should respect the demonstrators.

"Iran expects Egyptian officials to listen to the voice of their Muslim people, respond to their rightful demands and refrain from exerting violence by security forces and police against an Islamic wave of awareness that has spread through the country in form of a popular movement,"the state-run Press TV quoted Mehmanparast as saying.

Rat Boy wrote:

Irony alert!

In Iran, meanwhile, Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said Egyptian authorities should respect the demonstrators.

"Iran expects Egyptian officials to listen to the voice of their Muslim people, respond to their rightful demands and refrain from exerting violence by security forces and police against an Islamic wave of awareness that has spread through the country in form of a popular movement,"the state-run Press TV quoted Mehmanparast as saying.

Our reaction to Iran's doublespeak is probably the same many other places have when they hear our "doublespeak" (quote marks to show it's not a perception I necessarily hold).

Looks like the regime just shut down Al-Jazeera. And apparently, 38 members of the Muslim Brotherhood have been released from imprisonment. I don't know how this is going to shake out, but it's kind of clear that the White House was totally unprepared for this kind of event.

Robear wrote:
Watching it on my iPhone it strikes me as odd that this is how to get the most current news.

Most American news services have drastically cut their overseas coverage. The only ones that have been updating frequently are CNN and NPR (which I believe has the biggest foreign corps of any American news service.)

I've said it before but that's price you pay for having a "market based" news media.

On this subject it seems the three big EU members have issued a joint statement. This essentially amount to the EU's policy on this matter. I'll see if I can get it but it sounds like it put itself on a different stance to that of the US. Gimme a sec to track it down.

Forgot to add that Al Jareeza is now banned from broadcasting in Egypt. Edit: Tannhausered!

Prederick wrote:

Looks like the regime just shut down Al-Jazeera. And apparently, 38 members of the Muslim Brotherhood have been released from imprisonment. I don't know how this is going to shake out, but it's kind of clear that the White House was totally unprepared for this kind of event.

The Muslim Brotherhood announcements so far seems pretty moderate. I really would love to get a handle on this but Al Jareeza are at pains to point out that fundamentalists are not behind these protests.

As I said before, the same was true of the Iranian revolution but the magnitude could be different. Its the quite frustrating aspect of all this.

For folks looking for background, the BBC has written a decent profile of the Muslim Brotherhood. I don't have a good read on what kinds of policies a MB-majority government would be likely to push forward. My impression has been that they've become more moderate in recent years, but it's possible that has merely been a tactic to fend off the harshest of the governmental repression.

Fun fact: Sayeed Qutb, one of the influential thinkers in the Muslim Brotherhood, became radicalized (in part) after spending two years (1948-1950) as an exchange student in the US.

If MB manages to win an election, this would put the US in a very difficult position if for no other reason than that MB is on the official list of terrorist entities. The implications with our relations with Israel would be even more problematic in that an MB led or even influenced government would be highly unlikely to continue the Gaza Blockade, thus ending the joint US-Israeli policy of starving the population of Gaza into rejecting Hamas.

Whatever this is, I think American celebrations of "blossoming Egyptian democracy" are tremendously premature.

Paleocon:

The problem with letting people decide for themselves has always been that they won't always decide that you're a good guy. This is why America only stands for freedom for her own people. For every other people, it's their way, or you get crushed by an American-backed dictator.

LarryC wrote:

Paleocon:

The problem with letting people decide for themselves has always been that they won't always decide that you're a good guy. This is why America only stands for freedom for her own people. For every other people, it's their way, or you get crushed by an American-backed dictator.

Tom Lehrer wrote:

They've got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
Until somebody we like can get elected.

Wow. That didn't take long. Eliott Abrams claims vindication of the neoconservative invasion of Iraq agenda using Egypt as the evidence of "flowering democracy".


link

Al Jazeera coverage is incredible right now. The square is swollen as fighter jets are buzzing the crowd in Cairo. Not looking good in many ways. Democracy not blossoming quite yet.

Paleocon wrote:

Wow. That didn't take long. Eliott Abrams claims vindication of the neoconservative invasion of Iraq agenda using Egypt as the evidence of "flowering democracy".


link

Took longer than I thought it would, actually. I've been waiting for this exact response.

It's actually a surprisingly vague article. Which is not surprising, since he still has the hurdle of "...but the freedom agenda *does* include invading and subjugating countries on the other side of the world. Why do you ask?" to get over.

Robear wrote:

It's actually a surprisingly vague article. Which is not surprising, since he still has the hurdle of "...but the freedom agenda *does* include invading and subjugating countries on the other side of the world. Why do you ask?" to get over.

It also makes me wonder what all his "freedom agenda" crap was doing in Egypt during the Bush administration. Presumably selling Mubarak the tanks that are currently in the streets of Cairo.

Paleocon wrote:

If MB manages to win an election, this would put the US in a very difficult position if for no other reason than that MB is on the official list of terrorist entities. The implications with our relations with Israel would be even more problematic in that an MB led or even influenced government would be highly unlikely to continue the Gaza Blockade, thus ending the joint US-Israeli policy of starving the population of Gaza into rejecting Hamas.

Whatever this is, I think American celebrations of "blossoming Egyptian democracy" are tremendously premature.

I think the consequences of a Muslim Brotherhood-led government for the Gaza Blockade is probably one of the strongest and most valid fears. I haven't seen any evidence the blockade has been successful at substantially undermining Hamas, but if there's an uptick in weapons smuggling into Gaza it is a virtual certainty that Israel will take military action. That's the most dangerous spiral I see in play right now - Israel moves aggressively into Gaza, and Egypt or other regional powers decide to intervene, which could rapidly escalate into open war.

Being a political party with actual power (and accountability) may prove a moderating force on the Muslim Brotherhood, though. One of the best-case scenarios I think would be for El-Baradei to take over as an interim president, with a clear timeline for departure and a pledge not to run for re-election. He's someone who would be trusted by the West, and though he's not uncontroversial in Egypt, I think he probably has enough clout that he'd be supported as an interim custodian as Egypt transitions to full democracy.

In some circles in the US el Baradei is not popular. I'm not sure the people in those circles have any credibility left at this stage but it might not be total plain sailing for him.

Interesting opinion piece on the Egypt uprising and its implications for the US. Not really anything surprising, but well put together and articulated.

Of course it's largely about the implications for Israel, but I feel the pertinent stuff is summed up here.

when CNN aired Mona Eltahawy saying that the protesters are not violent, the moderator stomped on her and said, what about those burning vehicles?

As if eastern Europe changed without similar destruction.

So racism against Arabs is shutting down the American mind once again. And all my friends must turn to Al Jazeera English to get the soul of the story: that these events are electrifying to Arabs everywhere, a heroic mobilization. And not only to Arabs. When ElBaradei says, I salute the youth for overturning a pharaonic power, lovers of human freedom everywhere must be thrilled. We are seeing a dictator dissolve before our eyes. These are the events we cherished in history books; let us embrace the Egyptian movement.

Why is America so afraid?

Because we are seeing a giant leap in Arab power, in which the people of the largest Arab nation demand that they be allowed to fulfill their potential. This change portends a huge shift in the balance of power in the region. For the U.S. has played only a negative role in the Egyptian advance, supplying the teargas, and it seems inevitable that Egypt will cease to be a client state to the U.S. And thereby threaten the order of the last 30 years.

Whatever government replaces the current one in Egypt, it will not serve American interests, which have been largely defined by Israel, the American-Israeli "imperium," as Helena Cobban put it. Since the 1970s (as Joel Beinin shows here), Egypt has been the lynchpin of a US strategy of supporting Israel. The special relationship with Israel has steered our foreign policy, encouraged the destruction and occupation of Iraq, and even fed American Islamophobia. Key to preserving this order has been our ironclad support for the Arab dictatorships in Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere-- by providing the policy with a "moderate Arab" seal. Hey Egypt was a bulwark against the Islamists, and Egypt was crucial to the peace process, as all the correspondents tell us on American TV.

The danger to America and Israel is that the Egyptian revolution will destroy this false choice of secular dictator-or-crazy Islamists by showing that Arabs are smart articulate people who can handle real democracy if they get to make it themselves. And when they get it, they are likely to strip the mask off the peace process.

Egypt represents absolutely no threat to the US and we have nothing to fear from a popular government. Israel, on the other hand, will have to seriously address the Palestinian issue since whatever government comes to power in Egypt isn't likely to continue to support the Gaza blockade.

As others have said before we get nothing from our relationship with Israel. It would run counter to our long term interests in the region to continue to side with Mubarak.