Egypt's Arab Spring

[Richard Wiig]

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/H4C27dXqE-I?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Libertarian Muslim]

I love how you're so optimistic.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

From what I have seen in the news:

1. The Egyptian military is none too pleased with the leftists because the leftists keep bashing the military.

2. The leftists are losing their public voice big time.

3. The Islamists keep silent about the Egyptian military.

4. The voice of the Islamists is growing daily, as are the crowds that are organized and lathered up by Islamists.

5. The leftists and the Islamists were once allied, but the Islamists have now dropped the left like a hot potato.

So what about Facebook and Google and broadband Internet saving the Islamic world from brutal dictators and bringing about democracy and social justice--as sanctimonious youngsters show just how easy organized "feel-good" stuff stops bullets and tanks while they lecture everyone on how wise and caring they are?

Er... it doesn't look too good right now.

It looks more like Wael Ghonim's Google-tears were those of a useful idiot.

The tears of a clown.

Michael

[Libertarian Muslim]

All revolutions have participants of opposing interests.. I have faith that the Egyptians will find a balance so long as there isn't foreign interference.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

LM,

I agree with you.

But does "foreign interference" to you also include Iran?

To me it does.

Michael

[Libertarian Muslim]

Iran has no political influence in Egypt.

[Richard Wiig]

Don't forget Turkey.

[BaalChatzaf]

I love how you're so optimistic.

"Hot Faith" makes otherwise normal people insane.

God may have made the Cosmos, but Man and the Devil made Religion.

Do you think Islam will ever enter a "Deist" phase? Deism is religion for sane people.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Richard Wiig]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904292504576482563347097284.html

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Iran has no political influence in Egypt.

LM,

From Bloomberg of July 5:

Arab States’ Aid to Egypt Seen as Effort to Block Iran Influence

I'm citing a fairly neutral financial news organization.

There's lots of other stuff out there, too.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

http://online.wsj.co...3347097284.html

A variant of Gresham's Law: Insane Faith drives out Sane Faith.

Apparently it is a lot easier to be bat-shit crazy than to constrain and refrain.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Iran has no political influence in Egypt.

LM:

This is patently false. You may want to restate your statement. You could argue that it has very little, or almost no influence, but a categorical zero influence statement does not reflect reality.

Adam

[Richard Wiig]

Iran has no political influence in Egypt.

LM:

This is patently false. You may want to restate your statement. You could argue that it has very little, or almost no influence, but a categorical zero influence statement does not reflect reality.

Adam

Regardless of how much influence Iran has with Egypt, Egypt is becoming closer to Iran by the day. So is Turkey. It took a major step towards Islamisation last week with the resignations of the top military brass.

[william.scherk]

From what I have seen in the news:

1. The Egyptian military is none too pleased with the leftists because the leftists keep bashing the military.

Five months after the fall of Mubarak, there he is on his bed in the cage, with his two sons, his first trial day behind him, now on the medical wing of the prison in Cairo, back to court on the 7th.

<img src="http://images.smh.com.au/2011/02/02/2162804/mubarak-420x0.jpg" width="339px"><img src="http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Slideshows/_production/ss-110803-mubarak-trial/ss-110803-mubarak-trial-01.grid-9x2.jpg" width="339px">

I keep close watch on Egyptian news media/new media and am heavily involved in tracking and understanding events in Syria as well (which explains most of my non-posting at OL recently). Michael is surely right to point out that generic 'leftists' 'bash' the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces.

The wonder of present-day Egypt for me is in its burgeoning, newly freed media and public civil space.

The 'leftists' in Egypt range from Mona Eltahawy** to Mohamed ElBaradei.

2. The leftists are losing their public voice big time.

I don't think this is quite accurate. No one is losing their public voice in Egypt. This is a time of great drama and political import, as the details of the transition are negotiated and contested in a vast and energized population that takes its revolution seriously.

3. The Islamists keep silent about the Egyptian military.

There are several strains of Islamists in Egypt right now, as the political skirmishing continues. The Muslim Brotherhood is riven in several sections, with four breakaway parties, expulsions and extreme disagreements between youth and autocracy in its internal affairs. The youth wing members (expelled and otherwise) have an alliance with the secular youth and the several broad Jan 25th political formations.

4. The voice of the Islamists is growing daily, as are the crowds that are organized and lathered up by Islamists.

The demonstration and hysteria by Salafists was widely reported and critiqued in Egypt, Michael. The grotesqueries of the hardcore Salafis at Tahrir gave added force to secular arguments against their stances. That altercation was bad news for Islamists.

5. The leftists and the Islamists were once allied, but the Islamists have now dropped the left like a hot potato.

One has to check against the actual alliances on the ground. The MB itself has 17 allies in its electoral coalition, including the largest left party, Tagammu. It's the MB, with their paltry 12-17% poll showings, who need the embrace of the secular, youth, 'leftists' and others to hope to dominate the new parliament. Moreover, polls show a secular like ElBaradei or Moussa will thump any Brotherhood-tainted candidate for President under the new constitution.

So what about Facebook and Google and broadband Internet saving the Islamic world from brutal dictators and bringing about democracy and social justice

In the Egyptian context, citizens used and still use many media to express themselves and to influence the course of momentous events. Facebook and Google were a small part of the wave of revolt that passed by word of mouth and streetside organization by activists. Among them, perhaps in a news-clearing, reporting, coordinating and disseminating information rôle, these tools were useful -- Michael is mostly correct to downplay any magnificence claimed for social media. A vast vanguard role for these media, no, but a remarkable tool for organizing and disseminating information, yes. We need neither excessively valourize nor vilify.

The greatest event, to my mind, is the vast expansion of ordinary freedoms suppressed by the Mubarak regime: Facebook, Twitter, Google, broadband, free television and radio. Freedom of movement and assembly. Freedom to demonstrate, freedom to speak out, create, criticize, protest -- freedom from arrest by secret police or thugs. There is a panorama unfolding, freedoms that we Westerners take for granted.

Others might find the most momentous event to be Mubarak, sons and killer cronies in the cage . . .

--as sanctimonious youngsters show just how easy organized "feel-good" stuff stops bullets and tanks while they lecture everyone on how wise and caring they are?

This is garbled nonsense. Sanctimonious youngsters like exactly who? "Feel-good stuff" means just what?

Egypt is dismantling its old regime, trying its criminals, and moving forward without tanks and bullets. I myself am proud and supportive of the Egyptian revolution gains. They brought down the old system, hold the SCAF to account, and now have their former rulers in a courtroom ready for justice. That looks good to me, and is deeply satisfying to Egyptians repressed for so long by the old regime.

Er... it doesn't look too good right now.

It looks more like Wael Ghonim's Google-tears were those of a useful idiot.

The tears of a clown.

Wael Ghonim is one of tens of thousands of fully-engaged Egyptians who influence Egyptian events. I have no influence except in very small ways to witness and counter inaccuracies. Ghonim is not my enemy -- I respect him and his commitment to secular democracy. To my eyes, Ghonim is no one's enemy, nobody's clown, not at all an idiot. It disheartens me to read this kind of off-kilter contempt from an opinion-leader on OL. Ghonim's live interview on Egyptian television four nights before Mubarak's departure was an effective mobilization tool -- it galvanized Egyptians to pour into Tahrir for the final showdown, and captured the public heart for the revolution from that evening on. If western media latched on to Ghonim's interview, it was because the human drama of Egypt was easily personified. He wept for those killed and millions wept with him.

<img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/02/07/world/middleeast/07lede_dream/07lede_dream-blog480.jpg" width="339px">

Contempt and slurs against Ghonim puzzle me. Especially when it seems the contempt for his person and his activities shows no awareness of what he has been doing the last four months.

With regard to the apparent strong dislike for other unnamed elements of the Egyptian revolution, I wish I could know whose side we should rightly be on -- if not supportive of Ghonim and his ilk, what side or group or person or movement or stance from inside Egypt deserves support, in the end? What would we do if we each had an Egyptian vote?

As rational, objective observers with small and large interests in Egypt, what should we know before we mark our ballots?

Meanwhile, back at the ranch . . . . "Lawyer repeats claims that Mubarak is dead during opening session" (!)

In the opening session of Hosni Mubarak's trial, lawyer Hamed Seddik staggeringly tried to convince judge Ahmed Fahmi Refaat that the ousted president died in 2004 and the defendant is actually "another man" who has since been impersonating.

The long-bearded lawyer has been pushing his theory for years, having filed more than 200 lawsuits to prove it. Although his story has been consistently rubbished by the media and public, Seddik gave it another airing in Wednesday's session.

"Mubarak passed away in 2004 and this defendant is another man," he resolutely told the judge over the microphone. "I demand to compare his DNA to that of Alaa and Gamal [his sons] to reveal the truth … there is a conspiracy going on."

Refaat said the controversial allegations are irrelevant to the case but Seddik, who appeared among the defence team, refused to let go of the microphone immediately, trying to add emphasis to his story.

Late last month, Seddik, a geologist at the National Research Centre with a doctorate in law, made the same claims on one of the stages set up at the Tahrir Square sit-in.

The angry audience reaction to his theory meant he could not continue with his speech.

Mubarak is being tried along with his sons Alaa and Gamal, former interior ministry Habib El-Adly and six of the latter's assistants for involvement in the killing of peaceful protesters during the January 25 Revolution.

________________________

** Mona El-Tahawy has a wonderful, incisive twitter presence: http://twitter.com/#!/monaeltahawy

Edited August 3, 2011 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

WSS,

I don't have contempt for Ghonim. I do have contempt for the mainstream media news narrative that tried to paint a goodie-goodie-two-shoes David with a laptop toppling a mighty mean-machine Goliath armed to the teeth.

They got Mubarak all right, but I not only see the real Goliath armed to the teeth still standing tall, I see a new one approaching.

So the narrative is BS on a major scale. I predict a brand new Mubarak--maybe this time of a different flavor--will emerge from the "democratization process" now underway.

It should be noted that the resonance that the Ghonim broadcast caused in Egypt was AGAINST Mubarak, not FOR any particular ideology or group. I have no problem with the AGAINST part. I sympathize with it. It's the way the FOR part was (and is being) sold that bothers me.

I can't forget my 32 years in Brazil where I saw this kind of hypocrisy played out on a daily basis with a military dictatorship (with the "democracy" sham and everything).

If you read my comments in that light, they might make more sense to you.

Michael

[caroljane]

WSS,

I can't forget my 32 years in Brazil where I saw this kind of hypocrisy played out on a daily basis with a military dictatorship (with the "democracy" sham and everything).

Michael

\

Predicting the future on the basis of the past is the only way we know to do it. That leaves us only with hope. Hope that Brazil is not Egypt, that 2011 need not necessarily replicate 1911, that there may indeed be "something new under the sun". It happened in 1776, at least the beginning did.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Carol Jane,

Brazil's military was USA supported, just as Egypt's currently is. (Note the HUGE difference between what happened with Mubarak and Gaddafi--to me, those are differences of kind, not degree).

The only reason the Brazilian military dictatorship turned the power back over to the civilians was that they incurred the world's largest foreign debt and the account was falling due. Since the country's economy was spiraling out of control and they didn't have a clue as to what to do about it, the top players cashed out and, at least, made sure they had their share in a safe place.

There were also a lot of monkey-shines that happened in the transfer of power. For example, the first elected civilian President, Tancredo Neves, didn't live long enough to take office because of some "mysterious" hospital infection, but his "opposition party" vice, Jose Sarney, did. The funny thing about this "opposition party" guy is that the year prior to the elections, he was the president of the military's political party, ARENA. Anyway, he made sure there was no witch hunt before handing the power to the civilians for real.

I don't see anything close to that kind of scenario in Egypt. On the contrary, I see the USA backed Egyptian military nowhere near being humiliated before their masters like the Brazilian one was when it came time to pay the bill. The way I see it, the Egyptian military junta put Mubarak out to pasture as a "boi de piranha." (In Brazil, this is a steer that is sent into the river upstream to be eaten by a school of piranhas while the entire herd crosses unharmed downstream.)

Michael

[caroljane]

Carol Jane,

Brazil's military was USA supported, just as Egypt's currently is. (Note the HUGE difference between what happened with Mubarak and Gaddafi--to me, those are differences of kind, not degree).

The only reason the Brazilian military dictatorship turned the power back over to the civilians was that they incurred the world's largest foreign debt and the account was falling due. Since the country's economy was spiraling out of control and they didn't have a clue as to what to do about it, the top players cashed out and, at least, made sure they had their share in a safe place.

There were also a lot of monkey-shines that happened in the transfer of power. For example, the first elected civilian President, Tancredo Neves, didn't live long enough to take office because of some "mysterious" hospital infection, but his "opposition party" vice, Jose Sarney, did. The funny thing about this "opposition party" guy is that the year prior to the elections, he was the president of the military's political party, ARENA. Anyway, he made sure there was no witch hunt before handing the power to the civilians for real.

I don't see anything close to that kind of scenario in Egypt. On

Michael

Michael,

I'm glad that for you at least, though there are always parallels if you look for them, they aren't always ominous-- at least of doom.

Do you think the Syrian situation is the same as Egypt's, especially re Iran?

[Libertarian Muslim]

Iran has no political influence in Egypt.

LM:

This is patently false. You may want to restate your statement. You could argue that it has very little, or almost no influence, but a categorical zero influence statement does not reflect reality.

Adam

Thus far, I have seen no evidence that Iran has ANY political influence in Egypt. If you'd like to show me where they do I'd be happy to read it and stand corrected but due to the great number of ideological differences between the two nations in addition to the cultural differences I'd say that it doesn't make sense.

Regardless of how much influence Iran has with Egypt, Egypt is becoming closer to Iran by the day. So is Turkey. It took a major step towards Islamisation last week with the resignations of the top military brass.

Turkey took a major step towards Islamisation last week with the resignation of its top military brass? Are you serious? If anything, it took a huge step towards becoming a better democracy because in the past, instead of the military brass resigning, they would launch a coup and start imprisoning, torturing and executing people who spoke out against them.

[Selene]

Iran has no political influence in Egypt.

LM:

This is patently false. You may want to restate your statement. You could argue that it has very little, or almost no influence, but a categorical zero influence statement does not reflect reality.

Adam

Thus far, I have seen no evidence that Iran has ANY political influence in Egypt. If you'd like to show me where they do I'd be happy to read it and stand corrected but due to the great number of ideological differences between the two nations in addition to the cultural differences I'd say that it doesn't make sense.

LM:

It is understandable that, knowing the religious, regional and cultural paths that have kept these two nations in opposite camps for generations, you might make that statement. See here an excellent scholarly article by Dr. Bahgat, who in part of his conclusions states:

Statements by Iranian and Egyptian officials suggest that Tehran is eager to end the 30-year estrangement. Indeed, in the last several years Iranian officials have sought to attract Egypt into a close alliance. An editorial in the Tehran

Times

argued, "The continuation of this state of affairs, in which Iran and Egypt have no diplomatic relations, is not in the interests of the Islamic world."

18

It is important to remember that Iran has been under U.S. sanctions for the last 30 years and that most European powers have increasingly taken the American side, due to the failure of their negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. Warmer relations with a Middle Eastern powerhouse like Egypt would alleviate some of this diplomatic and economic pressure. Furthermore, the Iranians believe an alliance among Tehran, Damascus, Baghdad and Cairo would stabilize the region and weaken American influence.

Now, I could provide Israeli sources, or US intelligence sources that detail Iranian political influences in the Egyptian political arena, but they would probably be given little probative value.

Here, a July 27, 2011 media report here, which states that:

"The statement had a religious dimension, but it was clearly more a political statement," Sobhi Essaila, a researcher at the Al-Ahram Center for political and strategic studies in Cairo told The Media Line. "Al-Azhar is a track two, or soft power channel between Egypt and Iran."

Egypt has begun taking a softer line on Iran since President Husni Mubarak was ousted from power last February, worrying the U.S. and Israel, which had relied on Cairo as an ally in the fight to contain Tehran's influence. But in spite of Iran's enthusiasm, Cairo has moved slowly to warm ties.

Continuing, the article explains that:

Still there are signs that official Egypt is growing closer to Iran and its mostly Shiite allies in the region. The visiting delegates were in Cairo for a conference this week "In support of the Resistance," reportedly organized by Iran and Hizbullah. The conference has been held in Beirut since 2002, but was moved to Cairo this year for the first time, Essaila said.

"It was really surprising to witness Shiite clerics in the first rows of the conference," Essaila said. "It drew a lot of attention here … such a meeting would never be possible in Cairo in the past."

I do not believe that Iran has a significant influence in, or on, Egyptian politics, but they do have some influence which they are trying very hard to expand.

I took issue with your declarative statement that they had no influence which is just not realistic. Iran is an aggressive expansionist regime and to believe that they do not have covert operatives on the ground in Egypt is just Pollyannaish [new word].

Adam

Edited August 3, 2011 by Selene

[anthony]

Previous experience should not ever influence one's assessment of the present I keep telling myself.

Egypt is not really Africa, either. But reality rules.

So while I applaud WSS's love of liberty, and Carol's hope, I find it hard to be optimistic about Egypt.

I am no more knowledgable than anyone is about that nation, but four liberated countries I knew personally have not lived up to their glowing promise. Far from it.

Liberty and democracy unsupported by any principles and firm rule of law devolves and unravels. Enthusiasm and good intentions alone transmute into a new power elite further on.

Tony

Edited August 3, 2011 by whYNOT