Basic principal of democracy is that a party which wins the election has the mandate, nay the duty to put forward its manifesto. If the electorate do not like it, they can remove them at the next election. Looking at what Morsi did, I would say it is not particularly more draconians than say what Tony Blair did to UK civil liberties after 1997 and especially 2001. Even accepting the obvious differences between the UK and Egypt, the fact is that the UK has a tradition of defeated parties surrendering power, and that traditions comes through experience, not outside dictate. Egypt was not given the opportunity to so choose.
If Morsi had refused to leave power when his term was up or he had been defeated in an election or prevented such an outcome from happening, then such actions would have been defendable. Here he still had his term and the decision of the ballot box was overturned by street power. That is a terrible precedent.
Syria’s civil war is very much on sectarian lines, less on islamist vs. military/secularist lines. Egypt’s would be the reverse. Don’t think it would be less bloody because of that.
I will take this rare opportunity to agree with Bob here. Saudi Arabia is going to be more than willing to shell out cash to keep the MB from consolidating power in Egypt.
Essentially we are saying that we are all in favor of democracy in Egypt as long as the MB is a minority player in whatever government results from democracy. And if the MB does gain a majority, then we’re all in favor of Mulligan Democracy.
The military can see what is going on in Syria, where at least 10x the death toll has ensued, and they know we’re not going to do anything. Nor should we.
Islamists won the elections. The military cancelled the results and outlawed them. The islamists started an insurgency which lasted for more then a decade.
[QUOTE=Alessan]
Also, ending the aid may lead to a war with Israel.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think so. Egypt is unlikely to start a war that all parties within know that they will not win.
At the same time, an Israeli attack in Sinai which shuts down the Suez Canal is very difficult politically. In 1967, you had not seen the rise of China, the Far East, the Gulf States, India etc. The canal is a lot more important to world trade now than in June 1967 and anyone who attacks the canal or causes its closure is going to incur the wrath of some very powerful nations.
Exactly. If I were an Egyptian, why would I give a lukewarm turd what people on the other side of the world think about me?
However, my understanding was that the aid for this year (fiscal or however they define it) has already been delivered. So they should have “cut” the aid with a wink and nod to Egypt that when things “settle down” (in exactly six to nine months when the news networks have grown tired of following this story) aid will resume. Nothing changes and no one cares. That’s diplomacy.
Really? I’m asking, as I honestly don’t know how likely this is. But doesn’t Egypt have enough troubles already without taking on the IDF? I could see it as a Wag The Dog tactic, focusing everyone’s rage on the external enemy. But when that external enemy can casually beat the snot out of you without blinking…