I don’t think that any country should meddle with any other country. Also, if no countries had armies, there wouldn’t be any wars.
You say engagement, I say meddling, Let’s call the whole thing off …
I think you know the answer to that.
Generally speaking, the Emir of Qatar seems to have decided that being the sponsor of a prestigious news organization is more important than micromanaging AJ’s stories towards narrow political results. The exceptions are when Qatar itself is at the center of a news story (I remember some appalling fluff from AJE during the run up to the Asian Games in Qatar a few years ago), but fortunately Qatar’s main international importance comes from its sponsorship of AJ.
The country that sprays together, prays together.
Ha! Suckers! You just got baptized! 
I’ll admit to not following this closely at the time. I remember the Sadat being assassinated, but not much afterwards
Why did the international community accept Mubarak’s Egyptian rein in 1981 after Sadat’s assassination?
He was the Vice-President and therefore next in line, and he promised to honor the Camp David Accords. Inertia and Camp David were what kept the (Euro-American) international community behind him.
And besides which, it’s not like Sadat was elected (as far as I know; there might have been a rubber-stamp in there somewhere).
Oh yes, but it depends on how Egypt goes. I have a feeling that you’d hear calls from sections of the US establishment to send in troops to keep the Al Saud family in power if we start to see demonstrations in Saudi.
OK, my overall thoughts on the Egyptian Intifada.
Firstly, all the unpleasant regimes in the region – Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel etc. – are shitting themselves at the prospect of the fall of the Mubarak regime. The Saudis own almost all the big Arab papers and TV channels like Al Arabiyya and they’re standing foursquare behing Mubarak.
Israel are quite happy for Mubarak to use the Tiannamen Square option to stay in power :
“They will have to exercise force, power in the streets, and do it.”
America wants to see the military take power and basically keep it :
“What we have to focus on now is getting the military into a position where they can hold the ring for a moderate and legitimate political leadership to emerge,” said Mr. Indyk, a Middle East peace negotiator in the Clinton administration.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/world/middleeast/30military.html?_r=2&ref=world
We’ve been waiting since 1952 for a moderate leadership to emerge in Egypt but every time they do they get their balls connected to the Egyptian national grid. Basically every single US statement so far shows we either want to keep Mubarak in power if he just does a little reform or we want a new Mubarak to take over from him. What we haven’t hears is a call for Mubarak to hold immediate free and fair elections. That’s because we don’t want Egypt to hold free and fair elections.
And that’s where the problem lies. Mubarak is a former army officer and it’s clear the army are backing him (at the minute anyway.) For Mubarak to fall and the army to actually allow a transitional council to organise a new constitution/free elections is hard to see. The State Department is practically hanging a “new Mubarak wanted” sign over Egypt and the army is an integral part of the Egyptian elite infrastructure. It’s hard to see the whole thing collapsing overnight and them handing the country over to a bunch of civilians.
Right noe the demonstrators are pro-army and there’s been limited anti-US sentiment shown. If the army maintain power for the current power structure and refuse to give it to new pwople then I’d guess that will change quite quickly. It could all get very messy indeed. Even if Mubarak goes I’m sure the existing power structure will fight hard to keep power as long as they can. I don’t see a conclusion to this anytime soon.
You know, I don’t get it. For years people like you have been telling Israel to make peace with its neighbors, and now that one such peace is threatened, you’re criticizing us for worrying. Are you saying that Israel shouldn’t have made peace with Sadat in the first place? Are you saying that Israel shouldn’t return the Golan Heights to Syria, because Assad is a dictator? Or are you just saying that whatever we do, we just can’t win?
Incidentally, that quote you brought - it was nothing more than a clear-eye assessment of the facts on the ground. I don’t see how it can be interpreted as support for Mubarak.
What about American aid to Egypt? Suppose Mubarak manages to hang on for a while–will he continue receiving American money?
The Israeli regime is petitioning the US and European governments to continue supporting Mubarak.
They’re also terrified other dictators like the King of Jordan are going to be toppled. And that’s because no democratic Arab government is going to want to have friendly relations with a minging little racist apartheid regime like Israel’s. Their only friends in the region are despots and dictators.
So are all our enemies.
That’s because they’re all propped up by your major ally apart from Iran who used to be propped up by your major ally and Syria who America don’t care about because they don’t have any oil.
Things have changed, the world has changed and new generations in these countries would like to live a little.
Part of modernization and democratization of Arab countries must include respect for previously achieved milestones including peace agreements. In my opinion single biggest obstacle to poor-piss countries of the 2nd and 3rd World is this self-defeating insistence that they have to start from the scratch and then, everything is up for review.
Aside for order and good government, peace – as opposite of war – should be the top priority of any nation striving to be modern and accepted by the progressive part of the World. If any party that comes on top after this asks for revision of milestones including peace agreements, I think World should step in. It would be in bad taste and kind of suspicious if that becomes a priority for new government.
It`s time to move on but, at the same time, P-I peace process could use a boost rather than, like Mubarak did, collect the fee on the hostilities in the ME in the last 30 years.
It just occurred to me that the Iranians might be not at all concerned about all this spreading their way – because their regime has already and quite recently proven its ability to weather street-rebellion, even with Twitter.
What about Palestine? Is this going to spark yet another intifadeh, or are the Palestinians sick of all that by now?
West Bank or Gaza? As I’ve said before, for all effects and purposes, they’re two separate countries. The West Bank is currently more prosperous then it’s ever been before, and Abu Mazen is, if not popular, than at least tolerated. They won’t rebel against their own leaders, and I think things are too quiet for any action against Israel - or at least, if it happens, it’ll be completely unrelated to the events in Egypt, deriving from something local. To be cynical, I doubt they’ll do much because if they do, they won’t get any attention while everyone’s busy watching Egypt.
As for Gaza… God knows.