What it strikes me is that the sudden rise in food prices in the Arab world were or are a big reason for the current unrest, and that reason is barely mentioned now. True, there would be nothing worse like the loss of basic food staples if you are poor or to have to suffer paying a lot more for your food if you are middle class.
IMHO there is nothing better than a slight breakdown on the food supply to make very clear to all the people how corrupt their governments are over there.
So I do think that we should check if the average Saudi Arabian is being affected by the sudden rise in food prices, and by the shortages and corruption being unable to hide from most people like in the rest of the region; unfortunately (and YMMV on this), AFAIK Saudi Arabia was very conservative with investments and avoided most of the recent world wide economical turmoil and has invested also in their food supply, so for the time being the success of their rulers in those matters will not be very conductive to popular unrest.
Somehow I don’t think Egyptians will accept a new cadre appointed by the same old strongman as the change they have been fighting for.
Blood has been shed–more, I’m sure, than outsiders yet know. (It seems that today’s reports of just a handful of dead in Cairo represented only those who had died after being brought into a single hospital, Qasr al-Aini.)
Mubarak’s face literally looks down on Egyptians from posters and statues all over the cities–excepting, of course, those torn down these past few days. I think they will not rest until they have torn him down too.
Whilst I understand why politicians prefer this sort of goop as both a way of indicating sheer vacant meaninglessness with phrases that sound attractive but cannot be pinned down to any actual practical definite proposals, why do I feel that by ‘political reforms’ she means ‘Any system that will elect a Clinton’; by ‘economic reforms’, ‘Free Market globalist systems wherein Clintons can thrive’; and by ‘social reforms’, ‘The fostering of women’s political rights and power to enable a Clinton in office’…
Too true. The onset of these rebellions sparking each other off has far more to do with this recent economic depression than a sudden hatred of their aged rulers or idealistic longing for democracy ( or for Islam ).
Whilst it is a truism that revolution always puts the upper middle classes in power — or swaps one set of well-off upper middle class intellectuals for another — rather than benefitting the poor or lower classes: revolutionaries need economic crisises as prologue to changing power-structures; even if the underlying economy is actually fairly sound, the appearance that it isn’t ( as presaged by bread shortages ) is vital in getting the poor at least to assent if not give wild-eyed support, to the new regime.
How are the Israelis reacting to this? They’ve been at peace with the Sadat/Mubarak regime since Camp David. Are they at all worried a new government would be harder to deal with?
[nitpick]At first I thought you were being sarcastic because of the rolleyes thingy but you referred to Turkey as an Arab state in the second post I quoted. You do realize although they are Muslim they aren’t Arabs don’t you? I’ve always had the impression this is a part of the reason Turkey is rather atypical for the region. FWIW, Iran isn’t an Arab state either. I think that’s what Tom Scud was saying but now I’m not sure.[/nitpick]
Turkey is not an Arab state. Arab states are normally inhabited by ethnic Arabs who speak Arabic, and Turks are ethnically Turkish and speak Turkish. That doesn’t mean we can or can’t draw parallels to Egypt here, but let’s at least refer to it correctly.
Yep, Israel is worried. There’s an old saying that says you should never wish for the reign of a dictator to end, because odds are he’ll be replaced with something worse. This is certainly true here. Mubarak is neutral towards the west and somewhat progressive when it comes to human rights (compared to theocracies, such as Iran, or more hard-core dictatorships like Syria.) If he’s replaced, it will be by a dictator or by the Muslim Brotherhood, either of which would screw over Israel, Egypt, the West, and everyone else.
On the one hand, the world probably won’t let Egypt go fanatic since the Suez Canal is too important. At the same time, this is all playing for time anyways; Mubarak is old and sickly, and unlike his Syrian counterparts, he won’t be able to plant his son on the throne, especially not now.
The Muslim Brotherhood is a bit of a wild card here. They were quite violent in the past, but they’ve mellowed a little in the last couple decades. It’s not a given that they’ll wind up on top, either; Egypt has a large youth population and they may prefer a more Western style government. Besides, Mubarak has governed with an iron fist for a long time, and the people in Egypt may not put up with a violent or hardline government.
Yeah, cause when your car is stuck in a ditch, the one to drive you out of it is ALWAYS the one who drove you into it. The Republicans tried to make Americans believe that in 2008.
That was your original post. I dont see any mention of Turkish or Arab in it. I’ve underlined the key word here to make things easier.
There arent that many Muslim countries (I believe Muslim countries is usually where Islamists take power) that have seen Islamists take over. Turkey is probably the only Muslim country where Islamists were democratically elected (could be wrong on this, feel free to correct). I believe it is a freer society than a shitload of pro-West Arab/Muslim “friendly dictatures” (even more ironic, Islamist Turkey is actually one of the most pro West Muslim countries).
And to all that might worry this would slight the US’s or Israel’s interests, I think a big “Fuck You” is in order. Western meddling has often been for the worse for the peoples living there. We might want to cut our tone down a little.
Just for decency’s sake.
You just can’t stop thinking in colonial terms, can’t you, Captaine? Maybe you’re right when it comes to the U.S., but Israel has as much right to worry about the effects of a revolution in Egypt as France has the right to worry about a revolution in Germany or Britain. We don’t think of them as strange, primitive “brown people” who’s affairs we are free to “meddle” with, we think of them as our neighbors.
Israel may be a “Western” country in terms of culture, but we’re still a Middle Eastern nation, and we have every right look after our own interests vis-a-vis the rest of the Middle East.
I can’t really tell you, myself - my knowledge of internal Syrian politics is sadly limited. I do know that Syria has taken in several million Iraqi refugees over the past few years, and combine that with the volatile situation in Lebanon and the fact that they have been ruled by a religious minority (the Alawites) for several decades… anything might happen. We could be at the cusp of an Arab 1848.
From all reports the Muslim Brotherhood hasn’t been particularly prominent in the demonstrations (at least so far); though they are pretty much the only national organization that isn’t completely compromised by the state.
