Winds of change and Hypocrisy
I read this article by Robert Fisk - But are not hypocricy and politics inter twined ?
There is nothing like an Arab revolution to show up the hypocrisy of your friends. Especially if that revolution is one of civility and humanism and powered by an overwhelming demand for the kind of democracy that we enjoy in Europe and America.
We've ended up with the presidential "now-means-yesterday", and "orderly transition", which translates: no violence while ex-air force General Mubarak is put out to graze so that ex-intelligence General Suleiman can take over the regime on behalf of America and Israel.
Fox News has already told its viewers in America that the Muslim Brotherhood – about the "softest" of Islamist groups in the Middle East – is behind the brave men and women who have dared to resist the state security police, while the mass of French "intellectuals" (the quotation marks are essential for poseurs like Bernard-Henri Lévy have turned, in Le Monde's imperishable headline, into "the intelligentsia of silence".
Israel's reaction to the momentous events in Egypt – that this might not be the time for democracy in Egypt (thus allowing it to keep the title of "the only democracy in the Middle East") – has been as implausible as it has been self-defeating. Israel will be much safer surrounded by real democracies than by vicious dictators and autocratic kings.
To his enormous credit, the French historian Daniel Lindenberg told the truth this week. "We must, alas, admit the reality: many intellectuals believe, deep down, that the Arab people are congenitally backward."
So when the Arabs want dignity and self-respect, when they cry out for the very future which Obama outlined in his famous – now, I suppose, infamous – Cairo speech of June 2009, we show them disrespect and casuistry.
Instead of welcoming democratic demands, we treat them as a disaster. It is an infinite relief to find serious American journalists like Roger Cohen going "behind the lines" on Tahrir Square to tell the unvarnished truth about this hypocrisy of ours.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-hypoc...
Preferable. LOL
(naah. I just can't find the idea behind the revolution over there...)
Really? I'm taking away the rights of Egyptians to speak? Wow, didn't realize I was such an influential person. Excuse me while I call up my bro Obama and discuss my new found world power.
Brit, I'm wise enough to know there's no such thing as a country that's come to democracy on its own. Spy's, espionage, political pressure, etc. Has been around as long as there has been civilization. Do you honestly believe there's ever been a revolution conducted without heavy influence from foreign interests?
There is no such thing as a country that doesn't act in it's own best interest, there never has been and there never will be.
Pilgrim gives the freedom to outsiders of Egypt to speak, but takes away that right from the Egyptians, albeit Islamic parties. Extending Israel's view of what the Muslim Brotherhood group might or might not do is not exactly freedom of speech, rather bending the opinions of others and hence influence decisions, unfairly most of the time.
You are much wiser about politics to really believe that. I will not argue with you but quote something from the Wahington Post - "For U.S. officials trying to gently guide Egypt's future from afar without provoking a backlash, the Muslim Brotherhood's involvement might be necessary, even inevitable.
That possibility clashes with domestic politics, however - from worries among pro-Israel groups about the rise of another Islamic regime in the region, to potential criticism from conservatives that Obama failed to stop the spread of Islamic fundamentalism. So there has been a steady stream of vague messages out of the White House, both to reporters and private groups."
Frankly I don't see how voicing your opinion is "shaping the outcome" of something. So far the US and Israel have done nothing but voice their concerns and urge (vocally) that Egyptians move in a particular direction. I see no issues with this whatsoever. Freedom of speech and all that.
Now if they start assassinating people that they don't want voted in, well that's a whole other batch of human rights. But I see no issues with voicing concerns and opinions.
I think this would make everybody understand how the conspiracy theory became that popular in our region.
Assuming that any dominating country will let go things to go as Egyptians wish is hypocrisy.
I can make any number of excuses for security and safety of my country. Does this give me the right to interfere or shape the outcome within another sovereign nation ?
From your argument it seems it does. Then where does that leave us with democracy and freedom of choice.
But should they be allowed to do so at the risk of your own countries safety?
But should they be allowed to do so at the risk of your own countries safety?
Countries have always "worried" abot the goings on in their neighbours.
I was talking about evolution and change not occuring overnight. Different societies evolve at different pace and should be allowed to do so.
Easy to say in 1215 Brit when dealings with your neighbours usually involved weeks on horseback carrying letters, and war involved years of preparation. The world is a lot smaller now and sadly what happens in one country effects the rest of the world in a lot of ways. Countries can't sit back with their fingers crossed and hope for the best, because that might mean bad things for their own people.
Pilgrim 'The last thing the US or Israel want in the region is another Islamic fundamentalist state.'
I think the more important thing is
'The last thing the people want in the region is another Islamic fundamentalist state. To deny them basic human rights and freedom'
If not today, then tomorrow it will surely come. However hard you try to avoid it. Keep making the fundamentalist the bogeyman, at the end of the day even he will have a chance to govern, however hard you try to suppress it.
I agree. Let them choose their leaders and then decide how to deal with them.
I share the article below of the same subject. I liked the comment #6 on the article.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=207558
Someone recently said - If history has taught us one thing it is that societies must find their own pace and rhythm for reform and evolution, just as we have been able to do.
After all, 713 years passed between Magna Carta in 1215 and women getting equal voting rights in 1928.
We should step back and let things evolve..
I think the fear comes from the fact that "revolutions" in this region have generally lead to worse governments (especially more fundamentalist governments) than better governments. The last thing the US or Israel want in the region is another Islamic fundamentalist state.
Also there's always the old adage: The devil you know is better than the devil you don't.
It's always easier to deal with one dictator than with a parliament of many opinions. We call this "Real Politics" a la Bismarck. Making friends with foes if the national interest requires it. Call it hypocrisy or Real Politics or whatever you want. It's the same and very common.