Middle East
 

By Ian Flecher
The dramatic events in the Middle East demonstrate how our policies of supporting authoritarian regimes while spouting democracy is ultimately counter productive. If Egypt goes the way of Iran we are going to be in deep s--t. Saudi Arabia may be next.

Turn the Middle East into one giant glass parking lot.

You cannot speak of U.S. policy with respect to any particular Arab regime without putting it in the context of Israel. Egypt and Mubarak are "allies" of the United States only in exchange for being a bulwark against Arab League opposition to Israel. Meanwhile, each and every authoritarian Arab regime stokes the fires of passion for the Palestinian cause on the streets of their own countries (and in Iran, too) precisely because so long as people in the Arab world have this issue before them, they can be easily manipulated to avoid confronting the roots of their own oppression -- namely, their own dictators (and, in many cases, the U.S. government that backs, to greater or lesser degrees, those regimes).

Solve the Palestinian "problem" and these Arab regimes will collapse like houses of cards.

And lest anyone get the wrong impression of my view of Israel, this Jew (yes, I am Jewish) believes it has no legitimate claim to exist as a country, and that Zionism (the political ideology) is, in fact, the main progenitor of anti-Semitism in the world today.

The Palestinian question is no doubt a major issue in the Middle East. However, the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt seem to have little to do with Palestine. They are grassroots frustrations with the youths in these countries with the lack of opportunities for a decent life in an open society.
Also, it appears that some of these regimes are falling without dealing with the Palestinian problem.
Let's hope that responsible leaders come forward to lead the uprisings. Otherwise, We could have more Taliban style fundamentalist, anti West governments to deal with. For years we have been pouring billions of dollars into Egypt to try to keep the lid on things. So much for that policy.

I said "U.S. policy" -- which is what you wrote of in your initial post. Further, I stated that the Palestinian question has been used to keep Arabs focused on something other than their own regimes; this does not mean that they are incapable of so focusing, as the uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen demonstrate.

In Egypt specifically, while the demonstrators clamor for human rights, economic justice, and so on, the position of their government -- i.e., its power, the arms it posses thanks to billions in U.S. military aid each year, etc. -- are directly linked to the Palestinian question.

So, they cannot be teased apart so simply.

No question the Middle east is a sea of complex issues. I suspect we desperately want Mubarak to hang in there. If he bails it will provide a powerful motivation for the youth in other Middle East countries to rise up.
Did we ever realize that the cellphone, facebook and the internet would replace our foreign policy?
"Power to the people!"

C'mon smc! What is so wrong about the Jews having some beachfront property? ;)

It's interesting that you bring up the effects that Israel and Zionism have had on the Middle East. It seems that before the emergence of the Hebrew state in the Middle East(pre-1940's), it was a pretty cool and adventureous place to visit. After reading the works of T.E. Lawrence and others who chronicled their trips to the Middle East, there was no mention of Jihadism, radical Islam, anti-Semitism or anti-western sentiment. It seems all that came about after the the foundation of Israel and was a response to the spread of Zionism in the region.

I am neither for nor against the Jews. This is purely my observation.

Golda Meir.

If the Arabs had no oil, they would still be herding sheep and being camel jockeys. Opposition to israel would have been minimal. Its oil that's made the Middle East a hot bed of policical turmoil. Would we have poured billions of dollars into the Middle East if there was no oil there?
We would have treated the area much as we have much of Africa and other areas without the resources we want.

To me, I say stay out of it. I say if the Egyptians want that guy out of there, I say go for it. And given the fact that the government cut off the internet (which the US government better not do if its citizens get angry) and are defying the curfew that has been set.....they are still telling the government to fuck off and want that guy out of there. This is history in the making, folks. People are always complaining about their government, these folks are actually doing something about it.:respect:

And I say let the Jews and the Muslims fight each other, and may the best side win....of Israel gets rubbed off the map, that's just too bad....I think Israel has been nothing but trouble since the beginning (I got nothing against the Jews, but when you're stuck in the middle of an Arab land and stick out like a sore thumb, someone's gonna take notice...which is the problem. Also, manly orthodox Jews I know said that the real holy land will be created by their own messiah) And you wanna keep the Middle East from getting insanely powerful from oil....then it's long overdue for something other than that overrated black crud for fuel, oil's to useful (though I am a huge believer of the avionic oil theory) to be burnt.

Internet=access to knowledge=power.


If the day comes the American government cuts off or even just limits the internet, I hope the American public puts up one hell of a fight.

Oh yes? Africa, that great bastion of political stability...

Political tensions in the middle east have as much to do with the proxy wars as they do oil. The USA supported Saddam because he killed communists, they also supported the Shah in Iran for the same reason. The Shah was overthrown by a popular uprising, and so the US encouraged Saddam to go to war with them, this war helps the already dominant Islamist faction within Iran consolidate power and they crush the last of the socialists and other progressives that were part of the overthrow of the Shah, rewriting history calling the revolution, the Islamic Revolution. Meanwhile, Saddam is left penniless after fighting the USAs war for them, so he invades Kuwait for the oil wonga. In Afghanistan I'm sure you all know what went on there, I'm sure you all get a good chuckle like I do when you see The Living Daylights or Rambo 3, seeing Bond and Rambo hanging out with thier bestest buddies the Mujahideen. :P trying to use religious fanatics for a proxy war is probably the only thing dumber than propping up tinpot dictators.

Anyway, lets just hope that Tunisa and Egypt come out good from this and don't end up just getting new repressive rulers like Iran did after the Shah was overthrown.

p.s. neither Tunisia or Egypt are middle eastern, they are African.

Oh my god. Don't you know you shouldn't say these things because the USA is the greatest freest country in the world and therefore does no wrong? The USA (and England) totally have the right to exploit the citizens of the world and their resources.

Anna Geographically true but politically they are well connected to the Middle East. Remember the Arab League and the United Arab Republic.

Being against Zionism has nothing to do with being against Jews. It's the Zionists who deliberately confound the two because it serves their interests. Think of how much easier it is to win sympathy when you can cry "anti-Semite" at those who oppose Zionism, as opposed to if it was always clear that it was about colonialism and oppression.

Zionism is the main cause of anti-Semitism in the world today. And that statement comes from a Jew.

Well, the news from Washington amply demonstrates the hypocrisy of our foreign policy. Obama talked Democracy on his trip to the Middle east, now it's the "D" word. No body in Washington is talking Democracy. Everybody is holding their breath and hoping the uprisings will blow over and we can keep our authoritarian buddies happy. The uprisings are an early warning, our policies are doing nothing but encouraging radical Islam. We will ultimately pay a very high price for our hypocrisy.

It is quite telling when a country that never ceases to claim it is democratic does not support democratic movements as in Egypt's case. That should be the default position of a free society.

The explanation lies in the difference between democracy and what we have in the United States -- bourgeois democracy.

It is the democracy of the rich. Think about it:

-- We have so-called "universal suffrage," but there are all manner of qualifications and requirements for voting that are used to suppress democracy when it serves the interests of all or some of those who truly control the country. In the meanwhile, the system perpetuates the illusion of true democracy.

-- We have those in power deciding who can or cannot run for office (decisions exercised through ballot access rules that preclude the formation of alternatives that can challenge the parties owned by the rich).

-- There is a inexorable link, politically and financially, between those in power and those who disseminate information.

These are but a few of the "conditions" of our bourgeois democracy, which exists because those in power find it convenient as a means of retaining relative social peace. Have no illusions that it would remain should genuine challenges to the rule of the rich be mounted. Be it in the name of national security, or a terrorist threat, or some kind of "emergency," what few democratic rights we do enjoy will be taken away -- or at least, the attempt will be made -- in an effort to ensure the continuation of bourgeois rule.

Brain food! Yummy.

To my earlier post in response to this should be added that the lack of genuine support for democratic movements such as in Egypt is precisely linked to the economic interests of the ruling rich in this country. "Democracy" elsewhere serves no useful purpose for them unless it is the only way to ensure the social stability that they need to exploit the resources of another country, or to ensure that another country plays its particular assigned role in a region, and so on. Dictatorships are no problem; they can always be excused for their "strategic" importance, for their "necessity to U.S. interests" (interests that, you can probably discern, are not really yours and mine).

A second helping!

The Egyptian are not happy yet, they want that clown out now, not at the end of his term.:coupling:

The gall of the man, eh? I won't step down but I will get rid of my cabinet. As if it made a fucking difference.

I don't even want him to leave Egypt. I want the people to throw him in jail and make of him an example.

Let them get the clown out of there first, getting the form of government they want, and then put him on trial according to that new government.

The behavior of the army is critical in this situation. In Iran, the Shah ordered the military to fire on the protesters and they killed thousands. This empowered the radical elements and Iran ended up with the Islamic Militents led by Kohemeni (sic).
We have a huge amount at stake here. Hopefully, we have enough influence with the military to keep the lid on things.

I didn't mean leave him in power. I meant that the people should do all they can to keep him from leaving Egypt to whatever safe harbors people like him have waiting for them in such circumstances. Throw him in jail.

And build a government where the people are truly in power as opposed to keeping the structure they have now or imitating the false democracy, false freedom of the US.

Egypt
 

To those that advocate the overthrow and jailing of the President of Egypt there are some facts which no one seems to be taking into consideration.

Why do you want the president thrown in jail? What laws has he broken? If he has not broken any laws then throwing him in jail is tantamount to anarchy. What possible good can come from that?

The protestors have no plan other than to get rid of Mubarak. After that they don't know what they want. The major opposition force right now is the Islamic Brotherhood which is a militant organization. It is possible that they have links to Al Qaeda. If they do and they gain power then the middle east will be thrown into complete turmoil where no one will be safe; not Moslems, not Christians, and not Jews. Militant Islam's goal is to make everyone subject to their version of Islamic law and their interpretation of the Koran. So to those that want Mubarak out I would like to know what your plan is. How do you propose to keep people safe? How do you propose to keep people safe, whose religion is far older than Islam, safe from extremist.

I would suggest that people do some deep thinking and some soul searching before the advocate for something of which they little understanding.

Egypt
 

The situation in Egypt is critical. The population has skyrocked the past 40 years. Egypt is running out of oil and can no longer export and now has to import oil. For years it has subsidized food and oil costs but it is descending deeper into debt. For years, we have poured money into to the country (80% of it to the military). Second only to Israel.
Ostensibly, Egypt is a secular Democracy, however, Mubarak and the military run the place. Opposition is severely repressed and no opposition party exists in a democratic sense.
Ila is right, if Mubarak leaves there could be a power vacuum leaving an opening for radicals. There are potential leaders out there but if the country descends into chaos all hell could break loose in the Middle East.

One point, and I want to make clear that this point is made not in any way to support the Muslim Brotherhood. But that group (its name is not Islamic Brotherhood) has very publicly criticized Al-Qaeda and the number-two guy in Al-Quaeda, who is Egyptian. The Brotherhood has not been linked to any terrorism for decades, except by Mubarak, who has always used the Muslim Brotherhood to say to the U.S.: "Your choice is me or these Islamic terrorists." Notably, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood has been very vocal in the past few days to distance the group from violence and has said that they want to help create a democratic arena in Egypt in which they can then participate.

This could all be bullshit, but we should no more rush to judgment about the Muslim Brotherhood than we should take any other positions without giving it some critical thought and analysis.

My mistake. It is the Muslim Brotherhood.

One good sign is that the military stated early on that they would not fire on protesters. They appear to be distancing themselves from Mubarak and the protesters don't see them as the enemy. This could be fairly crucial to the whole thing. If Mubarak goes soon, and the military support new elections, then they can keep the peace and keep the country stable and secure. The state apparatus in Egypt does have everything in place for being run democratically, all that really needs to change is for the elections not to be rigged. The crucial thing will be how long Mubarak takes before he gives in, the longer it is strung out, the more things will deviate from the normal running of things and the more unstable the country will get. Chaos is unlikely as long as the military continue to distance themselves from Mubarak and start to support democratic government. If the military and the people come to confrontation then there will be big trouble and definite chaos, but that isn't happening so far.

Islam
 

I am currently reading "The Middle East" by Bernard Lewis. He gives some perspective on what is now going on. The middle East has been a hot bed of wars for millenia. The biggest threat to Europe and Christianity was during the Ottoman empire centered in Turkey. they ruled much of the Middle east including Egypt for a time. Iran (Persia) remained independent. The Ottomans were primarily Sunni Muslims while the Persians were Shia. Interestingly, many Jews that were persecuted in Christian Europe went to Turkey and were accepted into the Ottoman empire and were treated better by the Muslims than by the Christians. The Ottomans repeatedly laid siege to Vienna but failed to break through. If they would have succeeded, we would all be Muslims.

And if Napoleon had nuclear subs we would all be speaking French.

Yes, and if the Nazis had nuclear subs we would all be dead.

Speaking of nuclear. As far as I know,Egypt has no nuclear stuff. Israel, Pakistan and India have bombs and Iran wants one. I worry more about Pakistan than any of the others. An uprising there is likely to result in a radical Islamic takeover with abombs and rockets at there disposal.
Our drones popping off a terrorist here and there aren't going to be much help if that happens.

stop suppoting dectatorship
 

i bilieve that the usa and Europe should stop this hypocrasy when dealing with the arabic east dectatorship and tyrany regiems in one hand they talk day and nigfht about human rights and wemen rights and all thies beautifull princiblies but in the other hand they support with all the power they have experied dectators belonging to the middle ages ,like qaddafi and all those kings and princes in the gulf,we should see things not just from our intrests or from the eyes of israel but also from the real human rights bases:rolleyes:

I could not agree more! :respect:

There is an old saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". That is our foreign policy in a nutshell.

Right Ila, that's the problem. The Muslim Brotherhood has already started talking about war with Israel, and rule under them would not be democratic.

True randolf. What is Obama's foreign policy though? I'm not being a smartass, I really can't tell.

Hey Tracy I'm back! Thanks for the complement.

I can't tell either. Hillary and Obama are being extremely wishywashy regarding this Egyptian uprising. It must be incredibly embarassing to preach Democracy and then waffle when the people demand it.
Osam bin laden (if he is still alive) must be delighted. However, I think there is a good chance that Egypt can become an open Democratic society and resist Islamic fundamentalism. The behavior of most of the protesters suggest that.

Crises promoted by hypocrisy
 

The state of affairs which has occurred again and again over the years was succinctly summarised by shehim in the following post :

http://forum.transladyboy.com/showpo...1&postcount=34

As has already been observed, the hiatus which follows either war or revolution invariably leads to a crisis or a succession of crises exploitable by any sufficiently ruthless extremist group to install their own ideological dictator or oligarchy. This was starkly the the case following the Allied occupation and redefinition of Palestine in the aftermath of the Second World War. Sadly there was no available Arabic representation in reaching the ' refoundation ' of a Jewish State in the Middle East, a decision designed to relieve the acute European refugee problem while at the same time inserting a pro-West long-term power base in the area.

It seems that the growth of extreme ' Islamism ' increase exponentially from that point.

Now I am no Historian, but I suspect that Arabs are a lot more capable of handling their own affairs and interstate relationships than many politicians in the West would have us believe.

The only way to find out is to ' suck it and see ' and assist Arab states in developing economies other than Oil, while keeping a neutral posture over the existence of Israel.

This will require really true Statesmanship from all concerned.

I fear what will happen next in Cairo. Regardless of which side you may "support," bloodshed seems likely. Mubarak did not resign, but instead transferred authority to his hand-picked vice president. Mubarak vowed to stay in Egypt and be buried in Egypt. Despite that the Army earlier told demonstrators that all their aspirations and demands would be met, the Army has also blockaded the presidential palace. There is talk of a "military coup" if the protests don't end. Meanwhile, the bus drivers have just gone on strike -- probably the precursor to a general strike that will bring what little economic activity remaining in the country to a halt.

Is the shooting of demonstrators next? Last week, Mubarak unleashed thugs on the protestors, who had been peaceful. It was clearly designed to provoke a violent response so that he could say that he was staying to maintain stability and avoid chaos. And that's what he did. But now, the stakes have grown higher.

The situation overnight will be tense, to say the least.

The 15% raise did not dissuade government employees from joining the uprising. I think Mubarak is trying to precipitate violence to force the army to move to suppress it as a way of staying in power. Hopefully, the army will force Mubarak out.

The arrogance of the US president is absolutely galling to me. How dare he tell Mubarak to step down. How would Obama like it if a politician from another country phoned him and told him to step down?:frown:

(And yes, I know Mubarak has already stepped down.)

Are you being sarcastic or...

No, I am not being sarcastic. Egypt's internal affairs are for Egyptians to solve and not for politicians from other countries telling the leader of Egypt what he should or should not do, especially since advice was not solicited.

Obama should sort out his own country and problems before spouting off about what other countries and leaders should do. It's sheer bloody arrogance to for one to stick his nose into the affairs of another country.

I agree with you, ila, that the United States should keep its nose out of the affairs of other countries. However, Egypt has been a "client state" of the United States for three decades. The Egyptian government and military are bought and paid for by the United States. In a sense, isn't Obama simply requesting the resignation of an employee of the United States, for cause? I mean that with seriousness.

Now, when the United States blockades a country and demands its leader go, as with Cuba, or intervenes via the CIA to overthrow an elected president, as in Chile, or ... any number of other actions ... I think that's even worse.

I'm not defending Obama, but simply pointing to the reality of the boss-employee relationship.

The US did not buy the government and military of Egypt. The US paid bribe money to Egypt to maintain friendly relations with Israel. Egypt was at one time a regional leader and as such the US policy was to find an Arab country that would be friendly towards the US. It was also a chance to lure away a country that was on friendly terms and in fact under the influence of the Soviet Union. To describe the US-Egypt relationship as an employer-employee relationship is wrong.

You are correct, ila, but so am I. It is not as simple as I expressed it, nor as simple as did you. The truth lies in a combination of the two. At first, "luring" was the strategy. But once the bait was set, I think it became something very different. By the way, every leader of the Egyptian military was trained at a U.S. service academy. The United States provides all the military hardware for Egypt.

The more important point in my post was about what constitutes interference in the internal affairs of another country. For the United States, the methods are myriad.

Prior to WWII we were strongly isolationist as a country. the attack in Pearl Harbor changed that. As the war concluded it became obvious that the Soviet Union was becoming a threat to Western countries. Some of our generals proposed war to destroy that threat.
As an alternative, John Foster Dulles, Eisenhower's Sec. of State established the "containment" plan to surround the Soviet Union with military bases in countries friendly to us. This was the beginning of the cold war. We now have military bases in over fifty countries. We quickly realized this policy was an excellent way to make those countries dependent on military equipment and training. It also facilitated control over their economies that favored American companies. So we have economic tentacles around the world. The Soviet empire was contained but more importantly, the US empire controlled the world economically.
I am sure SMC can point out historically, that we treat out client states rather harshly if they don't toe the line and favor our corporate interests. The banana trade is a classic example. Destruction of any government that doesn't conform to our economic policies has been routine policy.
The revolution in Egypt is bound to have major effect on our policies. It demonstrates the hypocrisy of our words. And the fragility of our client states. It's about time we really support Democracy not just empty rhetoric.

Any of you guys remember this?

Most Baby Boomers probably remember a song that captured the widespread, out-of-control feelings that for many defined the Sixties. The anthem was about the nuclear threat hanging over the world (then as now):

Merry Minuet

They're rioting in Africa (whistling)
They're starving in Spain (whistling)
There's hurricanes in Flo-ri-da (whistling)
And Texas needs rain
The whole world is festering with unhappy souls
The French hate the Germans, the Germans hate the Poles
Italians hate Yugoslavs, South Africans hate the Dutch
AND I DON'T LIKE ANYBODY VERY MUCH!!
But we can be tranquil and thankful and proud
For man's been endowed with a mushroom-shaped cloud
And we know for certain that some lovely day Someone will set the spark off
AND WE WILL ALL BE BLOWN AWAY!!
They're rioting in Africa (whistling)
There's strife in Iran
What nature doesn't so to us
Will be done by our fellow "man"
Originally written by Broadway lyricist Sheldon Harnick, who also wrote Fiddler on the Roof and Fiorello!, She Loves Me with composer Jerry Bock. This satire was introduced by Orson Bean in the 1953 revue John Murray Anderson 's Almanac.

... by the Kingston Trio in a live performance recorded for their first in-concert album From the Hungry i LP 1959