Post by Steven DouglasPost by DocPost by Steven DouglasPost by DocThe military moving against the MB, brought a retaliation against the
Coptics, since radicals instilled the notion that the US and its allies
had been involved in the coup. The MB made it clear they believed this
was the case.
Christians, of course, representing the Western nations, came under
fierce attack.
Ah, and of course as you always say, everything that happens over
there is no different from things that happen here. So whenever
Muslim terrorists attack us, our response is the same against
Muslims in this country as is happening to Christians over there.
Right?
Wrong! It's quite a different situation. Our government hadn't had a
coup. It was not in an evolving or devolving state of revolution. It was
not in a destabilized state.
Have you forgotten about the hundreds of thousands of Egyptians who
were demonstrating against Morsi's government before the Egyptian
military stepped in to remove him from power?
Headline: "Egypt military gives President Morsi 48 hours to reach
agreement with opposition, or face political transition"
[excerpt] Opponents accuse Morsi of running the nation in
contradiction to the ideals of the Arab Spring, saying he has been
too eager to place other Brotherhood leaders into positions of power
and not eager enough to share the power among other political groups
in the country.
Earlier Monday, organizers of the protests called on the military to
state openly it supports them.
While the statement from al-Sissi was careful to state that the
military would not take an active role in any political transition
process, the threat that one would be launched if Morsi failed to
heed the demands of the opposition was tantamount to military
support.
The announcement was greeted by jubilation in Tahrir Square.
According to the Egyptian constitution, if a sitting president loses
the confidence of the public he can be removed from power and the
chief justice of the nation's high court would step in to oversee a transition administration.
Ahead of the protests, the military last week warned it would
intervene to stop the nation from entering a "dark tunnel."
[end excerpt]
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57591775/egypt-military-gives-president-morsi-48-hours-to-reach-agreement-with-opposition-or-face-political-transition/
Post by DocI never said that things are the same here
as over there.
You do your best to draw comparisons to the way Muslims are treated
here to the way Christians are treated there. You were just doing
that not too long ago.
Post by DocWe don't have the world's biggest empire exerting its
influence on us every day as Egypt has had. We were not in danger of
having our government ruined or Bush arrested.
Apparently Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have more
influence than we do. Our foreign aid to Egypt is a pittance
compared to what the Egyptian military is receiving from the
Saudis and the Emirates. Here's an article from soon after the
Headline: "Saudi Arabia pledges $5 billion in aid to Egypt"
[excerpt] Saudi Arabia pledged $5 billion in grants and loans to
Egypt's new government on Tuesday, a second major promise of aid
from the Gulf after the ouster of the country's Islamist president.
Earlier, the United Arab Emirates pledged $3 billion to the
cash-strapped country. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are leading critics
of deposed President Mohammed Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood.
[end excerpt]
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57592930/saudi-arabia-pledges-$5-billion-in-aid-to-egypt/
Now, what was your most recent *excuse* for why Muslim radicals
mistreat Christians in their midst? Please explain that to me
again.
I think the religious-political-social situation in Egypt is a lot more
complex than you, I, or most Americans understand clearly.
You're presenting the Coptic church as an virtually innocent, neutral
body not subject to promoting any form of authoritarianism but from my
research, it has been part of a restrictive ruling triad that has
generally promoted autocracy since Nasser. I strongly suggest you read
ALL of the following.
I quote:
While the military-industry complex is the hegemonic actor in Egypt’s
politics and economy, since Nasser came to power, Al-Azhar and the
Coptic Church have held the dominant hand in the social realm.
Nasser curtailed both the Muslim Brotherhood and the ulema and passed
the 1961 law that removed the independence of Al-Azhar yielding the
institution to state power. For instance, local imams became an
important mobilizing force of Nasser’s national project. Similarly, the
Coptic Church gained control over community affairs as Nasser diminished
the role of the community lay councils (Al-Majlis Al-Milli).
This governing alliance has ensured that religion remains central to
people’s lives as a social rather than political force. Over the years,
it has made it difficult to create a direct relationship between the
state and its citizens.
Additionally, it has meant that religious institutions have been
empowered at the expense of other civil actors and groups. At the same
time, over the last three decades this alliance has ensured a rather
peaceful, albeit increasingly volatile, co-existence between Egypt’s two
largest religious communities: Sunni Muslims and Coptic Christians.
Religion in Egypt is an important part of everyday life and social
relations. The Egyptian state is not, however, a religious (i.e.
Islamic) state as the legal system is based primarily on the French
civil code. The state does not adopt a dogmatic and legalistic
interpretation of Islamic principles except in the realm of personal
status matters, such as marriage, divorce, and inheritance, where the
principles of shari’a apply.
This implies certain social restrictions, however, including the
impossibility of marriage between a Christian man and a Muslim woman and
the difficulty in inheriting assets from family members of different
religions. This system also places certain restrictions on the
inheritance rights of female children.
As a result, the private realm of the family is under state control in
ways that ensure the piety of Egyptian society. Moreover, such control
over the family realm turns confessional communities into the primary
location of belonging and identity. It is, as such, no surprise that
Al-Azhar and the Coptic Church are the two most important institutions
helping the state to control the devotional nature of Egyptian society,
which is first and foremost, embedded in the realm of the family.
Among other things, the people’s call for the army to oust Morsi and the
military’s subsequent siege of the Muslim Brotherhood is another
manifestation of the struggle for authority over piety in Egypt. Over
the past year, the Muslim Brotherhood has tried to claim this authority
by challenging the power of the country’s existing religious institutions.
For these reasons, it is incorrect to describe the June 30 events
through the lens of a “secular” army unseating Islamists. An acute form
of secularism that implies a strict separation between religion and
state and the complete privatization of religion has never been dominant
in Egypt.
In this respect, it is significant that General Abdel Fatah El-Sissi
appeared on July 3 with both the grand imam of Al-Azhar and the Coptic
Pope to announce the transitional roadmap.
This appearance signaled to the crowds and the international audience
that the military intervention not only had popular support, but also
had the endorsement of the two major religious institutions in Egypt.
All three institutions share a male dominated, authoritarian culture
that reflects how the Egyptian state has historically governed the
country. By appearing together on the occasion of Morsi’s ouster, the
leader of these three institutions confirmed the strong role this
authoritarian and patriarchal tradition continues to play in Egypt’s
unfolding revolution.
The success of the revolution very much lies in its ability to stand
against all forms of power and oppression, no matter from where they may
come. Egyptian protesters emphasized this with dignity and courage when
they demonstrated in the millions against Mubarak in January 2011 and
then against Morsi in June 2013.
Nevertheless, well-entrenched state traditions of authoritarianism
continue to limit the revolution’s emancipatory potential...
The entrenched nature of this authoritarianism was reflected in recent
opposition to Egypt’s new interim constitution by various religious
institutions. The issues raised by these groups stemmed first and
foremost from their anxiety about losing authority and political power
in the country.
For instance, the Coptic Church criticized the removal of an article
that was present in the now suspended constitution, which granted
non-Muslim communities the right to apply their own canonical laws in
personal status matters. Salafis also rejected the new declaration
because it eliminated Al-Azhar’s role as a referee in matters relating
to Islamic shari’ a.
At the moment, however, there are several ways to ensure that the
authoritarian triad is not allowed to continue. The revolutionary youth
who launched the Tamarod movement, which led to Morsi’s ouster, as well
as the National Salvation Front (NSF), Egypt’s leading civil opposition
group, are included in the transitional roadmap. These groups present
the best opportunity for preventing the normalization of the triad’s
power over Egyptian society.
To succeed, these groups must engage in representative democracy, while
at the same time continuing to express their demands on the street in
ways that expand the political spectrum beyond narrow binaries of us
versus them. Although the leaderless nature of the revolution since
January 2011 certainly empowered direct over representative forms,
direct democracy still cannot exist without its representative variant.
The Salafist Al-Nour Party’s strong rejection of attempts to appoint
Mohamed El-Baradei of the NSF and Ziad Bahaaeddin to the position of
interim prime minister highlights the ongoing influence of party
politics in maintaining state authoritarianism in Egypt...
Perhaps now more than ever, it is pressing that the revolutionary civil
oppositional groups, including political parties, social movements, and
non-governmental organizations, stand together to speak out against the
state’s authoritarian traditions.
There are already developments in this direction. For instance, Tamarod
has objected to the new constitutional declaration on the grounds that
it, “lays the foundation of a new dictatorship.” The NSF also recently
called for revolutionaries to be included in the new cabinet, and
demanded that the new constitutional declaration be amended.
These are important steps to building a synergy between direct and
indirect forms of democracy to ensure that the people’s will is actually
reflected in the new governing structures, and to dismantle the alliance
between the military and religious institutions in Egypt.
http://muftah.org/state-authoritarianism-in-egypt-the-military-al-azhar-coptic-church-triad/
Obama, as I said, is believed by some analysts to be withholding public
condemnation of the MB to keep the social violence from getting even
worse. If he were to announce today that the MB is a dictatorial group
that has thrown the election, the MB and its many supporters would have
new fuel to add to the fire. As such, they already are charging Obama is
undermining them by secretly supporting the coup which, as the writer I
quoted said, is being supported by the Coptics and Sunnis.
The writer correctly points out that the Coptics have been a major part
of the ruling elite of Egypt in a triad that has done little to oppose
authoritarian government, and restrictive social practices.
So, junior, this horrid mess is really quite complex. And this quote
underlines perfectly, when it comes to whatever role the US and its
allies have to play in this crisis of leadership.
I quote: (and I suggest strongly you read ALL of it)
But the fact that the United States can’t force Egypt’s generals to
resolve their political problems peacefully doesn’t absolve the Obama
administration either. The White House may not have sufficient leverage
to force the outcomes it would prefer, but when it sees a supposed
partner acting with such a complete disregard for human life, it should
not be a party to their crimes. For six weeks, the administration has
shielded Egypt’s generals from criticism and accountability as they have
consistently refused to take steps to defuse the crisis. Indeed, in the
wake of Morsi’s ouster, Sisi is more responsible than anyone for
inflaming the Egyptian public and dimming any hopes of national
reconciliation. The most the administration has mustered in response is
a weak order delaying the delivery of four F-16 fighter jets—a minor
inconvenience, not a stick.
The administration shouldn’t mindlessly maintain the same approach to
the Egyptian military that has served both sides since 1979.
Washington’s billions in aid to Egypt were originally offered to help
ensure Israel’s defense. In the intervening years, Egypt’s armed forces,
which were never particularly formidable, have progressively
deteriorated as its military brass has grown more interested in running
its business empire than defending the country’s borders. Egypt’s tanks
are now more likely to be found in Cairo’s streets than charging across
the Sinai, where they would be met by a vastly superior Israeli
military. The strategic costs for suspending Egypt’s aid just aren’t
what they once were.
The day before Wednesday’s bloody crackdown, Egyptian authorities
revealed the new slate of provincial governors who would be appointed to
office. Nineteen of the 25 new governors are generals. Of the remaining
six, two are Mubarak-era judges who are considered extremely hostile to
the Muslim Brotherhood. If the regime-inspired violence didn’t make it
clear enough, these (and similar) designs should: Egypt’s generals are
cementing a new brand of authoritarianism. Late on Wednesday, the regime
declared a monthlong state of emergency, restoring to the military the
power it wielded for decades under Mubarak. How long does the United
States want to assist them diplomatically and financially?
Of course, there is a good chance that suspending aid to Egypt’s
generals would have no effect. After all, the sums that Gulf kingdoms
like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates have offered
Egypt—upward of $12 billion in grants and loans—dwarfs American
largesse. Or maybe a move to suspend aid would lead Sisi to rethink his
position—to consider that perhaps his deep ties to the U.S. military are
worth more than crushing his opponents in the street. But even if such
an outcome is unlikely, it’d still signal to the region that the United
States is not about to underwrite another Middle Eastern dictatorship—a
mistake we continued to make for decades. And it’d be liberating for the
Obama administration, too: They could begin to make policy for the Egypt
that exists, not the one that they dream
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2013/08/egyptian_police_brutally_crackdown_on_mohamed_morsi_s_supporters_obama_administration.html
That being said, why do some analysts suspect Obama has been secretly
supporting the coup?
Here's a decent theory: (quote)
The Muslim Brotherhood condemns Obama for the military coup that ousted
Mohamed Mursi, Egypt's first elected president. Many followers of
Tamarod, whose leaders the U.S. covertly trained to create popular
backing for the military to step in, blame Obama for still being too
soft on the Muslim Brotherhood. And now the Egyptian military, our go-to
allies in Egypt whose coup Obama helped organize, are miffed that he has
stopped delivery of four F-16 fighter jets and that his top officials
are publicly telling the military to cut back their campaign to decimate
their historic enemies, the Muslim Brotherhood.
"This is a pivotal moment for Egypt," declared Secretary of State John
Kerry. "The United States ... calls on all of Egypt's leaders across the
political spectrum to act immediately to help their country take a step
back from the brink."
Don't think it's easy to meddle so deeply in the affairs of another
country, as Kerry claims to have learned from Vietnam and Obama from our
past failures in Iraq and Afghanistan. But meddling is doubly hard when
the leader of the free world tries to do the whole thing off stage,
using the shadowy agencies of the Pentagon, the State Department, and
the CIA.
He is seen to do nothing, to be following from behind. Yet, off-stage,
he is doing far too much, and a large part of it simply cannot be done.
Using Tamarod to build a campaign to encourage the military to intervene
was the easy part. Once the Egyptian military took back the reins of
power, and Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi began to get a taste of what it
might feel like to become a new Nasser or Mubarak with his face on
posters throughout Cairo, not even the Pentagon had the leverage that
Obama might have expected.
Yes, the U.S. provides $1.5 billion a year in military assistance, but
the Saudis and their Gulf State allies are now providing far more, and
they like the idea of smashing the Muslim Brotherhood. They have their
own brand of Salafi Islamists they would rather see supported.
In the end, I fully expect Obama and al-Sisi to patch up their
differences. Both Egypt and the United States have put far too much into
their long-standing military alliance to let the crushing of the Muslim
Brotherhood get in the way. And, when push comes to shove, Washington is
not going to get too carried away by its democratic rhetoric, especially
if the Egyptians continue to promote ultra-free-market, neo-liberal
economics in the tradition of the Chilean general Augusto Pinochet.
But there is a democratic lesson to be learned, and Americans need to
learn it. Ever since "Our Greatest Generation" created the covert action
arm of the Central Intelligence Agency after World War II, presidents of
both parties have found it too convenient to conduct too much of their
foreign policy in the shadows. Today, that could be under the cover of
the State Department's "Democracy Bureaucracy," USAID, the National
Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House, Optor/CANVAS, Google, or a raft
of specialized private companies.
Edward Snowden, the National Security Agency whistleblower, has made us
conscious of the mammoth role electronic intelligence now plays in the
secret game of nations, while ex-CIA officer Sabrina de Sousa has just
blown the whistle on some hitherto unknown details of the kidnapping -
sorry, extraordinary rendition - of the Muslim cleric Abu Omar from the
streets of Milan, Italy, in 2003. The CIA shipped him to Egypt, where he
was reportedly tortured - a timely reminder to Snowden not to put to put
too much faith in Attorney General Eric Holder's assurance to the
Russians that the United States does not engage in such dastardly behavior.
More than most presidents, Obama has quietly made his mark on the shady
side, whether in bringing the military back to power in Egypt, using the
CIA to help Saudi Arabia and Qatar to arm the Sunni rebels in Syria, or
waging cyberwar against the Iranian nuclear program with what became
known as the Stuxnet worm. New York Times journalist David E. Sanger
shows us this side of the president in "Confront and Conceal: Obama's
Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power," which is at the
center of the leaking investigation against 4-star Marine General James
E. "Hoss" Cartwright. How silly can we get?
I suspect that future historians will play up Obama's interventionist
side, but most journalists and politicos today seem content to blast
this very activist president as "following from behind" and only a
handful see his considerable hand in the Egyptian coup. This makes it
impossible for Americans to have a democratic debate on foreign policies
no one is supposed to see, and criminalizing leakers and whistleblowers
like Cartwright, Manning, and Snowden will only leave the public even
more in the dark.
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/289-134/18626-focus-is-obama-trying-to-take-back-his-coup-in-egypt
Filthy politics carried on in the fine tradition of both Republican and
Democratic administrations - something I've reiterated many times here
to you.
Behind it, corporate capitalism.
Another dirty force that plays one act on the public stage, another off it.
Nothing new, really, for oldsters like me. It's just that simplifying a
complex political-social situation like our partners in the Mideast as
the nasty Muslim radicals doing all the nefarious deeds in Egypt, is a
bit too much for me to swallow.
The Coptics have had enormous influence in Egypt, and have said and done
things to agitate Muslims -and vice versa - and the entrenched elitists
of all stripes there play a major soiled role as do the vested interests
of foreign powers.
I'm confident the whole mess will eventually be worked out - the
military aid will continue to make Lockheed and Boeing happy, to name
but two, and the ruling religious parties will make their
accommodations, as they've done since Nasser. More riots, perhaps even a
civil war, but it will come out to another complex situation, perhaps
even more so, that'll permit most Egyptians to get on with raising their
families, making money, and spending it.
Every leadership crisis always affords biased parties to have their
moment in the sun, in the midst of it, but by its inevitable resolution,
the status quo stays intact, while whatever changes that are made, that
are trumpeted as revolutionary or liberating, will be effectively
absorbed into the milieu of government and social structure by the sheer
need to get on with their lives by the way a suffering majority has been
motivated by the revolution's encouraging demands. If not, and the
revolution fails, and a form of authoritarianism returns, as it
apparently had in Egypt, another round of greater resistance will carry
the torch. Because once they know they can affect authority as deeply as
Egyptians have done, they'll not stop until they get pretty much what
they feel they deserve.
Doc