Let us ruminate on the following excerpts from Obama’s Cairo Speech of June 4, 2009.
Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America’s founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It’s a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered…
I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.
That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.
There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people.
This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.
And, let us also think long and hard about what the president said last night.
As we have said from the beginning of this unrest, the future of Egypt will be determined by the Egyptian people. But the United States has also been clear that we stand for a set of core principles. We believe that the universal rights of the Egyptian people must be respected, and their aspirations must be met. We believe that this transition must immediately demonstrate irreversible political change, and a negotiated path to democracy…
…The Egyptian people have made it clear that there is no going back to the way things were: Egypt has changed, and its future is in the hands of the people. Those who have exercised their right to peaceful assembly represent the greatness of the Egyptian people, and are broadly representative of Egyptian society. We have seen young and old, rich and poor, Muslim and Christian join together, and earn the respect of the world through their non-violent calls for change. In that effort, young people have been at the forefront, and a new generation has emerged. They have made it clear that Egypt must reflect their hopes, fulfill their highest aspirations, and tap their boundless potential. In these difficult times, I know that the Egyptian people will persevere, and they must know that they will continue to have a friend in the United States of America.
The brave Egyptian people deserve the credit for making this revolution happen, but it was crucial that our president signaled his support for the effort, did everything he could to protect them from a violent crackdown, and finally put his finger on the scale at the crucial moment. We will learn more details in the years to come. There is no doubt that there has been division within the administration, with Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and even envoy Frank Wisner showing support for a continuation of the Mubarak regime. But the president didn’t waver and he kept the promises he made in Cairo nearly two years ago.
He has not disappointed me. His leadership validates my belief in his instincts.
Hell yes, Booman. Excellent post.
.
sends jitters down to the heart of Jerusalem and Riyadh. When the alarm went off at 3 am in the White House, Hillary Clinton send Wisner to the Egyptian people.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."And Whitehouse disowned the comments.
Hillary owes the Zionists for her career.
NYC.
There is a huge difference between sending Frank Wisner to talk to the Egyptian people and Frank Wisner talking to Mubarak. Hillary Clinton (and by implication President Obama) sent Wisner to talk to Mubarak. The Ambassador to Egypt, Margaret Scobey (a career Foreign Service Officer, btw) to talk to various civil society groups and members of the opposition. And by “talk”, I suspect what was actually going on was listening.
Hillary Clinton seems to be faithfully performing President Obama’s policies. Therefore, it is unknown what she would have done as President in a similar situation.
I can imagine a bunch of leaders in a sheer state of panic at the moment; the crew in Riyadh probably is the most concerned because the “keeper of the Muslim holy sites” offered to backfill US aid to Mubarak if the US cut off aid. But Ahmedinejad can’t be sleeping soundly, nor Assad, nor the Emirs of the Persian Gulf, Abdelaziz Bouteflika. And even Muammar Kaddafi probably has an Ambien prescription. King Mohammed VI and King Abdullah II must be thinking about how fast “constitutional monarchy” can move toward the European model and involve all parties and an civilian-controlled military.
But it is Avigdor Liberman who has suddenly seen a very dark future. Netanyahu might be able to weasel his way toward an agreement on Palestine. Liberman, because of his absolutist stand, is toast. In the absence of Israel carrying out an unprovoked military attack on someone, their settlement policy is no longer viable–nor is their Gaza blockade.
love this comment
Bashshar Al Asad doesn’t really have all that much to worry about internally. People are pretty much OK with him. In fact, if free and fair elections were held in Syria he would likely fare quite well.
The Sultan of `Oman is probably quite safe too, even moreso than Asad. He has taken that country from an isolated backwater to a modern, comfortable Arab country without overdeveloping it or turning it into a western commercialized theme park a la Dubai.
If that is true, now is an excellent time to do it and claim history. The essential transformation that folks in Egypt are seeking, as many explained it, is a parliamentary democracy in which the functional head of state is subservient to the will of the parliament and the parliament subservient to the will of all the people, with open candidacy and free and fair elections. If Assad could actually win election with this transformation, this moment offers him an excellent opportunity when he is in a strong position. And the transformation of Syria to an recognized democracy puts additional pressure on Israel to deal. Their negotiating partners are not going to play the phony peace negotiation kabuki any more.
That’s not likely to happen for at least two reasons, not necessarily in this order. First, by and large people in Syria are not unhappy enough with the regime to feel a pressing need to change it. In general they appear to see enough positives to counterbalance the negatives, so there is insufficiently strong impetus for change. Second, even if Asad were all for holding free and fair elections, he is not an absolute ruler, and would not be able to unilaterally come to such a decision and make it happen. He has a regime to contend with much of which is left over from his father’s brutal rule.
So Bashar Assad is really a captive of his father’s regime and functions as a safety valve for discontent. And he has not been building or not been able to build his own power base. But has he been able to moderate the brutality of the regime he inherited? For example, how tolerated is minor dissent and calls for accountability for minor misdeeds of the regime? In some regimes almost any dissent would send you at least to prison.
Nice attempt to apply a simplistic, America-centric spin on what I said, but no cigar. I didn’t say any of that, nor did I suggest it. Please do not attempt to argue with me based on your own spin on my words. That only annoys me.
In response to your first question, yes, he has been able to moderate the brutality of his father’s regime, which is one of the reasons for the fact that so many Syrians find him as acceptable as they do. He has also opened up the country considerably. The virtual universal availability of the internet is one strong example.
My experience tells me that in general Syrians recognize and appreciate the advancements that Bashshar has brought to the country and its population. That does not mean that they do not wish for something better. It does mean that the kind of pressure that resulted in the revolutions in Tunis and Egypt probably does not exist in Syria at this time.
I will give Obama no praise for his role, whatever it happens to have been, until history has vindicated it. Reading everything at face value is foolish; we all know the US is imperial, shortsighted, and would rather have citizens of other nations killed, detained and tortured if it served the powerful’s interests. He and no other government leader deserves no benefit of the doubt.
There is no reified “the US” that is imperial, shortsightsed…
There is a foreign policy and national security establishment that is unresponsive to the will of the people and out of touch with global reality. They used to shape that global reality, and they no longer are determinative.
In addition, US national interests are changing rapidly. The US pursued oil to prosecute a Cold War with the Soviet Union. Now, the policymakers pursue oil to drive a war machine that is used to pursue oil; the snake is eating its tail.
And the consent to do this is not the authentic will of the people, but a media-created consensus.
I want to add this thought:
Doing the Pravda dance with the hypnomedia…that’s where you mine a nugget of truth out of a shitstorm of bullshit…it is beginning to appear to me that Hillary Clinton and her left-wing-of-the-right-wing/PermaGov/CIA allies were beaten by Obama’s moves. If this is true…undersand, there are still layers upon layers of further bullshit yet to be examined and the whole executive branch might just be playing the good cop/bad cop game and/or covering all of the bases so that whatever happens can be spun as a victory for the U.S…but if this is true it threatens Obama’s standing vis-à-vis said PermaGov. He may have betrayed certain sub rosa promises that he made pre-campaign, promises that helped him get elected. If we soon see a series of moves to discredit him…on any level, from sexual innuendo right on through “unexpected” opposition from people who have heretofore been considered his allies or equally unexpected leaks of some sort…well then, there we jolly well are, aren’t we.
Just sayin’…
It’s a big ship, and what goes on in the Captain’s cabin is not always exactly what’s going on in the bridge or the engine room.
Just sayin’…
AG
The PermaGov, as you call it, is not as monolithic as your term might suggest. Powerful players are always jockeying against each other as well. So far, nothing material has been threatened; the Suez Canal still handles shipping, there is not yet a change in Egyptian policy towards Israel, Gaza, and Palestine (although there likely will be change). The only ones unhappy at the moment are the neo-cons who thought that (1) only US military action could produce democracy in the Middle East and (2) any democracy that bubbled up from the grassroots would be dominated by political Islamists. The Coptic church participating in the Egyptian revolution must be galling to them.
When Obama’s policies threaten something material, you might see unification of the PermaGov against Obama. But for now, things are probably OK.
As for sub rosa promises, it is unlikely there were many and the shitstorm from the Republican Party has been aimed at making him keep those.
It is as true in the US as in Egypt that people power can overcome the institutional power that controls the government against the people. That is why the Citizens United case was so important for the PermaGov. It created the equivalent of a distributed regime media operation; the “distributed” nature of it is such that it is much harder to focus the understanding of people on the fact that they are being propagandized because “there is competition in the media”, “folks can buy their own ads in opposition”, and so on.
I believe that this phenomenon is why you keep saying “MediaStrike”. Kill the noise and think.
I do not consider the PermaGov “monolithic” by any means, Tarheel. That’s why I am always saying things like “The left wing of the right wing” in my posts. I have made the point here many times that it is as stratified and contentious as is the visible government. Frank Wisner’s little end run attempt a couple of days ago is proof enough of that idea, as was the whole Valerie Plame brouhaha. During the Plame thing the right wing of the PermaGov tried to undercut its left wing in order to continue plans to use the military in a Blood For Oil war while the left wing of said PermaGov espoused more…subtle…measures.
Continued economic imperialism was their common ground, though. Their strategies remain the same…continued economic dominance by any means necessary in order to keep the oil a’flowin’ so’s the country doesn’t eventually experience its own Tahrir Square set of moments. It’s just their tactical concepts that differ.
Bet on it.
AG
The US might yet see its Tahrir Square moment–if the opposition to the PermaGov learns tactics, discipline, logistics, and restraint from the Egyptian case.
Key to that would be a short list of demands that could command the support of progressives, independents, and even the libertarian independent Tea Party types.
Our soldiers will fire on unarmed crowds. Kent State anyone?
That is the question. And that’s why the evangelicals have busily taking over our military.
….and before Egypt and Facebook and blogs and Tweeter. Interesting times.
NOW:
If someone poops in Bangladesh, someone in Canada will know.
Kent State was the Ohio National Guard, which is a little different.
The issue you raise is a valid one because unlike the situation at the time of Kent State, the current army is all-volunteer (essentially a career army).
But the center of American power is not in the government. It is with the corporations and transmitted to the government through the corporate cronies in Congress and through lobbyists on K Street. Shutting down K Street and the public relations industry, which has now run amok with the HBGary scandal, would not necessarily draw an army response. Local police, however, might be more unrestrained (unless the issue was one they agreed with).
The arrangement of power and institutions in the US is much different from Egypt, and we do not have a 30-year long dictatorship by a one-person autocrat. Indeed the government is now somewhat powerless.
Interesting thought.
I have been thinking along similar lines.
In the words of the immortal Fats Waller:
Das right!!!
Later…
AG
Booman: so naive, wanting to give Obama a smidgeon of credit. That’s just not cool.
I have a better chance of getting run over by a bus than reading Obama getting some credit in the LW blogosphere.
I agree. I also think that the media’s surprising and heartening solidarity around WikiLeaks helped enable this. Had the cameras gone away, had they turned their backs for an instant, this story might have ended in a horribly different way.
I credit new media, as well. It’s much harder to tell an official lie when there are now thousands of video cameras in ordinary citizens’ hands to show what really happened. The world has changed, for the better, as a result of all these things.
And I agree that Obama, perhaps alone, in his administration, made clear his personal support for the revolutionaries. That is one of the reasons I voted for him. Yes, it feels good to have been vindicated on this matter.
>>> did everything he could to protect them a violent crackdown, and finally put his finger on the scale at the crucial moment<<<
Completely agree. I also thought Hillary went rogue.
Kind of early to be handing out awards to Obama and his admin for this outcome. We don’t know all the details of the backchannel communications, which are the key factors to consider more than some nice but often highly nuanced public pronouncements. So while I applaud Mubarak’s exit, and I’d like to give a quick hearty high-five for bold leadership to Obama, I’m not sure at this early stage how much of a positive role in the outcome he played.
And this
seems a little surprising and too critical as to Hillary and Biden, though they might early on have been against regime change. I would ask Boo to provide a little back up support for this assertion. And if Wisner was against Mubarak leaving, why did Obama send him to Cairo as his envoy to Mubarak?
.
Has been covered in recent days. Wisner was Hillary’s man.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Ultimately sent by Obama however. Either that was a signal to Mubarak to stay/with fundamental changes, or Wisner went with different, tougher instructions and went off message. Very unfair to blame Hillary alone and not also Obama who after all had to know about Wisner’s background.
.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."I was just wondering if the flies on the walls inside the WH all had anxiety attacks as I thought of Sammantha Powers not tiptoeing around Hillary and visa versa.
One thing you can always say about Obama, he manages to not only bring into his inner circle a large measure of powerful brilliant women but then he manages to keep them from beheading each other!
I’d be willing to buy this, assuming you’re willing to extend the same courtesy to other Western leaders who were just as (or even more so) strong on their support for the Egyptian protesters.
Are you also willing to commend the “good instincts and judgment” of David Cameron, for example?
Who’s that? Didn’t he direct ‘Avatar’?
That accent doesn’t sound American, so he is irrelevant.
QEF’nD.
😉
Obama made a clear call for non violence. I doubt Bush would have done that.
I am not in favor of Hillary Clinton and I think she needs to go.
Boo:
I’ll give the President some credit. Most Presidents seem to relish playing a role in foreign affairs and forgetting about home(meaning this country). Will he ship Tom Donohue and the banksters to Gitmo?
I believe that the President has handled this about as well as anyone could have hoped. This is a fundamental moment of history in the Middle East. I don’t think this can be underscored too much. This isn’t something simple. NOthing like this has ever happened in that part of the world with a major player like this, and without a whole lot of blood being shed. I know some people have died, but if this were 10 years ago, there’d be rivers of blood of killed protesters and Mubarak would not have left. Do you realize that if you are 30 years or younger in Egypt, you had known nothing else other than Mubarak? That if you’re a middle -aged man of 50, right when you hit your adulthood, this man had loomed over your life?
I believe that the basic American person watching those scenes in Egypt is happy for the people there.
I do also believe that there are a whole lot of other mofos, who would utter ‘ democracy’, but never believed it for one friggin’ moment. This isn’t the Palestinian authority taking a vote. This is EGYPT. this is major. and a whole lotta folks are unhappy about what is happening there.
This is a big win. It’s a win for Obama and a win for a new way of looking at the middle east (as voiced by Powers, Rhodes and I’m sure others).
Looking back on history from the future, it will quite possibly be accepted truth that Bush’s wars represent the failing of an old view and that Obama completely changed American foreign policy with regards to the region.
Perhaps the most interesting thing about Obama’s stance is that it really seems to represent a shift towards actually believing in other cultures’ right to self-determination. This has LONG been a huge mark of hypocrisy on America. Change like that is very impressive indeed.
I heard an Egyptian parliamentarian on television this morning talking by phone from Egypt with someone on MSNBC about Mubarak resigning.
Moustafa El Gindy, a house member, was being interviewed by phone. He was crying and said there is nothing left–no senate no house. He said we are so happy this day has come. He said President Obama had been on the right side of history. He is the only President who has ever been on the side of the people.
The person interviewing him did not say, well, did the president do the right thing? El Gindy brought it up. So many people saying that Obama is different than the other presidents. It was quite moving.
Obvious, there is a whole lot of work to me done, and it will be harrowing, but the world is now watching Egypt.
I don’t buy it. It’s true that Obama supported non-violence from the beginning, but let’s not forget;
Suleiman is still there. He has the normal military background the America prefers in it’s dictators/strongmen. It’s being stated that Egypt is now controlled by ‘upper echelon military leaders’. That would fit Suleiman. The double whammy is that Suleiman was very likely installed at US insistence, as a back up for when the Pres had to step aside. The triple whammy is that Suleiman is a CIA contact, and a CIA tortured at that.
Let’s be clear … OBAMA sent Wisner to Egypt. NOT Clinton. I doubt Obama was pleased when Wisner went off the reservation with his comments, but all comments and actions by Clinton and Biden were almost certainly approved at the highest level. Biden is no Dick Chaney, I doubt very much he does anything without approval. Obama could do to Biden what Bush could not do to Chaney, lock him completely out of Whitehouse policy discussions.
Everything I see leads me to believe this is the same old American game. Play both sides off each other, have a CIA man as backup, quiet the unpredictable reform movement and have them go home, then set it up so your new strongman is there for another 20 years. With continuing Marshall law.
I don’t see any change in Egypt’s leadership. And I doubt there will be any change for years. I give Obama credit for doing it perfectly. Take the side of the ‘people’ and when your done, same as before.
.
.
Looks like we’re all alone, nalbar. Lol.
I’m not necessarily saying what you said is true, but I am one to say, “Let’s wait to rush for any praise for two reasons. One, what nalbar stated. Two, the US track record.”
Maybe BooMan is right, and then I will accept that. But until we have access to what really happened, why give them the benefit of the doubt that no US administration deserves?
I think you, too, are giving Obama far too much credit, and underestimating the Egyptians.
Booman, Thank you for this. I know that there are many who will never feel Obama has lived up to his potential. Actually, that may be putting it mildly, but I fully support most actions taken by the president. I have some issues, but overall I am proud that he is my president.
Booman, I put a 1 on CSweeps comment. It was a mistake. Not used to the system here. sorry. I thought his comment was worthy of likes.
.
rating can be changed to another value but not completely undone.
Don’t fear, we’re glad you’re here!
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Another brilliant Presidential gem:
According to Obama Mubarak “President Hosni Mubarak responded to people’s hunger for change.”
Who writes this shit, and why does he utter it? It would be better to say nothing than to repeat this kind of rubbish.
Such a statement is not rubbish: it is the rewriting of history nearly even before it has taken place.
So, maybe it’s calculated rubbish, but either way, rubbish it is. Egyptians know the score, and Egyptian history will reflect that.
Now if Obama would decide to direct his attorney general to start enforcing the law and start upholding U.S. citizens’ constitutional rights, we’d all be good to go.
Expect the right to become even crazier and more angry, because they will see this as a win for Obama rather than the people of Egypt.
Wrong. If you read Wingnuttia today, it’s a loss for Obama. As in, the 2011 version of “Who Lost China?” Their contempt for democracy has never been clearer. And they’re not so much contemptuous of the actual people of Egypt as unaware they exist.
Oh, I didn’t mean that the right would say it was a win for Obama, but rather that they’d see it that way. Actually, going out of their war to paint it as a loss would indicate that they actually think it’s a win for him.
I saw Hannity last night. You could smell the racism coming out of my TV.
Also, I agree with you on Obama’s relationship to others in his administration. Makes me very pleased that he’s the one who’s President.
When I voted for him I took him for someone who would, given a range of possibilities, would choose the one most to the left, with the additional criteron that the choice not hinder his ability to make choices in the future. He did this in this case, more or less keeping his rhetoric behind what appeared to be the curve. Had he swung for the fence, so to speak, on Jan 25, he would surely have struck out, in the form of appearing to be meddling and allowing Mubarak to marshal nationalist sentiment on his behalf. Instead, he waited until Mubarak overreached and the popular movement had grown and you might say matured to push things a bit forward. Sort of like aikido, looking for an opportunity to use your opponent’s weight against him or her.
“he would surely have struck out, in the form of…allowing Mubarak to marshal nationalist sentiment on his behalf.“
It’s amazing the degree to which liberal and progressive Americans believe in Obama’s power to influence the outcome in Egypt. It’ as if you all really can’t accept the fact that people in Egypt are capable of heroic action on behalf of their own rights without – or in spite of – the assistance and guidance of the United States.
Nothing on Earth could have turned around the Egyptian juggernaut once it began moving. There is nothing Obama could have done, and nothing he did had any significant effect. There is absolutely Obama or anyone else could possibly have done that would have turned nationalist or any other sentiment in Mubarak’s favor, ever.
The cork was off the volcano, and Mubarak’s fate was sealed when the demonstrations began. Outside of trying to influence Mubarak’s behavior, there was absolutely nothing Obama could have done or said that would have made an iota of difference. Mubarak was toast from the beginning, and it was only a matter of how long it would take before he either got the hell out of Dodge or died on Egyptian soil in the same way Ceaucescu died on Romanian soil.
The will of a bunch of brown people in a third world country in North African is orders of magnitude greater than the power of “the most powerful man on Earth”, and “leader of the free world”. Deal with it.
you are a little too insistent on your point.
There is no reason that Mubarak couldn’t have responded like the Mullahs in Iran responded except that he didn’t have the same ability (or, perhaps, inclination) to use the military and his thugs to crush the demonstrations.
It was high level contacts between America’s military, state department, and white house and Egyptian’s military that prevented Mubarak from crushing the resistance. It’s possible he simply didn’t have the heart to do it, but I doubt it.
In Iran, America had negative power. If we asked for something it was less likely to be done. In Egypt, we could have given a green light to crush the resistance at any time, and surely would have if John McCain or most other previous presidents had been in charge.
Obama told the Egyptians and their government two years ago that the people have the same rights as our own people and that he would side with those that sought or granted those rights.
He kept his word.
Hurria and Booman, I’d like to try to split the difference between your statements.
Hurria, I agree with your insistence that the prime movers of events in Egypt in recent weeks are “a bunch of brown people in a third world country”, i.e., the people of Egypt.
Legendary civil rights organizer Bob Moses refers to it as change driven by the “demand side”, meaning the people most directly affected by an oppressive regime. In Mississippi in the 1960s that meant African-Americans organizing locally to demand their human rights, rather than organizing Northern white liberals to lobby Congress (for example).
In Egypt in the first part of the 21st century, it has meant the April 6 Movement, labor activists, the Muslim Brotherhood, young intellectuals, Copts, and others figuring out how to build a unified opposition and bring nonviolent pressure to bear on the regime.
Gene Sharp, in his essential essay “From Dictatorship to Democracy” makes the point that ultimately any regime relies on its armed forces. If the army refuses to kill its own people, then the regime cannot survive massive, organized nonviolent opposition.
If, say on Jan. 30, Mubarak had given and the army had obeyed orders to clear Tahrir Square “by any means necessary”, Mubarak would likely still be president.
Given that context, I think Booman is correct in giving some credit to the Obama administration. Despite some mixed messages, it seems pretty clear at this point that the US government communicated repeatedly to its Egyptian counterparts (executive, diplomatic, military, etc.) that the US was strongly opposed to a violent repression of the opposition.
Finally, for those of us progressives who are sometimes frustrated by Obama, it’s worth reminding ourselves as Booman does here that Obama “kept his word” to the Egyptians. Different context, different issue, but in some ways reminiscent of the repeal of DADT.
Well, what I think Obama could have done is given the OK to Mubarak to have loads of people shot, which could have influenced things, I think, but he chose not to do that and let things happen. I don’t think that his speech in response to Mubarak’s short lived insistence on remaining in power caused anything at all. What it did do was make it clear to those who would have squashed the movement, which most certainly could have been done at any point, that he wouldn’t support such a move. That’s a big deal, because the key factor or at least a key factor in any revolutionary situation is whether or not the regime loses its defenders. Opponents of any regime are always there. In this case, the many who would have defended Mubarak stayed home.
Your point about how the actions of African people are devalued in US discourse is absolutely spot on. Also, it may be worthwhile that when talking about the President, that he is a Black man. He has understandings from experience that no white President has had, and these things, however one might see him as flawed, do matter.
You are greatly underestimating the sumud – determination and persistence – and the discipline of the Egyptian revolutionaries. You are also vastly overestimating the effectiveness of “having loads of people shot” when millions of people are simultaneously mad as hell, refuse to take it anymore, and organize to put an end to it.
Did “shooting lots of people” put an end the American Revolution? To the French Revolution? I would also remind you that for more than 6 decades successive American administrations have given the OK to Israel to do a great deal more than merely “shoot lots of people”. In fact, the United States has not only given Israel the OK to repeatedly commit massive, massive destructive and deadly violence amounting to war crimes against the Palestinians and the Lebanese, the United States as funded, equipped and supplied Israel in those endeavors. And how has that use of U.S.-sanctioned-and-funded massive violence worked out for Israel against the determination of the Palestinians and the Lebanese? Has it brought an end to their troublesome demands for freedome?
From the NYTimes:
Lets hope this leads to a reality check for Israel’s government. It will become less easy for them to ignore the legitimate grievances of their Arab neighbors. Will this cause them to compromise or further dig in their heels?
The latter. As AG would say, bet on it.
I have to agree with you. The loss of their chief arab henchman is not going to make the Israelis more amenable to peace. On the contrary.
The more I read that Cairo speech the less I am impressed with it. Just for starters that first part you quote so proudly is a real gem of hypocrisy.