Posted on 01/31/2011 7:02:15 PM PST by fightinJAG
Well, just to be thorough, we might very well be able to save Mubarak if we and the Israelis and some of our western allies were willing to send troops in to impose order on the Egyptians. But, most everyone, including the Israelis, reject that option.
And, if we're not going to do what would be required to save Mubarak, then how can we really help? Who really thinks Mubarak or anyone would be helped by effusive public expressions of support for Mubarak by us, by the Israelis or by our western allies? Will it influence the Egyptian people in a positive way if we remind them just how useful and important Mubarak has been to us, to the Israelis and to our western allies?
Recognizing these problems, Israel has chosen to do and say nothing. We probably can't get away with complete silence, but we should try to say little more than that we support the Egyptian people at this critical time in their history.
Other leaders in the region recognize the realities and our limitations. They won't be confused.
Democrats: Liars, thieves, cowards and traitors
Your analysis is excellent. The only thing we can do is try to send the “right messages” behind-the-scenes. Of course, the fact remains that we’d be in a much better position if our president were viewed as strong, smart and steady. Which he is not.
“The question is, do we think Obama is reliable or not,” said an Israeli official, who declined to be named.
*******************
Anyone who would throw their own Grandma under the bus is capable of anything.
You're absolutely right.
There is no point in investing any more money into an 82 year old dictator that is unpopular.
And yes, Bush did us and the world a big disfavor by saying that we are bringilng democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan.
In the early 1980’s on the streets of Cairo an Egyptian professor told me that “the people of Egypt cannot feed democracy to children for dinner.”
Feeding the children is the most important thing, but when Mubarak is gone they will have to set up an electoral system that at least seems to be fair but marginalizes the vote of the uneducated fundamentalists.
And how many Jews voted for him? That was a pretty good chunk of his votes. Idiots!
I agree with your comments here.
“Hey Israel, you’re next.”
Hamas already got the party started by firing a bunch of missiles from the gaza strip into Isreal today. And these weren’t anything homemade. But 122mm Grad missiles which are a greatly improved version of Katyusha rockets with a more powerful warhead and greater range.
What I am taking from this article is that the pundits are stunned and dismayed that Obama is so clueless on how truly dangerous it would be for the entire world if (when) Islamicists take over Egypt.
I haven’t heard one administration official even reference the fact that Mubarak was the first Arab leader to make a peace treaty with Israel. That was not chopped liver.
First you need to define "freedom." One man may want to be free to speak, and another man may want to be free to kill him for his words. A total freedom is Somalia style anarchy.
If you look at Europe you will see that riots periodically occur in Sweden, France and other countries. Can we call the rioters "freedom fighters?" They, after all, are fighting to be free from Western laws, to be free to kill infidels. I guess not; their freedom is not our freedom.
If you look deeper into this requirement you will see that in order to build a free *democratic* society you need to have a critical mass of citizens who support its principles. Egypt has intelligentsia (ElBaradei and al-Zawahiri for example,) but, as reported, they don't make up a majority, or even a sizable part of the population. The Second Sturgeon's Law is quite specific. As it appears, MB is planning to ride into power on shoulders of perfectly good-intentioned, nice people who want to see democratic Egypt. MB probably calls them "useful idiots."
I agree that neither the U. S. or Israel can take physical action to support Mubarak. And I agree that ultimately the man on the street will determine Mubarak’s future.
At the same time there are things the U. S. can do to be supportive of our long term ally. At the first sign of trouble you don’t cut and run. Talking of a smooth transition early in the process is disgusting. Talking about being able to work with the Islamic Brotherhood is problematic at any point in the process.
Part of the diplomatic response is intended to make it clear to our allies that we will stand by them. Here’s a thirty year ally, that within days we were perfectly willing to talk of in terms of “transition” and a willingness to eagerly work with his replacement.
That is a jettison of sorts. I’m not the only one to see it that way either. People in Israel are talking about it in these terms. They are concerned to see us turn on Mubarak like this, because they consider themselves to be our ally. If we’ll turn on one so easily, what does that portend for them?
You and I realized there is a difference between the type of ally Israel has been and Egypt has been. People in the region may not see it quite like that, and there’s other allies in the region besides Egypt.
What reason is there for people to side with the U. S. if it is so easily willing to jump ship and cozy up with a replacement? I’m sure Jordan’s king is going to school on this. Others are too.
One thing that our current administration didn’t address, was the plight of the Egyptian. If what is taking place results in a more open society, more rights for the common man and a more responsive government, good. If it results in a theocratic government that oppresses women in particular and the populace at large, very bad.
The Islamic Brotherhood isn’t going to increase the openness of government and improve the rights of women in general and the populace at large either.
Pointing this out could help the Egyptians understand that there might be some things to avoid in this process.
Absolutely.
I think Middle East would be a much better place if the countries there deemphasized religion when it comes to government and politics. When a country insists on being an Islamic state or a Jewish state or even a Christian state, special internal and external tensions and problems seem to follow.
I believe that governments should be respectful of religious groups as a rule, but should refrain from being radicalized. A government should not become an autocratic arm of the religion, and a religion should not be elevated to the place that it can hold power over members of the populace that are not members.
Laws drafted by the government should be designed to assure a minimum standard of safety to the populace at large whether they be members or non-members. For instance, you shouldn’t be able to kill your daughter because she’s not dating someone you approve of. You shouldn’t be able to mutilate her. You shouldn’t be able to stone her or your wife because they were raped. And if they don’t want to wear the religious garb, they should be cast out by the church, rather than be physically punished.
I’m sure you agree with this.
In the case of Israel, and it’s “Jewish” status, we have a situation where a race of people happen to be called by the same name as a religion.
To what extent the government goes to, to enforce Sabbath laws and other religious tenets, I’m not actually sure. If it doesn’t do things like this, then I would be hard pressed to consider it a religious state.
It is my take that at the current time, the Islamic nations like Iran are the only ones where religious law is incorporated into the governance.
It could be said that a Christian moral (criminal) code was in effect in Western nations. I don’t believe it’s quite the same thing. Those governments don’t try to enforce moral edicts like, Sabbath observance, religious tenets, or proper personal behavior according to a particular church on penalty of fine, incarceration, or physical punishment.
In addition, on the issue of religious governance, I do have one problem with completely disassociating the government from religion. When religions like Islam come into the U. S., a natural adversarial relationship develops.
This is why we see so many challenges to public prayer and religious symbols. In the extreme this type of friction WILL result in our own laws being challenged on constitutional grounds.
For instance, why should Western law trump Sharia law in the United States? There is our (Christian based) criminal code, and then there’s the (Sharia based) criminal code. In a society with even a moderate Islamic presence, the case could be made that Sharia laws must be incorporated into the criminal code on a even-handed non-biased basis.
People will have to forgive me for thinking we are headed down a path toward a real hell-hole future, by allowing more and more Islamic adherents into the United States.
I don’t say this based on race, but I do think there is a very simple reasoned based objection here.
I said it the other day, and I still believe it. I would gladly sign on to a plan to give $2 million dollars to any Islamic family that would agree to relocate outside the United States. It would be an investment that would pay off 10,000 fold over time.
Islam is a religion that demands attention. It sucks all the oxygen out of the room. Sooner or later, there will be significant strife in the United States, based on this one issue alone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.