Egyptians believe Morsi in cahoots with US, Israel

Yedioth Ahronoth ^ | 07.06.13, 09:32 | Eldad Beck

[Olog-hai]

“What’s the American interest to support the Muslim Brotherhood?” I asked. “Look,” explained one distinguished, older gentleman. "The West says one thing and does another. The Americans and Europeans speak so highly for democracy, freedom and human rights, but in the Middle East they support the most autocratic regimes, which object to all these principles. The Americans have three main interests in the area: Defending Israel, the oil in the Persian Gulf and control over the Suez Canal. They’ll do everything to maintain these interests, and therefore are in favor of the status quo. Mubarak guaranteed Israel’s security. Morsi did nothing against Israel. Instead, he let Palestinians move from the Gaza Strip to Sinai. So, we deposed him.” …

Another man at the café shows me the newspaper he is reading: “Here is the proof that the Americans and Israelis are behind the Muslim Brotherhood,” he said pointing to a headline that read “Israel regrets Morsi’s ouster,” and underneath, in small letters, the analysis is attributed to an op-ed published in the Haaretz paper, explaining why Morsi is “good for Israel.”

The article was quoted in nearly all of Egypt’s paper’s Friday as proof of Israel antagonistic position in regards to Egypt and its secret pact with Morsi and the Brotherhood in a bid to dominate the area. …

[Olog-hai]

He seems to be a hybrid Soviet and imperialist. No true Soviet (i.e. Communist) would have been as friendly to the Orthodox Church. I certainly haven’t forgotten that Putin called the fall of the USSR the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20^th century” . . . his ambition is to rebuild that empire in his image (he’s currently calling it the “Eurasian Union”, but he may change the name once he consolidates power in it).

[buckeroo_2013]

... must be LAUGHING THEIR @SSES off at the poor "village idiot" kenyan who resides at 1600 Pennslyvannia Avenue ...

Quite the contrary consideration is rampant all over the globe. The US citizenry/tax-payer base is being laffed at.

[SgtBilko]

“The Shah only fell because Carter withdrew US support.”

Does it make a difference ? The shah was a dictator. If he would have treated his people well they wouldn’t have made a revolution in ‘79. With or without support of the US.

It’s almost the same we can see in egypt. Mubarak was a dictator with US support. Zero withdrew US support, the people organized a revolution and got a muzzi regime instead. History repeating ... The only difference is that the egypts dispossed Mursi the muzzi dictator a few days ago while the “green revolution” in Iran couldn’t overcome the muzzi regime.

[Olog-hai]

Yes, it makes a big difference. The Shah was a king, not a dictator, besides. The Shah was one of the Middle East leaders who were absolutely willing to stem to tide of Islamic socialism, which is based on National socialism, and was not unfriendly to Israel. He also stood against communistic prime minister Mosaddegh and that man’s nationalization schemes. Should he have allowed all the communists and Islamists to have free rein?

The “green revolution” had no support from the USA, and that failed too. See the pattern?