Democracy: They Don’t Give A Shit. Do You?
by lizard
A billion and a half dollars a year. That is how much cash our government feeds the Mubarak dictatorship in Egypt. Why? Because he’s provided, as Hilary Clinton recently stated, a “stable” government. What does that mean? It means he keeps the domestic rabble pacified while taking our money and fucking over Palestinians. All of that is now in the past tense.
What is Obama doing? I don’t give a shit what Obama is doing. Fuck Obama. His words about Egypt’s social unrest are as vacuous as his worthless state of the union. Could Obama threaten to turn off the cash spigot? O yes he can. But he won’t. And now his administration is scrambling. How to frame this to the mostly clueless American people? I don’t think it matters; because we don’t give a shit, we are sure to swallow whatever sorry framing the corporate media whores feed us.
What’s happening right now is a social wildfire set off by a literal spark in Tunisia. That spark came in the form of a young Tunisian, Mohamed Bouazizi, who set himself on fire in a desperate suicidal act because, after finishing school and trying to make a living, he was forced to stop selling vegetables by his government. Because he didn’t have a permit.
So one western supported dictator, Ben-Ali, was sent running, and now another western supported piece of shit dictator is trying to squash the conflagration that’s erupted in his country. And our shit-filled duplicitous elected leaders must now try to walk the tightrope of condemning the deadly Egyptian response, while franticly working behind the scenes to put in place contingency plans for the possible fall of their good friend, Mubarak.
The response by the Obama administration is not surprising, because his administration, like Bush’s, doesn’t give a shit about democracy. They may say they do when trying to amplify social unrest in enemy states like Iran, supporting the alleged “Green Revolution” that erupted after dubious claims of election fraud, but when it comes to very un-democratic environments that benefit American Imperialism, like the coup in Honduras, which has revived human rights abuses, well, big fucking deal. Let it happen. We don’t care.
Sitting here watching Obama talk about human rights makes me sick. Of course, as a responsible steward of the illusion of American Democracy, what else is he suppose to do? As economic conditions continue to deteriorate from Latvia to Ireland, Tunisia to Egypt, people are getting fed up, deciding to remind the elite minority what the majority is capable of.
Meanwhile, in America, we gaze all glassy-eyed at the spectacle. of course you can read Paul Craig Roberts latest shot, this time aimed toward the ACLU, but what does that matter? If we don’t give a shit about the duplicity of our elected officials, then none of the social eruptions happening in other countries will ever penetrate our complacent national consciousness.
-
1
Pingback on Sep 14th, 2012 at 11:29 pm
[…] the first shoots of the Arab Spring were trying to spring up, I wrote this angry post in response to the waffling of a President who didn’t seem to want to lose a faithful […]
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
Miles on A New Shelter for Vets or an E… success rate for In… on Thirty years ago ARCO killed A… Warrior for the Lord on The Dark Side of Colorado Linda Kelley-Miller on The Dark Side of Colorado Dan on A New Shelter for Vets or an E… Former Prosecutor Se… on Former Chief Deputy County Att… JediPeaceFrog on Montana AG Tim Fox and US Rep.…
January 29, 2011 at 9:33 am
Looters broke into museum, destroyed two Pharaonic mummies late Friday, says nation’s top archaeologist – Reuters
January 29, 2011 at 9:35 am
do you have a point?
January 29, 2011 at 9:38 am
Point made.
January 29, 2011 at 10:13 am
tens of thousands of people are revolting against decades of dictatorial rule and you want to focus on one of the unintended consequences of social unrest?
January 29, 2011 at 10:35 am
Tens of thousands of people are rioting, destroying museums and looting homes. You seem to admire this behavior. I don’t think it’s any accident that the museum was destroyed. It wasn’t “unintended”. Since this is a game of questions, can you justify the destruction of the musuem?
January 29, 2011 at 10:42 am
could be government goons trying to smear the protestors, which our corporate media then picks up and blares to us as proof that the protestors don’t have valid complaints. ever think of that?
January 29, 2011 at 10:58 am
people have been murdered by their government. you seem to admire this behavior.
January 29, 2011 at 11:02 am
Um, I was watching Al Jazeera last night, and they had a whole bunch of material that never made it into the American media.
The looters and the protestors are two different groups of people. The looters are taking advantage of the chaos caused by the uprising. There were some amazing photos and videos showing huge groups of protestors protecting some museums from the looters.
January 29, 2011 at 11:32 am
Back off, Benson. We know what you fear, and it just might happen. The entire region is becoming de-stabilized, and after they’re done, they just might take BACK Palestine. And well they should. it’s time for the U.S. to stop propping up the real nazis in the area, the israelis. Their day is nearly done. And that’s a good thing. They didn’t want to play by the rules, so now they will have to play by the rules of a united Arab world. I persoanally can’t wait.
January 29, 2011 at 11:50 am
No, “we” don’t know what Mr. B “fears”. For all you know, he fears clowns. For all I know, it’s spiders. But this we should know. When the Muslim extremists come to violently take back their ‘democratically’ ~heh~ granted lands in Palestine, Israel has nukes.
And for the record, Pogue, Egyptians are not Arabs to be part of the “united Arab world”. Do try to keep some semblance of reality in your rants.
January 29, 2011 at 2:55 pm
They’re not? What are they then? And yes, Arabs have nukes to. Pakistan, and probably Iran among others. But my larger point is this. We currently fight two proxy wars on behalf of Israel. I don’t think that there’s much disagreemnent on that. Anyone who argues otherwise does not have a clue. The state of Israel has been calling the shots for a long time regarding our foreign policy. This is the singlemost destabilizing feature in the entire middle east. Try taking a look at history some time, and maybe review how the U.S. overthrew the democratically elected goverments in the region.
What is happening is blowback, the chickens coming home to roost. And I say good. It’s about time. Whatever happens from here on out is destined to happen as a result of our meddling on behalf of our “good friends” in israel. And that IS the reality of the situation.
For your history review, start with Iraq and Iran.
BTW, I’ll be interested to see what Mr. Benson has to say. He’s capable I would assume of answering for himself.
January 29, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Uhh, Pogue. Neither the Pakistanis nor the Iranians are Arab either.
January 30, 2011 at 11:11 am
Pesky facts.
January 30, 2011 at 7:26 pm
But Egyptians are, indeed, Arabs. And they may have nukes. The only Egyptians who aren’t Arab are the Copts, who are the ones I’m actually worried for.
January 30, 2011 at 8:33 pm
No, Polish Wolf, they aren’t. The Egyptians have held themselves to a unique identity for centuries. It was Abdel Nasser who promoted the idea of Pan-Arabism that embraced the Arabic cultural identity, one which Egyptian common folk were happy to accept until the great loss to Israel in 1967, and have mostly rejected since. Since that time, under Sadat and Mubarak, the Egyptian government has taken almost draconian strides to separate themselves from an Arabic identity. What the people feel may be decided as we speak, but the idea that Egypt will rise up to leadership in another pan-Arabic alliance stands against 30 years of identity building and cultural progress.
January 29, 2011 at 9:37 am
“Muslim, Christian, we’re all Egyptian”
January 29, 2011 at 10:18 am
how do you feel about your tax money going to support the repression of Egyptians?
January 29, 2011 at 10:31 am
Is this a game of thirty questions?
January 29, 2011 at 10:33 am
i don’t know, are you going to keep trying to evade giving an answer?
January 29, 2011 at 10:36 am
Sure. I’ll make my points. But I won’t play your game.
January 29, 2011 at 10:39 am
this isn’t a game. you have regurgitated reports of looting from a our corporate media, making you no better than a mindless tool of the anti-democratic forces in our government that support asshole dictators lie Mubarak.
was that your point?
January 29, 2011 at 11:34 am
Sorry, dude, you you’ve got no game. Answer the question.
January 29, 2011 at 10:37 am
it’s important to understand Democracy is a dangerous thing in the Arab world, so a democratic process free of western meddling is not the desired outcome. there will be attempts to manage the change that has now become inevitable.
remember when Palestinians got a taste of Democracy? they elected Hamas, and have been collectively punished ever since.
January 29, 2011 at 10:53 am
looting is a common meme used to justify repression. many people will simply accept these reports at face value because it fits their thinking about those heathen foreigners and the need for dictators to keep their boots on the throats of the people.
it’s used domestically as well. after Katrina, there were lots of reports of looting, which then justified a militant response to American refugees instead of a humanitarian one.
January 29, 2011 at 11:14 am
Part of the reason for the looting is that the protesting/rioting has created an opportunity for people who have been economically repressed for decades.
It’s interesting how people pigeon-hole the people they see in the american media reports. What started off as peaceful protests–I watched how the protest of 10,000+ in Alexandria was started off with a prayer, and a march, and all the classic peaceful protest moves. Then the police moved in and started tear gassing and beating people.That turned it into a riot.
The looters took advantage of all the chaos created by protestors and the police to move in and loot.
Cairo has almost 20 million people. Alexandria 5 million. Just like in New Orleans, there will be a certain percent willing to loot when the right conditions present themselves.
And people like Mr. B then conflate the few looters they see with the greater protest movement, and say things like the following, which suggest that they support repression:
As I said above, I watched an extensive live video feed on Al Jazeera from Cairo last night documenting large numbers of protestors (“rioters”) surrounding museums and protecting them from a relative small minority of looters.
These people want their government back. Not a few petty items looted in an opportunistic frenzy.
January 29, 2011 at 11:23 am
that’s interesting about protestors trying to stop looters. thanks JC.
January 29, 2011 at 11:05 am
Such hatred. Such obscenities. What a head case.
The only thing that will help you is a good baton whack.
January 29, 2011 at 11:36 am
What an ignoramus. A “baton whack”, as in might makes right? Well then, I agree. Guess we’ll just SEE who’s mightier after the dust clears, won’t we? Might be all the ignoramuses in the world gettin’ whacked, and not a moment too soon for me.
January 29, 2011 at 11:14 am
And when will U.S. citizens demand a taste of this same democracy, free of “meddling?” It is coming as the “superpower” Empire continues its protracted decline. Egypt is another example of the intersection of technology and the predictable impacts of globalization. We’re in a rapid global transition. Relitigating the great battles of the 19th Century, Montana will figure this out five years after it happens, or maybe never.
January 29, 2011 at 4:33 pm
I thought this blog was “a journal of montana politics and culture?”
January 29, 2011 at 6:40 pm
Montana politics and culture don’t exist in a vacuum. Montanan soldiers are deployed in the Middle East, and your tax money is used to support dictators like Mubarak.
January 29, 2011 at 5:09 pm
is montana not part of the world morgan? we may be lost but we’re making good time….
January 29, 2011 at 5:26 pm
Certainly not playing any Poguey Ranger games.
The underlying message, “it should happen here” at least was somewhat expressed by problembear.
I see no equivalency between the Egyptian leader and Obama or Clinton. I suspect they’re doing their best, and no, I’m not buying off on Al Jazeera as more credible than CNN.
I can see the establishmentarians celebrating this just as much as the far left. The battle for Israel is what sets off Armageddon!
I quoted a tweet directly from Egypt on the “muslim christian” chant, but I’m a tool of something or another. If it comes down to believing Obama and Clinton, or Al Jazeera, I’m going with my democratically elected leadership.
The rest of you hang in there with Al Jazeera.
January 29, 2011 at 6:07 pm
How did that work out for Saddam?
I hope Egypt’s Coptics aren’t further massacred in this violence. http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8199070/australian-coptics-protest-persecution
January 29, 2011 at 5:34 pm
And by “the rest of you” I mean those who are ready to give up on democratically elected leaders in this country.
Rob’s just pointing out a bit of the fallacy here.
Here’s a bit more. You seem to ascribe no good intentions to our leadership, and nothing but good intentions to a mob of people looting and pillaging. Sorry, but I’m not buying that. We know darn well there are people in Egypt trying to make another government of strongly established religion there. Which is why the chant “muslim, christian…” was important.
And all that “mr b” this and “mr b” that, you’ve probably never seen my annual June 8th post quoting Eric Margolis. Your assumptions are ridiculous.
January 29, 2011 at 5:43 pm
goof- you are a fair minded individual and you make good points. but i do not “give up” on democratically elected leaders by urging them to be better representatives of the people rather than their corporate sponsers. quite the contrary.
those who are silent give up on democracy . those who are engaged strengthen it- especially those who point out obvious faults in the government.
January 29, 2011 at 5:51 pm
You and I have had this discussion before on any number of related subjects. There is a certain philosophy that says, “the mob is always right”. It is seldom right.
I read a tweet, “the tear gas canisters are made in USA”.
It’s that “blame america first” position from some who post here that I object to most strongly.
January 30, 2011 at 3:57 pm
i do not equate love of my country with love of my government goof. my love of country often involves criticism and skepticism of my government.
i give government only so much respect as it gives the people it governs. government is merely a necessary evil tool which the people accede to for a common goal. when the bad outweighs the good for the majority of the people government must be overthrown.
if and when corporatism and the greed of a wealthy few rots the good out of our government and overtakes it then it would be incumbent upon those who love our country to overthrow it to reinstate real democracy again. the supreme court decision on citizens united is a deep challenge to the idea of one man one vote and the idea of government of the people, by the people and for the people. it appears that representation of corporations has begun to usurp representation of the people.
January 30, 2011 at 5:24 pm
pb, it just gets worse. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court began hearing arguments about whether or not corporations have the same rights to “personal privacy” that individuals do.
From SCOTUS Blog:
Yes, corporations want the same constitutional right to privacy that you and I enjoy. And the SCOTUS, given how activist their ruling on Citizen’s United was, I would expect the same from them: go far beyond the scope of the case to give unprecedented constitutional rights to corporations.
January 29, 2011 at 6:02 pm
a fair-minded people striving for justice and democracy over tyranny are always right imho. could this movement be co-opted by evil people? there is always threat during times of unrest. but i lack enough information to call the people calling for the end to a dictator’s rule a mob.
meanwhile, it appears that violence is being kept to a minimum and there are reports that democracy might be a possibility.
i hope that fair-minded cool heads in egypt prevail until we know where we are going….
January 29, 2011 at 6:25 pm
so, mr. b, i can assume you are okay with annual payments of your tax money amounting to over a billion dollars going to a dictator, and you are okay with that government killing over 60 of its people.
and now i see you are resorting to misrepresenting my argument, implying that people like me think the mob is always right, or that i always blame America first.
the point i am trying to make with this post is that our political leaders don’t give a shit about supporting democracy abroad; it’s all about power and control, especially in the oil-rich middle east.
and when Obama calls for concrete reforms in Egypt, then i’m going to call him a fucking hypocrite that needs to support and enact concrete reforms in this country, otherwise the potential for large scale social unrest here will only increase.
January 29, 2011 at 6:51 pm
Yes I read all your points the first time. Of course Mr Obama and Ms Clinton “give a shit” about democracy.
Ridiculous to state otherwise.
And you’ve already teed it up so that whatever the President does, you can say he’s wrong. “Fuck Obama” you said. No high ground for you after that statement.
And Egypt is hardly “oil rich”.
January 29, 2011 at 7:12 pm
no they don’t. power and control. i’m not the ridiculous one here.
if they were serious about supporting democratic principles abroad, they wouldn’t have just twiddled their diplomatic thumbs when Zelaya was run out of Honduras in a military coup. their selectivity betrays their true intentions.
but you are right about Egypt not really being “oil rich.”
January 29, 2011 at 7:25 pm
Really? With your previous ridiculous Rehberg post with unsupportable accusations aimed at me, now you resort to a profanity ladden post where you act like Pogue Mahone gone full potty mouth. I’m still trying to squeegee my puter screen.
January 29, 2011 at 8:06 pm
craig, i admitted my characterization of your comments in that other thread as “cheerleading” was unjustified hyperbole, and apologized. if you want to throw that in my face here, it speaks more to your character than mine.
and you have a problem with my potty mouth language?
well, i have a problem with my elected leaders being duplicitous, hypocritical plutocrats serving their corporate masters while trying to maintain the flimsy lie that they give a shit about democracy. i’m not always going to express the anger i feel about that with PG language.
January 29, 2011 at 11:29 pm
Oh puleez! Given those examples of your behavior and your stated belief of conspiracies, how on earth can you claim: “i’m not the ridiculous one here.” That dog just won’t hunt.
As to what’s happening in Egypt and what will happen, it’s terribly premature to sit in judgment, point fingers, take sides, and condemn your own country’s leaders.
Stop and think!
If I were president, the reason I would provide arms would be to create a dependency and influence. Spare parts to keep things going would come from us. Denial of such, and mechanical items soon quit working. It’s not like they wouldn’t get such weapons from Russia or the Chinese. AS a world leader sometimes you make the best deal when the perfect is out of reach.
January 29, 2011 at 11:39 pm
let me get this straight, you think providing weapons but then using the need for spare parts as leverage is part of what’s going on?
i don’t know craig, that sounds sort of conspiratorial.
thank god i’m the ridiculous one.
January 29, 2011 at 11:43 pm
Of course you would see this and other things through your conspiracy lens. That’s what you repeatedly demonstrate as your go to “high road” position.
January 29, 2011 at 11:46 pm
i’m nothing but a ridiculous conspiracy nut, craig, so don’t pay attention to any of this. why waste your energy?
January 29, 2011 at 11:51 pm
Because some of the people that participate here know what they talk about.
Until you attacked me there had been no argument between us. You reap what you sowed. I just couldn’t stop laughing when you pompously claimed you weren’t the ridiculous one. I’ll stop now. Carry on.
Good night.
January 29, 2011 at 11:54 pm
i’m happy to provide some entertainment for you craig. sleep tight.
January 29, 2011 at 7:29 pm
“…the potential for large scale social unrest here will only increase.”
That’s too funny. You have 20 million unemployed, 43 million on food stamps, 100,000 people being foreclosed on every month, 11 million illegal aliens, and a Kenyan in the so-called White House. (Is that Hosni Obama or Barack Mubarak?)
Need more “potential”?
January 30, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Max Bucks. Haven’t seen that moniker for a while. Things kinda slow over at Missoulapolis? I notice you’re still as thoughtful as ever: ” … and a Kenyan in the so-called White House. (Is that Hosni Obama or Barack Mubarak?)”
Come back to the conversation when you have something worthwhile to contribute.
An important aside — I think this would be an excellent time for Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians and stop building settlements and cede some land — and basically engage the new Arab regimes. It couldn’t hurt.
January 30, 2011 at 6:11 pm
Pete, here is a view from Israel: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/obama-will-go-down-in-history-as-the-president-who-lost-egypt-1.340057
January 30, 2011 at 6:57 pm
after the outing of the Palestine Papers, the peace process is effectively dead. Israel, it would seem, snubbed major concessions, including large chunks of Jerusalem. If Israel gets a more radical Egypt less prone to helping them starve Palestinians by blocking contraband like cinnamon, well, i think they’ll be getting what they deserve.
January 30, 2011 at 7:10 pm
You really miss the boat.
Israel has many nukes. As this situation spirals out of control and total crazies take control, think of the possible reaction from a threatened Israel. 5 nukes gifted to Iran and Syria each. 2 for Lebanon and Hezbollah. 3 for Egypt. 2 for Jordan. 2 for Lybia.
Then they have many times over in reserve. They won’t go quietly.
Whatever Egypt has been, they also haven ‘t gone to war with Israel since Sadat. How many tens of millions must die so that you can have your moral victory in Israel getting what it deserves?
Stop and think! instead of demonstrating you know how to cuss and sear.
January 30, 2011 at 7:54 pm
the crazies already have control in Israel. they murder peace activists, including American citizens, and slaughter innocent Palestinians. they do so with America’s blessing. none of our politicians are ever going to stand up to AIPAC. their gutlessness and complicity is more dangerous than whatever an Egyptian democracy might produce.
January 30, 2011 at 8:16 pm
Try and get a grip on reality as President Obama is attempting to do. He doesn’t get a do over or apologize as you have done for being wrong.
Fuck Obama? Fuck you! Don’t be such a child.
January 30, 2011 at 8:30 pm
what specifically about my previous comment isn’t based in reality?
oh, and if you want to keep the high ground chastising me for my potty mouth, you might want to refrain from using f-bombs, otherwise you’re no better than ridiculous conspiracy nuts like me.
January 29, 2011 at 8:13 pm
now this next link is going to mention the CIA, but it’s from the New Yorker, so i’m hoping that’s a reputable enough publication to keep the black helicopter/alien trope from being used by folks like mr. b.
who is Omar Suleiman?
isn’t that nice? a guy that has helped the CIA kidnap and torture people is one of the alternatives being floated as the new face for Egypt.
January 29, 2011 at 8:50 pm
this guy is appointed today and suddenly looters caught by the crowds and delivered to the police confess to being sent there by the minister of the interior to foment trouble….
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/29/latest-updates-on-protests-in-egypt-2/?src=twt&twt=thelede#more-from-alexandria
quite a coincidence.
January 29, 2011 at 9:21 pm
January 29, 2011 at 10:50 pm
I suppose this is floating around the internet, but I haven’t read it. Actually just thought about it as I was watching the Griz kick the crap out of the Bobcats.
Were I a partisan political animal, I’d make this Jimmy Carter’s Iranian revolution all over again. I would guess than many in the United States would nod their heads to a, “here we go again with a Democrat in the White House and a revolution in a previously friendly, strategically critical country that could lead to a radical, hostile theocracy”.
I don’t know if VietNam or the Iranian hostage crisis was the lowest point of american attitudes towards foreign policy in the boomer lifetime, but even I remember the “miracle on ice” and the other things that raised us up from an utter national despondency caused by just those two.
It could easily play that way. Don’t you think Mr Obama and Ms Clinton could use some support right now, rather than aiding and abetting what I just laid out?
January 29, 2011 at 11:33 pm
no, i don’t think Obama and Clinton could use some support right now, because they are not facing the possibility of death or imprisonment for revolting against a dictator they are in deep cahoots with.
it will be interesting to hear what Hilary has to say tomorrow. i expect to hear some more disingenuous concern about the human right abuses of the Mubarak regime. funny how that never really compromised our financial support.
maybe that’s because in addition to not giving a shit about democracy, they also don’t give a shit about human rights abuses, at least when those abuses entail helping to starve Palestinians and torture alleged terrorists.
this is from Jeff Cohen, at Huffington Post:
January 30, 2011 at 9:48 pm
“(unlike the elected president of Venezuela).”
It’s not fair to ask you to defend your sources, I know. You didn’t write them. But I would be curious to know one major US news media outlet that has ever referred to Chavez as a dictator. I’ve never heard it, but I don’t often watch Fox.
January 30, 2011 at 10:48 am
watching meet the press, really nothing new; as expected, Hillary repeated how adamantly Washington has pushed for democracy. yeah right.
there was a nice little piece of total bullshit from Thomas Friedman, who referred to the election of Hamas in Gaza as a coup.
NOT TRUE! but truth doesn’t matter to a POS like Friedman.
January 30, 2011 at 10:02 pm
You’re a little blinded by rage, lizard, and you don’t know what you’re talking about as well as you think you do.
First of all, why would Friedman lie on national TV about something that is easily disproved? But instead of looking up the truth, you remember somewhere that you read that Hamas had won AN election and so assumed that that’s what Friedman was referring to.
But here’s the thing – Hamas had won an election, that’s true. But by 2007 they had joined a national unity government with Fatah. In the fighting in Gaza, they (with perhaps equal culpability from Fatah) not only broke the unity government but destroyed Palestinian Democracy.
Winning an election doesn’t entitle you to take control entirely of the security apparatus of a country – it’s like if Obama in 2008 just fired all the military and cops in the country and replaced them with members of the DNC. That is essentially what Hamas tried to do in Gaza. In so doing they violated what little democratic tradition their was in Palestinian civil society. I’m not saying Fatah was innocent or that the US refusal to work with Hamas wasn’t counter-democratic. But Friedman is technically correct, or at least arguably defensible, in calling the situation a coup. And guess what? Collective punishment is the other side of Democracy. Palestinians elected a government dedicated to the destruction of Israel. What did they expect from the Israelis? That’s not how you maintain autonomy. Just ask Taiwan.
Did I know all of that an hour ago? No, but I looked it up before I just dismissed someone much more knowledgeable than me (though not infallible) as a lying piece of shit.
January 30, 2011 at 10:20 pm
from something i foundspending 5 minutes with the all-mighty google:
January 30, 2011 at 11:49 pm
I see you’ve chosen the least biased source possible to back up your point, Lizard. I never said Fatah was innocent here, though it is notoriously difficult to prove what someone ‘would have done’ if you hadn’t stepped in (the Israelis will insist that 1967 was a pre-emptive, defensive strike, remember). Would Friedman not be a POS if he had added the word ‘pre-emptive’ before the word coup? Point is – Hamas was not elected into the position they are in in Gaza. They took it by force, regardless of whether Fatah was planning the same. Friedman left out a lot of the story, to be sure. But his comment is incomplete but accurate (there was a coup) and your comment (there was no coup, Hamas’ position in Gaza was elected) is inaccurate, and no amount of ‘dissident’ literature will make it not so.
January 31, 2011 at 6:19 am
every source is going to have some level of bias.
at least i’m providing something to back up my point of view.
January 31, 2011 at 6:19 pm
And I don’t really disagree – I’m not under the impression that Fatah is any less violent or corrupt. The point is, no matter how justified, it was in fact a coup, rather than an election, and your dismissal of an expert on the region when he was in fact right (though a bit misleading, perhaps; I didn’t listen to him) without bothering to check out why he would say that shows how knee-jerk your reactions have gotten of late. You’ll be a more effective commentator if you slow down and investigate context.
January 31, 2011 at 6:46 pm
that is valid criticism, and i will be more careful.
when i heard Friedman use the word, i admit i reacted too quickly, and didn’t think through the nuance of what happened in 2007 that would justify (in his mind) the use of the word.
and there can be major consequences for officially designating a coup as a coup, which is why the Obama administration didn’t officially designate what happened in Honduras as a coup:
January 30, 2011 at 11:07 am
Now Thomas Friedman is a piece of shit? You’ve gone off the deep end.
January 30, 2011 at 11:33 am
is there no responsibility to report on things that have happened accurately among people like Friedman in positions of influence in the media?
Hamas was elected. it wasn’t a coup. for calling it a coup, i’m calling Friedman a POS.
January 30, 2011 at 12:03 pm
here is a youtube clip translating Hillary’s diplomatic speak:
January 30, 2011 at 3:28 pm
social unrest is not just happening in Egypt. here is a piece by Andrew Gavin Marshall.
think Hillary is going to come out in support of democracy in Yemen, or is she still cool with that dictator because he facilitates the bombing and killing of his own people via our predator drone strikes?
January 30, 2011 at 6:30 pm
Would you think democracy was the most important thing if:
*the new government voted that black people (or unbelievers) couldn’t vote?
*the new government required that women have clitirodectomies?
*the new government worked actively to kill americans in the world?
American government is first and foremost a product of the enlightenment, where individuals have rights, government exists to protect rights and property of individuals, where church and state are separate. We didn’t get there overnight, either.
Even in this country, democracy regularly has denied rights to individuals, tried to enforce religious law, trampled the rights of minorities. Islam has no Enlightenment tradition like that which leavens western Christianity. Instead, it is much more like pre reformation theocracies.
You say, “we don’t give a damn about democracy”, yet, in the end, “giving a damn about individual rights” may mean not giving a damn about, even invading and overturning, democracy. In the southern united states, as late as the 1960s, courts routinely overturned democratically passed laws and governments to protect minorities. The president even sent in troops to impose the will of Washington over the will of the democratically elected state governors and governments.
Liz’s and pb’s “democracy uber alles” isn’t this country’s tradition, nor is it our ideal. Rule of law and respect for the individual, and the individual’s rights, is.
January 30, 2011 at 7:47 pm
democracy is messy and doesn’t always produce positive results, like 8 years of Bush and his extremists policies that flouted the rule of law and individual rights which you hold so dear.
think about this: if our foreign aid was dictated by some sort of democratic referendum, do you think the American people would vote to give a dictator over a billion dollars a year while people in this country struggle to make ends meet?
i agree that rule of law and respect for individual rights are paramount in a healthy society. but we’ve got a lot of work here, domestically, that needs to happen before other countries are going to take our leaders judgements about their societies seriously.
January 30, 2011 at 9:38 pm
If our foreign aid were directed by referendum, it would all go to Israel because many more Americans are anti-Islamic than are anti-Israeli. Now imagine how that would end.
It involves imagining Egypt with a military budget one fifth its current size. Suddenly it falls well below the Israeli one. Somehow I feel like all the ‘goodwill’ in the world won’t keep Israel from pushing its weight around if it can confidently take on a depleted Egyptian military, especially if creating another ‘buffer zone’ out of the Sinai means they have direct control of Gaza’s only foreign border, across which they know rockets and weapons are being smuggled. Does this destabilize the Middle East? Naturally. But it makes Israel a great bit stronger, especially if they stretch a little bit further, towards the Suez canal. If the current peace between Egypt and Israel looked like it was going to end, it would be a reasonable move. The Israelis can’t expect to negotiate with the Muslim Brotherhood, and lacking allies their only option is to exercise strength.
Of course the lizard response? Cut off aid to Israel. That’s all well and good except that a) Israel can probably field its own forces if it needs to, especially if it doesn’t have to worry about Egypt, and b) if Israel does come under external threat, it has nuclear weapons. And as much as I wish the IDF had a history of respecting restrain and proportionality, they can’t be expected to give up their country without defending it in every way possible.
The US policy of arming the Egyptians, Israelis, Saudis, Turks (through NATO), and now Iraqis is simple – if everyone depends on the US for weapons, no one is in a position to fight their neighbors without US permission. And since no Arab country can take on Israel without Egypt’s help, Israel is no longer attacked by state actors.
January 30, 2011 at 10:02 pm
so you think taking American tax payer money to help arm everyone in the Middle East with the idea that it will all somehow balance out and no country will collectively lose their shit and start blowing things up is good policy?
if you haven’t noticed, wolf, this country is drowning in debt. yet we always have money to subsidize other countries military budgets. that doesn’t strike you as a bit insane?
January 30, 2011 at 10:11 pm
“no country will collectively lose their shit and start blowing things up is good policy?”
Assuming that because a country is in the middle east that it is likely to act irrationally and ‘lose their shit’ is ethnocentrism bordering on racism, lizard. They are people are reasonable as we are, and they know that none of them can win a war with any of the others. Before we started this policy, Egypt & Israel had fought three wars (and each had been the aggressor in at least one). They haven’t fought since. Turkey and Greece were and are bitter rivals, but curiously they don’t fight with guns anymore. Could it have something to do with them both relying on the US?
No, using less than one thousandth of the deficit on aid to Egypt does not seem insane to me if it keeps the peace.
January 30, 2011 at 10:25 pm
calling me a racist now? that’s classy.
by the way, i include Israel (wanna call me an anti-semite too?)
and just to clarify, when i’m talking abstractly about “countries” losing their shit, i’m not referring to the people, i’m referring to the supposed “leaders” who make the military decisions.
January 30, 2011 at 10:33 pm
I’m not saying your a racist, I’m pretty sure you’re not. But you are using language and assumptions that spring from a world view that in our part of the world, people and leaders behave rationally, whereas ‘over there’, they have only a weak grasp on ‘their shit’ and can’t be counted on. You are personally above that viewpoint, I know, but your comment implied a worldview that is below yout.
January 30, 2011 at 10:40 pm
wow. where have i ever made the case that our leaders act more rationally than people “over there?”
i haven’t. now give me a real apology, or fuck off.
and i’m being nice here. i’m not even going to get into all the arrogant crap you spout about people benefiting from the boot of American Imperialism.
January 30, 2011 at 10:58 pm
Perhaps for you all nations are irrational and your comments did not spring from ethnocentrism. But it is a long held stereotype that countries in the Middle East are just crazy-angry by nature and nothing we can do can stop it (or caused it). That attitude is unhelpful, as you well know. Now that I’ve apologized, can you address my ‘my arrogant crap’ that some would call evidence that US foreign policy in the Eastern Mediterranean accomplished its goal of preventing any more wars between the strongest countries there?
January 30, 2011 at 11:04 pm
no, i’m not going to address that question, because honestly i don’t even understand how you can make such a claim.
what i will point out is how i responded to the first comment in this long thread.
it was mr. b, who used the first reports of looting to try and make his point that, unrestrained, Egyptians were going to act just like unrestrained black folk in Oakland and New Orleans did; like looting animals.
that is one of the big themes used domestically by our corporate media.
and i find it utterly disgusting.
good night.
January 30, 2011 at 10:29 pm
Moreover, has it occurred to you that maybe the military in Egypt is refusing to enforce the curfew because they know that THEIR budget depends on the US, and they don’t want an Egyptian Andijan to jeopardize their future ability to receive the US weapons and training that makes them so powerful?
January 30, 2011 at 10:33 pm
i’m not going to say one more goddamn thing to you until you apologize for calling me a borderline racist.
January 30, 2011 at 10:36 pm
I didn’t call you a racist. I’m sorry if I implied it. I don’t know you but I know your work and I am as certain as possible that you hold no racial biases. Which is why I pointed out that the comment you made was less enlightened than I know you to be.
January 30, 2011 at 10:44 pm
fine, apology accepted. and for the record, my comment didn’t spring from ethnocentrism either.
any country can lose their shit. and i believe we are in the process of doing just that.
which makes this country much more dangerous than Egypt.
January 30, 2011 at 10:24 pm
Neither lizard nor Benson can say definitively whether Egypt will be better or worse after this ‘revolution.’ No one can even definitively tell you that the majority of Egyptians support it. As I noted at intelligent discontent, I am concerned about what it will mean for Egypt’s secularism, especially when combined with the secession of Southern Sudan (which in my opinion is at least as big of a story).
But when the dust settles, the US and Egypt will both have chances for fresh starts. Whoever ends up on top in Egypt should hold elections as soon as reasonable (I believe they are already scheduled for this year), and should step down if they lose those elections.
If this happens, the US should continue aid to Egypt without interruption to signify our acceptance of the will of the Egyptian people. Aid should only be cut in case of gross human rights violations or a breaking of the truce with Israel.
January 30, 2011 at 10:57 pm
one of the points that isn’t getting much attention right now is how this Egyptian uprising is not only connected to the unrest in Tunisia and Yemen, but also to Greece and France. because it’s the global economy, stupids.
just because Wall Street is raping (oops, i meant reaping) in the profit again, doesn’t mean the global economic crisis is over.
it’s not.
and what we’re seeing is just the beginning.
January 30, 2011 at 11:33 pm
I hope anyone else still reading at this point takes note of the fact that lizard doesn’t care about facts anymore. Despite having the justification for US foreign aid policy in the Eastern Mediterranean rather clearly explained, and the clear successes of the same pointed out, our hero resolutely insists on maintaining the exact same point of view, and will catch on any pretext to avoid addressing:
1. How peace would be kept between Israel and Egypt if our foreign aid to Egypt were returned to pre-1977 status, SPECIFICALLY VIOLATING our obligations in the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty of that year, one of the most respected peace treaties the US has ever helped broker.
2. How peace would be maintained by withdrawing our aid to Israel and leaving its defense to its own conventional and nuclear forces.
January 31, 2011 at 12:37 am
You might have a point …
January 31, 2011 at 6:14 am
not answering your question is not the same as not caring about facts. do you understand that?
besides, there are NO CONCRETE ANSWERS to hypothetical situations, do you understand that?
January 31, 2011 at 6:20 pm
Fine. I’ll ask a more concrete question. Do you support the US cutting off aid to the Egyptian military and thus becoming the first party to violate the Egyptian-Israeli peace process?
January 31, 2011 at 6:58 pm
i’ll say this: since the aid is OUR taxpayer money, i would like to know exactly how that billion+ is being spent. remember that transparency thing Obama said he was all about? yeah, i’d like some of that, and maybe some new contractual provisions which clearly states that whatever military aid is bestowed upon the Egyptian government would be immediately cut if proven it has been used to violently suppress aspiring democratic social movements.
i guess that’s because i don’t like the idea of my money being used to kill Egyptians protestors.
January 31, 2011 at 7:09 pm
“new contractual provisions which clearly states that whatever military aid is bestowed upon the Egyptian government would be immediately cut if proven it has been used to violently suppress aspiring democratic social movements.”
Well, it’s hard to slip that into a treaty you signed FORTY YEARS AGO, but I have good news. The Egyptian army, far from being the villains in this story, are turning out to be on your side.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/01/20111311965695371.html
Head over to I.D. if you want my take on it – short story is, I don’t think this is unrelated to the fact that Egypt gets most of their military budget from the US, and I don’t think Obama and Clinton’s statements were empty to the Egyptian military leaders deciding how to handle the situation.
Moreover, Kalashnikovs and T-series tanks are more than enough to suppress a revolt. The fancy US weapons serve to keep Israel in check and maintain the truce.
January 31, 2011 at 7:31 pm
yep, some of the military are with the people, and that’s great. just like in Venezuela, where the military refused to carry out the coup against Chavez.
BUT some of the looters were actually members of the security state, and this whole thing is far from over. there may still be a violent crackdown coming.
i also don’t think there is any significant relation between US military aid and some military personnel not firing on their countrymen. that is a totally unsubstantiated assumption you are making, and i would challenge you to find anything that echoes that sentiment.
January 31, 2011 at 8:51 pm
i should amend that. it’s not “just like” venezuela; the similarity is both militaries seem to be supporting the populist direction of their countries, one supporting their president, the other supporting their fellow Egyptians.
January 31, 2011 at 11:48 pm
Unsubstantiated assumptions are totally unheard of here. I forgot. The last time a US sponsored military had this option (Uzbekistan), they fired, and as a result they ruined their relationship with the US. It is not a case of ‘some’ of those in the army. The army has officially given this message. Now I doubt they will ever admit that a billion dollars a year influenced their decision, but its rather hard to imagine its not at least a factor. If only some members of the army refused to fire, it’d be one thing, but this is a publicized decision – it must have come from high up.
Yes, the security apparatus will likely resist. Much like in Tunisia, the internal security apparatus is more closely linked to the president himself. They will lose their jobs if Mubarak goes. on the other hand, the military can expect to keep power and funding just as long as they don’t embarrass the hand that feeds them.
But I do agree, there is still the possibility of a violent crackdown, especially by security forces or elite elements of the military more personally controlled by Mubarak. Fortunately, Ben Ali’s safe departure from Tunisia and comfortable life in Saudi Arabia sets a good precedent for Mubarak to look forward to, so hopefully he sees that it’s not worth fighting.
February 1, 2011 at 12:05 am
yes, Moobarak should just accept his imperial pension plan, and give “us” the space to grease the next puppet in.
for the west, it’s wait and watch.
unless the revolution conflicts with the Super Bowl.
February 1, 2011 at 6:08 pm
Mubarak will retire more comfortably than he deserves, that’s true. But, it’s far less deadly than the alternatives. I don’t know who will choose the next leader, but I hope it’s the Egyptian people.
January 31, 2011 at 6:54 am
By substituting the word “peace” for “justice”, you (unknowingly?) but into the official US position on the Mideast, that it acts as a mediator between the various forces there, keeping a lid on things.
In fact, and as easily shown, the US heavily subsidizes Israel, which is the primary source of violence in the region. Israel is suppressing human rights, engaging in violence and torture, disappearing people into its black hole prison system, systematically dispossessing people on the West Bank and holding them in Guantanamo-like conditions in Gaza. The Camp David Accords merely bought Egypt off, as they backed off and we agreed to support them and their totalitarian government in exchange for billions in weaponry.
This freed Israel to attack and occupy Lebanon.
It is interesting psychological manipulation to impose the word “peace” on all of this, giving the US and Israel the morally superior upper hand even as they are the problem.
January 31, 2011 at 7:00 pm
Where did I indicate that Israel and the US are the morally superior parties here? I merely noted that peace is better than war. I don’t know if you noticed, but the Arab-Israeli wars have not made the lot of the Palestinians any better. If Egypt had recognized Israel ten years earlier, the six day war might have never happened and the Palestinians could have stayed under the administration of the Jordanians and Egyptians. Renewed hostilities between Egypt and Israel won’t help anything, and I imagine they would make life even worse for the people of Gaza.
Moreover, I’m surprised someone as sophisticated as you, so capable of seeing through the veil of media propaganda. You actually believe all the statements by Arab leaders the world over who insist that their great hatred is Israel, that if Israel would just free the Palestinians everything would be fine. If that were so, they would have given the Palestinians freedom in 1948 when Arab states still controlled most of Palestine. If conflict int he Middle East were about the Palestinians, Egypt would not have repeatedly agitated and intervened in the affairs of nearly every other country in the Middle East during the time that Palestine was under Jordanian and Palestinian Control. Israel is certainly not a stabilizing factor. But to believe they are in many cases more than a scapegoat is to fall and fall hard for convenient propaganda.
February 1, 2011 at 9:55 am
israel has conspired with the U.S. to instigate unrest and prop up dictators in the Arab world for a long time. There is no “scapegoating” going on at all. It is simply pointing out who the criminal elements are in all this. Now, would you like to dispute this with facts? The are co-conspirators, and the entire world knows this except seemingly the American people who’ve been thoroughly brainwashed into thinking that israel is some sort of great ally. Well, that’s a laugh.
February 1, 2011 at 10:20 am
Larry, why the disguise? Until someone else made the connection I didn’t know it was you.
February 1, 2011 at 6:34 pm
So Israel caused the Yemeni civil war, the Iran-Iraq war, the Lebanese civil war (granted they didn’t help anything therein), and the PKK?
Israel prevented Jordan from making the West Bank an independent Palestine? Israel forced Saddam kills tens if not hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shia Muslims? Israel is secretly behind the war in Turkish Kurdistan? Israel made nearly every country in the region into a dictatorship?
February 1, 2011 at 10:56 am
It’s a complex issue, and I think that the best approach is to start with the basics: Israel behaves as it does because it can. The US has armed that country top such a degree that it can behave with impunity in almost everything it does.
Then add this: The US doesn’t “care” about Palestinians or “peace” or even “stability.” Simply change the name of Israel to the “USS Israel” and you’ll have a better idea of the relationship – Israel performs a necessary service for the US in acting as a regional power on our behalf. This relationship goes back to 1967, when Nixon and Kissinger were so impressed by the Six Day War that they conceived of Israel as a regional adjunct for the US military, which at that time did not have the massive presence there that it does today.
There is within Israel a minority of religious fundamentalists, maybe 15% of the population and a huge power in parliament, that believes that they are entitled through their Bible to own all of Palestine (and Southern Lebanon and parts of Syria as well, it appears). This is the driving force behind Israel’s expansion and warlike stance against the Palestinians and other Arab states. The US has no stake in that debate, and allows the Israelis to do as they please, putting on the face of regional mediator when it is regional dominance that they are really after. So long as Israel’s behavior does not interfere with the US mission, the US will let Israel do anything it wants.
That’s a good starting point. Regarding Arab countries’ stance on Israel, there is public posturing and private reality. Saudi Arabia has long put forward a peace plan that merely wants Israel to be inside its own borders. All (including Hamas) recognize the “right to exist” and all realize that the “right of return” is pointless. There would be a peace settlement tomorrow if Israel wanted one. But that interferes with its expansion policy.
February 1, 2011 at 12:54 pm
I should add, LBJ was in office during the Six Day War, but Kissinger was the first to see the importance of exploiting the Israelis to US ends.
February 1, 2011 at 8:29 pm
I agree with all that you’ve said, but you left out the gorrilla in the room, the israeli lobby. This, combined with our own military/industrial complex, pretty much calls the shots on middle east policy. My only hope now is that the U.S. and israel are not conspiring once again behind the scenes as we speak to f*ck up the situation in Egyt, But you just know that they are. Wait and see. Hillary and the state dept. only THINK that they’re in control. They’re not. Bush made sure that all foreign policy is made in defense.
February 2, 2011 at 9:41 am
That could well be right, as the Israel lobby has a lot of power within this country to enforce discipline on people, like preventing Finkelstein from getting tenure or banning anyone from mainstream TV who criticizes Israel. Oddly, in Israel, it is much freer. There is healthy debate over there about their policies.
But I have to believe that the direction of the money matters, and a mere threat to pull that financial support enforces strict disciplinary. It works with everyone else, why not Israel?
February 2, 2011 at 6:58 pm
You definitely make a point, Mark. The problem with our aid to Israel is that it is NEVER cut off. Egypt has earned their planes – they haven’t gone to war with Israel, they have stopped their imperialist adventures in the middle east. Israel, for its part, has kept peace with Egypt but has failed to earn its keep in any other sphere.
But Larry also has a point – only a strong lobby keeps Israel our ally. After all, we can’t use them for anything anymore. When we go to war, they are a huge liability – we had to talk them down during the Gulf War, whereas Egypt was right there with us.
So for once I agree – we have leverage over Israel, and they have very little we need. It’s time we started using it. We should have cut military aid to them the moment they invaded Lebanon and not reinstated it until they paid to fix what they broke.
February 3, 2011 at 8:45 am
The threat is enough.
Removal of the Egyptian threat to Israel is seen as a sensible move from those who cannot see Israel as extremist, violent and expansionist. Maintenance of their mythological victim status is an important part of American foreign policy, and this is where AIPAC is important – they discipline American intellectuals. Keeping Israel as our ally is no more difficult than looking away as they inflict suffering on the region – so long as that suffering does not impact American policy.
And how were we able to “talk them down”? What possible leverage is there to make them comply with our wishes? Don’t kid yourself – Israel is very active in all that goes on over there, and everyone in the region knows it. That’s only a secret here in the land of the free.
I think the mistake is to think of it as military aid. When F16’s drop bombs on Gaza, they know it is the US, and not Israel, that is bombing them. Just think of Israel as a military extension, like forward deployment, and it makes more sense.
Lebanon? Camp David freed Israel to invade. Far from stopping the, we enabled.
But we essentially have some agreement in principle. I’ll settle for that.
February 3, 2011 at 5:10 pm
“Removal of the Egyptian threat to Israel is seen as a sensible move from those who cannot see Israel as extremist, violent and expansionist. ”
Then think of it as removing the Israeli threat to Egypt, which is probably more accurate, anyway.
Again you are ignoring facts. What aid we give Israel does us no good. How are we helped by them invading Lebanon and accomplishing…nothing? By them invading Gaza and accomplishing…nothing? Actually, worse than nothing – it just makes people more miserable and more hateful, without serving our moral, geopolitical or economic interests in any way.
Their military is essential for them but unimportant for us. When it comes down to it, their military can’t do what we want to do. It couldn’t help us invade Iraq, either time. It couldn’t intervene in Iran-Iraq. It wasn’t helpful against Libya. Why? Because the moment you put that blue star on a plane, no Muslim army will fight alongside it. And right now the Muslim armies are far more effective allies than Israel. Post 1979, the Israeli army has been dead weight – gratuitous for controlling Palestine and universally counter productive for US interests whenever it operates outside Israel.
January 31, 2011 at 8:46 pm
About that mote in Egypt’s eye: http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_1e60e92c-2b36-11e0-9fcd-001cc4c002e0.html?mode=story
Egypt, schmegypt.
February 3, 2011 at 7:34 am
the israllis are mad, too bad.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/31/us-egypt-israel-usa-idUSTRE70U53720110131