Riots in Egypt

[Brooklynxman]

No offense to your dad, but I very much doubt our primary concern should be the (hopefully) new Egypt will be as friendly to the US or Israel.

Its easy for us to be pro-egyptian protesters, when the tanks we see in the streets of cairo today aren't likely to be rolling down the street in front of our house next week. Israel has valid concerns. Does this mean I do not support the protesters? No. I am personally hoping that the billion or so dollars of aid we send egypt, not to mention all the tourism dollars sent into Egypt, will keep the any new government in check. If not, Israel has proven itself quite capable of defending itself.

Keep in mind, as has been mentioned before, there is no guarantee a new Egyptian government won't be a military dictatorship or something similar. And Egypt has attacked Israel more then once in the past.

[Iulus Cofield]

I just think worrying about the next Egyptian government's foreign policy now is like worrying the India and Pakistan would fight each other just before they became independent of England. Yeah, valid concerns, but far in the back seat to Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. I also think voicing those concerns is likely to lead to Egyptian public opinion being more hostile to the US and Israel if they look at us and our leaders publicly worrying what a free Egypt might do.

And our leaders and Israel's leaders have been, more or less, doing that to the apparent spite of Egyptians.

[Chen]

I just think worrying about the next Egyptian government's foreign policy now is like worrying the India and Pakistan would fight each other just before they became independent of England. Yeah, valid concerns, but far in the back seat to Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. I also think voicing those concerns is likely to lead to Egyptian public opinion being more hostile to the US and Israel if they look at us and our leaders publicly worrying what a free Egypt might do.

And our leaders and Israel's leaders have been, more or less, doing that to the apparent spite of Egyptians.

But looking at the consequences of a new government is exactly what other governments should be concerned about. Whether or not the Egyptian people have a democratic government or not has almost no direct effect on other countries. Their new government's policies DO have an effect for sure. I'm all for freedom and equality but frankly I'd prefer a neighboring state to be a dictatorship that was "peaceful" towards me rather than a democracy where a large portion of the population wants to do my country harm.

[Pez Dispens3r]

My dad, as usual, has a very cynical interpretation of events in his blog.

Essentially, he says that the power vacuum is likely the draw in another militant group that won't be nearly as friendly to the US and Israel as Mubarak.

I responded in his comments section, but even if Osama bin Laden was declared the new Egyptian president you still wouldn't get an invasion of Israel because it's simply not a winnable contest and dictators aren't fucking stupid.

[Dream]

it's simply not a winnable contest and dictators aren't fucking stupid.

Sort of like invading Kuwait?

Anyway, Egypt is by far the best candidate for moving Arab resistance of Israel firmly into the sphere of democratic politics and diplomacy. For those of us who see Israel's expansionist tendencies as something to be resisted, that is a very good thing. It will be very good for the region, and even for Israel, if Egypt becomes peaceful, democratic and implacably opposed to Israel's foreign and Palestinian policy, instead of being a totalitarian satrap of the US, supporting Israel in opposition to the will of its people.

[Zamfir]

Sort of like invading Kuwait?

That's not quite the same, is it? Saddam was completely right in estimating that he could take Kuwait. His mistake was thinking the US was his best friend forever and would be OK with it, after the fact at least. Israel sometimes follows a similar policy of do-first-ask-forgiveness-later, and that often works. The Israelis are clearly much better in judging where the real threshold of the US is.

So yes, Saddam made a mistake that would in the long run cost him his power and his life, but it was a calculated gamble on the US reaction that went wrong. If he had guessed right, he would have been King of Oil. An Egyptian assault on Israel has less clear benefits, and a near certainty of failure. That's a whole different level of stupid.

[Pez Dispens3r]

Yeah, pretty much. If it were still the sixties I would agree that you might get an Egyptian government that would attempt to invade Israel as Iraq did with Kuwait, but in today's term it simply isn't a comparison. I'm not surprised the point was raised, but I am surprised it was you that advanced it, Dream.

Minor point, but Kuwait didn't cost Saddam his life, or else it would have been forfeit in 1990. A Saudi militant did, as ridiculous as it seems.

[Dream]

Invading Kuwait was stupid. Invading it, looting it and attempting to annex it was monumentally stupid. Accurately assessing the military outcome of the invasion doesn't change that.

[Pez Dispens3r]

Still doesn't compare to invading modern Israel.

[Diadem]

You guys are making it sound as if either they will invade Israel or be best friends forever. There's a whole lot in between. Egypt doesn't even need to do anything to cause trouble in Israel. They share a border with Gaza. They merely have to stop doing things (ie: border security) and be a major boon to Hamas. I agree entirely that even a regime very hostile to Israel wouldn't attack outright. But an Egypt-supported Hamas would be a major problem for Israel.

[Dream]

Still doesn't compare to invading modern Israel.

But it clearly demonstrates that sometimes dictators are stupid, and sometimes they get into unwinnable conflicts. Saddam basically walked up to a grizzly bear and kicked it in the balls, then stood there grinning.

And it does compare to invading Israel, unless you're under the impression that Israel can field a military on the scale of Desert Storm?

[Pez Dispens3r]

Still doesn't compare to invading modern Israel.

But it clearly demonstrates that sometimes dictators are stupid, and sometimes they get into unwinnable conflicts. Saddam basically walked up to a grizzly bear and kicked it in the balls, then stood there grinning.

You're applying too much hindsight---there was no certainty the US would respond to an invasion of Kuwait, so your grizzly bear metaphor doesn't stand.

You guys are making it sound as if either they will invade Israel or be best friends forever. There's a whole lot in between. Egypt doesn't even need to do anything to cause trouble in Israel. They share a border with Gaza. They merely have to stop doing things (ie: border security) and be a major boon to Hamas. I agree entirely that even a regime very hostile to Israel wouldn't attack outright. But an Egypt-supported Hamas would be a major problem for Israel.

Point.

[Fat Tony]

The thing that confuses me is that I read so many reports/commentaries/status updates/etc. that all seem to focus around the same question: "How will this affect America?". That kind of bothers me. I've heard people saying that we need to support the current government because, oppressive or not, it's kept things relatively stable. What the crap? Is my country never going to learn that opposing liberation movements and supporting evil dictators does *not* end well?

[Роберт]

Still doesn't compare to invading modern Israel.

But it clearly demonstrates that sometimes dictators are stupid, and sometimes they get into unwinnable conflicts. Saddam basically walked up to a grizzly bear and kicked it in the balls, then stood there grinning.

You're applying too much hindsight---there was no certainty the US would respond to an invasion of Kuwait, so your grizzly bear metaphor doesn't stand.

Whether or not it does, it made me laugh. And reminded me of a salmoncommercial.

[Hoopla]

Just got reports of two Million protestors in the main square. For some reason, I don't think they are losing momentum. Also: screw Israel. If they want to make a new country, don't drive out the other people first. It also helps to make a nation somewhere where not EVERYONE hates you. Democracy FTW! Hopefully new Egypt will be progressive enough not to make war based on religion, but if it serves the people of Egypt rather than those of the US and Israel, than good for them!

Edit: apologies to most of the people I pissed off. Sorry.

[Oregonaut]

The thing that confuses me is that I read so many reports/commentaries/status updates/etc. that all seem to focus around the same question: "How will this affect America?". That kind of bothers me. I've heard people saying that we need to support the current government because, oppressive or not, it's kept things relatively stable. What the crap? Is my country never going to learn that opposing liberation movements and supporting evil dictators does *not* end well?

Well, it is sensible to be worried about how a change somewhere will effect status quo here in the states, if you live in the states. My concern about a change in Egypt's government is more towards how this will effect the NA part of MENA. As far as higher gas prices, I don't really drive a lot, so it is less a concern for me. As for military relationships, I doubt Egypt is going to want to radically change its stance with regards to US military cooperation. There are tangible benefits for both sides, and even though we support Israel, Egypt can do as other countries have done and agree to disagree with us.

[Briareos]

The New York Times is reporting that President Obama sent a message to Mubarak urging him not to run for re-election, but I don't know when that election is supposed to be.

[PeterCai]

and immediately, Mubarak promised not to:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/02 ... tml?hpt=T1

[Oregonaut]

That promise and a buck fifty will get you a box of hot tamales.

[Briareos]

Or, more importantly, Jujyfruit.

[Chewbaccawacca]

I'm not trying to pick a fight here. But as an American who has always had a soft spot for Israel, I do hope that, come what may, Egypt's relations with Israel hold steady.

Ideally Mubarak will be deposed (or, o happy day, step down himself) and those who step into his shoes (hopefully not ElBaradei, something seems shifty about him to me) will be level headed enough to see that any diplomatic change with Israel probably wouldn't be beneficial.

Again, I couldn't hope to outguess the citizens on the ground, but looking from an outside perspective, 30+ years of peace seems like a good thing...

[Gellert1984]

The New York Times is reporting that President Obama sent a message to Mubarak urging him not to run for re-election, but I don't know when that election is supposed to be.

According to the CNN article petercai posted its in september, his son won't stand for office either.

[Radical_Initiator]

So, Mubarak has made it official that he won't stand for re-election in September (was just reading a bit, not sure if he mentioned not having his son stand, but no mention of it on BBC suggests he didn't mention it, either), and a regime change will (should, hopefully?) occur. Is it enough to wait 7 months (or more), though? Or will the protesters maintain momentum and demand a change immediately? Is there any chance Mubarak will step down before September?

[Nordic Einar]

So, Mubarak has made it official that he won't stand for re-election in September (was just reading a bit, not sure if he mentioned not having his son stand, but no mention of it on BBC suggests he didn't mention it, either), and a regime change will (should, hopefully?) occur. Is it enough to wait 7 months (or more), though? Or will the protesters maintain momentum and demand a change immediately? Is there any chance Mubarak will step down before September?

I certainly wouldn't trust the man. Would YOU want to wait 7 months?

[Jessica]

I don't think they'll accept that. They kind of want him to resign right now.

Also, the whole election thing is... kind of a sham right now, so saying "I won't run for reelection" doesn't really change anything if the party is still in power and some other person takes over. Like, his new vice president.

[Radical_Initiator]

So, Mubarak has made it official that he won't stand for re-election in September (was just reading a bit, not sure if he mentioned not having his son stand, but no mention of it on BBC suggests he didn't mention it, either), and a regime change will (should, hopefully?) occur. Is it enough to wait 7 months (or more), though? Or will the protesters maintain momentum and demand a change immediately? Is there any chance Mubarak will step down before September?

I certainly wouldn't trust the man. Would YOU want to wait 7 months?

Not a chance. Especially when that extra 7 months gives him a chance to either set up a potential successor (who may or may not be his son) or use what time and influence he has left to intimidate opponents he doesn't want taking over the country (or both). I'm just hoping this very minor concession doesn't disrupt the momentum of the protesters - or, if there's any luck left, perhaps enrage them further that he's giving them next to nothing and pretending it's Christmas (metaphorically speaking).

[Pez Dispens3r]

The thing that confuses me is that I read so many reports/commentaries/status updates/etc. that all seem to focus around the same question: "How will this affect America?". That kind of bothers me.

Well, it is sensible to be worried about how a change somewhere will effect status quo here in the states, if you live in the states. My concern about a change in Egypt's government is more towards how this will effect the NA part of MENA. As far as higher gas prices, I don't really drive a lot, so it is less a concern for me. As for military relationships, I doubt Egypt is going to want to radically change its stance with regards to US military cooperation. There are tangible benefits for both sides, and even though we support Israel, Egypt can do as other countries have done and agree to disagree with us.

Wow, you're not even trying to defend your blatantly narcissistic attitude.

"Protests in Egypt, but how does this affect Jed?"

Christ.

[sourmìlk]

I just think worrying about the next Egyptian government's foreign policy now is like worrying the India and Pakistan would fight each other just before they became independent of England. Yeah, valid concerns, but far in the back seat to Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. I also think voicing those concerns is likely to lead to Egyptian public opinion being more hostile to the US and Israel if they look at us and our leaders publicly worrying what a free Egypt might do.

And our leaders and Israel's leaders have been, more or less, doing that to the apparent spite of Egyptians.

I think that the other implication of a militant Egyptian government is more oppression for the Egyptians.

[mmmcannibalism]

The thing that confuses me is that I read so many reports/commentaries/status updates/etc. that all seem to focus around the same question: "How will this affect America?". That kind of bothers me.

Well, it is sensible to be worried about how a change somewhere will effect status quo here in the states, if you live in the states. My concern about a change in Egypt's government is more towards how this will effect the NA part of MENA. As far as higher gas prices, I don't really drive a lot, so it is less a concern for me. As for military relationships, I doubt Egypt is going to want to radically change its stance with regards to US military cooperation. There are tangible benefits for both sides, and even though we support Israel, Egypt can do as other countries have done and agree to disagree with us.

Wow, you're not even trying to defend your blatantly narcissistic attitude.

"Protests in Egypt, but how does this affect Jed?"

Christ.

Because we should think of world events in terms of how they are not going to affect us? Granted, its annoying if the coverage is absurdly debate theoretical problems about what could happen in terms of US relations with Egypt. That doesn't change the fact that people watch the news to know what is going on around them, if the government in Egypt changing isn't going to have an impact on me, I won't read much about it.

[aleflamedyud]

Elbaradei reckons democracy is necessary for a peaceful future in Egypt, with particular reference to Israel. Refers to Muslim Brotherhood potential as "true fiction", and dismisses out of hand US and British positions on the crisis. Does not rule out taking power in forseeable future.

El-Baradei said all the right things, and Robert Fisk quite appears to despise him for it.

As to Israel, as el-Baradei said, they have a cold peace. I think that genuine democracy in Egypt would warm that up a bit.

[Pez Dispens3r]

Because we should think of world events in terms of how they are not going to affect us? Granted, its annoying if the coverage is absurdly debate theoretical problems about what could happen in terms of US relations with Egypt. That doesn't change the fact that people watch the news to know what is going on around them, if the government in Egypt changing isn't going to have an impact on me, I won't read much about it.

Because we should think of world events in terms of how they are going to affect the peoples most involved, such as Egyptian civilians, before those on separate continents get a look in? It just seems like the most sensible metric for me. But don't worry, I won't again make the mistake of accusing N&A denizens of having a broad empathy or intellectual curiosity.

[The Reaper]

And now the internet is trying to find ways to keep everyone connected, government be damned.
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/02/01/hack ... nline.html
http://openmeshproject.org/index.php

also: something tells me newsweek wouldn't know what a hacker was even if one stole the turkey sandwich out of the office fridge.
it doesnt have to make sense. thats the point

[Dream]

also: something tells me newsweek wouldn't know what a hacker was even if one stole the turkey sandwich out of the office fridge.

A phridge phreaker.

[the_bandersnatch]

It's all kicking off between the protesters and the supporters of Mubarak now:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12345656

Clashes have erupted in Cairo between supporters of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and [the] demonstrators calling on him to step down immediately.

Thousands of rival protesters have been throwing stones at each other and fighting with fists, whips and sticks in the capital's Tahrir Square.

...

Up to 2,000 anti-Mubarak demonstrators saw out a cold night in Tahrir Square, the main focus of the protests, saying the president's pledge was insufficient and chanting: "We will not leave!" They want to see him deposed and punished.

At the scene Ian Pannell, BBC News, Cairo, said, "We're in the middle of a very fluid situation - this is entirely dangerous, entirely provocative. Thousands of pro-Mubarak forces are now surging into Tahrir Square."

There was a cordon set up by the anti-Mubarak protesters to try and hold them back. The army were in the middle. They didn't take sides.

And basically there were too many of them. So they are now surging forward.

We've just seen one man being attacked - being kicked and punched and hit with a stick. And we've also seen protesters pulling down signs that are against President Mubarak.

There's a lot of anger on the streets at the moment, a lot of argument, fists are flying. And who knows where this will end.

But on Wednesday, thousands of supporters of President Mubarak surged into the square, dismantling barricades.

"You guys have made your point clear, let the man (Mubarak) take care of you until his time is up. Mubarak wants stability and we want stability as well," said Mohamed Shafik.

"Let Egyptians go home and look after their families," the 51-year-old pharmacist told Reuters news agency.

Television footage showed opposing groups facing off chanting slogans, and later fighting. Some government supporters rode horses and camels and wielded whips. Later, gunshots were heard in the square.

BBC Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen, who is in Tahrir Square, said the clashes were becoming increasingly violent and he had seen people with nasty wounds.

The anti-Mubarak protesters have been accusing the army of moving aside to let in their pro-government rivals.

The troops guarding the square have not intervened. The crowds of protesters began to thin after the fighting broke out.

Clashes between the rival groups were also reported in Egypt's second city, Alexandria.

And I'd just like to finish by adding this great little quote from The Daily Mash:

"Got the entire country setting fire to things and calling for your head? Why not get all your staff to swap desks? That should calm things down a treat."

[Oregonaut]

Because we should think of world events in terms of how they are not going to affect us? Granted, its annoying if the coverage is absurdly debate theoretical problems about what could happen in terms of US relations with Egypt. That doesn't change the fact that people watch the news to know what is going on around them, if the government in Egypt changing isn't going to have an impact on me, I won't read much about it.

Because we should think of world events in terms of how they are going to affect the peoples most involved, such as Egyptian civilians, before those on separate continents get a look in? It just seems like the most sensible metric for me. But don't worry, I won't again make the mistake of accusing N&A denizens of having a broad empathy or intellectual curiosity.

Nice. Snap judgements are awesome-sauce. I know more about China than your average USian, as do I Japan, and Russia. You'll forgive me for limiting my daily intake of global news to areas that I have a historic interest in. Now, your average USian isn't going to need to know, in their daily lives, how this is going to impact the Egyptians. Why? Because they'll likely not see anything that is 100 miles further than their house. If they are electing their senators, and representatives, based on a riot in Egypt, then they are missing the point of local elections.

[Game_boy]

Why is there such a thing as a pro-Mubarak protestor? Why are they out in numbers today but nowhere to be seen in the last week?

I don't understand why people would be against forcing a snap election, then they can vote Mubarak back in if they wish, but currently he is in through non-free elections. It would make him more legitimate if he won a free one.

[Eowiel]

Why is there such a thing as a pro-Mubarak protestor? Why are they out in numbers today but nowhere to be seen in the last week?

I don't understand why people would be against forcing a snap election, then they can vote Mubarak back in if they wish, but currently he is in through non-free elections. It would make him more legitimate if he won a free one.

I wouldn't be surprised if they were mostly police in civilian clothes, apparently protesters took some prisoners in the clashes and found the captives to be wearing police insignias. Also, the pro government protesters where escorted by police vehicles.

Additionaly, no dictator can't stay in power if he doesn't at least have some support amongst the population. Some people have to profit from his power or he will soon fall. If the army is the only demographic supporting you, then you don't have anything to offer the army and they can just as well let someone from within their own circle seize the power.

[Роберт]

The pro-Mubarak protesters apparently liked punching Anderson Cooper in the head. I'm not sure why they are there, but I am not shocked at reports that the government is organizing them and police are participating.

[olubunmi]

So, Mubarak has made it official that he won't stand for re-election in September (was just reading a bit, not sure if he mentioned not having his son stand, but no mention of it on BBC suggests he didn't mention it, either), and a regime change will (should, hopefully?) occur. Is it enough to wait 7 months (or more), though? Or will the protesters maintain momentum and demand a change immediately? Is there any chance Mubarak will step down before September?

I certainly wouldn't trust the man. Would YOU want to wait 7 months?

Not a chance. Especially when that extra 7 months gives him a chance to either set up a potential successor (who may or may not be his son) or use what time and influence he has left to intimidate opponents he doesn't want taking over the country (or both). I'm just hoping this very minor concession doesn't disrupt the momentum of the protesters - or, if there's any luck left, perhaps enrage them further that he's giving them next to nothing and pretending it's Christmas (metaphorically speaking).

Well, I see this promise of Mubarak as a final attempt to calm the masses. It doesn't seem to work much, judging by the events of today.
Mubarak is running out of options quickly, and his position seems untenable.
The main question is what will happen after he resigns.


Meanwhile in the middle east, the last few days saw protests in Algeria, Yemen and Jordan. And perhaps more that I overlooked.
I wonder if in any of those countries the situation will escalate is it does in Egypt?

[Greyarcher]

The pro-Mubarak protesters apparently liked punching Anderson Cooper in the head. I'm not sure why they are there, but I am not shocked at reports that the government is organizing them and police are participating.

Could be a clever tactic in some scenarios. If the regime doesn't want to be seen as directly responsible for clashes with protesters--or wants to make those protesters seem like they're less representative of the public--then they can organize and send in "pro-regime civilians" to clash with them.

Heh, feels like this should be a joke of some sort: you can tell they're Mubarak supporters because they try and destroy cameras and attack foreign media.