Uprising in Egypt Splitting the Conservatives in the US

[georgephillip]

"Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood has built considerable grass-roots support by providing much needed social services in impoverished areas. Such activities have earned it a reputation for competence and honesty, often in contrast to the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP), popularly perceived as self-serving and corrupt.

“'The brotherhood was extremely popular here, even before the election, (2006) because it stands against corruption and its people are honest and respectable,' said Tamer Saeed, a resident of the teeming, low-income Imbaba district of the capital, where two brotherhood candidates savaged their respective opponents from the NDP and independent secular parties.

"According to many political observers, the brotherhood’s devotion to social work was the prime driver behind its astounding results in parliamentary elections, held in late 2005.

"The group managed to capture 88 seats in the People’s Assembly, up from only 15 in the outgoing assembly.

“'The brotherhood was more public than ever with its social work and political campaigning, and took full advantage of unprecedented discontent with the NDP,' said Amin Mohamed Amin, an analyst at the government-run Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies.

"Saeed noted from Imbaba: 'After 24 years of waiting for changes, like clean streets and workable sewage systems, people lost faith in the ruling party. The brotherhood will deal with all these pressing issues, which are high on its agenda.'

"For members of the movement, social services are a natural extension of Islamic beliefs. 'It’s not aid,' said a leading brotherhood member Abdel Moneim Abul Futouh. 'We run social assistance programmes because the Islamic way of life requires it.'”

IRIN Middle East...

 

[editec]

Ahh so someone else is noticing the right's quandry. Democracy and freedom vs fear and hatred of the Islamic religion.

Quandry? Where? Not here. Let them have at each other. Whoever wins, wins.

Yeah but people are assuming there will be a negative affect on Israel, and republicans are desperate to continue having american taxpayer dollars rain down on Israel with neverending consistency.

As the Constitution says, it's the american taxpayer's responsibility to pay for Israeli defense from POTENTIAL threats, come to think of it I think I'm going to make a donation to the US gov't right now just to make sure we have enough money to pay for more weapons to give Israel.

Yeah but then, too, so are the Democrats.

 

[georgephillip]

And a solution to this problem, like so many others, won't come from "choosing" between Republican OR Democrat.

FLUSH 100 to 200 Republicans AND Democrats from DC in 2012 and solutions to many current problems will begin to appear.

As well as new problems for coming generations.

 

[durruti]

That is what I meant in the democracy thread, if the actual system had eroded then it doesnt matter who you vote for, if he dont run with the main mission to actually clean up the corruption.

But as they say "power corrupts" so it will probably take a Jesus or mother teresa to do that and with some real good bodyguards.

 

[Gadawg73]

February 3, 2011
An Exit Plan for Mubarak

By TAREK MASOUD

*snip*

This would no doubt disappoint those who want to put Mr. Mubarak on the next plane to Saudi Arabia, but there are two risks associated with his leaving so abruptly. The first is that the demonstrations might diminish or dissipate, leaving Mr. ElBaradei and his coalition trying to negotiate with the military or Vice President Omar Suleiman without the force of the crowds behind them.

The second risk stems from the Egyptian Constitution, which gives the power to dissolve Parliament and call new elections only to an elected president. Mr. Mubarak’s successor, as an acting president, would be specifically prohibited from getting the parliamentary elections under way. A new Parliament is crucial to democratic reform, because only Parliament has the power to defang the Egyptian presidency, stripping it of its dictatorial powers through constitutional amendment. The current Parliament — bought and paid for by Mr. Mubarak’s National Democratic Party — is not fit for that task.


Egypt’s next scheduled presidential election is only months away. If the Constitution isn’t amended before it is held, the notorious Article 76, which makes it difficult for independents like Mr. ElBaradei to get on the ballot, will still be in place. More important, the new president would have the same imperial powers Mr. Mubarak has had — the very powers that the Egyptian public wants taken away.


The constitutionally sanctioned timeline would be this: Mr. Mubarak dissolves Parliament, forcing a new election within 60 days (international observers would be required to make sure the election is fair). Once the new Parliament is seated, Mr. Mubarak resigns, and an acting president, probably the new Parliament’s speaker, takes charge until a new president is elected. The new Parliament would work around the clock to amend the Constitution in ways that would put Mr. Suleiman or any would-be strongman out of a job. The final step is a national referendum on the amendments.

*snip*

Tarek Masoud is an assistant professor of public policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.

Excellent.

 

[Synthaholic]

February 3, 2011
An Exit Plan for Mubarak

By TAREK MASOUD

*snip*

This would no doubt disappoint those who want to put Mr. Mubarak on the next plane to Saudi Arabia, but there are two risks associated with his leaving so abruptly. The first is that the demonstrations might diminish or dissipate, leaving Mr. ElBaradei and his coalition trying to negotiate with the military or Vice President Omar Suleiman without the force of the crowds behind them.

The second risk stems from the Egyptian Constitution, which gives the power to dissolve Parliament and call new elections only to an elected president. Mr. Mubarak’s successor, as an acting president, would be specifically prohibited from getting the parliamentary elections under way. A new Parliament is crucial to democratic reform, because only Parliament has the power to defang the Egyptian presidency, stripping it of its dictatorial powers through constitutional amendment. The current Parliament — bought and paid for by Mr. Mubarak’s National Democratic Party — is not fit for that task.


Egypt’s next scheduled presidential election is only months away. If the Constitution isn’t amended before it is held, the notorious Article 76, which makes it difficult for independents like Mr. ElBaradei to get on the ballot, will still be in place. More important, the new president would have the same imperial powers Mr. Mubarak has had — the very powers that the Egyptian public wants taken away.


The constitutionally sanctioned timeline would be this: Mr. Mubarak dissolves Parliament, forcing a new election within 60 days (international observers would be required to make sure the election is fair). Once the new Parliament is seated, Mr. Mubarak resigns, and an acting president, probably the new Parliament’s speaker, takes charge until a new president is elected. The new Parliament would work around the clock to amend the Constitution in ways that would put Mr. Suleiman or any would-be strongman out of a job. The final step is a national referendum on the amendments.

*snip*

Tarek Masoud is an assistant professor of public policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.

Excellent.

It's nice to be able to get good info from someone who actually knows the Egyptian Constitution, isn't it?

It's a clear roadmap that everyone involved (of good intentions) can agree upon.

 

[sangha]

February 3, 2011
An Exit Plan for Mubarak

By TAREK MASOUD

*snip*

This would no doubt disappoint those who want to put Mr. Mubarak on the next plane to Saudi Arabia, but there are two risks associated with his leaving so abruptly. The first is that the demonstrations might diminish or dissipate, leaving Mr. ElBaradei and his coalition trying to negotiate with the military or Vice President Omar Suleiman without the force of the crowds behind them.

The second risk stems from the Egyptian Constitution, which gives the power to dissolve Parliament and call new elections only to an elected president. Mr. Mubarak’s successor, as an acting president, would be specifically prohibited from getting the parliamentary elections under way. A new Parliament is crucial to democratic reform, because only Parliament has the power to defang the Egyptian presidency, stripping it of its dictatorial powers through constitutional amendment. The current Parliament — bought and paid for by Mr. Mubarak’s National Democratic Party — is not fit for that task.


Egypt’s next scheduled presidential election is only months away. If the Constitution isn’t amended before it is held, the notorious Article 76, which makes it difficult for independents like Mr. ElBaradei to get on the ballot, will still be in place. More important, the new president would have the same imperial powers Mr. Mubarak has had — the very powers that the Egyptian public wants taken away.


The constitutionally sanctioned timeline would be this: Mr. Mubarak dissolves Parliament, forcing a new election within 60 days (international observers would be required to make sure the election is fair). Once the new Parliament is seated, Mr. Mubarak resigns, and an acting president, probably the new Parliament’s speaker, takes charge until a new president is elected. The new Parliament would work around the clock to amend the Constitution in ways that would put Mr. Suleiman or any would-be strongman out of a job. The final step is a national referendum on the amendments.

*snip*

Tarek Masoud is an assistant professor of public policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.

Excellent.

Particularly the last paragraph where he talks about the military. The fact is, regardless of who takes Mubaraks place, they will have to be approved by the military. Until the US stops being too scared to drop or cut support for its military (or at least threaten to do so), Egypt is going to find it hard to establish a real democracy. The leaders of Egypts military have too much money at stake to subject their interests to the will of the people.

 

[Synthaholic]

February 3, 2011
An Exit Plan for Mubarak

By TAREK MASOUD

*snip*

This would no doubt disappoint those who want to put Mr. Mubarak on the next plane to Saudi Arabia, but there are two risks associated with his leaving so abruptly. The first is that the demonstrations might diminish or dissipate, leaving Mr. ElBaradei and his coalition trying to negotiate with the military or Vice President Omar Suleiman without the force of the crowds behind them.

The second risk stems from the Egyptian Constitution, which gives the power to dissolve Parliament and call new elections only to an elected president. Mr. Mubarak’s successor, as an acting president, would be specifically prohibited from getting the parliamentary elections under way. A new Parliament is crucial to democratic reform, because only Parliament has the power to defang the Egyptian presidency, stripping it of its dictatorial powers through constitutional amendment. The current Parliament — bought and paid for by Mr. Mubarak’s National Democratic Party — is not fit for that task.


Egypt’s next scheduled presidential election is only months away. If the Constitution isn’t amended before it is held, the notorious Article 76, which makes it difficult for independents like Mr. ElBaradei to get on the ballot, will still be in place. More important, the new president would have the same imperial powers Mr. Mubarak has had — the very powers that the Egyptian public wants taken away.


The constitutionally sanctioned timeline would be this: Mr. Mubarak dissolves Parliament, forcing a new election within 60 days (international observers would be required to make sure the election is fair). Once the new Parliament is seated, Mr. Mubarak resigns, and an acting president, probably the new Parliament’s speaker, takes charge until a new president is elected. The new Parliament would work around the clock to amend the Constitution in ways that would put Mr. Suleiman or any would-be strongman out of a job. The final step is a national referendum on the amendments.

*snip*

Tarek Masoud is an assistant professor of public policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.

Excellent.

Particularly the last paragraph where he talks about the military. The fact is, regardless of who takes Mubaraks place, they will have to be approved by the military. Until the US stops being too scared to drop or cut support for its military (or at least threaten to do so), Egypt is going to find it hard to establish a real democracy. The leaders of Egypts military have too much money at stake to subject their interests to the will of the people.

Don't these Egyptian Generals spend more time in the U.S. than they do in Egypt? It seems like they are very tight with our top brass, so that connection looks like the anchor or stability in this situation.

They are no dummies, and they know who is supplying their toys. And I don't think that anyone has characterized the Egyptian military as very Islamist in nature. They are much more like Türkiye's military - secular and protective of historical institutions.

 

[Gadawg73]

excellent.

particularly the last paragraph where he talks about the military. The fact is, regardless of who takes mubaraks place, they will have to be approved by the military. Until the us stops being too scared to drop or cut support for its military (or at least threaten to do so), egypt is going to find it hard to establish a real democracy. The leaders of egypts military have too much money at stake to subject their interests to the will of the people.

don't these egyptian generals spend more time in the u.s. Than they do in egypt? It seems like they are very tight with our top brass, so that connection looks like the anchor or stability in this situation.

They are no dummies, and they know who is supplying their toys. And i don't think that anyone has characterized the egyptian military as very islamist in nature. They are much more like türkiye's military - secular and protective of historical institutions.

suez canal

 

[Toro]

The WSJ agrees with the OP

Dick Cheney and Bill Kristol have more in common than not. Mr. Cheney, the former vice president, and Mr. Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard magazine, served together in the first Bush administration, were staunch supporters of both wars in Iraq, and are admired figures in the conservative movement.

Yet when it comes to the crisis in Egypt, they are striking quite different notes. Mr. Cheney, in remarks in California over the weekend, called Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak "a good man, a good friend and ally to the United States" who has brought stability to the region and who shouldn't be subjected to too much public pressure to leave.

Mr. Kristol, in a new editorial, strikes a markedly different tone. It's an unhealthy sign, he writes, when "American conservatives are so fearful of a popular awakening that they side with the dictator against the democrats. Rather, it's a sign of fearfulness unworthy of Americans, of short-sightedness uncharacteristic of conservatives, of excuse-making for thuggery unworthy of the American conservative tradition." ...

Outside government, conservatives aren't so constrained, and they are roughly dividing into two groups. The first argues, in essence, that, conservatives should back people seeking liberty and democratic reform wherever they emerge, and that any short-term instability is outweighed in the long run by the prospective emergence of new democratic governments that inevitably will share American ideals. ...

The opposing camp argues that, as alluring as the idea of street protesters giving birth to Egyptian democracy may be, the harsher reality is that the uprising could just as easily pave the way for Islamic extremists to step into a power vacuum created by any hasty exit by the country's current, pro-American leader.

The conservative ideals of liberty and democracy would be seriously undermined in the long run, they argue, if the alternative to an authoritarian Mubarak regime isn't a democratic state but rather a radical Islamic government of the kind Iran's revolution produced.

U.S. Conservatives Spar on Best Egypt Approach - WSJ.com

 

[georgephillip]

Core of American Interest?

From the New York Times:

"But the crisis raises many questions about how the United States will navigate its relationship with Israel — in particular the balance between encouraging the development of a democratic government in Egypt and the desire in Washington not to risk a new government’s abandoning Mr. Mubarak’s benign posture toward Israel.

"The unsettled outlook in Egypt has also scrambled American calculations about nurturing peace talks back to life between Israel and the Palestinians. And it has left both American and Israeli diplomats wondering about a broader regional realignment in which Israel would be left feeling more isolated and its enemies, including Iran and Syria, emboldened.

"Israeli government officials started out urging the Obama administration to back Mr. Mubarak, administration officials said, and were initially angry at Mr. Obama for publicly calling on the Egyptian leader to agree to a transition.

“'The Israelis are saying, après Mubarak, le deluge,' said Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator. And that, in turn, Mr. Levy said, 'gets to the core of what is the American interest in this.

"'It’s Israel.

"'It’s not worry about whether the Egyptians are going to close down the Suez Canal, or even the narrower terror issue.

"'It really can be distilled down to one thing, and that’s Israel.”'

US elites proved their commitment to democracy in the Middle East in 1948 when the Jewish state sprang full blown from Mandate Palestine where one in three voters was Jewish.

Follow the money.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I wonder what the world is gonna look like without Israel in it.

As viewed from space it won't change a fucking thing.