Could Syria see an uprising like Egypt's? Not likely.

[shira]

Beirut, Lebanon
Syrian opposition activists hope that the shockwave of Egypt and Tunisia's mass uprisings, which have shaken the Arab world, will begin to reverberate in Syria, with calls for a “day of rage” Friday throughout the country.

But analysts believe opponents of the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad face a daunting struggle in replicating the street revolutions that so far have toppled one head of state in Tunisia and left another teetering on the edge in Egypt.

“We have been surprised before in this crisis, but my sense is that it’s unlikely we will see large, large, large groups of people coming together because the security services will be intimidating people, arresting people, keeping a very tight lid,” says Nadim Houry, Lebanon representative of Human Rights Watch (HRW), a New York-based watchdog.

more...
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/0203/Could-Syria-see-an-uprising-like-Egypt-s-Not-likely

[shira]

1. Report: Hizbullah fighters deployed in sensitive areas in Syria

A Kuwaiti newspaper reported on Friday that some 1000 Hizbullah fighters have entered Syria in recent days, to ensure the stability of the regime, amid calls to arrange protests in Syrian cities similar to those in Egypt.

The newspaper quoted well-informed Syrian sources as saying that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the Secretary General of Hizbullah Hassan Nasrallah, had reached an understanding regarding the deployment of about 5000 Shiite fighters in sensitive areas in Syria if Assad's regime needed them for its protection.

http://www1.albawaba.com/main-headlines/report-hizbullah-fighters-deployed-sensitive-areas-syria

[shira]

2. Google Translate: Syria: a thousand Hezbollah fighters to protect the regime and punishing events

Syria: a thousand Hezbollah fighters to protect the regime and punishing events
Friday, February 4, 2011 - 8:53

The Kuwaiti daily Al Seyassah "understands that a thousand elite fighters of Hezbollah have already been sent to Syria in recent days to defend the regime of Bashar al-Assad. Some 4,000 other fighters are ready to intervene in less than eight hours, if the events planned today and tomorrow in major Syrian cities were expanding.

The use of Hezbollah, which had already lent a hand to the Iranian regime to quell demonstrations in 2009, certifies that the Syrian president does not trust his army (with the exception of units consisting only of Alawi) and fears that it does not execute his orders to fire on demonstrations.

The Kuwaiti daily said that Hezbollah fighters were the uniform of the Syrian Presidential Guard and are based in the training camps of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. They must be deployed around strategic locations and departments to Damascus, to repel any hostile demonstration in the plan.

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http://www.aschkel.info/article-syrie-un-millier-de-combattants-du-hezbollah-pour-proteger-le-regime-et-reprimer-les-manifestations-66431803.html&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhi2Mo6_FJOZ1Y5cdR0p9UzHrJhjAQ

===============

From 2009 protests in Iran (Der Spiegel):

After reports of the station, "Voice of America" will go up to 5000 Lebanese Hezbollah militia fighters to the regime in the showdown at hand.

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,630463-2,00.html&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhgQojaNqkmiKeZY49xEVOve5sr0kw

[shaayecanaan]

3. Altogether unlikely...

a thousand elite fighters represents more than half of Hezbollah's full time force. Its unlikely that Nasrallah would let his best and brightest simply saunter off to Syria and be left vulnerable in the meantime. Moreover, moving a thousand fighters isnt something that would pass without comment in the Lebanese media, which so far has said nothing.

And if Assad can't trust anyone outside the Alawi oligarchy, Im not sure why he could trust Hezbollah. They have fought on prior occasions and most members of HA have a distinctly dim view of Alawites.

Thirdly, Hezbollah werent on the streets of Tehran beating up protests. That was Ansar-e-Hezb, essentially a Hezbollah fan club with no real connection to HA proper, as well as other groups making up the Basij militia.

[bemildred]

6. Sure sounds like horseshit. nt

[shira]

4. quote from "Syria’s Assad talks of reform as protests loom"

“Most of the highest-profile dissidents are in jail, under house arrest, or in exile,” said Mr. Abdul-Hamid, who himself was forced to leave Syria in 2005. “But the danger to the regime is not from the dissident leaders — it’s the young people who are frustrated with the lack of freedom, with the lack of jobs, who have created their own underground networks to communicate with each other. And these leaderless networks can be easily politicized if the time is right.”

Ahed al-Hendi, Arabic program coordinator at CyberDissidents, a group that fights Internet censorship in the Middle East, echoed Mr. Abdul-Hamid.

“The situation in Syria is much harder than in Egypt or Tunisia,” he said. “The last big political demonstration in Damascus was four years ago — about 200 people protesting the emergency law — and they were attacked by regime thugs. So we have no illusions, but we have hope that if enough people can overcome the fear barrier, the rest will follow.”

Mr. Hendi, who was jailed in his native Syria in 2006 for anti-regime activities and later sought asylum in the U.S., also lamented that Syrian protesters could not count on one of the Arab world’s key revolutionary aids, coverage by the popular Qatar-based news agency Al Jazeera.

“For Al Jazeera, you see, there are two types of dictatorships — pro-American ones and pro-Iranian ones,” he said. “If you’re a pro-American dictatorship, they go after you. They leave the pro-Iranian ones, like Syria, alone.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/syrias-assad-talks-of-reform-as-protests-loom/?page=2

[bemildred]

5. Hard to say.

Different situation, and Syria is not run as badly as Egypt has been, nor is it sucking on the US' teat.

But the people power idea is in the wind.

[shira]

9. Freedom House rates Syria's human rights situation worse than Egypt's. NT

[bemildred]

11. I am not defending the Syrian dictatorship.

I'm just saying they are more competent.

FWIW, I have, or had, Syrian friends who were refugees from Big Assad, I don't hold any brief for the Syrian regime or the Baath Party.

But underestimating your enemies is costly.

[shira]

12. I didn't say you were. NT

[whosinpower]

7. Egypt proved it

If the collective will of the people is determined enough, they will shake off their fear and stand firm. Should that occur in Syria - there is nothing Assad can do to stop it.

[shira]

8. Syria is far more brutal against protests than Egypt has shown to be. NT

[bemildred]

10. It all depends on the loyalty of the military.

Little Assad may not be nice, but he is way sharper than the gerontocrats in Egypt, who apparently have done nothing to prepare for their own replacement; and from what I gather the secret police rank and file is not to be relied on either.

[shira]

13. It's too bad there's no support for Syrian protestors compared to support for Egyptians. N/T

[bemildred]

14. Well, that's an interesting point.

It would be interesting to see what happened if there were a serious outburst of public dissent in Syria. The difference is, of course, that Egypt is not a member of the "Axis of Evil", and Syria is. Which means, if you don't like US foreign policy, that Syria gets support, and it's good to bash Mubarak. However, until it happens, it would be speculation to claim it went one way or another, in terms of "support", or the lack of it. I don't like the Syrian regime, but I would still oppose any facile outside meddling in Syrian politics, and on the other hand I would happily "support" any sort of "color revolution" aimed at introducing democratic politics there.

Edit: one of the most interesting aspects of a serious public outburst in Syria would be seeing what the Israeli government reaction to it was.

[oberliner]

18. You might want to Google the Hama massacre

That might help provide some insights into the matter.

[bemildred]

20. Don't be unpleasant, I haven't accused you of being ignorant. nt

[oberliner]

22. There was no unpleasantness in my post

I think that the incident that I suggested you read about might provide some insights into the issues you raised.

[bemildred]

24. You implied I don't know about Hama.

I have in fact discussed it here, though is was long ago as DU figures time.

Did you know Churchill thought gassing the Kurds was a good idea?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHU407A.html

[oberliner]

30. Did not know if you knew about it

No offense intended.

Interesting documents about Churchill.

[LeftishBrit]

15. I hope you are right!

But the protests did not succeed in Iran last year. 20 years ago, the collective will prevailed (sort of) in Eastern Europe, but was brutally crushed in China.

But we can hope for the best everywhere.

[pelsar]

16. just dropped by for a second....

i never understood why history is always ignored when discussing the middle east...maybe because its doesn't shine very well for the naive and innocent viewpoints.

the question of why it wont happen in syria is because it was tried in 1982 and syria simply bombed the town, where it started, first from the air, then used artillery, poison gas and then sent in the infantry:

result? one flattened town (hama) and 30-40,000 dead...not much on the news for the obvious reasons and

revolution put to an end.
---------------

nobody knew this?

[shaayecanaan]

17. That was old man Assad...

Or to be more precise, his brother, Rifat, who was even worse. Whether Bashar would respond in the same manner remains to be seen.

But in any event, the essential difference is that Syria is a relatively heterogeneous place, and the regime there is tolerated, especially by religious minorities (the Druze, Alawis, Christians, and Shia) because they fear the alternative. The large numbers of Iraqi refugees now in Syria also add to the mix.

The secret police in Syria are also far sharper than they are in Egypt, as anyone who has traveled in Syria can attest.

[oberliner]

19. Does it remain to be seen?

What is the likelihood of something like what is going on in Egypt taking shape in Syria in your opinion?

[azurnoir]

21. Would you say poverty has something to do the uprising in Egypt?

the poverty rate there is around 20%*, in Syria it is about 11.7%* to put that in perspective the US poverty rate is 12%*, based on that the population is most likely a bit more satisfied with their lot.

* all figures from CIA World Fact Book

[oberliner]

23. Absolutely

It's part of why unelected despots seem to be pretty secure these days in the wealthier countries of the region.

[shaayecanaan]

25. It depends on how you define poverty...

Certainly the per capita GDP (even on a purchasing power parity basis) is substantially lower in Syria than it is in Egypt.

The impact from the refugee wave from Iraq is also taking its toll. Syria's economy was never in great shape to begin with but now there is even more competition for what little jobs remain available.

There was a recent article in National Geographic on Syria that captured the spirit of the place - secret police everywhere, people desperate to join the already overbloated public service.

Assad's legitimacy, like Mubarak's, is entirely dependent on his ability to provide stability. The economy and standard of living is much worse than in Lebanon, on the other hand you have much lesser prospects of being shot or bombed in Syria.

I think it is erroneous to suggest that Israel would like to see the end of Assad's regime. He is a known quantity, and can be relied upon to deliver pax Syriana when and if required. If Assad were to fall his replacement would invariably be worse from Israel's point of view.

[pelsar]

26. again history is to be ignored...

I think it is erroneous to suggest that Israel would like to see the end of Assad's regime. He is a known quantity, and can be relied upon to deliver pax Syriana when and if required. If Assad were to fall his replacement would invariably be worse from Israel's point of view

so when did assad the son, the dentist from the UK take over?...not to long ago was it?.....and he too was an "unknown quantity", and was not it turns out "invariably worse or better (as so many wrote about).


Israel needs stability amongst its neighbors, dictatorships may provide that in the short term, but they are not be relied upon for that in the long term, that should be obvious for those who don't ignore history.

[shaayecanaan]

28. He's actually an opthalmologist...

and Im not quite sure that you understood my post.

Let assume the regime fell in Syria and was replaced by a democratic government. You have a country which is divided between a Sunni heartland, an Alawi Latakia and a Druze southwest.

You could either have a Lebanon-style consociationalist system of government, or a system of weak federalism whereby the different communities carried on more-or-less independently. Or more likely, the Sunnis would simply toss out a large number of the Alawis and take power themselves.

I think that Israel would prefer Assad staying in power to any of the above.

[bemildred]

29. Don't forget the Kurds. They got gassed you know.

:hi:

[pelsar]

32. correction on little assads past profession...

Let assume the regime fell in Syria and was replaced by a democratic government

lets start with that....what on earth makes you believe that out of present Syria can rise a real democracy....based on western values? Their education, their history, their present culture, the lack of democratic secular movement within Syria, makes that fantasy nothing more than a fantasy.

any kind of revolution will just be a variation of iran or egypt (where the army is slowly making its move to retain power....)....just a change in names only.

i dont get these fantasies about democracy suddenly appearing in arab regimes, especially since the history of the region is pretty clear about how arab regimes react to the people revolting.....whole cultures have to change before that can happen and that takes time and education.
_________

israel, like any country wants stability with its neighbors. Democracy would be best, but since thats not an option on the table presently, a strong secular dictator is far better than chaos or a theocratic dictator.

[shira]

34. In the Middle East, a liberal democracy would be too Zionist...

Besides, how did "democratic" elections work out in Gaza 5 years ago?

:shrug:

The neo-cons were wrong about democracy then. They and their ideological allies now are still wrong about it.

[azurnoir]

41. 2005: Abbas triumphs in Palestinian elections

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/9/newsid_4514000/4514342.stm

did Gaza hold separate elections?

[oberliner]

44. 2005 : Big Hamas win in Gaza's election

Palestinian militant group Hamas has won a huge victory in local polls in Gaza, final results show.

Seen in Israel as a terrorist group, Hamas appears to have won roughly two-thirds of the seats it contested.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4214375.stm

[azurnoir]

45. that is indeed 'odd':Washington Post Foreign Service Friday, January 27, 2006

RAMALLAH, West Bank, Jan. 26 -- The radical Islamic movement Hamas won a large majority in the new Palestinian parliament, according to official election results announced Thursday, trouncing the governing Fatah party in a contest that could dramatically reshape the Palestinians' relations with Israel and the rest of the world.
In Wednesday's voting, Hamas claimed 76 of the 132 parliamentary seats, giving the party at war with Israel the right to form the next cabinet under the Palestinian Authority's president, Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of Fatah.
Fatah, which has dominated the legislature since the previous elections a decade ago and the Palestinian cause for far longer, won 43 seats. A collection of nationalist, leftist and independent parties claimed the rest.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012600372.html

the elections that won Hamas a majority of Parliamentary seats was held in January of 2006

[oberliner]

51. The Guardian, 29 January 2005: Hamas wins Gaza Strip council vote

The Islamist party Hamas has won control of seven out of 10 councils in the Gaza Strip, dealing a crushing blow to the Fatah party of the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas.

Voters rejected Fatah's corrupt image and endorsed Hamas for its opposition to Israel and for providing welfare, schools and nurseries to the impoverished residents of the territory. Hamas won 75 out of 118 seats, leaving Fatah with 39.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jan/29/israel

[azurnoir]

58. the Gaza Council was an occupation government , elections were held again a year later when the PA

was in control, but once again I do understand how you could make that mistake

[oberliner]

92. An occupation government?

What are you talking about?

[azurnoir]

46. weren't those elections held while Gaza was under total Israeli occupation ?

and there for meaningless?

[oberliner]

52. "Thousands of Hamas supporters took to the streets of Gaza yesterday to celebrate the victory"

Thousands of Hamas supporters took to the streets of Gaza yesterday to celebrate the victory. Chanting "Hamas is the real way for reform and rebuilding", the supporters waved green flags and distributed sweets.

Muhir al-Masri, a Hamas spokesman, said: "Our people have a consensus on the choice of jihad and resistance and the election has underscored that concept."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jan/29/israel

Meaningless, eh?

[azurnoir]

57. then why were elections held a year later?They were the Gaza Council elections not the PA elections

perhaps you were unaware of that? The PA had no control in occupied Gaza one could be easily mislead though so your mistake is understandable

[azurnoir]

60. Once again you seem to fail to recognize that Israel was in total control and occupation of Gaza

at the time of those elections Israel's occupation of Gaza did not end till some 9 months later and elections were held once again 4 months after that, but it has been a long time I can understand how one could forget such things

[oberliner]

90. Total control of Gaza ended with Oslo II in 1995

CNN January 20, 1996: Palestinians turn out for historic vote

WEST BANK (CNN) -- Polls opened in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem early Saturday, giving Palestinians their first chance to do something they have never done before: vote. Election officials say the early turnout to choose a president and legislative council is heavy.

Voting "The biggest problem is that the ballot boxes which were designed to international standards filled up at 11 o'clock (0900 GMT), four hours after the polls opened," said Mahmoud Abbas, better known as Abu Mazen, the head of the Palestinian election commission.

To many Palestinians, voting means the chance to recover hope; others see it as a meaningless gesture. Abed Abu Diab says this election is about dreams. Not only is it the first time he's run for elected office -- a seat on the Palestinian Council -- it is the first time he will be allowed to vote.

For Diab and a million other Palestinians who have lived most of their lives under Israeli rule, these elections are the stuff dreams are made of.

"For 28 years, we were under occupation, and occupation means you lose your control of your destiny. By casting your vote you are regaining the control of your destiny. It is the meaning of voting," said Palestinian political analyst Ali Jirbawi.

Just over a million Palestinians registered to vote. Of the 90 percent eligible, more than a third of a million are in Gaza, over half a million are on the West Bank and more than 76,000 are in east Jerusalem.

Some say that the democratic process is being sold as a remedy for all that has befallen Palestinians.

"This will reverse the whole attitude of victimization. This will activate the people's participation. Voters will start creating systems rather than individuals. It is the beginning of the exercise of sovereignty," said Palestinian Council Candidate Hanan Ashrawi.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9601/palestine_elex/

[pelsar]

56. elections do not define a democracy...

i have no idea why people believe that.....one can't have a fair election that represents the will of the people without the rest of the pieces that define a democracy.

perhaps its a result of short attention spans, lack of knowledge of history.....

[azurnoir]

59. yes much like Israel we're constantly lead to believe that Kadima should

have won but we now see a right wing government in power, so we could conclude that either Israel is not a Democracy or that it was the will of the Israeli people that the right wing some would even say extremist government we see there today is in power

[pelsar]

61. confused?

i see i have to write it again.....democracies are, (thank god) imperfect political institutions that are based on multiple values and institutions that working together make for a democratic and flexible government. Elections are merely one of the building blocks...

it should be pretty obvious given the past US elections and others, that democracies can survive flawed elections, as long as there are the other parts are 'working."

these include such aspects, such as freedom of speech, a separate judiciary, civil rights etc....and the concept that no one is above the law...obviously there are many more values etc that combine to make for a stable democracy....

i guess you missed again on the demonization of israeli democracy....
--------------

you might want to look at gaza, westbank, iran, syria, lebanon, jordan, egypt, saudi arabia, etc etc etc for non democratic governments in the region, where there is in fact little education toward such governments......that should be of real concern to the "caring progressive" as the Egyptian Army quietly makes it move.....

[azurnoir]

75. South Africa was also a democacy during apartheid

and "these include such aspects, such as freedom of speech, a separate judiciary, civil rights etc....and the concept that no one is above the law...obviously there are many more values etc that combine to make for a stable democracy...."

well I could give examples from both the US and Israel of those being trounced on. but I think they are well known here

But you have made it quite clear in this and other posts you've made in the past week that you feel Arabs incapable of forming a Democratic government that suits your standards as such, however if indeed the Military took over Egypt wouldn't that 'calm' Israel's fears? The military would hardly make war with Israel it's first priority especially considering the financial support it receives from the US, Iran really can't match that can it?

And in the event that it all goes south the 'Democratically elected' YP of Egypt allegedly gave Israel permission to invade Egypt to stop Hamas smuggling but this past weekend we saw the gas pipeline 'bombed by foreign saboteurs' would that invite be extended? BTW it was fortuitous that Bibi had the foresight to make sure that Israel has the reserves to not run out while the pipeline is/was down

[pelsar]

76. same confusion.....

South Africa wasn't a democracy since it neglected civil rights for its citizens....you're having a hard time with the concept that democracy has many aspects to it, not just a single one. Removing a major building block (i.e. civil rights) and you no longer have a democracy.

All democracies change and modify their values (within basic parameters), thats why stable working democracies dont depend upon a single value to define them.

and the confusion continues...is it intentional? or you just don't get it?...Arab societies and cultures can very well develop democracies, its just doesn't happen over night and without a change in their education system to develop the various aspects of a stable democracy (see post WWII japan for the classic example of how to do it, and gaza for how Not to do it.). This would be job for the progressives, at least those who really believe in their cause and want to really change the world-but it might be dangerous, hamas, iran, egypt, might not appreciate their ideals.


As far a calming israeli fears of a future attack by egypt......the Egyptian military is no guarantee either, all the muslim brotherhood has to do is to start infiltrating the military as they did in Pakistan and the instability returns. There is no long term substitute for a working democracy.

[azurnoir]

77. no 'confusion' what so ever at the moment there is no single value at work in Egypt

as to Israel's 'fears' yep I am sure Israel is quaking in it's boots right now, so I'll as how many battalions are lined up along the border right now, what alert level is IAF at right now? Yep I am sure it would just break Israel's heart to be forced to take back Sinai, fears of an attack by Egypt puleez, Israel's history says that Israel will attack first and the excuses are already being made such as the postings here about how 'frightened' Israel is of the big bad Egyptians but history tells us that Israel has beaten the Egyptians at least 4 times in past-1948,1956,1967, and 1973 and in a couple of those was indeed the one who fired the first shot, so really who has reason to be frightened?

[pelsar]

80. too bad..wrong again

israel is not "quaking in its boots"..and the IDF is not even on any kind of alert.....from what?...its the egyptian border guards that are a bit nervous, as per an interview with them.

still trying to make israel out to be the bad guy.....even when israel is not involved, and hasn't done anything......

---

and history?..its not your strong point, your much better at insinuating things, where you can "walk back from" than making statements.....israeli history is clear: dont attack israel, dont threaten israel and nothing will happen.....(basic history of the israeli wars-56 being the exception)

[azurnoir]

81. apparently sarcasm is lost on you my point is that Israel is not afraid

however here if you bother to look around we are told Israel is in fear, as to the previous wars with Egypt I am not wrong and Israel has beaten Egypt in every one, I do not however believe that Israel is not readying for anything that may happen, not making Israel out as the 'bad guy' simply looking at past history and its outcomes

now as to this

"israeli history is clear: dont attack israel, dont threaten israel and nothing will happen.....(basic history of the israeli wars-56 being the exception)"

couldn't the bombing of the gas pipeline by 'foreign saboteurs' be considered an attack on Israel's security?

[pelsar]

89. no we're not afraid

guess i don't see the news your reading.....we're concerned for what happens next, but hardly "afraid"....and the invasion plans for the sinai are still in the drawer.

no, we dont see egyptian pipeline being blown up as an attack on israel s security.....its their problem (seems it was the third attack in three days on the egyptian forces/infrastructure in the in sinai.....bedouin/hamas/Palestinian combo as in the past bombings in the Sinai

(this is the same mentality/view point that claimed israel invaded lebanon for its water.... )

[azurnoir]

94. well there are some here that at least until very recently pumping the idea

that Israeli's were terrified of what might transpire in Egypt but I am glad you have cleared that up. Now as to the 'future' it appears that at least for now the Egyptian military has taken over and Mubarak will at least to all appearances step down, no surprises there either.
The problem I could see easily developing WRT the treaty is not one of military attack but one of gas supplies and especially prices, what if Egypt decides to raise the price of the gas it supplies to Israel?

[pelsar]

95. then prices go up...as they have been recently

At this point i doubt the egyptian military will cut off the gas......they're going to be quite busy consolidating and trying to figure out how to govern.

and Israel has a huge gas field off the coast of Haifa...and a smaller one off ashkelon....and gaza even has their own, if they want to develop it (israel offered to help the gazans at one point, though i don't know that status of that now).

once the field off haifa is developed israel goes independent and might possibly export gas..... so the egyptian gas is not that important.

http://www.oilinisrael.net/top-stories/israel-discovers-huge-natural-gas-field

[ProgressiveMuslim]

101. Israel clearly "neglects" civil rights for its citizens. Does that negate its status as a democracy

Let's get this straight.

When Arab Muslims engage in free and fair elections, and a muslim party wins, it's Islamic fundamentalism.

When Israeli Jews elected right wing religious nuts, it's glorious democracy?

[pelsar]

102. which citizens?

perhaps some details?

the Palestinians of the westbank are occupied not citizens. If israel decides that the westbank is part of "greater israel" and they don't give the arabs citizenship then it will cease to be a democracy.

or have you found some imperfections in terms of allocation of resources between the various subculture groups within israel.....something that hardly negates the definition of democracy.
--------

When Arab Muslims engage in free and fair elections, and a muslim party wins, it's Islamic fundamentalism.
just like the jewish religions parties are declared fanatics...so your complaining about the arabs getting the same treatment as the jews....
(and the jewish party kach was declared illegal.....)

thats the problem with democracy..it attempts to keep things in balance and allows for free speech, so we get to declared muslim parties fundamentalist and israeli arabs get to declare zionist racists....thats the beauty of democracy.
-----------


you know, i've always wondered why the progressives don't have the belief in their cause like you find within christian missionaries...willing to go to dangerous places to spread the faith. You would think that a true progressive would be willing to risk their life to spread the word to teach the down trodden oppressed "brown people" the real light of progressiveness (civil rights, womens rights, right to free speech, etc).....you just dont see it.
i mean where were the progressives flying in to cairo to be with the "people".....western communists fought in spain, zionists gave up comfy lifestyles, even western pro Palestinians went to fight for their beliefs, so where are the progressives?

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pelsar]

106. i would agree that i am a cultural elitist....

i believe western democratic values are superior to those other cultures that include such customs as honor killings, FGM, forced marriages etc...and i believe those westerners who also believe that, whether they like it or not are also cultural ethnocentric elitists....after all they are declaring some local customs 'not acceptable, based on their own cultural beliefs.

complicated?...yes, here we agree. I also agree with the concept of different cultures having different values and i don't really want to see a single culture for all the various peoples of this world...so there an inherent contradiction in my view. there should be i.e muslim countries, christian countries, etc

stop with the racist crap...pre WWII the japanese had no conception of what a democracy is...today, they've got one. The israeli arabs have proved that they understand very well how democracy works and live in one....its just take some education.

The arab regimes and people can get their own as well....no one robbed them of anything The western powers certainly made a mess, but there is no evidence that there was going to be some development toward democracy in the arab history prior to the western invasions. They can start anytime they want (as per irans attempt and now egypts), its just not easy nor guaranteed, that should be obvious to everyone.

Israel and me, will be a lot safer with democracies as its neighbors as opposed to dictatorships, make no mistake about that.

as far your multiparty utopia....study israel better, its may work, but its fukin mess, with reps having very little loyalty to the people and we cant kick out the worthless ones. (dont get me started on that subject, i have a lot to say and its not "pretty").

as far a the US goes....democracy is imperfect and always will be....people are imperfect, so the striving never stops.

[Ken Burch]

62. Then again, Kadima is ALSO essentially a right-wing party.

It's made up of the old Ariel Sharon wing of Likud, combined with Shimon Peres' cynical, Ashkenazim-supremacist fan club from what used to be Labor(they left along with Peres because Labor had the temerity to democratically replace him with Amir Peretz, a man who committed the crime of not only being an actual social democ0rat but of also daring to have sought a major party leadership after having been born Mizrahi-in other words, in a country where the Ashkenazim see themselves as the natural elite, Peretz forgot "his place).

Kadima was the party of the failed Lebanon invasion(which didn't fail to slaughter thousands of innocent Lebanese civilians)and of Operation Cast Lead. On domestic issues, it backs Netanyahu's Thatcher-on-benzedrine privatization program and his destruction of the country's social welfare system. Kadima has no left-of-center policies on ANY major issues.

Seen in that light, we have to face the sickening reality that in the last Israeli election, over 80% of the voters backed right-wing parties. Shameful, and pointless.

[shira]

63. And the USA is more rightwing than Israel while Egypt has no leftwing. So...? n/t

[Ken Burch]

64. Egypt has a huge leftwing...it's part of the democratic revolution that's overthrowing Mubarak

You know, the democratic revolution that you are desperate to pretend either

a)Isn't really happening or

b)Is nothing but a Muslim Brotherhood plot?

I hate to use this cliche, given the locale of this event, but...

DENIAL AIN'T JUST A RIVER IN EGYPT

Just admit that the people of that country are proving you wrong about the inherent barbarity and irredeemability of the Arab world.

[shira]

65. Okay, what is their political agenda? What exactly do they stand for? Be specific please. n/t

[Ken Burch]

66. Here is a list of their demands, as quoted by the Associated Press

Following are the demands of the Egyptian anti-government protesters.

- The movement began with an Internet call for "freedom, dignity and democracy."

- The top demand in eight days of protests has been the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak and no transfer of power to his son, Gamal.

They then have a sequential list of demands.

- First, their representatives will negotiate with the military only after Mubarak's departure. They reject negotiations with the new vice president, Omar Suleiman, the former intelligence chief and army general. However, some might be willing to talk with Suleiman if Mubarak steps down. Many consider Suleiman tainted because he was appointed by Mubarak

- They want negotiations on a transitional period during which the constitution will be rewritten to set term limits on the presidency, among other changes.

- They then want free and fair elections for a president and new parliament.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2014097770_apmlegyptprotestdemands.html

(in other words, a broad-based coalition of all Egyptians, including the left, for democracy in Egypt.

Also, the name of the group leading this revolt is the April 6th Youth movement...an organization independent of the Muslim Brotherhood and controlled by no particular party.

[shira]

67. Doesn't sound any different than what Palestinians wanted 5 years ago, and received with Hamas.

What makes you believe this movement is in any way "liberal" and not grossly rightwing?

[Ken Burch]

68. Why should I bother with this exchange?

You're just going to reject the idea that Arabs are capable of democracy and liberal change no matter what I post.

BTW, the Hamas program has nothing in common with the values of the April 6th Youth Movement.

[shira]

69. So you're behind an Egyptian political movement that you hope isn't as grossly rightwing as Mubarak

....or far worse?

You basically have no idea what they really stand for, right?

Like against sharia, for equal rights WRT women, gays, religious minorities, for due process, separation of powers, etc..? Maybe if we all wish really hard, this is what most of the revolution stands for?

:shrug:

[Ken Burch]

71. You know perfectly well that the revolt against Mubarak is not a call for sharia

And that Mubarak has never been a protector of gays, women, or religous minorities(it was ordinary Egyptian Muslims, the vast majority of them anti-Mubarak, who protected the Coptic Christians from fundamentalist violence right before the revolt began).

And again...what do YOU really think should be done?

You know perfectly well that Mubarak can never regain the support of the Egyptian people again, you KNOW that keeping him in power cannot ever weaken the fundamentalists or lead to greater liberalism(dictatorships are never the incubators of democracy, they simply can't be)and you know perfectly well that Mubarak could only be kept in office, even through the elections, with a bloodbath that would traumatize the Egyptian people for the rest of eternity.

It's not possible to stop what's happening. You have to hope that things will get better...because that's the only thing anyone can to at ANY moment of change. Change cannot be forcibly stopped.

How could any possible good come of trying to keep Mubarak from falling? There's no such thing as a benevolent despot, and Mubarak was never going to be benevolent to start with.

[shira]

73. So if worse comes to power after Mubarak, it's the will of the people and so be it - right Ken?

Theocratic rule? So what, that's what the people voted in. War with Israel, okay whatever...

:eyes:

I think the Attaturk example is the way to go for real democracy to take shape.

[Ken Burch]

78. You can't keep Egypt a one-party state for decades to come.

And Mubarak is no Attaturk.

[shira]

96. So you're for the will of the people if they vote for theocracy and more conflict vs. Israel? n/t

[Ken Burch]

98. You can't reduce the question to that

I'm for the idea that the people of a country have a right to rule themselves.

Your mindset is imperial, and supposes that outsiders have the right to determine when a country is "ready" to govern itself.

History has proven that outsiders aren't qualified to do that.

You can't seriously agree with the maniac in the OP who said that the Arab world should be denied democracy for "a generation" more, and perhaps longer?

And there's this...

Even if you are right about Egypt(which you aren't)how WOULD keeping Mubarak, or someone like Mubarak, in absolute power there for another generation make the Muslim Brotherhood go away? Has there EVER been an instance, anywhere, in which keeping a country under dictatorship for an extended period of time ever made the opposition to that dictatorship get LESS extreme?

You and I are Westerners, shira. It isn't UP to us to say to the people of Egypt(or the people of Palestine)"no, you have to live under a police state until WE say you don't".

And keeping Egypt under dictatorship now couldn't protect Israel anyway-it could only increase the liklihood, later, that the Egyptian people would turn to the Brotherhood simply because the Brotherhood could take the defeat of the independent pro-democracy movement now as proof that a democratic revolt COULDN'T overturn the current leaders. Neither of us want that.

Keeping people under tyranny only makes them more desperate. IT NEVER MAKES THEM MORE DEMOCRATIC.

[shira]

100. Do you believe Kach should be able to run in Israel or the Nazi party in any western democracy?

And you wouldn't have a problem with Kach, the Nazi party, or any party in Egypt coming to power via the will of the people?

[Ken Burch]

104. It is NEVER that simple-stop repeating a meaningless question.

And nobody in Egypt is comparable to Kach(In Israel, Beitenyu IS comparable to them and is in the government, so you don't have self-righteousness priveleges on that one).

I believe there needs to be a large anti-fascist movement everywhere(which is why I support the antifascist movement in Egypt).

If you take the view that "the people can't be trusted", you are NOT a believer in democracy.

[shira]

107. You're avoiding the question. Here's another: How is Kach worse than the Muslim Brotherhood?

And another....

How is Israel Beteinu worse than the Muslim Brotherhood?

This should be interesting.

[Ken Burch]

110. The question is irrelevant

You're trying to get me to agree that there are circumstances in which free elections shouldn't be allowed. Anyone who agrees with that has become, by definition, TOTALLY anti-democratic. You can't say that democracy if ok for some people, but not others.

And I didn't say that Beitenyu was worse than the Brotherhood, or that it was worse than Hamas, so I'm not going to play that game. Do you plan to stop the McCarthyite tactics ANY time soon?

If you give people the right to choose their own destiny, generally they will make a humane, sensible choice. You can't assume that Arabs are any LESS capable of that than any other people. To do so is to be racist. Arabs are not genetically incapable of decent self-government. Nor are they Nazis. So please stop acting as if you've got absolute proof that the vast majority of anti-Mubarak people are fascist berserkers who have no other interests in life but destroying Israel. They aren't.

[shira]

111. No it's not - and electing a Hamas or MB into power, when such an organization will never allow...

...itself to ever be voted out once they're in - THAT, Ken, is "by definition TOTALLY anti-democratic", to use your very own words.

Even you would have to admit that.

:)

[Ken Burch]

70. I just realized the rhetorical trick you did.

Yes, Palestinians wanted greater democracy(and still do). The fact that Hamas(which didn't PROMISE greater democracy)ended up winning the PA elections does not invalidate that-NOR does it vindicate the argument that Palestinians would be freer if the PA didn't exist and they were still living with no autonomy at all.

Hamas does not prove that Palestinians are incapable of democracy.

[shira]

109. It was no trick, it was a routine Zionist plot.

What makes you believe Palestinians want real democracy, in that they'd vote for a party run by people like Sari Nusseibeh and/or Ray Hanania?

I'm pretty sure genuinely liberal Palestinians would be labeled as Zionist pawns by the more extreme Palestinian elements.

[pelsar]

74. so?....it has right wing coalition...

and previous to that there was left leaning coalition.....thats how democracies work and thats the way it should be, otherwise you get yourself a dictatorship....or perhaps you really dont like the concept of democracies where peoples opinion, including those you don't like, get to have a say...hmm

as you wrote; shameful and pointless

(tolerance is actually an important part of working democracies, i get the impression, that you don't agree)


-----------------------
your analysis btw the is sooooo colored and based on selective events that its clear you opinions are ideologically based and not based on both historical, current events and knowledge of israeli society.

[Ken Burch]

84. I accept that the Israeli electorate has the right to make its choices

By the same token, I have the same right that progressive Israelis have to feel that this last choice was horrific. Tolerance INCLUDES tolerance of dissenting and minority views.

[Shaktimaan]

82. Kind of an oversimplification.

Kadima WAS formed, after all, so that Sharon could disengage with Gaza, a move that received heavy support from the left and outright hysterics from the right.

But then, attributing its creation to outright racism is somewhat worse than an oversimplification.

[Ken Burch]

83. I didn't attribute the entirety of Kadima's creation to racism

I attributed the defection of Shimon Peres to Kadima IN PART to that(and also to the fact that Peres was too much of an egomaniac to accept the fact that he wasn't simply ENTITLED to retake the Labor leadership any time he wanted to).

[Shaktimaan]

85. Okay...

I'll admit to not knowing a great deal about Peres so I don't know where you are getting the idea that his leaving Labor owes anything to anti-sephardic beliefs. What is your basis for that assertion?

[Ken Burch]

86. He was defeated by Amir Peretz

Amir Peretz is the FIRST Mizrahi elected to lead a major political party in Israel(at the time, Labor was still the official opposition). The convention in Israeli society for most of its existence was that the Ashkenazim(northern European immigrants and their descendants)who founded the Zionist movement were the natural leaders of the country, with the Sephardim and Mizrahim reduced to being the "working stiffs" of the place, the people who did menial work so that Arabs wouldn't have to be hired to do it.

Peres himself may not have had this prejudice, but a huge number of his supporters did(his own brother even made the false accusation that Moroccan Mizrahi, the ethnic group from which Amir Peretz emerged, supported Franco in the Spanish Civil War!) and it played a major role both in the mass defections of Ashkenazim from Labor to Kadima, but also in the emergence of the so-called "Pensioners' Party", a grouping that had no particular reason to exist since Labor was fully committed to defending the rights of Israeli pensioners.

Another reason(but I think a far less important one)for those defections was that Amir Peretz was the first Labor leader in decades who was actually interested in reviving the social democratic heritage of that party.

[Shaktimaan]

88. Your view is a little outdated in my opinion.

I'm not going to pretend that there aren't significant disparities between the sephardic and Ashkenaz populations in Israel. That said there's been a huge amount of integration between those communities since the famous discrimination following their emigration. Probably close to 30% of Jewish Israelis come from mixed parents nowadays.

The community that's exhibited a higher degree of racism recently are the Russians. To some degree this is to be expected and will decline as their subsequent generations integrate. Point being there aren't these two monloliths, the ashkenaz and the mizrahim. As in any immigrant-heavy culture race relations are a complex web of ever changing issues.

While it's true that the leaders of the country have pretty much all been picked from a small population of white, elite, ashkenazi communities, this same thing is true in most countries, including America. The fact is that it WAS this same small population of politically active, educated and connected people who first shaped Zionism and instigated Israel's creation.

However there is a huge difference between acknowledging the de-facto segregation that occurs in all societies and arguing that a major function of Kadima's creation would be to keep non-Ashkenazi Israelis "in their place." Most Israelis are sephardic. And Peretz did win after all, and by a sizable margin too if I remember correctly. The fact that racist lines were taken by some and that a large contingent left Labor to back Kadima is not really sufficient evidence to assert that the key rationale was a racial supremacy ideology. Especially since a more plausible explanation exists, namely politics. Peretz is far left of Peres after all.

On another topic I would challenge your description of Kadima as a right-wing party. The whole point of its formation was to foster disengagement from Gaza. Hardly a right-wing plan. Cast Lead was supported by an overwhelming majority of Israelis. It wasn't a right wing plan either, especially if you consider the restraint Kadima showed over the course of years of rocket and mortar attacks. Neither was Lebanon a fight Kadima picked. Aside from launching a far larger scale invasion it's unclear what actions they could have taken that would have led to a better outcome.

It's a centrist party. Right wing would be Shas or Yisrael Beiteinu.

[oberliner]

91. "which didn't fail to slaughter thousands of innocent Lebanese civilians"

What is the source for your claim that "thousands of innocent Lebanese civilians" were "slaughtered" during the invasion of Lebanon?

That would appear to contradict every other source I've seen with respect to casualty totals.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shaayecanaan]

35. Agreed

there is no equivalent of the April 8th movement in Syria, even the Muslim Brotherhood is vestigial. The MB is tolerated in Egypt but in Syria membership in the organisation is a capital offence. There are differences between the two.

As for history...Iran had a democratically elected government and would probably be a functioning republic today if not for the interventions of Britain and the United States (google the Mossadegh government). Even today there is a democratic process in Iran which is generally meaningful, although deeply flawed. Lebanon is a true democracy, a bit more violent than most but then again Israel is hardly a perfect democracy either.

[oberliner]

39. There is not a "democratic process in Iran which is generally meaningful"

That is an absolutely preposterous statement.

The Supreme Leader is the top authority in that country and he appoints most of Iran's leadership (and must approve those he does not appoint himself).

And, of course, the position of Supreme Leader is not an elected one - and there have been only two since the 1979 Revolution - with the succession occurring upon the first Supreme Leader's death.

The current Supreme Leader has held that unelected and supremely powerful post since 1989.

[shaayecanaan]

47. There have been six presidents of Iran since 1980...

and with the exception of the last election, they were elected in genuine contests between competing candidates. And in terms of municipal elections, the pro-Ahmadinejad conservatives lost to the reformists in 2006.

That is the "meaningful" part. Of course, the position of the supreme leadership is the "deeply flawed" part.

[oberliner]

48. Three of those six presidents were elected with over 90 percent of the vote

When one candidate wins 95 percent of the vote (as was the case in two of the Iranian presidential elections), one can hardly speak of "geniune contests between competing candidates" - that is not much of a competition.

Two other were elected with 70 and 80 percent of the vote.

Ahmadinejad was elected with 60 percent of the vote in elections that you note were problematic.

In all cases, the unelected Supreme Leader maintained the final say and could not be removed from office by any sort of popular election.

With respect to the role of the unelected Supreme Leader in the presidential elections themselves, the unelected Council of Guardians (which is selected by the Supreme Leader) blocked hundreds (perhaps closer to thousands) of candidates from competing in presidential elections throughout the 80's and 90's because they were deemed unacceptable for one reason or another.

[shaayecanaan]

49. Perhaps in some cases its because they were the best candidate...

the first election in 1980 was of an independent human rights activist called Banisadr who was very well regarded in Iran. He was exactly the sort of bloke who would have gotten nowhere in American political life because he wasn't in the pocket of at least half a dozen public corporations.

Certainly the Iranian public in 1980 had a far more appealing choice than the average American voter does given the monopolisation of political power in the US by the two main political parties.

Admittedly the elections up until 1993 were far more stage managed, with the Supreme Leadership not allowing viable reformist candidates to run.

In 1997, the reformist candidate Khatami won the election with 70% of popular support. This was widely seen as an unanticipated upset. He won another subsequent election, before Ahmadinejad came to power with 60% of the vote in the subsequent election. Ahmadinejad won a subsequent election that was widely believed to be rigged, although it should be noted that polls consistently had him in front of his two opponents.

Since then the conservatives have lost municipal elections.

I suppose if you regard Iranian democracy as meaningless (which I suppose is your contention given that that is the opposite of meaningful) then you are going to have to serve up some kind of explanation for why reformists are often successful in Iranian elections, compared with the usual sham elections (in Africa for example) where the same dictator gets voted in for thirty years with virtually 100% of the vote.

[oberliner]

50. The "independent human rights activist called Banisdar" was impeached in a year

In spite of the fact that he won 80 percent of the vote in 1980, the unelected Supreme Leader had him kicked out of office in 1981.

I would think that his brief tenure and swift removal as president would help to illustrate the point that I am making.

How can a presidential election be said to be meaningful if an unelected Supreme Leader can have the winner of said election removed essentially on his whim?

You appear to also be recognizing the fact that virtually all political parties were outlawed by the Supreme Leader - thus making the slate of candidates only comprised of those that were members of parties that the unelected Supreme Leader deemed to be acceptable.

This too would appear to make those elections less than meaningful.

In the 1997 election, only four candidates were permitted to run for president by the unelected Supreme Leader - out of several hundred who wished to run. Three of the four candidates (including Khatami) were Muslim clerics and all four were members of Iran's ruling elite. What of the other dozens of candidates who wished to run but were deemed too liberal or too reform-minded by the Supreme Leader? How can an election be said to be meaningful when one unelected despot gets to choose who is on the ballot?

[shaayecanaan]

53. You previously implied that Banisadr was illegitimate

because he received more than 80% of the popular vote and therefore his election was not genuine (your logic, not mine). You now seem to be saying that he was the people's choice who was hounded out of office. I am more inclined to agree with the latter, but you should at least try and keep a straight story.

Banisadr was dismissed from office after being impeached by parliament. Unfortunately he was less than judicious in his choice of company and his connections to the PMOI led to a public outcry against him after the Hafte Tir bombing, which was linked to PMOI elements, although there was never any suggestion that Banisadr had any personal connection to the bombing.

While not edifying, an event like this would probably have not played out that much differently in most western democracies. In the United States these days it is relatively commonplace for political opponents of a regime to suggest that a sitting president should be impeached.

As I conceded at the outset, the political system in Iran is deeply flawed. However it can be distinguished from elections in Egypt, for example, which are simply a sham.

It is worth noting that the Iranian protestors in 2009 were in favour of Moussavi, a candidate who was allowed to run on the ballot. In the end he probably would not have won anyway, due to the competing campaigns of Moussavi, Karroubi and Khatami for the reformist vote.

[oberliner]

54. You keep ignoring the presence of the Supreme Leader in each of your posts

...except one brief sentence suggesting that he is part of the "deeply flawed" part of your comment. I put it to you that that is something more than an understatement.

I noted that the elected presidents consistently received extremely high percentages of the vote (including 95 percent in two cases). This generally points to something less than a free and fair election, wouldn't you say? Especially when coupled with the fact that large numbers of candidates and parties were banned from participation.

The fact that the winner of the election could so easily be removed from office (and forced into exile) at the instigation of the unelected Supreme Leader scarcely after a year in office further cements the argument that we are not talking about meaningful elections.

The elections in Iran are clearly a sham. Only candidates approved by the unelected Supreme Leader are permitted to run. And any president who runs afoul of said unelected Supreme Leader will see their proposed legislation be overruled by the unelected Guardian Council, and could possibly be removed from office.

Ultimate power rests in the Supreme Leader who is not elected and cannot be removed from office via any means by the Iranian people.

The same person has held this position in Iran for over twenty years.

[shaayecanaan]

55. Deeply flawed, extremely flawed, very flawed

pick your superlative of choice if you consider that the others are understated. I completely agree with you that the Iranian system is flawed.

"The elections in Iran are clearly a sham."

If thats the case, then you probably disagree with the aims of the Green Movement, who are insisting that their man Moussavi should have had a fair tilt at the presidency and the votes should have been counted. But if you say the position of president is meaningless, then they probably shouldnt bother, they should just go home.

"Only candidates approved by the unelected Supreme Leader are permitted to run. And any president who runs afoul of said unelected Supreme Leader will see their proposed legislation be overruled by the unelected Guardian Council, and could possibly be removed from office."

Alright. So you would concede that Ahmadinejad is not really in a position of power, and that it is really the Supreme Leader that controls the political process in Iran?

[shaayecanaan]

87. No response, eh?

Zing. Sometimes its a pity that this is a discussion board with about a dozen observers.

[pelsar]

27. and with the son...

little has change in terms of the government and its policies...The syrians are not "testing" the son for good reason.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shira]

33. Democratically electing another dictator/tyrant for life sucks, don't you think?

Especially if it turns into something on the order of Iran, from the Shah to the religious fanatics...

I much prefer a genuine liberal democracy, how about yourself?

[Ken Burch]

36. A "genuine liberal democracy" can NEVER be created

by keeping an authoritarian dictator in power. There's NO reason for you to keep implying that all elections in Egypt could do would be to bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power.

What's happened in Egypt in the last week is the best chance that country has had to AVOID a Muslim Brotherhood takeover.

[shira]

37. It wasn't created by replacing the Czar w/ Stalin, the Shah w/ Khomeini or the PA w/Hamas....

How many times must history repeat itself before some type of understanding takes place?

[Ken Burch]

38. The Tsar WASN'T replaced by Stalin-Stalin came along later.

And if the West had done the sensible thing and recognized and accepted the Bolshevik Revolution in the first place, Stalin would never have had his chance. He only came to power because the West isolated the Revolution, trying to put the old order back into power when everyone knew that no one in Russia wanted the old order back.

And we BOTH know that if the Tsar and the Shah(both of whose titles were tranlations of the word "Caesar", as was the title of Germany's Kaiser)had stayed in power, those countries would never have changed at all.

The problem in both of the examples you cite is that the tyrants stayed on TOO LONG...not that they fell. There was never any chance that the Tsar OR the Shah would have allowed their countries to evolve into constitutional democracies.

Mubarak has never been on the side of democracy. Even YOU would have to admit that there's no excuse for his banning all opposition parties for the last THIRTY years.

Besides, Mubarak himself CLAIMS he'd leave in the fall...what difference would eight more months of the tyrant make? Why would giving him a few months make him do what he refused to do for thirty years...allow the Egyptian people to be free?

There IS no such thing as a benign despot, shira. Mubarak is JUST as repressive as the Muslim Brotherhood could ever have been(and besides, at this point, even YOU would have to admit that the protestors in Tahrir Square are independent democrats, not Brotherhood fanatics).

[whosinpower]

40. Ah - but who installed the Shah?

And what was that before the Shah? Oh yeah....it was a democratically elected official who sought bigger royalties for oil and this, the Brit's could not accept. Oops.

edit to include - according to the Guardian - the green revolution in Iran is again organizing protests. AND, according to Yahoo news, even Saudi Arabia is not immune to protests. A small group of WOMEN are protesting. Bahrain's women are also organizing a protest movement for political reforms that would include women being allowed to vote.

The dissatisfaction of the public in regards to its leaders in the Arab world is breathtaking, and becoming louder and clearer. Hang on - the storm has not subsided.

[azurnoir]

42. wasn't the CIA instrumental in installing the Shah's artificial monarchy?

after the overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddeq? My understanding was that it also had a bit to do with Mosaddeq supposedly being a bit too friendly with the USSR

[whosinpower]

43. yes

Operation Ajax

snip from wikipedia - The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, on August 19, 1953 (known as the 28 Mordad coup<1> in Iran), was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh orchestrated by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States.<2> The coup launched 26 years of dictatorship under Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi, who relied heavily on U.S. support to hold on to power until the Shah himself was overthrown in February 1979.<3>

I am not sure about USSR influence - but if a person follows the money - it leads back to Iran nationalizing its oil.

You may not trust wikipedia - but if you google Operation Ajax - there are many many many many links.

Obama's Cairo Speech was the closest any American offical came to acknowledging how harmful this was to the people of Iran.

[Ken Burch]

72. Mussadegh's major crime was nationalizing the oil, which was controlled by the soon-to-be-extinct

British Empire(the nationalization of the Suez, the event that essentially destroyed that Empire, was only three years away).

Before he left office in 1951, the supposed "Labour" prime minister of the UK, Clement Attlee, was trying to overthrow Mubarak, according to Howard Zinn.

[shira]

97. The US assisted Iran in replacing Mossadegh - so an overthrow was most likely inevitable

Many Iranians would be disappointed to hear they had no role in getting rid of Mossadegh and that it was mostly the USA pulling the strings.

[Ken Burch]

99. Nobody in Iran WANTED Mossadegh overthrown

There was never any popular support for the Pahlevis(a group of con-artists that had no real history as royals and were only in power because the British put them there in the 1930's).

[LeftishBrit]

105. What about the 1989-90 revolts in Eastern Europe?

Would you not agree that in *most* cases they led to something better than what happened before, even if also in most cases far from perfect, and often disappointing to those who had had dreams of something much better. In one case - Yugoslavia - it did lead to something much worse, which shows that it *can* go wrong; but in most countries it didn't.

Would/did you also oppose the Tiananmen Square protests in China, because things *could* have gone wrong in a country that had no real tradition of democratic government - and destabilization in a country the size of China could have had serious consequences? Yet I think the chances are that something much better would have ensued - though perhaps not up to the hopes of the most idealistic.

I don't expect that the downfall of the Mubarak government will instantly lead to perfect democracy in Egypt; but I think there's a good chance of something better than the present situation. It could also go horribly wrong. But I think there would have been a *greater* chance of things going horribly wrong if the regime had gone on longer, and e.g chaos suddenly ensued shortly after Mubarak's death, than in this situation.

My best thoughts to the people of Egypt - this is just the beginning, and not over yet, and they need and deserve something much better than they've had.

[shira]

108. Ideology vs. Empirical evidence and rational reasoning

All indicators point to things being the same (at best) post-Mubarak, or worse with the theological fundies of the MB (the most organized political group in Egypt besides Mubarak's) gaining more power.

I don't see how you believe there's a good chance something better will result in Egypt with Mubarak out of power. What evidence do you have that there's a good chance of this resulting? Because I'd love to believe that's true.

[Ken Burch]

112. What indicators are you talking about?

Is there ANYTHING that could EVER convince you that what's happening in Egypt isn't just a Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy? Do you just believe that Arabs are incapable of actually WANTING democracy.

[shira]

113. And yet another strawman, as I've never indicated the protests are a MB conspiracy.

I've only made the case that the MB, besides Mubarak's party, is the best organized political party in Egypt and that Mubarak has made it impossible for a secular/liberal movement to give either party a run for the money.

Thus, the situation will either remain the same or get worse.

[Ken Burch]

114. No, that is NOT a certainty.

If secular opposition parties can organize(and they will, now that the state of emergency is to be lifted)then support will swing to them and away from the MB.

You STILL haven't ever explained how maintaining dictatorship and delaying elections could ever REDUCE support for the MB. Are you now willing to admit that they can't?

[shira]

115. It's not a certainy because you have blind faith a strong secular/liberal party will emerge.

Well, that's good enough for me because if you say so it MUST be true.

[bemildred]

79. Syria: 'A kingdom of silence'

Analysts say a popular president, dreaded security forces and religious diversity make a Syrian revolution unlikely.

---

"First of all, I'd argue that people in Syria are a lot more afraid of the government and the security forces than they were in Egypt," Nadim Houry, a Human Rights Watch researcher based in Lebanon, says.

"The groups who have mobilised in the past in Syria for any kind of popular protest have paid a very heavy price - Kurds back in 2004 when they had their uprising in Qamishli and Islamists in the early 1980s, notably in Hama."

The so-called Hama massacre, in which the Syrian army bombarded the town of Hama in 1982 in order to quell a revolt by the Muslim Brotherhood, is believed to have killed about 20,000 people.

"I think that in the Syrian psyche, the repression of the regime is taken as a given, that if something would happen the military and the security forces would both line up together. I think that creates a higher threshold of fear."

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/02/201129103121562395.html