And Mubarak is set to go! It has been nothing short of inspiring watching the actions going on halfway around the world in Egypt. What started as a protest organized via Facebook turned into a vibrant, spontaneous, leader-less movement that topped a 30 year old regime headed by US-supported Mubarak.
Often lack of leadership or centralized organization is cited as that which causes revolutions to fail, but here it can be easily seen that if anything it was this lack of those two criteria that emboldened the movement. Mohammed Bamyeh, writer with Jadaliyya a Ezine by the Arab Studies Journal, noted that:
Here one found out what was possible through spontaneous movement rather than a fixed program, organization or leadership. Spontaneity thus became the compass of the Revolution and the way by which it found its way to what turned out to be its radical destination (source).
While some political movements clamor for “representation,” many protesters “strongly resisted being represented by any existing group or leader” and rather “…a common statement I heard was that it was ‘the people’ who decide.” A sentiment that I think we could all do well to spread in our daily lives and in our communities.
“…a common statement I heard was that it was ‘the people’ who decide.†A sentiment that I think we could all do well to spread in our daily lives and in our communities”.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/562840/201102101920/What-Egyptians-Really-Do-Want.htm
I’m still skeptical. The United States is not going to allow any anti-US interests to take power in Egypt. I’m thinking we talked Mubarek into stepping down, in so many ways…maybe made it worth his while…in so many ways. Maybe gave him an offer he can’t refuse, in so many ways. The United States has invested billions putting and keeping Mubarek in charge, and I’m suddenly supposed to believe they’re down with a peoples’ coup? Obama’s trying to change things but there’s some things he just won’t change in his 4 or 8 years. Too many sacred cows in our military and ties with Israel, many of which funded Obama’s campaigns in the first place. I’m thinking we’re trying to appease the people of Egypt for now, but in the end, meet the new boss, same as the old boss. What’s hilarious is that tea baggers here are comparing their cause to the Egyptian protests. Yeah, the abjectly impoverished Islamic, dark skinned Egyptian and the white, middle class American are just two peas in a pod…
“The United States is not going to ALLOW any …”– as much as you believe your almighty Obama is all powerfull omnipresent…he’s not. 🙁
“Obama’s trying to change things but…”– where exactly does he enter scene?
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110211/D9LAS3U00.html
“What’s hilarious is that tea baggers here are comparing their cause to the Egyptian protests. Yeah, the abjectly impoverished Islamic, dark skinned Egyptian and the white, middle class American are just two peas in a pod…”
–What’s hilarious is that idiot American liberals (redundancy noted) somehow think that losing an ally to a possibly more fundamental Islamist dictatorship will have absolutely no resonating effects in the increasing destabilization of the M.E.
“I’m still skeptical. The United States is not going to allow any anti-US interests to take power in Egypt. I’m thinking we talked Mubarek into stepping down, in so many ways…maybe made it worth his while…in so many ways. Maybe gave him an offer he can’t refuse, in so many ways.”
Wow, Rob, way to imagine that the United States just has outright control over foreign governments, and that the internal dynamics of foreign countries are less important than what the US “allows”.
Marshall, do you think the United States has given billions of dollars to Egypt because they don’t want a say in who runs the country?
Of course the United States would like a say in Egypt’s internal politics, although the aid that Egypt receives from the US is part of the agreement fostered by the Camp David Peace Accords, as is part of the aid that Israel receives from the US. Unless the United States wants to destabilize that arrangement, the continuation of aid to Egypt is essentially a given, regardless of who is running the country.
But to use a word like “allow” is very different from suggesting that the US “wants a say”. That implies a tremendous amount of influence and authority that frankly, the United States doesn’t have over Egypt.
You’re right. To say that the United States won’t “allow” an anti- U.S. leader in Egypt is a strong way of putting it. That being said, I’ll say it again. The United States will not allow an anti-U.S. leader in Egypt.
Marshall, I apologize for the sarcasm in the previous comment. Let me say, I hope you’re right. We should celebrate this moment in Egypt’s history (and the world’s history).