
Views from an Egyptian - rkwz
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1968394&cid=35025842
======
yummyfajitas
This is where I become ashamed of my government:

 _"“Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things. And he’s been very
responsible on, relative to geopolitical interest in the region, the Middle
East peace efforts; the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing
relationship with – with Israel. … I would not refer to him as a dictator.”_
\- Joe Biden

[http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2011/0127/Joe-
Bi...](http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2011/0127/Joe-Biden-says-
Egypt-s-Mubarak-no-dictator-he-shouldn-t-step-down)

 _"The Egyptian government has an important opportunity to be responsive to
the aspirations of the Egyptian people, and pursue political, economic and
social reforms that can improve their lives and help Egypt prosper."_ \-
Hillary Clinton

[http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2011/0126/The-
US...](http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2011/0126/The-US-response-
to-Egypt-s-protests)

Wow, that's a really proportionate criticism.

Fun fact: Egypt is our #3 recipient of foreign aid.

[http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s1298.p...](http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s1298.pdf)

It would be great if Biden, instead of saying Mubarak is not a dictator, said
something like this:

"Dear Egyptian Police and Military. The US government gives Egypt $1.5 Billion
every year. That's what is paying your salary. If you want to get paid, just
get out of the way."

~~~
hvs
Yeah, it's called Realpolitik and, for better or worse (usually worse), it's
generally the basis of American foreign policy.

That said, "idealism" is also often a _terrible_ basis for foreign policy as
well.

~~~
jbooth
Eh.. realpolitik is short term and almost always misses the big picture. When
things change, you wind up on the wrong side, like us with Mubarak right now.
Or all that Taliban and Saddam funding once upon a time.

There's a balance of course.. but in a case like this, I'd elevate America the
idea over America the set of short term interests, and I'm embarrassed by
Biden's comments too.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Indeed. People will make you think that Realpolitik is some hard-thinking,
tough-decisions geopolitical chess game. But it's not, it's just international
checkers, making the least bad decision at the last minute because you haven't
planned ahead. It's a shame that it has infected American foreign policy for
so long.

Naive idealism is no better, but pragmatic idealism is _far_ far better, but
also far more difficult.

~~~
jbooth
Yeah, if there's one thing I can't stand, it's hearing condescending "adult
opinions" on things that have been colossally mismanaged for decades.

~~~
yummyfajitas
For perhaps the first time ever, I wholeheartedly agree with jbooth for two
posts in a row.

------
csomar
I don't agree. It's not the whole population that will make the true
revolution. They'll help, but are not the main stream of the revolution.

Read my comment here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2151468>

Western Media has made false rumors that this is the Facebook revolution of
young people. Yeah, Facebook played a major role, but wasn't the key.

There is torture in these countries. To break police torture, you MUST torture
them. To torture them, you must have free people. People that don't have jobs,
families, are not related to a school or university, have absolutely nothing
that they can go to the streets and clash with the police.

There must be clashes with the police and blood. It's expensive to get your
freedom. 30 Million protesters will not change Mubarak mind. He is a dictator.
You need to get him out by force.

Will Egypt succeed? Too early to answer. The protests need to spread. I must
mention that the protests in Tunisia spread to 100% of the country. Every
meter square has protests of any kind. That thing drives police crazy and they
give up.

Can Mubarak win? Absolutely. If the protests doesn't spread, a few thousands
will be caught and tortured and the revolution will die. Fear will get back
stronger to citizen. That's exactly what happened in Algeria.

~~~
jacquesm
> To break police torture, you MUST torture them.

I hope you meant that in a figurative sense and not in a literal one, if you
meant that literally then I'm sorry, but that's absolutely not the case.

You break a bad regime by doing better, not by becoming like them.

I sincerely hope that El Baradei will get his way and will be allowed to lead
a transition government he seems like a decent fellow and has done a lot of
good by upholding a high standard of ethics at the IAEA (even when under
considerable pressure to do otherwise) and I can not for one second imagine
that he would condone torturing his former opponents.

Some blood may flow but less is better, not worse. It's possible for a
revolution to happen almost without bloodshed, typically mass strikes and
walk-outs as opposed to violent clashes with representatives of the
government.

Gandhi: "Nonviolence is a weapon of the strong"

edited: tx tsycho.

~~~
ajays
>> Gandhi: "Nonviolence is a weapon of the strong"

Gandhi has a romantic allure to people in the west, but the reality is he won
because the alternative was much worse.

It was the end of the WW. The British were tired. And there were 100s of 1000s
of Indian soldiers, just returned from years of fighting, who were ripe to be
recruited by the radical elements in India. This was enough for the Brits to
throw in the towel.

>> You break a bad regime by doing better, not by becoming like them.

You must get out and experience the real world. I like how you think, and in
an ideal world, this would be the way to go. But the reality is, dictators
don't got away quietly; they are driven out by violence and threats of
violence.

~~~
jacquesm
> You must get out and experience the real world.

I'll bet you that I've seen more of 'the real world' than you have, from
communist Poland before the wall fell to Colombia, and plenty of other places
both in times of relative quiet and in times of unrest, living there, not
holidaying.

If I count the countries that I've visited I come to 22 countries on 3
continents, I've probably spent more time outside of the country that I was
born in than in it.

Unrestrained calls for violence and torture are simply stupid and will
actually decrease the chances of success, violence is best applied with
restraint by a steady hand and a clear mind pursuing concrete goals.

Gandhi played his cars very smart making the British look like murderers of
innocents while at the same time showing a way out with their hide intact.

Speak softly and carry a big stick.

~~~
ajays
>> I'll bet you that I've seen more of 'the real world' than you have,...

No need to get into a pissing match. I've spent more than half of my life
abroad too.

Do you really think people can just walk up to Gadhafi and say, "we protest
peacefully, so please give us power"? Do you think Saddam could have been
deposed peacefully by his people?

Since we geeks love to categorize and form patterns, I'll put this forward:
the difference between the erstwhile empires (like the British, French, etc.)
and these despots is that those empires weren't cults of personality; there
wasn't 1 person brutalizing the public, like you have here (Ben Ali, Mubarak,
and Gadhafi (who's shitting bricks right now)). So when the push comes to
shove, the employees of the "empire" can walk away and allow for peaceful
transition of power; but the servants of these despots are too closely tied to
their masters (sometimes it is tribal loyalty), and don't go away quietly.

And finally: even though one may say that Gandhi's "revolution" was peaceful,
don't forget the million people killed in the subsequent blood-letting known
as the "Partition", where India and Pakistan were split from one.

~~~
jacquesm
> No need to get into a pissing match.

Agreed, so don't start them :)

> Do you really think people can just walk up to Gadhafi and say, "we protest
> peacefully, so please give us power"?

No, but I do think that if they cripple the country for an extended period
that he'll find himself without a police force and an army to do his bidding.
(see for instance Poland)

> Do you think Saddam could have been deposed peacefully by his people?

Saddam Himself would not have survived any turn but he did not have much
foreign support, Mubarak on the other hand still has a lot of foreign support.

> Since we geeks love to categorize and form patterns, I'll put this forward:
> the difference between the erstwhile empires (like the British, French,
> etc.) and these despots is that those empires weren't cults of personality;
> there wasn't 1 person brutalizing the public, like you have here (Ben Ali,
> Mubarak, and Gadhafi (who's shitting bricks right now)). So when the push
> comes to shove, the employees of the "empire" can walk away and allow for
> peaceful transition of power; but the servants of these despots are too
> closely tied to their masters (sometimes it is tribal loyalty), and don't go
> away quietly.

I'm with you there, and I think that some blood will flow. But it had better
be the right blood, to incite unarmed protesters to take on heavily armed riot
police and military is a great way to get a lot of people killed and to go
back to the status quo afterwards. Plenty of times this recipe has been tried
and has failed plenty of times as well (it _did_ occasionally succeed, but
those were unfortunately the exceptions rather than the rule).

> And finally: even though one may say that Gandhi's "revolution" was
> peaceful, don't forget the million people killed in the subsequent blood-
> letting known as the "Partition", where India and Pakistan were split from
> one.

Yes, that was very ugly, and effectively it has not even stopped today, and I
don't think it will stop in the foreseeable future.

------
acqq
The OP mentions Muslim Brotherhood as the worthy opposition, but they don't
appear as anything democratic:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood>

"The Brotherhood's stated goal is to instill the Qur'an and Sunnah as the
"sole reference point for ... ordering the life of the Muslim family,
individual, community ... and state""

~~~
yummyfajitas
I don't know about the Muslim Brotherhood, but very often Islamic opposition
parties are favored because they are perceived as less corrupt than the
existing regime. I know at least one non-Muslim who has voted for Islamic
parties on the grounds that "at least they don't get rich by sucking our
blood."

~~~
jacquesm
Much the same sentiment powers the Islamic hardliners in Turkey.

------
russnewcomer
I am growing a little more encouraged that the Tunisian and Egyptian
'revolutions' are true revolutions, and not just western media events
(Tehran's "Twitter Revolution"). Here's hoping that with the revolution comes
actual governmental change, too, instead of just new faces on the same
structure. That doesn't happen as often as people would hope.

------
jordanb
I'm very ambivalent on this uprising. Murbarak is a brutal, evil person but
the Muslim Brotherhood will be _no_ better for the people of Egypt than he is.

The Shah was a horrible person, but do you think the Ayatollah have brought
peace, prosperity, and democracy to Iran?

One thing a radical Egypt _will_ do is further destabilize the region.
Particularly the situation with Israel will grow very tense. I am no flag-
waver for Israel, but I can't see how a new enemy will do anything but further
harden the worst impulses of all participants.

~~~
jbooth
The Muslim Brotherhood is very much not in the driver's seat here. They're old
and irrelevant, this is a moment for the young.

~~~
jacquesm
the Iranian revolution was also powered by 'the young', and the Mullahs were
not in the drivers seat there either.

Though the return of Khomeini was definitely very much the catalyst.

~~~
michaelchisari
The Iranian left also had no blueprint for moving forward. They were able to
destabilize and oust the Shah, but they didn't know how to fill the power
vacuum. The mosques did. They were not a marginalized fringe political wing,
they were a cultural and religious force that quickly leveraged their position
to move into the political sphere.

Thirty years later, the situation in Egypt is different. The secular centrists
and left-wing have a clear model of how to fill the vacuum. Even if they
didn't before, Tunisia has provided one for them. There is little opportunity
for the Muslim Brotherhood to step in as strongmen willing to make order out
of chaos.

1979 Iran and 2011 Egypt are simply materially incomparable situations. There
is a possibility that the MB will cause headaches for an emergent democracy,
but their ability to seize control and establish a theocratic dictatorship is
minuscule, at best.

~~~
jacquesm
> their ability to seize control and establish a theocratic dictatorship is
> minuscule, at best.

Ok, that's a good thing then.

Is Iran financing them? Or do they have local support?

What are the relative proportions supporting these factions in the population?

~~~
jbooth
I'd speculate that Iran isn't financing them, because I've never heard an
allegation, they're Sunni, and they don't have a record of blowing up Israelis
or Americans.

Not sure on the popularity thing. I'd say plurality support, off the cuff,
based on recent history, but a big portion of that support is "anyone but
Mubarak" moreso than "sharia law rules". All gut feelings on my part though.

~~~
jacquesm
Ok, thanks.

I've been researching them a bit further and it definitely seems they would
command a majority of the votes at the moment so I really have no idea why
people are so quick to write them off.

Agreed on the 'anyone but Mubarak', if this thing does not blow over Mubarak
will be a very lucky man if he manages to even reside in Egypt, if he is
forced out and does not flee abroad in time he's as good as dead.

------
lkozma
A quite interesting perspective:
[http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/01/2011128...](http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/01/201112811331582261.html)

~~~
dkarl
I don't think words about democracy would have any bearing on protests in
Egypt and elsewhere. Young people there are fed up with unemployment,
corruption, and abuse of power. It may be obvious to us that the fix to those
things is democracy, but not everybody agrees. It is not clear what the
protesters want, even if those who speak for them speak of democracy. Do the
protesters want a different form of government, or do they want to be ruled
undemocratically by a decent, benevolent regime? Once again, it seems obvious
to us that it is foolish to hope for such a thing, but people across the world
have placed their faith in that hope for thousands of years, and even in the
United States, more people are concerned with the need to elect "good"
politicians who can be trusted than in pushing for transparency and
accountability.

Edit: Actually I am completely baffled that the author of that article refers
to these protests as "democracy movements." It seems like a very narcissistic
assumption for Americans to make. These protests may be revolts against
corrupt and repressive governments, but so was the revolution in Iran in 1979.

------
harry
Been watching live reports from the best source I can find:
<http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/> for about 30 minutes now.

------
ck2
This revolution as I understand it (barely) is a really tricky thing, here's
why:

If only chaos is created and the people don't take complete control soon,
there are a few opposing parties in Egypt, who could easily be classified as
terrorists, who could take advantage of this and take control.

But they aren't at that point yet so these fears aren't discussed (yet).
Government has not been dissolved. So if/when you hear that, everyone best be
paying attention.

------
adrianwaj
Stratfor: Egyptian Unrest Continues <http://youtu.be/tPX1qe8bH1s> (2:58)

------
pnathan
Consider the lessons of France, Russia 1917, and the former British Colonies.
Also, the Athenian democracy.

One lesson is: wisdom must be found to bring a country out of a dictatorship
into a just land. Another lesson is: untrammeled democracy is but mob rule and
leads nowhere.

------
rms
My opinion: the crucial distinction between the revolution in Tunisia and the
non-revolution in Egypt is that the Tunisian revolution was kicked off by a
self-immolation. Burning yourself alive is perhaps the most powerful human
form of expression against repression.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-immolation>

