Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
What Corruption and Force Have Wrought in Egypt
The uprising in Egypt, although united around the nearly universal desire to rid the country of the military dictator Hosni Mubarak, also presages the inevitable shift within the Arab world away from secular regimes toward an embrace of Islamic rule. Don't be fooled by the glib sloganeering about democracy or the facile reporting by Western reporters-few of whom speak Arabic or have experience in the region. Egyptians are not Americans. They have their own culture, their own sets of grievances and their own history. And it is not ours. They want, as we do, to have a say in their own governance, but that say will include widespread support-especially among Egypt's poor, who make up more than half the country and live on about two dollars a day-for the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic parties. Any real opening of the political system in the Arab world's most populated nation will see an empowering of these Islamic movements. And any attempt to close the system further-say a replacement of Mubarak with another military dictator-will ensure a deeper radicalization in Egypt and the wider Arab world.
The only way opposition to the U.S.-backed regime of Mubarak could be expressed for the past three decades was through Islamic movements, from the Muslim Brotherhood to more radical Islamic groups, some of which embrace violence. And any replacement of Mubarak (which now seems almost certain) while it may initially be dominated by moderate, secular leaders will, once elections are held and popular will is expressed, have an Islamic coloring. A new government, to maintain credibility with the Egyptian population, will have to more actively defy demands from Washington and be more openly antagonistic to Israel. What is happening in Egypt, like what happened in Tunisia, tightens the noose that will-unless Israel and Washington radically change their policies toward the Palestinians and the Muslim world-threaten to strangle the Jewish state as well as dramatically curtail American influence in the Middle East.
The failure of the United States to halt the slow-motion ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by Israel has consequences. The failure to acknowledge the collective humiliation and anger felt by most Arabs because of the presence of U.S. troops on Muslim soil, not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but in the staging bases set up in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, has consequences. The failure to denounce the repression, including the widespread use of torture, censorship and rigged elections, wielded by our allies against their citizens in the Middle East has consequences. We are soaked with the stench of these regimes. Mubarak, who reportedly is suffering from cancer, is seen as our puppet, a man who betrayed his own people and the Palestinians for money and power.
The Muslim world does not see us as we see ourselves. Muslims are aware, while we are not, that we have murdered tens of thousands of Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. We have terrorized families, villages and nations. We enable and defend the Israeli war crimes carried out against Palestinians and the Lebanese-indeed we give the Israelis the weapons and military aid to carry out the slaughter. We dismiss the thousands of dead as "collateral damage." And when those who are fighting against occupation kill us or Israelis we condemn them, regardless of context, as terrorists. Our hypocrisy is recognized on the Arab street. Most Arabs see bloody and disturbing images every day from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, images that are censored on our television screens. They have grown sick of us. They have grown sick of the Arab regimes that pay lip service to the suffering of Palestinians but do nothing to intervene. They have grown sick of being ruled by tyrants who are funded and supported by Washington. Arabs understand that we, like the Israelis, primarily speak to the Muslim world in the crude language of power and violence. And because of our entrancement with our own power and ability to project force, we are woefully out of touch. Israeli and American intelligence services did not foresee the popular uprising in Tunisia or Egypt. Gen. Aviv Kochavi, Israel's new intelligence chief, told Knesset members last Tuesday that "there is no concern at the moment about the stability of the Egyptian government." Tuesday, it turned out, was the day hundreds of thousands of Egyptians poured into the streets to begin their nationwide protests.
What is happening in Egypt will damage and perhaps unravel the fragile peace treaty between Egypt and Jordan with Israel. It is likely to end Washington's alliance with these Arab intelligence services, including the use of prisons to torture those we have disappeared into our vast network of black sites. The economic ties between Israel and these Arab countries will suffer. The current antagonism between Cairo and the Hamas government in Gaza will be replaced by more overt cooperation. The Egyptian government's collaboration with Israel, which includes demolishing tunnels into Gaza, the sharing of intelligence and the passage of Israeli warship and submarines through the Suez Canal, will be in serious jeopardy. Any government-even a transition government that is headed by a pro-Western secularist such as Mohamed ElBaradei-will have to make these changes in the relationship with Israel and Washington if it wants to have any credibility and support. We are seeing the rise of a new Middle East, one that will not be as pliable to Washington or as cowed by Israel.
The secular Arab regimes, backed by the United States, are discredited and moribund. The lofty promise of a pan-Arab union, championed by the Egyptian leader Gamal Abd-al-Nasser and the original Baathists, has become a farce. Nasser's defiance of Washington and the Western powers has been replaced by client states. The secular Arab regimes from Morocco to Yemen, for all their ties with the West, have not provided freedom, dignity, opportunity or prosperity for their people. They have failed as spectacularly as the secular Palestinian resistance movement led by Yasser Arafat. And Arabs, frustrated and enduring mounting poverty, are ready for something new. Radical Islamist groups such as the Palestinian Hamas, the Shiite Hezbollah in Lebanon and the jihadists fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are the new heroes, especially for the young who make up most of the Arab world. And many of those who admire these radicals are not observant Muslims. They support the Islamists because they fight back. Communism as an ideological force never took root in the Muslim world because it clashed with the tenets of Islam. The championing of the free market in countries such as Egypt has done nothing to ameliorate crushing poverty. Its only visible result has been to enrich the elite, including Mubarak's son and designated heir, Gamal. Islamic revolutionary movements, because of these failures, are very attractive. And this is why Mubarak forbids the use of the slogan "Islam is the solution" and bans the Muslim Brotherhood. These secular Arab regimes hate and fear Hamas and the Islamic radicals as deeply as the Israelis do. And this hatred only adds to their luster.
The decision to withdraw the police from Egyptian cities and turn security over to the army means that Mubarak and his handlers in Washington face a grim choice. Either the army, as in Tunisia, refuses to interfere with the protests, meaning the removal of Mubarak, or it tries to quell the protests with force, a move that would leave hundreds if not thousands dead and wounded. The fraternization between the soldiers and the crowds, along with the presence of tanks adorned with graffiti such as "Mubarak will fall," does not bode well for Washington, Israel and the Egyptian regime. The army has not been immune to the creeping Islamization of Egypt-where bars, nightclubs and even belly dancing have been banished to the hotels catering to Western tourists. I attended a reception for middle-ranking army officers in Cairo in the 1990s when I was based there for The New York Times and every one of the officers' wives had a head covering. Mubarak will soon become history. So, I expect, will neighboring secular Arab regimes. The rise of powerful Islamic parties appears inevitable. It appears inevitable not because of the Quran or a backward tradition, but because we and Israel believed we could bend the aspirations of the Arab world to our will through corruption and force.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
188 Comments so far
Show AllCrowsnest -- it is very puzzling that several posters think Hedges is attacking the Egyptian revolution because he expects to see an Islamic government of some sort eventually emerge.
He is not supporting the U.S. or the State Department or Israel or Mubarak by stating this. Nothing could be further from the truth. He views this entire constellation of the U.S. empire as corrupt and brutal.
"The secular Arab regimes, backed by the United States, are discredited and moribund. The lofty promise of a pan-Arab union, championed by the Egyptian leader Gamal Abd-al-Nasser and the original Baathists, has become a farce. Nasser's defiance of Washington and the Western powers has been replaced by client states. The secular Arab regimes from Morocco to Yemen, for all their ties with the West, have not provided freedom, dignity, opportunity or prosperity for their people. They have failed as spectacularly as the secular Palestinian resistance movement led by Yasser Arafat. And Arabs, frustrated and enduring mounting poverty, are ready for something new. Radical Islamist groups such as the Palestinian Hamas, the Shiite Hezbollah in Lebanon and the jihadists fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are the new heroes, especially for the young who make up most of the Arab world. And many of those who admire these radicals are not observant Muslims. They support the Islamists because they fight back."
I sometimes wonder if readers just skim a couple of paragraphs and then leap to their own erroneous conclusions.
Hedges is sui generis among American journalists. For example, he has a doctorate in divinity studies and describes himself as a Christian. (A VERY ecumenical Christian -- think Unitarian.) However, he widely denounces Christian fascism and anti-scientific ignorance in his writings. He also describes himself as a socialist AND speaks Arabic. You can count on one finger the number of prominent American journalists with that background.
Socialist and pan-Arabic political movements have been crushed in the Arab world because the U.S. and before that the British viewed them as a threat to economic domination. During the Cold War Islamic movements were used against secular socialist and nationalist movements. This played out most violently in Afghanistan but it was also true in countries such as Egypt.
Robert Dreyfuss has described this history very well in his book Devil's Game:
http://www.robertdreyfuss.com/thebook.htm
In its inception, the Ba'ath Party of Saddam and the al-Asad family in Syria were both socialist and pan-Arabic. (They ventured a bit off course.) The U.S. empire can live with corrupt secular states such as Egypt and corrupt Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia; the question is-- are they obedient, friendly to Israel, and do they deliver the oil? (if they have it).
Saddam stopped being compliant and delivering the oil appropriately in U.S. dollars -- and he became the enemy of 'goodness & sweet reason'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba%27ath_Party
It is important to remember that before the current Islamic government in Iran and before the pro-Western dictatorship of the Shah, Iran had a secular democracy under Mossedegh that was concerned about social justice and wanted to see some of the oil wealth go to help the poor. And the U.S. and UK destroyed that government in a CIA led coup d'etat.
Islamic movements, unfortunately, have been the only recourse for the dispossessed in much of the Middle East -- and this is in large part due to policies of Empire.
Hedges is not attacking the Egyptian revolution or defending the corrupt regime, he is simply affirming the direction it will probably take. He is not cheerleading, he is trying to be a realist based on his understanding of history and culture in the region.
'Blowback' from U.S. meddling & arrogance takes many forms. The Egyptians, however, have the right to depose of Mubarak and sort this out for themselves.
Randy, nothing short of masterful.
I hope Chris is right and the Middle East is united through Islam and Arabic culture.
But will the people be more free and rise up from poverty?.
If the people are lucky and secular education also flourishes, then we may see a new found middle class.
And then there is a chance for the 'age of Aquarius to begin.
One thing is sure: Amerikans and Amerikan foreign policy has been so dumbed downed and spiteful that
Hundreds of millions of people Hate Amerika. We have been digging are own grave for 50 years now.
When will the Power elite learn that it can't really win with a world on fire.
Climate fire included. And even with secular education, we are dumbed down.
Amerikans are taught to hate Muslims. I am afraid the 100th monkey is a baboon!
"And any replacement of Mubarak (which now seems almost certain) while it may initially be dominated by moderate, secular leaders will, once elections are held and popular will is expressed, have an Islamic coloring. A new government, to maintain credibility with the Egyptian population, will have to more actively defy demands from Washington and be more openly antagonistic to Israel."
I have a great deal of respect for Hedges but I have to say I am shocked by the obscure, fear-mongering tone of this piece. A beautiful, marvelous revolution is happening in Egypt. Our government has a "Christianist" coloring. Are we supposed to be afraid of elections in Egypt? What is the point of the phrasing "will have to actively defy" and "openly antagonistic to Israel," as if those were not outcomes that progressives would all applaud? Is there not some positive way Hedges could express these outlooks? Or is Hedges incapable of speaking in anything other than dark, morbid tones that actually feed into anti-Muslim dread and even suspicion of the poor and the populace?
I find the article shocking, too.
It is amazing to watch progressives and liberals line up in opposition to the people of Egypt and in support of the empire.
The implication here is that the Egyptian people cannot be trusted to decide their own future because they will go all religious and radical and stuff.
Scratch the surface of a progressive or a liberal, and we find the same old imperialist and colonial ideas.
At least the day is coming when we will not longer be tempted to waste time in mindless debates with progressives and liberals. At least the right wingers are honest about where they stand.
Hedges is simply saying that Egyptians will feel safer and familiar with an Islamist influenced government. Hey, do you think that American citizens would feel comfortable with an administration that disavowed christianity and sought to embrace Islamic nations. I know, I know, that's the way it's supposed to be, seperation of church and state and all; that's not reality. Hedges is merely predicting an outcome with no hidden agenda or disrespect.
I think his other major point is the fact that we continue to use brute coercive force on these people and this in turn results in further polarization.
If article 2 of the Egyptian constitution (see my posting above) is not changed Mr. Hedges is more likely to be correct than you are. Much of Egypt's future will hinge on how its women might vote in "free" elections an issue nobody takes into account. The well-educated women will probably vote for non-Muslim Brotherhood candidates but the bulk of the poor women of Egypt, where else can they go but conservative? If I were such a woman I would spit into the face of a male who reads the Constitution (get it from Google and be astounded) of Egypt to me then say "to hell with your socialism" and vote Brotherhood.
Elections are one very, very small part of this revolution. Western observers are focusing on electoral politics because they are so easy to corrupt and are such a useful tool for the ruling class. Of course, Americans don't recognize how elections are used to manipulate them, and deeply believe in the electoral process and believe that change can be effected by elections and that the power in a country is controlled by elections, so naturally enough they would project all of that onto the situation in Egypt.
The power of the Muslim Brotherhood is directly proportional to the absence of other avenues, and it is in the interest of the US government and it puppets like Mubarak to block all other paths.
Rebuilding the labor unions, civilian control over the police, commitment to infrastructure - there are many, many things that are far more important than elections, things that build real power and protect the people from the empire and its brutal henchmen. here, the wealthy few control everything - including elections - bit even if they didn't control the elections that still would not mean that elections could counter-balance the immense power wielded over us in every other facet of our lives. Voting third party or progressive or whatever doesn't change that reality.
This is a old trick - "here are your 'fair and open' elections. We will control everything else, and nothing you vote for will ever happen, but you will not notice that because you will have elections! You will be able to choose!" Whoopee.
The ruling class and the US government have destroyed the words "elections" and "democracy." They now mean "a clever way to fool the people into thinking they have power, and good cover for whatever sort of exploitative and tyrannical things we want to do."
Nice analysis. If it is one thing we see common amongst all these ME dominoes that are lined up, it is their inability to implement any kind of reform at any level. It is continually blocked by the elites in their respective countries who are in turn beholden to the corporate fascists in the west. Whatever leadership arises, let us hope they are committed to long term reform. Only that will redress the problems of the Egyptian people in a genuine way.
The problem is that at heart Hedges is an over educated ivy league twit.
"The uprising in Egypt, although ...universal [among egyptians].. presages the inevitable shift ... toward an embrace of Islamic rule. Don't be fooled by the glib sloganeering about democracy ..."
look into this very first premise of Hedges' piece.
the goal of a popular (=universal) uprising can't be called 'democracy', if it is some Islamic rule?
how about a country in which the majority call themselves christians? can they ever achieve 'democracy'?
what an absurd tired-old imperialist notion of democracy.
everyday people around the world, not brainwashed through individualist-capitalist ideology, plainly understand that Democracy is a political process in which the members of a society determine their collective destiny. a process is NOT, or does NOT guarantee, its end result. a democratic process does NOT guarantee a "secular" individualist capitalist system, Democracy is NOT synonimous with capitalist individualism, as your capitalist massers want you to think.
rather, historically, the end result of that process has largely been anything but individualist-capitalism, contrary to what capitalist elites have their minions believe. of course, the global parasitic elites almost always intervene and crush local people's choice by their brute force, economic and/or military.
mr. hedges, lose your absurd tired-old imperialist notion of democracy.
or stop muddying the water and wasting people's time and energy with false controversy. for people's sake.
RE: how about a country in which the majority call themselves Christians? can they ever achieve "democracy"?
Good one and funny.
The role of Islamic fundamentalism throughout the Middle East is as much a product of US influence as is the hatred (throughout the world) of Israel for their treatment of Palestinians (which is a consequence of uncritical and massive support from the US).
The 1953 CIA engineered coup overthrowing Mossedegh in Iran, ended both democracy and secularism in Iran. For over 25 years the only place for political organizing was through religious (Islamic) venues. So, it should not have surprised anyone that when the Iranian revolution happened in 1979 that it would be Islamic and fundamentalist. The US's support for the fundamentalist Wahhabi sect of the House of Saud, and by extension the support and creation of the fundamentalist Mujaheddin, to fight a proxy war in Afghanistan further entrenched Muslim extremism. All these covert actions by the US, privileged Islamic fundamentalism over secularism (and democracy).
So, should democracy come for the first time to Egypt will it be dominated by Islam? I don't know, but I would sure like the Egyptian people to decide for themselves for a change.
your example illustrates the vacuity of the liberal mantra of "separation of religion and the state".
Not sure I understand what you mean.
as religion is one of many ways in which people find their political ideas and ideals are expressed. every act of a social being is a political act.
"The 1953 CIA engineered coup overthrowing Mossedegh in Iran, ended both democracy and secularism in Iran. For over 25 years the only place for political organizing was through religious (Islamic) venues. So, it should not have surprised anyone that when the Iranian revolution happened in 1979 that it would be Islamic and fundamentalist. The US's support for the fundamentalist Wahhabi sect of the House of Saud, and by extension the support and creation of the fundamentalist Mujaheddin, to fight a proxy war in Afghanistan further entrenched Muslim extremism. All these covert actions by the US, privileged Islamic fundamentalism over secularism (and democracy). "
This is simplistic. The Iranian Revolution was NOT the sole product of Islamism and the Islamic fundamentalists. The Shah was brought down by a coalition. It just happened that the Islamists were the ones who were willing to be the most ruthless, who killed off their allies after the Revolution succeeded.
A revolution is a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, and therefore, will require coalitions that must work together to make change - of course. So, yes revolutions are complex. But I am posting to an online forum not writing a book. Was the thrust of my argument wrong? No, as your last sentence confirms.
The American Revolution also required coalitions to succeed: it needed the working classes who did most of the fighting and dying. They were enticed to fight with the carrot of "democracy". After winning independence, what happened? The new ruling class did everything it could in developing its political structure to make sure that real democracy would be strangled at birth. So if I said that the American Revolution was fought for the interests of the wealthy white males, (according to you) would I be wrong?
"We enable and defend the Israeli war crimes carried out against Palestinians and the Lebanese-indeed we give the Israelis the weapons and military aid to carry out the slaughter."
I don't care to be included in the "we enable" part of Mr. Hedges conclusions. As a citizen of the U.S. I have no control over what my government does. You can complain to your elected officials all you want about the U.S. financial and military support for Israel. You will be summarily dismissed as a crackpot. If you're insistent and specific about Israel's theft, piracy and war crimes, you will be dismissed as an anti-semite. We are not allowed to talk about what really is anti-semitism and why would it exist in a country saturated with films and museums dedicated to the exclusivity of their suffering. As long as what "anti-semitism" is not clearly defined, it is nothing but a broad sword used only to quash rational dialogue and dissent. It's used as a method of censorship, and more often than not, I detect reverse racism and sense of superiority whenever I hear someone wield that sword.
And of course, because I've said these things openly, bring on the Hasbara...
I couldn't agree with you more PEAdvocate! Anytime there is criticism of Israel (not Jews in general which is always forgotten) the anti-semite accusation is applied. Of course ignorant people seem to conveniently not know or forget that the whole region is semite and the accusation makes no sense when only applied to one people.
The lies that are there for everyone to see are continually supported by the US to the point of absurdity and allows Israel, and by proxy the US, to perpetrate the very same atrocities on the Palestinians as were visited on them by the nazis. Crying about being the only democracy in the ME that needs our support when Iran had a democracy before we toppled their elected leader to install the brutal Shah. Yelling about a nuclear-free ME, knowing full well the amount of nuclear weapons that Israel posses and refuses to divulge. They haven't even signed the treaty of understanding that allows a country to develop nuclear power in cooperation with nuclear watchdogs and fear-monger about Iran who has signed the treaty and does allow inspectors. Building a Wall of separation as the "Nasty Commies" did in berlin, bulldozing homes and taking land while calling its inhabitants animals and worse. The US veto of every UN resolution against Israel's every violation of common human law and the brutalities of occupation while the US uses any flimsy UN resolution as an excuse to invade and brutalize other ME countries. The list of insanity and brutality is much, much longer and only if you are a racist, or religious fanatic can you ignore or make apologies of what Israel does to the Palestinians.
To mention any of this to anyone besides those who are awake and paying attention, is to invite the anti-semite label. There can be no criticism of anything that Israel does or says where if it were most any other country in the world it would invite invasion and destruction.
Great stuff!!!
I would highly recommend streaming Democracy Now! today, before or after reading this article.
I tend to trust the take that D.N.'s own man on the ground in Cairo, someone who grew up there and whose family members are well known in many circles - not to mention leftists. The producer of D.N. does indeed speak the language and gives us a unique access into facts on the ground. His experience in real time contradicts the first few sentences of this article.
Time will tell, no doubt.
Agree.
Kouddous's plain piece on CD is all you need to read,
to understand the unfolding events in egypt.
no need to waste time on fancy shmanzy "analyses" by conflicted and befuddled "intellectuals", however well meaning they may be.
That's another way of putting it, Curious!
As brilliant and aware as C.H. obviously is, he tends to look backwards historically and not 'see' new possibilies breaking out in the world.
I think it may be a generation gap, in a sense. The 'Facebook' (which i can't stand, by the way) revolution as it is being called by many in the streets of Egypt is a whole new ballgame, and Wikileaks as well. We are not in Kansas anymore. I don't know if Chris can 'go there'.
Just my observation.
Visiting Professor
Well said. Someone like Steve and his willingness to look down upon intellectuals may have been what Richard Hofstadter had in mind when he wrote his classic work Anti-Intellectualism in American Life in the early 1960s [my copy of his book should be arriving in the next day or two].
There is a huge difference between being anti-intellectual versus being against bourgeoisie intellectualism. Thee is a difference between condemning intellectulism and condemning intellectual elitism.
To conflate opposition to bourgeoisie intellectual experts with right wing thought is innacurate and elitist.
Co-opted establishment intellectuals frequently cloud issues of class and empire with complex and convouluted arguments and research.
A good part of Hedges schtick is to indict liberal intellectuals for their detachment and betrayal of the masses. He condemns the entire liberal intellectual class.
Do you consider this right wing anti-intellectualism as well?
V.P.
I agree as Joe's arguments strike as being facile as well as disingenuous. I, also, find his tone to be, at times, patronizing in nature.
You merely present your opinion here without any additional information.
Whats facile about my post. What part is disingenuous.
How am I to respomd to your generalized attack?
And why should I care one whit about your unsubstantiated criticism?
My response regarding generalized attacks was directed at Errol's comment, not at yours. This is reflected in its position in the threads.
Your response was actually quite specific except for the claim that I had indulged in a logical fallacy.
Intellectualism and anti-intellectualism can swing both ways. I'm an intellectual but my union organizing and other work with non-intellectuals has raised a personal awareness as to the limits of intellectualism.
Nonetheless, I think that we are mostly in agreement and actually have quite a bit of respect for those comments of yours that I have read.
VP - If I'm not aware of positions that you have taken on this subject in previous posts, so what?
Each thread stands alone here. You attacked "anti-intellectualism" and equated it with the opinions of right wing media philistines.
I pointed out that not all anti-intellectualism is reactionary, and that intellectualism often thinly masks elitism and is often used in defense of class privelege and empire.
I was providing balance to your comment. I was not attacking you or your general fairness and accuracy.
As to patronizing, my tone was much less so than yours with Steve.
Sorry, but I missed your obvious logical fallacy. I thought my last point was more a rhetorical question or maybe reduction to absurdity argument. I am willing to discuss it. I'm not willing however, to have my tone dictated to me by you or anyone else.
Thanks for the response.
I never called you elitist. I merely stated that intellectualism can mask elitism, but I did not direct that observation at you personally.
It's been a long time since Logic 101, but I remember most of the fallacies. I plead not gulity. I didn't address the "all" in your initial response to Steve, and simply provided an example of a valid criticism of a type of intellectualism utilizing a rhetorical question to do so. That's not quite the same thing as the fallacy you noted.
In any case, I see where you are coming from, and again affirm the fact that we are basically in agreement here.
don't take it so personally, VP.
FWIW, you make some marginally useful points every now and then. i have "approved of" those as "correct" analyses or answers whenever i came across them. your overall performance so far can be graded B. just remember, real learning starts when you think critically. it will serve you better if you lose your irrepressible arrogance.
did i sound adequately ridiculous to you? i hope so, as i tried to pull YOU in the previous post.
i stick by the observation that useful public-accessible intellectuals have been next to impossible to find for the last half-century. you go look into the encyclopedia of philosophy, and Althusser barely has a few lines, though he's considered to be the father of marxist philosopy in the french structuralist tradition.
about you dare: "I dare you to make the same charge against Noam Chomsky--in person, straight to his face." what makes you think i haven't tried just that when warranted?
I have read the Constitution of Egypt albeit in an English translation. The document has an introduction and 211 articles. Among these are surprises and non-surprises. Article 1 states that Egypt is a democratic, socialist state! Article 2 states: “Islam is the religion of the state and Arabic its official language”. Article 4: “The economic foundation of the Arab Republic of Egypt is a socialist democratic system based on sufficiency and justice in a manner preventing exploitation, conducive to liquidation of income differences, protecting legitimate earnings, and guaranteeing the equity of the distribution of public duties and responsibilities”. Article 11: “The State shall guarantee the proper coordination between the duties of woman towards the family and her work in the society, considering her equal with man in the fields of political, social, cultural and economic life without violation of the rules of Islamic jurisprudence”. (I have been unable to find the analogous statement of “duties of males”! Also: what does "without violation of the rules of Islamic jurisprudence" mean if not "obey"?). Article 19: “Religious education shall be a principal subject in the courses of general education”. Article 24: “The people shall control all the means of production and direct their surplus in accordance with the development plan laid down by the State”. (This article could have been written by Karl Marx and supplemented by Vladimir Lenin!). Article 46: “The State shall guarantee the freedom of belief and the freedom of practice of religious rites”. Article 62: “Citizens shall have the right to vote, nominate and express their opinions in referendums according to the provisions of the law”. (Presumably this means that women have the right to vote). Article 76 regulates the selection of candidates to run for the presidency. It is too long to print here but it is worth while to look up because of the incredibly Byzantine process for selecting candidates. Independents apparently cannot run. Whereas Presidents must be at least 40 years old, there are apparently no statements in the constitution about voting age and age for the Parliament. Apparently these are regulated by separate laws. I thought that you might be interested in this bouillabaisse of Marx and Mohamed.
ask people of the world what they want.
you'd think they are all experts in marxism and lenninsm, too.
The bouillabaisse of Marx and Mohamed has in Egypt's recent history become closer to a bouillabaisse of Stalin and Mohamed. Is that what the "people of the world want"?
obviously you and i do NOT agree on what Marx, Mohamed, and Stalin represent.
neither do we we share one understanding of what people want.
bouillabaisse?
Study the constitution of Egypt and you will change your question mark to an exclamation mark and mumble "I got it".
I'd rather eat fish soup.
I think that the citizens of Egypt are just as outraged that we Americans, who boxed them in to supporting Israel over the poor people of Gaza during Operation Cast Lead. We Americans are their worst enemies. How could we support Israel, with our American armaments of "white phosphorus"? I hate that Egypt closed its borders with Gaza. I hate that Egypt chose the U.S. over anything humane in this stupid world in which we live.
Moi-couldn't agree more. Mubarak's blockade of Gaza on behalf of the Israelis is so monsterously vile I can't begin to process it!!!
your sentiment is shared.
i try not to forget to separate
the thieves and thugs in power who chose to sell their own people, as well as palestinians, over to the devil for some crumb
from
the people who opposed oppression anywhere, including in the palestine, all along.
I think Chris is dead on. Although I'm a bit surprised that as a leftist he seems to side with one of the left's deadly enemies Islamic fascists ( like Hamas and Hezbollah). His hatred of Israel and JEWS is so intense that he's willing it seems to ally himself with the devil to defeat his sworn enemies. Egypt will now swing hard to the religious right and I suspect so eventually will many other corrupt Arab states. The result will be WAR against Israel and us. Boy, am I happy bought a used Prius last Sept.
what makes you so sure that hamas is the deadly enemy of the left?
who belong to your "left"?
who are "us" you're speaking of?
don't bother to respond.
There is so much overwhelming ignorance in your post. The popular movement in Egypt is not led by any Islamists.
Then again you've made plenty of anti-Arab, Islamophobic posts here on Common Dreams. You're generally a very racist individual, so it surprises me that you even come to this website. Perhaps you should go to Red State or Free Republic. There's plenty of idiots there who share your talking points.
"His hatred of Israel and JEWS is so intense."
Prove it you despicable dung slinger.
Or are you one of those zionist pigs that claims every criticism of Israel is anti-jewish?
Crowsnest:
You write, "The well-educated women will probably vote for non-Muslim Brotherhood candidates...."
I feel sorry for your ignorance when you make a statement such as the above, implying an educated Muslim woman would not support what are now labeled "Islamist" parties or candidates. By implication, you are saying that Islam is incompatible with education and progress (in the fuller sense of the latter word). Keep believing such nonsense, but I guarantee you'll be in for many surprises from a people and a part of the world about which you know little and understand even less.
I wrote "probably" and "Muslim Brotherhood". That does not exclude voting for a more progressive Islamic Party or candidate. Learn to read carefully before you make your uneducated statements.