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 AllIs this supposed to represent a foreboding?
Italy is Catholic but remains secular. In fact abortion is not the issue it is in the US. Perhaps is is a reaction to the dynamics of Israel's Jewish state brutalizing and forever demonizing the evil Muslim. Maybe Egyptians are standing up for who they are. Islam charities helped the poor the official government abused.
Israel has proven not to be a good neighbor--it treated Muslims and Arabs like dirt. The chickens are coming back to roost.
good questions. hedges is contrived and confusing.
I take issue with use of the term free market without qualifiers. A free market includes trading, farmers markets, the traditional bazaar and numerous other modes exercised by humanity to meet needs.
Globalized, corporate welfare in the military sector, petroleum monopolies, import/export profit scaled for empire; the purchase and squelching of patent developments etc... is not free market. It can't even rise to a tag of corporate 'socialism' because of the corruption of so many conceptual stages and the spurious juridical device of corporate 'person-hood'.
I would add that the Muslim Brotherhood has been around for a long time, has been deeply influential for a long time, and will continue to be influential for a long time. Casting fears about them because they were banned (by a dictator!) is an unnecessary hulabaloo - cruise their website, look at their way of functioning, listen to what they say/have said, ...
Recognition that the west/US looking at something for the first time does not make it "new" and is something we need to get through our heads so thick with delusions of exceptionalism
I like much of what Chris said, but I think that the conclusions he draws are wishful thinking on his part and a bit of early celebration to boot.
Most Egyptians like the American democratic model and would only like more freedom and participation in government. I hope they get it.
Minimum wage in Egypt = $7 per week - that is 4 cents an hour
median wage = $70 per month = 87 cents an hour -
the dictator mubarak wealth = $40 billion
and Binden says he's not a dictator!
I respect Chris Hedges, but do not buy into his analysis here. Religion, whether fundamentalist Christianity here, or Islamism in Iran under the Shah or in Egypt under Mubharek, is often the last hope of those who have no hope or faith that the political system will deliver anything meaningful to their impoverished lives. I am making a distinction between those who embrace religion and those who manipulate it for selfish purposes. The turn to violence is an outgrowth by a portion of the religious movements in response to long frustration.
Perhaps I am a foolish optimist (I know how to do that), but the emergence of ElBaradai and support for him, both among the Moslem Brotherhood and large numbers of mainstream and secular Egyptians, gives me hope. ElBaradai told the truth about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He has constantly pricked the balloon of Iran's supposed development of nuclear weapons. In other words, he has shown himself capable of telling the truth despite strong pressure to do otherwise.
Moslem Brotherhood is supported by about one third of Egyptians, leaving up to two thirds unaccounted for. Given half a chance, and in combination with others, it is possible that fundamentalist religious groups can turn away from dreams of violence and toward real social programs that address poverty and disenfranchisement. The inclusion of women is a key to constructive action, as always.
It is never easy, but not hopeless.
Joe
Hey Joe, (song reference not intended!) :-)
I suggest you stream or read Democracy Now! from this morning, for a much more real time report.
Thanks. I did. It is so inspiring to get real news!
Joe
Well, often it's indeed the "last hope", but stop pretending that American Christian fundamentalism and Islam fundamentalism in Iran have the same roots and causes. There's nothing comparable to Iran's modern history in the US'. Religion, as a form of group identity based on a set of simple common beliefs, is indeed one of the most robust social structures that exist: it can survive lots of things, from persecution to poverty to wars, and often it's the only place of social organising and contact. It's certainly more robust (as it's built on a much simpler intellectual base and offers much easier solutions) than left-wing organisations, parties or unions, and yep, it's often the last thing left after the West destroys everything.
But not always. Americans, despite reduction in real wages, despite worsening public services, despite fucked up leaders, still aren't comparable to Iranians; American religious fundamentalism is more a group superiority complex, an ideology for expansion and control, not something that protects as a last resort but something that rationalises exploiting and abusing other people. Almost any ideology can take that form btw.
There is something to what you say. Some fundamentalism here can be a cover for exceptionalism and cold commercial enterprises - think Mormons, think all of the evangelical phonies and money-grubbers who convince people to part with their last dollar, think of the smarmy politicians who quote scripture on their way to visit their mistresses.
But your approach is very academic and probably reflects lack of contact with religious people. Think about the Civil Rights movement. The conditions of life for African-Americans here rivaled those of Iranians under the Shah in terms of poverty, political disenfranchisement and daily terror. In the Civil Rights movement, the religious and practical got together in a powerful non-violent way. Similar, possibly, some of the little churches that dot all of Appalachia and the South.
The "simpler intellectual base" is not always as clueless as you seem to think. Social concern is part of the program, albeit stunted by lack of possibility in the secular sphere except by individual acts, which often reflect a high level of compassion (an important form of intelligence) and responsibility toward others.
When given half a chance, religious people can be effective in social movements.
Joe
"The conditions of life for African-Americans here rivaled those of Iranians under the Shah in terms of poverty, political disenfranchisement and daily terror."
And afaik African-American poverty did *not* spawn the worst forms of Christian fundamentalism so this actually supports my point that (at least the worst forms of) Christian fundamentalism have different roots than Islam fundamentalism. Maybe I'm wrong.
I also think this is somewhat of an exageration, but I think it's also a bit, errr, tasteless from my part to discuss who was suffering more between two populations who were both pretty much fucked :-/ Sorry.
And of course I'm not bashing religious people (or rather, I don't really intend to), so apologies if I said something to that effect.
What I wanted to say was that the fundamentalist forms of the two religions have different roots and that religion is one of the most robust social structures. Which is why it doesn't make sense to try to change/eradicate etc a religion by force: everything else, most importantly the best and most humane achievements of any society will be destroyed way before religion is affected. You can destroy education, a complex economy, a free press, democratic institutions, whatever you want, and not make a dent on religion - or rather, all of these destructions will just strengthen it. The only way you can fight fundamentalism is actually through these kinds of achievements, not force, which fundamentalism thrives on.
hogwash.
Cut me a break. The Iranian mullahs hang and stone women and people of other faiths. Ask the Bahai people in Iran about how enlightened the mullahs are. Lenin had it right Religion is the opiate of the masses. The Muslim Brotherhood ( notice it's a brotherhood no women allowed) will have the Egyptians smoking their stuff soon enough and the poet will be living in London after they toss him out for hearsay.
o_O Where exactly was I defending the mullahs or saying they were enlightened? I wanted to make two points in my post (obviously didn't manage it very well):
- That the US' 20th century history was not exactly comparable to that of Iran, which is basically stating the obvious, and that the hardships Americans were facing, even if they were pretty big, were incomparable to that of Iranians and that it doesn't make much sense to search for the roots of fundamentalism in the same places in Iran and America - they can be (they clearly are) different. In one place, religion is mostly a way to hold on to and substantiate one's belief in their own (or their group's) superiority; in the other, religion is more generally the last refuge, the last straw to hold on to. I'm not saying these are 100% accurate of course, just statistically, for the more fundamentalist forms.
- That religion as a social structure is extremely robust: it survives more hardships than other social structures, including what CH calls liberal structures. Religion is a more primitive and simpler structure than, say, public education or representative democracy or a free press. These are higher level structures and even institutions that need more resources and a more developed society to function. It's easy to destroy these high level structures (and very difficult and expensive to maintain them), but when these are destroyed, you'll fall back to religion, and I don't really want to see what happens if you try to go beyond religion - if you discard your belief in a set of more or less absolute moral principles. (Atheism, btw, is imo structurally even more complex and much less robust than any form of religion, because it relies on a scientific worldview to make any sense, which is infinitely more complex and difficult and thus vulnerable than religious world views, so you can't really "fall back" on it.)
More likely to be more aligned with the Turkish approach.
I admire and respect Hedges, but this article of his rubs me the wrong way.
Clearly, he has not paid sufficient attention to what has been going in Egypt over the last few days. Otherwise, he would be much more cautious in his assessment of the place of Islamism in Egypt and, more importantly, in the ongoing uprising, and, secondly, he would draw a sharper distinction between the Eyptian Muslim Brotherhood and other varieties of Islamism.
The revolutionary uprising sweeping Egypt is not party or faction led; there is no "revolutionary vanguard" in Egypt. It is certainly not led by the Muslim Brotherhood, which came into the demonstrations relatively late. It was a Facebook initiated and Tunisia inspired event, and it was brought into being by all manner of ordinary people. No one in the demonstrations has been chanting the islamist slogan 'God is Great!', not even the Muslim Brotherhood. Et cetera.
For more detailed information, see the on the ground testimony of Sharif Abdel Kouddous, a correspondant from Democracy Now! And read his article posted here yesterday.
I am very sorry to have to say this, but Chris Hedges is off the mark with this piece.
Hedges should just stick to his usual rant about liberals.
It isn't just that he hasn't paid much attention to Egypt, it is also that he commits the mistake that lazy analysts and writers in the west do, conflating all Muslims, and also all Arabs, as some singular entity.
"It was a Facebook initiated and Tunisia inspired event, and it was brought into being by all manner of ordinary people."
Well, you need to keep in mind that Hedges, is one of those who loves to rant about the evils of social messaging, texting etc. So, he probably finds it impossible to consider that social messaging, texting, might actually be used by people in autocratic countries to organise protests and revolutions against their autocratic governments.
To read typical leftist interpretation on the likes of Mubarak, one would think these are dictators the US chooses to support. It is not as if the US and western Europe go looking for 3rd world dictators to support.
Most of these creatures we call dictators are otherwise normal people who are goaded, induced and placed into catch 22 situations to play ball with empire. Ultimately they have to choose between the interest of their country and face American and Western wrath and subversion or choose to play ball with the west and face the dire consequencs through front groups like the WTO, Lending institurions, UN,Global corporate media, military hardware, etc. In other words you are shut out of the "globalization" market place. For example, the economies of say CUBA, North Korea,Zimbabwe, Iran suffer in large part because of artificial barriers created by the 'globalization" market place. Manufactured inefficiencies.
Trade parners, tariff, prices, rates, credit,artificial scarcity and the percived stochastic performance of the so called world markets are mediated through the intentions of the G8 countries and their cohorts. What we see as dictatorship are the dysfunctions attendant to the requirments of colonial rule. The last to date to suffer such subversion was Zelaya of Honduras.
Example can be given of this playing out in congo under mobutu, in iraq under saddam,,in panama under noriega, in haiti under duvalier, in egypt under mubarak etc
Yes, Chris hedges, Ian masters, ian william, and many US leftist were in support of the US war in yugoslavia. I read their materials forensically also. It seems to me lots of western leftist fall into the camp of good imperialist and bad imperialist.
By the way, where is Ban Ki Moon, was he not just a couple of weeks bellowing threats of military invasion to Gbabo of the ivory coast about some democracy rubbish. His pamasters have him on a leash for now.UN, stop the occupation of Haiti
1) the first and second paragraphes of yours are inconsistent.
certainly, most local dictators are recruited, groomed, planted, and marketed by the hegemonic center. if purely homegrown, the better.
and oh yes, more often than not, the massers from the center actively look for right characters for the "local enforcer" roles.
these thugs often overstay their global massers' welcome, of course, and get eliminated, replaced, ostrasized at a convenient moment.
2) yes, you're right that some who call themselves Marxist or communist or socialist tend to think that the Marx-inspired system is the only justifiable form of society and that therefore any and all religion-inspired governments are to be opposed and abolished.
they think that way because they are hung up on empty "names" such as "marxism" and "religion," instead of paying attention to the specifics, the content, of a social structure. these self-styled "lefties" still think in the ideological language of individualist capitalism (whose fancy philosophical names are empiricism, essentialism, historicism, etc. but never mind).
for instance, the ideas and practices that supposedly Jesus Christ espoused in "religious" terms, have no major conflict, philosophically and politically, with what Marx envisioned as the alternative to capitalism.
Sadly, 95% of what you say is right on the mark. But for example in Zimbabwe, the situation was created by imperialism, but home-grown thugs merrily squashed the possibilities that existed afterwards. North Korean leadership is just plain strange, cultish and out of touch. This type of situation is probably inevitable in a complicated world. It is for the people there to deal with. We cannot help except by keeping our dirty little paws out of the situation.
Our main concern here should be the 95% where our country (and Britain) and corporations and international finance have installed willing partners, deposed those who resist and have caused such destruction, as you say.
Joe
"To read typical leftist interpretation on the likes of Mubarak, one would think these are dictators the US chooses to support. It is not as if the US and western Europe go looking for 3rd world dictators to support. "
Actually, the US and western European nations such as France DO go looking for 3rd world dictators to support.
"Most of these creatures we call dictators are otherwise normal people who are goaded, induced and placed into catch 22 situations to play ball with empire. Ultimately they have to choose between the interest of their country and face American and Western wrath and subversion or choose to play ball with the west and face the dire consequencs through front groups like the WTO, Lending institurions, UN,Global corporate media, military hardware, etc. In other words you are shut out of the "globalization" market place. For example, the economies of say CUBA, North Korea,Zimbabwe, Iran suffer in large part because of artificial barriers created by the 'globalization" market place. Manufactured inefficiencies. "
Nope. They are dictators.
despite my misgivings about the limitations in hedges' political imagination, i don't doubt his intentions.
maybe, he's trying to say:
what if the egyptian people, at least the majority, choose to have an islamic country, even what the individualist-capitalists call a "theocracy" or a "dictatorship" or an "authoritarian" regime? what if they democratically decide against a "democracy" as defined by the west's christian individualism, against a secular individualist capitalist system? so what? it's their choice. nobody else's business. they have every right to determine their own destiny.
maybe he should have just said so, without fancy contrived dance.
i never buy the bullshit division of "secular" vs. "theocratic" societies, the bullshit of "seperation of state and religion. religion is just another language in which to express one's ideas and ideals, moral, political, spiritual or otherwise.
i maybe giving too much credit to hedges' intention, though.
"religion is just another language in which to express one's ideas and ideals, moral, political, spiritual or otherwise."
False. Religion is an institutional and cultural means of social control.
You don't seem to acknowledge the organizational power, and often repressiveness of religion.
so you are some sort of anarchist who rejects anything and everything that is organized? a true american cowboy who believes in absolute individual freedom from any organized institution? good luck with that.
i am no anarchist. i do not subscribe to the vacuous individualist ideology that justifies capitalism of all kinds and stages.
in any religion, there are lefties and righties who claim the scripture is on their side.
liberation theology, spread by catholic monks, has been inspiring mexican, central american, and latin american people in their struggle for justice and peace.
many in the catholic church of south korea have been part of the leading progressive movements in their struggle.
buddhists in viet nam kick-started their struggle against the capitalist imperialists.
quoran inspires the lefties as much as the righties, as well.
don't get hung up on the sweeping "religion is evil" non-sense, which is only the other side of the "god gave me the right to kill and steal" non-sense. two sides of the same coin.
1. You wrote "religion is just another language in which to express one's ideas and ideals, moral, political, spiritual or otherwise." I merely pointed out that religion is more than "just...language" it is institutional and it's institutionl power often has little to do with the expressing " one's ideas and ideals, moral, political, spiritual or otherwise." In fact the institutional power of religion is often unreceptive to influence of the laity.
2. I never stated that all religion was evil. I only pointed out that it can be repressive, very terribly repressive at its worst. You seem to downplay the repressive history of many religions, including Catholicism. Why?
3 Religous people have been involved in many social justice and peace campaigns, no doubt, but their Church hierarchies have often punished them for it. Liberation theology is exactly a case in point, having been surpressed by the last two popes.
4. In a pluralist society, seperation of church and state is essential to religous freedom and freedom of thought and expression. You may not accept that theocracy has existed and still exists today, but your ignorance does not change the history of the matter.
Regarding the cowboy individualist harangue, it's entirely irrelevant as I am a constant advocate of orgnized mass resistance, while you generally advocate a very individualistic "dropping out."
you're still missing the whole point i tried to clarify. let me try again:
in any group who call themselves "catholic" or "jewish" or "chiristian" or "islam", there are lefties who claim jesus and his teachings are communist and the righties who believe the opposite. granted that the righties have been dominant in recent world history.
i have no philosophical problem whatsoever in calling jesus marxist-communist, based on his ideas and actions.
in all politically practical purposes, the line that separates jesus / christianity from marx / communism is meaningless.
about the "individualism" in dropping out of the system: how is "dropping out of the individualist system en masse" an individualist act? ghandi wasn't just a lazy "pacifist." he was a genius who understood the real dynamics between the all-powerful and brutal system and the unarmed unorganized masses. sure militancy and street protests work too alongside.
If you're involved in an organized dropping out, then your point is valid, but I still see the strategy as one that simply avoids the inevitable confrontation. There were other more militant rebels who did as much for Indian independence as Ghandi, and it's debatable as to whether non-violent resistance would have worked on it's own. But I believe that it takes a multi-pronged approach to resistance, so I am not opposed to your tactics.
I see where your coming from on the relgious issue, but it still seems to me that you don't want to recognize that religion is a social institution and not generally a particularly democratic one. You call separation of Church and State "bullshit" and on that I think you are dead wrong.
Religion is much more than just a language, and when it has gained the powers of State has been responsible for monstrous oppression. This is why the separation is important and not bullshit.
that doesn't mean that the US should force this seperation on other nations, but I'm glad we have it here. Are you?
curious steve, You are right, there is an inconsistency . It was a typo(....or choose to play ball with the west and face the dire consequencs through front groups like the ,,,) should have said {...or choose to play ball with the west and BE REWARDED through front groups like the ........)
thanks
=).
An awful lot of people don't seem to realize how staged - how well organized and controlled - this 'spontaneous' protest has been. Anyone who has ever been to a protest here would spot the obvious inconsistencies - including al Jazeera's flagrant biased participation.
"...revolution which began with a mix of secular and religious elements but wound up with the more organized religious elements taking over..."
Yeah, right - as in the US government - all three branches of 'religious extremists' as well as the fundamentalists in the US military plying terrorism throughout the world? Oh gee whiz - Iran is certainly a terrible bogeman compared to ??? Yeah, right. Ever hear of 'projection' - accusing your opponent of bearing all the negative attributes in your own miserable character?
Those of us old enough to remember - a goodly percentage on CD, I imagine - know that Egypt was once a socialist country aligned with the USSR. That would be back in the days of Nasser and pan-Arabism when the Middle East was first trying to emerge from colonialism. Egypt may have gone the way of Turkey were it not for Zionist terrorism, the Suez Canal, and further imperialist ambitions from Europeans (Eisenhower defended US status by threatening them in the 'Suez Crisis').
Any country that adopts 'religion' over secular government is doomed to fail - gods always reflect the individuals who invent them, and everybody worships his own private god. That's a recipe for disaster - even if people are 'converted by the sword' as has been done under all Abrahamic superstitions (and there are plenty of flavors available). The same goes for 'capitalism' - fascism - or socialism. Same stupid Manichean choices will inevitably lead to disaster, as it has done in every point in human history. There is no 'sustainable' model - at least not yet.
Hedges is myopic - for obvious reasons. Remember where he comes from, and where his loyalties lie. (Everybody has an agenda - whether they admit it or not.) And the road to hell is paved with good intentions...
"There is no 'sustainable' model - at least not yet."
that's a sweeping conclusion based on nothing other than the global capitalist elites' mantra: "there's nothing perfect. choose the lesser of the evils, or the known evil over the unknown ones."
wake up from your ideological nightmare, and
let others live their dreams, at least.
Try reading carefully before inserting foot in mouth. And please don't put your words in my mouth - or expect me to join you in YOUR ideological nightmare.
since many others are sure about what they want and think their choice will work just fine for themselves,
have some humility and try not to drag others into your nightmare. is it too much to ask?
armybrat you say " There is no 'sustainable' model - at least not yet. ". I have come to a similar conclusion. There is no all-inclusive Platonic "Model".
There will always be problems, nothing is ever settled. Whether it is personal life or national politics, whenever you think things are on a good plateau, then watch out. New stuff starts to happen. We must keep learning, evaluating, changing. At least that's how it looks to me. People who think they have all the answers usually do not even understand all the questions.
Of course the demonstrations in Egypt are not completely spontaneous. People there have been observing and thinking about things for a long time. You do not get outpourings like this without a lot of groundwork being laid, one way or another. Most of the time people are concerned about getting dinner on the table, and such.
Still it seems to me, for example, some countries in South America are on a better path, which I define as participation by ordinary people in setting priorities and enjoying the benefits of their labors. I wish the same for Egypt. And for us.
BTW - I do not see how AlJazeera has been particularly biased.
Peace.
Joe
Thanks for going beyond the superficial knee-jerk reaction to some of my observations.
As for aJ bias - I've been watching them continuously since this started and even their own reporters (not hosts or commentators) have balked at sweeping network statements made about what's going on and/or the likely outcome. I am a long-time observer and admirer of aJ, so noticed the change whereas other may have missed it. It wasn't blatant at first, but escalated - probably why the government came down so hard on them, although that is also an expected reaction. Wish I could go into detail but am suffering severe pain right now. Will get back to this when/if my morphine kicks in...
Hope others will reconsider my statements - they are not a rejection of ideals, but a question of agendas. And yes, we can never 'win' the battle - it goes on forever, or we find ourselves in repressive situations - like those in the US today...
Iran's mullahs just hanged a Dutch-Iranian girl for drug trafficking, like the Chinese that recently executed another girl by blowing her head off in a stadium for the same "crime".
Egyptians have better think long and hard before establishing another authoritarian government. Conservatism in any form and the bloody authoritarianism it embodies must be resisted in any form of government.
Representative government consistently morphs into authoritarianism. Only direct democracy lasts:
http://ni4d.us/
Of course, it is up to the Egyptians how their country is ruled and they have every right to push back against the USA. I hope they succeed. The Empire needs to be stopped.
Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei seems to have thrown his hat into the ring. I see this as a positive development.
"Corruption and force" built the icons Egypt is visited and remembered for. Indeed, tourism is the mainstay of the Egyptian economy, and will certainly continue as such regardless of the Revolution's outcome; so, Egypt's future will continue to rely on its past "corruption and force." It's amusing Hedges's didn't think of this irony and employ it in a more useful fashion.
"Corruption and force" built the icons Egypt is visited and remembered for. Indeed, tourism is the mainstay of the Egyptian economy"
<--- yes, true. "looting meseums" in this case was not the worst thing that could happen in the revolutionary process.
"and will certainly continue as such regardless of the Revolution's outcome; so, Egypt's future will continue to rely on its past "corruption and force.""
<---- pointless and baseless speculation.
the question is, why would someone keep injecting poinsnous pills like this speculation in his or her comments about a people's revolution for true democracy?
This is a really good article by Hedges and a much needed reality check. I thought his assessment of the situation is both accurate and incisive. I am not at all surprised by the response here. American exceptionalism takes on many forms.
In the final analysis, the west offers nothing to these cultures in the ME and Asia. We can talk about feminism but in reality, we are a society awash with pornography, prostitution and strip clubs. Women are viewed as nothing more than commodity by many males in this society. How liberating is it when one in eight women are sexually assaulted in our society? We can talk about our consumer goodies but how liberating is it when many of us are in debt up to our ears, beholden to bankers. Our major source of wealth, our houses are no longer assets and we find ourselves further in debt with upside down mortgages. The fact of the matter is, we are a morally bankrupt society and what Islam values most, community, we have very little of. For all the talk about our superiority, we are nothing more than craven, greedy people who force feed our capitalist ideology on the world. Our clothes on our backs are made by sweat shop labor all over the world. For all the talk about secularism, you would think it would have actually done something for the world. Today, one billion are starving, half the world lives on two dollars a day or less.
I saw a banner in one of the Egyptian videos which referred to the west as illuminati slaves. I am not one for conspiracies but my loose translation is "slaves to corporate fascists". Indeed that is what we have become. Trying to claim this slavery is better than Islam is somewhat laughable. Perhaps we should pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps before we pass judgment on the revolutions abroad and what we deem as acceptable.
I am in solidarity with the Egyptian people and let us hope they can sever the chains of the corporate fascists.
Certainly democracy is doubtful, but not because of any special fault of the Egyptian people. Like the anarquistas of the Spanish revolution, they have many and varied forces arrayed against them, intent on securing whatever resolution retains a purchasable dictatorship in Egypt; these include the American, Israeli, and Saudi governments, to name the most immediate--and their allies. And there are few scraps of genuine representation in the Egyptian government as it has been.
That said, it seems that the categories in Hedges' piece here obscure some things.
There is no dichotomy between Islamic government and democracy unless one defines Islamic government as being autocratic and ruled by that religious body. Of course, there have been Islamic governments that have used that definition, but there is nothing particularly inevitable about that. Of course any empowering of people in the Islamic world will see the rise of Islamic movements, but that is at the very least a growth towards democracy, not away from it.
The United States has not failed "to halt the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians." It has funded that ethnic cleansing. Likewise, US mucky-mucks have not failed to denounce Mubarak's torture; they have managed to avoid denouncing it publicly, with the collusion of most Western media.
Of course Egyptians are aware of at least much of the long history of murders by the American government -- and we should not leave out British governments past and present and the rag tag UN tagalongs. But that is why they are not so naive and we should not be so naive as to imagine that somehow being *like* the Americans would make them more likely to create a democracy. Americans are nice enough people one on one, but the society is ripe for continued quasi-fascist encroachment, rotten with unreasoned faith in guns and money, ever-fuddled as to the genuine actions or intentions of its government and its corporate overlords, and fouling its own bed at record rates.
Certainly there are some things Western democracies accomplished, however incompletely and transiently, that bear insurgent attention. The Bill of Rights has some fine provisions, however American leaders are given to ignoring it. The institutional assurance - or at least attempt - at balance of power remains a good and a very important idea.
But if the Egyptians were to manage a democracy that actually did institute these things, that did establish freedom of religion, that did transcend racism, that did abjure from chattel slavery and the decorated slavery of corporate rule and the excused slavery of the draft and the poverty draft, by what experience would Americans begin to understand it?
What is needed in Egypt and Tunisia and in Detroit and in Fresno, California is not a return to Enlightenment values as these have been manifested in the West, but an arrival at Enlightenment values that have not been manifested, including cooperative social groups, need-based distribution of resources, and a sustainable economy.
Ultimately, so many of these critiques, even the fine critiques I find so many of Hedges' pieces to be, are marred by this ghostly idea that somehow the Western democracies are "for all their faults" somehow moderate or benign. Nothing, nothing, nothing could be farther from the truth.
The biggest obstacles to democracy in Egypt are the allies of Mubarak abroad -- and not because they care about Mubarak, of course.
I've been busy all day.
have I missed the fight..........lol
... man, that is the best writing I've read in a long time! Not necessarily Chris Hedges -although he's pretty good too- but this;
"...just when we thought we could very confidently assume the empire was falling apart in iraq and afghanistan we now have the crisis in egypt coming out of the blue
due to amerikan ignorance we couldn't find tunisia on a map so we are taking a mulligan on that one
i personally thought it was in the pacific because it ryhmes with indonesia
those sneaky bastards - obviously they are naming their countries with the intention of fooling us
one more thing - i though mubarrak was the president of the united states - mubarrak obama - whom we all know was born in hawaii and that's not even part of the united states
do you see how much the commies and the queers have take over
and it's not like we weren't warned either
sarah did her best - winking the sos with her left eye during the debates
she even through in a few youbetcha's
one thing for sure is if we can dump mubarrak obama on the fools in egypt - then we should do that before they realize their mistake..."
medmedude
... I especially like the poor spelling since it really helps to convey that metaphorical dum amurikan... every time I read it -I chuckle all over again... toooo funny!
"He who is swimming against the stream comes to the source" Gottfried Muller
This is not a time to fear the dark shadows that still lurk in the background. This is a time of great hope, and a time to cast away chains ...
Mubarak, a man that is seen as a puppet that betrayed his own people. Remove the Mu because that quote from Chris Hedges also fits Barry.
That is a deceitful posture. Your argument is to scold others for not reading the article-and then state your opinion as the correct one because it is obvious that you were the only one who read the article.
he knows not what he's saying. have mercy.
civility will save us all, right?
how about some intellectual clarity?
>>Hedges did not make wild predictions, nor did he overstate the case. He wrote, in my opinion, a thoughtful piece that we would all do well to read and consider carefully. The stakes are very high, and this is no time for hasty conclusions or superficial, overly-optimistic analyses.
I agree Professor. As I have said before, you are taking it to the next level. I am appreciative and I suspect a number of other readers are as well.
Visiting Professor,
I just read your post to me from yesterday evening. Thank you for asking me "why".
After reading your thoughts here, i would have to say that i was responding to his speculation as though it were factual reporting, in his first few sentences.
I had just watched DemocracyNow! where the facts on the ground were contradictory to what he had said. He then went on as though this hypothesis were fact, when he could have listened to the same broadcast and learned something new. Something that might create dissonance for him, as he was referring to his experience in the nineties.
I felt that the authority with which he was speaking was based upon a certain assumption, anchored in the past, thus he was unable to 'see' that something new might be happening here and now. And, as an additional thought, i find that Chris does this frequently - always assuming the worst. This is not surprising when one has a dark view of 'human nature'. It simply can't be otherwise. This is an area with which i am very, very familiar - peoples' belief systems and the need to move beyond ones that are destructive or simply very restrictive.
I would suggest that the only way forward for humanity is a much more expansive and creative vision. To quote Einstein (as i am prone to do), "No problem can be solved by the consciousness that created it". This means that new beliefs and perspectives would need to replace old ones.
I believe Chris Hedges is brilliant when it comes to reframing and expressing insight into where we are - from a very specific point of view, which is colored by his religious background. It can't help but be based upon his own deep belief system. I do take this into consideration. However, i felt that in this piece, he was projecting too much from the past.
However, having said all of this, what really bothered me the most was that it seemed as if he didn't bother to listen to what was actually happening on the streets of Cairo before he began to speculate. It seemed to me that he already knew what he wanted to say, and simply didn't bother to integrate the facts on the ground.
However, time will tell.....
Peace,
rita