It's not really my field of expertise, but I've been thinking about the events in Egypt. While anyone of democratic mind is rightly cheering the turn of events there, we should be thinking of the possible repercussions.
And the repercussions are that whatever regime takes Mubarak's place will likely be far worse and more repressive than he was. The reason is that this is how it has always played out in the region after protests and overthrows, and there is no reason to believe this time will be any different, unless all the players are thinking ahead to this likely eventuality and coming up with solid plans to avoid it.
According to an Associated Press report, Obama's response to the crisis in Egypt is "drawing fierce criticism in Israel, where many view the U.S. leader as a political naif whose pressure on a stalwart ally to hand over power is liable to backfire."
Israeli officials have made no secret of their view that shunning Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and pushing for swift elections in Egypt could bring unintended results, the Associated Press reports.
Then again, while I don't doubt the AP claims that Israeli officials are concerned, we should be wary of who is being quoted.
"I don't think the Americans understand yet the disaster they have pushed the Middle East into," lawmaker Binyamin Ben-Eliezer told the Associated Press. (DISCLAIMER: he's a longtime friend of Mubarak)
"If there are elections like the Americans want, I wouldn't be surprised if the Muslim Brotherhood didn't win a majority, it would win half of the seats in parliament," he told Army Radio. "It will be a new Middle East, extremist radical Islam."
doesn't israel always shit a brick when things don't go exactly the way they want it? also, from everything I've read and heard, the Muslim Brotherhood is actually fairly weak and pretty politically moderate. But I guess its always been US policy to support flagrant violations of civil and human rights in the name of a marginal, short-term improvements in "stability."
ReplyDelete