Who are the incubators of a real democratic renewal in the Arab Spring? After talking to young Egyptians, among them many intellectuals, who returned to their homeland having studied at prestigious English universities, I feel confronted with a rather contradictory picture.
They fight against corruption, religious fanaticism, for human rights, women's dignity and against violation of justice. But at the same time they are irreconcilable in their hostility towards the West. "You in America and Europe have supported the tyrant Mubarak for decades and condoned his torture chambers. We do not owe you anything. We are looking for new alliances, and even though they might not be ideal they are better than the West." They prefer Putin to Obama, are trusting Turkey more than Brussels and Berlin.
They have unambiguous views of Israel and the conflict in Palestine: diplomatic relations should be reduced further if not abandoned altogether. Open borders with Gaza, considerably more military elbowroom on the Sinai Peninsula, and the end of the gas supplies - as these are squandered below cost price to the Israelis - are the demands of the young Egyptians.
Most of all they are against a two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They stand for a single, democratic Palestinian state where Palestinian refugees can assert their right to return. The idea of a Jewish state is a reprehensible, old-fashioned 'colonial' concept to them.
The fact that the Muslim Brotherhood and the even more fanatic Salafists gained more than two thirds of parliamentary mandates will give the young Democrats of this new hue little chance to assert themselves. Thus they are not only isolated, and alienated from the West, but also a thorn in the side of the electoral victors. The likely solution - an alliance between Islamists of all shades and the army - threatens at best to force these young Democrats into an impotent opposition but worst still could lead to a breaking-up of their groups.
Economic misery; a devastating decline of the tourism which is so important for that country; unemployment amongst young people of all strata, including the academically educated, present a bleak picture.
How should the free world view this emerging tragedy?
Why should they love us?
(Raucous, flabby tourism doesn't count.)
Oligarchy: Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families.
Socialism: An economic system in which property is held in common and not individually.
Or do you mean communist? Either way, pinkos they weren't.
"With a great deal of trepidation."
This is, tragically, yet another opportunity to foment instability. While the people who demonstrated in the streets may have done so for an initially noble cause, they are now disorganized, easily manipulated and increasingly angry. There are other factions - with long held axes to grind - all too willing to step in and misdirect the energy of the population. It appears that even at this point, the power is shifting to a well organized few who are using the opportunity to re-direct the situation and manipuate the anger of the people to their own political ends. It was predictable and avoidable but as usual, political expediency prevented any assertive action.
There is no excuse for this; anyone could have predicted the outcome. Yet the US State Department somehow convinced themselves that the Muslim Brotherhood was essentially a "secular organization". This sort of self-delusion has been seen before (Iran in 1979), and we should have learned from it. Instead, we repeat our mistakes, now on a grander scale.
We are being led by an "elite" of self-absorbed, insular, arrogant and naive academics who have been selectively bred to be blind to the harsh realities of the world. We are being led by people who are so convinced of their own world view that they believe those beliefs will be inevitably be adopted by others. Good luck with that. I'm not holding my breath.
I don't think there's any naivete about it. I think it is calculated, deliberate and based entirely on commercial and power interests. Giving them a pass as "blind" or "naive" is to suppose that they have somehow been misled by their own beliefs. I don't believe that at all and I think it's far too generous. Whatever blindess is involved is selective and intentional and whatever naivete is present is completely disingenuous and exists only for the benefit of cameras and posterity. There is nothing accidental about any of this.
I must say that I cannot for the life of me see how any commercial interest is advanced by making believe that radical Islam is not on the rise.
They wouldn't hate the West so much if we didn't meddle in their affairs so outrageously, in my opinion.
That is not a tragedy, the free world should embrace them, because they are expressing their views freely. The tragedy is after 60 plus years of subjugating people, you folks haven't figured out there are consequences.
Think before opining.
Go Arab Spring!