legov Posted February 14, 2011 Author Share Posted February 14, 2011 I have to say I never saw this coming, but protests are spreading throughout the Arab world* - not sure if this has been mentioned because it's the main headline in my local paper today. * Including Yemen :shock: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Seems to be getting very ugly in Bahrain overnight. Police reported to have attacked sleeping protesters at about 3.30 am local time. Little in MSM (even Al Jazeera at the moment) but twitter is going nuts. Angry Arab blogspot A comrade who should remain anonymous: "The following numbers are straight from the hospital in Bahrain • 5 dead, 2000 young adults injured, 400 elderly injured, 250 women injured, 70 children injured... 300 of the mentioned in critical condition •Police have attacked ambulance crews •blood donars heading to the hospital attacked. Only people that can safely go to the hospital are doctors and nurses with IDS The army is apparently on the streets but is mostly made up of Sunni's from inside and outside Bahrain. Protesters are mainly from the Shia majority.. From same blog: Split in the royal family in Bahrain? Again: I can't reveal the source: "From people connected to high people in the government and wish to remain absolutely anonymous. Please spread the word: - There is a split within the royal family. Khalid bin Ahmed and Khalifa bin Ahmed are on one side and the King and Shaikh Salman on the other. The extreme violence are Khalid Bin Ahmed (head of the royal court - sectarian and racist responsible for political naturalization scheme) and Khalifa Bin Ahmed (minister of defense). Sources are saying that the King no longer has full control. There are outside forces (I'm guessing Saudi Arabia) pushing for these two to take over and for Nasir Bin Hamed (one of kings sons) to take over position of crown prince (again please I need to be completely anonymous if you post - sorry I keep repeating this - we now feel we are in a war) Thank you so much for your help" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mozzavfc Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 there was a great quote from 1 of the police officers in Bahrain (maybe even the chief of police, can't remember) but the jist of it it was like 'we were worried about their safety in pearl square and we knew communication wouldn't work, so we opened fire on them to clear them out' sound logic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 So, who exactly are in place to take over if they topple the regime? A lot of suggestions that the Muslim Brotherhood will step in, and they aren't terribly fussed about Democratic values either...plus there is a decent Christian population there too, what will it mean for them? This article is quite informative about the various groups opposing the regime. Doesn't answer who will take over, though I'm not sure anyone can answer that. Interesting document here that takes a deeper look at the Muslim Botherhood and what they might mean for Egypt if they won a majority in an election. A few highlights below: The Muslim Brothers in Action: The Four Faces of Tyranny A closer look at the Muslim Brothers reveals a large number of inconsistencies between their general pronouncements and specific documents, between their theory and their practice, and between what they say in English and what they say in Arabic. A serious scrutiny of their documents and public positions reveals what can only be depicted as an intention to implement religious tyranny. In particular, the political project of the Egyptian Brothers seems to have four aims: creating the “faithful man”; establishing a theocratic polity; enhancing the interventionist state; and adopting confrontational foreign and national security policies. .......................... More specifically, the Brothers propose not only to end every facet of normalization with Israel but also to submit the Egyptian Israeli peace treaty to a referendum, so that Egyptians can decide whether or not they accept peace “with the Zionist entity.” In addition, the draft party platform commits the Brothers to make every effort “to reach a fundamental solution to the Palestinian question that will guarantee the right of all Palestinians in and outside the occupied territories [by] establishing a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital on all the historic land of Palestine.” When Essam Al Erian, a prominent member of the Muslim Brothers, recently declared that if and when the movement came to power it would be prepared to recognize Israel and to respect the existing agreements between Egypt and Israel, the Brothers’ Supreme Guide, Mohammed Mahdi Akef, responded that “the Brothers are not recognizing nor are they going to recognize Israel.” He then added: “There is nothing in the dictionary of the Muslim Brothers that is called ‘Israel’. . . .What we recognize is that Zionist gangs have occupied Arab territory and kicked its people out. If [the Israelis] want to live among us, it will be in the framework of Palestine; but if they want a state [of their own], we offer nothing but resistance.” Sounds like a recipe for trouble, particularly when you take these numbers into account: 2010 Poll of Egyptians The data is from a July 2010 poll Zogby International conducted for the University of Maryland. On the U.S.: 85% had an unfavorable attitude toward the U.S., 87% had no confidence in the U.S., 92% named the U.S. as one of two nations that are the greatest threat to them, only 4% said if they had to live in another country they would choose the U.S. and 52% have an unfavorable opinion of the American people. On Barack Obama: 61% were hopeful when Obama took office, 61% said he had not met the expectations set in his 2009 speech in Cairo, 60% were discouraged by his Middle East policies and 54% had a negative view of him. On Israel and Palestinians: 69% said that of all Obama policies they were most disappointed toward Israel and Palestine; 90% named Israel as one of two nations that are the greatest threat to them and Egyptians were split as to whether there would ever be lasting peace between Israel and Palestinians. On the role of clergy in government: 65% agreed with a statement that "clergy must play a greater role in our political system." On Iran: 86% say Iran has a right to pursue its nuclear program, 56% agree Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons and 79% say it would be positive if Iran acquired nuclear arms.[!!!!!] On Iraq: 57% said the U.S. role in Iraq was the issue most central issue in their assessment of Obama administration Middle East policy and 75% said the Iraqi people were worse off due to the war. Maybe transition to a peaceful Western style democracy isn't quite so cut and dried if/when the army step aside? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Bahrain and Libya are bit of a mess at the moment to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Interesting document here that takes a deeper look at the Muslim Botherhood and what they might mean for Egypt if they won a majority in an election. There's another interesting one from the same place, just a month later, here. They seem to have produced only these two papers specifically about the Egyptian MB. Brief summary of the second paper would be that the jury's still out. The evidence supports the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s democratic claims to a considerable degree, but remains far from definitive. There is little question that the MB has gone to great lengths to behave as a democratic actor and to formulate a more democratic discourse. At the same time, mixed messages from within the organization—not least of which the contents of its latest draft political party platform—as well as pervasive doubts about its ultimate goals complicate any easy conclusions. A plausible reading of the evidence is that the discourse and behavior analyzed in this Brief represent the preferences of a currently dominant pragmatic coalition within the Brotherhood’s leadership, but do not yet amount to a set of convictions fully internalized by the rest of this vast and still largely secretive organization. The controversies surrounding the MB over the last few years should be viewed as evidence of its own internal confusion as it struggles to grapple with a rapidly changing domestic and international political arena, as well as of the incompatibility between some of its deeply held ideas and more liberal conceptions of democracy. Analysts should thus look for evidence of the evolving balance of power and ideas in an organization in flux—while policy should be oriented toward encouraging a victory for the pragmatists and democrats within the organization. Another piece from one of the people at the institute, here, compares the MB with Turkey and says that the Turkish history of including Islamist groups has helped create a sense of playing by the rules and working with others, which isn't the case in Egypt where the MB has been deliberately excluded. I suppose that suggests that if you want an Islamic party which is prepared to work with others, then it will be necessary to show that there are some benefits to doing that, in order to strengthen the position of the more liberal voices in that party, which is also the conclusion in the bit I've quoted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted February 19, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted February 19, 2011 Brandeis is a decent uni, but not necessarily the most reliable source on those sorts of issues... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Brandeis is a decent uni, but not necessarily the most reliable source on those sorts of issues... Don't know about Brandeis more widely, but the bits I've read from the Crown Center (which only does the Middle East) seem to be balanced, well researched and referenced. And I saw something attacking them from some weird and seemingly completely illiberal group called "Campuswatch", which I took as a recommendation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted February 20, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted February 20, 2011 It's a near-exclusively Jewish university (not as much so as, say Yeshiva), largely founded by ardent Zionists (indeed it was going to be named after Einstein but when Albert turned out to be insufficiently Zionist they name name it after Louis Brandeis). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 It's a near-exclusively Jewish university (not as much so as, say Yeshiva), largely founded by ardent Zionists (indeed it was going to be named after Einstein but when Albert turned out to be insufficiently Zionist they name name it after Louis Brandeis). Thanks for that, puts a slightly different slant on the source. Incidentally the UN Security Council veto by the US yesterday to block a resolution condemning Israeli settlement activity won't be painting them in a great light in the Arab street. If America wishes to try and rehabilitate their image in the region when the dust of revolution has settled then they may need to re-evaluate their approach somewhat. Meanwhile Bahrain seems to have calmed slightly, there are full scale massacres going on in Libya, Yemen is still bubbling away, Algeria is unsettled and there have been some small - and very brief - protests in Kuwait. They may not see eye to eye with the West on many things but it's impossible not to be humbled by the simple bravery of ordinary people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted February 20, 2011 Author Share Posted February 20, 2011 Brings tear to me eye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted February 20, 2011 Moderator Share Posted February 20, 2011 Incidentally the UN Security Council veto by the US yesterday to block a resolution condemning Israeli settlement activity won't be painting them in a great light in the Arab street. If America wishes to try and rehabilitate their image in the region when the dust of revolution has settled then they may need to re-evaluate their approach somewhat. Indeed. 130 nations supported the resolution, including us. It was essentially one of those moments that sometimes happens where the whole world agrees that something is wrong and the US over rules them because it's Israel. Not good at the best of times, but in the middle of period when the whole of this region is changeable at best and dangerous at worst, it's a pretty foolish bit of diplomacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 It's a near-exclusively Jewish university (not as much so as, say Yeshiva), largely founded by ardent Zionists (indeed it was going to be named after Einstein but when Albert turned out to be insufficiently Zionist they name name it after Louis Brandeis). Thanks, that's interesting. The Crown Center, though, isn't exclusively Jewish, and I read that they aim to attract Arab scholars as well, reflecting their aim of producing balanced research. In fact, one of their people is the brother of the assassinated founder of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and they were strongly criticised by the Zionist Organisation of America for employing him, which again seems like a point in their favour: Brandeis University ought to require more of its scholars than that they simply not have been convicted of crimes, the president of the ZOA, Morton Klein, said yesterday. "Would you hire O.J. Simpson to be your school football coach?" he said. Mr. Klein is demanding of Brandeis and Mr. Shikaki that the scholar condemn his past associations with PIJ, WISE, and ICP; apologize for his past "and for deceiving or misleading Brandeis University and others and show genuine contrition for these associations and past actions"; ask forgiveness for past associations; "publicly condemn by name Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other terrorist organizations"; and "publicly express support for Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State." What little I've read from them seems balanced and reasonable. They don't come across as yet another propaganda organisation masquerading as an academic research body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Massacre in Libya apparently. Time for one of the big boys to step in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted February 20, 2011 Moderator Share Posted February 20, 2011 Problem is how to step in without making a bigger mess (that and picking which side you want to jump in on.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 I wonder what "stepping in" would look like, though, and what it could accomplish? We've been stepping in for many decades in that whole region, and it doesn't look like a great success story to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulieB Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 This is spreading all over the Middle East... Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Bahrain now Morocco, Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted February 20, 2011 Moderator Share Posted February 20, 2011 I wonder what "stepping in" would look like, though, and what it could accomplish? We've been stepping in for many decades in that whole region, and it doesn't look like a great success story to me. I absolutely agree, I don't advocate stepping in at all. The whole area is bonkers at the moment, but the only time I can see the big boys (which let's face it means the US and its various minions) getting involved is if it affects the Saudi's or Israel - if we get to that point, we'll be in shit so deep it won't really matter much how much of a mess we leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 20, 2011 Moderator Share Posted February 20, 2011 I think we've already seen in enough detail what happens when "the big boys" attempt intervention in the area. Best left well alone imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 I wonder what "stepping in" would look like, though, and what it could accomplish? We've been stepping in for many decades in that whole region, and it doesn't look like a great success story to me. I absolutely agree, I don't advocate stepping in at all. The whole area is bonkers at the moment, but the only time I can see the big boys (which let's face it means the US and its various minions) getting involved is if it affects the Saudi's or Israel - if we get to that point, we'll be in shit so deep it won't really matter much how much of a mess we leave. Foreign forces are already allegedly involved, those death squads using heavy machine guns on protesters are said to be mercenaries from Chad. No one but the US has the combat power to go in, oust the regime and secure the country. Given that they are already mixed up in two enduring insurgencies that ain't gonna happen. Either the Libyan army turns on Gadaffi or he stays in power. As an aside, yet another inspired foreign policy initiative by Saint Tony goes down the swanny.. Libya: The Blair-Gaddafi project Come to think of it maybe this is all part of his efforts as Middle East peace envoy? Everything else he touched has turned to shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts