I can't exactly say he's happy about the situation any more.
Egypt
- Thread starter Jadzia
- Start date
I can't exactly say he's happy about the situation any more.
No! A thousand times no. We should support those who help our country gain in power and influence. If we get to do something nice along the way, well that's peachy keen.
Mubarak's fall is a wonderful thing. Nonetheless, making a revolution is not the same as winning it. The people rose up in the Philippines years ago, but they didn't succeed in making much change.
The current Egyptian regime is another neoliberal capitalist basket case, with a tiny stratum of ultrarich combining with the foreign rich against the mass of the populations, getting even richer in the process. This system is as yet untouched. It's a terrible system. Egypt can no longer feed itself. Part of the revolution is against this, in other words, left wing.
The putative new "leader," Omar Suleiman, was head of intelligence, meaning he oversaw brutalization of the population, including a commitment to torture so intense that Egypt was apparently a favorite outsource for US torture. Suleiman also cooperated with the Israelis in the permanent blockade of Gaza and other nefarious deeds. He is no better than Mubarak, with the added fault of still being energetic and not yet senile. (Which is almost certainly the real problem in the regime that kept it from drowning the protests in blood already.)
The military, like all militaries led by officers and gentlemen is split. The lower ranks are reportedly getting very soft on attacking the population. The upper ranks, being upper class (that is what the "gentleman" means, after all,) are fearful of losing discipline. And the highest ranks I think are split over who to support (one of their own? which one? Suleiman? someone not as blatantly depraved as Suleiman?)
If the military loses control so that the blockade of Gaza breaks, it would be a good sign that a deep revolution is taking place.
If that happens, though, the Israelis are liable to go apeshit. They fancy themselves great generals, even though the record is quite mixed when they don't launch a sneak attack. Who knows what those nasty little nitwits might do.
If the new regime tries to bring the Muslim Brotherhood on board, as fellow reactionaries who can overlook decades of repression and torture in the interests of power, the Israelis might lack the sophistication and courage to accept it as the best hand they could get.
And if the new regime was in the slightest swayed by concern for its citizens, it might want to get more revenue to buy food. One of the quickest, most legitimate ways to raise it(by capitalist and bourgeois democratic standards too!) would be to terminate the natural gas subsidy to Israel, and sell for market price. (Yes, a desperately poor nation is subsidizing a supposedly rich one. That's how capitalism works.)
The current Egyptian regime is another neoliberal capitalist basket case, with a tiny stratum of ultrarich combining with the foreign rich against the mass of the populations, getting even richer in the process. This system is as yet untouched. It's a terrible system. Egypt can no longer feed itself. Part of the revolution is against this, in other words, left wing.
The putative new "leader," Omar Suleiman, was head of intelligence, meaning he oversaw brutalization of the population, including a commitment to torture so intense that Egypt was apparently a favorite outsource for US torture. Suleiman also cooperated with the Israelis in the permanent blockade of Gaza and other nefarious deeds. He is no better than Mubarak, with the added fault of still being energetic and not yet senile. (Which is almost certainly the real problem in the regime that kept it from drowning the protests in blood already.)
The military, like all militaries led by officers and gentlemen is split. The lower ranks are reportedly getting very soft on attacking the population. The upper ranks, being upper class (that is what the "gentleman" means, after all,) are fearful of losing discipline. And the highest ranks I think are split over who to support (one of their own? which one? Suleiman? someone not as blatantly depraved as Suleiman?)
If the military loses control so that the blockade of Gaza breaks, it would be a good sign that a deep revolution is taking place.
If that happens, though, the Israelis are liable to go apeshit. They fancy themselves great generals, even though the record is quite mixed when they don't launch a sneak attack. Who knows what those nasty little nitwits might do.
If the new regime tries to bring the Muslim Brotherhood on board, as fellow reactionaries who can overlook decades of repression and torture in the interests of power, the Israelis might lack the sophistication and courage to accept it as the best hand they could get.
And if the new regime was in the slightest swayed by concern for its citizens, it might want to get more revenue to buy food. One of the quickest, most legitimate ways to raise it(by capitalist and bourgeois democratic standards too!) would be to terminate the natural gas subsidy to Israel, and sell for market price. (Yes, a desperately poor nation is subsidizing a supposedly rich one. That's how capitalism works.)
Suleiman isn't the putative new leader. Suleiman announced that power was being transferred to the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (which I believe is somewhat analogous to the joint chiefs of staff in the US), which is headed by Mohamed Hussein Tantawi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Hussein_Tantawi
Suleiman himself appears to be out of the picture now. This is a decent primer on the current state of play:
http://www.slate.com/id/2284829/
Though of course, things are changing fast, so that all may be obsolete by tomorrow.
Agreed on that. Which is why another post about how "the military may now decide to keep power for themselves" kind of misses the point. Who is "themselves"? The military leaders can't keep power for themselves and prevent elections from being held unless they have troops who are willing to fire on protesters. If they don't have troops willing to fire on protesters, then they have to give in to the demands of protesters.
Similar threads
