Free Markets, Free People

About Egypt’s “Arab Spring”

It’s not much to look forward too.   Tony Blankley makes the pointthat many of us have been making as we’ve watched this little drama unfold in Egypt – it ain’t about “democracy”:

That "democratic revolution," as the administration persistently called it, seems to have settled down into an ugly accord between the Army-run government, the Muslim Brotherhood and the fanatical salafists — which the new regime has been releasing from the prisons into which Mubarak very usefully had sent those dreadful men. Killing Coptic Christians, attacking women on the street for non-Muslim garb and other pre-Mubarak attitudes are thus now back in vogue in "democratic" Egypt.

Whether the administration will admit it or not, the fact remains that democracy isn’t set up to succeed in Egypt.  By “democracy” I mean institutions that are structured to both support a democratic nation and ensure the success of such a system.  It is simply another in a long line of swapping one oppressor for the other.  While Mubarak may not have been anyone’s ideal, what may follow, given the indications, may be worse.

Two weeks ago, the administration was "surprised" at the Egyptian-brokered accord between the terrorist Hamas and the West Bank Fatah Palestinian factions — ending even a theoretical chance of Israeli/Palestinian negotiations.

Indeed.  And now with Egypt firmly moving to the “other side” after years of peace with Israel, the future looks even more bleak and any peace accord becomes even more unlikely.

And with Obama yesterday essentially demanding the ‘67 borders as a peace concession by Israel any settlement became virtually impossible.  No wonder Middle East peace envoy, George Mitchell is resigning.  He recognizes a dead end when he see’s one.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

10 Responses to About Egypt’s “Arab Spring”

  • No wonder Middle East peace envoy, George Mitchell is resigning.  He recognizes a dead end when he see’s one.

    Was that a sly double entendre aimed at our Sec. Of State’s ample posterior…???
    But, seriously, things just seem to get more dire by small and large degrees every day.

    • Charles Krauthammer: “What Obama did today is tear up that agreement. If Israel cannot rely on assurances of the United States, which is a way to balance the risks it takes, it cannot negotiate it. It has to wonder how much it can trust this American President.”

      No wonder George Mitchell resigned.

    • The long form response from David Bernstein over at Volokh

      Israel necessarily gives up tangible assets (land) for promises of peace. Israel is willing to do only if her government trusts the U.S. When President Obama ignores promises made to Ariel Sharon by Obama’s predecessor in exchange for withdrawal from Gaza–that American policy started from the premise that Israel would keep the settlement blocs–that trust evaporates.
      In 1956, Israel withdrew from Sinai in exchange for an American promise that it would use military force, if necessary, to keep the Suez Canal open to Israeli shipping. When Nasser closed the Canal in 1967, Johnson reneged on this promise. Backed into a corner, Israel preemptively struck at Egypt and Syria, and Jordan, too, when it chose to involve itself in the conflict.
      Contrary to received wisdom, an insecure Israel is a belligerent Israel. U.S. policy for the last forty-plus years has been to try to ensure that Israel feels secure so that its peacemaking instincts prevail. I think that if Obama has indeed tossed out Bush’s promises from only seven years ago, the cause of peace is being harmed.

      I’d say that Obama has, at best frozen the peace process in the Middle East. This is the kind of stuff you get for a foreign policy neophyte.

  • Israel will now go to the Palestinian negotiation plan … stall … wait for the next international change.
    On the other side, they now can’t really go to war without upsetting Obama’s cart, which will throw Israel into the arms of the US.  If war breaks out, Obama will be forced to back Israel less he lose the Congress.
    Domestically, Obama has pissed off a large portion of Jews, who historically vote for Democrats.  My guess is that he has now settled into the belief that he will have no primary challenge.

  • Let’s hope the Jews aren’t forced to open their cans of Israeli Whup-ass again so that 5 years from now the losers (I expect but pray that won’t be the Israelis) will be demanding a return to the pre-2012 borders.
     
    And it makes me nervous that we’ll stand by and watch – the bozo in the White House can’t possibly make a decision to help them in the short time frame he’ll have.
     
     

    • Let’s hope the Jews aren’t forced to open their cans of Israeli Whup-ass again so that 5 years from now the losers (I expect but pray that won’t be the Israelis) will be demanding a return to the pre-2012 borders.

      >>>> Start a war, lose your land, tough doots.

      • I’m with ya Shark, 100% – Israel is a little sleeping hornet’s nest the Arab boys just can’t stop themselves from poking – they get stung every time.  Hell, they’re lucky the Israelis aren’t imperialists and only try to hang on to land that their enemies tend to use militarily like the Golan Heights.
         
        Given the outcomes over the last 50 years, many another country in their position would today be worrying about maintaining their border with Turkey, Libya, Sudan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia rather than the West Bank.  The Arabs should be happy the Jews didn’t want MORE than they ended up hanging on to.

  • Yest another attempt by the Obama Administration to abandon their failing domestic agenda.

  • Look, the situation in Egypt MUST be democratization.  I mean, MiniTru has already given the credit for it to Captain Bullsh*t on account of his stirring, historic, unprecedented speech in Cairo a few years back.  Right?