Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
July 04, 2013

Eygpt: The Coup - First Aftermath

Was it a coup or not? The definition matters because U.S. payments to the Egyptian military are only allowed when it does not overthrow the legal government. No payment, no safety for Israel. It therefore can not be allowed to have been a coup. 

The governments of at least three countries called it a coup - Turkey, Canada and Tunisia. Other "western" countries and Arab countries called it something else. Of the international organizations only the African Union talked about "consequences".

If this military coup is not even called such it must have been successful. Who ever arrange this one had a good plan and executed well. Not taking power itself but using civilian public unrest to hand power to another group of civilians will keep the military largely out of the political fray.

The coup came on the background of a coup-like change in leadership in Qatar, seemingly forced by Saudi Arabia and the United States. Qatar had been backing the Muslim Brotherhood in several countries but is now backing away from it. Today the Qatari government said that it has "always been supportive of the will of the Egyptian people" and it "praises the [Egyptian] army role in defending Egypt's national security". This change of heart in Qatar will have serious consequences for other regional political actors. Hamas leader Khaled Mashal clearly placed his bet on the wrong horse.

The only foreign folks still supporting Morsi are sitting in the Turkish government:

“Whatever the reason is, it is unacceptable that a democratically elected government was overthrown by illegitimate means, even more, with a military coup. A national consensus politics is possible only with the participation and support of democratic institutions, actors, opposition and civil society,” Davutoğlu told reporters in Istanbul.
The Egyptian military arrested Morsi and warrants were issued for the Brotherhood’s supreme guide Mohamed Badie and his deputy Khairat Shater, the organization’s chief strategist and financier. There are also arrest warrants against some 30 other MB leaders. The MB media were closed.

This is a (temporary) decapitation strike against the Muslim Brotherhood as a party. That does not mean that the Brotherhood will not be back or that its supporters will have no political voice. If it stays largely peaceful it will be allowed back though probably under a different name. In Turkey Erdogan's AKP only grew through several iterations of such after-coup renames and comebacks. It would be helpful to let the Brotherhood know that it is welcome if it plays by the rules. Some of its elders could then call for calm.

Some "western" media are depicting the conflict as Islamists versus Secularists. But that is the wrong view. The Egyptian electorate is largely pro-Islam and pro-Sharia. The question is about "how much" and about "inclusive" versus "exclusive". That is where Morsi failed. His call for war against Syria in extreme sectarian terms was the straw that broke the camels back. But there were many more reason why, in the eyes of many Egyptians, Morsi failed and had to go.

The coup was supported by Al-Azhar, Islams highest institute of learning, and by the Salafi parties which came in second in the last Egyptian election. With such support it is very likely that a decent majority of Egyptians will consent to what happened.

There are now reports about some clashes between some Morsi supporters and the Egyptian military near Cairo University. I do expect these to calm down within a day or two. There may be some further incidents, especially in the Sinai where Jihadis have been in attacking the army on several occasions. These are the guys to watch out for.

Those now in power should hold back on any unreasonable prosecution and be generous to those who feel disappointed. Shutting the Brotherhood down for a few days may help to avoid immediate big clashes. Suppressing it for long guarantees them to happen.

Posted by b on July 4, 2013 at 15:00 UTC | Permalink

Comments
next page »

A Coup = US dont support it
Not a coup = US support it

US hasnt cut the aid, no surpirse go figure - but some people here will still say the coup didnt had the US blessing.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 4 2013 15:07 utc | 1

"A Coup = US dont support it
Not a coup = US support it"

IMHO that is a bit too simplistic in describing the current situation in Egypt. IMO US does not put all its eggs in a single basket and oppose everyone else.
US supported Mubarak throughout his reign but also invested in MB (and even in "secular" opposition figures such as ElBaradei). When the first unrest started in Egypt MB did not support it, it abstained in the very first decisive -and most dangerous- days, when it became obvious that people won't be suppressed that easily and that it was very plausible that people may bring down Mubarak, only then MB jumped on the wagon and tried to get a share from the fruits of the movement.
Similarly military when it became obvious that people are indeed a force to reckon with tried to stay away from Mubarak.
As soon as Mubarak was toppled first we had SCAF (another horse that US supported), and when people had had enough of SCAF, MB was brought out to the scene and we had Morsi (another horse that US was willing to support).
This time around when people were fed up with Morsi, again we see the Military and guess who else? lo and behold.... none other than ElBaradei!!
In my opinion the only horse that US would NEVER back is the mass of protesting Egyptians in their millions.
So far US has handsomely managed to contain them and guide them from Mubarak to SCAF, from SCAF to Morsi and from Morsi to SCAF/Elbaradei.
Let's see what the future has in store for the Egyptians....

Posted by: Pirouz_2 | Jul 4 2013 15:49 utc | 2

"Who ever arrange this one had a good plan and executed well. Not taking power itself but using civilian public unrest to hand power to another group of civilians will keep the military largely out of the political fray. "

And who do you think it was that arranged "good plan that they executed well"?

I'm almost wondering if the CIA dropped a payment here.

Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 4 2013 15:59 utc | 3

Pirouz_2

Actually it is that simple, compare it with freedom fighters vs terrorits dicussion.
US work with whoever that are ready to embrace US policy.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 4 2013 16:09 utc | 4

Well no point debating whether it was a smart move or not now. Its history and can't be undone. So who are the winners and losers.

The clearest winner, at least in the short term is Saudi Arabia. What a week its been for the Saudi monarchy, getting rid of its rival, Qatar's Emir after 16 years, and then having the feared Muslim Brotherhood deposed. What's more the head of SCAF Al-Sisi served as military attache to Saudi Arabia, and the new interim President of Egypt Adli Mansour spent years as a legal consultant for the Saudi government. At least until the new elections Saudi Arabia is the winner.

The clearest loser, is probably Turkey in the short term and Israel in the long term. Erdogan must be having nightmares. Just a few weeks after Gezi Park became the new Tahrir, Tahrir becomes the new Gezi Park and successfully deposes a democratic Islamist government. The only reason Erdogan didn't get overthrown was the argument that the AKP wasn't a dictatorship like Mubarack. Now he sees democratically elected Islamists very close to his own policies dethroned. Will this news re-start the Gezi Park revolution?

Israels nightmare scenario has always been losing Mubarak and having to face a MB government. Then when that happened and the MB played ball its nightmare was losing the MB. Now who knows who will become the next leader of Egypt. Could be another Nasser committed to armed struggle against Israel, worse could be Salafists after former MB supporters flock to the Salafist cause. Could be an army general who decides to cement his image by starting a war against Israel. Whoever wins the next election will have to listen more to the people and since the economy won't improve in the near-term the best way to gain support is on foreign policy.

Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Jul 4 2013 16:10 utc | 5

i was impressed that they had celebratory fireworks all set to go - a real sense of showmanship there

Posted by: mistah charley, ph.d. | Jul 4 2013 16:13 utc | 6

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/07/counter-revolution/

Murray is calling it a counter-revolution, and sees the protests in Turkey as part of the same type.

What we are seeing in Egypt is counter-revolution pure and simple, military hardliners who are going to be friendly with Israel and the US, and are committing gross human rights abuse.

Western backed counter-revolution is going to be sweeping back across the Middle East; do not be distracted by the words of the West, watch the deeds. It will of course be in the name of secularism. There is an important correlation between what is happening in Turkey and Egypt. I made myself unpopular when I pointed out what the media did not tell you, that behind the tiny minority of doe-eyed greens in the vanguard of the Istanbul movement, stood the massed phalanxes of kemalist nationalism, a very ugly beast. “Secularism” was the cry there too. [my emphasis]

To be determined....


Posted by: jawbone | Jul 4 2013 16:15 utc | 7

I prefer a 'simplistic' perspective on situations as complex as Egypt and prefer to see Morsi as politically naiive. A lot of Egyptians felt, and said, that Morsi broke too many real (and implied?) promises.

If Morsi ran for election knowing that he was going to break a few promises, he should have had an excuse ready to keep the voters bemused. When Oz's John Dubya Howard broke a few pre-election promises, he quickly classified them as "non-core" promises and everyone was less than delighted, but happy enough - until Kevin 07 came along and PM Howard lost his seat to a newbie.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 4 2013 16:16 utc | 8

Karl Marx has shown that the main contradictions in society are between classes: rich vs poor, elite vs underdog, employer vs employed, owner vs renter... It is not between religious or ethnic groups. Trying to pretend otherwise is a mistake with messy consequences.

Posted by: ruralito | Jul 4 2013 16:19 utc | 9

@A.E. - "Who ever arrange this one had a good plan and executed well. Not taking power itself but using civilian public unrest to hand power to another group of civilians will keep the military largely out of the political fray. "

And who do you think it was that arranged "good plan that they executed well"?

I do believe that the Egyptian military made the plan some month ago and came up with the ideas of how to arrange it. They had support from the Saudis and from what is left of the Mubarak supporters. I do not see ANY U.S. involvement in it. Everything we heard from the U.S. ambassador and the White House until the very last moment was pro-MB and anti-coup.

I'm almost wondering if the CIA dropped a payment here.

bwaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Posted by: b | Jul 4 2013 16:20 utc | 10

Pirouz_2:

Voters beats protesters. Protests are impressive in countries without fair contested elections, but who counts the protesters? Who decides what they want? Protests are a very inelegant way to determine popular legitimacy. Maybe some country will write a constitution that or law that gives legitimacy to protests, but Egypt hadn't.

Polls are the same. Who conducts them and why? How are the questions written?

You determine popular will in elections. Pretty much period, if elections are available.

Protests can be manufactured, and the US may be the only government with a substantial capacity to manufacture protests in other countries.

The Court cancelled the national elections for the People's Assembly at the same time these "protests" happened.

The plan that b thinks was well done INCLUDED delaying and cancelling those elections. Somebody with influence in Egypt's Mubarak-era constitutional court made a decision to try to use protests in place of elections to transfer power away from the winners of every election Egypt has had post-Mubarak.

The United States may have a more pliable client in Qatar now than it did with his son, but the losers are of course Egypt's voters, who may get another election in 9 months to a year, with the party that won every election hampered in whatever way the US Embassy can think of.

Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 4 2013 16:22 utc | 11

The fact that the majority of the population hold reactionary, pro-clerical views, which are what they have been taught by the old order, and therefore that simple 'democracy' in the sense of majority rule necessarily leads to religious absolutism, should not be unfamilar to anyone who has worked through the Enlightenment problematic, as expounded for instance by Jonathan Israel in his three massive studies, "Radical Enlightenment", "Enlightenment Contested", and "Democratic Enlightenment". I should start by noting that he takes a very favourable view of Adam Weishaupt. Enlightenment has to be imposed, on the Weishaupt view. The population have to be re-educated. A tyranny of the Enlightened is a logical necessity to control this phase of re-education. I defy anyone to find any way round this, the only alternative being that the nation concerned remains in the night of ignorance and bigotry.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 4 2013 16:23 utc | 12

Rowan:

You've decided who should win Egypt's elections, and it should not be the Muslim Brotherhood. You're not even Egyptian. This is what colonialism is. You presume the right to set policy in Egypt against the will of the majority of Egyptians.

simple 'democracy' in the sense of majority rule necessarily leads to religious absolutism

I don't think you read the constitution. I think you're just spewing out words here. What exactly do you mean by religious absolutism? What law that the MB passed do you think fits the description you used?

I don't think you've even thought these things through. These are just words you use to cover your belief that the values of Egypt's voters should be subordinate to your values.

It is surprising to see how deep the colonialist impulse runs in Westerners.

Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 4 2013 16:28 utc | 13

What I think it's of great significance here is the fact that the army consulted with the civilian opposition, and that the civilians didn't expose the talks as a farce. This makes me believe that it was not a coup, at least not by some very powerful player.
I don't think it matters very much though, the USA/Israel and Saudi Arabia will probably slowly start pushing things their way.

Posted by: Tod | Jul 4 2013 16:29 utc | 14

Colm O Toole

Why would Ergdogan be scared of anything? He got the backing of his people. Why are you making this a religious argument? Just take a look in the middle east and see what kind of politics that are popular and hint, which religion.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 4 2013 16:31 utc | 15

b:

What is it about the Muslim Brotherhood that makes you side with the Americans against them even when the majority of Egypt's voters have shown themselves to be on their side?

Before this I would have thought you would agree with me that despite whatever reservations you have about MB policies, it should be a decision for the Egyptian people to make. If the Egyptian people disagree with you or me and reelect Morsi, then Morsi should be in power.

Now it seems like you have some animus against the MB that has turned you into a supporter of US efforts to subvert every Egyptian democratic institution and elected official.

Where does that animus come from?

Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 4 2013 16:35 utc | 16

b:

You really believe the military came up with a plan to overthrow the constitution months ago and didn't tell the Americans?

That's easier to believe for you than that the public statements issued by Americans in favor of the elected government were lies meant to avoid tainting public perception of the coup?

Do you really believe the Saudis came up with a plan to overthrow the Egyptian government and didn't tell the Americans?

I can't believe you're that gullible.

Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 4 2013 16:40 utc | 17

I'm almost wondering if the CIA dropped a xxxxxxx ('pro-democracy' troll) here.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 4 2013 16:50 utc | 18

Be interesting to see if there is a single change in any policies.

My guess is we'll still be seeing Egyptian volunteers in Syria. Austerity will still fall like a hammer on Egyptian society. More sectarian violence.

Again, like in the US, the meaningless political merry-go-round is going round-and-round while the people at top suck every last bit of civilization out of a great country.

Secular dictator, REVOLT, Army, REVOLT, Islamist business tool, REVOLT... back to Army. Wash rinse and repeat.

Priouz has is right: "The only horse that US would NEVER back is the mass of protesting Egyptians in their millions."

"Bread, Dignity, and Social Justice." Everything else is slight-of-hand.

Posted by: guest77 | Jul 4 2013 16:54 utc | 19

Egypt’s pol. system (outside the Constitution etc.) looks like electing a King. -Morsi saw it this way but so does most everyone else.. Sitting in the bus, I started to count the ppl/ instances I could turn to if I had a problem, an objection, a desire, or an idea, that concerned the body politic, was not just about my little life. I stopped counting at 8, realizing this was a dumb exercise.

There are ppl who argue that the French Revolution was never brought to a real conclusion, it is unfinished business. And that France set up a system that replaced the old elites with a new one, merely based on a new caste system, largely resting on wealth, coupled with quasi-monarchial powers for the Gvmt and President. Now things are finally set to change there, but the lapse in time is hundreds of years, so it is a creepingly slow business.

Egypt also finds itself - though it may not realise this clearly - with no good model to copy. It cannot embrace Communism, and imperatively must avoid neo-Capitalism by way of neo-feudalist Corporate rule (e.g. US.) which is partly what is has right now (that is another serious problem..)

A one-party Capitalistic Control system à la Chinoise or a technocrat gov. will not suit or be acceptable as recent events have shown.

The only open route is a ‘representative’ Republic-type gizmo.

To make that work, you need strong political parties with grass roots, even if the grass is new shoots, and some measure of locally attributed and circumscribed active Gvmt., to give some local power to the ppl. The system has to be accepted by all and be run on argument, negotiation, compromise. Egypt has NONE of these things, and can’t possibly build them in a day. It would also be expensive, btw. Imho, a pluralistic,so called tolerant society under a 'republic' has to move regional and away from forces (any) that act directly on the capital, the heart of Gov, main power nexus, etc. Egypt is not a village, there are 80 plus million ppl there.

The problem is also the army, which is not just a flow chart branch to the left or right of Gov, but a main - even perhaps principal after or even above Gov - economic actor. Controlling the e.g. cement industry with a backup threat of guns and a clan system of privilege is not acceptable. The silence around this is dismaying.

The army will not want to keep jack-boot control of the country, because they do no want to lose the control they have. Backed by the US, they need to keep on the sidelines and in the shadows. So they will be careful and behind the curtain waiting for some pol. resolution and will accept, even embrace, whatever transpires.

Posted by: Noirette | Jul 4 2013 16:54 utc | 20

A king does not have term limits or stand for reelection.

There is no reasonable definition of king that ever fitted Morsi.

Egypt had a reasonable constitution, written by Egyptians, that was overthrown by a foreign conspiracy that was aided by the minority of Egyptians who kept losing elections.

Now people are trying to blame Egypt for this. No. The blame for this lies with Barack Obama and the US government which did not respect the right of Egyptians to vote to set their own policies.

Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 4 2013 16:59 utc | 21

hmmm, the Guardian is coming out in an editorial in favour of the Muslim Brotherhood
and the Muslim Brotherhood seems to have decided to fight ...

Posted by: somebody | Jul 4 2013 17:03 utc | 22

"And who do you think it was that arranged "good plan that they executed well"?
I'm almost wondering if the CIA dropped a payment here."

Arnold,
Sorry to jump in your conversation with b. But here is my two cents.
I am not denying the CIA's possible role in this coup. Just as I am not denying that USA played an active role when people brought down Mubarak.
The question is not whether USA played any role or not, the question is WHAT role did the USA play. IMHO USA did not have any major problem with Morsi. It did not bring millions of Egyptians to the street to shout against Morsi. It cannot bring millions of people to the streets by just bribing them. And if it could (which it can't) then based on your own definition of "democracy" we should respect those millions of CIA supporters as the vote of "majority".

So no, CIA did not bring out the millions (actually that is USA's worst nightmare), but once they did come out, USA stepped in to
channel their energy in a direction which would suit it.
In other words, CIA plays the role of the devil, with Mubarak, SCAF, Morsi, ElBaradei being its demons (Baal, Pazuzu, Agares, etc.). People come out to topple Baal? Wait and see maybe they won't gather enough strength to do the job. As soon as you feel they maybe pissed off enough to bring him down, start presenting Pazuzu... They bring down Baal, present Pazuz as the opposition leader and shove him down their throat. Sometime down the road, they have had enough of Pazuzu, bring out Agares! Guide them from Baal to Pazuzu, from Pazuzu to Agaraes, from Agares to Barbas, and on and on and on...the hell is full of demons!

Posted by: Pirouz_2 | Jul 4 2013 17:06 utc | 23

Pirouz_2:

The Court delayed the People's Assembly elections as this coup was being planned.

I don't think these are unrelated occurrences. But the People's Assembly elections would have provided another democratic test of strength for the MB. The coup planners apparently did not expect that they could have won that test of strength.

I think it is well understood that the US has a capacity to organize public protests. Some of the color revolutions that have occurred in the world have been purely spontaneous, some have been aided by US organizations that have that as their mission.

The public protests didn't force the military to revoke the constitution. They gave the military cover to do what it clearly had pre-planned.

Oh, I also cannot allow you to group Morsi with Mubarak. You didn't like some of Morsi's policies. I didn't like the same policies you didn't like. But Morsi won most votes in a fair contested election, could not remain in power unless the won another election and had a constitution with term limits.

You think Morsi gave the US everything it wants. Obviously not. Obviously not because the Mubarak-era Court and military would not and could not have removed Morsi and the entire constitutional structure without US pre-approval.

Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 4 2013 17:22 utc | 24

@AE - I do believe that the Egyptian military came up with these plans months ago. They had to. The Egyptian military owns many of Egypt's industries and a large part of the tourism business. That brings them much more money then that paltry 1.3 billion from the U.S. (which also has to (largely) be spend on equipment from the U.S.) The Egyptian army interest is in a well running Egypt NOT in hand outs from the U.S. congress.

The army's business was going down because the MB's amateurish handling of several issues. Putting a (former) radical from a group that had killed tourists into a government position in Luxor, like Morsi has done, was a direct hit on the army's pocket. Then calling for war on Syria and Jihad, as Morsi and he his co-speakers did in late June, was a direct intrusion in military affairs. The army is fighting Jihadists in Sinai, has lost soldiers there and has NO interest in creating more of them. After that Morsi had to go.

And no, it did not tell the U.S. what its plans were. The Egyptian generals ain't babies who have to ask their sugar daddy on how to bind their shoes. They prepared plans and executed them. (They needed the Saudis to agree because they will now need money for their economy and could not be sure about Qatar or other sources.) All signs are that the U.S. did not make or supported these plans. Show me one iota of evidence that says otherwise.

As for "democracy" and such fetishes. I have layed out my opinion about that here: Culture And The Choice Of A Government Systems.

A paternalistic society like Egypt may not be well served by the majoritarian "democracy" you are promoting. It has shunned the neoliberal dictatorial system Mubarak and his son were implementing. It has shunned the majoritarian democracy and the islamist dreams of the MB. It is now searching and will find, over time, a system that fits its context. It is unlikely that such a system will be a purely secular democratic one. It will probably be a mix of some social-democracy, some strongman touch and parts of the Iranian system.

Consent of the governed today is more important than votes counted a year ago. Is it consent of the governed in Egypt to go to Jihad in Syria? I don't believe that. Is it consent of the governed in Egypt to exclude Copts and Shia from their society? That is what Morsi was working on. Is it consent of the governed in Egypt to blow up dams in Ethiopia? That is what Morsi and friends discussed (not knowing the camera was on) on live TV.

Insisting on a the four year term vote when the reality shows a large discrepancies between the promises the vote was base don and the real policies of those voted into office is simply stupid. Why suffer from it when you can change it?

Posted by: b | Jul 4 2013 17:32 utc | 25

B: You say that

The Egyptian electorate is largely pro-Islam and pro-Sharia.

and give us a link to an article that offers us the results of a Pew survey of the Muslim world where it tells us that 74% of Egyptians favour Sharia Law. Ok, but the following sentence tells us something different:

At the same time, the survey finds that even in many countries where there is strong backing for sharia, most Muslims favor religious freedom for people of other faiths.

Statistics are very dangerous things to wave about when you want to 'prove' something. Support for Sharia Lawn (whatever that is, as the survey also says) doesn't mean that so-called secular opinions on issues aren't supported by many Egyptians. And what of the purported 22 million Egyptians who signed a petition calling for Morsi to step down?

This insurrection is about the MB's non-delivery on just about every issue, let alone changing the law to give Morsi unlimited powers.

Do we really think the US-armed and supported military are going to to do anything other than try and preserve the status quo?

And it's really only a question of time before the replacement for the MB falls out of favour with a population that realises that it really does have power when it acts collectively. What it lacks right now is a programme to focus that power.

The reason why the seven imperialist countries are shy about calling it a coup has less to do with the legalities of supplying military aid and more to do with making sure the future of Egypt stays safely in the Empire's embrace. Interestingly, a supporter of the military's takeover/coup interviewed on the BBC also denied it was a coup. Essentially, making it sound like Egypt was under new, temporary management.

Posted by: William Bowles | Jul 4 2013 17:44 utc | 26

Channel 4: Mansour Interview

Posted by: William Bowles | Jul 4 2013 17:56 utc | 27

If you think the military planned and executed this coup over the last months without US involvement then you, I'm pretty sure, underestimate the broadness and depth of the ties between the US and Egyptian militaries that have been established over the last decades.

The ties have been established exactly so that the US could direct Egyptian policy, especially foreign policy, as it has successfully done, again for decades.

Now all of a sudden, the military can depose the government outside of US direction? I don't think you really believe that. I don't know what's going on, but I don't think it's that.

Al-Ahram reveals details of Armed Forces' post-Morsy roadmap
http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/al-ahram-reveals-details-armed-forces-post-morsy-roadmap
The paper also said that the Armed Forces’ roadmap has received international support and that its framework was devised with help from regional and international capitals.

The international capital that "helped" the Armed Forces with their roadmap was Washington DC. No the State Department has not made statements that it knows would damage the perception of the coup, such as expressing outward support, but the US has leverage over the military that it clearly has not used to prevent this coup.

You think Egyptians are not well served by democracy. Egyptians disagree. They wrote a constitution and voted to ratify it. There should have been an election this year, but the pro-US factions cancelled it before voiding the constitution that they could not get a majority of Egyptians to vote against.

I see you don't like Morsi or the MB. Beyond that, you agree with the US that Egypt's voters should be overruled if they disagree with you. That's what puzzles me.

Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 4 2013 18:01 utc | 28

somebody

Its very good that the Guardian show its support, finally a mainstream media source that get it.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 4 2013 18:05 utc | 29

A story on WashingtonsBlog asserts that the reason the military stepped in was because of Morsi's calling for 'holy jihad' in Syria and apparently it was the public call at an MB demonstration for Egyptians to go to Syria and fight Assad that tipped the balance in favour of military intervention.

How true this is I've no idea but clearly public opposition to Morsi's disastrous neoliberal policies was so great (we should be so lucky!) that the MB had to go.

Posted by: William Bowles | Jul 4 2013 18:21 utc | 30

well ,

aside from anti-Morsi groups , Morsi himself wasn't worthy leader for an so called revolutionary country ... and his performance was worse than this ....

If Mubarak stands behind USA ( an super power ) and take order from them , Morsi and MB become Qatar puppets ....

at least being USA puppets is better than being Qatar puppet ....

and regular Egyptians understand very well ....

Posted by: A Person | Jul 4 2013 18:40 utc | 31

#31, you disagree with most of the voters in Egypt's presidential election.

This is just disrespectful of Egypt's voters. I'm going to ask you directly: Do you respect the people who voted for Morsi?

Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 4 2013 18:43 utc | 32

Muslim? Brotherhood? Right there, in the very name, is the exclusivity that divides Egyptians. No vote will ever resolve it.

Also, Communism is not embraced. The people wage war until it dawns. However long it takes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvUVzvt_jtg

Then, they vote.

Posted by: ruralito | Jul 4 2013 18:44 utc | 33

"Do you respect the people who voted for Morsi?"

It's getting sad Arnold.

Posted by: guest77 | Jul 4 2013 18:52 utc | 34

Guest77

The question is obvious, dont you respect the mursi supporters?

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 4 2013 18:53 utc | 35

@AE If you think the military planned and executed this coup over the last months without US involvement then you, I'm pretty sure, underestimate the broadness and depth of the ties between the US and Egyptian militaries that have been established over the last decades.

Let me correct that:
"If you think the military planned and executed this coup over the last months with US involvement then you, I'm pretty sure, underestimate the broadness and depth of though of the Egyptian army generals. "

You somehow seem to think that Egyptian generals have no own agency. Why? Do you really believe the myth of the all powerful U.S.? Even after its loss of two major wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

You think Egyptians are not well served by democracy. Egyptians disagree. They wrote a constitution and voted to ratify it.

The constitution was written by a few MB folks in a 19 hour marathon after everyone else had left the constitutional assembly. It received 64% of votes in a turnout of 33%. That's about 20% of the voters.

And since that happened how many of those 20% might have changed their mind?

Again - I find it rather stupid how you cling to some numbers that show little support for what you claim and are now totally irrelevant anyway.

Also how you also cling to some tale of US allmightiness that gives people on the ground zero agency.

Posted by: b | Jul 4 2013 18:54 utc | 36

"I think it is well understood that the US has a capacity to organize public protests. Some of the color revolutions that have occurred in the world have been purely spontaneous, some have been aided by US organizations that have that as their mission."

Bringing out millions up on millions? I don't think that they can do so through bribing. And if they can, then based on your formula for democracy, they should be respected.
Bribing a few hundred thugs (as they did in Iran in 1953) to vandalize or "demonstrate" is one thing, breaking the record of the revolution of Feb 2011 is quite another thing.

Arnold, people owe nothing to their elected officials, they don't owe them a full term. It is the elected officials who owe the public their legitimacy. If the public does not agree with Morsi's continued rule (even if we assume that they have been bribed by the US), and show their disapproval by 14 million pouring out to the streets, there is nothing undemocratic about an early election.
You gave Mosaddegh as an example, well Mosaddegh was very eager to jump on each opportunity to go to people through elections or referendums.
In fact he disbanded the sitting parliament (just before the coup) and went for a referendum. Morsi did not have to act the way he [Morsi] did.
ANY democratic leader, in his stead, facing the crowds who ask him to "leave" would take the challenge and call for early elections.
Morsi, persistantly DID NOT.

Posted by: Pirouz_2 | Jul 4 2013 18:55 utc | 37

@32, Do you still beat your wife?

Posted by: ruralito | Jul 4 2013 18:56 utc | 38

And it's really only a question of time before the replacement for the MB falls out of favour with a population that realises that it really does have power when it acts collectively.

Bolivia comes to mind, until Evo came along.

Posted by: hans | Jul 4 2013 19:08 utc | 39

ruralito

You too hate democracy?

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 4 2013 19:12 utc | 40

Pirouz_2

Well these groups are indeed funded by america one cant deny that. That doesnt mean US itself have created this protest-movement.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 4 2013 19:14 utc | 41

b:

For centuries now colonial governments have done what their patrons instructed. That was true in the British Raj over India, it was true for Mubarak and it's true for Egypt, which now has the same military apparatus that ran Egypt for the US under Mubarak.

The Egyptian military has no ability to, independently of the US, overthrow the civilian government. IF you really believe it does, that disagreement cannot be resolved here and now. The Saudi military either, nor can the Saudi government or military, independent of the US, overthrow the Egyptian government.

The US is not all powerful, but it is an empire and it does have imperial clients.

About the constitution, amendments, including a complete rewrite of the constitution could be initiated by the People's Assembly. Voiding a ratified constitution because of street protests is absurd. Only the People's Assembly which was voided originally by the Mubarak-era court, was blocked from holding elections.

You don't like the constitution, but Egypt's voters did. Maybe some changed their mind? That becomes legitimate when they express it in a vote, such as the vote the coup-faction blocked.

Pirouz_2:

Yes, there are millions of Egyptians who disagree with the Muslim Brotherhood. We already knew that because millions of people voted against him. Organizing these millions into demonstrations likely had foreign organization, funding and assistance. It has not been admitted, but I expect it will be confirmed in coming decades.

It was theater though, that the military chose the demonstrations to announce it was voiding the constitution, which clearly was preplanned. The coup-faction was avoiding a constitutionally required election after it lost six in a row.

Elections are valid expressions of public will. Protests in countries where elections are available are not.

This was a plain power grab by pro-US factions of Egyptian society with the protests providing a favorable visuals for public relations purposes.

Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 4 2013 19:15 utc | 42

@Anon @Arnold

Do you support the right of the Egyptian people to carry out a revolution under any circumstances to put their country on the direction they prefer?

Egypt is in a revolutionary situation. You all seem to think that simple elections are a zero-sum game. Millions upon millions of Egyptians people obviously feel differently. So please... "Have some respect."

When Chavez was ousted in 2002, millions descended onto Miraflores to save their President. IMHO, this was the truest expression of democratic will ever seen.

If the people want Morsi still, let them save him. Where are they?

Posted by: guest77 | Jul 4 2013 19:19 utc | 43

if SCAF now effectively bans the Muslim brotherhood, then it's indisputably a coup.

Posted by: skybox | Jul 4 2013 19:22 utc | 44

Pirouz_2:

Pretty much, there are two choices for deciding what the Egyptian people want. Either elections, or the US station-chief in Cairo looks over whatever polls he wants, whatever estimates of crowd size he picks and the US station-chief decides.

Egypt had a constitution that has an impeachment process and a referendum process. Once you through out elections in favor of guesses and estimates that may or may not be biased, you're transforming Egypt back into a US colony.

The US station-chief has decided that the people of Egypt don't want the Muslim Brotherhood. But do you really trust him to make that determination, that just so happens to restore a colonial relationship that Egypt had with the United States for decades before the MB won its elections?

Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 4 2013 19:23 utc | 45

i think b has a (european view?) on the mursi matter and that differs from the us/israel/saudi view and the way the Egyptians go through the matter.
the army is a main above Gov - economic actor and yes the "army's business was going down.." BUT NOT "..because the MB's amateurish handling of several issues".
This Issues were:
-Morsi sought to adopt an "independent" line and made it known to Western powers that the past era of sheepish obedience to their interests was over.(participated in the Non-Aligned Summit in Iran/"Syria quartet"/a swift kind of diplomatic rapprochement with the Islamic Republic)

-Morsi was never able to secure an American-Israeli confidence about his intentions. He was always regarded with suspicion that his intention was to consolidate his own power before turning against the accords, which the Muslim Brotherhood had denounced in the past as a sell-out.

so therefor he never get the money they promissed to the Egyptians just military aid like crowd control stuff and some qatari and Saudi loans to Egypt to close the Syrian embassy or offers to sell qatar the suess kanal(lol).

"Was it a coup or not? The definition matters because U.S. payments to the Egyptian military are only allowed when it does not overthrow the legal government".The definition dos not matter because it is hypocracy.
by the way i´m not a fan of the MB or Mursi because of ther amateurish handling of all issues.
"I do believe that the Egyptian military came up with these plans months ago. They had to."
who foced them the people or the patrons.Was it a coup or not?

Posted by: some1 | Jul 4 2013 19:23 utc | 46

@anon "You to hate democracy?"

You all can't seem to get past this simplistic formulations. It's no wonder the MB is out. Zero-sum games and black and white formulations don't work in democracies.

Your high horse has made a mess in the street fellas. Maybe you can't smell it from the saddle, but the people who are down on the ground sure can.

Posted by: guest77 | Jul 4 2013 19:24 utc | 47

@45, nah, just trolls who abuse the language.

Posted by: ruralito | Jul 4 2013 19:25 utc | 48

ulp, @40

Posted by: ruralito | Jul 4 2013 19:26 utc | 49

guest77

Again the question is simple do you do you not respect the pro-mursi supporters?

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 4 2013 19:27 utc | 50

Guest77:

When elections are available, street protests are not a valid indicator of the will of the people.

Again though, the protests were just a facade to cover a pre-planned operation. If the protests had been a tenth the size the pro-US factions would still have voided the constitution.

Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 4 2013 19:28 utc | 51

Skybox

..that was just what happend, you think MB/MUrsi is allowed to run in the next election?

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 4 2013 19:28 utc | 52

Arnold Evans@ 42

"The Egyptian military has no ability to, independently of the US, overthrow the civilian government."

Not only is this wrong- General Neguib and Colonel Nasser being examples- it is irrelevant. As Shamir Amin points out, in the interview I posted in the previous thread (ca 105, this coup had been preceded by a wide and deep petitioning campaign which led up to the massive protests.
Surely you do not believe that the US was other than horrified by both the marches and the petitioning?


"You don't like the constitution, but Egypt's voters did. Maybe some changed their mind? That becomes legitimate when they express it in a vote, such as the vote the coup-faction blocked."
b, very usefully recalls the circumstances under which this boondoggle was foisted on the people. What passes as democracy in Tammany and Daley's Chicago, (corruption, vote tampering, miscounting, multiple voting etc) and the Brotherhood's Egypt is not democracy but a bitter parody of popular rule.

Posted by: bevin | Jul 4 2013 19:33 utc | 53

Well, if it was a coup it had a very long fuse.

This here is El Baradei from March 2013 - three month ago:

Mohamed ElBaradei, head of Egypt's Constitution Party and a founding member of the National Salvation Front (NSF), is not hoping for a military takeover.

He made the comments on CBC's Hona El-Asema television show with Lamis El-Hadidy, Tuesday evening.

The leading opposition figure explained that Egypt suffered greatly under Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) rule. "It was very bitter," he said.

However, ElBaradei said that military institution rule would be better than rule under Islamist militias, if Egyptians had a choice.

...

ElBaradei revealed that the US ambassador in Cairo asked him to meet Secretary of State John Kerry but he declined because he was not formally invited.

ElBaradei explained that he had a telephone conversation with Kerry where he explained the opposition stance and the ruling party stance, in order to give Kerry a better understanding of the current Egyptian political landscape.

He discussed with Kerry that the International Monetary Fund will not support Egypt unless it reaches national consensus. He also revealed that Kerry advocated accepting conditions for funding since Egypt is on the verge of bankruptcy.

ElBaradei told Kerry that the NSF is willing to reconcile if its principal demands are respected, especially on the formulation of a new government, the formation of a committee to amend the constitution, a plan for the transition period, compensation for the families of the revolution's martyrs, and managing Egypt on the basis of national participation.

Posted by: somebody | Jul 4 2013 19:35 utc | 54

El'baradei working with the same mubarak military he despised. I have zero confident in that man.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 4 2013 19:38 utc | 55

Bevin:

1) I hope you're not claiming this was a situation comparable to Colonel Nasser's removal of his government. We'd just stop there if you were. But Nasser would not have been justified in removing a government whose leadership stood for election, reelection and term limits while we're on this subject. I like Nasser enough that I don't believe the thought would occur to him under those circumstances.

2) The petitioning process, got millions of signatures. How many million? That's what's irrelevant because instead of signatures, the pre-established rules say governmental policies and government itself can change by votes.

The MB never delayed a vote. The Court tried to delay the constitutional referendum and cancelled the parliamentary elections that were scheduled as this petition campaign (funded by whom?) was in operation.

3) If the people of Egypt opposed the constitution, then they could have been organized to come out and vote against it. Or they could come out and vote for representatives who promise to amend, rewrite or repeal it. And that would be legitimate and valid.

4) There is no serious claim that the MB won any of their elections through fraudulent voting. You're being silly now.

We're talking about elections as if the problem was elections. The problem is that b and those like him: A) Doesn't like the Muslim Brotherhood and B) Thinks if the people of Egypt like them, the people of Egypt should be overruled.

b:

You say there was a small turnout. What would the turnout have had to be for the constitution that you would oppose it being voided unilaterally be military now?

You don't care that the turnout was large or small. More people turned out pro than con. You don't like the MB won and you think the MB should not rule Egypt.

Egypt is today ruled by the Mubarak coalition, through the US Embassy. It seems you prefer that to a government elected by Egypt's voters, if Egypt's voters choose the MB.

Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 4 2013 19:49 utc | 56

@Noirette 20:

There are ppl who argue that the French Revolution was never brought to a real conclusion, it is unfinished business. And that France set up a system that replaced the old elites with a new one, merely based on a new caste system, largely resting on wealth, coupled with quasi-monarchial powers for the Gvmt and President. Now things are finally set to change there, but the lapse in time is hundreds of years, so it is a creepingly slow business.

Hello, Noirette. I always enjoy your comments. They are very much based on real life. You're quite right, and I'm glad you immediately thought of the French Revolution as the paradigm. But my understanding of this is that during the period known as "the Terror", Robespierre and his friends liquidated everybody in the Chamber of Deputies who adhered to Enlightenment views. Robespierre was a follower of Rousseau rather than of Voltaire. Rousseau taught that, rather than trying to 'enlighten' the masses (ie, free them of their religious delusions), one should on the contrary value their religious feelings, and all feelings, very highly, more highly than reason. Rousseau was very far from being an Enlightenment thinker. He was a neo-primitivist.

So what we have here is rather analogous to what Stalin did with Soviet Communism when he restored the Russian Orthodox Church to what seemed like its former importance; actually, he had placed his own creatures in charge of it and instructed them to recruit informers throughout the local churches and congregations, but to the masses, it seemed as if the Church was back to its old leading role in politics, and indeed acting as a sort of democratic organ, in that the Church 'listened to you'. I don't think Robespierre went quite that far, but you see the difference between this and what the Enlighteners would have wanted, which was rigorous mass education to rid the people of 'superstition' (this meaning all religion except a vague universalist Deism).

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 4 2013 20:02 utc | 57

46) you forget something else on your list:
the plans for the renationalization of Egypt's industries

Posted by: somebody | Jul 4 2013 20:10 utc | 58

This from the Egyptian State Information Service today:

Upon listening [to] the statement of the General Command of the Armed Forces delivered by Colonel General Abdel Fattah El- Sisi, that has taken Egypt back to the right track, millions of Egyptians took to the streets to join other millions who were the decisive factor in terminating the rule of Mohamed Morsi which brought down the performance of State sectors, split the society, offended State institutions and minimized their role, not to mention failure in handling Egypt's regional and international policies.

Egyptians took to the streets spontaneously, carrying flags, chanting and launching fireworks. It was a civilized celebration in dealing with each other, reflecting awareness of the importance of politics in our life, and anticipation that Egypt will be on the right path that preserves its security and stability, overcomes poverty and ignorance, and brings back dignity to the Egyptians and their hope for a better life.

Frankly, whatever one says about all the various actors, the real power here is the people. I don't think all the pundits have gotten their heads around the sheer scale of the insurrection. All the bullshit about democracy, a democracy in name only, just serves to sideline our understanding of what's going on here. Egyptians have had enough! The issue, as ever, is what comes out of it.

Also, as ever, it's Western pundits of the so-called left and the right, talking about Egypt's future as if it was theirs. When are we going to stop and listen, for once?

Posted by: William Bowles | Jul 4 2013 20:12 utc | 59

William Bowles

Not really, it wasnt the people that brought mursi down but the US, Saudiarabian and Israeli backed military.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 4 2013 20:19 utc | 60

@somebody
i forgot a lot but that one was important.It is the answer why nobody trusted him in usa/eu,i mean look at the GCC Emirs,they are trustworthy.

Posted by: some1 | Jul 4 2013 20:41 utc | 61

60 - thinking along national lines makes you blind for what is going on

now we talk:Morsi's Ouster May Give Egypt Window to Tackle Economic Problems

Much of the economic turmoil under Morsi, whose Muslim Brotherhood was new to power, was the result of indecisive and inexpert administration. After the 2011 revolution, successive governments had trouble attracting experienced technocrats, who feared being tainted by an unpopular ruling military council or by the Islamist ideology of the Brotherhood.

The outpouring of public anger with the Brotherhood in the past few weeks has largely erased the stigma attached to working in a government backed by the military, businessmen say.

“None of this is on the table now, so I believe that anybody who is asked to join the cabinet won't hesitate,” said Karim Helal, chairman of ADI Capital, the Egyptian investment banking arm of Abu Dhabi Islamic Bank.

Mohamed ElBaradei, who headed the United Nations nuclear agency, is a favorite to be named as head of a transitional government that will prepare for elections.

The acclaim which the army won from much of the population for its smooth overthrow of Morsi may give the transitional government a window of opportunity to push painful economic reforms that previous administrations shied away from adopting.

Morsi's government had been running out of cash, partly because of expensive subsidies for gasoline and other fuels which eat up over a fifth of state spending. The cash squeeze led to rolling electricity blackouts and queues of cars at filling stations, adding to the anger with the Brotherhood.

If it can improve the energy supply situation, the new administration may be able to justify to the public subsidy cuts that would partially repair the state budget.

“This might make it easier to push energy subsidy reform: if you explain to the public that they may have to pay more, but that fuel will be available at that price,” said Simon Kitchen, a strategist with local investment bank EFG Hermes.

....

Many investors hope the new government will agree on a $4.8 billion emergency loan with the International Monetary Fund, which Morsi's government initialed last November but never ratified. ElBaradei has pressed for Egypt to sign the deal.

Hopes for an early IMF agreement may be misplaced, however. To avoid seeming to endorse a military coup, and to ensure that tough economic reforms in the loan deal have broad political support in Egypt, the IMF may wait to negotiate with an elected government - and it could be months before polls are held.

A further delay to the IMF loan would make Egypt more dependent on wealthy donors in the Gulf. The government of Qatar, which has provided $7.5 billion in grants and low-interest loans, has been close to the Muslim Brotherhood and may view Morsi's ouster as a diplomatic setback.

There is no indication so far, however, that Qatar intends to pull its money out of Egypt. The official Qatar News Agency said on Thursday that the Gulf state would “continue to respect” the will of the Egyptian people and work to strengthen ties.

Meanwhile, Egypt may be able to count on more aid from two other rich Gulf states which have long distrusted the Muslim Brotherhood, and therefore have a strong political interest in ensuring that post-Brotherhood governments in Egypt succeed.

Both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates congratulated the new Egyptian leadership within hours of the coup. In 2011 the UAE pledged $3 billion in aid to Egypt, but the money was never delivered; the UAE now has more reason to disburse it.

Egypt “is in a much better position now to receive aid from Saudi Arabia and the UAE when the Brotherhood is no longer there,” said Citigroup regional economist Farouk Soussa. “Both Saudi Arabia and the UAE have promised significant financial aid to Egypt. It is more likely that Egypt will receive it now.”

Posted by: somebody | Jul 4 2013 20:43 utc | 62

Not surprised the Turkish Islamist regime condemns the coup: they are scared stiff of suffering a similar fate! I am only surprised the terrible Turkish Army has been so successfully castrated by Erdogan...

Posted by: Revd Frank Gelli | Jul 4 2013 20:46 utc | 63

Revd Frank Gelli

Only in islamophobic people dreams is Erdogan "scared".
You are free to check the polls on his approval.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 4 2013 20:49 utc | 64

Anonymous @#60:

It was in November, in the wake of the so-called Constitutional Decree of Morsi, that the opposition started to challenge the legitimacy of the president. This first wave died down as a result of the electoral atmosphere created by the referendum on the constitution set for 15 December. Then on the second anniversary of the revolution (the Egyptians mark the beginning of the revolution, 25 January, as its date), there began another wave that lasted almost for a month. The mammoth demonstrations of 30 June and since are thus the third wave. The singularity of the 30 June rallies lies in the fact that, at least in Cairo, the crowds were simply too large to be compared to anything that went on before: not only was Tahrir square, the iconic centre of the Egyptian revolution, much more densely packed than on any previous occasion according to the unanimous commentary of all seasoned observers, but Ittihadiye, the area around the presidential palace in Heliopolis, drew crowds that would, on their own, rank this incident in the annals of mass protest anywhere in the world! So this was a formidable movement that would scare any party in government and any ruling class!

Bonapartist Coup in Egypt! By Sungur Savran

You're confusing the popular insurrection with the response to it eg, the military, who after all constitute part of the ruling economic as well state structure what with its massive stock ownership. Who else was going to step in at this juncture? The left generally seems to be opposed to a military takeover and is calling for a government of national unity to be formed, led, yes by the one the military have chosen; Mansour.

Mursi was clearly past his sell-by date as far a great majority of the people were concerned. As Savran's article observes, the outpouring, the third, was massive, millions! So plots by the Empire, yes of course. Ulterior motives for everybody involved, yes, of course, all the usual suspects but the simple fact of the vast public outpouring is a fact of life that none of the players could ignore.

Posted by: William Bowles | Jul 4 2013 20:57 utc | 65

William Bowles

Again the military were the one shutting down, arressting, raiding people not the people on the streets.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 4 2013 21:01 utc | 66

#64
You don't get my point do you. I'm not disagreeing with you, as with any coup they'll take out the key opposition, especially communications and major political figures, after all, that's why they had a coup in the first place.

The question is: what triggered it and I said, it was the mass outpouring that made the country ungovernable on top of the havoc caused by the MB government's neoliberal disaster. But the plain fact of the matter is that the country is divided. Coups normally occur when there is a vacuum, where the state cannot rule, either because it's fallen apart or its lost all legitimacy. Without a viable alternate political force and bearing in mind the historic role of the armed forces in shaping modern Egypt, I don't think it's as simple as the armed forces being the creature of the Empire.

Posted by: William Bowles | Jul 4 2013 21:10 utc | 67

PS: I think this, again from Savran illustrates the complexity and limitations of the situation:

One and a half years later, Mohamed Morsi was elected as a result of a two-round presidential election, in the second round of which he faced a candidate of the ancien régime, Ahmad Shafik, an ex-premier under Mubarak and beat him by a very narrow margin. It is important to note this because it makes clear that many of the people now on the streets had, only a year ago, voted for Morsi as against the candidate of the previous era. And only a month after he was inaugurated, Morsi dismissed Field Marshall Tantawi and his chief of staff and thus brought to an end the domination of the political system by the SCAF. In what is another irony of history, he promoted Al-Sisi to head the military, making him his Defense Minister, as a safeguard against the intrusion of the army into political life. It was Al-Sisi who was to stage a coup against him on the anniversary of his inauguration!

Posted by: William Bowles | Jul 4 2013 21:15 utc | 68

More from Savran's piece that sheds light on the complexity of the situation:

Whatever the personal leaning of Al-Sisi (he was hailed at the time by the Western press as the representative of another generation of officers), the army has now avenged its humiliation at the hands of Morsi last year and has restored its prestige in the eyes of both ruling circles and the masses. Moreover, through its coup the army has averted, at least for the moment, an impending civil war between the two camps. A civil war is always a grave danger for armies, not least because it may lead to a fatal division within its own ranks. But all this pales into insignificance when compared with the real import of the coup: this coup has pre-empted a possible revolution by the people! The power displayed by the masses on 30 June, preceded as this was by six months of feverish activity, demonstrations, mass rallies, marches, challenges against curfews etc. would scare any ruling class anywhere around the world. With this step the army has skilfully prevented a possible victory of the people's revolution and in the process received the support of a significant portion of the masses. This Bonapartist coup is then, in its innermost essence, a revolution hijacked!

A significant part of the responsibility for this falls on the leadership of the opposition. During the press conference in which Al-Sisi declared the assumption of power by the army, he was flanked, apart from his commanders, by the Grand Sheikh of Al Azhar as the representative of the Muslim majority of the country and Coptic Pope Tawadros II as that of the Christian minority. But there was a third figure. That was Muhammad ElBaradei, the former director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, a “liberal” cherished by the Western media, and the leader of an insignificant bourgeois political force of the country. In what capacity was he there? As the spokesperson of the National Salvation Front, a motley collection of parties that brings together one of the richest tycoons of Egypt, Naguip Sawiris, and socialists of all stripes, but really centred around the towering figure of Hamdeen Sabahi, the left Nasserist candidate who garnered around 21 per cent of the popular vote in the first round of the presidential elections a year ago (only three percentage points less than that of Morsi!). Sabahi and his Egyptian Popular Current have formed this incoherent front and tied the hands of the left Nasserists and socialists by allying them with bourgeois politicians of all stripes with almost no militant force or electoral clout. With the presence of Al Baradei, its spokesperson, at the press conference that officially established the military coup, the revolutionary camp has thus turned over power to the military with its own hands!

Posted by: William Bowles | Jul 4 2013 21:19 utc | 69

Arnold;

1) I have never been and I am not in favour of "coups". So I don't approve of what the military did. In fact I don't approve of those parts of the crowd who support what military did. Big mistake in my opinion.

2) I am not favouring "guesses" and "estimates" over "elections". On the contrary, I am in favour of elections. So was Mosaddegh, who at every challenge that he faced from his opponents went to elections/referendum. Morsi did not!
No one (at least not me) is claiming that Morsi should have been replaced based on "guesses" as to who is preferred to him.
What is being said is that based on very evident popular discontent, early elections (with Morsi running in it) should have been held to measure Morsi's popularity versus his opponents. This plan should have been pushed for by first and foremost Morsi himself! He did NOT!

For me the strongest sign that shows a leader is democratic (and confident) is that he does not escape early elections.

3)This one has nothing to do with me, it has to do with your exchange with "bevin". I don't think that the current Egyptian generals can make a move against the will of USA. But there are independent interest groups in Egypt, competing against each other in Egypt (MB and military being two of them) and they all try to conform to US wishes and interests (while competing one another) and the US gives its support to whichever side is more likely to contain the situation. People of Egypt are fed up with Mubarak? Fine! Try to channel their support to SCAF. They got frustrated with SCAF? Try supporting Morsi for a while! People seem to be so angry that Morsi is no longer supportable? Try SCAF and ElBaradei again!

Posted by: Pirouz_2 | Jul 4 2013 21:21 utc | 70

William Bowles

Actually what you said was just that:

"the real power here is the people"

The power to mobilize yes, the power to actually physically achive something, no.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 4 2013 21:31 utc | 71

This from the excellent Melkulangara BHADRAKUMAR at Strategic Culture Foundation

It has now come to light that none other than the US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel was in touch with Sissi from Washington. The Pentagon has been forced to admit that Hagel spoke with Sissi last week but refuses to divulge details of the conversation. Asked why the Pentagon kept this detail under wraps so far, Pentagon spokesman George Little told reporters lamely, «I think you can understand the sensitivities of this situation and that’s in essence the bottom line. We made the decision to acknowledge the phone call and that’s where we are».

Posted by: William Bowles | Jul 4 2013 21:42 utc | 72

If it was indeed a US backed coup, then let all future puppets be warned, that no matter how submissive and compliant to US/Israeli wishes you may be, you are entirely expendable. They will drop you on a whim. Which is why I find it hard to believe the US would prefer to take its chances with several million protesters over a guy who was even more compliant with their wishes than Mubarak was. Unless, of course, the plan is to to keep instability as Pirouz is suggesting.

The MB spent nearly all of 2011 and the first half of 2012 ingratiating itself to the military that has now betrayed it. It might have joined with the secular* opposition to confront military rule but, for whatever reason, it didn't. Pity, because that would be the only possible way to keep the Army in check.

*Secular is a relative term. Nearly all Egyptian Muslims fast, pray, dress modestly, etc. Also, there really is no pro-Israel faction in Egyptian politics. There is just the reality that Egypt is far too dependent on cash handouts to really confront US/EU/Israeli dominance.

Posted by: Lysander | Jul 4 2013 21:47 utc | 73

68) I don't think the US has got that much leverage in Egypt.
Apart from US "aid" to the Egyptian military actually being US government funding of US weapons producers, if there is no aid, no influence, maybe no peace treaty.
And maybe somebody else would be interested to foot the bill.

Posted by: somebody | Jul 4 2013 22:12 utc | 74

@Lysander #71

Actually I didn't mean that US is promoting instability in Egypt. I think US had no major problem with MB. They don't have any major problem with military, or with people such as ElBaradei either.
Anyone of them would be fine. It is the the people of Egypt who get frustrated with these guys. They get frustrated, they pour into streets, that scares US shitless, US promotes any of the candidates which is compliant with its diktats and seem to have the best chance to be foisted on the people.
What IMHO your people should do is to demand clear economic change, a
clear refusal of neoliberal policies, a strong refusal of any loan of any sort from IMF/WB or the PG monarchies and a very clear anti-imperialist stance.
Sadly I don't see that happening.

Posted by: Pirouz_2 | Jul 4 2013 22:14 utc | 75

Considering that most of the people here are opposed to the armed invasion & intervention in Syria, I find it amazing that so many have no problem with what has just happened in Egypt & Qatar. Setting aside the obvious foreign interference in a sovereign state, just look at the consequences of this coup for the ME.
People really need to stop casting everyone with a contrary position as an 'enemy' and then crowing over any setback that enemy receives. If they did stop they may realise exactly how bad this military coup in Egypt is going to be for Syria in the short term and maybe even Iran in the future.

Syria's army has had many victories recently, deserved victories, but they wouldn't have happened if the western nations had been able to do as they intended, however the inherent flaw in the west's position on Syria has always been that the FSA or whatever is chiefly comprised of islamic fundies.

It wasn't the opponents of the war such as the peeps here that fukasi strategists heeded, it was their own xenophobic fear & hatred in the end which convinced them that Syria could only be 'won' with a armed insurrection that excluded all but 'their' fundies - ie the ones that saudi & Jordan supplies & who they believe to be controllable.

If the fsa is purged of arab nationalists in favour of the dolts who do the bidding of the saudi monarchy, fukasi prolly believes they can even get russia on-board to allow 'regime change' in syria.

I'm less certain of that but it is true that there was no way russia was gonna let syria fall into the hands of fundies sympathetic to same groups it is fighting in central asia & Caucasus without iron clad guarantees unobtainable from a rag tag bunch of competing interests.
As for amerika, the only hope of being able to control what goes down in syria is if there is a single command structure in the fsa.
saudi & qatar competing against each other meant that there was the sort of bidding war by the gunmen that grants power to the fighting groups rather than the financiers.

Of course the coup wasn't just about Syria, it is necessary to let whoever wins political control of egypt know that they are there purely at the pleasure of amerika. Step outta line & the puppets in the army will toss you out on yer ass fast.
amerika managed to maneuver that coup now & prolly couldn't at another time but that won't matter. The type of politicians that will be allowed to compete in egypt from here on in will be time servers of the sort that citizens in western liberal democracies have come to despise.

These politicians are what they are, almost superstitious in their adherence to 'conventions' established by precedents.
Killing the MB means that all political movements will be coming off the same low base - now there are few if any established political 'brands' so all will be dependent on corporate & state dept finance to get their name out there.

I recognise many of you will be skeptical about this, there isn't much point in arguing since what has happened in the background is far murkier and less accessible than what took place when mubarak copped his. Facts are too thin on the ground & this happened so fast - both of those point to a lot of planning, but watch and see, in 12 months or so, maybe a little longer, many of the coup's biggest supporters at moa will come to rue the day the world let egyptians get fucked over yet again.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jul 4 2013 22:59 utc | 76

Egyptian events question us over basic values and issues; here are a few random thougts

- electoral democracy is nice, but it's not the most important thing; it's a mean to an end, not an end in itself; European and Us history shows that democracy fluorish only after centuries of state-building operated by dictatorships, and/or of civil wars and ethnic cleansing, have decided over a nation's principles; and even then, a lost war can re-ignite the debate over identity, principles, etc

- a debate on what's "real" democracy could carry us very far; the Greeks didn't think of democracy as an electoral system! they meant direct rule by the "people" (against the "aristocrats", or plutocrats), easily by a "mob", easily on the verge of anarchy (in Athens); or some system of complete equality among the citizens (as in Sparta); it's never been popular among their philosophers; dictatorship and democracy are historically very close relatives, much more than the western oligarchic representative democracy of English aristocratic and classist origins; all this love for the "rules of the game" is virtuous, but can't be substituted for an analysis of the political issues that confront and divide a nation

- I agree with b that Egyptians are fully capable to scheme and act without mentors; the immense Us influence is felt at other more substantial levels: neoliberal policies, the direction of military spending, and of course the Israel-Egypt peace treaty; we'll see how far, MB or not, this revolution will go; up to now, it seems to be turning in circles

- the real political problem of Egypt is that no one laid out an inclusive project for the nation; the "secularists" from day one appealed to the army to save them from the MB: they - as far as I know - didn't even try to find some common ground with them; on this point I agree with Arnold Evans: everybody "played dirty" against the MB; but neither did the MB try a national dialogue, of course; maybe this path will be searched now under the auspices of the army; or else, civil war looms;

- I'll go even farther than b: consensus (also in the sense of "non opposition") is politically decisive, not only for a democracy, but also for a dictatorship; no one can govern against the will of the people

- of course it's a coup, of course the Us won't define it so (as in Honduras), otherwise they'd have to stop financial aid - and Egypt would be lost

- still, seeing people cheer a military coup against a democratically elected government, chills me a bit; it can only be justified in very extreme circumstances; probably such circumstances occurred, if so many Egyptians protested against Morsi

- from day one of the so-called "Arab spring", the Us is following events rather than leading; it started by betting on the wrong horse (Mubarak) and since then it has tried to avoid repeating the same mistake (but it did it again with Assad!)

- to Did @74: haven't had much time to think over your remarks, but my impression is that you over-rationalize Us strategy over Syria; maybe it'd be closer to the truth to say that at the moment it simply doesn't have a strategy at all (except that leaving Assad in power would be an intolerable "loss of face")

Posted by: claudio | Jul 4 2013 23:53 utc | 77

Arnold Evans:
"There is no serious claim that the MB won any of their elections through fraudulent voting. You're being silly now..."
If I am being silly I'm in good company

Samir Amin: "There was massive electoral fraud. Hamdin Sabbahi could have passed into the second round, but the US Embassy did not want it. European observers listened to their American diplomatic counterparts and turned a blind eye to the fraud involved. Moreover, the five million votes for Sabbahi were squeaky clean and highly motivated. On the other hand, the five million votes for Morsi came from the most wretched part of the population, devoid of political conscience: the votes of people willing to be bought off for a piece of bread and a glass of milk."


Arnold:
"The petitioning process, got millions of signatures. How many million? That's what's irrelevant because instead of signatures, the pre-established rules say governmental policies and government itself can change by votes."

My information is about 22 million and, as Amin adds:
" The Tamarod’s campaign for the Morsi dismissal is magnificent. Millions of people signed their names after giving deep political consideration to what they were doing: something totally ignored by the international mainstream media. They represent the majority of all the electoral constituencies, but they do not have any voice. The Muslim Brothers wield political power and like to think they can control 100% of the votes. Thus, they ensured members of the movement in every public sector. Their way of managing the country is informed by a type of crony capitalism which simply does not leave any room for the opposition figures and technocrats who had some power even in the Mubarak era."

Arnold:
" If the people of Egypt opposed the constitution, then they could have been organized to come out and vote against it. Or they could come out and vote for representatives who promise to amend, rewrite or repeal it. And that would be legitimate and valid."

No there was no time for a proper consideration of this complex document. Just as the assembly considering it had been purged and betrayed its mandate. The largest vote was for abstention, and not because of indifference but because Morsi and his sharp operators were railroading the electorate.

Amin adds this about Morsi's crony capitalism, his efforts to piece off what is left of the public sector and give it to MB financiers.

"Samir Amin: There is more than an economic crisis. Islamists have only ultraliberal answers to give to the crisis: they have replaced the capitalists’ bourgeois clique that were Mubarak’s friends with reactionary businessmen. Moreover, their goal is quite simply to sell off public goods. The Brotherhood is hated by Egyptians because it continues with the same policies as its predecessor.

A: Maybe worse in the case of the Islamic Finance Bill?

Samir Amin: It is theft to attach derisory prices to goods that are worth billions of dollars. These are not the usual privatizations that reactionary regimes indulge in, selling off goods at their economic value. This is pure fraud more than a privatization."

The army is certainly not to be trusted with power, nor are its nominees. Nor was Morsi. Power is there, in the streets, to be taken by whomsoever can convince the people that their policies are the proper ones, and worth fighting for.
What is indicative of the Brotherhood's unfitness for power is the utter vacuity of the policies it has proposed, demagogy, electoral patronage and cheap religious slogans. During the past year Morsi and his minions did nothing but cave in to power centres abroad. Certainly the armed forces will do, and are doing, the same, but, short of a junior ranks revolt, nothing else is expected of this affiliate to NATO.

You prefer Morsi. I prefer the "wheel still in spin."

Posted by: bevin | Jul 5 2013 0:24 utc | 78

It's really funny how some here just throw around pure speculations without even making the effort to offer some reasoning (other than vage theories). Conclusions are with vague or plainly arbitrary "logic" or complete lack thereof.

Just an example:

AE says

For centuries now colonial governments have done what their patrons instructed. That was true in the British Raj over India, it was true for Mubarak and it's true for Egypt, which now has the same military apparatus that ran Egypt for the US under Mubarak.

Uhum. Well, India actually *was* a colony and so not unexpectedly they (had to) acted like one. Egypt under Mubarak may have been an assortment of thing but it was not an official colony of zusa. Finally, and that's where any rests of logical reasoning are off at the beach, AE suggests that as the military wasn't completely cleaned and exchanged since Mubarak, Egypt ergo is a zusa colony.

This is not a question of views but a blunt and wanton construct following the motto "reality must be interpreted and, if needed, bluntly bent so as to fit my private looney theories".

And on goes AE's amusement ride:

The Egyptian military has no ability to, independently of the US, overthrow the civilian government. IF you really believe it does, that disagreement cannot be resolved here and now.

And why would that be so? Because they have not enough APCs and guns? Or because the troups would refuse obedience unless the zusa ambassador tell the Egypt troups that it's OK? Or because the americans would stop their famous 1.5 bln$ support if the Egypt army acted without zusa permission?
Unfortunately, we are left to guess because AE doesn't offer the reasoning (let's not even talk about reasons and facts ...) behind his decree of wisdom.

Following his nonsense explosion he declares that, should b stubbornly refuse to let go his brain, "that disagreement cannot be resolved here and now".

Futile bullsh*t! Where and when could it be resolved then? At 10:30 tomorrow? After the weekend? In Cannes? Vancouver? Cairo? On top of the pyramid, sunday noon, sharp?

Actually, b offers any and everything - except a brain treatment for the needy - to resolve disagreement. By running this forum and offering opportunity to discuss facts, relevant factors and even halfway properly reasoned opinions.

Thanks, A Evans for the amusement and thanks, b, for some sound reasoning, some relevant facts and your interesting opinion.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Jul 5 2013 0:30 utc | 79

Debs @74
"Facts are too thin on the ground & this happened so fast - both of those point to a lot of planning, but watch and see, in 12 months or so, maybe a little longer, many of the coup's biggest supporters at moa will come to rue the day the world let egyptians get fucked over yet again..."

Nobody that I can see, not that I look very deeply into every post, supports the coup with much enthusiasm. That is a charge that the poll watchers keep making but they are missing the point: the MB had one chance to improve upon their fragile mandate.

They could have acted like muslim brothers.

They could have insisted on the scandal at the Rafah crossing being ended.

The starving of Gaza is an extreme policy, put in place by certified fascists and virtually unsupported by any section of public opinion, even among Zionist sympathising Jews. The very least that Morsi could have done would have been to insist on Israel ending the appalling suffering of the people of Gaza.
Instead they cheerfully undertook the dirty work that even scum such as Mubarak knew was dishonourable.

There's much more but that is enough: the Ikhwan had their chance to show that they were different, but they chose to sacrifice their brothers, sisters and the children of Palestine so that they could get down to the more congenial work of devouring Egypt, and collecting tips from the Gulf, like whores at a London casino, only uglier.

Posted by: bevin | Jul 5 2013 1:16 utc | 80

@bevin #78 I don't have the time nor desire to get into a debate about an issue where facts are in too short supply for any point of view to be 'proven', but I do whole-heartedly disagree with your thesis that the MB had it coming because they hadn't done anything about Gaza.
Apart from anything else, that is a recipe for continuous global upheaval and people's misery.
None of us can have a clue what was in the minds of the MB around their long term strategy vis a vis israel & Palestine, & though it may seem from the outside that hopping straight into the single biggest cause of instability throughout the ME was the most humane thing for the MB to do, how humane would it be if it were to cause exactly what we have just witnessed, a military coup which incresed the suffering of Palestinians?
That is without even considering the reality that Morsi's primary responsibility is towards the people of Egypt and there are millions of them suffering too.
Don't get me wrong I'm not a Morsi supporter, but if he believed he had 3 or 4 years to achieve his plans it isn't surprising that he might spend the first year developing relationships with centers of power domestically & abroad before he showed his hand.
Especially considering that Egypt was about to have elections for the legislature. These have now been indefinately postponed I think we can be sure that the military & the US believed the MB was going to get a good result in those elections. Otherwise they would have waited and got their parliamentary proxies to do the job & that way maintained a veneer of legitimacy.

One last thing - there have been reports that the brotherhood's spiritual leader, Mohamed al-Badie was en-route to Libya when he was arrested.

Most of Moa's regulars have been following events in the ME closer than I have of late (just a personal thing but closely examining so much misery happening to others started to feel voyeuristic to me) but I seem to remember than the backers of that insurrection haven't been getting the resource deals they demanded.
Then there is the business about exterminating the imperial pro-consul.

If the MB and/or qatar were involved with the brave souls who did that, it isn't hard to envisage washington demanding payback.

sorry about grammar & spelling am in a real rush.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jul 5 2013 2:18 utc | 81

After wading through 79 posts, I'm toast. One thing I'm completely sure of, is this.. If Morsi had done anything at all to convince his countrymen he stood with them, instead of the world's greedy,there wouldn't be millions in the streets opposing him. Seems as through the major problems are world-wide, and growing. More for the elites, and less for the masses. Simplistic, but true.

Posted by: ben | Jul 5 2013 2:40 utc | 82

oops.."seems as though"

Posted by: ben | Jul 5 2013 3:14 utc | 83

Debs I'm not arguing either. Nor do I have any expert knowledge of the subject.
You wrote
"I do whole-heartedly disagree with your thesis that the MB had it coming because they hadn't done anything about Gaza."
I wrote:
"There's much more but that is enough: the Ikhwan had their chance to show that they were different..."
They weren't doing anything for the poor in Egypt either. They were just playing games, the way Obama has: "talk left, rule right and keep an offshore bank account."

You mention the US. But the way I see it the US is shit-scared of the sort of thing that has been happening in Egypt. It likes colour coded revolutions with Harvard-ignoranced quislings waiting in the wings for their cues, it loves balloons and t-shirts and so on. But its spine is chilled by the sort of enthusiasm and anger on view in Egypt. And so, I'm guessing, are the spines of the Army's commanders.
This isn't a game of chess, it's millions standing up for what is good: ten CIA's and fourteen White Houses plus a thousand State Departments (and as many ambassadors as you can waterboard on the head of a pin) are nothing compared to these crowds and their courage.

This is excerpted from some\one who seems to agree:
Its from Khaled Shaalan. I found it at Common Dreams.

"....
...The Egyptian people’s defiance of Brotherhood rule is a serious popular challenge to the most significant strategic reordering of the region perhaps since the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916. Still, there was a clear conservatism when it came to projecting the threat of such show of force on Morsi’s own legitimacy. The 30 June demonstrations were depicted merely as a significant sign of social discontent that would bear few consequences on the Washington-sponsored ruling coalition between the military and the Brotherhood. In other words, media sent a message to Western audiences that whereas the historical protests might look noble and impressive, the only real political players in Egypt (and probably in the Arab world as whole) are military generals and Islamists.

"This paradigm, forced through journalistic accounts, has been sponsored by so-called Middle East “experts.” Those experts mold Western perceptions of the Middle East from the comfort of their heftily funded think tanks, and at times of trouble, like 30 June, they embed themselves in London and Washington news studios, where they broadcast their representations of the Middle East. As the Egyptian army stepped up its game midday on Monday, and checkmated Morsi by issuing a forty-eight-hour ultimatum to respond to the people’s demands, these same media circuits started a concerted effort to bring the “coup d’état” discourse, sometimes forcefully, to the forefront of the discussion about events in Egypt.

"The failure of Western media and pundits to both recognize and project the nuances of the current conflict in Egypt through their negligence of people’s agency in shaping the political outcomes is both pathetic and shameful. It is pathetic because it indicates the degree to which Western intellectual circles—especially those profiteering from Western policy making bodies—remain willfully entrapped in an outdated and out-of-touch Orientalist worldview of the region....

"...The attempt to contain the news discourse about the politics of change in the Middle East over the past two and a half years in general and the unfolding events of the past hours in Egypt specifically, within the ready-made paradigm of military-Islamist turf wars, is also very shameful.

"The insistence on ignoring the possibility of there being other factors at play, quite frankly, conceals a deeply embedded fear by Western powers, especially the US and Britain, of the emergence of a true grassroots democratic alternative in the Arab world’s largest country. Such an alternative would most certainly challenge the US hegemony in the region, even if only by beginning to address different possibilities regarding the future of Egypt, its people and its regional state of affairs.

"The United States, Britain and many other counterparts have heavily invested in the empowerment of a tamed Islamist rule—spearheaded, of course, by the Muslim Brotherhood—to take over the Middle East from post-colonial populist regimes living long past their expiry dates. American and British ambassadors to the region have been carefully weaving this vision and reporting back home that this is simply the best formula for the protection of their interests in the region.

"That such a formula would lend itself to the protraction of another cycle of vicious human rights abuses and continued economic injustices is, naturally, of little concern to them.

"The major turn of events that a defiant Egyptian populace led over the past two days interrupts many plans, most especially the Western road map of the region. The Egyptian people’s defiance of Brotherhood rule is a serious popular challenge to the most significant strategic reordering of the region perhaps since the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916.

"This is precisely why Western audiences are not being allowed to sympathize with the demonstrations in Egypt demanding Morsi’s ouster in the way they did with protests against former President Hosni Mubarak in January 2011. Amid this grave misrepresentation of the Egyptian revolution, the credibility and true independence of mainstream Western media is being seriously put to question."

Posted by: bevin | Jul 5 2013 3:22 utc | 84

I guess these are the final words on the "it is a non democratic coup" debate

Dr Bassem Youssef ‏@DrBassemYoussef 5h I personally was on a hit list containing 21 media and political figures and was put in officially on a no fly list

MB turned a struggle to coexist into a battle for survival it is difficult to coexist with those who attempted to close us down 4 days ago

It's hard to sympathize with MB when Qaeda operatives and jihadists are the ones fighting for their return

Posted by: somebody | Jul 5 2013 6:12 utc | 85

Anonymous & Arnold Evans

Perchance, are you two here shilling for the MB by hiding under the banner of democracy??? I'll give you a hint, Hitler was also democratically elected - go figure!!!

Coming here trying to pitch for the MB isn't gonna change people's mind or facts on the ground.

The Egyptian people saw a disaster approaching in the MB and they acted. Do you think the millions of people that came out in the street don't matter?

Morsi was a clueless and dumb leader.He's a clear fool and Egyptians have had their fair share of suffering fools.Same goes for Turkey. He's no more in power.Get over it.

Posted by: Zico | Jul 5 2013 6:26 utc | 86

Zico, intelligent people have different views on the matter.Time will tell who is right and who is wrong. In the meantime, why shouldn't Arnold and Anonymous present their points of view? Since when did having a different opinion make one a NATO operative?

Posted by: Lysander | Jul 5 2013 7:21 utc | 87

So there were Parliamentary elections planned for the spring. Is anyone else going to mention them at all? The People's Assembly, once elected could call for impeachment or a binding referendum on any topic or to amend the constitution.

The MB tried to have the elections staged. The Constitutional Court denied them, despite their being specifically required by the constitution.

Because of that, any contention that a majority of Egyptians opposed Morsi is at best a guess, but not one supported by any objective indication.

Could Morsi have called a snap election? No, he is not a dictator. He has powers spelled out in the constitution that do not include calling a snap election because of street protests. But, again, he did call for Parliamentary elections. The pro-US factions denied that constitutionally required measure.

Did the street protests make the country ungovernable in one day, so the army had no choice but to intervene? No. But the army's plans were in place before the street protests started.

The military claimed that regional and international capitals "helped" it with its roadmap removing the government and voiding all elections at a time when the official statements from the US were supportive of the elected government.

If this was 1962, you would say of course the US had nothing to do with Iranian protests in 1952 that deposed Mossedegh. Except that it did. No it wasn't made public immediately. Maybe the US will admit, confirm its activities decades from now. If you trust the US to that degree, then feel free until then.

The constitutional court announced that by a set date, it would void the Constitutional Assembly. The constituent assembly did rush to produce a constitution before that date. Now you are so upset that the constitution was rushed that you put the court that threatened to void the constitutional assembly in charge of the entire country. That's plain backwards.

If Morsi had been a dictator or king, he would have purged the court and then the assembly would be free to take more time to write a constitution. But the constitution that resulted would have been more or less similar to what was produced. The constitution fits the consensus of Egyptian political thought, as measured by elections, including the election to ratify it.

Instead, you're cheering the pro-US factions claiming that they will hold election in 9 to 12 months and rule with no basis in any law until then.

The thing about Morsi's cooperation with the US is that under the constitution there would be elections, so I had no reason to get mad at Morsi. Egypt's voters would punish him unless he explained his moves to their satisfaction. If he did, and I was still mad, it would not matter. Egypt's voters are equipped to evaluate the performance of Egypt's President. Not me or you.

The US seems it was not happy with that situation and now has restored the leadership that was accountable to it with no oversight from voters.

Until now, MoonOfAlabama had never been a place that would offer support for a US/Saudi program to overthrow a fairly elected government. Two weeks ago, there would have been agreement that the United States is a profoundly anti-democratic force in Israel's region.

Today the United States isn't so bad. Maybe the money that the secretary of state certified gives the US leverage over Egyptian policy has no influence on Egyptian policy. Maybe the extensive direct ties between the upper and middle ranks of the Egyptian military and the US military has no impact at all.

Just a history lesson. Parts of the Indian Raj were just as nominally independent as Hosni Mubarak or the current leaderships of the US colonies in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan and others. But through military agreements and ties, the Indian states were imperial clients.

The Egyptian people should have been fed up with the Constitional Court that delayed their chance to vote for a legislature that could remove Morsi legally. Whether they were or not, elections should have been held.

The United States is lucky it can get as much support as it does as it interferes in Egypt's affairs. I would never have thought it would get this much support here. But people here hate the Muslim Brotherhood much more than Egypt's voters have ever been shown to, and are willing to accept any excuse to prevent the Egyptian people from voting for whomever they choose, if they might vote for the MB.

Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 5 2013 7:33 utc | 88

Zico

Under the "banner"? People elected them, thats how it works in a democracy. Dont you understand? You seems to believe that its ok to overthrow the elected party just because you voted for the opposition.
And what does Turkey have to do with anything? You can check the approval Erdogan have by the turks.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 5 2013 8:11 utc | 89

I fail to understand the logic: no more 1,3 billion US aid a year to Egypt would imply that Israel is not safe anymore? This aid can be used only to buy (from the US) military equipment. No bread or stations to clean the water, no hospital equipments.
Do you think that because the Egyptian army would not get this "credit line" on new toys, they might turn berzerk and attack Israel? I would suspect they have juicy businesses of other kinds!

Posted by: Mina | Jul 5 2013 8:51 utc | 90

Mina

You think US give billions of aid for nothing?

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 5 2013 9:07 utc | 91

From its inception the uprising against President Morsi was aided by the US, researcher and writer Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich told RT. She argues that whoever succeeds the ousted Egyptian leader will likely be beholden to the forces that put him in power…
… Very soon the Egyptian people will wake up and realize that they are perhaps cheering the wrong faction. http://rt.com/op-edge/sepahpour-egypt-revolution-america-638/

Posted by: brian | Jul 5 2013 9:13 utc | 92

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21689545
Egypt court suspends April parliamentary elections

Mina: Do you have any opinion about the suspended elections at all? I'd guess after losing every election so far, you're happy your side was able to seize power without elections. Then void the results of every election you lost. But without elections, what makes you think your side ever had a majority? I'd guess you don't care about that. Majority or not, you're happy the people you don't respect have had their candidate removed.

Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 5 2013 9:25 utc | 93

Posted by: William Bowles | Jul 4, 2013 5:42:39 PM | 70

just like with the ousting of Mubarak...when the leaders of the arabspring went to US state dept

Posted by: brian | Jul 5 2013 9:25 utc | 94

'SSU: Again, America has invested a lot of time and money into this. Ever since 2007, America knew that former President Mubarak was dying of cancer. There was even a New York Times article in 2007 talking about who would be his replacement. Since 2008, they would have young Egyptians coming to America, go to the State Department, meet at the time Condoleezza Rice and others, and learn how to use modern technology to start an uprising in Egypt.'
http://rt.com/op-edge/sepahpour-egypt-revolution-america-638/

Posted by: brian | Jul 5 2013 9:33 utc | 95

89) they are robbing the US taxpayer - it is a racket.

The millions given to Egypt are paid by the US taxpayer claiming it is for Israel's security. Egypt has no national interest to attack Israel, full autonomy over Sinai could be negotiated anyway.

That money is given to the Egyptian army to be spent on US arms claiming that thereby jobs are provided for US citizens.

There is a lot of money in between for middle men. None of the money spent benefits the US taxpayer.

Neither do Egyptians need high tech weapons nor do US taxpayers need jobs in the defense industry. What they need is good healthcare and good schools, which would provide lots of jobs if taken seriously.

It would make more sense and be cheaper for US taxpayers to pay for their national defense needs directly.

Posted by: somebody | Jul 5 2013 10:27 utc | 96

Let me add - the irony is that the US taxpayer also is made to pay for the only country the Egyptian could theoretically use high tech weapons against.

So the US taxpayer is paying for two armies to keep a peace treaty LOL

Posted by: somebody | Jul 5 2013 10:30 utc | 97

somebody

Not only Israel but US with its aid making sure that Egypt keeping to US policy for the middle east.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 5 2013 10:32 utc | 98

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/75584/Egypt/Politics-/-sexual-assualt-cases-over--days-in-Egypts-Tahrir-.aspx

"Additionally, Human Rights Watch highlighted the "official discourse" in Egypt as a major contributor to the problem.

"In February 2012, members of the Shura Council, Egypt’s legislative body, blamed women for the mob assaults in Tahrir, with one member, General Adel Afifi, saying that women contribute 100 percent in their rape because they put themselves in such circumstances,” the report stated."

Posted by: Mina | Jul 5 2013 10:43 utc | 99

I tend to agree with Arnold Evans here. Whether you like President Morsi or no, he should never have been removed from power and for the MB senior members to be then arrested. 52% of the voters voted for him in an free and fair election. I for one did not like his policies, especially in regards to Syria and allowing takfiri/salafis to go figth there and allow Shias to be murdered in Egypt. He amde some serious blunders - but I think this is more due to the MB not knowing what direction to go and been pulled in all direction (lack of political maturity?). Having Saudi, US, Qatar, Isreal, Hamas etc. pulling in different directions did not help. The MB's priority should have been: 1. Economy 2. Nile 3. Sinai and 4. Gaza - but they obviously were thinking in pan-sectarian terms and start meddling in Syria to get more money from Qatar - this is not a sound policy. Also using Islam as a tool to bash fellow believers and non-believers did noth help the situation.

Hopefully they learn from this - and not allow their members get involved in a civil war with the Egyptian army, therby bringing more misery to Egyptians. They can show their maturity and learn from what happened to the Islamic party in Turkey over the last 20 years and re-brand themselve with a new inclusive, Egypt centred policy. They should also get financial and oil help from Iran to balance out wha they get from the Gulf petro-monarchies.

Posted by: Irshad | Jul 5 2013 10:45 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.