So I was actually writing a pretty lenghty response when I hit backspace and everything was erased. Brilliant move. In any case, I'm just going to point at some things that have really stunned me when I was reading this thread. I've seen three words used kind of interchangeably:
1) Arab Spring
2) Islam
3) Libya
My first question is why, ACIN, are you talking about Islam? Although the Muslim Brotherhood and the al-Nour party currently hold a majority in the Egyptian parliament and the al-Nahda party is currently the largest party a hung parliament in Tunisia, Islam itself played a very small role in the initial revolts. We're talking about socio-economic problems here. Despite Ayatollah Khamenei saying otherwise, the revolts were not an "Islamic Awakening". So no, Islam has very little to do with the actual events.
On this subject, people often point to the supposition (because it's not a fact) that Mubarak protected the Christian minority; Magdi Khalil makes some interesting observations about Mubarak's dealing with Islamist persecution of the Coptic minority, such as refusing to try people who abducted and raped Coptic girls and ordering police to stay put during the Nag Hammadi massacre that resulted in the death of six Copts. From what pro-Islam leftist church government-funded dhimmitude website stated this?
The Middle-East Forum. That's right, Daniel Pipes' website aimed at "promoting American interests in the Middle East and protect the Constitutional order from Middle Eastern threats". The same guys defending Geert Wilders. The summary was written the 26th of February 2010, a year before the Egyptian people went to the streets of Tahrir.
So tell me, was Mubarak's government really that good for the stability of Egypt? I don't think so. I'm not saying the situation of the Copts improved (as I simply don't know, but might make for an interesting research), but to suggest that it was any better under Mubarak? I don't think so.
Secondly, why are we using Libya as the example for the Arab spring? Why aren't we talking about Yemen or Tunisia? The first was successful in terms of ousting Saleh, but the full effects of his departure we still have to witness. In Tunisia, Ben ‘Ali's government was completely dissolved, elections were held, a moderate Islamist party came out on top, and an ex-communist is now the president. We haven't even touched upon the subjects of Bahrain, Syria, Jordan and Morocco, all of which knew some degree of protests over the last year.
So basically, this airmchair specialism is starting to annoy me. How many people here know Arabic, Arabs or ever visited an Arab country? I think that if anyone of you read anything about the mukhabarat I don't think anyone would express their support for Gadaffi. Nobody is denying that at the time that he came to power, he was an incredibly intelligent colonel who had some very good ideas. Over time though, he went totally insane.
As a final note, I'm really sorry to say it, but really, anger towards the west is not only understandeable, it's completely justified. People were living rotten lives dominated by a corrupt bureaucracy that systemetically humiliated the people, and all the time, we supported these people. And now we're seeing the results. I don't think that anyone here doubts my support for secular democracy, but okay, let the Islamists come to power in Syria, Egypt or Yemen. Let them run the country for a while and see what happens. The only reason why they gained massive amounts of support is because these secular governments repressed them.
Let's just face it; we sacrificed the freedom of the Arab people for the notion of global security. And they're not taking it anymore.
P.S. I saw a great movie called Microphone, hosted by my professor of contemporary history of the Middle East, about the graffiti and music scene in Alexandria, called Microphone, highlighting exactly the kind of humiliation people underwent in Egypt. If you'd just see that film, I think we'd get at least some kind of insight in what exactly motivated the Arabs.
Bookmarks