
Crowd in Cairo's Tahrir Square. (photo: Al Jazeera-English)
Reports from Egypt say the Egyptian military has move army troops and armored vehicles in an attempt to end the clashes between Egyptians protesting the military’s rule and police. The efforts were joined by clerics and others hoping to induce a truce. However, it appears the intervention has failed and the clashes are continuing. At least 33 people had already been killed and hundreds wounded. From the New York Times:
The army dispatched armored vehicles and troops to separate the two sides, in a bid to halt clashes that wounded hundreds and cast a haze of tear gas over the iconic square. The attempt worked for a time, but after 90 minutes of relative calm, the mayhem resumed. In the chaos, it was unclear which side returned first to the fighting that has pitted police armed with tear gas and guns against rock-throwing protesters.
“They are thugs,” shouted one protester after a new round of tear gas canisters was fired. “I swear to God, they are thugs.”
There had been hopes that deal between the military and Muslim Brotherhood, calling for elections next June, would calm the situation. But crowds at Tahrir Square appeared to reject the deal, partly because of the fear of an overly restrictive Islamic rule.
Unlikely to satisfy the public demands for the military to leave power, the deal may have driven a new wedge into the opposition, reopening a divide between the seething public and the political elite, between liberals and Islamists and, as events unfolded, among the Islamists themselves.
“We refuse it, and the square has refused it already,” said Islam Lotfy, a former leader of the youth wing of the Muslim Brotherhood who was expelled from the organization with a group of others for starting a centrist political party. “They did not offer anything new. They are just bargaining with the people.” . . .
For Egyptian liberals, the open deal between the two most powerful and organized forces in the nation raised fears of being caught between groups at odds with their goals: a military reluctant to submit to democratic oversight, and an Islamist movement with a potentially narrow view of individual freedoms.
The effort now appears to have discredited the Brotherhood:
In Tahrir Square, many accused the Brotherhood of a shortsighted selling out that would only damage its standing. “Everyone knows the Brotherhood are opportunists; now we know it even more,” said Adham Hafez, an artist volunteering at a field clinic, adding that he learned of the deal when his parents called to tell him “how disgusting it is.”
As of this evening, there are still reports of continuing clashes and use of tear gas. One unconfirmed report says tear gas was fired at or near a hospital and a doctor has died as a result.
More.
The Guardian, Egypt military in standoff with protestors — live updates



17 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
I’ve been following this situation, wishing there were something I could do or say in solidarity with the Egyptian demonstrators. It still can bring tears to my eyes when I think of how they sent pizzas to the demonstrators in Madison, Wisconsin. And we were not being killed.
Watching with horror, and wondering with even more horror when our own images of protestors killed will be up. I fear it won’t be long.
But, what’s got to be done has got to be done. I hope for all people, the Egyptian as well as my own American brethren. Good luck.
Your comment is a great reminder to all of us that we are in this struggle for a better world together and that the generosity of the Egyptians to those of you in Madison is to emulated always.
33 dead now! Omg.
Freedom is very costly as we may soon find out. The Egyptians are very courageous and strong.
The Egyptian protestors are very brave and strong. The Eqyptian police, who use tear gas and live ammo on a group of people armed only with rocks, not so much. That’s cowardly, IMO.
But your point is valid. I hope our own people can be as brave and strong as those folks protesting in Egypt. It takes a special kind of courage to face death and keep going. Bravo for those folks.
the muslim brotherhood were part of the replacement plan designed by our masters. the army would control our strategic interest and the brotherhood would control the people. Seems egyptians are waking up to MB, I wish them well.
The Egyptian military fears the Muslim Brotherhood as their greatest internal security threat, yet, somewhat paradoxically, is looking to accomodate them, foremost. My guess is their strategy is to box in the Brotherhood, while tossing them a big sharia bone. I’d say that there’s a loose analogy to Saudi Arabia, where the Wahhabists are bowed to regarding religious strictures, while the House of Saud need not be terribly religious, but controls most of the government and all of the military.
The Egyptian liberals and moderates are right to be concerned. I hate to say it, but their best strategy may be to threaten mayhem if they are subjected to Sharia, regardless of the fine details of power sharing between the miliary and the Brotherhood. Sending that message may be precisely what they’re doing.
Says Trifkovic, an expert on foreign affairs (who I think is brilliant), in Egypt: The Realist Scenario:
Comment from another OWS liveblog thread:
From Google translate here’s what I gather:
1. Immediatly end SCAF’s rule
2. Create a National Salvation coalition government
3. Convene an constituent assembly to create a new constitution by Jan.
4. Prepare for election of a new President by Jan.
5. Prepare nominations for Parliamentary elections by March.
6. Try those responsible for corruption violence against protesters before Jan.
7. Abolish state security service and hold those accountable for crimes. Appoint a civilian head to the Ministry of the Interior.
Rough, imperfect interpretation since I don’t speak arabic and Google Translate leaves something to be desired.
We already found that out. It looks like the Egyptians are about to.
It’s a petri dish over there. The Brotherhood has been turning the screws behind the scenes for quite awhile, I’d bet.
A special kind of sense of humor helps too. Some of the protesters were joking with a US reporter that the least the US could do was provide tear gas canisters whose expiration date hadn’t past.
heh. That’s some dark humor right there. Egyptians are kewl.
Based on the little I’ve read about Egyptian politics, I’m doubtful that pursuing a purely democratic strategy is such a good idea for secularists and moderates. Not least because the military isn’t simply going to go away. Neither is the Muslim Brotherhood. It might be better for them to cut a deal with the military, as current trends (as I understand them) are likely to leave them with very little – and, in fact, they be be worse off, than before!
Do you think a “managed democracy” would be a better option, but with broad brushstrokes defined by the secularists as primary in civil affairs? I’m thinking something like:
* constrain Islamist candidates to 20% of offices available
* guarantee freedom of religion (or no religion, at all)
* no society-wide Sharia, with some judicious exceptions allowed for religious litigants
* military budget constrained
* military business interests constrained (I’m assuming that such interests exist)
* minority rights guaranteed and vigorously protected
* Truth and Reconciliation type of accountability for previous human rights crimes
* strict adherence to human rights going forward, including normal criminal liability for military violators of human rights
A “managed democracy” in Turkey has become increasingly Islamicized. If the secularists showed themselves more realistic and forgiving, they could inspire more trust in them than the Islamists. Maybe after a generation or two, the military might feel comfortable enought to put itself wholey under civilian control.
Trifkovic in Democratizing the Middle East: A Realist Alternative
A tiny, corrupt Oligarchy cannot rule the world in the absence of geo-political games. Like a magician, they have us watch one hand, while the other pulls the con.
Here’s some history on one of their geo-political games relevant to what’s going on in Egypt: “Our Sordid Love Affair with London’s Muslim Brotherhood”:
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2006/2006_1-9/2006_1-9/2006-7/pdf/47-51_607_natbook.pdf
I hate to be picky, but please fix the headline. I know it is a typo, but it should be “Egyptian.”
Thanks for the link, it was a frightening read. After the article, about which I was completely skeptical, I went to the about page and found this:
…which confirmed my belief about the article being alarmist propaganda.
Attaturk’s secularism sought a kind of freedom from religion, which was always bound to create friction with the faith community who felt restricted from openly practicing religion in public space. The rule against headscarves at University is the most noted example. Many Turks are observant muslims, so you can imagine that even though Attaturk is generally revered, not every last idea he had fits modern ideas of liberation.
Add to that, the military has a history of taking over by coup, and many assumed that it would do so again when Erdogan was elected years ago. I don’t know anything about events in Turkey recently regarding coup plots, but the idea of Erdogan losing power by coup has been on the radar for a long, long time.
I agree completely, and this is what is behind the wild popularity of the Arab Spring (and its sister occupy here, BTW). IMVHO, people seek religious rule when their government is failing. Sharia law is vastly superior to anarchy. So, if masses of people trust that the Egyptian revolutionaries will rule well, what use is the Muslim Brotherhood, right? They’d just better follow through with their promises or the Muslim Brotherhood will gladly step in.
So, no, I don’t think a managed democracy will make one bit of difference. Everyone including islamists ought to be fairly represented and if people want to mix religion with law, so be it. The key is creating a trustworthy, effective government that is accountable through democratic means. IMO.
I don’t follow your reasoning. How does
lead to
. ?
By “managed democracy”, I mean an unequal distribution of power, but with input from all groups, via voting. If you would vote for an Islamist in a given race, but no Islamist is available due to constraints that I suggest, then your vote is either wasted (if you don’t vote) or else not fully democratic (since you had to pick somebody far from your ideal.)
In the US, we also have a “managed democracy”, but the managers are not very open about it. I’m basically suggesting being open about it. Also, I’ll flesh the idea out, a bit more, by saying that the justification is that hardline Islamists will eventually deny civil rights, if they attain power, whether or not they won the ability to do so via the ballot box. If this assumption of mine is correct, then we can restate the situation as follows: “Egypt cannot have a sustainable democracy in the sense that the West would understand.”
BTW, Turkey has a dark, “deep state” recent history, which is quite fascinating, especially for so-called “conspiracy theorists” who prefer their conspiracies to be backed up with substantial conspiracy facts.
Erdogan’s locked up about a quarter of that country’s generals and other military leaders, and the remaining military leaders in charge — at the top — have mostly resigned, so I think the military’s lost this one. Erdogan’s a bit frightening, but super popular and some of the shadier things he’s doing gets masked in the fact that he’s — at least on paper — been very successful in leading Turkey to economic growth, bucking international trends. I don’t think the military could pull off a coup in Turkey and it certainly wouldn’t be accepted by the public, not at this point, anyway.