Arise ye workers from your slumber

[hatzel]

So what has happened so far? A corrupt president in Tunisia flees, to cheers from around the world. Protests erupt in Egypt, and gloom descends. Protests are held in Iran, and the world cheers. A prime minister is deposed in Lebanon, to fear and dread. An Iraqi president is overthrown in a military offensive, and it's called democracy. Raucous demonstrations take place in Yemen, and they're called interesting but not terribly important.

Why the different reactions? This is supposedly the new Middle East the West always wanted, but something still isn't working out. This isn't the Middle East they dreamed of in the Bush administration, and not what nourished Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's wildest dreams. A new, unexpected player has appeared: the public.

Up to now, the world has been divided into two camps: "complicated" countries where the government represents the public and every decision is subject to public oversight, and "easy" countries where business is conducted at the top and the public is just window dressing. The dividing line between the two has always been starkly clear. Everything north of the Mediterranean belonged to the first group and everything to the south and east to the second.

The north had political parties and trade unions, a left wing and a right wing, important intellectuals, celebrities who shaped public opinion, and of course, there was public opinion itself. In the south the division was simple. It was the distinction between moderates and extremists, meaning pro-Westerners and anti-Westerners.

If you're a Saudi king who buys billions of dollars of American weapons, you're pro-Western and therefore entitled to continue to rule a country without a parliament, one where thieves' hands are amputated and women aren't allowed to drive. If you're an Egyptian president who supports the peace process, you're pro-Western and have permission to continue to impose emergency rule in your country, jail journalists and opposition members, and fix elections.

And what if you're the ruler of Qatar? There's a problem classifying you. On the one hand, Qatar hosts the largest American military base in the Middle East. But it has close relations with Iran and Syria. On the one hand, its ruler promotes democratic values and its foreign minister occasionally meets with top Israeli officials. But it nurtures Al Jazeera.

Of course, we love Al Jazeera when it shows us exclusive pictures of mass demonstrations, discloses secret documents, and is open to interviewing Israeli and Jewish spokespeople. But we hate it because it covers Hamas and Hezbollah's successes. The huge challenge of categorizing Qatar shows that the terms pro-Western and moderate have no connection to the universal values the West seeks to export. They only represent the degree of the fear and the threat posed by the values the anti-Westerners send to the West.

And all of a sudden, into the whirlwind, into the era of certainty and the lexicon in which the region's countries are neatly packaged, the Arab "street" erupts, a sophisticated street. It uses "our" methods: Facebook and Twitter - the tools of democracy we have invented - to present us with a situation of disorder. How do you defend yourself against this? This Arab street has already used these tools to depose Tunisian President Zine El Abedine Ben Ali, and its ideas have gone viral. What if it manages to establish democracy in Egypt? In Yemen? Look what happened to the Shah of Iran, albeit using now-outmoded cassettes.

And when Al Jazeera's cameras come close to the demonstrators, it also becomes clear that these are not religious radicals. Lawyers, journalists, university students, women with their heads uncovered, high school students, the secular and the religious are taking to the streets. They're not shouting "God is great," but "corruption out," "dictator out" and "we want jobs." Such nice slogans make you identify with them. In the words of "The Internationale": "arise ye workers from your slumber." It makes us want to join them until we remember that, as U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt described Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza, he "may be a son of a *****, but he's our son of a *****." It's disrupting the order of things.

We don't have to wait for other regimes to fall to understand that the revolution is happening before our very eyes. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak will not fall due to demonstrations in Cairo's Tahrir Square, and Yemen's ruler will also continue to rule by force. But it's a revolution of awareness and of the fundamental notions of what the Middle East is. Most importantly, we need a revolution in the way the West views the region.



Source (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/arise-ye-workers-from-your-slumber-1.340079?localLinksEnabled=false)

[RGacky3]

This is something I've been saying for a long time, people want the same things, they have the same dreams and wishes, and people that try to write things off as just cultural differences are kidding themselves.

[Bud Struggle]

The Revolitoion in Egypt also show that when people revolt in the 21st Century it isn't for anything "exotic." It's not for religion alright, but it's not for "Permament Revolution" or over the top nationalism, it's not for racial superiorty and it's not for Manifestos or ideology.

People are Revoting for fairness, both economic and political. They want a reasonable life without fear or reprisals from government or radical sects they want a chance to feed ther families and have a decent place to live.

The Revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt are "People"s Revolutions" at their best.

Good for them.

[RGacky3]

The Revolitoion in Egypt also show that when people revolt in the 21st Century it isn't for anything "exotic." It's not for religion alright, but it's not for "Permament Revolution" or over the top nationalism, it's not for racial superiorty and it's not for Manifestos or ideology.


All revolutions (at least almost all of them) start like that, the problem arises when a group tries to take power out of it.

[hatzel]

All revolutions (at least almost all of them) start like that, the problem arises when a group tries to take power out of it.

Cough cough Robespierre cough Lenin cough cough...


Yeah, I'm sure that if these 'revolutions' change anything (rather than just leading to reform), then there will be some new charismatic leader with a manifesto claiming to represent the people. And that's when the revolution's already dead and buried, but they'll keep 'purging' their enemies to defend it...shame, really...

[Bud Struggle]

All revolutions (at least almost all of them) start like that, the problem arises when a group tries to take power out of it.

I agree with you there. That's why I think revolutions are so dangerous. I'm all for them if the good guys win--but that doesn't always happen.

[hatzel]

I'm all for them if the good guys win

Woah woah woah, Bud, you're floating into subjective territory with these arbitrary decisions of who are the good guys and the bad guys...one could argue this fits in with the article, that some might call the 'good guys' the pro-Westerners, pro-reformists, whilst others might call the 'good guys' the ones who best represent the desires of the people, or those who act with the people's interests at heart. These three types of 'good guy' usually aren't the same...:thumbup1:

[Bud Struggle]

[QUOTE=Krimskrams;2005874]Woah woah woah, Bud, you're floating into subjective territory with these arbitrary decisions of who are the good guys and the bad guys...QUOTE]

You are completely correct--and soe of these "good guys" are are Black shirted guys with nasty dispositions. You are right--anyone could be a "good guy" to someone else.

And anyone could get a hold of a movenment and take control--so maybe a beginning manifesto might not be a bad idea.

[RGacky3]

Problem is the Bad guy's all ready in control.

[hatzel]

As 'good guys' is a subjective (and effectively meaningless) term, so is 'bad guys'...:drool:

[RGacky3]

You know what he means.

[hatzel]

But what's 'bad'? Who are the bad guys, specifically, as opposed to the good guys? More important, what makes them bad guys?

[RGacky3]

Actually now that you mention it, I don't know what he means ....

Yeah who are the good guys??? I was thinking the bad guys and good guys in my mind, but chances are Buds bad and good guys are pretty different from mine (and exactly the same as the pentagons).

[Bud Struggle]

Actually now that you mention it, I don't know what he means ....

Yeah who are the good guys??? I was thinking the bad guys and good guys in my mind, but chances are Buds bad and good guys are pretty different from mine (and exactly the same as the pentagons).

On the micro side, I think we're the same or close to the same. I certainly am for the Egyptian people being free of all those years of corruption and fear. I would like to see them gain some sort of freedom and independence. I guess you think something similar.

It's on the macro side that we disagree. I'd like to see some sort of democracy or social democracy. You I would guess would want something more Socialist. (Don't mean to put words in you mouth--just guessing. )

[RGacky3]

On the micro side, I think we're the same or close to the same. I certainly am for the Egyptian people being free of all those years of corruption and fear. I would like to see them gain some sort of freedom and independence. I guess you think something similar.

It's on the macro side that we disagree. I'd like to see some sort of democracy or social democracy. You I would guess would want something more Socialist. (Don't mean to put words in you mouth--just guessing. )

Yeah, but I mean who are the good guys that are gonna bring that?

The outcome we want is pretty much the same, (obviously I understand that neo-liberalism and capitalism ruin countries so I would'nt want that), but if you think the US is the good guy in this thing then your definately mistaken.

[hatzel]

There's no such thing as the good guy...or the bad guy...this gets us into the unfortunate situation where we start saying that we'll forgive 'mistakes' by the good guy, claiming they're out of character, simple slip-ups, whilst we'll also conveniently ignore any positive initiatives undertaken by the so-called bad guy. But still it remains to be asked how we define it. Is the good guy always going to be the person who most closely agrees with us? Thus a socialist leader would be a good guy, a fascist leader would be a bad guy. Seems logical, but there's the question of whether our opinion is more important than the opinions of the people themselves. One could provide an argument that, in a nation of fascists, the good guy, the best leader, would be a fascist, rather than a socialist. Paradoxical as it sounds. If we are to believe that a good leader is a leader who closely represents the general will of the people. It may, also, be that a given conservative leader may actually have policies better suited to the nation and the people at the time, compared to a progressive leader. I mean, if the progressive socialist decides he wants to implement a variety of social economic policies that would work perfectly well in Germany, but in Yemen would probably lead to bankruptcy, hyperinflation and widespread famine, then we could easily argue that the conservative candidate, who may have policies better suited to the socio-economic situation of the country, would better be called the good guy...if there will be a good guy at all, which I already denied...

[Lt. Ferret]

for the record i support pretty much all these revolutions in the middle east.

[hatzel]

for the record i support pretty much all these revolutions in the middle east.

What are the conditions of this support, Ferret? I mean, would you withdraw your support if an 'undesirable' party or leader were to take power, and if so, what constitutes 'undesirable' for you? I'm assuming in this case that you might not throw your whole weight behind, for example, the Muslim Brotherhood. Not because I think you're vehemently opposed to Islam or Muslims or anything like that, don't get me wrong, just that it seems to be a prevalent concern amongst westerners, including a great many socialists...

[RGacky3]

for the record i support pretty much all these revolutions in the middle east.


Until the defense department changes their mind right?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

That's not a fair accusation. In this country, the defense dept does not determine where or who we go to war with. The civilians who are elected by the people decide that.



There's no such thing as the good guy...or the bad guy...this gets us into the unfortunate situation where we start saying that we'll forgive 'mistakes' by the good guy, claiming they're out of character, simple slip-ups, whilst we'll also conveniently ignore any positive initiatives undertaken by the so-called bad guy. But still it remains to be asked how we define it. Is the good guy always going to be the person who most closely agrees with us? Thus a socialist leader would be a good guy, a fascist leader would be a bad guy. Seems logical, but there's the question of whether our opinion is more important than the opinions of the people themselves. One could provide an argument that, in a nation of fascists, the good guy, the best leader, would be a fascist, rather than a socialist. Paradoxical as it sounds. If we are to believe that a good leader is a leader who closely represents the general will of the people. It may, also, be that a given conservative leader may actually have policies better suited to the nation and the people at the time, compared to a progressive leader. I mean, if the progressive socialist decides he wants to implement a variety of social economic policies that would work perfectly well in Germany, but in Yemen would probably lead to bankruptcy, hyperinflation and widespread famine, then we could easily argue that the conservative candidate, who may have policies better suited to the socio-economic situation of the country, would better be called the good guy...if there will be a good guy at all, which I already denied...


When you talk about good guy or bad guy, the beautiful thing I see about the egyptian revolt is there is no single 'guy' running this. Sure, ElBaredei is there, but this is a movement of the people, not of an individual that can have a label slapped on them. That's what makes this so intriguing and uplifting to so many people.

Kriskrams you are crossing a line into that realm where the world is not viewed through a prism that makes everything instantly black and white issues. Good thing you posted this in OI! :lol:

[RGacky3]

That's not a fair accusation. In this country, the defense dept does not determine where or who we go to war with. The civilians who are elected by the people decide that.


You get my point :).

[bcbm]

It uses "our" methods: Facebook and Twitter - the tools of democracy we have invented - to present us with a situation of disorder.



The vast majority of protesters on the streets are not “tweeting”. Approximately seventy percent of them are not regular users of the internet and at least half of them have never had an email account—in Cairo’s slums like Mashriyat Nasser which more than a million poor call home basics like electricity are stolen from over-ground power cables and even then the supply is infrequent. Phone calls are still made from kiosks in the streets, even though having a very basic mobile phone has become increasingly common. The idea of having smartphones like iPhones and Droids is unimaginable—the idea of what “social networking” means or what Facebook and Twitter are is unknown to most.http://www.al-bab.com/blog/2011/blog1101g.htm



So why does the image of a revolution enabled by social media continue to grab headlines and spark the interest of Western audiences, and what are the dangers of employing such imagery? My fear is that the hype about a Twitter/Facebook/YouTube revolution performs two functions: first, it depoliticizes our understanding of the conflicts, and second, it whitewashes the role of capitalism in suppressing democracy.

To elaborate, the discourse of a social media revolution is a form of self-focused empathy in which we imagine the other (in this case, a Muslim other) to be nothing more than a projection of our own desires, a depoliticized instant in our own becoming. What a strong affirmation of ourselves it is to believe that people engaged in a desperate struggle for human dignity are using the same Web 2.0 products we are using! That we are able to form this empathy largely on the basis of consumerism demonstrates the extent to which we have bought into the notion that democracy is a by-product of media products for self-expression, and that the corporations that create such media products would never side with governments against their own people.
http://blog.ulisesmejias.com/2011/01/30/the-twitter-revolution-must-die/

[ComradeMan]

Well, I'll believe Mubarak has gone when he has gone...;) Like I said elsewhere, Mubarak is a survivor and a clever fox, so we'll see. There's also the issue of the Egyptian military and the links with Israel and, of course, who controls Suez.

But we should also ask ourselves, what has changed in material terms... with the cynicism of age I fear old wine in new bottles.

[#FF0000]

with the cynicism of age I fear old wine in new bottles.

P. much what I'm expecting. Maybe they'll have elections, or something. :mellow:

Still it is always good to see people rising up.

[ComradeMan]

P. much what I'm expecting. Maybe they'll have elections, or something. :mellow:

Still it is always good to see people rising up.

Yeah... what would be nice to see happen and what will are too different things usually. Let's wait and see.

I've been speaking to my friends from North Africa everyday. I am glad to say their families are okay but as you can understand they are concerned too. Like one guy put it, it's not because he'd be sorry about Mubarak but he doesn't want to end up "sorrier" about the next guy. :crying:

[#FF0000]

My friend is going on about how horrible the cities look in the news reports and how he's afraid it makes Egypt look bad. I have to remind him that literally everyone thinks this is a great thing and no one cares that the streets are kind of dirty when people are throwing out a dictator.

[Lt. Ferret]

What are the conditions of this support, Ferret? I mean, would you withdraw your support if an 'undesirable' party or leader were to take power, and if so, what constitutes 'undesirable' for you? I'm assuming in this case that you might not throw your whole weight behind, for example, the Muslim Brotherhood. Not because I think you're vehemently opposed to Islam or Muslims or anything like that, don't get me wrong, just that it seems to be a prevalent concern amongst westerners, including a great many socialists...


I would be against theocratic revolutionaries snagging this for their own benefit. Most moderate reformists, trade unionists, or even a radical but not outright leninist or maoist socialist demogague might be fun, but for now i want democracy in those countries.