as 20 years ago in the states of Central and Eastern Europe, people took to the streets and despatched the communist regime to the dustbin of history, were the U.S. and Western European elites and their media almost over the moon . The U.S. empire emerged victorious from the battle of the systems and was able to compete freely yet its global expansion drive on in his sense democratized part of the globe. The story seemed to have come to an end, was reported of scientific mouth.
accomplished something similar today in the Arab world and the Western elites maneuver between the rebellious people and their oppressors to maintain their "interests" and "stability." The Obama, Merkel, Sarkozy, Cameron and the entire host of Western Democrats to show people her cold shoulder and ask for political power by the ruling dictators orderly change of people and restraint. Even at the massacre of the Libyan colonel on his own subjects the Western leaders falls outside diplomatic phrases a bit. The EU has completely failed in these uprisings. You cares more about an imminent "exodus" of "biblical proportions" in its domain. What do Western politicians, some cosmetic changes, without thereby changing the global situation radically. Immediately to utilities pulled out of the sleeves to the people point in typical colonial fashion the bureaucratic road to democracy. The West is doing, as if these "savages" did not know how to prevent elections or build a state. Before the stability fixation on the tyrant to overlook that in this countries are a vibrant civil society, which until now only had no voice.
The Egyptian Pharaoh
long stuck to his throne and declares to the world that its corrupt elites wanted to reform itself. Imagine, Egon Krenz had commissioned Erich Mielke to effect an orderly transfer of power in the GDR. But exactly what should take place in Egypt. The long-serving intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, Egypt's chief torturer and head of the notorious secret Al Mukhabarat and reliable partner of the CIA in torturing deportees "Islamists" as part of the rendition torture program of the Bush Administration, should the "orderly transition" in the name of "Western interests "as Vice President orchestrate, and under the control of the military. Under pressure from the protesters had to settle the military Suleiman, and he narrowly escaped an assassination attempt shortly afterwards.
The difference between the political classes of the former "Eastern bloc" and their counterparts in the Arab world is that the latter are the allies and friends of the West. They are the ones who have delivered Frantz Fanon the title for his anti-colonial classic "Black Skin, White Masks". The Western elites have cared for well over half a century not one whit about democracy, freedom, women's rights, good governance and other "western values", mainly the Arab despotisms were politically stable and its rulers to the west, well disposed, they could do to their subjects what they wanted. The West looks to date on his "good", that is, Western-oriented dictatorship friends not as closely, as witnessed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain and the countries of Central Asia. The comments to the "change of power in Egypt are steeped in colonial paternalistic thinking by the Western leaders say their representatives in the Arab world how to behave and what is supposedly in their interest.
Western magic formulas for these double standards are "political stability" "U.S. same Western interests," "Western values", and since the 9/11-Anschlägen the so-called "war on terror" and "global stability." This makes political terminology western political elites rule through intermediaries in the Arab world and beyond. the Western power politicians have actually stopped to ask what are the interests of the people in the Arab world? The exploitation of mineral resources is probably not their primary interests. Why should the people in this kind of "political stability" have an interest which is more just to their disadvantage? What they need is change, radical change, if need be, a revolution to democracy, human rights and individual freedom. The Western idea of "political stability" must appear the enslaved people "obscene" because they deprive them of their dignity and keep them in poverty and misery, while supporting the rule of a kleptocracy. Who are these "political stability" in question, undermining the "Western values" and an ominous stability and rule of doctrine. This thinking is deeply racist and neo-colonialist, because it denies the Arab peoples, their right to universal values and dignity.
Why are the Western statesmen and public men and their intellectuals, especially the otherwise contentious French philosopher, not on the side of rebellious populations and demand the departure of outspoken of all the Arab dictators? In particular, the French feature stars who are against any human rights violation that is not started by the West or its consent to accomplices "to protest, are silent with regard to the insurgency in the Arab world. An overthrow of Arab regimes would not be in the interest of Israel, could be an explanation. The changes in the Arab world are actually not in the interests of Israel. One need because simply looking at the hysteria in the Israeli media. Some journalists attacked U.S. President Obama because he did not support Mubarak, and they longed for the good old days of George W. Bush. But Israel's interests are not identical to Western interests, even his nearly 44-year-old policy of occupation is a heavy burden for the credibility of the West. The country has its own hegemonic agenda in the Middle East.
How can it be that Israel would be threatened by democratic revolutions in the Arab world? Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had given even the beginning of February in the Knesset, following on record: "All those who appreciate the value of freedom to be inspired by the calls for democratic reforms in Egypt (...) An Egypt that will adopt these reforms, a source of hope for the world will be. The stronger the foundations of democracy are, the stronger the foundations for peace. "How come is it that suddenly the Israeli government against free elections in these countries with the argument warns that they would not necessarily lead to democracy? Or has become the traditional thinking of the Israeli security establishment, which the former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Arens as "convincing" in the Israeli newspaper "Haaretz" and later on in the "Berliner Zeitung" 2 February has argued that one could easily conclude peace treaties with dictators: "Peace is concluded with dictators." Since there were no democracies in Israel's neighborhood, you were forced willy-nilly, to conclude peace treaties with dictatorships. Israeli President Shimon Peres met with the same hymn. On a Banque Peres said in Jerusalem that an anti-democratic regime that is for peace is better than a democracy that is against peace. He praised in his speech, Mubarak warned against the danger of elections, because they lead to an electoral victory of the Muslim Brotherhood could. Now it becomes clear why one has to the democratic electoral victory of Hamas in 2006 from the United States, Israel and the EU all under way to urge the only democratic Arab government from office. Had the freely elected Hamas government to survive, Israel's status as the "only democracy in the Middle East" would have been perdu. Such as the publication has shown the "Palestine Papers," it seems to be easier to conclude with a democratically legitimized Arab "president" as Abbas and his cronies than with democratically elected Hamas representatives in peace indeed.
Israeli leaders and Israeli "Arabists" in the media create a nightmare scenario in which the Muslim Brotherhood is playing the lead role. Democratic elections, they could bring to power, it would be like in Iran and Gaza. Democracy in the Middle East lies not in Israel's interest and constitutes a danger to the country, the dominant theme in the media landscape.
Where is the main problem of the West with the revolutions in the Arab world? It is the imaginary threat of domination and takeover by "Islamists". The Egyptian revolution is primarily a desire of youth and the majority of Egyptians for freedom. The Mubarak regime was like mildew over the country. The Revolution was not controlled by "Islamists" or representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood, or even lit. Even in Tunisia, Libya, Yemen and elsewhere, they have done little or nothing to revolt. You are in this power struggle is only one actor among many. The spread of fear of "Islamists" or is the demonization of the Muslim Brotherhood by political propaganda of the preservation of the geopolitical influence of the West and Israel in the region, which has so far worked to the detriment of the people. Mubarak, along with Israel and the U.S. have done everything to the Palestinian people continue to colonize and oppress. Mubarak and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas have nothing against the Israeli Massacres of the civilian population of the Gaza Strip, in which 1 400 people - mostly women and children - were killed objection, had it even though they have been notified in advance. Mubarak had made even the Egyptian border with the Gaza Strip, so that none of the inhabitants managed to escape from the prison of the Strip.
Runs after the revolution in Egypt, not everything again in the sense of the West? The revolution is guided by the military in "orderly", and the U.S. are pulling the strings in the background. But perhaps the "Western farmers" made the statement again without the people. It would be very unlikely that the Egyptian give people with a light-Mubarak dictatorship satisfied as a future vision. What happens in the Arab revolution, is a defeat for the U.S. and the West in the region. On the western end, there are double standards and a dishonest policy in the pillory. Not only the Arab world is looking forward to the answers.
accomplished something similar today in the Arab world and the Western elites maneuver between the rebellious people and their oppressors to maintain their "interests" and "stability." The Obama, Merkel, Sarkozy, Cameron and the entire host of Western Democrats to show people her cold shoulder and ask for political power by the ruling dictators orderly change of people and restraint. Even at the massacre of the Libyan colonel on his own subjects the Western leaders falls outside diplomatic phrases a bit. The EU has completely failed in these uprisings. You cares more about an imminent "exodus" of "biblical proportions" in its domain. What do Western politicians, some cosmetic changes, without thereby changing the global situation radically. Immediately to utilities pulled out of the sleeves to the people point in typical colonial fashion the bureaucratic road to democracy. The West is doing, as if these "savages" did not know how to prevent elections or build a state. Before the stability fixation on the tyrant to overlook that in this countries are a vibrant civil society, which until now only had no voice.
The Egyptian Pharaoh
long stuck to his throne and declares to the world that its corrupt elites wanted to reform itself. Imagine, Egon Krenz had commissioned Erich Mielke to effect an orderly transfer of power in the GDR. But exactly what should take place in Egypt. The long-serving intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, Egypt's chief torturer and head of the notorious secret Al Mukhabarat and reliable partner of the CIA in torturing deportees "Islamists" as part of the rendition torture program of the Bush Administration, should the "orderly transition" in the name of "Western interests "as Vice President orchestrate, and under the control of the military. Under pressure from the protesters had to settle the military Suleiman, and he narrowly escaped an assassination attempt shortly afterwards.
The difference between the political classes of the former "Eastern bloc" and their counterparts in the Arab world is that the latter are the allies and friends of the West. They are the ones who have delivered Frantz Fanon the title for his anti-colonial classic "Black Skin, White Masks". The Western elites have cared for well over half a century not one whit about democracy, freedom, women's rights, good governance and other "western values", mainly the Arab despotisms were politically stable and its rulers to the west, well disposed, they could do to their subjects what they wanted. The West looks to date on his "good", that is, Western-oriented dictatorship friends not as closely, as witnessed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain and the countries of Central Asia. The comments to the "change of power in Egypt are steeped in colonial paternalistic thinking by the Western leaders say their representatives in the Arab world how to behave and what is supposedly in their interest.
Western magic formulas for these double standards are "political stability" "U.S. same Western interests," "Western values", and since the 9/11-Anschlägen the so-called "war on terror" and "global stability." This makes political terminology western political elites rule through intermediaries in the Arab world and beyond. the Western power politicians have actually stopped to ask what are the interests of the people in the Arab world? The exploitation of mineral resources is probably not their primary interests. Why should the people in this kind of "political stability" have an interest which is more just to their disadvantage? What they need is change, radical change, if need be, a revolution to democracy, human rights and individual freedom. The Western idea of "political stability" must appear the enslaved people "obscene" because they deprive them of their dignity and keep them in poverty and misery, while supporting the rule of a kleptocracy. Who are these "political stability" in question, undermining the "Western values" and an ominous stability and rule of doctrine. This thinking is deeply racist and neo-colonialist, because it denies the Arab peoples, their right to universal values and dignity.
Why are the Western statesmen and public men and their intellectuals, especially the otherwise contentious French philosopher, not on the side of rebellious populations and demand the departure of outspoken of all the Arab dictators? In particular, the French feature stars who are against any human rights violation that is not started by the West or its consent to accomplices "to protest, are silent with regard to the insurgency in the Arab world. An overthrow of Arab regimes would not be in the interest of Israel, could be an explanation. The changes in the Arab world are actually not in the interests of Israel. One need because simply looking at the hysteria in the Israeli media. Some journalists attacked U.S. President Obama because he did not support Mubarak, and they longed for the good old days of George W. Bush. But Israel's interests are not identical to Western interests, even his nearly 44-year-old policy of occupation is a heavy burden for the credibility of the West. The country has its own hegemonic agenda in the Middle East.
How can it be that Israel would be threatened by democratic revolutions in the Arab world? Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had given even the beginning of February in the Knesset, following on record: "All those who appreciate the value of freedom to be inspired by the calls for democratic reforms in Egypt (...) An Egypt that will adopt these reforms, a source of hope for the world will be. The stronger the foundations of democracy are, the stronger the foundations for peace. "How come is it that suddenly the Israeli government against free elections in these countries with the argument warns that they would not necessarily lead to democracy? Or has become the traditional thinking of the Israeli security establishment, which the former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Arens as "convincing" in the Israeli newspaper "Haaretz" and later on in the "Berliner Zeitung" 2 February has argued that one could easily conclude peace treaties with dictators: "Peace is concluded with dictators." Since there were no democracies in Israel's neighborhood, you were forced willy-nilly, to conclude peace treaties with dictatorships. Israeli President Shimon Peres met with the same hymn. On a Banque Peres said in Jerusalem that an anti-democratic regime that is for peace is better than a democracy that is against peace. He praised in his speech, Mubarak warned against the danger of elections, because they lead to an electoral victory of the Muslim Brotherhood could. Now it becomes clear why one has to the democratic electoral victory of Hamas in 2006 from the United States, Israel and the EU all under way to urge the only democratic Arab government from office. Had the freely elected Hamas government to survive, Israel's status as the "only democracy in the Middle East" would have been perdu. Such as the publication has shown the "Palestine Papers," it seems to be easier to conclude with a democratically legitimized Arab "president" as Abbas and his cronies than with democratically elected Hamas representatives in peace indeed.
Israeli leaders and Israeli "Arabists" in the media create a nightmare scenario in which the Muslim Brotherhood is playing the lead role. Democratic elections, they could bring to power, it would be like in Iran and Gaza. Democracy in the Middle East lies not in Israel's interest and constitutes a danger to the country, the dominant theme in the media landscape.
Where is the main problem of the West with the revolutions in the Arab world? It is the imaginary threat of domination and takeover by "Islamists". The Egyptian revolution is primarily a desire of youth and the majority of Egyptians for freedom. The Mubarak regime was like mildew over the country. The Revolution was not controlled by "Islamists" or representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood, or even lit. Even in Tunisia, Libya, Yemen and elsewhere, they have done little or nothing to revolt. You are in this power struggle is only one actor among many. The spread of fear of "Islamists" or is the demonization of the Muslim Brotherhood by political propaganda of the preservation of the geopolitical influence of the West and Israel in the region, which has so far worked to the detriment of the people. Mubarak, along with Israel and the U.S. have done everything to the Palestinian people continue to colonize and oppress. Mubarak and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas have nothing against the Israeli Massacres of the civilian population of the Gaza Strip, in which 1 400 people - mostly women and children - were killed objection, had it even though they have been notified in advance. Mubarak had made even the Egyptian border with the Gaza Strip, so that none of the inhabitants managed to escape from the prison of the Strip.
Runs after the revolution in Egypt, not everything again in the sense of the West? The revolution is guided by the military in "orderly", and the U.S. are pulling the strings in the background. But perhaps the "Western farmers" made the statement again without the people. It would be very unlikely that the Egyptian give people with a light-Mubarak dictatorship satisfied as a future vision. What happens in the Arab revolution, is a defeat for the U.S. and the West in the region. On the western end, there are double standards and a dishonest policy in the pillory. Not only the Arab world is looking forward to the answers.
0 comments:
Post a Comment