THE DIRTY RULER, EGYPTIANS' DEMAND
AND THE U.S RESPONSE
By
Salim I. Hassan (Salimullah)
Education Department, BUK.
salimanology@yahoo.com
blogwebsite: www.salimullah1.blogspot.com (http://www.salimullah1.blogspot.com)
What would be the western response had Mubarak been an Islamic leader amidst public agitation to step down? Suppose this most legitimate protest against the government is happening in IRAN; what do you think about the possible response from the U.S (the Big Satan), Israel (the evil-hatchers), Britain and France (the unbelieving-hypocrites)? They will instantly intervene even with military to help the people of Egypt to topple the government. Don't ever forget that the America's motive is democracy; and are even attacking the Islamic state for non-observance of democracy. Now, here are people protesting against age-old (83 years) dictator to step down. It is an astonishing irony the U.S is supporting the dictator and overlooks the majority citizens' demand. The Obama's administration has only urged Mubarak to 'enact reform'. This response is against the Egyptian's aspirations who are demanding the horrendous ruler to step down.
It is one week-plus of the nation's instability and all previous attempts to arrest the revolutionary situation by Mubarrack has failed, including the military deployment. It was even reported that Mubarrack has given military order of shooting the civilian protesters wherever met. Why should they be shot for staging the most legitimate and peaceful protest? Surprisingly, even the military are in support of the protest; they too need the change and participate in the protest from behind the scene.
The military never dare to carryout the 'shoot' order given to them by Mubarrack. Mubarrack's family have already left the state for refuge. In his attempt to appease the Egyptians, Mubarrack dissolved his cabinet and appointed new ones. It is too late for him and the measure taken is less than enough to quench the Egyptians' thirst. Mubarrack has no option but to step down despite of Western support for him. Even though the President Mubarrack has promised economic and political reforms, protesters remain defiant, fearless and formidable in their right determination and say they will not give up until Mubarak steps down.
Meanwhile, the imminent revolution in Egypt presages a disastrous future against Israel; as such it is doing all its best from behind the scene to suppress its success. It should be recalled that Peace treaty existed for over 30yrs today between Israel and Egypt, enabling the Israel to continue its persecution, aggression and invasion of Palestinians' lands, all with tacit approval of Mubarrack's administration. Israel will never like a revolution in Egypt, which could endanger the peace treaty that was signed between the tow parties in 1979. The U.S too is concerned about Israel's security should this revolution succeed.
Netanyahu, an Israeli prime minister envisages that Egypt uprising could lead to an Islamic revolution which has occurred in Iran in 1979. "In a time of chaos, an organized Islamic group can take over the state. It happened in Iran and it also happened in other places, Netanyahu quote saying at a press conference with visiting German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Monday. On last Saturday (29/01/011) three Israeli planes landed in Cairo's Mina's International Airport to deliver crowd dispersal weapons for Mubarrack to use them against the mass popular protesters.
It could be concluded that Western stance towards Egypt uprisings is a clear-cut irony. It therefore exposes their double standard in their relation to Muslim world. In reality, the U.S is not after entrenching democracy in the Muslim world; it is after someone that can serve their will and protect their interest in the Middle East irrespective of a kind of government he runs: a monarchy, dictatorship or military it doesn't matter. Ironically, they are after toppling any Muslim democracy government that remains defiant to their need and interest in the Middle East.
Their attitudes can be divided into two as regards their policy in Middle East and other Muslim countries:
1) The U.S and their alliance welcome any Muslim dictatorial ruler who will serve their interest even if it is against Islam and Muslims; and they need him on power in his state for uncountable years as long as he remains 'a dog' (blindly obedient) to them. For instance, Saudi Kings and others (e.g. Mubarrack' regime) are dictators but the U.S needs them to remain on power because they are serving their wills. But, they dislike Qaddhafi, another Libyan dictator because he rarely serves their wills and always seek to topple him from power. A double-standard established!
2) They never want a popular Muslim democrat leader who will not serve their interest. They will never like him despite of his democracy-style leadership. Their enmity is worse when this democrat leader professes Islamic principle of leadership. Iran's leader, who is a democratic one, is a typical example in this case.
Finally, it is time for Muslim world to better understand the true stance and attitude of U.S and their alliance towards Muslim countries.