Charlie Rose

REMant  02/16/2011 12:38 AM Report

I expect Charlie went over there in the hope of an interview with Mubarak or Suleiman or one of the generals, but it was nice to find, nevertheless, that reporters here seemed to agree with the basic proposition that this was not a pro-American "revolution."

The ppl in the square seem to have as little truck with America as with Mubarak, despite what the president said in his news conference today and the American TV anchors have been trumpeting. There's pride and dignity, and then there's independence. This is rather like the American position on free trade, which is that it is desirable, as long as it is on American terms. Despite viewing this like the end of the Raj or collapse of the Iron Curtain, I have to wonder if these reporters have really gotten the message.

Re Fisk's gushing about Obama and democracy: in the American Constitutional Convention the length of the executive term was the subject of a lot of debate, because many felt, and I think even with the passage of 200 years of various sorts of mixed government, still feel, that the executive has to be independent, and thus at least eligible for infinite re-election, and that not rotation in office, but the balance of the constitution is the most important thing, it being presumed the monarch necessarily has an interest in the state lacking in the ppl. But that assumes an aristocracy which we no longer have, and so the question is if the executive doesn't rotate how is it going to be possible to keep him from corrupting the ppl? Montesquieu attempted to answer this in his theory of balance of powers, but that doesn't really reach the object. If he does rotate, how is going to be possible to keep the ppl in check? And without balance how is it going to be possible to keep both of them from spending and inflating the country into oblivion? The answer is what Egypt needs, an independent business establishment to supply the place of the aristocracy, one with an ultimate interest in honest dealing. In fact, the whole world needs that.

Re John Simpson's velvet-throated remark, I think the revolution here is not so different from Eastern Europe, not because of the popular element, but because the army, which finally took over does have business interests, even if seemingly different from those of Mubarak's family and cronies. They are not opposed to business, and I really wonder what military today is. His point about not coping with the technology seems true. Whether it was lack of understanding or lack of ability is a question. I imagine the US, Chinese or Russian govts could probably do better. I can understand Mubarak thinking he got a raw deal, but I think he must have picked that up from the Americans. He no doubt didn't like emirate TV networks. Most Americans, even if they have never seen it, don't like Aljazeera, which broadcasts in English. I'm not sure even Charlie likes Aljazeera. But, I'm sure, Aljazeera and Al Arabiya were a factor. And I am not sure how many receive them and other foreign networks via satellite, which would be equally difficult to control. Experts, however, think the police rackets, which shook down thousands of small businesses, the most important factor, coupled with the pressure of rising prices. It should have been anticipated, as Hammond said, because these protests having been going for some time.

Feudal stuff - kings, castles, and territorial defense - no doubt has some evolutionary value - it displaced the Neanderthals it seems - but what good in the end is it to live entirely in a box? Fighting grew in the 18th c to become quite civilized as a result, but the relations between groups and nations today is mostly economic, involving trade and money, and any regime which fails to recognize that is doomed. In this sense the situation in North Africa and the Middle East represents a clash of civilizations. However, the message one should come away with is not that a century after WWI the world is being made safe for democracy in these places, but that our civilization is still too feudal if it is still talking about winners and losers.

DavLev  02/15/2011 06:01 PM Report

I thought when I started watching this interview, I would learn more about the whys and ifs with respect to the latest crisis in Egypt.I was not prepared for a diatribe by Mr. Fisk against the only democracy in that part of the world, Israel.

He should have said that if Egypt followed Israel's example of governing, freedoms and jucidary, its population would be much better off. To link the youth and prospect of changing Egypt to a desire that it will

end its obligations to Israel, ( terminate the treaty), is not only absurd, but very, very dangerous. Does he understand what he is wishing for?

What does he want the Egyptian army to do, send thousands of tanks into the Sinai..up to the border with Israel? Does he perhaps want Egypt to repeat its mistake in 1967, which created this entire Palestinian mess? ( Jordan occupied the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Old Cith then, and Egypt the Gaza Strip, all being lost in battle to Israel which the Arabs started.

Egypt blamed US pilots for aiding Israel for its overwhelming defeat in 1967, If I recall. Just more of

the Arab tendency to live the Arabian Nights fables. In 1973, Egypt violated the cease fire, and attacked Israel on its high holy day, so much for respecting another religious faith. Again, it underestimated Israel's fighting ability.

The Israeli army was within a few miles of

taking Cairo..and it could have destroyed Egypt's 2nd and 3red armies, similar to its achievements in the 67 War.

(Read Michael Oren's The Six Days of War for specifics of the days before, during and afterwards..AND what if the Arabs had won.)

After 1973, Egypt again violated the UN cease fire by moving its Sam (Russian supplied) Missiles to the Canal,

creating cover for its artillery attacks into the Sinai.

Called the War of Attrition...it finally ended when Israeli

counter attacks were destroying the Egyptian army ability

to wage war there.

Egypt has never really made peace with Israel..preferring

a cold relationship...its citizens are not allowed to tour

Israel to this day. Its anti-Israel bias never ceases, in its media, the press, and through organizations. It concucts

yearly maneuvers simulating an attack on Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Is that peace?

Egypt did not lose however. It received back the Sinai, its oil fields and Israeli army bases.

We should understaned that Egypt, which is everyone now

is pitying, received billions in aid from the former Soviet Union,including Sagger and Sagger Missiles, etc., by mortgaging its crops. It has received billions from US thanking it for the quiet relations with Israel, signing the treaty, and helping to stablizie that part of the world.

There is a saying that without Egypt, other Arab countries cannot war with Israel (and win).

Egypt does have some trade with Israel, and sells it naturla gas and oil. Egyptian products are exported to the US, where many "Jewish" owned retail stores sell them.

Jewish and Israeli tourists regularly tour Egypt's many

historical places, bringing much needed shekels to that

impoverished country.

Egypt has also closed its border with the Gaza Strip,

understanding the consequences of it being opened completely and the desire for the Hamaas thugs to arm

and prepare for he final Jihad against the Jews. They admit

to same.

It seems that Mr. Fisk is alarmed at Israels continuing

hold on the West Bank and Gaza. Yet, other than an Israeli

captive, (Shalit), no Israels are in the Gaza Strip. Yes, there is an ambargo of some goods which can serve duel purposes, and used to strike at Israel (see thousands of

Kassam rockets and Grads fired by Hamas thugs into Southern

Israel).

The West Bank is divided into 3 parts..A, B and C. Most of the area is barren. The so-called settlements comprise about 3$ of the land, which Israel wants to keep, in exchange for land relinquished from Israel proper.

The Palestinians have to date refused to even consider ANY compromise of THEIR demands..the defeated dictating to the winners. The Arab history is best revealed by the 3 nos

to Israel..no peace, no recognition, no compromise.

Nothing has changed since the Arab League uttered those famous nos.

Israeli and US leaders have correctly noted that a stable,

democratic, Egypt, living up to its obligations, is best for the area, and world stability.

Mr. Fisk apparently takes exception with this observation.

Would he prefer a total war between Israel and Egypt a war that

everyone knows Egypt would lose badly, if not its Sinai

territory, and the Canal itself. Does anyone believe Israel would again relinquish the territory?

And I ask, who stole whose land? The Palestinian Arabs

and their friends refused the partition plan. They have

repeatedly refused to make peace with Israel. They have

violated every agreement ever made and now are demanding

history be reversed at the UN, without any Israeli acceptance. Three quarters of the land which was to become

the Jewish homeland is now Jordan, the real Palestine.

So who stole what from whom?

Mr. Fisk, is just another reason why the conflict remains after 100 years..distorting history, and the facts.