Link
Essentially what this represents is the final victory of the vast Egyptian military complex over the Egyptian revolutionaries that overthrew Mubarak in January 2011.
You have to hand it to the generals - they really played their hand well. Before the beginning of the protests there were rumours that Mubarak was grooming his son, Gamal Mubarak, to succeed him as president of Egypt. That was something that the military did not like, since in their view it could represent a threat to the hold that the Egyptian military holds over the Egyptian economy - an arrangement which makes a lot of money for the higher-ups in the military. Even though Mubarak was a former air-force general and was from the military, after 30 or so years in power it would seem he wasn't close enough for them. And there were rumours that Gamal was of a reform-minded tendency, and that would threaten the general's money train.
So when the people spill out onto the streets, the military uses the pressure created by the demonstrations to lever out Mubarak and ensure the military's control over Egypt - eventually leading to the rise of three major players in Egyptian politics, the military, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the revolutionaries, each trying to gain an alliance with one of the other to put itself in power.
The military played this really well - they let the Muslim Brotherhood assume power, and then when (as could be expected) they run the country into the ground, they have the power to come "save Egypt from the Islamists" and have the people vote the military (in the guise of Field-Marshal-cum-President Sisi) into power.
So at the end of four years of revolutionary unrest, this is what Egypt ends up with: the military's hold on the Egyptian state is assured, the revolutionaries are either quiescent or arrested, the Muslim Brotherhood is banned and its leaders arrested wholescale, and the military now rules Egypt by overwhelming public consent.
Rather Machiavellian, if you think about it.
HSLD
Quote:Quote:
CAIRO — An Egyptian court on Saturday dismissed all remaining criminal charges against former President Hosni Mubarak, raising the possibility that Mr. Mubarak could go free for the first time since he was removed from office in the 2011 uprising that defined the Arab Spring.
During earlier hearings in the various proceedings against Mr. Mubarak human rights lawyers demanded harsh punishment for his three decades of brutal autocracy, but Saturday’s court session was packed with Mubarak supporters who erupted in cheers at the verdict.
The 86-year-old former leader, who has been held at a military hospital and appeared in court on a stretcher, remained stone-faced as the chief judge, Mahmoud Kamel al-Rashidi, read the verdict. Only then did he allow himself a smile, and his two sons, Alaa and Gamal, hugged and kissed him in celebration. Both were acquitted of corruption charges along with their father.
The judge would not elaborate on his reasoning from the bench, insisting that any commentators read at least a 240-page summary of his 1,340-page explanation of the case.
He dismissed the most serious charges: that Mr. Mubarak was responsible for the killing of hundreds of nonviolent demonstrators during the protests that ended his rule. He acquitted him of the corruption charges, which involved allegations that he had sold natural gas to Israel at below-market prices, as well as other allegations Mr. Mubarak and his sons were given vacation homes as kickbacks.
In May, Mr. Mubarak was sentenced to three years in prison in a separate corruption case, involving lavish, government-funded improvements to his and his sons’ personal homes. But having spent more than three years in custody on various charges, the former president might now be freed after a determination that he had served the requisite time.
Essentially what this represents is the final victory of the vast Egyptian military complex over the Egyptian revolutionaries that overthrew Mubarak in January 2011.
You have to hand it to the generals - they really played their hand well. Before the beginning of the protests there were rumours that Mubarak was grooming his son, Gamal Mubarak, to succeed him as president of Egypt. That was something that the military did not like, since in their view it could represent a threat to the hold that the Egyptian military holds over the Egyptian economy - an arrangement which makes a lot of money for the higher-ups in the military. Even though Mubarak was a former air-force general and was from the military, after 30 or so years in power it would seem he wasn't close enough for them. And there were rumours that Gamal was of a reform-minded tendency, and that would threaten the general's money train.
So when the people spill out onto the streets, the military uses the pressure created by the demonstrations to lever out Mubarak and ensure the military's control over Egypt - eventually leading to the rise of three major players in Egyptian politics, the military, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the revolutionaries, each trying to gain an alliance with one of the other to put itself in power.
The military played this really well - they let the Muslim Brotherhood assume power, and then when (as could be expected) they run the country into the ground, they have the power to come "save Egypt from the Islamists" and have the people vote the military (in the guise of Field-Marshal-cum-President Sisi) into power.
So at the end of four years of revolutionary unrest, this is what Egypt ends up with: the military's hold on the Egyptian state is assured, the revolutionaries are either quiescent or arrested, the Muslim Brotherhood is banned and its leaders arrested wholescale, and the military now rules Egypt by overwhelming public consent.
Rather Machiavellian, if you think about it.
HSLD
HSLD
