Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Postcard From Cairo, Part 2

E' incredibile quanto la rivoluzione egiziana agevoli il diffondersi del 
buonsenso.  Ottimo.
Ora, a mio avviso, sarebbe di straordinaria importanza se Israele 
liberasse Gaza, prima che eventualmente lo faccia il nuovo governo egiziano.
------------------------------------
Postcard From Cairo, Part 2
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: February 13, 2011
For anyone who spent time in Tahrir Square these last three weeks, one 
thing was very obvious: Israel was not part of this story at all. This 
was about Egypt and about the longing of Egyptians for the most basic 
human rights, which were described to me by opposition Egyptian 
newspaper editor Ibrahim Essa as “freedom, dignity and justice.’’ It 
doesn’t get any more primal than that. And when young Egyptians looked 
around the region and asked: Who is with us in this quest and who is 
not?, the two big countries they knew were against them were Israel and 
Saudi Arabia. Sad. The children of Egypt were having their liberation 
moment and the children of Israel decided to side with Pharaoh – right 
to the very end.
It is so ironic, because one of the signs that was hanging in Tahrir 
Square all this past week was: “If Mubarak is Pharaoh, we are all Moses.’’
I am more worried today about Israel’s future than I have ever been, 
because I think that at time of great change in this region – and we 
have just seen the beginnings of it – Israel today has the most 
out-of-touch, in-bred, unimaginative and cliché-driven cabinet it has 
ever had.
Rather than even listening to what the democracy youth in Tahrir Square 
were saying and then trying to digest what it meant, this Israeli 
government took two approaches during the last three weeks: Frantically 
calling the White House and telling the president he must not abandon 
Pharaoh – to the point where the White House was thoroughly disgusted 
with its Israeli interlocutors – and using the opportunity to score 
propaganda points: “Look at us! Look at us! We told you so! We are the 
only stable country in the region, because we are the only democracy.’’
Israel’s government seemed oblivious to the irony of its message: “We 
are your only reliable ally because we are a democracy and whatever you 
do don’t abandon Mubarak and open the way there for democracy.’’
What is really unfortunate is that everyone can or should understand 
Israel’s strategic concerns. They are totally valid. The peace treaty 
with Egypt has been the cornerstone of Israeli strategy and economic 
growth for 30 years. Israel has scrupulously abided by the treaty. Of 
course Israelis are worried about convulsion here. How could they not? 
But the way they are handling themselves, is not helping them.
You did not need to be a Middle East expert to see that what was 
breaking loose here in the past three weeks was unprecedented – the 
first ever, largely bloodless (except for what the regime did), 
Facebook-driven, youth-led democracy uprising in an Arab country.
And what it exposed was that Mubarak’s stability was the stability of a 
dead hand. It was the stability of a leader who was presiding over a 
country where 40 percent of the population is living on $2 a day and 35 
percent are still illiterate. It was the stability of a leader who had 
contempt for his people’s ability to run their own affairs. And that 
faux stability is now over.
Israel has one of the most dynamic high-tech sectors in the world. 
Israelis should understand better than anyone that stability is totally 
20th century. In a flat world, it is all about dynamism now and how you 
manage constant change. Or as a Lebanese analyst here said to me, the 
right business model in today’s world is: “If it ain’t broke, break it – 
before your competition does.’’
  Well, that’s what happened here. The ferocity and popularity of 
Mubarak’s ouster should have told Israelis that they need to get to work 
immediately on building a relationship with the dynamic new popular 
trend here, not to be trying to cling to a dictator who was totally out 
of touch with his people.  And, as we sit here today, the popular trend 
is not with the Muslim Brotherhood. Indeed, what makes the uprising here 
so impressive – and in that sense so dangerous to other autocracies in 
the region – is precisely the fact that it is not owned by, and was not 
inspired by, the Muslim Brotherhood.
  It is so much more powerful than that. As I said, it is being 
propelled by the most basic, universal human emotions – a quest for 
freedom, dignity and justice. That is what the other Arab autocracies – 
and Iran – fear. It is not about anything narrow, like the Muslim 
Brotherhood, Hamas, America or Palestine.  It cannot easily be 
pigeon-holed and delegitimized. Most of all, it is not about some 
populist upsurge that craves restarting the war with Israel. It is all 
about a people who crave the chance to restart their own future, their 
own lives.
  The Obama Administration and its utterly out-of-touch envoy Frank G. 
Wisner did not get this early on. But President Obama, or actually, 
Barack Obama – because he seemed to finally shuck off all his own expert 
advisers and give voice to his real, personal feelings – eloquently got 
America back in line with the real currents here with his post-Mubarak 
speech.
  All Israel had to say was that it appreciated the long years in which 
President Mubarak had kept the peace, but that it now stands in awe of 
the Egyptian people’s quest for dignity, freedom and justice and the 
Israeli people look forward to working with whatever democratic 
government Egyptians build. Very simple.
  I thought the one Israeli figure who totally got it right was former 
Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky, who, in a long-interview with the 
Jerusalem Post’s editor David Horovitz last Friday, said, according to 
Horovitz, “that partnerships with dictatorships are unsustainable – that 
people cannot permanently be repressed, that they will push for freedom 
the moment they sense weakness in their tyrannical leaderships. In his 
assessment, Israel and the West are fortunate that this Arab revolution 
is unfolding in countries still closely tied to the West, in societies 
yet to have been battered into an overwhelming retreat toward Islamic 
fundamentalism.’’
As Sharansky put it in his own words: “If the free world helps the 
people on the streets, and turns into the allies of these people instead 
of being the allies of the dictators, then there is a unique chance to 
build a new pact between the free world and the Arab world.”
I think he is exactly right – not because I know where Egypt is heading, 
or because I think it is on some smooth track now toward certain 
democracy. It is because I don’t know where Egypt is going. I just know 
this: the old order here has been broken. When it comes to Egypt, 
stability has left the building. The only question left is what kind of 
unstable Egypt is Israel going to have on its borders – an Egypt where 
the military clings to power and fights the people, like Pakistan, and 
in the process radicalizes the radicals even more, or an Egypt that, 
with many ups and downs, is led by the people and gradually finds its 
way toward a democratic future that makes it look like South Africa or 
Indonesia one day.
It is the latter dynamic Egypt, not the dead stable Egypt of Mubarak, 
that Israel should want, because that is a country that will be focused 
primarily on catching up with a world that has left its people behind. 
Israel has very little to contribute to democracy-building in Egypt. 
Egyptians don’t want Israel’s help. But the Egyptian people will 
remember its hindrance.
  If that dynamic democratic Egypt does come into being one day, Israel 
will have no choice but to make peace with 80 million Egyptians – 
instead of with just one man. And if that is the case, then Israel needs 
to be making it clear from today – exactly what Sharansky said – that it 
wishes the children of Egypt the same success on their road to freedom 
as all other peoples.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/opinion/13-friedman-Web-cairo.html?pagewanted=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

 Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky,
non so voi, ma quando vedo un comunista che cita Sharansky con
rispetto, mi viene in mente l'immagine della moneta da cinquanta
lire.

 rispetto
se Sharansky dice il contrario di quello che dicono diversi IPIers
(ovvero che bisogna smetterla con la logica del NFDP), il problema è
di chi continua a sostenere i fdp, non del comunista.

 se Sharansky dice
non ti intendi di Sharansky, evidentemente.


LOL
-- 
recoil is insignificant when there is a tiger on the head of your elephant