Comrade Talal sent me this: "I did not originally wish to comment on the article by Malley and Agha, which on
first read sounded asinine. Now that it has been published in translation in
AlAkhbar, here are the three paragraphs dealing with the American (and Western)
role:
"The US has not been the last to get involved, but
it has done so without a clear sense of purpose, wishing to side with the
protesters but unsure it can live with the consequences. The least visible,
curiously yet wisely, has been Israel. It knows how much its interests are in
the balance but also how little it can do to protect them. Silence has been the
more judicious choice."
"After some hesitation, the US and others have
generally taken the side of the protesters. Several considerations were at work,
among them the hope that this support will strengthen those most liable to
espouse pro-Western views and curry favor with those most likely to take the
helm. New rulers might express gratitude toward those who stood by them. But any
such reflex probably will be short-lived. The West likely will awake to an Arab
world whose rulers are more representative and assertive, but not more
sympathetic or friendly."
"The French and the British helped liberate the Arab world from four
centuries of Ottoman rule; the US enabled the Afghan
Mujahideen to liberate themselves from Soviet domination and freed the Iraqi
people from Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship. Before long, yesterday’s liberators
became today’s foes. Things are not as they seem. The sound and fury of
revolutionary moments can dull the senses and obscure the more ruthless
struggles going on in the shadows."
I must, it seems,
live in a parallel universe where all is not what appears to
be..."
