Monday, June 18, 2012

Juan Cole, like Barack Obama, you are a colonialist

A quick reaction to Juan Cole's most recent article in support of the pro-US dictatorship's voiding of Egypt's Parliament and its new assertion that it will write the constitution without any input from any elected body. Definitely not something he would publish, but I wrote it nonetheless.
If it is true that the Muslim Brotherhood candidate, Muhammad Mursi, really has won the election, SCAF will likely craft a constitution reducing the president’s powers. But this step can in the nature of the case only be provisional. Nor would it in and of itself necessarily be such a bad thing for the president’s powers to be reduced somewhat. (Some elected provincial governors and mayors and judges independent of the president and his party would serve Egypt well).
I get no sense from writing like this that we're talking about a pro-US dictatorship dissolving a legitimately elected parliament because it did not like the non-fraudulently reached outcome of the election.

You obviously disagree with the people of Egypt about the amount of influence Muslim parties should have in Egypt's political system. It looks a lot like the Obama administration agrees with you. Not one word from anywhere in the US government that the billion dollars per year that the US inserts into Egypt's military establishment with no civilian oversight and that the Egyptian people are not privy to details of is at risk because of these recent actions.

But the word for the belief that your ideas of what party should rule supersedes the beliefs of the people being ruled is colonialism. Mr. Cole, you are a colonialist.


Castellio said...

I find it a bit perplexing that Juan Cole has sided so decisively with the self-serving Egyptian military, and is so willing to pretend that the principles of democracy haven't  been turned inside out by the military's latest actions.

He has lost, perhaps irretrievably, any credibility when writing about Egypt, which was, at one time, his "strong suit".

Lidia said...

Cole let your post get through, and then one of his supporters "answered". 

You see, Cole just being non-judgmental and are waiting for the hard facts. Sure, just as he did regarding "stolen elections" in Iran, Qaddafi planes "bombing" Libya and Assad shelling killing Hula people. 

It seems that Cole get some readers that deserve him

Lidia said...

I wonder in what topic Cole has not discredited himself long before? About Syria? Libya? About "stolen elections" In Iran? About Palestine when he shows very clear for not willfully blind that he is all for "Jewish state", providing Zionists let Palestinians have their own "state" aka bantustans? 

And, of course, Cole sided so decisively NOT with the self-serving Egyptian military, but with their USA/Zionist masters. Cole knows well who is his own masters too.

Arnold Evans said...

Cole did not publish my response to the "answer" which was that this supposed nuanced position is neither how Cole responded to the Iranian elections nor how Cole would have responded if an Islamic dictatorship voided a pro-US parliament.

Cole has seen fit, it seems to delete the post he allowed through.

Cole is a typical US Middle East commentator.  It is simply a lie to present his hostility against Islam as somehow democratic.  He may fear some kind of Islamic dictatorship, but 1) least importantly, the Muslim Brothers have not advocated such and no policy they have limited the ability of Egypt's voters to remove them if the voters wanted to 2) most importantly, regardless of what Cole fears, Egypt's voters have shown that there is no Egyptian majority that shares Cole's fears.

Fundamentally, the "answer" did not address the fact that Cole disagrees with Egypt's voters about whether the Muslim Brothers coming to power would be a good thing.  What democracy means is that when the people of Egypt disagree with Cole, the people of Egypt win.  What colonialism means is that when people in the US disagree with the people of Egypt, the people of the US set Egyptian policy.

That is what Cole supports, ultimately the US supports this in behalf of Israel. Cole may have his own reasons to hate Islam that are different but complementary to the US commitment to Zionism.

Cole is a colonialist supporter of the idea that the people of Egypt should not decide Egyptian policy.  Barack Obama is the same, and Cole is offering support for Obama by justifying the pro-US dictatorship's voiding of a legitimately elected parliament because the US did not like the result of the election.

During the Bush administration I'm ashamed to admit that I didn't recognize that Cole's criticisms of Bush had never been anti-colonialist, but just expressions of Cole's partisan domestic preference for a different political party.

Lidia said...

Arnold, not that I harbored ANY illusions regarding Cole, but to delete a post that he first had permitted was a bit too gross even to him. He kept "answer" though - why waste a good piece of toading? 

I am not sure that Cole hates Islam. I suppose he just does what is good for USA imperialism and Zionism. Any opponent of them would be trashed, and any lackey would be supported. Putin is not a Muslim, you know :)

Now, I suppose Cole was anti-Bush (not 100%, of course) not only because Bush was rep, but because his politics were too dumb sometimes even to staunch imperialists like Cole to stomach. Cole wants "clever" imperialism and Zionism. Thus he shows limits of his own intelligence - there is just no other way to do such things as colonialism. Just look at Obama outbushing Bush.