Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
I've read some interesting stuff about this, which I don't quite have at my fingertips at the moment and thus can't link.

First off was the attempt by Al-Jazeera to push an interesting narrative, that this was a coup sponsored by the US.  However, their efforts have been pretty widely panned due to the fact that their evidence is based on a logical fallacy.  The US government had sent money to some pro-democracy, anti-Mubarak activists before the uprising.  Those same people are now in the new, post-Morsi government.  So, obviously, the US sponsored it.

By several accounts, the credibility of Al-Jazeera in Arabic has been seriously damaged as a result, though it has been suffering pretty consistently since the old new director was forced out and replaced with a member of the Qatari royal family.

I read another rather interesting article on Morsi and his flaws by an Egyptian activist, whose main point was really about the hardening us vs. them attitude in the pro- and anti- camps, and how neither side is willing to talk, or even acknowledge the existence of evidence that goes against their preferred narrative.  Nothing new in the history of world events, I suppose, but it was an interesting discussion.

Finally, I also read a piece by another Egyptian, this time an academic I think, whose basic argument was that Morsi was not simply incompetent and tone deaf, but that the Muslim Brotherhood was sufficiently insular at the top (especially after purging the majority of its youth leaders 5 or 6 years ago, many of whom are involved in the anti-Morsi protests now - according to yet another article I can't source) that a move towards proper authoritarianism, if not fascism, was quite plausible given his moves towards the end.  

by Zwackus on Sat Jul 13th, 2013 at 05:39:45 AM EST
I find it unsurprising an authoritarian religious-centric political organization attempted to install an authoritarian religious-centric State.  

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Sat Jul 13th, 2013 at 12:31:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
First off was the attempt by Al-Jazeera to push an interesting narrative, that this was a coup sponsored by the US.

Wasn't there a suggestion somewhere - and I have no idea where - that current US strategy was to keep the entire ME permanently destabilised, to avoid any danger of all those annoying little countries discovering they might have a common enemy?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Jul 13th, 2013 at 12:34:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Part of the line of Al Jazeera (Arabic) was to emphasize opposition to US influence while distracting from the fact that Qatar has granted the US rights to Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the construction cost for which was borne by Qatar.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Jul 14th, 2013 at 10:04:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Al Jazeera might have been on firmer ground if the claim was this was a coup green-lit by the United States.

There is a silly semantic argument in the US whether or not it is a coup, since there are things written in US law that are supposed to be done to regimes that take power through a coup. Obviously it is a military action to overthrow one government and put another (in this case a temporary working arrangement) in its place, so its obviously a coup d'etat, or golpe de estado in the more common US second language. And just as obviously, the legally required responses to "a coup" are written with one overly-narrow stereotype of "what happens in a coup" in mind.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Jul 13th, 2013 at 08:52:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series