Mubarak Steps Down

[Mariyam]

Thanks Ravi. I'll go through that link later. Also, I'm sorry if I came across as rude in my earlier posts. That was never my intention. Just to remind you, Anderson Cooper was the guy some thugs beats up during the Egyptian 'beaceful brotests'. I'm not sure if it was the pr Mubarak thugs, anti-Mubarak protesters or simply people who saw his previous shows and had enough. That beating however can bias the survey :P

[hari504504]

Thanks Ravi. I'll go through that link later. Also, I'm sorry if I came across as rude in my earlier posts. That was never my intention. Just to remind you, Anderson Cooper was the guy some thugs beats up during the Egyptian 'beaceful brotests'. I'm not sure if it was the pr Mubarak thugs, anti-Mubarak protesters or simply people who saw his previous shows and had enough. That beating however can bias the survey :P

Leno or Letterman who commented that 'CBS reports Anderson Cooper being beaten up in Egypt. So we just have to take his word for it." :haha:

[yoda]

Great great day not just for Egypt for the world in general. 1. Lesson to countries like the US that democracy doesn't have to be forced upon a country like it was done in Iraq. When the people are ready, they will take over. 2. Puts other countries like Saudi and Iran on notice that it is time for them to start a gradual move towards representative government or else face the wrath of their own people. Now the ball is in the court of the people of Egypt. Hope they continue to keep their peace with Israel and work towards a a vibrant democracy. It is a tough ask given that all the political organizations were kept under control by the Mubarak regime, so it will take some time while they can transition.

[Clarke]

1. Lesson to countries like the US that democracy doesn't have to be forced upon a country like it was done in Iraq. When the people are ready, they will take over. 2. Puts other countries like Saudi and Iran on notice that it is time for them to start a gradual move towards representative government or else face the wrath of their own people.

I beg to differ. The Egyptian army was with the people, hence the protesters were allowed to go about their business. I cannot imagine the same in Russia or China for instance. The state will not allow any outside media to cover anything either.

[ravishingravi]

Why the Muslim Brotherhood shouldn't be feared When The Post prints, on its Feb. 8 front page, an article such as "Muslim Brotherhood eyes comeback in Egypt," it contributes to mischaracterizing the political equation in Egypt and, quite unhelpfully, incites fears about an imminent specter of Islamic extremism. Here in the region, this fear of the Muslim Brotherhood and its "hidden" agenda is largely absent. The focus is on Egyptians' aspirations for legitimate political reforms and a democratic process. People are familiar with the Brotherhood's ideology and its clearly stated objectives. Long ago, the Brotherhood denounced violence and has held to this. Largely because of the Brotherhood's pragmatic approach to politics, many people take as sincere its unequivocal statement that it does not intend to field a candidate for Egypt's presidency. Its adherents don't want to run a country; rather, they want to be part of the political process and wield influence in parliament. The United States should support the Egyptian people's aspirations for a free and democratic society and an open process that includes the Brotherhood. Courtney Erwin, Doha, Qatar The writer was chief of staff at the Cordoba Initiative, an advocacy group that promotes improved relations between Islam and the West, from 2007 to 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/12/AR2011021203440.html

[ravishingravi]

Egypt's real parallel to Iran's revolution A specter is haunting the West. In 1979, the United States watched a street revolution in the Middle East and saw its stalwart ally, Iranian Shah Reza Pahlavi, ousted, only to be replaced by a theocratic Islamic Republic. Now, watching another street revolution in another Middle Eastern country, many people seem spooked by this memory. Fears of an Islamic takeover are not limited to Glenn Beck, with his predictions that the fall of Hosni Mubarak will lead to the rise of an Islamic caliphate bent on global domination. (Beck's policy recommendation to Americans was even more out there: "store food.") Serious conservative politicians such as Mitt Romney and John McCain describe Egypt's Islamic opposition in terms not so dissimilar from Beck's. On the left, The Post's Richard Cohen writes, "The dream of a democratic Egypt is sure to produce a nightmare." Leon Wieseltier believes the Islamists will attempt a Bolshevik-style takeover All these things may indeed come to pass, but there is little evidence so far to support the scare scenarios. The Egyptian protests have been secular; the Muslim Brotherhood is one of many groups participating, all of whom have demands that are about democracy and human rights. Egypt is not Iran in a dozen important ways. Its Sunni clergy play no hierarchical or political role the way they do in Iran. Perhaps most important, the current Iranian regime is not a popular model in the Arab world. Egyptians have seen Mubarak and the mullahs and want neither - Pew polling in 2010 found that a large majority supports democratic governance. Fears of this imagined future are drawing American eyes away from the actual problem in Egypt: military dictatorship. Egypt is not a personality-based regime, centered on Mubarak, despite reports of his wealth and efforts to establish his son as his successor. Since the officers' coup in 1952, Egypt has been a dictatorship of, by and for the military. The few presidents since then have emerged from the officer corps; the armed forces have huge budgets and total independence, and are deeply involved in every aspect of society, including owning vast tracts of land and hundreds of companies. Right now, the military is consolidating its power. Mubarak's efforts since 2004 to bring civilians and business leaders into the cabinet have been reversed over the past week - in fact, the businessmen have been turned into scapegoats, sacrificed so that the generals can continue to rule. The three people running Egypt - the vice president, prime minister and defense chief - come from the army. Half of the cabinet are military men, and about 80 percent of the powerful governors are drawn from the armed forces. The military seems to have decided to sacrifice Mubarak but is trying to manage the process of change, to ensure that it remains all-powerful. Egypt, remember, is still ruled by martial law and military courts. Many commentators have made parallels to Turkey, where the military played a crucial role in modernizing the country. But the military in Turkey has yielded power very reluctantly, and only because the European Union has persistently applied pressure to weaken the military's role in politics. The danger is that Egypt will become not Turkey but Pakistan, a sham democracy with real power held in back rooms by generals. The Obama administration is right to work to produce a smooth transition. The danger of chaos is real: The views of the Muslim Brotherhood are retrograde and pernicious. Without a new constitution and legal protections there are risks of "illiberal democracy," or free and fair elections under Egypt's current laws that would lead to bad outcomes for minorities, human rights and other freedoms. The transition should be not just from Mubarak but from the whole system he headed. It's worth remembering what has led to the rise of Islamic extremism and anti-American rage in the Middle East. Arabs see Washington as having supported brutal dictatorships that suppress their people. They believe that it ignored this suppression as long as the regimes toed the line on American foreign policy. If Washington is now perceived as brokering a deal that keeps a military dictatorship in power in Egypt, de jure or de facto, the result will be deep disappointment and frustration on the streets of Cairo. Over time, it will make opposition to the regime and to the United States more hard-line, more religious and more violent. That might be the real parallel to the forces that led to the Iranian revolution. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/06/AR2011020603398.html

[ravishingravi]

Egypt’s Path After Uprising Does Not Have to Follow Iran’s By ANTHONY SHADID Published: February 12, 2011 CAIRO — Two Egyptian leaders have been struck down in 30 years: one by an Islamist assassin’s bullets, the other by the demands of hundreds of thousands of protesters in a peaceful uprising. The first event, the death of President Anwar el-Sadat, marked a spectacle of the most militant brand of political Islam. The revolution the world witnessed Friday, the toppling of President Hosni Mubarak, may herald the dawn of something else. There is a fear in the West, one rarely echoed here, that Egypt’s revolution could go the way of Iran’s, when radical Islamists ultimately commandeered a movement that began with a far broader base. But the two are very different countries. In Egypt, the uprising offers the possibility of an accommodation with political Islam rare in the Arab world — that without the repression that accompanied Mr. Mubarak’s rule, Islam could present itself in a more moderate guise. Egypt’s was a revolution of diversity, a proliferation of voices — of youth, women and workers, as well as the religious — all of which will struggle for influence. Here, political Islam will most likely face a new kind of challenge: proving its relevance and popularity in a country undergoing seismic change. “Choosing a regime will become the right of the people,” Ali Abdel-Fattah, a Muslim Brotherhood leader, said Saturday. “The nature of the regime will be decided by elections. And I think Egyptians agree on the demands and how to realize them.” Of countries in the region, only Turkey has managed to incorporate currents of political Islam into a system that has so far proven viable, but its bold experiment remains unfinished. The rest of the region is strewn with disasters, from the ascent of the most militant strands in Iraq after the American invasion to the rise of populist and combative movements in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon that emerged under Israeli occupation. In Egypt, repression of its Islamic activists helped give rise to the most extremist forces in the Muslim world — leadership of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and an insurgency against its own government in the 1990s. But at its core the revolt that finally toppled Mr. Mubarak had a very different set of demands. Its organizers rallied to broad calls for freedom, social justice and a vague sense of nationalism that came together over a belief that distant and often incompetent rulers had to treat the opposition with respect. The demands were voiced by youth, women, workers and adherents of revived currents of liberalism, the left and Arab nationalism, spread by social networks made possible by new technology. The Muslim Brotherhood, a mainstream group that stands as the most venerable of the Arab world’s Islamic movements, is of course also a contender to lead a new Egypt. It has long been the most organized and credible opposition to Mr. Mubarak. But is also must prepare to enter the fray of an emerging democratic system, testing its staying power in a system ruled by elections and the law. “This is not yesterday’s Egypt,” declared Amal Borham, a protester in Tahrir Square. “It is their right to participate as much as it is mine, as much as it is anyone else’s in this country,” added Ms. Borham, who considers herself secular. “They are part of this society, and they have been made to stay in the shadows for a very long time.” The protests illustrated the challenges before the Brotherhood and other Islamic groups. While the Brotherhood eventually brought its organizational prowess to the demonstrations — organizing security and deploying its followers overnight when the protests lulled — it was reluctant to join at first. Indeed, many protesters saw it as a representative of an old guard that they believed had for so long failed to answer society’s problems. Even some of the Brotherhood’s own youthful supporters expressed frustration with their leaders’ cautiousness. “On Tuesday they were not convinced,” recalled Islam Lotfi, a 32-year-old organizer and leader of the Brotherhood’s youth. “On Wednesday, it was ‘maybe.’ And on Thursday, ‘It seems you did a great job. Go ahead and this time we will follow.’ ” It will undoubtedly moderate its message in a campaign, trying to appeal to the broadest constituency. The next elections promise to be far more competitive than the shams of past years, when many Egyptians simply stayed home. That emerging diversity may prove more uncomfortable than the head-to-head confrontation with Mr. Mubarak’s enforcers that helped define the Brotherhood’s appeal. “The system made them work in the dark and that made them look bigger than they are,” said Ahmed Gowhary, a secular organizer of the protests. “Now it will be a real chance for them to show that they are more Egyptian than they have appeared.” “Their real power,” he added, “will show.” The Arab world has a spectrum of Islamic movements, as broad as the states that have repressed them, from the most violent in Al Qaeda to the most mainstream in Turkey. Though cast for years as an insurgent threat by Mr. Mubarak, the Brotherhood in Egypt has long disavowed its violent past, and now has a chance to present itself as something more than a force for opposition to Mr. Mubarak’s authoritarianism. Founded by a schoolteacher named Hassan el-Banna in the Suez Canal town of Ismailiyya in 1928, it quickly became the most important political contestant in the country, boasting a vibrant press, delivering weekly lectures from mosques and reaching out to students, civil servants, urban laborers and peasants. It was banned in 1954 under Gamal Abdel Nasser, the founder of Mr. Mubarak’s state, weathering a brutal crackdown that instilled in it the iron discipline of a clandestine movement. The repression, which persisted until last month, produced some of the Muslim world’s most militant thinkers, among them Sayyid Qutb, who had a profound impact on militancy across the Muslim world. But remarkably, the movement also evolved over those same years, pursuing coalitions with other political parties since 1984, joining street protests with leftist groups and entering a feeble Parliament as independents, whose demands were not enforcement of Islamic strictures but opposition to martial law. Its former leader turned heads in 2005 when he offered a play on the group’s traditional slogan, “Islam is the solution.” “Freedom is the solution,” he declared. The Brotherhood’s relationship with the government came full circle last Sunday, when Vice President Omar Suleiman invited it to talks. The discussions were meaningless, but the symbolism was vast: only one seat separated the Brotherhood’s spokesman from a man whose intelligence apparatus deemed the group the greatest threat to its rule. “It exposed the lie of the regime that the Brotherhood is a violent organization, anti-systemic and a threat to the country,” said Samer Shehata, a professor at Georgetown University. Although Iran’s and Egypt’s revolutions share a date, Feb. 11, the comparisons end there. Millions welcomed Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini on his return from Paris. In Egypt, there was no charismatic figure of stature. Unlike the Shiite Muslim clergy in Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood is neither led by clerics nor based on a clerical organization. In many ways, it represents a lay middle class. The very dynamics are different, too: cassette tapes of Ayatollah Khomeini’s speeches helped drive Iran’s revolution, whose zealots sought to export it. The Internet helped propel the uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, the medium’s own diffusion helping carry it from the backwater town of Sidi Bouzid in Tunisia to Tahrir Square in Cairo. Perhaps most importantly, the revolutions occurred a generation apart, a note echoed in the Brotherhood stronghold of Munira, along streets of graceful balustrades of the colonial era and the utilitarian architecture of Mr. Nasser and his successors. “The people are aware this time,” said Essam Salem, a 50-year-old resident there. “They’re not going to let them seize power. People aren’t going to be deceived again. This is a popular revolution, a revolution of the youth, not an Islamic revolution.” In the struggle, morality was rarely mentioned, even by the Muslim Brotherhood, which echoed the demands that swung broad segments of Egypt’s population to the revolution’s side. “We’re a part of the people and there is a consensus over the people’s demands,” said Hamdi Hassan, another Brotherhood official. Across the Arab world, the most militant Islamic movements are those embedded in conflict — Hezbollah and Hamas — or stateless, like Al Qaeda, celebrating in mystical terms this generation’s equivalent of armed struggle. Iraq’s bloodiest spectacles, claimed by a homegrown Islamic militant movement, occurred in a civil war that followed the American invasion. In many ways, the Brotherhood is the counterexample, echoed in the success of Turkey’s Justice and Development Party. It has de-emphasized the mainstays of Islamic activism — charity and proselytizing, for instance — for the prize of political success in Parliament. While it remains deeply conservative, it engages less in sometimes frivolous debates over the veil or education and more in demands articulated by the broader society: corruption, joblessness, political freedom and human rights abuses. The shift illustrates both its strengths and its weaknesses. “The ability to present a mainstream national reform agenda and mobilize and galvanize Egyptians around this agenda, this is something the Muslim Brotherhood has failed to do,” said Emad Shaheen, a professor at the University of Notre Dame. “The youth have achieved in 18 days what the Brotherhood failed to achieve in 80 years.” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/world/middleeast/13islam.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

[yoda]

I beg to differ. The Egyptian army was with the people' date=' hence the protesters were allowed to go about their business. I cannot imagine the same in Russia or China for instance. The state will not allow any outside media to cover anything either.[/quote'] You think if a Billion chinese were disgusted with their regime and wanted a representative govt, they can't get that done? You need that momentum amongst the people. The reason the Military was with the people was because of the sheer number of the protesters. Even here, the state tried to get media out and got it's own people to get into a fight with the protestors but didn't succeed. Like I said, the time has to be ripe for a country, like it was with Egypt. There is no point in forcing it and pushing a country prematurely.

[someone]

You think if a Billion chinese were disgusted with their regime and wanted a representative govt, they can't get that done? You need that momentum amongst the people. The reason the Military was with the people was because of the sheer number of the protesters. Even here, the state tried to get media out and got it's own people to get into a fight with the protestors but didn't succeed. Like I said, the time has to be ripe for a country, like it was with Egypt. There is no point in forcing it and pushing a country prematurely.

Regarding China, you probably never heard of Tiananmen Square 1989 and the high censorship of any indecent materials seen by the government. So China will take some time and depends on global pressure.

[yoda]

Regarding China' date=' you probably never heard of Tiananmen Square 1989 and the high censorship of any indecent materials seen by the government. So China will take some time and depends on global pressure.[/quote'] Chinese govt obviously has a very good control of their people. Also, I don't think all of China wants a change like Egypt wanted, which is my point. Yes, like I said, each country has to show that it is ready, but the change has to come from within and not forced on them. BTW, speaking of Tiananmen Square 1989, it did not start as a protest for a change of regime, rather started as a mourning for the death of a guy who wanted change. What you saw in Egypt was unprecedented IMO, like we haven't seen anywhere in recent times.

[Desi Cartman]

Great news. I hope Muslim brother hood comes into power and burn down the peace treaty with the illegal nation of Israel. They should also force Israel to end the Gaza bloakade or gas supply from Egypt to Israel.

This is what I am worried about it ... I am glad you made this post and saved me from effort of writing an explanation

[Dhondy]

Yoda, I see you have been taken in by the "revolution"? Look carefully. It's nothing but collective escapism- people congregating to waste time, escape responsibilities of life, students seizing on opportunities to give up the hard grind with books, grown-ups skiving from work...anything that buys a few days with like minded escapists that are too weak kneed to face up to the real battles of life...a bit like most message board posters, bloggers and Facebook aficionados really- an old fashioned "adda" as we used to call it growing up. The greatest nations in the world never had a street revolution. Rags to riches stories are usually tales of people gritting their teeth, embracing self denial and putting in the hard yards, spanning generations. Look at South Korea or Singapore...or study the example of Germany ....trace its transition from the bankrupt Weimar Republic to the economic superpower driven by great education, wage restraint, and a passion to manufacture. I understand the need to be inspired, the temptation to believe that we are witnessing history, or are part of a great passage in time, but this was none of those. Had the Tiananmen anarchists won, China wouldn't be the powerhouse it is today. Those who buckle down and get things done, burning the midnight lamp in private, are the ones that quietly change the world, not the Main Square revolutionaries straining for a glimpse of the camera panning in on them. Sorry, damp squib.

[yoda]

^^^Totally disagree. These people have been living under an oppressive regime and have taken matters into their own hand to create a life of freedom for themselves and their children. How is that a waste of time or escaping responsibilities? You are minimizing what they have accomplished. Getting rid of a dictatorial regime of 30 years can't be done unless these people passionately believed in what they wanted. Do you know that many have died during this revolution and many others were willing to die if need be? These are not the guys who were hiding behind facebook, they used these medium to mobilize themselves to make a true change for their country.

[Sachin=GOD]

Yoda, I see you have been taken in by the "revolution"? Look carefully. It's nothing but collective escapism- people congregating to waste time, escape responsibilities of life, students seizing on opportunities to give up the hard grind with books, grown-ups skiving from work...anything that buys a few days with like minded escapists that are too weak kneed to face up to the real battles of life...a bit like most message board posters, bloggers and Facebook aficionados really- an old fashioned "adda" as we used to call it growing up. The greatest nations in the world never had a street revolution. Rags to riches stories are usually tales of people gritting their teeth, embracing self denial and putting in the hard yards, spanning generations. Look at South Korea or Singapore...or study the example of Germany ....trace its transition from the bankrupt Weimar Republic to the economic superpower driven by great education, wage restraint, and a passion to manufacture. I understand the need to be inspired, the temptation to believe that we are witnessing history, or are part of a great passage in time, but this was none of those. Had the Tiananmen anarchists won, China wouldn't be the powerhouse it is today. Those who buckle down and get things done, burning the midnight lamp in private, are the ones that quietly change the world, not the Main Square revolutionaries straining for a glimpse of the camera panning in on them. Sorry, damp squib.

But this method of protests cannot be completely disregarded because many a times it has provided results, most recently in Egypt and Tunisia. If there was a way of overthrowing these dictators by, what you call, gritting their teeth, embracing self denial and putting in the hard yards, then it would have been done by now and there would'nt be any need of these street protests and the common man would'nt have had to take matters in their own hands. Also, many people who were protesting have lost their lives or have been severely injured, so it is'nt exactly time wasting or escaping responsibility.

[yoda]

BTW regarding this:

Had the Tiananmen anarchists won, China wouldn't be the powerhouse it is today.

1. There were no anarchists at Tinnanmen. It just started as a mourning of the death of a CP leader who was sympathetic to reforms. 2. Chinese govt has done wonders to make their country a super power, same can't be said of Mubarak and his regime. 3. One could also argue that had the British still ruled us we would have been doing better than we are today on our own. That doesn't mean we want to be ruled by them, even if we believed so. As they say, the end doesn't always justify the means.

[ravishingravi]

Thanks Ravi. I'll go through that link later. Also, I'm sorry if I came across as rude in my earlier posts. That was never my intention. Just to remind you, Anderson Cooper was the guy some thugs beats up during the Egyptian 'beaceful brotests'. I'm not sure if it was the pr Mubarak thugs, anti-Mubarak protesters or simply people who saw his previous shows and had enough. That beating however can bias the survey :P

Cheers mate

[Clarke]

You think if a Billion chinese were disgusted with their regime and wanted a representative govt, they can't get that done? You need that momentum amongst the people. The reason the Military was with the people was because of the sheer number of the protesters. Even here, the state tried to get media out and got it's own people to get into a fight with the protestors but didn't succeed. Like I said, the time has to be ripe for a country, like it was with Egypt. There is no point in forcing it and pushing a country prematurely.

A billion chinese will not show up on the street one fine day. That shall be a few dozen, maybe a few hundred at most. Before that happens, the govt will be constantly monitoring all such possible threats and will be ready to make preemptive arrests and crackdowns. They will not allow any momentum to build up. Among those that manage to come out to protest, a few will die on the street, some others arrested will never be seen again while a fraction will be released after consistent torture to spread the message on what happens if you indulge in treason as defined by the state. In other words, the protests would have been minimal on day 1 and whosoever managed to show up would end up being a reminder to others in a police state. That is not the case with Egypt, you have the Army doing none of the above and moreover Amanpour & Cooper are covering every bit of it. The cost of achieving democracy in China instantly would be excessively high and it would be paid in blood. The people would be better off with much smaller demands.

[Dhondy]

Revolution without economic reform? Without social responsibility? Nah. All that Egypt's revolution has achieved is hand power to the army. We have seen that before, haven't we? We know where such countries go. Egyptians need to study Singapore. Tiny, overcrowded island, no resources. An economic backwater after its independence from Britain in 1965. Fierce ambition drives a benign dictator to build a meritocracy based on invited immigration- filter out the economic migrants, get the best and the brightest, pay high wages, ignore the highest population density per square mile in the world, build a City of London away from London, minus the financially weak, the dependent, the welfare seekers. Today, the brightest hub in Asia. Or Germany? Takes on the East, destroyed by years of communism, breathes life through injection of technical expertise, new factories, iron discipline with wages and unflagging ethos of social do-goodery. Not every man for himself, like in Britain or USA, but greater good for all. Can't think of any other country that has fought two WW, been through 10,000% inflation and taken on an economic lightweight in its bosom to emerge as a heavyweight punching well above its class....now that's what I call a revolution. No army...no army in Singapore, a token one in Germany, whose military might would be dwarfed by Egypt, let alone Britain. Who cares? Look at the export column.

[Sooda]

Hopefully economic and social reform will follow. The less carried away Egyptians will tell you that the revolution and the hard work begins now. Mubarak was far too powerful for the people to remove him solely by way of people power, we saw how desperately he was clinging on. He was a hinderance to there being any reform. The army had to intervene. Hopefully they will stay true to their word and allow elections to take place. If not then its hardly the peoples fault

[ravishingravi]

Revolution without economic reform? Without social responsibility? Nah. All that Egypt's revolution has achieved is hand power to the army. We have seen that before, haven't we? We know where such countries go. Egyptians need to study Singapore. Tiny, overcrowded island, no resources. An economic backwater after its independence from Britain in 1965. Fierce ambition drives a benign dictator to build a meritocracy based on invited immigration- filter out the economic migrants, get the best and the brightest, pay high wages, ignore the highest population density per square mile in the world, build a City of London away from London, minus the financially weak, the dependent, the welfare seekers. Today, the brightest hub in Asia. Or Germany? Takes on the East, destroyed by years of communism, breathes life through injection of technical expertise, new factories, iron discipline with wages and unflagging ethos of social do-goodery. Not every man for himself, like in Britain or USA, but greater good for all. Can't think of any other country that has fought two WW, been through 10,000% inflation and taken on an economic lightweight in its bosom to emerge as a heavyweight punching well above its class....now that's what I call a revolution. No army...no army in Singapore, a token one in Germany, whose military might would be dwarfed by Egypt, let alone Britain. Who cares? Look at the export column.

^Great post. I think Egypt is more likely to move towards Pakistan than Turkey imo, mainly due to this romanticizing with the army. Army has done nothing but jumped the boat knowing that Mubarak's days are over. I think it will have an important say in where Egypt heads hereon.