Mubarak Refuses to Step Down

New York Times

CAIRO — President Hosni Mubarak told the Egyptian people Thursday that he would delegate more authority to his vice president, Omar Suleiman, but that he would not resign his post, contradicting earlier reports that he would step aside and surprising hundreds of thousands of demonstrators gathered to hail his departure from the political scene.

In a nationally televised address following a tumultuous day of political rumors and conflicting reports, Mr. Mubarak said he would “admit mistakes” and honor the sacrifices of young people killed in the three-week uprising, but that he would continue to “shoulder my responsibilities” until September, and did not give a firm indication that he would cede political power.

Even as Mr. Mubarak spoke, angry chants were shouted from huge crowds in Cairo who had anticipated his resignation but were instead confronted with a plea from the president to support continued rule by him and his chosen aides. People waved their shoes in defiance, considered an insulting gesture in the Arab world.

Mr. Mubarak said the process of political change initiated by his administration, including a dialogue with opposition groups, would not be reversed. But he signaled no imminent transfer of power and blamed foreigners for seeking to interfere in Egypt’s affairs.

“We will not accept or listen to any foreign interventions or dictations,” Mr. Mubarak said, implying that pressure to resign came from abroad as opposed to masses of people demanding his ouster through his country.

After Mr. Mubarak’s address, Mr. Suleiman called on protesters to end their demonstrations and stop listening to foreign media reports on the unrest in the country.

“Young people of Egypt and its heroes, go back home and to work,” he said. “Do not listen to foreign television and radio broadcasters whose aim is to cause chaos and weaken Egypt.”

Mr. Mubarak’s statement marked the latest twist and turn in a raucous uprising. Earlier in the day, the Egyptian military appeared poised to assert itself as the leading force in the country’s politics, declaring on state television that it would take measures “to maintain the homeland and the achievements and the aspirations of the great people of Egypt” and meet the demands of the protesters who have insisted on ending Mr. Mubarak’s 30-year rule.

Several government officials had said that Mr. Mubarak was expected to announce his own resignation and pass authority to Mr. Suleiman.

February 11, 2011 | 7 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

7 Comments / 7 Comments

  1. I don’t think it does any good to write comments on a blog, because that will never get to the people who need to read it. However, I partially agree with the previous comments of HCQ and I am not American, I am a Canadian, and I am a born again Christian, and in all that context I would just like to say that the Bible says that I will Bless those who Bless Israel, and I will curse those who curse Israel. It is not that Israelis do everything right, but God is still God, and He always was God, and He will be God. He doesn’t pay all His bills in “October”, as the saying goes. I want to be on His side when judgement comes, and I believe that it is coming very soon.

  2. BlandOatmeal said:

    The US does not have a clean track record of supporting democracy; and there is no real profit in pursuing such a policy. We would do well, if we picked our friends wisely and stood with them.

    The USA has gotten into the habit of immediately jumping in with our .02 every time there is a problem in the world or when nations disagree. For example, North and South Korea were a little iffy there for a minute a couple of months ago but they’re back to meeting/negotiating. Is it possible that the incendiary display by North Korea was just North Korea’s wacky government reminding the world, “Hey, we’re still here! Look at me, look at me”? Every time the U.S., Europe, the West immediately jumps in the fray, we are essentially saying we have no faith in the ability of our allies to manage difficult situations on their own; it’s insulting and one could argue U.S. intervention serves to embolden the enemies of our allies as well as undermines the confidence of our friends. The USA babying our allies, results in the enemy thinking, “these nations wouldn’t be anything without their mommy backing them.” South Korea needs to learn how to engage North Korea without the USA; not saying the USA can’t step in if things get really hairy or anything, but refraining from knee jerk intervention may not be a bad idea.

    While I’d like to be able to trust in the judgement of Egyptians, I must admit I am biased against Arabs/ Muslims. I know it’s unjust to think that ALL Arabs are bad. It’s not fair to assume ALL Iranians are nuts, or all Syrians are bigots, etc. For every Arab, Turk, or Iranian that hates and blames Jews,Israel,the USA and the west for absolutely everything, how many are more worried about employment, familial welfare, educational opportunities, adequate food supply, housing, basic human rights, etc.?

    Admittedly, I’m guilty of romanticizing Israel and Israeli Jews, more specifically, sane, nationalist, zionist rightwing Jews. I can’t help it…I loooooooove Israel and Israeli Jews have accomplished so much considering the disadvantages they’ve encountered through the years. On the other hand, I tend to view Arabs and/or Muslims, perhaps unfairly and too generally, as villains. My level of respect for a nation and it’s people tends to hinge on how they treat Israel and how they feel about Jews.

  3. HI, HCQ. You said,

    The U.S. propping up dictators undermines our credibility when we go about endlessly preaching “democracy”.

    I think we ought to stop preaching democracy. During the Civil War, the US declared emancipation for the negroes in captured areas of the Confederacy. This was inteded to gain additional support for the war effort, both by appealing to abolitionists and encouraging a slave rebellion. In the Spanish-American War, we ostensibly went in to support the Cuban popular uprising, but also on the pretense of a Spanish attack on an American ship. In World War I, we simply chose sides and supported our friends. We painted the Kaiser as a “Hun”; but in fact, he was a cousin of the British King, and the Germans were about as democratic as the Brits. After the war, Wilson’s 14 Points promoted democracy; but this was probably seen as a ploy to provide an opening for American influence in Europe. In World War II, we supported democracy Britain against (wildly popular) dictatorship Germany, allied with the brutal dictator ship USSR. Our propaganda ministry made claims that we were fighting for freedom; but we had simply meddled in an imperial struggle to buttress our interests.

    In Korea, we opposed the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea, by supporting the Republic of Korea. In name, at least, the “democrats” were on the other side; and indeed, South Korea was a dictatorship most of the time. Eventually, they did become democratic; but our support was not contingent on their level of freedom (except perhaps under Carter). We simply knew that the South was a faithful ally, and the North a bitter enemy: That was good enough for us, and still is. In Vietnam, we tried a repeat of Korea, and were even supported by South Korean troops. But things were different there: The leader of North Vietnam was a national hero, popular in the South; and we were looked upon as invaders (whereas in Korea, the Northerners were obviously the invaders). The situation was intenable from the get-go. Democracy was not a factor, except for local US consumption. The 1954 treaty had called for countrywide elections in a UNIFIED Vietnam, and we were committed to keeping the country divided. So we overthrew the “dictator” in the south, and held sham elections. They didn’t do us nor the Vietnamese any good.

    The US does not have a clean track record of supporting democracy; and there is no real profit in pursuing such a policy. We would do well, if we picked our friends wisely and stood with them. This is something B. Obama knows nothing about.

  4. The U.S. propping up dictators undermines our credibility when we go about endlessly preaching “democracy”. Now Egyptians are clamoring for “democracy”. The USA isn’t even a “democracy” but a Constitutional Republic yet, courtesy of our government indoctrination centers, most Americans don’t even know this.

    “Democracy” may give Egyptians something worse than what they have now. Radical Islamic dictatorship or secular military dictatorship in a region where the only thing muzzies understand is the iron fist…and blaming Israel for EVERYTHING(too bad Israeli pols don’t understand that they to need to use the iron fist when dealing with muzzies). Mubarak should probably retire but I don’t see why he(or Suleiman) can’t wait until September elections(consulting and following the Egyptian constitution would probably be a good idea)for the purpose of stabilization and smooth transition(oh that’s right, Mubarak must go because Hussein Obama says so and he must do it immediately because NOW means NOW.)I also don’t see the point of Egyptians replacing one U.S. backed dictatorship (Mubarak) with another U.S. backed dictatorship(Obama-Soros backed Muslim Brotherhood);either way they get totalitarianism.

    I don’t trust the puppet Obama or his string puller, George Soros, and they are really pushing the Muslim Brotherhood who has been lobbying in the USA for years. Has anyone noticed McCain is backing Obama’s demands that Mubarak resign?

    McCain: Obama Should Call for Mubarak to Resign
    http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/john-mccain-obama-mubarak/2011/02/10/id/385687

    McCain has been taking $$$ from Soros for well over 10 years.

    Obama, Soros create ‘Palestine’

    In partnership with a government fund initiated by Barack Obama, philanthropist and billionaire activist George Soros is investing in a private equity company that just launched in the Palestinian territories. The company, Siraj Fund Management Company, says it was created “for the sole purpose of managing investment funds in Palestine.”

    The new company’s website repeatedly refers to what it calls the “country” of “Palestine.” There is, however, no such country as Palestine. Siraj is apparently referring to territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority.

    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=262077#ixzz1DdRqB4jM

  5. Steve Smyser says:
    February 11, 2011 at 4:02 am

    maybe it is the POWER…

    I think that’s only partially true. Mubarak does not want Egypt’s flavor of Islam to resemble that of Iran’s after the revolution. That is why so much effort has been devoted to politically stifling the Muslim Brotherhood since time immemorial.

  6. Mubarak’s got the stuff of leadership!

    Obama has outraged King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who has pledged to help Mubarak in any way: weapons, money, diplomatic pressure, you name it. No Saudi ruler in history has ever been so blatantly pi$$ed off at an American President. O-bama put his fis’ in de tar baby; den he put his udder fis’ in de tar baby; den he put his foot in de tar baby, an den he put his udder fot in de tar baby; an’ now O-bama, he covered wif tar, head to foot!

    I wish Israel could turn this to its advantage agaist Iran, but everything seems to be in Tehran’s favor: If the Mubarak regime falls, the Moslem Brotherhood and its Hamas allies (Iranian lackeys) take over Egypt; and Obama will try to join the Hamas alliance. Either way Mubarak goes, King Abdullah has gone to TEHRAN as a “counterweight” to his new enemy, Barack Obama. Won’t Abdullah be surprized when his people get there, and find Obama and the Islamic Brotherhood both doing homage to the Ayatollah!

    Islam is like gasoline, poured all over the Middle East. Obama’s playing with fire.

  7. Interesting isn’t it – it is said “money doesn’t buy happiness” – maybe that is so, since H.M. is reported to have 70 Billion dollars – yes, with a B – billion. If that doesn’t buy happiness, maybe it is the POWER…