Do you welcome outsiders intervening in your country's internal affairs?

[Yennora]

Politics-wise.

If you are x from country X. X's current constitution allows for regulations that induce oppression.

y from country Y objected and/or started joining an indirect endeavor alongside some X'ians to change X's constitution.

Do you, as x, accept y's stance?

Before answering consider those scenarios/points:

1. A country where regulations allow for oppression of minorities. The government deals with protests using violence. Human rights organizations are dead silent (or near that). The vast majority of the population are fine with it and hence minorities require an external intervention for oppression to stop.
Live example -> Maspero demonstrations - Wikipedia

2. Country X and Y are both rigged with oppressive regulations. y decided to mind the business of both countries X and Y. -> y is a human rights advocate that doesn't care about political boundaries but cares to fight for all humans on earth. y's philosophy is that we are all humans and preventing y from defending x just based on y's nationality is a racist action.

3. Country X and Y are both rigged with oppressive regulations. y decided to mind the business of country X only. -> y is fine with the oppression in Y and fights X to gain a particular political interest and/or is fighting for a subset of people while allowing for the oppression of others.

The definition of "oppression" as per this thread -> The use of violence and abuse techniques against a minority and/or restricting that minority from some or all of their freedoms and/or rights.

 

[dzheremi]

I haven't voted because I don't think it's my place, but as to #1, I fasted after Maspero like all the Church did, but what is realistic that anyone on the outside do, if the change must come from within Egyptian society? The West has tried to impose its standards on the Middle East and North Africa for a long time now, and look at the results in a place like Iraq, which could be argued to have had more recent experience of secularism than Egypt did! Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athists weren't finally gotten rid of until the 2000s (to be replaced by a giant sectarian civil war that liquidated the Christian community, obviously; anyone who didn't see that coming beforehand is an idiot), versus whenever Egypt became more Islamically-oriented in recent decades (post-1952 revolution/Wafd) -- in the early 1980s when section 2 was inserted into the constitution as a token to the Islamists by Sadat? Yeah, we see where that got him, as one of them thanked him by shooting him to death. Ugh. Whereas I know I've seen earlier video of a speech of sorts by Abdel Nasser where he was interrupted by someone ranting about how the hijab should be mandated, and he responded (about the guy who shouted that) "If he likes it so much, let him wear it!", to which the entire crowd laughed! (And I did too, honestly.)

What can the outside world really do to bring that back, or even something better? (As it's not like there weren't problems during Nasser's time, too; I am an outsider but I think it is obvious enough to say that the Coptic people's "golden age" in terms of peace and harmony with their government was probably between the start of the Conciliar age and the aftermath of Chalcedon -- just barely over 125 years.)

It's not that I don't see that things could and should be better (I have in the past advocated that aid to Egypt should be tied to its treatment of minorities, which as far as I know it still currently is not), I just wonder how well any direct intervention would go. I suspect very, very bad, and the Copts would once again get blamed because blahblahblah the West is Christian (even though it isn't) and they're Christians, just like how the MB/Morsi supporters saw a big Coptic conspiracy in the overthrow of Morsi, and destroyed many churches, buildings, and other Coptic properties because of that sick and baseless rumor, as I'm sure you know.

What can be realistically done that won't ultimately make things worse, in your estimation as an Egyptian person?

 

[Yennora]

I haven't voted because I don't think it's my place, but as to #1, I fasted after Maspero like all the Church did, but what is realistic that anyone on the outside do, if the change must come from within Egyptian society? The West has tried to impose its standards on the Middle East and North Africa for a long time now, and look at the results in a place like Iraq, which could be argued to have had more recent experience of secularism than Egypt did! Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athists weren't finally gotten rid of until the 2000s (to be replaced by a giant sectarian civil war that liquidated the Christian community, obviously; anyone who didn't see that coming beforehand is an idiot), versus whenever Egypt became more Islamically-oriented in recent decades (post-1952 revolution/Wafd) -- in the early 1980s when section 2 was inserted into the constitution as a token to the Islamists by Sadat? Yeah, we see where that got him, as one of them thanked him by shooting him to death. Ugh. Whereas I know I've seen earlier video of a speech of sorts by Abdel Nasser where he was interrupted by someone ranting about how the hijab should be mandated, and he responded (about the guy who shouted that) "If he likes it so much, let him wear it!", to which the entire crowd laughed! (And I did too, honestly.)

What can the outside world really do to bring that back, or even something better? (As it's not like there weren't problems during Nasser's time, too; I am an outsider but I think it is obvious enough to say that the Coptic people's "golden age" in terms of peace and harmony with their government was probably between the start of the Conciliar age and the aftermath of Chalcedon -- just barely over 125 years.)

It's not that I don't see that things could and should be better (I have in the past advocated that aid to Egypt should be tied to its treatment of minorities, which as far as I know it still currently is not), I just wonder how well any direct intervention would go. I suspect very, very bad, and the Copts would once again get blamed because blahblahblah the West is Christian (even though it isn't) and they're Christians, just like how the MB/Morsi supporters saw a big Coptic conspiracy in the overthrow of Morsi, and destroyed many churches, buildings, and other Coptic properties because of that sick and baseless rumor, as I'm sure you know.

What can be realistically done that won't ultimately make things worse, in your estimation as an Egyptian person?

Gamal Abdel Nasser was a fascist though. I know the video where he was mocking pushing Hijab on Egyptian women but for some reasons his actions were not aligned to his words later on and he hated Christians anyway.

Nasser also exiled and conducted mass arrests on the Jewish Egyptians. -> 1956–57 exodus and expulsions from Egypt - Wikipedia

And since the Jewish were a minority, they were not defended and they were oppressed to the full of it. Losing their private property and being thrown out of the country.

And then? Now comes our turn, the Copts. They want us either dead or out. (Not all of them of course)

I think the US intervention in the middle east was an example of scenario 3 in the OP. US didn't genuinely care about minorities.

Also foreign aids don't work, even if they were aimed at minorities. I think an external pressure to change the constitution and a continuous monitoring of minorities is the best solution.

And to keep it safe without anyone being harmed. We need to create a pathway for minorities to express their opinion in regards to how they are treated internationally without having to leave the country and without being internally threatened.

 

[Yennora]

I wish if the politically influential countries (including Russia, US, Germany..etc) cared to do something about Egyptian minorities. And not with political interest.. I mean a genuinely good intervention to help the oppressed. A well planned intervention that doesn't lead to civil wars.

 

[dzheremi]

I do not think the west has the political will anymore. It is overtaken by rapid secularization and Islamicization under the banner of multicultural tolerance, forgetting that the native Middle Eastern and North African minorities like the Syriac people, the Copts, the Imazighen ('Berbers'), Yazidis, and others are distinct cultures of the region, so if they really cared about multiculturalism, they would include these too in discussing and figuring out a reaction to the situation of their societies. Instead they only want to listen to the Arabs or (occasionally; only to betray them later on) the Kurds, who both have Muslim-majority populations that are happy to oppress Christians and others for the crime of not accepting Muhammad and Islam. The thing is that the West is really committed to its secular vision of all religions being essentially the same, so anyone who puts the blame where it should be gets in trouble and is silenced or 're-educated' until they come out spouting the government's line. Only Russia and the other Eastern Orthodox countries don't do this (well, and the Oriental Orthodox countries to the extent that we have those anymore; the efforts of the Protestants and their success among particular ethnic groups that have long resented Semitic highlanders' political and cultural dominance has diluted Ethiopia's Orthodox majority, sadly, even though it is still a majority-Christian country). Putin has said that Russia doesn't need Muslims -- Muslims need Russia. (By which he meant the native Muslims within the Russian territory, like the Tatars, the Chechens, the Avars, etc.) No Western politician would say such a thing, unless they're fine with being labeled a "far right" Nazi or something.

Of course a well-planned intervention that wouldn't lead to conflict couldn't say such a thing anyway, so what is there left to appeal to? "Hey, don't do that to the Egyptian minorities because it's mean"? I'm not from Egypt, but based on my interactions with Egyptians, I don't think that would work. Maybe I am too pessimistic.

Maybe if the left-wing/secular/nationalist side of Egyptian society could be strengthened from the inside, there could be more of a chance, but I don't know. I'm not hopeful that anything will help short of the very slow process of individual conversion/illumination on the part of those who are otherwise committed to the society as it is, with all of its unfairness intact, as Muhammad and Allah willed it. Lord have mercy.

 

[Yennora]

I do not think the west has the political will anymore. It is overtaken by rapid secularization and Islamicization under the banner of multicultural tolerance, forgetting that the native Middle Eastern and North African minorities like the Syriac people, the Copts, the Imazighen ('Berbers'), Yazidis, and others are distinct cultures of the region, so if they really cared about multiculturalism, they would include these too in discussing and figuring out a reaction to the situation of their societies. Instead they only want to listen to the Arabs or (occasionally; only to betray them later on) the Kurds, who both have Muslim-majority populations that are happy to oppress Christians and others for the crime of not accepting Muhammad and Islam. The thing is that the West is really committed to its secular vision of all religions being essentially the same, so anyone who puts the blame where it should be gets in trouble and is silenced or 're-educated' until they come out spouting the government's line. Only Russia and the other Eastern Orthodox countries don't do this (well, and the Oriental Orthodox countries to the extent that we have those anymore; the efforts of the Protestants and their success among particular ethnic groups that have long resented Semitic highlanders' political and cultural dominance has diluted Ethiopia's Orthodox majority, sadly, even though it is still a majority-Christian country). Putin has said that Russia doesn't need Muslims -- Muslims need Russia. (By which he meant the native Muslims within the Russian territory, like the Tatars, the Chechens, the Avars, etc.) No Western politician would say such a thing, unless they're fine with being labeled a "far right" Nazi or something.

Of course a well-planned intervention that wouldn't lead to conflict couldn't say such a thing anyway, so what is there left to appeal to? "Hey, don't do that to the Egyptian minorities because it's mean"? I'm not from Egypt, but based on my interactions with Egyptians, I don't think that would work. Maybe I am too pessimistic.

Maybe if the left-wing/secular/nationalist side of Egyptian society could be strengthened from the inside, there could be more of a chance, but I don't know. I'm not hopeful that anything will help short of the very slow process of individual conversion/illumination on the part of those who are otherwise committed to the society as it is, with all of its unfairness intact, as Muhammad and Allah willed it. Lord have mercy.

I totally agree on the political correctness issue. I think it is clear that the west are playing with fire now. I hope the good ones will remain safe in all of this though.

The problem with Egypt's left wing is that they are following the crowd. They don't think for themselves. They want to follow the "western version" of leftism. Not to mention those leftists who promote communism. You feel like "What the hell is wrong with these people?" They are ignoring the real issues and are totally unrealistic. I find the Egyptian left to be very immature.

This doesn't mean that we don't have some more than excellent secular/leftist human rights advocates, however, they are all condemned as atheists or against Allah or whatever.

It is hard for the left to do anything when the majority are far right, ignorant and brainwashed by their religious leaders.

But the good news for now are: secularism is growing within the younger community. This will make the yoke of Sharia a very tiny bit lighter for now. And is good news for Egypt on the longer run.

We still need help though because the government is rigged and the majority are happy with it. And some people get hurt in the mean time. Really hurt, like kidnapping of young Coptic women or burning the houses of poor Christians in upper Egypt. And the mainstream media are dead silent about those events.

 

[Eternum]

This is one of the few things I have a strong opinion on. Being from the U.S. I have been ashamed when our country has just bulldozed its way into other countries and cultures. The situation of Nazis and Jews was outstanding and if there are crimes of that nature from one human being to another, then that is a different topic. Our own country has a history of revolution and civil war. People are capable of standing up for themselves when the need arises.

It seems as I'm reading the actual posts that this is more about majority vs. minority, however, and that is an ongoing issue in many places.

 

[dzheremi]

Doesn't the fact that the majority are happy with it make it very hard to argue that the government is rigged, though? (I'm not sure what you mean when you say that it is rigged, though.)

 

[Yennora]

Doesn't the fact that the majority are happy with it make it very hard to argue that the government is rigged, though? (I'm not sure what you mean when you say that it is rigged, though.)

Forgive my English skills. I mean corrupt. Because the majority is corrupt anyway and are happy seeing minorities suffer to death. (not sure if rigged has the same meaning)

I also edited my reply with more information.

 

[dzheremi]

Ah, I see what you mean now. No need to apologize. Your English is far, far better than my Arabic.

And you're right -- the majority who benefit from the corruption are unlikely to see the need that it change in favor of the minority who they abuse with impunity. That's true in Egypt and around the world, and sadly I'm not sure what can be done about it. We look to Your resurrection, O Lord, and the life of the age to come.

 

[Yennora]

This is one of the few things I have a strong opinion on. Being from the U.S. I have been ashamed when our country has just bulldozed its way into other countries and cultures. The situation of Nazis and Jews was outstanding and if there are crimes of that nature from one human being to another, then that is a different topic. Our own country has a history of revolution and civil war. People are capable of standing up for themselves when the need arises.

It seems as I'm reading the actual posts that this is more about majority vs. minority, however, and that is an ongoing issue in many places.

I totally agree but Americans have guns. They can fight for their rights if their rights get heavily violated. We don't in Egypt. When a Coptic father sees a mob attacking his daughter for not wearing Hijab and he cannot defend her.. you know the pain.. It is destructive.

 

[Eternum]

The refugee crisis of Syria comes to mind. There were millions of people. That would have been enough to cause a serious war if they chose to fight. The problem isn't majority vs. minority... it's something about the psychology of people that's being done. Something being broken down where people feel that they "can't" fight anymore. So they don't try. Yeah, they're at a disadvantage. It's not the disadvantage. It's the same mentality that kept the Israelites in line with the ancient Egyptians during Moses' time despite the fact they had the numbers and ability to put up a fight.

 

[Yennora]

Ah, I see what you mean now. No need to apologize. Your English is far, far better than my Arabic.

And you're right -- the majority who benefit from the corruption are unlikely to see the need that it change in favor of the minority who they abuse with impunity. That's true in Egypt and around the world, and sadly I'm not sure what can be done about it. We look to Your resurrection, O Lord, and the life of the age to come.

I wish if I could "sad" react.

 

[Eternum]

I totally agree but Americans have guns. They can fight for their rights if their rights get heavily violated. We don't in Egypt. When a Coptic father sees a mob attacking his daughter for not wearing Hijab and he cannot defend her.. you know the pain.. It is destructive.

We don't, actually. Many states have removed our rights to guns. Only some people have them. Going back to the majority? The majority feels guns are evil and that if we make them illegal, suddenly the criminals won't have them anymore. it's weird.

It's the will to fight. When I have talked to some people about a rebellion, it's that. It's this willingness to fight as a group. To find the armory, to take it over, to think as the military thinks. The problem in your scenario is exactly the broken psychology that bothers me, and I see it sweeping through our country too: wanting to look the other way. Leaving the father to watch as his daughter is attacked by a mob, instead of grouping up with the father to defend his daughter.

 

[Yennora]

We don't, actually. Many states have removed our rights to guns. Only some people have them. Going back to the majority? The majority feels guns are evil and that if we make them illegal, suddenly the criminals won't have them anymore. it's weird.

It's the will to fight. When I have talked to some people about a rebellion, it's that. It's this willingness to fight as a group. To find the armory, to take it over, to think as the military thinks. The problem in your scenario is exactly the broken psychology that bothers me, and I see it sweeping through our country too: wanting to look the other way. Leaving the father to be attacked by a mob, instead of grouping up with the father.

I agree in despair. Because I know the outcomes of the approach you are mentioning, and it will be "a lot" of blood shed. That is why I think the external intervention in a strategically smart way can solve it better. But as @dzheremi said. The west is not willing to fight. It is strange though that sometimes the west are willing to do it for particular minorities and not for all. They don't seem to be interested in "human rights" as far as I see.

 

[dzheremi]

It should be said, for Eternum or any other non-Coptic person's sake, that argument about a "will to fight" is probably going to be met by historically-informed Coptic people by recalling the last major period in which Coptic people resisted the Muslims with arms, in the Bashmurian revolts of the 8th and 9th centuries, which were crushed and ushered in a new period of extreme repression as punishment for not wanting to be treated as second class citizens in their own country.

Considering how much more Coptic Egypt was then than it is now, any "taking over the armory" now is basically a fantasy, and if it were ever tried would probably have such horrendous effects on the Copts that nobody would be willing to try such a thing for many, many centuries afterwards.

Besides, the OP specified that they would like to avoid conflict, if possible.

 

[Eternum]

I agree in despair. Because I know the outcomes of the approach you are mentioning, and it will be "a lot" of blood shed. That is why I think the external intervention in a strategically smart way can solve it better. But as @dzheremi said. The west is not willing to fight. It is strange though that sometimes the west are willing to do it for particular minorities and not for all. They don't seem to be interested in "human rights" as far as I see.

It's ignorance, and that's why I disagree with the way our country interferes. When you get into the cultural diversity at the level you and @dzheremi are talking about, that takes a level of anthropology that most people don't invest in, in our country or otherwise. It takes this detective work and sifting through mountains of information that may or may not be all the facts, trying to decide who's right and who's wrong.

And you're not ever going to make the totally right decision. Some information is going to be missing, it's not going to be a totally objective decision, and because you interfered, the rest of the world is going to look at your decision under a microscope.

Unfortunately, yes, you're looking at massive bloodshed or someone who is really smart/inspired about how to do things. I think of The Lion of WWI: Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck - Wikipedia

The long short of it is that he was on the losing side (Germany) in Africa with a tiny garrison and managed to give the Allies the runaround by being a master of guerilla warfare. Very much worth a read.

 

[Eternum]

Considering how much more Coptic Egypt was then than it is now, any "taking over the armory" now is basically a fantasy, and if it were ever tried would probably have such horrendous effects on the Copts that nobody would be willing to try such a thing for many, many centuries afterwards.

Besides, the OP specified that they would like to avoid conflict, if possible.

This, right here, is the ignorance I'm talking about with "the west." I am definitely ignorant, and thankfully not in charge of the government, but this is how things get screwed up. xD

Thing is, you're not going to avoid conflict when you have power hungry narcissists and/or dictators in charge. People like when other people are oppressed. They don't let go easily. And some other country shouldering in just creates a ton of resentment and tension. It will still lead to conflict and bloodshed.

 

[Yennora]

It should be said, for Eternum or any other non-Coptic person's sake, that argument about a "will to fight" is probably going to be met by historically-informed Coptic people by recalling the last major period in which Coptic people resisted the Muslims with arms, in the Bashmurian revolts of the 8th and 9th centuries, which were crushed and ushered in a new period of extreme repression as punishment for not wanting to be treated as second class citizens in their own country.

Considering how much more Coptic Egypt was then than it is now, any "taking over the armory" now is basically a fantasy, and if it were ever tried would probably have such horrendous effects on the Copts that nobody would be willing to try such a thing for many, many centuries afterwards.

Besides, the OP specified that they would like to avoid conflict, if possible.

Maspero in itself is a living proof. The military drove their tanks on Christian protesters alive. Can you imagine? And the human rights organizations are USELESS.

Imagine having received a text telling you that you son or daughter were crushed underneath a tank. No Christian will risk their families anymore.

I think Copts tried to do their part many times. The fact that they are a minority still rules it against them. They are being outnumbered.

Also for @Eternum, she is a good friend of mine and she is trying to help. It is my mistake on this end that I hadn't shared enough sources with her. Especially that the sources for the Coptic struggle are not always available in English and many incidents are only documented and reported in Arabic. I appreciate her approach though.

 

[dzheremi]

This, right here, is the ignorance I'm talking about with "the west." I am definitely ignorant, and thankfully not in charge of the government, but this is how things get screwed up. xD

Thing is, you're not going to avoid conflict when you have power hungry narcissists and/or dictators in charge. People like when other people are oppressed. They don't let go easily. And some other country shouldering in just creates a ton of resentment and tension. It will still lead to conflict and bloodshed.

But if the dictators were ~80% of the society (people who either like it how it is or only want improvements in rights for their religious sect, and to hell with all the others) instead of just an elite cabal, then what would you do? 20% is not going to beat 80%, especially when that 80% has all the guns, tanks, etc.

See. for instance, this article: https://thefederalist.com/2016/03/31/how-egypts-efforts-to-reject-sharia-law-could-spark-rebellion/

It is a little bit old by now (2016), but it is still the case that the majority of Egyptian Muslims are in favor of the discrimination against minorities in the form of Sharia law (74% favored making it the law of the land in Egypt in 2013; I couldn't find more recent polling data than that, but I doubt it's gone down since so many ex-MB loathe Gen. Al Sisi, hence "around 80%"), because of course it places them at the top of the social hierarchy. And once you're up there, why would you want to get down?