I visited Egypt back in the mid 1990s. My sister's family was then living in Egypt - which they did for 5 years. My brother in law was working on a contract from USAID. My niece, who is a sophomore in college has kept in contact with many kids that she went to school with then. She and her brother attended the British school, where many of the Egyptian elite sent their kids. As a graduation from high school present, her dad took her back to Egypt when he visited for a project - leaving her with some of her old friends for a week as he worked.
Her comment to a my daughter putting up a picture of people protesting by praying in the streets (
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2011/jan/28/egypt-protests-live-updates ) was that someone needed to tell Mubarak can't jail the entire country. What is interesting is that this protest seems to span the gamut of Egyptian society. I guess you can't suppress a country for 30 years without it at some point being too difficult to control.
I liked the tone of Kerry's much better than Clinton's though both were asking both sides to avoid violence. Now, I ALWAYS like Kerry's wording better, but the things in his statement that I didn't see in Clinton's were:
- using Ghandi and King as examples of peaceful AND SUCCESSFUL protesting praises protests like the one my daughter linked to - which deserve praise. With King, it pointed to a time where the US needed change - and there is no need to point out who are President is. ( Both Ghandi and King were people who might resonate in the more religious Middle East.)
- it ends with a call for free elections - and there is already supposed to be an election this year - the key is that it really has to be free. The best thing Mubarak might be able to do - if it is not to late - is to extend an olive branch and work with the protesters on their issues and let them be involved in the process of setting up the election - maybe earlier than scheduled.