Ya know yer on the innernet when somehow Sarah Palin, Noam Chomsky, and Ron Paul are dragged into a discussion of US policy toward Egypt. Not places I'd look for relevance, influence, or substance on the subject, and overall I prefer bratwurst, brotchen and heisse senf... but so be it.

Quote Originally Posted by CrowBat View Post
Look, like majority of the public, I do not know such figures like Palin personally. Correspondingly, I can only depend on her "talking" - to the media. I can't say whether the things she says are her own ideas or not, but it's obvious that a certain segment of the US population is listening to what she says. Thus, even though she has no relevant official executive powers, when she's complaining about Obama entering cooperation with the MBs (see her relevant statement from few days ago, already posted in this thread), there is little doubt she's exercising pressure upon the admin in the DC. And then there is no doubt that she's "better-heard" than the Egyptian public.
There seem to be two assumptions here... first that the US has significant influence ofver the Egyptian succession, second that Sarah Palin has some form of influence over US policy. I'm not sure either is supportable.

I don't think anyone making policy today is listening to Palin or her audience, except perhaps the unfortunate charged with recording her inanities for use against her in potential campaigns down the line. She's not exerting pressure, or doing anything at all beyond making a public ass of herself. It's not an audience the current administration is concerned with, except to the extent that its existence helps to mobilize the current administration's base. There is no influence at all.

Quote Originally Posted by CrowBat View Post
Can you prove his..."preaching" (?)..."thesis" (?) that the USA are at least ignoring, if not openly supporting a regime in Saudi Arabia that supports extremist Islamists (financially), as "wrong"?
There's a lot that could be said on that, but this would not be the thread. As in so many other places, Chomsky slides a few threads of truth through an ideological blender and comes up with a pretty meaningless set of conclusions. In any event the extent to which the US "supports" the Saudis is pretty negligible; one could easily say they do more to support us than we do to support them. They are not a US client by any means.

Chomsky routinely uses a technique common among those who rant on the ideological fringe. He pulls together an array of factoids that support his pre-ordained conclusion, yanks them out of any relevant context, bangs them together, declares all points to be "true", and announces the conclusion. It actually works pretty well, especially when the conclusion is addressed to an audience predisposed to accept it. The only way to argue against it is to break down the "facts" one by one and show how they were distorted. Few people have the patience, and the audience doesn't generally pay attention. Not generally worth the trouble to argue with the ideological fringes in any event.

US Republican Congressman Ron Paul says on his blog: "We see now the folly of our interventionist foreign policy: not only has that stability fallen to pieces with the current unrest, but the years of propping up the corrupt regime in Egypt has led the people to increase their resentment of both America and Israel! We are both worse off for decades of intervention into Egypt's internal affairs. I wish I could say that we have learned our lesson and will no longer attempt to purchase - or rent - friends in the Middle East, but I am afraid that is being too optimistic."
Our relationship with Mubarak is and has long been a cold war relic and as much an embarrassment as an asset. It endured through inertia and this is an excellent opportunity to let it die of natural causes. This is widely recognized and widely accepted; there will not be many tears shed when Hosni lands on the trash heap of history, in whatever condition he arrives there. Nothing really very earthshaking or controversial there.

Paying the Egyptians not to fight the Israelis probably seemed a good idea at the time, and may have actually been a good idea at the time, but these things tend to run on beyond any reasonable point of utility, and need to be shaken up. They are getting shaken up. We should be grateful.

What emerges next remains to be seen. Whatever regime emerges will undoubtedly be imperfect, will very likely be miserable, and will probably have some sort of relationship with the US. Whatever that relationship is, it will be criticized by people with ideological axes to grind and no responsibility to provide a more effective policy. So it goes. Very easy it is to point out what's been done wrong, especially with hindsight. It's very easy to demand that the US wave a magic wand and produce outcomes that serve some perceived interest or another. Forming and implementing better policies is a good deal harder.

Quote Originally Posted by CrowBat View Post
How would you then characterise Israeli reactions reported in the last few days, and how would you describe their effects upon the US decisionmaking?

Call it a guess, if you like, but I somehow doubt you're going to use the word "irrelevant".
Ineffective shrieking? Of course they want the US to preserve Mubarak or install a clone, but the US probably hasn't the power to do that and probably wouldn't be inclined to do it if they could. Doesn't look like they'll get their way... a good thing IMO.