One may never be able to understand any political situation unless it is contextualized. What happened on 30 June 2013 in Egypt and its consequences have been viewed differently by so many international bodies. There have been so many versions of the truth. It is never a simple equation. It is never about the truth. It is always about the power factor and how to utilize it for the interest of one's given group.
Truth sets people free, but this can never be true in a world where power controls almost everyone and everything. “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” said Lord John Dalberg-Acton. This quote always stands as the best explanation to describe the horrendous reality the world is suffering from.
In 28 June 1995, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani deposed his father Sheikh Khalifa bin Hamad in a bloodless coup while his father was in Switzerland. Yet the US State Department instantly recognized the new Emir. They didn't talk about legitimacy or democracy. These things apparently didn't bother them back then.
The US made a similar move in 25 January 2011 in Egypt. At first they were reluctant to take a clear stand until it became clear the Mubarak wouldn't be able to survive the situation so they supported the demonstrations and overlooked the interference of the army, praising the young revolutionaries and asking the American young people to learn from them.
Yet when the same exact thing happened in 30 June 2013, and the demonstrators clearly outnumbered the demonstrators in 2011, the US administration didn't approve ousting President Mohamed Morsy on the basis that he was democratically-elected, which is something that can be refuted. Additionally, the number of the people who took to the streets clearly outnumbered any demonstration in the history of Egypt which shows how dangerous the situation was. This was a president who intentionally issued a creed that would make him a immune to existing laws or the the judicial system, as well as a dictator who would protect Al Shoura Council even if there were legal problems in the procedures taken its formation, and still the American administration called him a democratically-elected president! Doesn't this seem absurd?
One would easily find out that the definition of the word coup d'etat is as elastic as the US foreign policy itself. According to Britannica, a coup is the sudden, violent overthrow of an existing government by a small group. The chief prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements, but this is not what happened in Egypt. Yet still CNN as well as other western media outlets insists it is a coup!
Many western media outlets have been attacking the Egyptian government for cracking down against the MB and journalists. Yet, they barely mentioned the killing of so many policemen and the violence used in many MB-led demonstrations.
Focusing on only one aspect of the story is distorting the whole scene and makes it a one-angle story. There could be some encroachments, and it is clear that the police forces need better training as well as most of the weak institutions of the country, and that needs to be taken into consideration. Besides the state of horror of any opposing party has to end. There has to be some real chance to reality so that things would move on.
Many western Media outlets praised the number of women who participated on 25 January 2011 demonstrations, yet they belittled the number of women who participated on 30 June 2013 and the constitution referendum. Being choosy or selective is totally against all means of professionalism, impartiality and the democracy they have been claiming they support. In fact many Egyptians now don't show a grand respect to many western media outlets as they used to. Earning credibility takes a long time, losing it has always been a quicker process.
On the other side, the interim government in Egypt sometimes seems shaky and reluctant, they arrested some young people who belonged to Aboul Fetouh's Strong Egypt Party for putting up signs saying no to the new amendments of the constitution, and that quite contradicts with what the constitution itself calls for.
We wouldn't be able to explain anything regarding the situation in Egypt until we contextualize every single situation. Demonstrating peacefully is something and using violence is a totally different thing. People can understand the frustrations many MB members have had since the ousting of Morsy, still the violence they have been using physically and verbally is never justified. They already lost most of the ground they had had since January 2011.
If one doesn't contextualize political events, one can never reach any close to either objectivity or fairness.