Egypt would seem to be the perpetual elephant in the room judging by recent events and media coverage. It won't matter what the topic of discussion will be because it will always lead back to "what's going on in Egypt?"
The latest article focused on the decision of the current military (which the people had wanted to take over for President Hosni Mubarak) to support the current regime. It also makes mention of the consistent tensions that still loom over the country, primarily in Tahrir Square. This article brings to light (though not in much detail) the moves that each side has made in order to avoid further violence.
The initial compromises to the other side's demands are a form of compensation which might carry the hope of bringing about positive reciprocity. In the beginning of the conflict, both side made demands yet neither was willing to budge. This back and forth of demands and no executing of these demands by the opposing side are a form of negative reciprocity. In this case, nothing was accomplished and tensions only rose. However, the current regime of Mubarak showed a motivation to bypass any further bloodshed in a move of compensation. This was done by Mubarak's announcement of his resignation in September and that free and fair elections would be held to elect a new leader. The goal of a compensating move is to react in the opposite way of the other party's reciprocal behavior in the hopes that the climate of the conflict will move from negative to positive and that the opposing party will follow suit with another positive move. So far the protestors have not made a particularly positive response to these announcements (especially with the military now backing the currently hated government) but there has been no bloodshed spilt at the same time either.
