The current uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia have occupied the Western media's attention for the past several weeks. Political commentators and analysts have obsessed over the motivations behind the revolt, the nature of the protest and its possible consequences both locally and elsewhere in the Middle East. The domino effect of revolution seems to be one matter everyone can agree on. Similar stirrings of anger and rebellion have been sighted in Sudan, Algeria and Syria, and pundits are speculating over the next Arab country to be pulled into the democratic winds.It is important, though, to take a step back and assess the tone of the ongoing conversation and coverage by these media outlets. The current revolt in Egypt is a perfect case study. After the first few weeks of straightforward reporting, the Western media's particular concerns and biases regarding the protests have become very clear. Journalists remark on how social media networks like Twitter and Facebook helped fuel the flames of revolution. Politicians worry about possible repercussions of the rebellion on radical Islamist groups. Another hot topic is the consequence of a full-out revolution in Egypt on its neighbor Israel.

It seems like a disproportionate number of editorials and op-eds in The New York Times have focused on Israel and Egypt. Some Israelis and Israel empathizers in the United States are justifiably concerned about the consequences of the recent uprising in Egypt against President Hosni Mubarak. Although Mubarak has been found responsible for rampant corruption and social oppression within Egypt, he has also been Israel's most stable ally among the Arab nations of the Middle East since the 1979 Camp David Peace Accords. Concern for its own safety and security understandably takes priority in Israel, and the political stability of its neighbors is crucial. However, fueling Israel's hesitancy towards the Egyptian uprising is fear of the unknown. As conditions remain fragile in Egypt's politics, it remains to be seen whether Mubarak will fall and be replaced by a ruler less sympathetic to Israel's interests.

Similarly understandable is the West's fear of the spread of Islamic fundamentalist movements in the aftermath of revolt. The possible rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is not just an Israeli concern. The United States as well fears an Islamic revival among Egyptians that would restrain political freedom and popular democracy in the region. Contributing to this fear is the relatively positive attitude of regular Egyptians regarding traditional Islam. A 2008 Gallup poll reported that 64 percent of Egyptians believe Shariah, the religious law of Islam, should be the only legal code informing Egyptian law.

However, it has been difficult for outsiders to gauge the general sentiment of the Egyptian public and determine the extent to which the preservation of traditional Islam has been a priority of the current revolution. Egyptian officials have criticized remarks made by Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei regarding what he sees as the "Islamist awakening" in Egypt. Truly, the general character of the protests in Egypt suggests a stronger concern for rights than for religion, as protesters have taken to the streets to demonstrate for more jobs, freedom of speech and an end to a dictatorship.

In the past week, I have come across more articles online concerning these subtopics than the protests themselves. I wonder whether these are all part of the way Western media contextualizes foreign stories in order to make them relevant to their audience. Of course, it makes sense that these are all concerns and priorities of the West and Israel. We want to know how these protests relate to and affect us.

I think it is important, though, that we appreciate these revolutionary movements simply for what they are. They represent the ascent of democracy: common people speaking up for their rights after years under an oppressive authoritarian regime and better communication among citizens of developing nations. The long-term benefit of these features to humanity outweighs the immediate consequences of the protests, no matter how they are resolved in the coming weeks.

Mubarak's regime is guilty of innumerable human rights violations and has been characterized by episodes of police brutality, corruption, censorship and lack of freedom of speech. It is hard to argue with the simple fact that the world is better off with one less authoritarian dictator. I am not saying at all that his likely fall from power will not have complicated consequences for the Western world.

However, I do think this speculation and worry should be accompanied by simple appreciation for the process of democratic revolt by the people. It has been a number of years since the United States has witnessed a developing nation's turn to democracy unprompted by the meddling of Western powers. We are constantly defending our involvement in foreign wars by citing our mantra of supporting democracy worldwide. Egypt and Tunisia now present the U.S. the rare opportunity to be supportive by doing little besides cheer on the protestors.