Syria: A Revolution Denied

Being democratically elected is not a mandate for riding roughshod over the rule of law. After all everybody knows that the Nazis were democratically elected and yet they unleashed the template for the state sanctioned horror that we are seeing in Syria today. So what are we to make of events in Egypt? My view is that it is both a military coup and a popular uprising against Morsi.

To say it is one or the other, or to pretend as if the Muslim Brotherhood dominated government in Egypt, democratically elected or not, is a victim, is to take a simplistic view of a complex region. There is no denying that in spite of whatever support he could claim, Morsi was deeply unpopular and the numbers and crowds on the street calling for him to go were remarkable. This movement was in the same spirit as the uprising which toppled the Mubarak regime, and as with Mubarak, it was the army which stepped in to remove the unpopular ruler. But the Egyptian generals are the king makers and they cannot themselves rule.

That Morsi or even ten more presidents after him would be toppled is hardly surprising after a period of revolution. There are going to be many more administrations that come and go in this way before the country settles into some form of normalcy, but this should not be taken as a bad thing. In fact it holds excellent lessons for Syrians who are working hard to topple Assad. The removal of a decades long regime is not alone the goal of the Arab spring, but the beginning of opportunity. To put it simply the removal of tyrants will not give people the jackpot but rather it will give them the opportunity to buy the lottery ticket - something they have long been denied.

There are plenty of Assad supporters, the same ones who cheered the protests in Turkey for all the wrong reasons, who think that this vindicates Assad and condemns the revolution in Syria. They are wrong. The Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups enjoy far less support in Syria than they do in Egypt, and if anything the toppling of Mursi shows us that when Assad goes then nobody will have the monopoly on rule anymore. When nobody has absolute power then compromises are necessary, and with Assad no longer able to bomb the country we will see Syrians returning from refugee camps, and civil society and coordination committees operating and communicating freely again. We will also see the kinds of protest scenes that Syrians have long looked to their Egyptian cousins at with envy.

Going back to Egypt, the Egyptian military is ruthless and not to be trusted. It is simply playing a game of swapping heads around to find one that is more acceptable for the masses. But it is no contradiction to support the toppling of Morsi whilst also condemning the military coup that removed him. The battle in Egypt is one for the state, whilst in Syria we do not have a state. As such, the Egyptian army must maintain some form of adherence to the Egyptian rule of law that everybody is trying to dominate. They must pander to the crowds who have gone to the streets and satisfy their demands somewhat, or appear to be doing something about this. By contrast, we Syrians have neither a state nor a military institution but rather a private army and a regime to face. As such the unprecedented brutality and national trauma that we're going through as we fight to remove our own dictator is far worse than anything the Egyptians have gone through. Soldiers meddling in politics can never be a good thing and Egypt's protestors should beware of this intervention. It doesn't mean their fight is any easier, but it does mean that the forces they are fighting to wrest power from do have a grudging respect for the rule of law. This is probably the only thing stopping the Egyptian military from bombing parts of Cairo and imposing martial law.

This is explained partly because Egypt is an old state, something that Egyptians have Muhammad Ali to thank for. Syria, on the other hand, remained under the Ottoman yoke for far longer and so we just didn't get the experience of state building that the children of the Nile did. Ironically for us the period of the French mandate did lay the groundwork for some form of a Syrian state, and it was Syrian nationalists who chafed against rule from Paris who laid the groundwork for the country's independence and statehood through their struggle. The Syrian "Independence" flag of green white and black is today the symbol of that almost forgotten Syrian state and the struggle of our forefathers.

The start of the revolution against Assad might have been an attempt at regaining that national spirit, but this has now been sabotaged by Assad's overwhelming brutalization of Syrians, causing some deep sectarian rifts to re-emerge. This regime survives by creating crises and then solving them. Denying it the ability to sustain the crisis it has created in Syria will again allow some type of Syrian state to emerge. To do this then his power must be destroyed. Alternatively Assad and his allies must be taught that any transgressions will have painful repercussions directly to him, his regime, and his inner circle unless he agrees to negotiate and abide by the rule of law.

That might all be idealistic to hope for but it is realistic to demand. Until that happens Syrians will continue to look on in envy at the incredible scenes of public protest in Egypt, scenes that they were just starting to get used to before their revolution was denied them.

.

I still look at the news with disbelief when I see what happened in Port Said in Egypt. What an absolute mess, caused by incompetence and stupidity. I've been hearing some people say that this is a conspiracy, which is nonsense. A football match with terrible crowd management and a badly trained police force is what caused this tragedy, not some nefarious plot by a military council that can barely run the country let alone successfully plot an act of engineered chaos.

.

A pile of Rubbish

The footage that I've seen from Tahrir Square in Egypt is deeply disturbing. I saw a thug with a big stick drag the body of a demonstrator by the arm. He pulled him to the side, and left him lying in a pile of rubbish whilst other riot police walked past it and looked on indifferently. Is this what the human being has been reduced to in our countries? Are our lives so meaningless that they can be taken so easily? Between foreign conspiracies and domestic oppression, should we all just curl up and die? I can't stand watching so much senseless death and destruction, it is all so ugly.

.

Egypt

I've been focused mainly on the events in Syria lately, but I have been watching things unfold in Egypt and I think there is a simmering pressure that was only slightly eased. The arrest and show trial of Mubarak might have distracted people for some time and made them think that Egypt had changed, but it seems that the control of the SCAF (basically the army generals) remains as tight as ever. Egypt needs to wrap up its revolution and get rid of the last traces of the Sadat-Mubarak military-industrial complex, and it needs to do that as quickly as possible. The state of the country's economy can't be that good, and the longer the country stays in its lawless state, the more difficult it will be to heal the damage that has been done.

Egypt is like the Arab world's elder brother. In the old days, everybody used to look up to her with hope and expectation. Today that's still the case. It's the Arab country which has the most developed and organised civil society, and yet it still hasn't been able to seize power yet.

.

A report on Egypt from a friend

A very good friend of mine (who wishes to remain anonymous) recently visited Egypt and wanted to share his thoughts about what he saw there. A very interesting insight into the state of the country following the toppling of Mubarak. 


Why the “Egyptian revolution” died before even starting.

My recent visit to Cairo was an eye opener on the nature of the revolution in Egypt. From the airport the foreign observer can see there is something off in this country and that people are in a strange mindset built on pride turned arrogance and anger turned envy.

The main conclusion of my trip to Egypt is that nothing has changed. The regime is still in place with the army controlling anything worth controlling. The system has used the demonstrations to get rid of the Mubarak family that was getting a bit too greedy but has ensured nothing would change. The generals are still dictating their orders behind the scene but how could it be any different when you see the physical importance of the army. Indeed, from the airport, you pass next to a huge number of buildings and bases that are all owned by the army in its different components. In other words, the army has built and controls such a network that it is not a “small revolution” that will impact their power.

Now let’s be honest, none of this is a surprise. We were all concerned about the “peaceful” military coup and the impact it would have on the revolution. The real surprise came from the people and their behaviour. The first surprise was the complete dislocation of the society. The divide is frightening with a happy few living (even now) like they are in Miami and the vast majority fighting for a piece of bread. Even now, clubs and fashionable bars are packed with Gucci wearing boys and girls who don’t hesitate to spend 300 dollars on a bottle of Blue Label or a Russian prostitute... while in the bazaar you can see people begging for a piece of bread. Even now, the upper class lives like they can suck the life out of this country ad vitam aeternam. They are still spending on booz and shiny things and disregard completely those who are standing at the door. They are still behaving like Egypt is not a Muslim country with places that are forbidden to a woman wearing the hijab. They are still living on a rent provided by the regime we wanted to believe was overthrown.

The second  surprise came from the prevalent mindset on the street. This was the most frightening sight during this trip. The best way to describe the situation is to use the word ANARCHY. It is not like Cairo was an easy going city where people were kind to each other in the first place but the situation has seriously deteriorated. The number of kidnapping is now equivalent to Sao Paulo in the late nineties and street criminality is worse than any place I have been to (and I have been to Mexico!). Any opportunity to take a few pounds is good from the cashier selling the visa to the garbage truck. The excuse used by all my interlocutors is the fact that people have discovered how much was stolen from the country by the apparatchiks of the regime and they see the state of poverty they live in... and they think: “Why not me, why wouldn’t I steal as well and take from those who have more than me”. The information, the discovery of the financial crimes of the regime has generated anger and envy instead of goodwill and a need for justice. People don’t want justice, they don’t believe the regime can ever give them justice, they only care about themselves and that’s it. All the stories we heard on tv about young guys helping with traffic and with the security of their neighbourhood is now in the past because the current situation (as I experienced it) is that any service is billable (and at the highest possible price) and that militias or private security are making a lot of money out of the anarchy reigning in town.

The fact is you cannot build a revolution without a doctrine and without principles. A revolution needs theoreticians to build the framework and the direction. France had Robespierre and Marat, Russia had Marx and Lenin but what do we have in Egypt... A revolution without head, without doctrine, without ideal. This is called anarchy! There is a clear lack of ideology and rules. Everyone says they want more freedom and justice but what is their definition of freedom? Nobody can tell me or tell the people of Egypt... So, they do what is best for them and for their close relatives... That’s called Anarchy and nothing good has ever come out of anarchy. Yes, the Egyptian revolution died before starting and what we saw on Maydan Tahrir was the initiation of an apocalyptic anarchist ritual not the beginning of a glorious revolution. Today, Egypt is a failed state with a corrupt army, a corrupt police, an economic elite enriched by rents instead of innovation and risk taking... and people who don’t care about their neighbours or their homeland. It is anarchy!

.

جفنهً علم الغزل

This is one of the songs for Muhammad Abdul Wahhab that I absolutely adore. Filmed in 1933, the first thing that I find amazing is how it begins with the two women balancing jugs on their head as they walk past. That instantly brings the famous Egyptian countryside to life. At one point we get a glimpse of an Egyptian field, and we can see shadows from the clouds moving across, shadows from almost 80 years ago. The scene cuts to the girl standing in the middle of the field, beautiful and timid, looking around as if searching for someone. Finally the clip where she hops across a little ditch and then marches daintily off screen is to die for. She is like an Alice in Wonderland, portrayed through the eyes of Abdul Wahhab. There is something else that is hauntingly beautiful about this clip that I can't put my finger on, I'm not a film critic. Musically, I'm enchanted by the melody and the words. It is playful and different from anything else that was around at the time, and probably since. As for the young Muhammad Abdul Wahhab, we see a handsome, graceful young man dressed impeccably and with a fez on his head, as any respectable Arab gentleman would do back then. We might as well be seeing him alive and in front of us today. The overall effect of the clip with the music is nothing short of magical. Enjoy, late on a Wednesday night.

.

The Real Evils plaguing "the Real Evils Plaguing the Region" - a response to Buthaina Shaaban

Ms. Buthaina Shaaban, the political and media advisor to the president of Syria, has written an article on Forward Magazine's website about the Egyptian revolution. Considering her quite visible role as a representative of the Syrian government it was interesting to see her response to this historic event. However I was quite disappointed with its context and ambiguous conclusion, and I felt compelled to respond to some of her assumptions. Having received direct responses from Ms. Shaaban for emails that I had sent her commending her various foreign policy statements, I do hope she responds as earnestly to well intentioned criticism - otherwise I will have a very uncomfortable stay in Syria the next time I visit. Below is a copy of my comment to her article.


Ms. Shaaban, you have written a timely article which exposes the considerable hypocrisy underlining Western relations with Arab countries, however, I feel your article has not done justice to particular aspects of the Egyptian revolution; Aspects which can portray a deeper and far more uncomfortable reality facing the Arab world than the geopolitical machinations you expose so masterfuly.

The Egyptian revolution was not only a revolution against the Mubarak regime's execrable foreign policy, nor only against the relegation of Egypt to the role of a US vassal in the region. In fact, not even the deplorable conditions of the Gazans, exacerbated by Mubarak's assistance of the Israeli siege, were the largest motivation for this revolution.

The fact remains, and must be stated however uncomfortable the reality, that Egyptians were revolting against the arbitrary nature of their government, the endemic corruption and police brutality, and the complete disregard for the "rule of law" that became characteristic of Mubarak's regime.

Whilst Egypt and its other Arab allies might be guilty of their complicity with the United States and the criminal entity in our region, one cannot honestly say that the arbitrary and harsh nature against which the Egyptian people revolted is unique to these regimes alone. To say that outrage over what happens in Iraq and occupied Palestine is the prime motive for the discontent of these people is a crass understatement which neatly sidesteps the "elephant in the room", so to speak. This may, perhaps, explain the rather ambiguous conclusion to your article.

Understandably this is an uncomfortable topic to broach, particularly for someone in as sensitive a position as yours. Being an "Arab Citizen" used to mean something once, it was a privilege which granted its owner the right to speak, to be heard, and to be involved in how their country is being governed. It is a privilege which also demanded respect, and to serve the citizenry was a role which instilled a certain sacred awe in government officials. Surely we cannot all be so obtuse as to not recognise this fact?

Sincerely,
Maysaloon

.

Not all Revolutions are Equal - A Comparison between Egypt and Iran

One would think, watching the BBC or CNN, that the Egyptian revolution is winding down and that the people are going back home now that talks have been commenced with the regime. That is not surprising. Since the 25th of January I've found that Western coverage of the protests has, at times, verged on the half-hearted. The picture is completely different with regards to the coverage provided by al Jazeera, that has been providing almost round-the-clock analysis and coverage of the current Egyptian revolution.

The difference between the BBC and the coverage of al Jazeera could not be more different, yet I remember that the BBC seemed to find the so-called 'Green Revolution' in Iran far more fascinating. At the time there was in-depth coverage, analysis and up-to-the-minute information on what was happening in the streets. When Neda Sultan was shot at one of the protests she was immediately turned into the face of that revolution. Yet countless Neda Sultan's were shot dead on the streets of Cairo, Alexandria and Port Said over the past 15 days but we have yet to see a single one of them appear on any Western news outlet. Not one BBC journalist has visited a victim's family, or attended the funeral of any of the protestors. The horrific footage of cars plowing through crowds of protestors or of people being shot in the streets have not provoked as much concern as they would have if they were filmed on the streets of Tehran.

Even the language of Western statesmen has been far more diplomatic and reserved with Egypt than it has been with Iran. In fact the most prominent concern aired for these statesmen has been their fear of a replay on the Iranian revolution in 1979. The idea that Egypt might have a revolution like that of Iran is very unsettling to the West, hence the emphasis by Obama on 'orderly transitions'. This is because the removal of Mubarak is acceptable, but the removal of his regime is not. This regime (inspired by the former president Anwar Sadat) maintains peace with Israel and disrupts the activities of dissenting players in the Middle East such as Hezbullah, Hamas, Iran, or Syria. It is a key ally of the United States and its internal security apparatus help keep the Arab world's most populous and influential country under a tight leash. As a result, all this makes Egypt a prize that is far too valuable to lose.

In a recent blog post I pointed out that it is not wise to equate a day of rage between a country like Syria and that of Egypt. The reason I did that is because these revolutions are not taking place in a vacuum. There is a power struggle in the region between the United States and the regional powers such as Iran, with whom Syria is a key ally. For Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen to drift into the orbit of the 'opposition' states in the region, leaving Saudi Arabia and Jordan alone as US allies, would be very dangerous for the interests of the West in the area, and potentially for the security of the key US ally, Israel. What raises interesting questions in the coverage of Western news outlets between the protests in Egypt and those of Iran is how neatly the coverage coincides with the strategic interests of the United States and her allies. That raises deep concerns about the supposed impartiality and professionalism of these news outlets, but it also gives high hopes for Arabic channels such as al Jazeera that have succeeded in creating an alternative platform for the Arab world to voice its interests.

.

Islamic arguments against revolution - A farce

There is a ridiculous aspect to Sunni political Islam which holds that to revolt against an unjust ruler goes against the teachings of the Qur'an and the teachings of the Prophet. I have heard several people, in recent days, tell me their opinions about the Egyptian revolution, namely that it is forbidden in Islam and that the people who have died at the hands of the police are not martyrs.

Firstly I reject the insinuation that any of the people who died at the hands of the government thugs and police are going to any kind of hell. I don't think that is in anybody's power to make such a judgment. Secondly, I don't believe for an instant that Muslims are expected to be meek little sheep whilst they are ruled by a tyrant who has betrayed his country to its enemies, amassed a personal fortune during his reign and whose thugs are torturing and abusing the people. But I want to look at the arguments that these people make because the Qur'an does say:

ادْعُ إِلَى سَبِيلِ رَبِّكَ بِالْحِكْمَةِ وَالْمَوْعِظَةِ الْحَسَنَةِ وَجَادِلْهُمْ بِالَّتِي هِيَ أَحْسَنُ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ هُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِمَنْ ضَلَّ عَنْ سَبِيلِهِ وَهُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِالْمُهْتَدِينَ

Apparently, khuruj an Wali al Amr(الخروج عن ولي الأمر) or 'revolting against the ruler' is a grave sin. Well I decided to go straight to the fountain head and see what the late Saudi Islamic scholar Abdul Aziz Abdullah Bin Baz said on the subject. Here is a link in Arabic to what his views are on the subject.

Sheikh Bin Baz is a firm believer that it is a grave Islamic sin to rise up against a ruler who is mistreating his people. He starts with a quote from the Qur'an, which will be the strongest part of his argument. This is in the Nissa verses in the Quran.


فقد قال الله عز وجل: {يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُوْلِي الأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ فَإِنْ تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِنْ كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ ذَلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلاً} [النساء: 59].

"Oh you who believe, obey God and obey the prophet and those who lead from amongst you, and if you disagree in a matter then refer it to God and the Prophet and if you believe in God and the Last Day then that is a better solution" verse 59

Bin Baz says this is a comandment to obey those who lead from amongst you. He then lists out the key teachings of the prophet which support his argument. The references are on the link I provided.

1. And he who has a ruler and sees this ruler disobeying God, let him hate the disobeying of God but not let it affect his allegiance to the ruler.

2. And who leaves the group and disobeys, then dies, dies the death of the Great Ignorance.

3. And it is a duty to listen and obey both for what he likes and dislikes. Unless he is commanded to sin, in which case there is no listening or obeyance.

4. (When asked about what to do with rulers who do things that are wrong) Give them their rights and ask God for your rights

5. Unless you see from them blatant blasphemy with evidence before God.

Basically, the sum of Bin Baz's judgement is that if a greater evil were to befall the Muslims then they must not revolt and if they are able to avoid bloodshed in removing the ruler then they can go ahead and do so. In all other cases it is forbidden.

Well, I won't go into the legitimacy or acceptability of Bin Baz giving out judgements. He is highly regarded by many people who adhere to the view I have outlined above. What I will do is pick apart what he said and see if it is still valid.

Firstly, with regards to the Quranic verse 59 in Nissa, then yes, it is a direct command to obey God, the Prophet and those who lead amongst you - اولي الأمر منكم. That is a very important word, Olee al Amr Minkum (those who lead from amongst you) as this is not just a word for a ruler. It is a word which, when translated properly, as I have done, implies that: Firstly the ruler is from amongst the believers; Secondly it implies a certain loyalty and almost democratic legitimacy that the ruler is given in order to lead in the first place.

My argument is as follows. The verse from the Qur'an applies to certain circumstances only. The ruler is appointed from amongst the believers, that is why the word is اولي الأمر منكم, 'minkum' means 'of you' and the Qur'an does not say "Ruler" or "King", even though it uses those words in other contexts, especially when referring to tyrants who opposed the prophets. That's a very important choice of words and I don't think Bin Baz has picked up on it. Why use the word minkum? I think it is because there is a need for legitimacy to be granted to the ruler from amongst his peers before he can be referred to as Wali al Amr. If that legitimacy is not there, the ruler cannot be obeyed regardless of how he has seized power.

If this argument is correct then there is probably not a single ruler in the world that has this mandate. In fact every government in the region has seized power from the previous wali al amr and the one before that, and the one before that. The so-called "Arab Republics" and the Arab kingdoms, cannot, as a matter of logic, have an actual Wali al Amr, let alone one assigned 'minkum' or 'of you', because they all came to power through coups and military revolts, ie. By the very means that Islam is said to prohibit, according to Bin Baz. This chain of reasoning is absent in his arguments and for this reason the rest of his judgement becomes fatally flawed.

The hadith, which are of secondary importance to the verses in the Qur'an for any pious Muslim, should thus be viewed in light of the precise definition of what constitutes a legitimate Wali al Amr. Only then can the teachings of the prophet be considered appropriate to apply in a modern political context such as we see in Egypt. Therefore only then can someone be in a position to say that revolting against that ruler is wrong.

Mubarak was unelected. neither was Sadat nor Nasser. The fact that Nasser was legitimately appointed by popular and outright consent from the people on the street after his attempt to resign in 1967 is important, however, Sadat was not made president through such a process. Yes, he was assigned by Nasser, but Nasser cannot substitute the "Minkum", or "of you" proviso in the Qur'anic verse. Therefore, it was necessary that Sadat too submit to a process of legitimisation by the people upon assuming the presidency when Nasser died. That did not happen. Sadat was assassinated and Mubarak automatically became the next president. Mubarak is said to have fraudulently rigged the outcomes of six elections during the thirty years of his rule. He has no legitimacy as a ruler today and never had any since assuming power. Therefore, it follows that a revolution against Mubarak, Islamic or otherwise, cannot possibly be contrary to Islam and a 'sin' as some misguided people might believe. It is ludicrous to believe otherwise and an insult to common-sense and human decency.

.

سيد مكاوى - قبل ما ترمينى فى بحورك

The amazing Sayid Makawi, enjoy.

.

I really enjoyed Amira Noweira's article on the anniversary of Nasser's death. It made some excellent points on the state of Egypt following his death while still mindful of the man's flaws. I found one paragraph particularly interesting, especially as I have pointed out this hidden, and growing, danger many times before on this blog.

The rich and mighty have deserted public education in favour of private institutions of learning that pride themselves on being non-Egyptian. In Egypt, we now have an amazing array of international schools and universities (British, American, Canadian, French and many others still in the offing), producing graduates who are more competent in foreign languages than in Arabic. All Nasser's schemes for according Arabic its rightful place as the national language of education have been overturned.

This is tragic but true. By the way, on the point of schools producing foreign stooges the Damascus Community "School" is still closed. I am thoroughly impressed with this fact.

.

The death of a spy

The mysterious death of Ashraf Marwan continues to make headlines here. His wife has now claimed that the Mossad is responsible for his death and that, at the time, he had been hard at work on his memoirs which might have exposed various intelligence agencies in the region during the 1970's.

I think it is very likely, from what I have read about this case, that the man was murdered, and naturally a sloppy police investigation and lack of interest from British circles for the death of a very wealthy man of his stature is more than a little bit suspicious. But the question that puzzles me is why would anybody who wants to kill this man have waited for so long after the 1970's to do so? It has been almost forty years since the October War. What, if anything, would his memoirs have said that would be so outrageous to have in the public domain even after all this time? Unless it is not the memoirs, but perhaps something else that made him a target.

I'm sure if Ashraf was killed by somebody who was not liked by the British, there would have been an utter outcry,and no stone would have been left unturned to prove a connection. We saw a stark example of this in the sensational radiation poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, the year before Ashraf's ejection from his expensive London flat. All this makes the silence by the British government absolutely deafening...

.

Egypt back on centre stage?

The steel wall Egypt is erecting on its border with Gaza has given Egypt a whiff of the former importance it once held in the Arab world. Seen as a puppet of the United States, Egypt has, since the signing of the peace deal, moved when the United States has ordered it to, spoken when the United States has ordered it to, and remained silent when ordered to do so. As a result, the role of Egypt has been usurped by countries such as Syria and even Saudi Arabia. But the erection of the steel wall has given Mubarak's regime a leverage that it has long been missing. Iran might be a little concerned about the wall, and Larijani's visit to Cairo last Sunday may be taken as a sign of this worry. Khaled Mishaal in turn has also gone to Tehran, most likely to discuss how Hamas is to deal with Fatah and Egypt during the upcoming negotiations that we will be hearing of.

Where to from here? Iran will allow Egypt a "prominent" role in the Hamas-Fatah negotations, as a broker. A little bone is thrown to Mubarak before he dies and Egypt repays some of the political debt that it has accumulated.

.

Egyptian court 'bans porn sites', apparently they are "destroying Egyptian social values". I have identified another factor which is also destroying Egyptian social values. Click here to see it.

.

It is so sad to see Egypt the way it is today. The country which shook the world with the Suez nationalisation, that gave birth to Gamal Abd al Nasser - today the errand boy for the West and Israel. So what if Hezbullah are arranging supplies and weapons to reach the beseiged Gazans? 

.

I just read on al Jazeera that there has been an explosion in Cairo, killing at least one tourist and injuring another 16 people. The area this took place in is apparently quite a busy tourist destination, so this is definitely aimed at sabotaging the industry. My initial reaction is that this might be the start of an attempt at getting even for Gaza but by whom? I have no idea yet. In December 2008 and early January 2009, the Egyptian government openly assisted with the Israeli state's seige of the people of Gaza and continues to collaborate with the West in preventing aid, weapons and supplies from reaching the besieged Palestinians.

.

The Empire strikes back

The new emperor spoke today, about the challenges of the empire and which men and women he will appoint to deal with the more troublesome parts on its frontiers. John Mitchell gave a boring and irrelevant talk about how committed he was to finding a solution between the Palestinians and the Israelis. I caught his speech from the point where he was saying something about 800 years and how somebody had come over to him and ask him whether he had said 800 years, twice. After replying twice that same person said, "Pah, such a recent argument." I rolled my eyes at such stupid shows, not from Mitchell, but from the quite clearly Zionist charmer who had spoke to him. The Zionists love to orientalise themselves and make themselves to be part of the land. At any point in a conversation with somebody they are trying to impress they will love making some anecdote about how tough and prickly they are from the outside, but sweet on the inside, on how they deal with the harshness of deserts and so on ad nauseum. Forget the fact that they are originally Eastern Europeans or Ashkenazi Jews who are more at home in Europe and North America than in the Middle East. Anyhow, I digress. Obama's speech had nothing but praise for Mubarak's Egypt, he made the usual Israeli pledge of allegiance and reassurance, and he made a number of allusions to the troublemakers in the region, Iran and Syria. For Syria, it was the promise of a potential peace deal, for Iran, a warning against supporting "terror" groups, that is Hamas and Hezbullah, as well as the many armed groups in Iraq. There will be more of the same support for "moderates" in the region, a strong endorsement of Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority, and a reiteration of his "commitment" to a "two-state solution". No American president's speech would be complete without an 'acknowledgement' of the suffering on "both" sides of this conflict, Palestinian and Israeli. Duly noted Mr. President. [middle finger here]

Oh and of course he promised not to torture people anymore, ordering the closure of Guantanamo and saying something about the people of the United States possessing values of some sort. I haven't a clue what these are, but I'm sure it would be a good idea if they did. There was actually little mention of Iraq, in the part of the broadcast that I managed to catch, and this was a little bit surprising.

It was very interesting that there is now one vizier, Richard Holbrooke assigned for both Pakistan and Afghanistan. This shows how bad the situation is now and how clear it is that Pakistan is now sinking into the battle between America and whoever it is fighting there. I couldn't help but wonder how soon it would be before there was a full scale American ground assault in the North Western provinces of that country. This might not be Obama's style, I think massive aid to strengthen the government of Pakistan will probably be more likely, but who knows. The first one hundred days of a US presidency are usually the key ones which define what comes later so let us see. I noted with some interest how Holbrooke considered John Negroponte as his friend. Also he felt it very important to reassure listeners that he took Pakistan very seriously, respecting its culture and history and so on. There will be interesting developments there soon I expect.

Doesn't everybody think it very interesting that the United States, said to be the world's greatest superpower, is unable to subdue the people of an area from the Mediterranean to central Asia? A new era of American power is indeed emerging, the empire is gathering its strength for a renewed strike, with flowers and guns this time. When this does reach a good momentum, we will see many people who secretly idolise the United States in the Arab world start singing its praises again. There will be a resurgence of "moderation" again, up until now a dirty word thanks to the honest and frank brutality of the Bush administration. I have surprised many people in the past by saying I preferred John McCain or even George Bush as presidents. People saw the ugly face of America for what it was. Well, the mask is now on and the same fools who always wanted to believe will again believe, and those who always rejected the lies will continue to be steadfast. It will be good now that the lines have become clearer.

.

This is Mubarak's Egypt...

(taken by Serene, published with permission)

.

"Mubarak" by Ahmad Fouad Negm

.

My translation: Misplaced Egyptian Anger

Abd al Bari Atwan
30/11/2008

Whoever follows the developments in Egypt these days would come up with the strong impression that the country is akin to a large body with no head, and if there is a head, it is without vision. For this reason the situation is deteriorating rapidly like a massive truck with no brakes.

Egypt's activities are now limited to two main roles:
The first is on how best to abuse the Palestinians of Gaza and to turn their lives into an unbearable hell through the tightening of the seige and preventing Haj pilgrims and the sick from travelling. The second role involves inciting the countries official newspapers into fiercely attacking this or that Arab country which has dared to even mildly criticise Egyptian policy, or been nominated, or competed, for any role which could threaten Egypt's position as a regional and international player.

In order that we are not accused of sinking into generalisations, and to steer clear of naming things with their names, we say that the preoccupation of some of the official Egyptian newspapers these past few days is to make vicious attacks against Syria, and it's foreign minister Walid al Moualem, for asking the government of Egypt, during an emergency meeting for the Arab foreign ministers on the developments in the Palestinian cause, to stand an equal distance between the two opposed Palestinian factions, that is, Fatah and Hamas. He said "any talk of carrying out elections in the midst of this Palestinian division would only deepen the quarrels and increase their bitterness", wishing that the other party (ie, Hamas) would be given the chance to present their view at the meeting. This is all very normal and is repeated by many Arab officials, and is published by many Egyptian newspapers on an almost daily basis. However Mr Moallem had committed a grave sin, in fact a mortal sin in the eyes of the Egyptian government and a spokesman for it disregarded all diplomatic protocols by accusing the Syrian foreign minister of "political bidding", describing his words as "empty talk" and reiterating Egypt's commitment to a resolution for the Palestinians and their just cause.

Prior to this "undiplomatic" spat Mr Boutros Ghali, the Egyptian treasury minister, launched a veiled attack against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, criticising its taking part in the G20 summit that had recently taken place in Washington to discuss the global financial crisis and for representing the Arab region. Skeptical of such representation, he criticised their abilities and suitability for such a role, hinting that Egypt was much more deserving as a greater country in this area. Mr Ghali later had to apologise for his remarks, withdrawing his earlier statements which were made on CNN and that we all watched and heard. This was after the Saudi treasury minister responded to him in a "polite" and effective manner, claiming that such claims were surely misquoted or were dealt with selectively by the American broadcaster.

What the official spokespeople of the Egyptian regime are unaware of, as well as some of their official media outlets, is that the fault does not lie in the others, but in the regime itself, which has abandoned its role, and the status of its country to others voluntarily and in a frightening manner. For nobody would dare to encroach on Egypts role, for the simple reason that the role does not exist anyway. The Egyptian regime has withdrawn from the circle of Arab action both regionaly and internationaly for some time, and even within the circle of action internally, leaving the country as an open arena for the whales who are the country's businessmen and their mafia's to plunder the country, carrying out every form of thuggery imaginable, the latest that we had seen being the murder of the Lebanese singer Suzanne Tamim. Were it not for the government of Dubai insisting on exposing all the dossiers on the case as well as all those involved in it, we would probably have never heard of the crime at all, and it would have remained under a cloak of silence, exactly like the murder of the Tunisian singer Thikra.

If only this Egyptian regime had contented itself with withdrawing from the region militarily, politically and culturally only, for it had also carried out a concerted demolition operation against its natural allies, leaving a vacuum which other regional, non-Arab, countries rushed to fill in immediately. For this regime has collaborated with America and with Gulf states on destroying Iraq, and allied itself with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in order to isolate Arab Syria, and met with Israel with regards to choking the Palestinian resistance, and subduing it, either by blowing up tunnels, closing border points, or by being siding completely with the Palestinian faction which has surrendered completely and utterly, surviving on the scraps of assistance from America and the West, and which considers the resistance a waste of time and terrorism.

For it is not a coincidence that the Egyptian regime does not intervene and open the Rafah crossing for a few hours, or days, everytime the seige intensifies in order to attract attention. Or in resorting to sabotaging the Egyptian, Arab or international media campaigns which aim to shed light on the suffering one and a half million Palestinians who are being subjected to death and starvation and the shortage of petrol, food and medicine, and by acting as the mediator to save Israel, and itself, due to the growing problem of inflation facing the Egyptian and Arab people, by opening the Israeli crossing points for a few hours only, in order to absorb this problem, as well as ruining any efforts by the Egyptian opposition to carry out demonstrations and caravans in aid of their besieged brethren.

Egyptian national security is not under threat, at least in the eyes of this regime and its cronies, unless from the starving of the Gaza strip only, for these deserve to have their legs broken, and their necks, if they cross the borders searching for morsels of bread or to buy a carton of milk for their children. As for the pirates of the Gulf who had cut traffic through the Suez canal by half, and prevented the Egyptian people of almost 3 billion dollars this year, these are angels and one should not interfere with them, or stop their dangerous activities. Heaven forbid unless it was a pathetic regional summit for the countries on the Red Sea and that no one would care about, and which would not take any kind of action, apart from protesting mildly.

Official Egypt is entirely absent, for it has no role in the Darfur crisis, and no prominent position in the African Union, and nobody remembers or mentions it when the security of the Gulf is discussed, or when the global financial crisis is mentioned, or even with regards to the security of shipping in the Red Sea. If its president visited a European country, or even an Arab one, nobody bothers reporting on this, and if it is reported, the story is published at the bottom of one of the inner pages. This is the reality that many are ignoring within the circles of officialdom in the Egyptian regime, and none of those who are benefitting from it dares mention it. For this reason the situation is deteriorating in Egypt, and with it the Arab situation, as well as Islamic, for Egypt "was" a great regional power, in fact the strongest country in the non-aligned bloc, and had advanced once on India, which is now rapidly becoming a world power which competes with the United States and China as a democratic power and economic one with nuclear military muscles.

Egypt, in short,is in need of an intifada, either from within the regime or without, which would restore its status and respect. An intifada which rises to the popular level with its potential, sacrifices and innovation, returning her to the sphere of action as a regional great power with an opinion on the Arab-Israeli conflict and the security of the Gulf, and the crisis of the African continent, its backyard, and the worsening situation in Iraq and the world economic crisis. Also as a power to compete with the Turkish and Iranian influences, and to face the Israeli arrogance which truly threatens Egyptian national security.

Only then will Egypt regain its seat at the G20 summits, representing not only the Arabs but the Muslims, and the great powers and the regional ones will take it seriously. For Egypt is greater than being limited to a role with regards to the Rafah crossing, and closing its borders in the face of the Haj pilgrims and the sick, and playing the role of postman for Israel's requests for a ceasefire, or as a mediator in the file on the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

.