Live: Al Jazeera coverage of Egypt’s growing revolution

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Live: Al Jazeera coverage of Egypt’s growing revolution

Postby JackRiddler » Mon May 30, 2011 6:08 pm

.

Time has come to put this back on track.

There may still be those who haven't read Alice's greatest of all reports, so to start the new page, let's repeat it one last time.

Egypt, I salute you!

AlicetheKurious wrote:Truly Egypt is the land of miracles. We experienced one first-hand, yesterday.

The euphoria that accompanied the dictator's removal on February 11 had entirely dissipated. In the state media, nothing but bad news about the economy, about the emergence of crazy fanatic groups and sectarian violence, crime out of control, rising poverty, politics in disarray, confusing and contradictory reports about the legal proceedings against leaders of the "former" regime, etc., etc. The people seemed hopelessly divided and angry; some were openly blaming the revolution for every problem, including traffic and the refusal of children to do as they're told. The government seemed unwilling or unable to do its job -- all the ministries seemed paralyzed, ineffective and confused about what to do.

The worst, however, was the dawning suspicion (hardening into certainty) among others -- including me -- that the revolution had been hijacked before our very eyes: the masses, and those who had led it and sacrificed so much for it were being locked out of the decision-making process. Instead, it became very obvious that the Armed Forces Council and the Muslim Brotherhood, both of whom were taken entirely by surprise by the revolution and had initially refused to join it, and neither of whom have ever evidenced the slightest interest in "democracy" had somehow managed to take it over and were rapidly laying the foundation for a new dictatorship in a different guise.

First, you have to understand that the Armed Forces Council consists of individuals who are by definition authoritarian, extremely conservative and secretive (we don't even know all their names!!), who have reaped enormous personal and institutional benefits from their close relationship with the United States and, by virtue of the Army's vast business holdings in Egypt (some experts estimate that it controls around 40% of the Egyptian economy), comprise a significant part of Egypt's capitalist elite. At the same time, journalists are legally forbidden to write about the army's top leadership, let alone describe their personal fortunes or criticize them in any way; workers in the many army-owned factories are forbidden by law to form labor unions; and the army has its own parallel police and judiciary that operate according to its own rules on any matter related to "national security", which it has been allowed to define at will.

The Muslim Brotherhood, like the army, has an extremely authoritarian, top-down structure, it is also very secretive, especially at the top. Its leaders enjoy close personal and political ties to elites in the rich oil-producing Gulf states. Paradoxically, the Muslim Brotherhood has long had a populist image because like the army, its regular members are ordinary Egyptians from all classes. Furthermore, the Muslim Brotherhood and the army are both widely considered free of the taint of corruption (bordering on debauchery) that was associated with the Mubarak regime's political elite, and both claim to be national guardians and defenders: the army's sacred mission being to protect Egypt's borders, while the Muslim Brothers' equally sacred mission being to guard Egypt's moral and religious integrity.

For the first four days of the revolution, both were literally paralyzed with panic. The uprising was determinedly non-sectarian, anti-authoritarian, and its key demands were secular and democratic, for a political and economic transformation. By the night of the fourth day, however, the Muslim Brotherhood could see which way the wind was blowing and decided to adjust its sail accordingly. When one of the panicked revolutionary youth, Nawara Negm, telephoned former Muslim Brotherhood Member of Parliament Mohamed Beltagui in the middle of the night on January 28-29 and begged him to do something because they were being attacked by armed thugs in Tahrir Square, the Muslim Brotherhood grabbed the chance: within an hour, thousands of Muslim Brotherhood youths were rushing to Tahrir Square to defend the besieged protesters, which they did bravely and effectively, earning them instant respect and admiration among the vast majority of Egyptians (including me).

Meanwhile, at the army headquarters a decision had been taken, either independently or more likely at the instigation of the US, to ditch Mubarak. Being extremely cautious by nature, however, the army wouldn't burn its bridges just in case Mubarak could somehow manage to turn things around: while sending encouraging messages to the revolutionaries, the army took a "neutral" stance, refusing to attack the revolutionaries but at the same time refusing to defend them from the weapons of the regime's security forces and mercenary thugs. It was only when workers rose up across the nation that they stepped in decisively and ordered Mubarak out. Like the Muslim Brotherhood, the army leadership suddenly found itself hailed as guardians and defenders of the revolution.

To cut a long story short, the army found itself in charge of a country in upheaval, under immense pressure to meet impossibly conflicting demands. The Americans ordered the army to provide a "peaceful transition" to a superficially democratic new regime that will provide internal stability while ensuring that the US' and Israel's interests were not affected. The people charged the army with simply carrying out their demands for genuinely revolutionary transformation, including a radical shift in the nation's economic and foreign policies that would remove it decisively from the Western (and Israeli) sphere of influence. Suddenly and with no preparation, the army found itself thrust into the spotlight, its leaders forced to communicate with and explain and defend their decisions to a suddenly assertive public, something that they have no experience or skills at doing, and which freaked them out.

What to do? What to do? I believe that at this point, the Muslim Brotherhood approached the Armed Forces Council with what must have seemed like a perfect plan: if the Armed Forces Council would play along and "give" them the next parliament, and thus the power to oversee the creation of Egypt's new constitution, the Muslim Brotherhood would ensure that the army got the nation's presidency, and everybody would be happy. The people would have their "democracy", with genuinely elected leaders to run their internal affairs, the Muslim Brothers would dominate the country's internal politics and at the same time the president would prevent any serious change to the country's foreign policy or general direction.

The Muslim Brotherhood's main selling-point was that they had the street creds and the disciplined cadres and the populist support to deliver voters. What they wanted from the Armed Forces Council was to take advantage of its temporary but absolute power to shape the legal and security landscape to promote the Brotherhood and prevent other players, especially the revolutionary and liberal elements, from mounting an effective challenge.

I believe that the Armed Forces Council, cautious as ever, decided to test whether the Muslim Brotherhood could walk the walk, not just talk the talk, and that the March 19th referendum on constitutional amendments was this test. The subject of the referendum was 8 amendments to the old constitution, almost all dealing with personal qualifications for presidential candidates (like he or she can't have a foreign spouse, etc.), none dealing with presidential powers or other substantive issues. Bizarrely, the Muslim Brotherhood fought for the "yes" camp as though their very lives depended on it. On the other side, almost all the revolution's leadership, as well as the religious leadership of the Copts, liberals, secularists, businesspeople, and labor unions supported the "no" side, arguing that the old constitution was tailor-made for a dictatorship and, since the revolution had nullified it, it was crazy to re-legitimize it with a few minor amendments.

But the Muslim Brotherhood (and the Armed Forces Council) played dirty. While the Armed Forces Council gave people only a few days to even read the amendments and then rigidly enforced a legal clampdown on any media coverage 48 hours before the referendum, the Muslim Brothers were allowed to hang enormous banners in the poorest neighborhoods proclaiming a "yes" vote to be a religious duty, and to distribute pamphlets and food packages in green bags with "YES" printed on them. Then they mobilized rural preachers in village mosques and got the Salafists on board in popular neighborhoods. Like Tea Partiers in the US identifying universal health care as an insidious communist plot, they claimed that the real reason the "no" camp wants to get rid of the old constitution is because of Article 2, which Sadat inserted and which says, "Islam is the religion of the state and Arabic is its language." The "no" camp's protests that they have no problem with Article 2 fell on deaf ears. They supplemented the religious appeals with arguments to the middle class that the "yes" vote means "yes" to economic and political stability and that "no" means prolonging the uncertainty. Another of their effective talking points was that a "no" vote would alienate the Armed Forces Council, but that a "yes" vote would affirm the public's support for the AFC and at the same time speed up their withdrawal from civilian politics.

Bottom line, the Muslim Brotherhood ran a campaign for the "yes" vote that was a masterpiece of deceit and demagoguery. When the votes were counted, 77.8% had voted "yes" and 22.2% had voted "no". The "no" camp didn't see it coming and emerged shell-shocked from the experience. In contrast, the Muslim Brotherhood dropped its conciliatory and humble mask and began talking and acting like they owned the country. As for the Armed Forces Council, clearly it had seen enough. Suddenly it began issuing law after law that violated the spirit and every principle of the revolution and ignoring the consequent outcry. In each case, all the political forces were opposed, except for the Muslim Brotherhood, which enthusiastically supported them. Tellingly, the Armed Forces Council, after declaring the results to be a triumph of democracy, nullified the results by issuing a "Constitutional Decree" comprising 62 clauses which voters had never seen before and had certainly not voted on. The Muslim Brotherhood solemnly hailed the Armed Forces Council's allegiance to the revolution and to democracy.

It was during this same period that Egypt began experiencing a bizarre and unprecedented outbreak of sectarian attacks against churches and mosques, to which the Armed Forces Council responded with inexplicable passivity. The state media began issuing alarmist headlines about the imminent collapse of the economy, and for the first time it became acceptable for state-owned newspapers, radio and television to attack the revolution and accuse its instigators of "sowing chaos" and destroying the country. "Soon, because of you, we will all become beggars!" they screamed. Those economic experts and political analysts who tried to respond with facts and logic, were banned and relegated to the few independent media outlets and the internet. Still reeling in the aftermath of the March 19 referendum, and struggling to deal with the rapid-fire emergence of seemingly random crises, the revolutionaries found themselves on the defensive at every turn and treated with arrogance and contempt by both the Armed Forces Council and their strutting partners, the Muslim Brotherhood.

It took a while, but sometime during the past two weeks or so, the revolutionaries were finally able to overcome their denial, and fully recover from the referendum fiasco. The actions of the Armed Forces Council and the Muslim Brotherhood, and all the seemingly random pieces suddenly clicked together seamlessly and the picture became all too clear. They became angry, and began to fight back. The internet and the independent media raged with accusations against both, backed with documents, video clips and eyewitness testimonies. Clearly, the regime was still in place and this time the people will not be pacified until it was well and truly cleaned out. No more Mr. Nice Guy.

A date was set, May 27th, to revive the revolution and to demonstrate that its demands are not negotiable. The state media instantly reverted to its true role, with wall-to-wall lies and cheap propaganda on behalf of power. The government ministers who were associated with the Mubarak regime issued dire warnings about the disastrous cost to the nation of further instability caused by "irresponsible elements". The Muslim Brotherhood shrilly accused the revolutionaries of "ignoring the people's will" as manifested in the referendum results and of trying to create a new dictatorship in the name of the revolution. They accused people of disloyalty to the great "people's army" and of conspiring to create dangerous divisions between Egypt's armed forces and its people. The Salafists issued dire warnings about "infidels and Liberals" trying to destroy Islam. The Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists ordered all Muslims to boycott the demonstration. Instead, they called for a massive counter-demonstration near Al-Azhar "In Support of the Armed Forces Council".

Even Field Marshal Tantawy took the unprecedented step of speaking directly to the people on tv (most people had never even heard his voice before), to warn people that the country is on the verge of bankruptcy and further demonstrations will only speed up the collapse. Military police began to arrest activists distributing pamphlets calling for the demonstrations on May 27. Finally, as the public anger continued to escalate, the Armed Forces Council began to backtrack a bit, making conciliatory but cosmetic and easily reversible gestures towards people's demands. Then they issued "Communique #58" warning people that on Friday, May 27th, the armed forces would be occupied guarding public property and would not be able to secure any demonstrations or protect the people who participated in them. At the same time, they ominously claimed that there were "indications" that "suspicious elements" "might" be planning to infiltrate or violently attack the demonstrators. I wouldn't even call it a covert threat. It was really quite a campaign; I think they used everything they had to prevent people from going out.

Even the biggest "opposition" party under Mubarak got into the act: it decided to hold its leadership elections on the other side of town at the same time as the planned demonstration.

By yesterday morning, most people were expecting a bloodbath, if indeed anybody was foolhardy enough to show up. The tension was unbelievable. I was so worked up that I decided that no matter what, I was going. I told my husband that he could come with me or not, but I'd be there -- I was damned if I'd let the bastards prance in and pluck the country out of the dead hands of the martyrs who had died and all the thousands who had paid in blood for this country to be free. He moaned and groaned and tried to make me feel guilty about the kids, but this time I wasn't having it. I told him he could stay in that restaurant near Tahrir Square and we'd keep in touch by phone.

As our car approached downtown, I strained to see Tahrir Square. It was still early, and I could make out some large banners, but there didn't seem to be many people. To make things worse, the temperature was already scorching and the sun was unbearably hot, which by itself would keep a lot of people away. My husband said, "See? Nobody's coming." My heart was pounding, because today would either demonstrate that the Muslim Brotherhood was right, and they do indeed control "the street", or it would mark a turning point for the people taking their revolution and their country back. The Armed Forces Council would be forced to pay attention to us again, or else.

We parked in front of the restaurant and went in to find it full of journalists and columnists from Egyptian, Arabic and European media, cadres from various leftist parties, dissident authors and artists, all smiling and friendly but clearly anxious at the same time, just like me. I asked the owner to turn the channel to the wonderful "Tahrir" satellite tv station, which I have come to depend on for reliable coverage of events in Egypt, and he did. The Square wasn't very full, but I and an old activist and veteran of many of Egypt's wars decided to walk there together. The sun really was unforgiving, which is quite normal for this time of year.

When he and I arrived, people were getting ready for Friday prayers, some performing their ablutions with bottled water, others spreading their prayer rugs or even newspapers on the ground. It was still a crowd, but nothing compared to those preceding or even immediately following Mubarak's removal. We walked around a bit, reading the various banners and signs outlining the revolution's demands, most prominently for a constitution first, before parliamentary or presidential elections. Another important demand was for real justice and impartial application of the law, and for the release of political prisoners and an end to military trials for civilians. Some signs demanded a civilian-led presidential council to replace the Armed Forces Council.

We didn't stay long, it was so hot and the prayers were about to start, so we went back to the restaurant, where I gratefully accepted an ice-cold beer, followed by two glasses of water, and talked and joked a bit with some activists. Ahmed, a young man who's been at the heart of the revolution from day one, was at his laptop. "Why aren't you in the Square?" I asked him. "Are you kidding? I'm running Tahrir Square from here!" he laughed, patting his computer. I said hi to a reporter I've met before from Al-Jazeera Arabic and said to him, "When are you people going to stop shoving the Muslim Brotherhood down our throats?" He said, "Give me a break, I'm doing what I can without getting fired!" People were walking past the restaurant towards Tahrir, and I decided to go back, this time for good.

This time, I couldn't believe my eyes. The square was filling up so fast, and still people were coming, streaming in from every direction. Several stages were set up and on each one people were making speeches, each one more amazing and inspiring than the other. The Tahrir tv station had its own stage, and there, a famous movie director was debunking the lies of the Muslim Brotherhood, who claim that they were the ones who defended the demonstrators from attack on February 2nd (the infamous "Camel Attack") -- he said that he was there and saw with his own eyes the people who defended the square that day, and they were all ordinary citizens unaffiliated with any political movement or group. Over and over, people chanted, "Muslim, Christian, we are one hand!" There were Muslim clerics, Coptic priests, people from all walks of life, some desperately poor, some obviously rich. It was Tahrir Square all over again. There were even some Salafists there, and women wearing the niqab. I had the ridiculous urge to ask them, "Don't you know this demonstration is only for ungodly infidels and communists?" I was so excited, I found myself shouting out loud and clapping and smiling at everybody.

Gradually, I became aware of something very strange. The sky had clouded over and a gentle, cool breeze had started. Suddenly the temperature was very comfortable. This was incredible -- this late in the spring, grey skies are very rare and besides, the weather forecasts had predicted clear skies and temperatures of 39 degrees Celsius (just over 102 Farenheit). To make things even weirder, a few drops of deliciously refreshing rain fell on us. The crowd was getting bigger and bigger. A parade walked past, made up of around 30 people carrying a huge flag horizontally over their heads and chanting; some of the signs were humorous, others were dead serious. A prominent banner said, "Armed Forces = Ours; Armed Forces Council = Theirs." One young man carried a large photo of a middle-aged bearded sheikh with the words, "I want my father" printed underneath. I looked at him and laughed out loud, because I thought it was a joke alluding to the Salafists' slogan "I want my sister," about the female converts to Islam who are allegedly kidnapped by the Church. Then, as I turned away, it struck me that this was not a joke, that his father had either been arrested or killed. I quickly went back to him and told him I was sorry, that I had misunderstood. He smiled at me and said, "No need to apologize, you light up the Square." I smiled back and said to him, "God bless you" and continued walking around, savoring "the voice of freedom" and the joyful relief of knowing that the prayers I hadn't even dared to make, had been answered beautifully.

Much later, as I walked back to the restaurant, going against the flow of people heading towards the square, my worries and fears had completely been washed away. The restaurant was now packed tight with people in a celebratory, even exultant mood. Some of the activists were being interviewed on the phone by tv news stations and they were shouting out above the din, "Today the people have spoken loud and clear and declared that the revolution belongs to THEM, not to the Armed Forces Council, nor the Muslim Brotherhood nor any other selfish opportunists!" Lots of people were remarking about the strange weather and one well-known political analyst said to me, "It turns out God is a Liberal, after all!" I laughed and said, "No, God is a secularist!"

That evening, I watched the coverage on tv. I didn't even bother to watch the state tv, but turned first to al-Jazeera Direct Egypt, to savor the blustering bald-faced lies of the Muslim Brotherhood spokesman, who claimed that the Brotherhood had most certainly NOT boycotted the demonstration, in response to the nearly gleeful interventions of the other guests. It was hilarious, listening to him telling them that this hostile interpretation of the day's events is unnecessarily divisive and undemocratic.

Then I turned to the Tahrir tv station, where I was able to see the pathetic demonstration that the Brotherhood had organized near al-Azhar. I'm not usually vindictive, but after all their antics and their puffery, and their betrayal of the revolution, they sure deserve to be exposed and shamed, and they sure are. The rest of the coverage was all about the magnificent day's events in Tahrir Square and all around our great nation.

We were knocked down for a while, but now we're back.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Live: Al Jazeera coverage of Egypt’s growing revolution

Postby lupercal » Mon May 30, 2011 6:13 pm

Gil Scott-Heron - The Revolution Will Not Be Televised


Track 7 from The Soul of the Black Panther Era Vol 1.
Originally from his 1970 album, Small Talk at 125th and Lenox.

And no, the revolution will not be televised.  RIP Gil Scott-Heron, April 1, 1949 – May 27, 2011.
.......................................................
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
You will not be able to stay home, brother.
You will not be able to plug in, turn on and cop out.
You will not be able to lose yourself on skag and skip,
Skip out for beer during commercials,
Because the revolution will not be televised.

The revolution will not be televised.
The revolution will not be brought to you by Xerox
In 4 parts without commercial interruptions.
The revolution will not show you pictures of Nixon
blowing a bugle and leading a charge by John
Mitchell, General Abrams and Spiro Agnew to eat
hog maws confiscated from a Harlem sanctuary.
The revolution will not be televised.

The revolution will not be brought to you by the
Schaefer Award Theatre and will not star Natalie
Woods and Steve McQueen or Bullwinkle and Julia.
The revolution will not give your mouth sex appeal.
The revolution will not get rid of the nubs.
The revolution will not make you look five pounds
thinner, because the revolution will not be televised, Brother.

There will be no pictures of you and Willie May
pushing that shopping cart down the block on the dead run,
or trying to slide that color television into a stolen ambulance.
NBC will not be able predict the winner at 8:32
or report from 29 districts.
The revolution will not be televised.

There will be no pictures of pigs shooting down
brothers in the instant replay.
There will be no pictures of pigs shooting down
brothers in the instant replay.
There will be no pictures of Whitney Young being
run out of Harlem on a rail with a brand new process.
There will be no slow motion or still life of Roy
Wilkens strolling through Watts in a Red, Black and
Green liberation jumpsuit that he had been saving
For just the proper occasion.

Green Acres, The Beverly Hillbillies, and Hooterville
Junction will no longer be so damned relevant, and
women will not care if Dick finally gets down with
Jane on Search for Tomorrow because Black people
will be in the street looking for a brighter day.
The revolution will not be televised.

There will be no highlights on the eleven o'clock
news and no pictures of hairy armed women
liberationists and Jackie Onassis blowing her nose.
The theme song will not be written by Jim Webb,
Francis Scott Key, nor sung by Glen Campbell, Tom
Jones, Johnny Cash, Englebert Humperdink, or the Rare Earth.
The revolution will not be televised.

The revolution will not be right back after a message
bbout a white tornado, white lightning, or white people.
You will not have to worry about a dove in your
bedroom, a tiger in your tank, or the giant in your toilet bowl.
The revolution will not go better with Coke.
The revolution will not fight the germs that may cause bad breath.
The revolution will put you in the driver's seat.

The revolution will not be televised, will not be televised,
will not be televised, will not be televised.
The revolution will be no re-run brothers;
The revolution will be live.

http://www.gilscottheron.com/lyrevol.html
User avatar
lupercal
 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:06 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Live: Al Jazeera coverage of Egypt’s growing revolution

Postby AlicetheKurious » Mon May 30, 2011 8:10 pm

JackRiddler wrote:.

Time has come to put this back on track.


Definitely. I'm happy to report that since Saturday we've witnessed some positive fallout from the May 27 protests. If there was indeed a dangerous partnership agreement between the AFC and the Muslim Brotherhood, it appears to have been seriously, hopefully irrevocably, damaged. The Muslim Brotherhood, as usual, overplayed their hand and lost, big time. There is a clear shift in momentum to the street. Since Saturday alone, the AFC has issued not one, but three communiques emphasizing that there is no legitimacy without the people's approval, and confirming their commitment to the revolution's goals and to the necessity of achieving a public consensus on major decisions. Their tone is noticeably more humble and conciliatory. The AFC has been contacting the groups and individuals most associated with the revolution and inviting them to engage in a national dialogue to chart the transition to democracy in a way that the people find acceptable. Good stuff. Most importantly, the revolutionaries are reinvigorated and aggressive, demanding guarantees and specifics and setting important conditions for their participation. There's a lot of mobilizing and organizing going on. As always, time will tell, but the outlook is much, much brighter now than it was before Friday.
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Live: Al Jazeera coverage of Egypt’s growing revolution

Postby beeline » Tue May 31, 2011 4:39 pm

Link

Egyptians decry 'virginity tests' on protesters

MAGGIE MICHAEL

The Associated Press

CAIRO - Activists and bloggers are pressing Egypt's military rulers to investigate accusations of serious abuses against protesters, including claims that soldiers subjected female detainees to so-called "virginity tests."

Bloggers say they will hold a day of online protest Wednesday to voice their outrage, adding to criticism of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, which took control of the country from ousted President Hosni Mubarak in February.

In the face of the criticism, four journalists along with a prominent blogger were summoned for questioning by the military prosecutor, according to a rights group. They were released without charges.

Hossam el-Hamalawy, the blogger, tweeted: "The visit to the military prosecutor became a chat, where they wanted clarifications for my accusations."

The virginity test allegations first surfaced after a March 9 rally in Cairo's Tahrir Square that turned violent when men in plainclothes attacked protesters and the army intervened forcefully to clear the square.

One woman who was arrested spoke out about her treatment, and Amnesty International further documented the abuse allegations in a report that found 18 female detainees were threatened with prostitution charges and forced to undergo virginity tests. They were also beaten up and given electric shocks, the report said.

Egypt's military rulers have come under heavy criticism from the youth protest movement, which is upset at the pace of reforms that they hope will lead Egypt to democracy.

Leaders of more than 20 youth groups on Tuesday turned down an invitation from the military government for a "national dialogue" meeting on Wednesday, saying it was hastily called while human rights violations and attempts to silence critics continued. The invitation was issued two days before the conference was to be held.

"The way revolutionary groups were invited to the dialogue indicates lack of seriousness in dealing with them," the groups said in a statement. "We can't accept this dialogue in light of the military trials of revolutionaries, violations of military police, lack of investigations into those."

Since Mubarak's fall on Feb. 11, the military has led crackdowns on peaceful protests, and critics accuse it of failing to restore security in the streets or launch serious national dialogue on a clear path forward for Egypt.

The military council denied soldiers attacked protesters at the March 9 rally. But one general used a news conference to make negative remarks about women who mingle with men during the sit-ins and suggested lewd acts were taking place in protest camps.

"There were girls with young men in one tent. Is this rational? There were drugs; pay attention!" Gen. Ismail Etman, the council spokesman, said at the end of March.

He confirmed then that the military police arrested 17 female protesters among 170 others at the March 9 rally. He said the women were among a group of protesters given one-year suspended prison sentences.

"We secure the people. We don't use the violence," he said.

At the peak of the protests, the now-ousted regime sought to characterize the protesters as a group of rambunctious youth more intent on spreading chaos than genuine reform. Even after Mubarak's ouster, that notion carries some resonance in Egypt's conservative society, where the idea that unmarried women would spend the night with strangers , albeit in public , carried the tacit implication that the women were loose.

One of the women arrested, Salwa el-Husseini, gave a detailed account at a news conference in March of her treatment and said she was made to undergo a virginity test.

She said she was slapped in the face and subjected to electric shocks in her legs before being taken to a military prison.

"When we went to the military prison, me and the girls, we were placed in a room with two doors and a window. The two doors were wide open," she said. "The girl takes off all her clothes to be searched while there were cameras outside filming to fabricate prostitution charges against us later on," she added.

"The girl who says she is single, she undergoes a test by someone; we don't know if he is a soldier or some kid on their behalf," she said.

Amnesty said in its report that one of the women told her jailers she was a virgin but was beaten and given electric shocks when the test supposedly proved otherwise.

"Forcing women to have 'virginity tests' is utterly unacceptable," the Amnesty report said. "Its purpose is to degrade women because they are women."

The military council has promised to return the country to civilian rule after elections later this year, but some Egyptians fear the council is adopting the same autocratic ways that characterized Mubarak's rule. They point to what they say are attempts by the council to make any criticism of the military taboo.

The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information, in a statement Tuesday, said that the questioning of journalists or bloggers was an attempt to silence critics and create "an atmosphere of fear."

It warned: "The military council is committing a grave mistake if it continues to shut the mouths of those criticizing it. The council is not made up of angels."

The group also referred to virginity tests, saying that the military council is aware that "those belonging to it have practiced torture against the youth of the revolution and has subjected women to virginity tests."

Also Tuesday, in a rare move, Egypt's interior minister ordered an investigation into reports that a detainee was tortured to death in police custody. Torture of prisoners was a main issue that sparked the revolt that toppled Mubarak..
User avatar
beeline
 
Posts: 2024
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 4:10 pm
Location: Killadelphia, PA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Live: Al Jazeera coverage of Egypt’s growing revolution

Postby JackRiddler » Tue May 31, 2011 7:13 pm

.

Updates: Syria, Yemen, Saudi/Bahrain/UK

21 massacred in Yemen. Sorry that my first thought can be classed as cynical, but it's just true: When is the ICC going to indict Saleh the way it has Gaddafi? Ha.

As with Libya, very foggy, who's really who? Things now complicated by "dissident army commanders" claiming Saleh allowing "Al-Qaeda" to capture town of Zinjibar to justify his rule.

Second story, UK training Saudi and Bahraini forces in helping the oil kingdoms suppress their uprising. As we've seen, the strategy is to coopt transitions with "aid" in the republics and help the oil kingdoms kill anyone they need to remain in power.


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/30/y ... nstration/

Yemeni forces kill 21 protesters at sit-in demonstration

By Agence France-Presse
Monday, May 30th, 2011 -- 6:49 pm


SANAA – Forces loyal to Yemen's embattled president killed 21 protesters as they crushed a sit-in demonstration in Taez, an organiser said on Monday, as suspected Al-Qaeda gunmen killed six soldiers in the south.

Security service agents backed by army and Republican Guards stormed the protest against President Ali Abdullah Saleh in the city's Freedom Square, shooting at demonstrators and setting fire to their tents, protesters said.

"At least 20 protesters have been killed," one protest organiser said.

Another protester was killed when police and Republican Guards opened fire later Monday to prevent dozens of demonstrators from returning to the square, a protester said.

The four-month-old sit-in in Taez, south of capital Sanaa, was the longest-running protest against Saleh's rule.

Troops backed by tanks also stormed a field hospital and detained 37 of the wounded receiving treatment there, among hundreds rounded up as security forces pursued the protesters into nearby streets, medics and organisers said.

"This was a massacre. The situation is miserable. They have dragged the wounded off to detention centres from the streets," activist Bushra al-Maqtari told AFP.



Protesters said the square had been entirely cleared in Sunday's raid, while security forces stormed a nearby hotel and arrested several journalists.

The official news agency SANA reported that Saleh met Sunday night the military leaders who remained loyal to him, calling them to "strongly resist and respond to the challenges" posed to him by "law-breakers and corrupt", referring to the protesters.

Saleh refused last week to sign an agreement prepared for his departure by the oil-rich Arab monarchies of the Gulf.

The clashes erupted late on Sunday outside a police station near the Freedom Square protest site as around 3,000 people gathered to demand the release of a detained protester.

Police then fired warning shots into the crowd when the demonstrators refused to leave, a local committee of the "Youth of the Revolution" group said.

On March 18, 52 people died when regime loyalists attempted to break up a similar protest against Saleh's rule in University Square in Sanaa. The president declared a state of emergency after the bloodshed.

More than 200 demonstrators have been killed since the protests first erupted in late January in Yemen. Scores more have died in armed clashes between loyalist troops and dissident tribesmen.

In the south, suspected Al-Qaeda militants killed six Yemeni soldiers: two in Zinjibar on Monday, an army officer said, and four more in an overnight ambush of a military convoy near the city, according to a security official.

At least seven soldiers were wounded in the ambush, a medic said.

As the army fought to regain the city, one militant was reported killed by a shell which crashed near Zinjibar's museum and another wounded.

A security official said on Sunday that suspected Al-Qaeda gunmen had taken control of most of Zinjibar, the capital of Abyan province, in three days of fighting during which officials and medics said at least 21 people were killed.

Witnesses said aircraft were carrying out strikes on suspected Al-Qaeda positions east of the city on Monday, amid unconfirmed reports of naval shelling in the Zinjibar area, close to the coast.

Four suspected Al-Qaeda fighters were killed in overnight fighting in Zinjibar, another security source said, but a source close to the gunmen who control much of the city said only two were killed.

A leading tribal dignitary in Zinjibar, Tareq al-Fadhli, told AFP by telephone the situation there was "catastrophic," with "corpses littering the streets, water and electricity cut off, and hospitals no longer functioning."

Many residents have fled, he said.

"The gunmen claim to be part of the "Partisans of Sharia" (Islamic law), which may be a coalition of armed groups," said Fadhli, a former jihadist, adding they carried white banners bearing the same name.

The defence ministry's 26sep.net, meanwhile, said the gunmen were believed to belong to Al-Qaeda, and that 10 had been captured. Ninety-six cases of rockets were intercepted near Zinjibar, it added.

But dissident army commanders have accused Saleh of surrendering the province to "terrorists."

And the Common Forum opposition coalition charged he had "delivered Zinjibar to groups that he has formed and armed, to continue to utilise the spectre of Al-Qaeda to frighten regional and international parties."





http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/30/u ... -uprising/

U.K. admits training Saudi forces used to crush Arab uprising


By David Edwards
Monday, May 30th, 2011 -- 12:24 pm



The British Ministry of Defense (MoD) confirmed last week that U.K troops may have trained Saudi Arabia's national guard before they were used to help crush civil rights protests in Bahrain.

Documents obtained by The Observer under Britain's Freedom of Information Act revealed that British forces regularly instructed the Saudi national guard in "weapons, fieldcraft and general military skills training, as well as incident handling, bomb disposal, search, public order and sniper training."

"All BMM personnel, as well as support costs such as accommodation and transport" was paid for by Saudi Arabia, according to the documents. Up to 20 teams a year are sent to the kingdom.

In March, 1,200 Saudi troops entered Bahrain to help quell demonstrations. The Sunni Saudi royal family was reportedly worried that the Shiite majority in Bahrain could gain control there.

While the U.K. said it was "deeply concerned" about human rights abuses by Saudi troops, the U.S. denied that the operation amounted to an occupation.

"Britain's important role in training the Saudi Arabian national guard in internal security over many years has enabled them to develop tactics to help suppress the popular uprising in Bahrain," the Campaign Against Arms Trade's Nicholas Gilby told The Observer.

"Last year we raised concerns that the Saudis had been using UK-supplied and UK-maintained arms in secret attacks in Yemen that left scores of Yemeni civilians dead," Amnesty International's U.K. Arms Programme director Oliver Sprague said.



"We need a far more rigorous case-by-case examination of the human rights records of those who want to buy our equipment or receive training," he added.

Additional Freedom of Information Act responses obtained by The Independent indicated that Britain also trained Bahraini army officers. That training continued even after the Bahraini royal family began to use the military to crush protests.

"All overseas requests for defense training are considered on a case-by-case basis and it would not be provided if we thought such training would lead to human rights abuses," an MoD spokesman said. "Indeed, providing training to the same high standards used by UK armed forces helps to save lives and raise awareness of human rights."

At least 29 people have died in demonstrations in Bahrain since February. Hundreds more have been injured.






http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/01/world ... nted=print
Archived here as fair use with link to original for strictly non-commercial purpose of advancing ongoing discussion and debate.


May 31, 2011
To Much Skepticism, Syria Issues Amnesty
By LIAM STACK and KATHERINE ZOEPF

As nationwide protests in Syria entered their 12th week, President Bashar al-Assad issued a general amnesty on Tuesday, Syrian state media reported. State television and Syria’s official news agency reported that the amnesty would be broad and would include members of the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, but details issued late in the day by the government indicated that it amounted to sentence reductions for certain crimes.

The announcement appeared to be part of an emerging pattern in Syria, where Mr. Assad has several times issued decrees that appear to answer protesters’ demands for greater freedom, while his security forces continued to kill and detain those who demonstrate. Human rights activists say security forces have killed more than 1,000 protesters and arrested more than 10,000 people since the demonstrations began in mid-March.

Syria’s official government news agency, SANA, announced the president’s amnesty offer in a red banner headline marked “urgent” at the top of its Web site. State television also announced the amnesty in an evening broadcast and, according to The Associated Press, reported that it would cover all crimes and members of all political parties, including the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood. Membership in the Muslim Brotherhood has been a capital offense in Syria since 1980, and it was not immediately clear what effect, if any, the new decree would have on the organization’s legal status.

Later in the evening, however, the Syrian government released more specific details about the nature of the amnesty, via SANA. Though the term "general amnesty" was still used on SANA’s English-language Web site, the pardon appeared to be limited to to little more than sentence reductions for some crimes.

Mr. Assad’s offer came at a time of growing public outrage, fueled by a video of the tortured and battered body of a 13-year-old boy who had been arrested in April at a demonstration near his home in the southern village of Jiza.

The State Department, which called the boy’s death “appalling,” appeared to dismiss the amnesty. Syrian state television reported Tuesday evening that Mr. Assad had met with the boy’s family that a committee headed by the deputy minister of the interior would investigate.

Many Syrain activists were skeptical of the amnesty. Razan Zeitouneh, the leader of the Syrian Human Rights Information Link, who is based in Damascus, said the offer was unlikely to have much impact. She pointed out that Mr. Assad had issued pardons previously, most recently last month, and that few people had actually been released.

Abdulkader, a 26-year-old student and pro-democracy activist from Damascus who did not wish to give his full name because he feared reprisals, said that Syrians wanted “deeds not words.”

Joshua Landis, a professor of Middle East studies at the University of Oklahoma, said the amnesty was a gesture of appeasement by a government unlikely to be capable of changing quickly enough to satisfy its citizens. “Almost everyone believes reform is impossible,” Mr. Landis said. “But what they can do is let people out of the prisons. It’s an immediate concession that has an immediate effect on the opposition, but it’s not a structural change at all.”

The president’s announcement coincided with the start of a conference of Syrian opposition groups in the Turkish resort town of Antalya. According to Ammar Abdulhamid, a Maryland-based opposition figure who is attending the conference, about 300 opposition members from various parties and viewpoints have gathered, including more than 50 from inside Syria, who he said had traveled to Turkey at great personal risk.

Liam Stack reported from Cairo and Katherine Zoepf from New York. Hwaida Saad contributed reporting from Beirut, Lebanon, and an employee of The New York Times contributed reporting from Damascus, Syria.

We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Live: Al Jazeera coverage of Egypt’s growing revolution

Postby JackRiddler » Tue May 31, 2011 10:19 pm

.

So Baradei dropped out? I didn't find a story on that other than this run-down of current candidates. Prishad (second article) seems not to have heard.

Zeinobia features video and photos from May 27 rallies all around Egypt -- the biggest apparently in Alexandria, even bigger than Tahrir.


http://egyptianchronicles.blogspot.com/ ... -over.html

#May 27 in Videos and photos : All over the country

Ok today is May 28th and we began to see videos and photos from around the country not only Cairo from #May 27, I do not care how big the protests were outside Cairo and Alexandria but I care about the fact that people went , normal people away from any political affiliation went to the protests despite the media intimidation and the hot weather.

You must know that the biggest recorded protest for sure was in Alexandria where not less 1/2 million protesters went to the streets while in Cairo the biggest estimation of Tahrir protesters were between the highest estimation 500,000 and the lowest estimation in the rush hour 200,000.
An panoramic view for Tahrir square

I will start with protests from Upper Egypt because they were the big surprise to me. Despite the number of protesters is small but the fact that people went to the street in this extreme hot weather is impressive.

[many videos follow link]





http://arabnews.com/opinion/columns/art ... mments=all

By LINDA HEARD | ARAB NEWS
New Egypt should reflect Tahrir spirit

People know that swapping democracy for theocracy could ignite a civil war to the detriment of all

POST-revolution Egypt is in dire need of a pair of safe hands. The future of this fledgling democracy, burdened by debt, unemployment, poverty, crime and sectarian violence, is in the balance. Ideally, the next president should be a nationalist capable of uniting all Egyptians under one flag; someone who can make tough decisions and who has enough respect on the street to carry them through. As Egyptians have proved, people power can oust corrupt leaderships but it cannot handle the complexities of running a country of 83 million.

There is no charismatic populist presidential candidate in the mold of Jamal Abdul Nasser waiting in the wings. There is no one gifted with the oratorical skills of Nasser or his successor Anwar El-Sadat who could stir hearts and minds and inspire personal devotion. Whoever takes power is likely to be a pale figure in comparison to those giants, although, when Egypt is at such a crucial crossroads, his task will be more challenging than theirs ever was.

Until recently, it looked like a done deal that Arab League’s outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa was set to take the top job. Egyptians of all ages, religions and social strata are familiar with his name while the older generation remembers the time when he was such a popular foreign minister that he became a threat to President Hosnil Mubarak who in 2001 consigned him to the Arab League.

Moussa, aged 74, has a lot going for him. He's an experienced and highly respected politician and career diplomat without airs and graces preventing him from interacting with ordinary folk. He understands the intricacies of foreign policy and has a wealth of influential connections around the world. Moreover, he's very much his own man, unlikely to abandon his convictions under pressure from Israel or its Washington backer.

With Moussa in charge, there is the potential for the Israel-Egypt peace treaty, weighted heavily in Israel's favor, to be renegotiated — and he will likely push for an Israel-Palestinian settlement on the lines of the 2002 Arab Initiative based on Israel's retreat behind 1967 borders. He fully supports the recent Fatah-Hamas détente, believes Egypt's Rafah border with Gaza should be permanently opened — and, in the past, he has blamed the West for not accepting the democratic will of the Palestinian people when they voted freely and fairly for Hamas in 2006.

According to a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center last month, some 89 percent of Egyptians support Moussa's candidacy while 90 percent would favor the head of Egypt's ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces Field Marshall Mohamed Hussein Tantawi should he decide to throw his hat into the ring.

However, there are those who decry Amr Moussa's former association with Mubarak's regime while others say his age is a barrier which is no doubt why he insists he would not seek re-election once his four-year term of office is up.

No sooner had secularist Egyptians and Coptic Christians breathed a sigh of relief at the prospect of Moussa's tenure, the formerly banned Muslim Brotherhood (MB) threw a spoke in the wheel. Throughout the revolution, the MB worked to ingratiate itself with the population at large through a carefully designed PR plan aimed at reinventing itself as a moderate, enlightened, all-inclusive organization with no ambitions to take power. Its leaders were quick to give assurances that the MB would only target 30 percent of all parliamentary seats and would not field a presidential candidate, at least this time around.

The MB's new Freedom and Justice Party that is liberal enough to invite the participation of women and Copts (as though any would consider joining) is a real misnomer when last week the MB joined hands with ultra-religious Salafist groups — including the notorious Jama'a Al-Islamiyya implicated in Sadat's assassination — to form an electoral coalition.

I don't have a crystal ball but in discussions with Egyptian friends I warned that might happen but they responded to a man that such alliance was impossible due to long-held enmity between the MB and Salafists who formerly accused the Brotherhood of diluting their faith in favor of politics. “It was the recent attacks on Islamic groups that brought us together,” explained the MB's lawyer.

This is a marriage of convenience with an unknown following as the Salafists have raised their heads out of nowhere but are believed, like the MB, to enjoy a substantial constituency among the fellaheen and the poorer members of society because of their extensive social welfare programs.

Furthermore, the MB has shown it cannot be trusted. It has not only polluted its newly-moderate mask with Salafists seeking an Islamist state in which women would be forbidden from working and the streets would be patrolled by morality police, it has already reneged on two of its pledges. Instead of 30 percent of parliamentary seats, it now says it will aim for 50 percent while one of its head honchos Abdel Moneim Abul Futuh has just announced his presidential candidacy as a so-called “independent” which is how the MB ran their parliamentary candidates during the Mubarak era.

Worryingly, for those young Egyptians who were ready to give up life and limb for greater freedoms (remember Tahrir Square?), Amr Moussa and Abul Futuh are running neck-and-neck in the popularity stakes with former IAEA chief Mohammed El-Baradei trailing far behind them.

El-Baradei who has lived overseas for decades thought he could return home to be welcomed like a prodigal son whereas most see him as nothing more than an opportunist firmly ensconced in the Western camp despite his efforts to woo the youth movement, the MB, and anyone else prepared to give him the time of day. Personally, I cannot forgive him for his failure to give Iraq's nuclear program a clean bill of health in the run up to the 2003 invasion when I am told by good authority that he had promised to do so long before George W. Bush twisted his arm.


This is not how I remember 2003.

The bottom line is this. Egyptians hold their future in their hands. Do they truly want freedom for the individual, free speech and laws that suit a pluralistic multifaith society? Do they care whether or not the new Egypt is embraced by the international community or viewed as a rogue state? Or are they ready to swap democracy for a theocracy that could ignite a civil war between secularists/Copts and Islamists which may invite outside intervention? As someone who considers Egypt my adopted home, I can only pray that when confronted with the ballot box, they'll choose wisely.

(Sierra12th@yahoo.co.uk)






http://counterpunch.org/ziabari05312011.html

May 31, 2011
An Interview with Vijay Prashad
A Democratic Middle East is Intolerable for Saudi Arabia


By KOUROSH ZIABARI


Vijay Prashad is the George and Martha Kellner Chair of South Asian History and Director of International Studies at Trinity College, Hartford, CT His most recent book, The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World, won the Muzaffar Ahmad Book Prize for 2009.


Ziabari: What's your estimation of the recent developments in the region?

Prashad: A long process of preparation has been afoot in the Middle East and North Africa, The spur for the uprising was in last year’s Russian wheat harvest, which was historically poor. That resulted in the high grain prices worldwide, and the high bread prices. This meant that Mubarak, for instance, sensed too late that the bread issue was going to galvanize the prepared forces into a mass struggle – he increased the subsidy. It helped that in Tunisia the perfect candidate became the match that set afire the desert lands: Mohammed Bouazizi was educated and under-employed, the main bread-winner for his family, denied dignity by a State that had increasingly become little other than a security apparatus to protect the siphoning of wealth to the narrow elite. When the police officer told him he could not park his hand-cart where he wished, it was the last straw for Bouazizi, whose immolation set in motion events that waited for just such an act.

The Tunisia-Egypt wave swept into the Arabian Peninsula. That’s where events ran into some trouble. Saudi Arabia was prepared to go to any length to vanquish the protests in Bahrain, which it has done with armed force against the protestors and continued arrest and detention of the leadership. In Yemen, matters are simplified: there is no need to do a deal to send in troops. The current president is clever: he agrees to depart but knows that he has at least two cards in his back pocket: (1) that the Saudis do not want instability in the peninsula; (2) that the U.S. is petrified of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, located largely in Yemen. Yemen will remain on the front pages of the newspapers because of the courage of the Yemeni people, but there will be no real pressure for regime change there.

What's your analysis of the situation in Libya?

The eastern cities of Benghazi and Darnah have a long-standing association with various Islamist tendencies, and their most hardened sections form part of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. Many of them found their way to Iraq, where they fought in the insurgency against the U.S. In the 1990s, Qaddafi went after the LIFG in Benghazi and Darnah, using helicopter gunships to fire at their protests. The funeral of LIFG’s emir, Ibn Shaikh al-Libi, in Ajdabiya was attended by thousands in May 2009. It is a reflection of the social depth of Islamism. On February 17, 2006, section of this social section protested in Benghazi as part of the Danish cartoon controversy. The Qaddafi regime shot at them, and killed eleven. Out of this event came the third strand of the Libyan resistance, the February 17 movement, a human rights section that had as its main face people like the young lawyer Fathi Terbil.

Qaddafi’s forces arrested Terbil on February 15, 2011, knowing full well that the protests called for two days later would gather the full weight of the resistance to his increasingly autocratic regime. The wave from Tunisia and Egypt had to break in Libya, and it would of course begin in Benghazi. Qaddafi acted as he would, which is to say, he arrested the main leadership and threatened protests in the hills of the west (in Zintan and Misurata) and in the cities of the east (Benghazi mainly).

It was at this point that the Libyan Revolution began to be hijacked by forces close to the Atlantic powers, whose own interest in Libya is governed by oil Libya, which sits in the center of North Africa, with Egypt on one border and Tunisia on the other, provided the perfect space to launch the Arab Winter. It is not about oil alone, because Qaddafi had been quite willing, even eager, to transact oil to Europe through major Atlantic corporations. The oil is certainly an important matter here, but it is not decisive. What was central was the political issue: to maintain the traditional order of things in the Arab world, with the main pillars of stability intact: Israel, Saudi Arabia and the tentacles of the United States and Europe in the major capitals of the oil lands. No revision of that order was permitted. Libya opened the door to the counter-revolution.

The leadership in Benghazi had already begun to change. A new Transitional government was set up by elites from Tripoli who had defected to the rebellion (Mustafa Abdul Jalil – a former Justice minister, Ali Suleiman Aujali – former Libyan Ambassador to the US, Mahmud Jibril – former privatization minister, General Abdul Fatah Younis) and those who had returned from exile (such as Colonel Khalifa Hifter, who lived not five miles from the CIA headquarters after his aborted coup attempt in the 1980s). They opened their council on February 27, the day after Resolution 1970. Their first order of business was to demand a stronger UN resolution, with active military support for their rebellion.

The Gulf Coordinating Council, Saudi Arabia’s NATO, called for a no-fly zone on March 8. That was the opening salvo. The GCC states controlled a large bloc in the Arab League. On March 12, the Arab League, with pressure from Saudi Arabia, voted for the no-fly zone. The deal was simple: the League, pushed by the GCC, would support the Atlantic plans for Libya, if the GCC was allowed to smash the rebellion in Bahrain. On March 14, GCC troops crossed the causeway that separates Saudi Arabia and Bahrain to smash the Bahraini rebellion. There was no criticism from the Atlantic powers, and the media largely ignored the crackdown. Three days later, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1973. South Africa was strong-armed to support it, but Germany, Brazil, Russia, India and China abstained. That was as good as a negative vote. They worried that this was an abyss.

The air war began, with French strikes first. The Arab League hastily said that it did not know that a no-fly zone would result in such strikes. That was naïve, or disingenuous. What the “humanitarian intervention” did was to make dialogue impossible. The African Union’s team could not go to Tripoli. The Benghazi rebels now felt that they would surely score a military victory against Qaddafi, who felt that he had nothing to lose (particularly after the ICC indictment). The African Union team that eventually traveled to Tripoli and Benghazi returned empty-handed.

UN Resolution 1973 opens the door to arms delivery. US ambassador to the UN Susan Rice inserted a clause that allows for the member states to offer “all necessary measures, notwithstanding Resolution 1970,” which means that despite the arms embargo from February, the US and NATO can offer arms and logistical support to the rebels. All this makes the rebellion beholden to NATO and the Atlantic states; it has very little independence for maneuver. No wonder that Jibril was in Paris, London and Washington, promising a neo-liberal governance strategy for the new Libya.

The Atlantic powers are following the Serbian model: create a rump government (the Benghazi-based Transitional Council standing in for 1990 declaration of Kosovo by its “parliament”), conduct a sustained bombing campaign (the aerial bombardment of Tripoli standing in for the bombardment of Serbia, and more pointedly by the late 1990s, Belgrade), and push the ICC to indict the leader (with Qaddafi a stand in for Milosevic). To take the model to its limit, this means that Libya, likely, will break up as Yugoslavia did. Warfare of the NATO kind along the Serbian model has only this predictable outcome, as it had in Iraq from 2004 to 2007. Mousa Khousa, now in exile, worries that Libya will be a “giant Somalia.”

What's your idea about the situation in Bahrain?

VP: The al-Khalifa dynasty traces its rule to 1783. That’s much longer than the House of Saud, founded in 1932. But the House of Saud has two important advantages. It is the home of the holy sites, and it is the largest reservoir of oil in the world. Bahrain, on the other hand, is a small monarchy, and its oil reserves are slated to run dry during 2011. The al-Khalifa branch is therefore dependent on Riyadh. The Bahraini royals have no freedom of maneuver.

The leading party of the Shi’ites e in Bahrain is the al-Wafeq party, founded in 2001, and led by Ali Salman. It is backed by the clerics of Bahrain, and often takes very peculiar positions (against the hanging of underwear in the University of Bahrain, and for segregated housing between Bahraini nationals and South Asian contract workers). the party commands the loyalty of a very large number of people, a fact admitted by a 2008 U.S. State Department cable (released by Wikileaks). Fear of Iranian influence enables the continuation of the autocracy.

The U.S. poses another problem here. It has a large base in Manama, which houses the U.S. 5th Fleet. That deployment is essential for U.S. war aims in the Middle East, and in the Gulf region – mainly as a deterrent against Iran through the patrolling of the oil lanes. There is no way that the U.S. or the Saudis would allow al-Khalifa to fall and a party like al-Wafeq to come to power. Such an outcome would strengthen what Washington and Riyadh see as the revisionist bloc (led by Iran).

The opposition’s paper al-Wasat has been silenced (its founder, Karim Fakhrawi was arrested on April 5, and died in custody a week later; its main columnist Haidar al-Naimi was arrested and has not reappeared). The struggle is not going to die down in Bahrain, but given the level of repression and the media blockade on it, it is unlikely that the protests are going to have any impact on the entrenched al-Khalifa family.

What will be the impacts of Egyptian revolution on the future of Israel-Egypt relations?

VP: The direction of the Egyptian revolution is unclear. The people are not satisfied with the ouster of Mubarak. They want to upend the regime. This means that they will not be willing to allow the military to continue its rule; the elections will certainly be held in October or November. It is likely that the most organized party might have a chance at it, which is to say that the Muslim Brotherhood might win the presidential election (its candidate is probably Sheikh Hazem Abu Ismail). Or else, if the secular sections field a common candidate, and if they are backed by the elites, this person (such as Mohamed ElBaradei) might win out. ElBaradei is an interesting person, whose own education was in the Non-Aligned foreign policy of his teacher Ismail Fahmi. Fahmi resigned from Anwar Sadat’s cabinet when Sadat went to Camp David to sign the Accords. This is the atmosphere that produced ElBaradei, who remained a strong supporter of international law and the rights of all nations (a pillar of Non-Alignment) as Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency. In other words, what I am saying is that both the Brotherhood and the most credible secular candidate are not going to back the old ways. They are going to craft a new agenda for Egypt’s relationship with Israel. That is certain.

Right after the February 2011 revolution, when Mubarak had been ousted, the new government allowed two Iranian ships, one a frigate, to go through the Suez Canal. This was the first time an Iranian warship had used the canal since 1979. It is a significant sign. It is important to keep in mind that the new government, with Tantawi as head, chose a conventional figure as the foreign minister: they picked Nabil el-Araby, who has worked in the Ministry of External Affairs since the 1970s. He was ambassador to India in the 1980s. In this period, el-Araby led the legal team to Camp David (1978) and to the Taba Conference (1985-89) to settle the terms of the Egyptian-Israeli peace. Nonetheless, right after the February ouster of Mubarak and the entry of el-Araby to office, the old legal advisor sought out Hamas and began to talk about a new strategy for Egyptian-Palestinian relations. One outcome of these talks was the freeing up of the restrictions at the Rafah Border Crossing between Egypt and Gaza on May 28.

The U.S. has already intervened to protect Israel, but with money not through guns. The Egyptian-Israeli peace agreement is held in place by a $1.3 billion annual bribe paid by the U.S. taxpayers to the Egyptian military. This money not only solicits Egyptian support for a treaty that has no popular appeal, but it also strengthens the one institution in Egypt that requires no extension of its power. But that coin means that the Egyptian military is going to be loath to allow any political party to break the deal. This will mean that a transition is only going to happen if Camp David goes off the table. The only other way forward is for the military to be brought under civilian control, which is unlikely. In the short term, any new civilian government is going to make some concessions (such as opening the Rafah crossing), but it will not be able to sustain a total roll-back on the deal. Sheikh Ismail threatens a complete revocation of the deal, a position that ElBaradei is not going to articulate. Whatever the rhetoric, the outcome is going to be far more prosaic.

Do the Arab world uprisings imply the isolation of Israel and increase the chances of its being dissolved? Reports associated with the CIA imply that Israel cannot survive for longer than 20 years. Do you agree with this prediction?

VP: I do not agree with it at all. For one, Israel is here to stay. It is a country of almost eight million people, with a major backer in the United States and a minor one in Saudi Arabia. It has the right to exist, as any nation has the right to exist. To think otherwise is rhetorical.

Nonetheless, the character of the Israeli state and its security are certainly under threat. If it is to be a Jewish State and yet not make a comprehensive and real deal toward the creation of a Palestinian State, it is fated to be mired in a fatal demographic contradiction: by 1976, in the Koenig Memorandum it was clear that there was going to be an increase in the Arab population (now about 20%) and a flattening or even decrease in the Jewish population, hence the insistence on bringing in the Russian Jewish migrants and so on. The only way to seal off a Jewish State, to those who are so inclined, is to ensure that the Palestinians have their own state. But that is not going to happen unless Israel concedes certain fundamental demands, namely questions of security for the new State and reasonable borders and so on.

The Arab Spring has provoked three new elements to the Palestinian struggle: first, the new political unity between Hamas and Fatah; second, the nonviolent protests on the Israeli-Syrian border; third, the push by the Palestinians to go to the United Nations General Assembly and ask for a formal declaration of statehood. It is to undercut this that President Obama tried to offer a concession, the declaration of a state of Palestine based on 1967 border, with swaps to preserve Israel’s sense of security. Obama wanted to make a few modest concessions to circumvent the Palestinian positive dynamic. It would look appalling in the context of the Arab Spring for the U.S. to have to wield its veto against the Palestinians in the Security Council. \ If these three new elements (the unity of the political forces, the nonviolent protests, and the move to the UN) continue, it is going to make things very difficult for the Israeli Right and for the U.S. – they have got used to Hamas’ rockets, which are easy to dismiss and to use. It is much harder to legitimize what Baruch Kimmerling calls the “politicide” of the Palestinians because of peace marches toward the Israeli line of control.

What's your idea about the destiny of the revolutions in the Middle East?

VP: The Arab Spring is remarkable. It has now taken hold in Morocco, where demonstrations have been taking place each day. Syria as well is wracked by protests. What is impressive is the sheer fortitude of the Arab people, who have decided that enough is enough, that even where they might have a decent standard of living, as in the oil rich countries, such as Bahrain, they want more: dignity and democracy. One cannot underestimate the power of democracy, of people having the right to create their world in a manner that suits them, that allows them to live dignified lives. This is an essential lesson re-awakened by the Arab Spring.


Kourosh Ziabari is a young Iranian journalist, media correspondent and literary author.





http://counterpunch.org/patrick05312011.html

May 31, 2011
Illusions and Reality
The Egyptian Revolution in Identity Crisis


By PATRICK COCKBURN

Cairo

Egypt opened its border with the Gaza Strip last week in a radical move that upends the 30-year-old alliance between the US, Israel and Egypt under the rule of President Hosni Mubarak. The Egyptian foreign minister described the blockade of 1.6 million Palestinians in Gaza as “disgusting”. Soon Egypt will reopen diplomatic links with Iran.

Unprecedented changes are also happening at home. Last week the Egyptian prosecutor charged former President Mubarak with the premeditated killing of protestors, corruptly accepting as a gift a palace and four villas at Sharm el-Sheikh ,and involvement in promoting a corrupt deal supplying gas to Israel. The once all-powerful Mubarak has become such a pariah that businessmen in Sharm el-Sheikh, where he once hosted world leaders, are demanding that he be moved from a hospital there because his presence is deterring tourists from visiting the resort.

But for hundreds of thousands of Egyptians who demonstrated in Cairo, Alexandria yesterday these developments, inconceivable at the start year, are not radical enough. Many saw the rallies and marches as the moment to launch a “Second Egyptian Revolution” to shatter the status quo. Frustrated protestors say that Egypt was a military dictatorship before the January 25 revolution and so it largely still is. Orders are handed down by the shadowy Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) without consultation or explanation. Many leading protagonists and cronies of the old regime are still in place. By contrast hundreds of pro-democracy protestors have been sentenced to five years in prison after a 30-minute trial by military tribunals. Torture continues with some female political detainees subjected to humiliating “virginity tests”. Radicals ask why they have been judged so swiftly when the prosecution is slow and subject to such long delays for members of “the Club”, the collective nickname for officials, politicians and businessmen at the heart of the Mubarak regime.

The Egyptian revolution is suffering an identity crisis. Many Egyptians wonder if there was a revolution at all or simply a military coup whereby Mubarak and his cronies were sacrificed so the rest of the Egyptian ruling class could stay in power. But, at the same time, dramatic changes are going on even if part of the reason for them is to head off a more far-reaching revolution. There is also a general recognition that the old system was rotten and dysfunctional to its core.

Egypt today is full of contradictions. Protestors in Cairo’s notorious Tora prison, after being sentenced to heavy terms for continuing street protests demanding prosecution of the Mubarak family, were pleased to find that Gamel and Alaa, Mubarak’s sons, had joined them in jail. They were less pleased to find that, although one of their main demands had been met, they were not being freed.

In theory the balance of forces is heavily in favor of SCAF, but it is very sensitive to public opinion. It wants to draw a somewhat artificial distinction between the patriotic Egyptian army that refused to fire at the people in Tahrir Square, and the corrupt racketeers who ran the Mubarak police state. So far, polls show, Egyptians, particularly in the countryside, take the army at its word.

While keeping power in its hands, the military have been quick to give in to popular demands. To prevent the rallies yesterday becoming the starting pistol for a second revolution, Mubarak and his sons are to be prosecuted; many pro-democracy prisoners have been released; the Rafah border crossing has been reopened and several ministers have been jailed.

Life for most Egyptians has changed very little. For some, like the two million people involved in tourism, it has got worse because the tourists have seen scenes of violence on their televisions and are going elsewhere. Guides at Cairo’s Egyptian Museum and at the tombs and pyramids of Saqqara dolefully sit around with nothing to do or have gone home to sleep. In fact, there could hardly be a better time to visit Egypt, aside from the summer heat, because its greatest monuments can be seen without hordes of tourists getting in the way.

Corruption remains high and inescapable at all levels. One company successfully exporting marble had to go out of business because, although its trading profits were going up rapidly, they were not rising as fast as the demand for bribes by officials who sign essential permits. At a more lowly level an Italian-Egyptian tried to pass his driving test without paying a bribe. He was failed six times. At the seventh attempt his resolve failed and he let a 100 Egyptian pound note (about $20) flutter to the ground. “I think you dropped 100 pounds,” he said to the examiner who promptly replied “No, I think it was 200 pounds.” Soon after he obtained his driving license along with an appreciation as to why Egypt has a worst record for traffic accidents compared to almost anywhere in the world.

Cairo today is full of rumors because nobody knows where real power lies. A dubious newspaper article claiming that Mubarak was about to be amnestied in return for apologizing to the Egyptian provoked a howl of rage. Coptic clerics say the government has to do something about Muslim clerics claiming that Christian churches are full of weapons or, alternatively, with girls who converted from Christianity to Islam and have now been kidnapped by Copts to force them to recant.

Rumors have a political impact. For instance, heavily subsidized bottled gas for cooking has become difficult to get, leading to popular anger over stories that Israel is receiving cheap Egyptian gas thanks to a sweetheart deal corruptly arranged by Mubarak’s associates. The real explanation seems to be that businessmen find it profitable to buy up bottles of subsidized gas, most of which come from Saudi Arabia, and smuggle them to Libya and Gaza where prices are higher and they can make large profits.

Fear of violence has increased. Many households have purchased weapons. The 1.4 million police are demoralized and say they are frightened of exercising their authority because they might not be supported by their superiors. Reformers say members of the old regime are deliberately stoking violence to create nostalgia for Mubarak’s brutal police state.

“The explanation,” said one Cairene, “that anything which goes wrong in Egypt is the result of sabotage or deliberate neglect by Mubarak supporters has been used so often that it has become something of a standing joke.”

A difficulty is that nobody quite knows the extent of problems that were being covered up by the government over the last 30 years. Even something as simple as the number of road deaths is uncertain with the Interior Ministry saying they were 7,000 in one recent year, while international organizations suspect the real figure is 13,000. National statistics say that 21 per cent of the 80 million Egyptians live in poverty but economists believe the true figure may be much worse.

The military have so far been surprisingly effective in reassuring those with a stake in the status quo that nothing much will change, while insisting to the pro-democracy protestors that a new era is dawning. It is not a balancing act that can go on for ever.


Patrick Cockburn is the author of "Muqtada: Muqtada Al-Sadr, the Shia Revival, and the Struggle for Iraq

We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Live: Al Jazeera coverage of Egypt’s growing revolution

Postby JackRiddler » Tue May 31, 2011 10:27 pm


http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent ... ember.aspx

Who will win in September?
If the secularist camp does not organise and mobilise, the upcoming free and fair elections may be Egypt's first and last


Abdel Moneim Said , Saturday 28 May 2011


The revolution will continue to heave and surge and rage though various forms of clashes and demonstrations against conditions of the past and of the present. It will also continue to swing between the reaffirmation of national unity and the solidarity of "the crescent and the cross" and the propensity towards sectarian strife and its attendant confrontations, clashes, accusations and conflicting theories as to whether this phenomenon stems from a long festering infection in Egyptian political culture or to the "remnants" of the National Democratic Party and state security apparatus which, although dissolved and disbanded, are nevertheless suspected of engineering appalling incidents of violence and destruction.

Such a state of turmoil is typical of a revolution that is still in a state of revolution. However it will diminish and eventually cease as institutions of government coalesce and reassert the legitimacy of the state, thereby delegitimising revolution. Recall how the revolution cooled following the referendum over the constitutional amendments. Nevertheless, we also must note that as the spirit of revolution subsided, the spirit of sectarian strife and other doctrinal discords began to flare. Simultaneously, the leadership that had played the key role in igniting the revolution and bringing down the old regime seems to have faded from the scene or lost some of its glimmer.

Curiously, while it was primarily young men and women who carried the revolution through its initial thrust and its first major victory, they have since been succeeded by much older people, some well into their 80s. Mohamed El-Baradei may merit a place among the ranks of the revolutionary youth, having been one of the first to call for the downfall of the old regime and to advocate less conventional means of opposition. Yet it is odd that the field is now dominated people and groups that, in the past, had reached accommodations with the old regime, even if they had been in the opposition. In fact, it is precisely these circles that have provided most of the presidential candidates who are currently flitting from one press interview to the next.

All this will enter another phase with the legislative elections in September, at which time we will be able to speak of actual popular representation. Until then, every candidate, party and group will claim that they speak for "the people", "the masses," and "the nation", and they will continue to do so in increasingly strident tones all the way to the polls, which will ultimately sort day from night.

One naturally wonders who will come out ahead in the forthcoming electoral battle, which will probably be one of the most crucial moments in Egyptian history. Certainly, the general lay of the field is already clear. It is characterised by two main orientations, one religious, the other secularist. The Muslim Brotherhood, represented by its Freedom and Justice Party, leads the former camp, which also consists of Al-Gamaa Al-Islamiya, the Egyptian Jihad and the various shades of Salafis. They are likely to win the sympathy of quite a few Sufi orders as well as a number of the old NDP apparatchiks who often rallied against the Ahmed Nazif government in the pre-November 2010 parliament. The other camp, which is championed by a broad front of the movements that spearheaded the revolution and similar coalitions, is beginning to coalesce in political party form, although there is little to suggest that their parties will be familiar enough to the public or sufficiently prepared by election time. Nevertheless, they will be joined by Egyptian Christians, most of the liberal and leftist parties, such as the Wafd, the Nasserist Party and the Tagammu, as well as by a large collection of NGOs and other representatives of civil society.

To some extent, these general orientations shaped the stances, whether for or against, in the referendum on the constitutional amendments, which drew the first clear lines in the post-25 January political map. In that referendum, the first camp obtained 77.2 per cent of the vote versus 22.8 per cent for the second. However, it is important to bear in mind that, in this referendum, a "critical mass" of voters sided with the first camp because they felt that the amendments bill offered the clearest path to the transition from revolutionary legitimacy to the legitimacy of the established state, which is to say to the return to normalcy that Egyptians desperately yearned for at the time. But this sentiment will no longer be a major factor now that this wish has come true and elections are at hand in September. Therefore, it remains open which way this key group of voters will swing in those elections, the results of which will be crucial to the subsequent selection of the constitutional committee and then to the choice of president.

Several factors will be instrumental in determining the impact of the "critical mass" of Egyptian voters. Foremost among them will be their turnout at the polls. Only 41 per cent of the 45 million eligible voters took part in the referendum. This relatively low figure could be increased by increasing the number of polling stations, of which there are only 44,000 at present, a factor that has long deterred all but the most committed from braving long voting queues. Secondly, although judicial supervision will now guarantee the integrity of the polls and ensure that people's votes really do count, the proportional electoral list system will yield very different kinds of results than those produced by the individual candidate system. A third critical factor will be campaign financing. Election campaigns and buying television air-time in particular have become extraordinarily expensive. However, there is a huge discrepancy in the financial capacities of the two camps. The secular camp can not even dream of matching the financial resources of the Muslim Brotherhood and the remnants of the NDP. Finally, much will depend on the ability of the rivals to win public support by means of clear and succinct electoral platforms that truly address people's hopes and aspirations.

On the basis of the foregoing criteria and circumstances as they currently stand, the "critical mass" is likely to swing towards the religious camp, with its better organisational, mobilisational and financial capacities. In addition, even if that camp truly relinquished the slogan, "Islam is the solution," it still possesses a remarkable talent for swaying public opinion through emotive and misleading oversimplifications and attacks on the opposing viewpoint. For example, during the referendum on the constitutional amendments, it centred its propaganda around Article 2, claiming that a "No" vote would negate the Islamic character of the state. Although the proposed constitutional amendments in the referendum came nowhere near this article, the tactic worked marvellously, and helped yield this camp's desired result.

The secularists, therefore, have their work cut out for them. They will need to expand their base of support considerably and to try to use the proportional list system to their best advantage. They will also have to enlist the moral and financial support of the business community. Finally, they must couch their liberal secularist message in a simpler and graspable language that will capture the public's attention. Their ability to rise to this challenge will determine the future of Egypt, the Egyptian constitution and the nature of its government. The more effective they are the lower is the probability that the country's first free and fair parliamentary elections will be its last.


A version of this article also appears in Al-Ahram Weekly newspaper

We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Live: Al Jazeera coverage of Egypt’s growing revolution

Postby AlicetheKurious » Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:02 am

JackRiddler wrote:So Baradei dropped out? I didn't find a story on that other than this run-down of current candidates. Prishad (second article) seems not to have heard.


That's interesting. I am positive that he announced that he wouldn't be running. He listed a number of reasons, most prominent of which were the unfair and undemocratic new laws issued by the AFC and the ongoing nearly total absence of police security. El-Baradei has been targeted before, notably during the referendum, when he was violently attacked by thugs when he went to vote (tellingly, the police whose job it was to guard the polls, were nowhere to be seen), and nobody doubts that he'd be risking his life if he were to run a proper campaign. The police situation practically deserves a thread by itself, so I won't go into it, but in a nutshell, the notorious police force -- the backbone of Mubarak's regime -- remains a huge, corrosive problem. In fact, more than any other issue, this is the one that is rapidly poisoning the relationship between the people and Prime Minister Essam Sharaf's government. In any case, whether or not El-Baradei would be running is a moot point right now, because everything is still theoretical: official nominations have not been opened yet. We don't even know whether Egypt's will be a presidential or parliamentary system, let alone when elections will be held. Previously, El-Baradei had merely announced his intention to be a candidate.

As for the Heard article, and Amr Moussa's amazing popularity (along with Tantawy's !!), I have no idea how Pew got those results:

According to a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center last month, some 89 percent of Egyptians support Moussa's candidacy while 90 percent would favor the head of Egypt's ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces Field Marshall Mohamed Hussein Tantawi should he decide to throw his hat into the ring.

However, there are those who decry Amr Moussa's former association with Mubarak's regime while others say his age is a barrier which is no doubt why he insists he would not seek re-election once his four-year term of office is up.


Those PEW results strain credulity past the breaking point. The elderly Amr Moussa launched his premature campaign several weeks ago with a large meeting in Cairo with revolutionary youth, where he was shouted down repeatedly and accused of being totally subservient to Mubarak's criminal foreign policy and of complicity with America's and Israel's war crimes in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine. As Secretary-General he was known for being 'all bark and no bite' and people remember the iconic scene of Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan's walkout from the 2009 Davos Conference, when Moussa stood up indecisively and then, when Ban Ki Moon gestured to him to sit, he sat like a good dog.

The MB's new Freedom and Justice Party that is liberal enough to invite the participation of women and Copts (as though any would consider joining) is a real misnomer when last week the MB joined hands with ultra-religious Salafist groups — including the notorious Jama'a Al-Islamiyya implicated in Sadat's assassination — to form an electoral coalition.


Actually if Heard had done her homework, she'd know that the new Freedom and Justice Party counts 93 Coptic founding members, including its vice president, and 978 women. Speaking of the party's Christian Vice President Rafiq Habib, I find him to be a VERY intriguing character. Experts who have studied the Muslim Brotherhood extensively insist that he is the Muslim Brotherhood's real political brain, and that far from being a token, like the Coptic "founding members", he is its chief strategist. By the way, he is not Coptic Orthodox, but a Protestant, an Evangelical if I'm not mistaken. My instincts tell me that there's something very important there, but I haven't been able to find anything specific yet.

Instead of 30 percent of parliamentary seats, it now says it will aim for 50 percent while one of its head honchos Abdel Moneim Abul Futuh has just announced his presidential candidacy as a so-called “independent” which is how the MB ran their parliamentary candidates during the Mubarak era.


Again Heard misreads the situation, based on erroneous assumptions. She assumes that the Muslim Brotherhood's commitment not to field any candidates for president was just a short-term ploy, and that they are merely pretending to strenuously oppose Abdel Moneim Abul-Fotouh's candidacy.

In fact, if indeed, as more and more people are coming to realize, the MB cut a secret deal with the Armed Forces Council in which the AFC would "give" the Muslim Brotherhood a decisive majority in the parliament and the power to shape Egypt's constitution, in exchange for the Muslim Brotherhood "giving" the AFC the presidency, then Abdel Moneim Abul-Fotouh's candidacy is a nightmare, from the MB's point of view. Although Abul-Fotouh is officially a high-level member of the Muslim Brotherhood, he dwarfs the others intellectually and culturally and is known for his relatively liberal views and reformist zeal. At the same time, he is enormously popular with the Muslim Brotherhood youth, who have since the revolution shown themselves to be far more independent and difficult to control than the Muslim Brotherhood leadership finds tolerable. If Abul-Fotouh does decide to run, and the Muslim Brotherhood actively penalize him and his supporters, this could very well expose what many people believe to be a fatal and irreconcilable generation gap within the Muslim Brotherhood, a gap which remained hidden when the MB was an illegal organization but that has become increasingly apparent since the revolution.

Abul-Fotouh's unilateral decision to violate Muslim Brotherhood discipline and announce his candidacy not only embarrasses the Muslim Brotherhood leadership by making them look like liars in the eyes of some voters, more importantly it undermines the very premise for the alleged deal with the AFC, which is that the Muslim Brotherhood has the power to get the AFC's presidential candidate elected. Logically, from the AFC's perspective, "If the Muslim Brotherhood can't even control its own high-level members, how can it deliver voters?" Last Friday's demonstrations would have been the final straw, revealing that the Muslim Brotherhood has vastly exaggerated its influence on the public, and that the AFC seriously miscalculated when it chose the MB as a strategic ally.

People forget that long before they hitched their star to the Armed Forces Council, the Muslim Brotherhood rallied around Mohamed al-Baradei, back when he seemed like the most likely candidate to succeed Mubarak after the revolution. When it became obvious that al-Baradei had been left behind, they turned to the AFC, and now that deal looks kaput as well. For that matter, the AFC itself is struggling to cope with a storm of criticism and a very angry public. In all their maneuvering and plotting, the one element all of these old men neglected to factor in, is the only one that really counts: the Egyptian people, particularly the youth, who have and who will continue to destroy all the frames that are erected around them.

It reminds me of the opening lines of the poem by Abdelrahman Al-Abnoudy which has been dubbed "the Manifesto of the Revolution", entitled "Al Midan" (my translation):

Dark Egyptian hands, knowing and aware
reaching out through the chaos to break the frames
driven by the voice of the people, see Egypt revealed under the sun!
It is long past time for you to be banished,
oh nation of old men!
Last edited by AlicetheKurious on Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Live: Al Jazeera coverage of Egypt’s growing revolution

Postby AlicetheKurious » Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:43 am

Old men often lose their eyesight and hearing, and also their ability to assimilate new information into their world-view. All the old men cutting back-room deals and plotting to divide up the country amongst themselves seem genuinely incapable of understanding that the nation has profoundly and irrevocably changed since January 25th. They are in denial, behaving as though the revolution never happened. But it did. They still think of the Egyptian people as sheep. They are not.

These are my people, the free Egyptian people. After the price they've paid for their emancipation, and to take their country back, can anybody really believe that Egyptians will allow themselves to be enslaved, ever again?

"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Live: Al Jazeera coverage of Egypt’s growing revolution

Postby stefano » Wed Jun 01, 2011 10:21 am

Hi Alice - thanks so much for all the info over the last few pages.

If not Moussa then who will be a credible candidate for the left? Is there one? Will Wafd do well (and are they seen as really 'left')? And do you think Sami Enan will end up being the establishment candidate? Thanks...
User avatar
stefano
 
Posts: 2672
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:50 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Live: Al Jazeera coverage of Egypt’s growing revolution

Postby AlicetheKurious » Wed Jun 01, 2011 3:00 pm

stefano wrote:If not Moussa then who will be a credible candidate for the left? Is there one? Will Wafd do well (and are they seen as really 'left')? And do you think Sami Enan will end up being the establishment candidate? Thanks...


I don't think Moussa is a credible candidate at all, those bizarre Pew poll figures notwithstanding, and he has nothing to do with the Left; he's very old and tainted by his past association with the Mubarak regime. The Wafd is not in the least bit Leftist, but a "Liberal" party top-heavy with wealthy businessmen. It used to have credibility many decades ago, but in recent years it has been widely discredited as one of the Mubarak regime's fake "opposition" parties.

Personally, I think that by far the most credible Leftist candidate is the Socialist Hamdeen Sabahy, of the Karama (Dignity) party. In my opinion Egypt would be honored to have a man such as him for president.

Another good candidate who I think has a chance if the elections are fair, is Ayman Nour. Nour was imprisoned on trumped-up charges back in 2005, by a judge notorious for tailoring convictions according to the regime's dictates. One positive fallout from the revolution is that his case will be retried and his conviction will almost certainly be reversed. He's not a Leftist per se, but he is very concerned with social justice issues. He's a very brave and outspoken genuinely Liberal dissident who, like Hamdeen Sabahy, has a lot of political experience. Also like Sabahy, he is very popular at the grassroots level. Ironically, during his imprisonment by the Mubarak regime, he lost some credibility when Condoleezza Rice made an issue of it and he became something of a cause celebre among zionists. But I won't hold that against him, and I don't think the Egyptian people will either.

Sabahy and Nour aside, I believe that on the Right, the Muslim Brotherhood's Abdel Moneim Abul-Fotouh would have the biggest chance to win in any fair election. Unfortunately, he is extremely intelligent, highly cultured and widely-read, he is an excellent speaker, has incredible charisma and no taint on his record (other than his high-level membership in the Muslim Brotherhood). As I mentioned in my previous post, however, he would be running against the will of the Muslim Brotherhood leadership, although he could count on the support of the Muslim Brotherhood youth and a significant proportion of the population.

As for Sami Enan, yes, I believe that he is the Armed Forces Council's and Washington's and Tel Aviv's and the Muslim Brotherhood's choice, with Amr Moussa possibly an acceptable second choice. That may explain the Pew figures...

On the other hand, it's very early days yet, and events are still moving much too rapidly to make any kind of prediction possible, even for the parliamentary elections that are slated for September, let alone for the presidential elections that are supposed to follow them sometime.
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Live: Al Jazeera coverage of Egypt’s growing revolution

Postby JackRiddler » Wed Jun 01, 2011 3:11 pm

.

Sorry, I shouldn't have posted that without warning that Pew is one of the worst brainwashers among the non-academic social science factories. Though I'd never heard of Heard, her article is also otherwise suspect, top to bottom. Pew's schtick in the US is to define the political spectrum of "liberal" to "conservative" in a fashion that lets them occupy "center-moderate" ("free market" corporatist) as the heart of reason. It's no surprise that they're the go-to think-tank for NPR. You should know that they are the ideological extension of an oil company.

Following snippet of Pew history is from an article on Pew's financing of Canadian environmental groups with an eye to justifying tar sands extraction:


http://oilsandstruth.org/can-pew039s-charity-be-trusted

The money comes from the Pew Charitable Trusts, which is endowed by the fortune of Joseph Pew and his heirs, as well as more recent donors. Joseph Pew founded Sun Oil, now Sunoco, a US oil company with revenues of $36 billion in 2006. Under Pew, Sun Oil also founded Suncor, a Canadian counterpart to Sun Oil and currently one of the two largest operations in Alberta's tar sands. Suncor has been independent since 1995.

Sunoco's US refineries process synthetic crude oil from the tar sands. According to a 2004 Philadelphia Inquirer report, a Sunoco-run Ohio refinery processes 100,000 barrels of synthetic crude per day.

The Pew foundation's original mission reflects on "the evils of bureaucracy, the paralyzing effects of government controls on the lives and activities of people, and the values of the free market." Pew money has funded many right-wing Christian groups and conservative think tanks, including the Heritage Foundation, the John Birch Society, and the American Enterprise Institute.

In the early 1990s, the Pew Trusts began funding environmental groups.


Even Pew's own "About Us" reads suspiciously:

History

“Tell the truth and trust the people.”
– Joseph Newton Pew Jr., 1946

“No subversive forces can ever conquer a nation that has not first been conquered by ‘subversive inactivity’ on the part of the citizenry, who have failed in their civic duty and in service to their country.”
– J. Howard Pew, 1953


The Pew Charitable Trusts, an independent nonprofit, is the sole beneficiary of seven individual charitable funds established between 1948 and 1979 by two sons and two daughters of Sun Oil Company founder Joseph N. Pew and his wife, Mary Anderson Pew.

From its first day in 1948, Pew’s founders steeped the new institution with the entrepreneurial and optimistic spirit that characterized their lives. Early priorities supported a cancer-research institute, a museum, higher education, the Red Cross and a pioneering project to assist historically black colleges.

As the issues of the late 1940s and following decades evolved, Pew has remained dedicated to our founders’ emphasis on innovation and an entrepreneurial approach.

Moving Ahead

Now, in our seventh decade, we look back on a record of thoughtful, creative responses to the crucial issues of the day, as our legacy directs. This has meant constantly adapting to the times, reinventing ourselves in order to be relevant to the next generation. As a result, we became a public charity in 2004. This status gives us more flexibility to engage in new initiatives and operate programs for maximum effectiveness and efficiency. Through our Philanthropic Services team’s outreach, we can find and work with external partners to raise additional resources—and others can leverage Pew’s expertise and experience—to achieve our mutual goals.

Forging New Relationships

In 2008, the National Environmental Trust (NET)—which Pew helped establish in 1994—merged staff and operations into the Pew Environment Group, which now constitutes one of the nation’s largest environmental scientific and advocacy organizations. The consolidated team is comprised of more than 115 staff—with a presence throughout the United States as well as in Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, the western Pacific and the Indian Ocean—making it one of the nation’s largest scientific and environmental advocacy organizations. Our environmental efforts have delivered major successes over the past 20 years.

For more information about our history, read A History of The Pew Charitable Trusts. (PDF)


.

I still can't believe Egypt doesn't even have rules for the elections set and yet these are now supposed to be 3 months away. Keeping in mind the extremely short period between the announcement and the holding of the referendum, do you think they liked how that turned out and are going to try to spring the elections as close to the date as possible, in the assumption that Egyptians won't object for want of stability?

.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Live: Al Jazeera coverage of Egypt’s growing revolution

Postby stefano » Wed Jun 01, 2011 3:38 pm

Thanks Alice. I have to go on TV on Friday to talk about this stuff and feel a bit out of my depth, ha. Smoking a lot and reading like a madman.

Two interesting bits below, explaining where all these loans will go (the budget looks like an improvement but unsustainable). My bold:

Ampal launches arbitration over Egypt gas halt

Ampal American Israel Corp has started international arbitration proceedings over the halt in gas flow from Egypt to Israel, a statement from the company said on Tuesday.

Gas supplies to Israel have been halted for more than a month following explosions on Egypt's side of the pipeline in the wake of the country's political turmoil and ouster of President Hosni Mubarak.

Ampal has joined EGI-Fund, PTT International and other international shareholders in formal steps toward arbitration under a U.S.-Egypt bilateral treaty for investment protection, the statement said.

Ampal, along with Egyptian businessman Hussain Salem, Egypt Natural Gas Co, Thailand's PTT, American businessman Sam Zell, chairman of EGI and Israel's Merhav, owns East Mediterranean Gas Co (EMG), exporter of Egyptian natural gas to Israel.

Ampal CEO Yosef Maiman said he hoped EMG would not have to pursue litigation against the government of Egypt for claims "which could be in excess of $8 billion".

Israel receives natural gas from Egypt under a 20-year deal signed in 2005.
It doesn't say, but I suspect the arbiter will be in the US and biased accordingly.

Next, the budget:

Egypt budget targets poor, introduces capital gains tax

Egypt's cabinet approved on Wednesday a budget for the 2011/12 financial year that increases spending by a quarter as the government strives to help the poor after a popular uprising unseated the country's president.

To help finance the increased spending, Egypt will introduce a 10 percent tax on capital gains and a 5 percentage point increase in the income tax levied on corporations and individually owned companies, the government said.

The higher income tax will be applied to companies that earn 10 million pounds or more, a cabinet statement said.

Finance Minister Samir Radwan said the government would also levy a new 10 percent tax on cigarettes. That levy and the capital gains tax will each generate about 1.1 billion Egyptian pounds ($185 million).

The budget forecasts expenditure increasing to 514.5 billion Egyptian pounds from 413.2 billion and revenue rising to 350.3 billion pounds from 285.8 billion, the statement said.

That leaves a deficit equivalent to 10.95 percent of gross domestic product, up from an estimated 8.64 percent in the current financial year that ends on June 30, it added.

"The situation demands a change in the economic path, to make it more just, to increase its ability to generate job opportunities for the poor, to increase their ability to produce and create income for an honourable living," the statement said.

Radwan forecast that the economy will grow by 2.6 percent this year and by 3.2 percent in 2011/12. The government last month estimated 2011/12 growth at 3-4 percent.

Anger at a growing gap between rich and poor in the country of 80 million people helped spark mass demonstrations that toppled President Hosni Mubarak in February.

The government plans to increase subsidies on consumer goods by 26 percent to 22.4 billion pounds to make them more affordable for the population, Radwan told a news conference.

Separate fuel subsidies for consumers will rise to 99 billion pounds, an increase of 31.3 billion pounds.

At the same time, the government will exempt incomes of up to 12,000 pounds a year from income tax, up from 9,000 pounds previously.

Radwan said he aimed for a minimum wage of 1,200 pounds within five years. ($1=5.942 Egyptian Pound)
User avatar
stefano
 
Posts: 2672
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:50 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Live: Al Jazeera coverage of Egypt’s growing revolution

Postby AlicetheKurious » Wed Jun 01, 2011 4:59 pm

stefano wrote:Ampal launches arbitration over Egypt gas halt

Ampal American Israel Corp has started international arbitration proceedings over the halt in gas flow from Egypt to Israel, a statement from the company said on Tuesday. ...


Mubarak crony Hussein Salem, who is a partner with Israelis in the company that monopolizes gas sales to Israel, is currently being sought on criminal charges that he got the deal by bribing Egyptian officials. The gas was sold to Israel at far below market prices, and an Egyptian court decision that the gas deal was illegal, was violated. I'm no legal expert, but it seems to me that the Egyptian government has not only the right, but the duty to annul this corrupt deal.




Again, I'm no expert, but if the government really cares about the poor, they should keep the fuel subsidies for individuals but make large corporate factory owners, who currently use the lion's share of subsidized fuel, pay the full price. Especially because some of the biggest of these manufacturers have enormous profit margins and sell their products domestically at or above international market prices.

Egypt's new finance minister Samir Radwan breaks out in hives whenever progressive taxation is mentioned -- yet that seems to me a logical first step in a country with such a huge gap between rich and poor, and would bring plenty of money into the state budget.

Also, we know that more than LE 36 billion have been found in mysterious so-called "special funds" that Mubarak and other high-level officials personally controlled. I don't understand why Radwan is going begging to the IMF and World Bank and Gulf countries, but leaving these "special funds" alone.

Finally, corrupt real estate deals were rampant under the Mubarak regime. Among other things, state lands would be sold very cheaply to developers on condition that they be used for low- or middle-income housing, then the developer would build mansions and exclusive gated communities and sell them for millions (except for certain government officials, who would get villas real cheap or for free). The developer would also receive large discounts on utilities installation and other infrastructure from the state. We're talking about hundreds of billions of pounds in illicit profits. All the documentation is available, and the luxurious developments aren't going anywhere. If the government really needs money, they can fine the developers, no?

These are just some things off the top of my head. There must be lots more ways for the government to get money, that they seem to be overlooking for some reason.
Last edited by AlicetheKurious on Wed Jun 01, 2011 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Live: Al Jazeera coverage of Egypt’s growing revolution

Postby AlicetheKurious » Wed Jun 01, 2011 5:16 pm

JackRiddler wrote:Keeping in mind the extremely short period between the announcement and the holding of the referendum, do you think they liked how that turned out and are going to try to spring the elections as close to the date as possible, in the assumption that Egyptians won't object for want of stability?


Yes, that's what it looks like. Especially that most of those who have the experience, the cadres and the resources (and the registered political parties) to run effective (and dirty) campaigns are probably the same ones who are eager and willing to cut backroom deals with the AFC.
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests