It was recently discovered that lobbying firms on K Street have been providing cover for SCAF and prior to them the deposed president Hosni Mubarak. Of course, this became a controversial issue only when SCAF raided U.S. NGOs in Egypt such as the National Democratic Institute (NDI), International Republican Institute (IRI) and Freedom House late December. Since then, it was rumored that these firms dumped SCAF as a client especially in light of the travel ban SCAF put on staff members of these NGOs when they tried to leave Egypt. So, what’s the moral of the story here? It’s ok for lobbyists to repair the images of dictatorships unless, of course, Americans and only Americans are being affected. Locals though? They can eat it. Shouldn’t these lobbyists be working on repairing the U.S.’s image first?
You Say You Want a Revolution
It has been one year since the people’s revolution ignited on Egyptian streets leading to the iconic Tahrir Square. The euphoria of the revolution has been tempered by the reality of a deeply entrenched system that permeates government institutions, society and individuals. It is now apparent that there are two main yet broad contributions to the revolution: the political awakening among various segments of society, particularly the youth, who broke the fear barrier that was naturally instilled in many dictatorial settings; and the exposure of the roots of a cancerous regime that only tricks parts of the body that it healed itself without treatment. I would be remiss to not mention that Egypt’s revolution was at its core a mass movement that was leaderless, but one that nevertheless did not experience a power vacuum. Indeed, the Egyptian revolution precipitated a coup d’etat by the Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF) as “damage control” to save the remnants of a system in which it had so much at stake. The details of the relationship between the military and the Mubarak regime is intricate and deserves its own post, thus, I will delve in it later.
Tunisia, however, also saw the military playing a key role in the removal of Ben Ali when it sided with the revolutionaries. So why did SCAF not follow suit and hand over powers to a transitional civilian council composed of experts, politicians, and representatives of various segments of society much like the Higher Authority for the Achievement of Revolution Objectives, Political Reform and Democratic Transition in Tunisia? Why did SCAF include articles that transferred greater power to itself in a referendum under the guise of constitution first or later? Why does SCAF accuse the same activists, protesters and civil society actors who were the core of the revolution of being “thugs” and foreign agents? Why does SCAF crack down on rights organizations for lack of transparency while it takes $1.3 billion from the U.S. in military aid that is not subject to parliamentary oversight? The answers to these questions are much more complicated than “the military generals want to rule Egypt.” This suggestion would dismiss their substantive interests that were built over the last 60 years for some abstract idea of political ambition, even if they eventually fall into this position. It is also clear from the parliamentary elections that the political structure of Mubarak’s regime has taken a hit, so this is not a mere return to the Felool (remnants of the regime) either. Egypt is embarking on a new system, but the military council is a body that seeks to ensure its survival beyond any one ruler. Unfortunately, I will not delve into the transformation of the military over the past three regimes (at least not now), but I will point out the crucial Military-Enterprise Complex in Egypt, in the form of the National Services Projects Organization (NSPO), which is both a taboo subject and a pervasive entity insofar as it is tied with foreign relations, economic stagnation and internal politics. Zeinab Abul-Magd writes a very crucial and enlightening article on this in Jadaliyya.
In short, NSPO was created by former President Anwar Sadat to mollify the generals, who had up to the Camp David Treaty been key actors in both Nasser and Sadat’s regimes. The NSPO funnels foreign military aid into enterprises such as military-brand gas stations, factories, hotels, food products and everyday needs. The oversight on the aid and the industries would likely expose an economically unsound, corrupt, rotten and draconian system run by the military. As such, SCAF has two central needs and demands to ensure its future in the next phase in Egypt: immunity from prosecution in crimes committed throughout the revolution, and supra-constitutional principles that circumvent any process of transparency or budgetary oversight over military aid. The Muslim Brotherhood’s (MB) Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), which now controls nearly 45% of the People’s Assembly, has already vaguely suggested granting SCAF immunity to ensure a peaceful transition to civilian rule – a compromise that will be harder on revolutionaries and the families of victims than any other segment of society. The latter demand, however, remains an explosive subject that threatens both the economic stability of the next phase of the transition in which parliament allegedly plays a bigger role, and the lifeline of a military council that makes more money off of being businessmen than generals. In spite of any deals or promises, SCAF’s compromises with FJP have only sparked the ire of revolutionaries, who are keen on a full democratic transition, and to dismiss the young activists as crucial actors is to fall into the same traps as Mubarak. Indeed, SCAF, which conspicuously unveiled itself as the guarantor of the revolution early on now stands to be the main obstacle to a democratic transition – not merely in the question of giving up power, but in its problematic choice between its financial institution and Egypt’s economic well-being that is the livelihood of the majority young Egyptians.
Status Quo You Can Believe In
I find there are two types of change: the one that doesn’t happen, and the one that does. Those who hide behind the auspices of “gradual change” and “gradual reform” over revolutions in many of these corrupt systems ought to re-evaluate what exactly they are seeking to change. The notion of entrusting these dictators to transition into democracy is absurd, but what is more absurd is the idea that “things can be worse”. For a long time, dictators in the Arab world held on to power by stoking fear of [fill in threatening group here]. Additionally, the dictators’ enablers (often Western) pretend to derive credibility from their own ownership of democracy in their homelands. It is the most absurd marriage of ideas to combine a despot who terrorizes his people and call him a reformer with a “democracy promoter” whose idea of change is investing political, social and economic capital in these dictators. What could be worse than a despot backed by an opportunist superpower to maintain the status quo?
Recently, I heard Robert Lacey speak about Saudi Arabia and what type of change we should expect to see there. He called King Abdullah a “reformer” showing a picture of him with women that is otherwise banned in many Saudi media outlets. He warned of the even more conservative rifts in the Kingdom. The youth is conservative he adds. Are we to believe that Saudi Arabia could possibly be more conservative if people power took over? If anything these so-called benevolent dictators are either obscenely conservative themselves or have done a really poor job of making it less conservative. The fact is if the regime were to be properly toppled in Saudi Arabia, the fanatic, religious despots would go down with it. After all, when the Kingdom banned protests, demonstrations and petitions, it did it through a fatwa.
It appears that Robert Lacey is much more in tune with the royal family than he is with society. He talked of having tea with this royal highness or that prince; he was even there when one of them choked on his falafel or something assanine like that. Moreover, the extent of his knowledge on the masses or youth was a reference to an MTV documentary on Saudi Arabia. While the documentary is worth watching, are we supposed to take his analysis of society seriously now? Even if we were to take it seriously, he failed to see what this documentary really showed, which was a complex and diverse society in the Kingdom. Lacey specifically pointed to the frustration of a young man who tried to see a girl he met on Facebook at the mall. He could not enter the mall without being accompanied with his family, and was turned away by the moral police. When asked if he would like his sister to meet a male at the mall, the young man said absolutely not. This is Lacey’s proof of how conservative the youth is. Instead of recognizing the complexity and contradictions of this young man and perhaps the youth as a whole, he concluded that the youth is conservative. Did he not watch the rest of the documentary that featured a religious man working with women’s rights group to bolster their representation? Or the young woman who used fashion to break boundaries for females? Or perhaps the heavy metal band that would wear satanist shirts, but stop their rehearsal for prayers? Not to mention all these youths’ supportive families. What Lacey misses is not only an understanding of the complexity of society, but also their common struggles. At the end of the day, even if the young man does not want his sister to meet strange men at malls, both men and women face a highly invasive state power. This state has molded religious fanaticism with the political structure in a manner that seals their fate together–whether they survive or get toppled.
For real change to take place, one simply cannot entrust the beneficiaries of the status quo–despots (“reformers”) and their enablers (“democracy promoters”) alike–with the responsibility or rather pleasure of screwing themselves over.
Ahmad Shafiq
Every time I see this man in a television interview I think if he does not resign soon, he ought to be tried for covering up the crimes of the past regime. He is not even a good speaker for his otherwise unjustified cause. I also hate it when these ex-military men use their years of service to defend their patriotism. As if it says anything about how they behaved the last 40 years. I will take a 15-year old child who fought to reclaim the dignity of his country over the crony man who fought in a war, then sold his country out, and betrayed the people to live a nice cushy life next to his dictator friend. Just watch this interview where he yells at Alaa al-Aswany (the author of The Yacoubian Building) who called on the PM to resign and questioned his role in the transitional period. Particularly, he pointed out Shafiq’s infamous statement of “passing out candy” to the protesters (to shut them up) rather than investigating who sent the thugs to kill them on Bloody Wednesday. Is there any doubt that Ahmad Shafiq must go? (apology to the non-Arabic speaks for the lack of translation/captions)
A New Citizenship
On February 12, 2011, the front page of al-Ahram newspaper read, “Ash-Sha`b Asqat an-Nizam.” The People Toppled the Regime. Eleven days later, I still read this headline with a great deal of unabated emotions. They are emotions rooted in empowerment, pride, and most of all an optimism I had never felt before. It is truly a renewed sense of citizenship–of living in an historical time that intersects the triumph over past hardships with the power to mold a new future. For 18 days and nights, I walked, talked and breathed the Revolution. I would wake up in the early hours of the morning elated to see crowds protect their neighborhoods, clean streets and erupt in pro-democracy and anti-government chants, and distraught at the sight of battle scenes between them and regime thugs. And when I woke up on February 12, I actually felt an otherwise unfamiliar sense of relief; I was “free” for the first time thousands of miles away from Egypt. What happened in Cairo’s Tahrir Square and other Egyptian cities transcended all aspects of my identity, politics and experiences, and revolutionized my own sense of self. While my family escaped the corrupt and repressive system in Egypt for a chance at the “American Dream” for their children, for the first time in my life I wanted to partake in the “Arab Dream” of building a new free and democratic nation. It was finally possible.
This transitional period is therefore crucial to ensuring a true chance at a functioning democracy in Egypt. Toppling Mubarak is not enough. The entire regime must be dismantled and revolutionaries must never relent until this happens. These are four quick points on the transition, but I plan to delve into the process in a later post:
(1.) While there has been shuffling in the interim cabinet to get rid of figures associated with the previous regime, more needs to be done.The new interim cabinet must constitute a more inclusive set of forces, rather than the old faces in different suits. Let us not forget what the People demanded during the Revolution: No to Mubarak, No to Suleiman, and No to Shafiq. The cabinet that Mubarak selected must follow his fate.
(2.) The constitution must be re-written, not merely amended. While the amendments would certainly mitigate some of the imbalances the Mubarak regime entrenched in the system, a new constitution must be drafted to capture both a modernized and democratic notions that are indelibly absent in the current constitution.
(3.) In a rush to transition powers, elections must not be hurried. Opposition parties, which have suffered greatly under the ousted regime, must be bolstered and given adequate time to run a full length campaign. After all, the guys at Wafd haven’t done much beyond reading their own newspaper for the last 20+ years.
(4.) Figures of the previous regime must be held accountable for their crimes against the people, and the security forces should be radically restructured with key figures prosecuted. That includes Hosni Mubarak, his entire family, entourage, thugs, gangs and all those who conspired against the People.
Lastly, as a blast from the past on a post I made 2.5 years ago, I stand corrected. Apparently, “if one were to plan out the toppling of a regime,” s/he would in fact “‘create an event’ on Facebook, or blog about it.” Who knew? But I did call it, on top of his oppositionists and economic woes, Mubarak had every reason to fear the youth. Thank you, Tunisia, for leading the way.
Johnny Rottin’
Rule of thumb: in an interview, if you are starting to sound like an idiot and your publicist does not tell you to stop being an racist douche bag, then it’s time to fire him/her. It may be “hip” to tell the the Queen of England to piss off, but lashing out on people living under the only occupation that still exists in the 21st century is not quite that brave. Rotten vomits these words: “If Elvis-fucking-Costello wants to pull out of a gig in Israel because he’s suddenly got this compassion for Palestinians, then good on him. But I have absolutely one rule, right? Until I see an Arab country, a Muslim country, with a democracy, I won’t understand how anyone can have a problem with how they’re treated.” Umm, the last thing I want to hear right now is a racist Brit’s opinion about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Have you not done enough damage?
Flotilla Pirates
Videos of the Israeli raid on the flotilla show the activists throwing objects at Israeli soldiers and trying to throw them off board as well, but is that not what you would do if pirates landed on your ship too? George Bisharat has more astute analysis of “self-defense” claims and all your legal inquiries. Meanwhile, NBC has taken a rare turn into reality by showing the inhumane treatment Gazans face in prison, and Pixies, Elvis Costello and Gorillaz cancel their performances in Israel in boycott to the recent events. Then Helen Thomas loses her job for “letting it all out” so to speak. This is great precedent, I think, because I too am thinking of ending the career of every person on television who says something racist or anti-Arab. But I am afraid the only thing remaining on television will be “The Hills,” which leaves Arabs, blacks, Mexicans and all minorities altogether off the show. Thankfully, of course! This is all very fascinating, but I am still wondering in what world can IOF IDF soldiers claim to be the “victims” of hippy humanitarian workers and the very populace Israel besieges?
Open Letter to Barry Rubin
Dear Mr. Rubin,
I recently attended a talk by you on my campus. While I envisaged an intellectual who has at least heard of the idea of “Orientalism,” or the Enlightenment and the wonders of logic for that matter, instead I found myself listening to an incoherent prattle the pervades both reasoning and historical context. You spoke more generally about President Obama’s policy towards the Middle East and the importance of understanding such a complex place. So far, so good. However, specifically your speech devolved into resting the entire peace process on the shoulders of what you painted as an intransigent and irrational Middle Eastern (mostly Arab) political community. You paused at the absurdity of Syria supporting Hezbollah, while competing with Iran as a regional powerhouse, which also supports Hezbollah. X country or Y group does not want peace, because it perpetuates its self-interest in power and regional hegemony. Is it too many contradictions for the simple-minded, or too erratic for the “rational” powers that be? Far be it for Western powers and Israel to promote such divisions and dissonance, or from avoiding such short-sighted contradictions themselves. Did we not just discover that the C.I.A. has been funding Karzai’s brother who invests in poppy fields, which aid the Taliban? Did Israel not bolster Hamas back when the PLO was public enemy number one? I am not as interested in the blame game as you are, Mr. Rubin. I’m only interested in unraveling your puzzling logic.
To claim that you are biased is to truly diminish the meaning of the word. Biased implies a certain degree of ingenuity in what you believe. A professional who educates individuals and who has undoubtedly read many books bears a degree of responsibility to her or his audience. Your dismissal of Palestinian victimhood was nearly as laughable as dismissing of the victims of wars throughout history. It’s not very funny to shrug the death of Palestinians merely because you do not value their lives. What was your logic for denying Palestinian claims to victimhood? You said, “At first they would say, ‘We will kill the Jews,’ and now they say, ‘The Jews are killing us.’ It used to be, ‘We will drive the Jews into the sea,’ now it’s, ‘The Jews are driving us out of our lands.’ ‘The Jews have no right to exist,’ and now it’s, ‘The Jews are taking away our right to exist.’” You implied that Palestinians have manipulated the message to appear like the victims by simply inversing their original rhetoric. Did you, in this strange argument, prove that Palestinians are not in fact killed by Israeli occupation? Being driven out of their lands (where Israeli settlers take over their homes in front of their eyes)? That Palestinians are in fact being denied the right to exist? No! You didn’t.
You went on to attack Obama’s fixation with the settlement issue. Why freeze settlements? Why now? This has never been an issue before, you claim. You even cite the 1993 Oslo Accords, where Palestinians never brought up the issue of settlements as “deal breaker.” Please tell me, Mr. Rubin, that you believe that there has been a radical expansion of settlements since the Oslo Accords sixteen years ago. Israel has since built a wall that both grabs more land and segregates Palestinians lands from each other. You continued with this faulty logic by claiming that the Palestinians had everything handed to him at the 2000 Camp David with then PM Ehud Barak, but a recalcitrant Arafat let it all fall apart. Where have I heard that before? That’s right, from people who do not actually discuss what Israel refused to give an incipient Palestinian state: control over their own roads, resources, borders, right of return, and removal of checkpoints. “Palestinians were given 96 or 97 percent of what they wanted,” the conventional wisdom exclaims. But what if 1% of that was water? Does that upset your orientalist conception of the Middle East, Mr. Rubin? In another instance, you discuss the one-state solution as a distant dream since pre-creation of Israel that has been revived recently. But really, do you think anything happened between 1930s and today that may have transformed the conceptualization of a one-state solution? Your historical references belie your knowledge of history, the series of events that have taken place, and the reality of the situation today.
Absent from your speech was a hearty debate about the role of both Israelis, Palestinians, and external forces alike in the situation today. Obama’s “sympathies” for Arabs or Muslims is no more illusive than his ties to pro-Israeli lobbyists. Perhaps Obama is not talking to you, Mr. Rubin, but rather to a generation of conscientious Israelis, Jews, Arabs, Muslims, and Christians who are much more aware of the complications of this conflict, including its dyanmic history. In fact, it was not your arguments that surprised me; rather your complete objectification and of Israelis and Jews in your analysis. You spent a great deal demonstrating the mess that is the Middle East complicating their image in the most inane way. However, your simplification of Israelis and the absence of their intricate history shows that your entire speech was a strange encounter of orientalism and occidentalism, which simply produces an hour and a half of babble session.
Regards,
Manar
The Alan Dershowitz Diet Plan
If you are ever in a situation where you need to induce vomit or curb your appetite, just read anything written by Alan Dershowitz. Literally, anything! I promise you, part of you will die after reading his garbage. Take this excerpt from his WSJ article for example:
The claim that Israel has violated the principle of proportionality — by killing more Hamas terrorists than the number of Israeli civilians killed by Hamas rockets — is absurd. First, there is no legal equivalence between the deliberate killing of innocent civilians and the deliberate killings of Hamas combatants. Under the laws of war, any number of combatants can be killed to prevent the killing of even one innocent civilian. (400+ children killed were combatants?)
Second, proportionality is not measured by the number of civilians actually killed, but rather by the risk posed. (Oh boy! where have I heard that before?) This is illustrated by what happened on Tuesday, when a Hamas rocket hit a kindergarten in Beer Sheva, though no students were there at the time. Under international law, Israel is not required to allow Hamas to play Russian roulette with its children’s lives. (not to sound insensitive, but did he just say that no one was killed or hurt in this attack? I suppose by his logic, Hamas shouldn’t allow Israel to play Mercenaries with its children’s lives either. Self-defense goes both ways!)
While Israel installs warning systems and builds shelters, Hamas refuses to do so, precisely because it wants to maximize the number of Palestinian civilians inadvertently killed by Israel’s military actions. Hamas knows from experience that even a small number of innocent Palestinian civilians killed inadvertently will result in bitter condemnation of Israel by many in the international community. (if that’s the case then why would Israel give Hamas exactly what it wants? Moreover, how does one inadvertently shell the UN headquarters? Or drop white phosphorous on a densely populated area? Or allegedly use depleted uranium weapons? )
Israel understands this as well. It goes to enormous lengths to reduce the number of civilian casualties — even to the point of foregoing legitimate targets that are too close to civilians.
I wonder what the potential number of victims would have been so we can add it to the toll. Since we’re counting “potential” victims now. If Dershowitz claims that Israel has practiced restraint, then I am scared to know what not practicing restraint would have looked like. I understand that Dershowitz’s job has been to defend high profile criminals. But defending war crimes is a whole different ball game.
A New Era In American History?
Barack Obama has been elected the 44th President of the United States. His inauguration inspired over 2 million people to make the trek to Washington D.C., and hundreds of millions around the world to tune in from Tanzania, to Estonia. Let’s see what that means now.