Lessons from Syria

Jade Salhab

There are two parts to this brilliant article by Beesaan el Shaikh in Al Hayat (Arabic) which I believe is an imperative read for anyone interested in the Arab uprising.

The first part of the article uses the tragedies generated by the revolution as a very compelling argument NOT to support it. The second part, near the end, turns the argument around making a simple but slam-dunk case for the revolution.

I want to use the first part to rephrase a position I expressed in the very beginning of this revolution, days before the first Assad speech and the subsequent violent turn of the uprising: I expressed then my hope that Assad would do the wise thing and grab the opportunity to reform the regime by himself, because that was the only transition that would avoid destroying Syria, or handing it to Islamic extremists.

I was naïve in my hopes, obviously. But I believe that hope is a moral imperative. I knew then, like all those who lived through Lebanon's civil war, that no matter where it happens on this earth, or why, or how legitimate, when an uprising turns into an armed rebellion, there is absolutely no controlling of the damage it can make to the structure of society and its ability to recuperate post conflict (think Iraq, Lebanon, but also Salvador, Tchetchnia, or Sri Lanka more globally).

The unspeakable price of civil violence in terms of social dismantling (even more so than the toll on human life and heritage), is why I still believe that any people who has regime change in progress (i.e Tunisia, Egypt) - or in perspective (i.e Jordan, Morocco, or the Gulf in the coming 5 to 15 years) - must bend itself backwards twice, maybe thrice, before engaging in violent struggle, or violent ‘defense of the achieved revolution’ – as opposed to radically peaceful rebellion or political compromise.

One of the reasons I respect Moaz el Khatib so deeply is his awareness of this fact, and his courage to remain constantly open to compromise with the regime for the sake of ending violence – because he knows that no matter how high the price of such compromise is, it will always be lower than the one of sustained violence.

Don’t get me wrong, just like Beesaan el Sheikh says in her article, I believe that there is no choice BUT to support the Syrian revolution because it is the only legitimate and humanly acceptable path forward. But I certainly hope that idealists learn the lesson and understand that wars are, under all circumstances, unwinnable: because even by winning them, we destroy the basic social infrastructure that makes that victory worth anything.

This might sound obvious to some, but the consequence is less so: only a slower transition, or a stubbornly peaceful uprising can come at a lower cost.

I want to end by drawing a relevance to Tunisia and Egypt: compromise is a high price you might need to pay to avoid the higher price of a torn society. And if compromise is impossible (and it should take a lot before you get to this conclusion), than maintain your struggle peaceful at all cost (i.e no military repression of ‘medieval forces’). The alternative is worse than you can ever imagine or calculate.

Everyone wants a piece of the revolution

Lama Bashour

Re-published with permission from Lama's Scrapbook

Before we get into this, I'd like to clarify two things:

I am fully aware that the situation we are in is most likely the result of years and years of bad government policies and opportunistic behaviour by a select few.

I am even more aware that I will probably never make an impact in the real world, because my ideals are too extreme and frustratingly impractical.

Fortunately for me, and maybe unfortunately for you, technology has given me this platform to let my voice be heard, if only by a small number of people. I know that a lot of us are still high on the domino effect of democracy that started with Mohamed Bouazizi's desperate act of giving up on his country. Yet, we are struggling to find our own path, some of us asking for reform, others for a secular government. I am not quite sure, however, if we are just riding the wave of revolution or if there is a genuine desire (I had argued in an earlier post that I don't believe there is a real need) for change. Are we certain that we don't just want the desire to change, instead of change itself?

I look around me and all I see are individuals who are part of the system they want to change, benefiting from it and sometimes bending the rules when it suits their purpose. I see people demanding of their government economic reform, and asking it for more jobs for their followers. I see people lobbying for a secular government, claiming it's the other sect that is preventing it. I see people insisting on anti-corruption laws, and requesting a relative to make sure that their government application is processed quickly. And of course, time and time again, I see people ignoring others - in a queue, crossing the street, driving a car - as if they were not members of the same community they are seeking a better future with. I see you, because I am you.

The thing is, we can't ask for change, if we are unwilling to make it ourselves. So if any of us are serious about this revolution or whatever you want to call it, let's all take a long look at ourselves, and if we can't find anything worth improving, then we're not looking hard enough. And if what needs to be improved requires too much of a sacrifice, then we're not ready for it. And if we don't look at every single mistake, not just the ones that inconvenience us, as unacceptable, then we may never be.

You can join all the Facebook groups you want and retweet every piece of news you read, but the barrier of fear that was broken in Tunisia and Egypt is not the same as ours. Ours is much more difficult to overcome, because the enemy we fear is in us.

The Hypocrite Inside of Me

Joseph El-Khoury 

"The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceives his deception, the one who lies with sincerity" Andre Gide (1869-1951)

So much has happened over the past few weeks that I struggled initially to find a specific thread for this piece.

To state the obvious, the Middle East is on the move after decades of stagnation and the absence of meaningful macro-political evolution, effectively since the 1980s. Being one of those who spent their University days dreaming of a new dawn of ‘Arab Revolt’ that would reverse the status quo emanating from the last Arab Revolt (Think Lawrence of Arabia, Lord Balfour and Sykes-Picot), I was bound to be shaken and stirred by the sight of hundreds of thousands of Arab men and women taking to the streets of Tunis, Cairo, Sana’a and now Manama and Benghazi in the name of a basic right to human decency. But a lot has been written about the emotional connection that transcends the fictitious borders established by the colonialists and their heirs. With my growing dose of cynicism, I will not be able to compete with the revolutionary fervour that has swept Tahrir square but also Twitter and Facebook to land at the doorstep of every Liberal Orientalist enthusiast. So I will stick to pointing out the slightly perverse side of the current maelstrom (not to be confused with Tsunami in the Lebanese context).

The Arab uprisings and specifically the Egyptian chapter of it uncovered a latent hypocrisy that defines the position of pretty much everyone interested in the Middle Eastern question. Many insist that Democracy is at the core of their wishes for this region. I would argue that it is more a case of democracy with a small ‘d’ that we all humbly aspire for. The US administration, which is contemplating the most serious threat to its regional pack of cards within matter of months proclaimed its understanding of the people’s aspiration, having spent decades and millions propping up the ugliest authoritarian regimes. You only need to google images of ‘Obama and Mubarak’ to confirm the admiration that the former had for the latter, until 10 minutes prior to his departure from office. France’s 180 degrees on the defunct Tunisian regime was as sharp. Ben Ali got on his plane believing Sarkozy was a genuine buddy to be disowned by the time he flew over Sardinia. But hypocrisy is not particular to our American friends. Fellow Arabs, of the ragtag Leftist, Islamist, Nationalist, Anti-Zionist alliance have so far successfully managed to shut down half of their brain matter in the assessment of the credentials of their own anti-imperialist allies. Iran, Syria and to a lesser degree Qatar are either ignored or reluctantly mentioned under duress as textbook examples of authoritarian, autocratic and intolerant regimes. The Baath party’s fondness for the art of political imprisonment and the Iranian Mullah’s tendencies for repressive social regulation are weighed against their supposed determination to liberate Palestine. I will not even comment on the Israeli government position, as the ‘Only democracy in the Middle East’ Pin-up verges on losing its misleading title while eyeing another expansionist adventure to its North and to its South. As for me, I will come clean and declare that I am torn between my animosity for the dictatorships and my discomfort at Islamist movements taking over the task of defining the next few decades, which I believe to be the likely outcome of recent events (and I say this out of conviction rather than scaremongering).

So the Egyptians rioting in Tahrir have also displaced the fig leaf and we have all been revealed stark naked for our biased, selective and superficial subscription to democratic principles, nominally the rule of the majority within a system guaranteeing the safeguard of individual and communal rights. Displacing one tyrant is no guarantee of freedom and prosperity. All is not lost and Democracy with a ‘D’ can be earned through the multifaceted struggle that begins once the naive anarchist fantasies of some are satisfied. This struggle will need to be led by reformists in the old tradition of a spearheading core with a solid perspective on the near and distant future. The uprising, beyond its very powerful symbolism in shattering the psychological wall of Arab impotence, should remain a means to an end. That end is still ill defined among true reformists and incomplete revolutions offered on a platter to military opportunists or retrograde faith/ethnically based organisations may yet bring a series of new challenges.

By all accounts this promises to be an exciting year... but then so was 1918. Unless!

‘Influencing each other’: Arab Democracy and America

Jade Salhab* 

 While the risings in Tunisia and Egypt unequivocally showed the universal appeal of democracy, they also showed the fragility of the ‘democratic grasp’ among many Americans and Arabs. By ‘democratic grasp’ I mean the profound understanding that any group of people - popular or elitist, spontaneous or organized - can harbor a genuine diversity of views on any given issue. Despite the generalized belief in the merits of democratic governance, ‘democratic grasp’ was often forgotten when analyzing the latest social and political events. We can do better, if we’re really aiming for true democratic practice in both worlds. We can do better, if we’re really hoping to inaugurate a new era of respectful relations between both worlds.

As protesters poured into Tahrir Square, pundits and amateurs alike were pouring their thoughts into the public sphere expressing sincere admiration for the ‘Egyptian people’ and the ‘spirit of democracy’ they embodied.

But as we look back - now that we‘re trying to learn from these events– one thought comes to mind: throughout the turbulent process, Arabs and Americans analyzed each others’ moves using incredibly counterproductive and misleading simplifications.

Let’s start with some common misreadings in the United States.

The better known one is the Conservatives’ fear that Mubarak’s autocratic regime would be replaced by a Muslim Brotherhood theocratic regime. But the more interesting one is found among Liberals who, understating any influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, admire the ‘revolution of Wael-Ghonim’s young and inspired Internet generation’. The protests, they assert, were led by this emerging, free-minded youth that has awoken and is about to sweep the Arab world out of the yoke of darkness.

In fact, not only were both of these groups equally active actors in the Egyptian rising, but they were also two among many. Heaps of protesters were simple workers, yearning for a better life, better salaries, and lower prices. Many were also from a previous generation, alienated by the excessive submissiveness of Mubarak to the American-Israeli geopolitical interests. Any Arab individual would be able to describe how diverse the crowd was and how this ‘Egyptian people’ was, in fact, composed of Muslim conservatives, young liberals, workers and union-organizers, leftist intellectuals, nationalist Nasserites and many more. In contrast, few in the US lent themselves to such a nuanced reading of the movement, and fewer even are ready to put-up with the diverse -and possibly inconsistent - perspectives and aspirations that will very shortly start emerging from it.

Here’s why this is important: if Americans are unable to truly think democratically and accept this diversity, they will also be unable to effectively support democracy in Egypt, consequently deepening the rift between America and the Arab world.

But let’s also take a moment to look at how much democratic grasp we, the Arabs, have shown in our interpretation of ‘America’ and its response to the protests.

Many Arabs started criticizing ‘America’ from the moment the protests broke out. For some, Obama was not doing what he could to support the rise of democracy in Egypt; for others he was acting hypocritically: supporting the crowds and abandoning the 30-years-long loyal dictator only because he had no other choice. For Hassan Nasrallah it was even doing both things at the same time - go figure.

Ironically, one argument was recurrently used by all critics alike: the contradictory messaging of the Obama administration throughout these 18 days. The argument goes like this: “Americans say one thing and then its opposite: They are either trying to bet on both horses, or trying to hide their true agenda”.

Here’s my question: how can we Arabs be nuanced enough to understand the complexities of the Egyptian dynamics - or ultra-complex Lebanese dynamics for that matter- and yet fail to understand that ‘America’ is not one single block?

An article on Sunday in the New York Times plainly exposes how divided the American administration really was: rather than being the monolithic, all-conspiring, all-powerful, synchronized, hegemonic and satanic machine that your average Arab taxi driver is always eager to blame for the world’s misfortune, ‘America’, it turns out, was truly debating its way to a new era of relations with the Arab world.

The article shows how the White House staff - composed of a younger and more progressive team - was genuinely inclined to back the protests and honor Obama’s Cairo speech, while the State Department - composed of overly prudent, institutional realpolitik bureaucrats that are as nimble and dynamic in their minds as a tanker ship – where trying to save the furniture of the Titanic.

One tempting conclusion from the article is that the mixed messaging was simply a failure on behalf of the White House to tame the State Department and keep its diplomats on message (the message being: “the orderly transition to democracy needs to start now, and now means yesterday”). But a deeper conclusion would be that between those who want change and those who fear it, those focused on principles and those on interests, a genuine internal debate is raging in America, and this White House is struggling to strike a reasonable balance.

The general point I’m trying to make is that peoples, organizations, and even administrations in free societies - as well as not so free ones - are diverse, incoherent, inconsistent, and dynamic. Acknowledging this fact is of the essence, if we are to build a democratic society - or pretend to be one, in the case of the USA. Acknowledging this fact is of the essence as well, if we are to find common grounds that will encourage ‘America’ to develop a more nuanced and reasonable foreign policy towards our region.

It is time for Arabs to understand that the American Administration is not a cohesive hegemonic imperialist machine, as much as it is time for Americans to understand that Arabs are not a lump of sheep-minded followers of retrograde imams. Only then can we start ‘influencing each other’ as Bashar el Assad - of all people - has eloquently put it in his recent interview with the Wall Street Journal. Only then can we consolidate truly democratic behavior within and between our respective worlds.

*Jade Salhab is a Lebanese architect and urban planner, born in Beirut in 1976. He graduated from the American University of Beirut in 1999. He  went on to complete a Masters in Urban Environment and Sustainable Development as well as  post-graduate studies in Urban Planning at the Universitat Politécnica de Catalunya in Barcelona. Between 2002 to 2010 he lived and worked in Brussels where he established a succesful private consultancy firm. He is currently based at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government completing a Masters in Public Administration.

Demonstration in support of Democracy in Egypt - London 5/02/11

The following snapshots were taken earlier today outside the Egyptian Embassy in London.  I am hoping they catch the positive and diverse atmosphere that prevailed throughout the afternoon.They are dedicated to the brave activists maintaining the pressure in Egypt and abroad in the hope of a better future.

The Egyptian Uprising: On the Universal Aspiration for Freedom

Karl Sharro

Published with permission from Karlremarks

The sheer exhilaration that I felt in response to the Egyptian uprising, admittedly as a voluntarily-implicated observer, has been somewhat dampened by the reaction of Western elites to this phenomenal display of courage and yearning for change. On the one hand, it seemed that the Egyptian people have managed, despite extremely adverse circumstances, to translate the universal ideals of liberty and autonomy into concrete political actions that have inspired millions around the world. But on the other hand it seems to have exposed how little faith in those very same ideals there is in the West today, as exemplified by the strange debates that are being conducted about the prospects of the Egyptian uprising. The most bizarre suggestion that I have heard is that this uprising somehow vindicates the neo-con position that democracy is possible in the Middle East! This confirms the impression that I had about the anti-Iraq War camp: its opposition to the War was not based on a principled rejection of Western intervention but on its lack of faith in democracy and liberty as universal values.

This position is normally phrased through the language of cultural relativism: we can’t impose our values on other cultures, we can’t pretend to know what’s better for other people, and the democratic model is not suitable for everyone. To be sure, many Arab intellectuals have fully absorbed this patronising outlook, ironically by uncritically accepting ideas that are fashionable in Western academic circles. The most blatant omission within such assumptions is that the problem here is not in the values themselves but in the act of their forceful imposition. Democracy can only thrive as a translation of popular will, and that can only develop within an autonomous framework. It is absolutely hypocritical of the West to pretend today that democracy is not suitable for Egypt, having interfered actively for several decades to prop up the Mubarak’s regime and support with large packages of military aid, and not see that as one of the key factors that worked against the development of the pro-democracy movement. The gnashing of teeth in Washington about the prospect of Egypt turning into ‘another Iran’, aside from being unjustified, is even more hypocritical considering the historic support that the US lent to Islamic movements with the aim of fighting the spread of communism.

The historical short-sightedness that afflicts the contemporary Western outlook towards the Arab world completely ignores the history of secular movements and uprisings there throughout the 20th century, and even more blatantly ignores the role of the West in combating the spread of those movements. The most pressing question for Western elites has now become whether it is possible for democracy to develop in Arab countries, feeding the scepticism and anxiety about the Egyptian uprising. Astoundingly, it doesn’t strike any of those asking this question that merely posing it is incredibly patronising, as if there is something about Arabs that is inherently opposed to democracy. Many will point to the victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections and the victory of the Islamic Front in the 1992 elections as evidence that Arabs will inevitably vote for Islamic parties when given the chance. Aside from the obvious disregard for democracy that this suggests, it also ignores the context in which those electoral victories were achieved. Crucially, Western intervention had a role to play in both instances: by backing the authoritarian Algerian regime and by promoting the forcefully pushing the peace process that discredited the Palestinian Authority and led to popular discontent with its rule.

But what’s happening now in Egypt should be a reminder that democracy is a messy business, unlike the neutered version that European bureaucrats promote today. But Western elites can only understand democracy through the prism of the paternalistic version they have been promoting for decades and that’s why the un-predictability of the Egyptian uprising scares them. No one knows for certain what the outcome will be, especially given the frantic Western efforts to find a suitable solution that would maintain ‘stability’, but the brave actions of the Egyptian people today are the living embodiment of the universal aspirations for freedom and democracy. It is Western elites and governments that are betraying those ideals through their hypocritical and cynical attitude. The sheer arrogance of suggesting that people who are risking their lives by standing up against a brutal regime are not ‘ready for democracy’ is insulting and patronising. Western governments should stop lecturing about democracy now that their lack of belief in it has been starkly exposed.

But as one friend jokingly remarked, perhaps the West is not ready for democracy yet.

Angry (Christian) Arabs

By Joseph El-Khoury

'We are this East's saints and its devils, we are its cross and its spear, we are its light and its fire; We are able to burn it if they burn our fingers, and we are able to light if they leave us with our freedom.' Bachir Gemayel (1947-1982)

No doubt some will be outraged that I choose to start this post by a quote from a controversial figure in the mind of many, but in these few powerful words that echo a supposed pre-Islamic golden era (Phoenician in Lebanon, Pharaonic in Egypt and Mesopotamic in Iraq) the then militia leader managed to articulate the image that Middle Eastern Christians have of themselves, whether they are Copts from Alexandria, Chaldeans from Baghdad, Greek Orthodox from Damascus or Maronites from the Lebanese mountains. The interesting thing about this perennial existential anxiety is that throughout history it has led Christian individuals to adopt dramatically opposed strategies to deal with it.

Some, like Gemayel have chosen to treat their religious community as a fortress, withdrawing behind sectarian legislation in Lebanon (The latest example being MP Boutros Harb proposal to ban the transfer of land between communities), an unpopular dictatorship in Iraq and an attitude of malignant neutrality in Egypt. Others (Aflak, Saadeh, Habache etc.) have instead ventured out in force onto the broader Arab hinterland shedding their religious identity or leaving it aside as they challenged social and religious dogmas responsible for centuries of stagnation and foreign dominations. It is the failure of the common efforts of the latter to establish an alternative nationalist or humanistic bond to replace the strict Islamic one that can be directly linked to the situation that Arab Christians find themselves in. Obviously it is not, and never was, their responsibility to enlighten the Arab world. It is their status as a minority and their later relatively privileged position under western mandate that placed them at the forefront of Arab reform.

That reform effort has now clearly failed and on most significant indicators the Arab world is socially, religiously and politically in a state of flux from which radical forces, but also undemocratic governments and Western interests are benefiting. It is not as a community that Arab Christians should be responding to the attacks of Al-Qaeda and various brands of fundamentalists, it is as individuals firmly requesting from those who govern them their human right to live, love, pray (or not for that matter) and finally die in this land. It is also as individuals that Arab Muslims should be standing against terrorism, bigotry and social oppression whether it affects them directly or not. This fight should not be about the Crescent and the Cross coming together or about brotherhood across a religious divide... and yes I am critical of the slogans and imagery that appeared on Facebook, which reminded me of the pacifist marches that took place in the early years of the Lebanese civil war and were always followed by another round of sectarian killing. This fight should be about rational Egyptian, Lebanese and Iraqi citizens finally realising that it is time to resuscitate the reformation project on a national and regional level. New mechanisms suited to this century are needed and nostalgia for the era of charismatic leaders and enthusiastic revolutionaries should not prevent serious introspection and productive self criticism. Solely blaming the Western media or the Zionist conspiracy for the nation’s sorry state of affairs no longer convinces even those who utter them like parrots. I personally have had enough of the fears and the tears. The time has come to galvanize!

Suzanne Tamim part 2: The Retrial.

In September 2008 I wrote about the trial of Hisham Talaat Mostafa charged with the murder by proxy of the Lebanese singer Suzanne Tamim, questioning whether he had seen the end of the affair.

http://www.arabdemocracy.com/2008/09/suzanne-talaat-and-mohsen.html

At the time the conviction of a wealthy and influential man was seen as heralding an age of transparency and accountability for the Egyptian regime and judiciary. 18 months later his conviction is quashed for mistrial based apparently on a flawed investigation carried out by the Dubai police. While every man is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, a healthy dose of cynicism goes far in the land of the pharaohs.

For the latest http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8549214.stm

To be continued...unfortunately!

مصر والجزائر

خالد برّاج

"كرة القدم هي صورة عن مجتمعنا، أنظروا جيِداً لتعبير أحد اللاعبين على أرض الملعب أو أحد المشجعِين في المدرجّات، هذه صورهم في الحياة اليومية ".
إيميه جاكيه - المدرِب السابق للمنتخب الفرنسي لكرة القدم

هستيريا جماعية أصابت المجتمعين المصري والجزائري والسبب كما يعلم الجميع المباراة الفاصلة المؤهلة لكأس العالم 2010 والتي سوف تجرى في العاصمة السودانية الخرطوم "الأرض المحايدة" مساء يوم الأربعاء 18/11/2009، ولكن، ما الذي أدّى إلى هذه الهستيريا؟
الأهمية تكمن في التأهل لكأس العالم لكرة القدم ممّا يضع منتخب البلد المتأهل في خانة أفضل 32 منتخباً عالمياً وتضع البلد المتأهل على خارطة الدول المتداول إسمها خلال فترة "المونديال" إضافةً للمردود المادي من الدعايات والشركات التي سوف تتسابق لعقد اتفاقيات رعاية مع المنتخب المتأهِل.
الحسّ الوطني أو الإحساس بالإنتماء عند معظم المصريين و الجزائريين و ضرورة مساندة منتخب بلادهم الذي أصبح يشكِل لهم (حسب رأيهم) من خلال وصوله إلى المونديال (إذا ما حصل) نموذج للتفوّق الوطني و العزّة والكرامة .
الشعور الدائم بالإحباط عند معظم فئات الشعب في كل من المجتمعين المصري والجزائري نتيجة الأوضاع السياسية والإجتماعية والإقتصادية الخاصة بكل بلد و محاولة "فش الخلق" أو "التنفيس" مثلاً من خلال حدث رياضي كالمبارة المذكورة*.
التجييش الذي مارسته السلطات الرسمية أو شبه الرسمية في كل من البلدين والمناكفات الإعلامية العلنية بين اتحادي كرة القدم في كل من البلدين وصولاً إلى اتهامات من قبل الإتحاد المصري للرسميين الجزائريين بتسميم بعض لاعبي المنتخب المصري و أعضاء الجهاز الفني خلال تواجد المنتخب المصري في الجزائر لخوض مباراة الذهاب لتصفيات كأس العالم، إضافةً إلى الإتهام الذي وجّهته الصحافة الجزائرية لقوى الأمن المصرية بإعتدائها المتكرِر والوحشي على الجماهير الجزائرية خلال تواجدها في مصر قبل بضعة أيام لمؤازرة منتخبها في مباراة الإياب ضد المنتخب المصري ضمن تصفيات كأس العالم.
الإعتداءات المتكرِرة (من تحطيم واجهات و حرق إلخ...) من قبل بعض الجماهير في كل من البلدين على الشركات والمصالح التابعة لكل بلد و صولاً إلى تعرّض موظّفي هذه الشركات لمضايقات و ضرب علني، ادت إلى موجة تضامن وطني وتعصّب أعمى تجاه البلد الأخر في كل من الجزائر و مصر.
الكره أو الإزدراء الذي تضمره الشعوب العربية لبعضها البعض هو أمر ينسحب على مجمل شعوب الأقطار العربية ويتجلّى بشكل واضح خلال المباريات الرياضية التي تجمع منتخباتهم.
خروج جميع المنتخبات العربية من التصفيات المؤهلة لكأس العالم ممّا يعني أنّ شرف تمثيل الكرة العربية في المونديال هو محصورٌ فقط في مصر و الجزائر.
التمّني الأول و الأخير أن تبقى الكرة العربية حضارية وأن تعود الجماهير إلى قواعدها سالمة ولنتجنّب، ولو أنّ التشبيه ليس دقيقاً، ما حصل بين الهندوراس و السلفادور عام 1969 حيث أنّ مباراة كرة قدم أدّت أنذاك إلى معارك عسكرية استمرّت أربع أيام قُتل فيها حوالي أربع آلاف شخص معظمهم من المدنيين، وعُرفَت هذه المعارك فيما بعد بـ "حرب كرة القدم" وقد كانت من الأسباب الرئيسية التي أدّت إلى تعزيز السيطرة السياسية للعسكريين في البلدين وتشديد الخناق أكثر من ذي قبل على جميع المعارضين وزجهّم في السجون إلى ما لا نهاية.


* وهو أمرٌ لامسناه في لبنان خلال أواخر التسعينيات و بداية الألفية الجديدة مع فريق نادي الحكمة لكرة السلة حيث أقدم مناصروا الأحزاب المسيحية الذين كانوا يتعرّضون للقمع الشبه اليومي على أيدي النظام الأمني المخابراتي اللبناني السوري المشترك على مؤازرة فريق الحكمة المتفوِق لبنانياً، عربيا،ً وآسيوياً بشكلٍ جنوني و إطلاق الشعارات السياسية خلال المبارايات وشكلّت تلك المباريات مساحة "فش خلق" للأحزاب المسيحية و ساحةً للإعتراض على الوضع الذي كان سائداً.

Swine Flu: The Egyptian Method

By Joseph El-Khoury

I was not surprised by the last April decision of the Egyptian government to slaughter 300.000 pigs in response to the Swine Flu epidemics (now officially branded a pandemic). What else would you expect from a government that uses religious zeal when it suits its interests and denounces it when brandished by its opponents. Let us not forget that it was the ‘secular’ regime of Mubarak and not the radical Muslim Brotherhood that imprisoned the blogger Abdel Kareem Nabil Suleiman for anti-religious comments.

The move was clearly motivated by religious prejudice and possibly, according to some commentators, by ulterior motives of a social and financial nature. There was no scientific justification for it and no other country, including those with Muslim majorities, followed suit. The United Nations condemned the move as a ‘mistake’ and even went through the effort of relabeling the virus as A(H1NI) to prevent confusion as to the mode of transmission. But no one in Cairo was listening. A few weeks later the UK media were outraged at the treatment of a British family holidaying in Egypt. Mum, dad and the children were quarantined under armed guard for merely having Mexican stamps on their passport from a recent holiday. The Egyptian public, reassured by the highly visible measures put in place by their authorities, were led into a false sense of security. That is until earlier this month the Health Minister, Hatem El-Gabali, confirmed that the first case of H1N1 was diagnosed in an American girl of Egyptian origin. A few days later other cases were confirmed at the American University Hall of Residence in Cairo as well as in the coastal city of Alexandria. The Minister did not mention pigs, local or foreign, and seemed to emphasise that his government was working in line with the WHO and introducing monitoring measures similar to ones already tested on an international level. Finally some reasonable behaviour; but how do you reverse a myth when you are responsible for spreading it in the first place? Reading excerpts from GlobalVoicesonline it seems that the mindset of some in the Egyptian Blogosphere has not shifted. Talk of cleanliness (again in a religious context) and ‘Terror and Panic’ is rife, mixing information on the discovery of cases of Bubonic Plague in nearby Libya (A bacterial disease communicated through flea bites associated with rodents) with the spread of Influenza A (H1N1) which is an Airborne virus transmitted in the Air by coughs and sneezes in addition to other human bodily secretions.

Obviously the pandemic is to be taken seriously as the winter months will reveal its full extent and severity. In addition, the Egyptian reaction can be understood in the context of the effect of ‘Bird Flu’ in 2006 which they struggled to contain and which caused the death of around 70 in the country. But what the Egyptian people deserve is a response driven by International scientific consensus, not by superstition and a political agenda. One would expect the educated blogosphere to be pressing for such an approach instead of dowsing off to the ‘Opium of the People’.

أكثر من 70 الف "لا" لـشركة "مبارك وأبنائه" على الفايس بوك

وائل عبد الرحيم

مصر على موعد في 6 نيسان / ابريل المقبل مع صرخة انتفاض جديدة في الذكرى السنوية الأولى لحركة مماثلة أجهضها حزب مبارك الحاكم.
لكن هذا العام، وحتى لو لم يستطع المصريون الخروج إلى الشارع للتعبير عن غضبهم من بؤس الأوضاع التي يتحمل مسؤوليتها حكم نخرته أمراض العصر العربي الرديء من فساد وتوريث وانحياز إلى حيتان المال أرباب الاقتصاد المافيوزي السائد، فإن الصوت وصل وبات يقضّ مضاجع أسياد القصور والعزب المبنية بدماء الفقراء وعرق الشغيلة، والمحروسة بحملة الحراب المسمّين شرطة وجيشاً وعسكر.
أكثر من 70 الف عضو انضموا إلى مجموعة 6 ابريل على الفايس بوك، تعدادهم يزيد على تعداد أكبر حزب في المعارضة، وصوتهم يعلو في نوعيته على صوت أكبر رأس في حزب مبارك أو ولاية العهد المسمّاة لجنة السياسات.
أولاد 6 ابريل 2008 باتوا اليوم أضعاف أضعاف ما كانوا عليه، ومن خرج منهم ليتضامن في العام الفائت مع عمال شركة المحلة للغزل والنسيج فتح الباب أمام كل مصري للتضامن مع نفسه في مواجهة صلف الحاكم وعهر النظام السياسي والاقتصادي في البلاد.
أما مطالبهم فبسيطة وواضحة، خالية من فضيحة سوء استخدام المادية الديالكتيكية التي يلعب بها أيديولوجيو الممانعة "بتوع الجزيرة وشافيز" و"النفط مقابل الغذاء"، ولا لطّخها تجّار الدين بتوع "الإسلام هو الحلّ" و"توظيف الأموال بالحلال".. وهي كما يعرضها شباب مصر النّضر:

1- حد أدنى للأجور 1200 جنيه بما يضمن أن يحيا المواطن بكرامة ويشعر بالأمان على مستقبله ومستقبل أبنائه.

2- ربط الأجور بالأسعار

3- انتخاب جمعية تأسيسية لوضع دستور جديد للبلاد يضمن الحريات السياسية والنقابية ويحدد فترة الرئاسة بمدتين على الأكثر.

4- وقف تصدير الغاز "لإسرائيل".

ابسط الأمور تُقال بأبسط التعابير، دون رسائل تُنصّ إلى رؤساء الدول العظمى، ودون تمويل غير حكومي او حكومي.. وبكثير من الغضب، وبأكثر من الحُلُم، يشقّ الأولاد طريق الحرية في مصر، حريتهم وحرية جيلهم والأجيال التي ستلي، يقولون لنظام الحكم اليائس والبائس إن التاريخ لا يرحم وإن شعب مصر لا تزال تسكنه روح الانتفاضة، وإن 6 ابريل هو تاريخ بداية النهاية للظلم والتسلط والطغيان، وتاريخ ولادة لبصيص أمل.

رابط موقع الفايس بوك الخاص بحركة 6 ابريل

انفجار في القاهرة

وائل عبد الرحيم

كأنه لا يكفي المصريين أن يواجهوا يومياً مصاعب الحياة والفقر والقمع وفساد النظام السياسي الاجتماعي حتى يعود الإرهاب الغبيّ ليستهدف عاصمتهم.
الانفجار الذي ضرب منطقة الحسين الأحد جاء بعد ثلاثة أيام فقط من الإفراج عن أيمن نور، حدثٌ رغم التساؤلات التي تحيط به أرخى ظلال ارتياح نسبي على بعض من جوانب الحياة السياسية في القاهرة.
من الطبيعي جداً أن يكون هذا التفجير مثار استنكار الجميع في مصر وخارجها، وبغضّ النظر عن التحليلات الأمنية والاستخباريّة بشأن من يقف وراء هذا العمل، فإن الجزئية المهمة من الصورة قد تكون في المعاناة اليومية التي يعيش فيها عشرات ملايين المصريين، الأغلبية الساحقة القابعة على مسافات قريبة جدا من خط الفقر، وأحيانا تحت هذا الخط، في ظل غياب تنمية اقتصادية وبشرية مقبولة.
ففي تقريرها عن التنمية البشرية لعام 2007 ذكرت الأمم المتحدة أن 14 مليون مصري يعيشون تحت خط الفقر، بينهم أربعة ملايين لا يجدون قوت يومهم، لتبقى مصر في المركز 111 بين دول العالم الأكثر فقرًا.
وذكر التقرير أيضاً أن نسبة السكان الذين يعيشون تحت خط الفقر عند مستوي إنفاق دولار واحد في اليوم تبلغ 3.1%، بينما تبلغ نسبة مستوي إنفاق دولارين في اليوم 43.9%.، وهي نسب مهولة إذا أخذنا بالاعتبار أن تعداد الشعب المصري يفوق الثمانين مليوناً.
فضلاً عن الشعور بسحر هذه المدينة التي يحكي كلّ شارع فيها صفحة من التاريخ الحديث والقديم، وإلى طيبة ناسها وعفويتهم، لا بدّ لزائر القاهرة أن يلاحظ فوضى عارمة تختصر كل تفاصيل الحياة العامة والخاصة للمصريين.هي فوضى بناء، وفوضى نمو، وفوضى في توزيع الثروات التي تنعم بها قلّة قليلة تحتكر السلطات والمال في ظل نظام اقتصاد مافيوزي ليس هو بالنظام الليبرالي الحرّ ولا بالاشتراكية المندثرة.
لكن اللافت للنظر أيضاً هو حجم اللامبالاة التي يعبّر عنها المصريون تجاه هيبة النظام التي لم يعد يكفي انتشار الأمن المركزي الدائم في المفترقات الرئيسة والفرعية لشوارع القاهرة ليحفظها.
لم يعد النظام قادراُ على فرض هيبته على الناس، وبات شتمً النظام على لسان الجميع وغير مموّه بالتفريق بين حكومة أحمد نظيف أو العائلة الرئاسية المالكة، بل يسمّون الأشياء بأسمائها. ومن مظاهر انهيار هيبة النظام انتشار ظاهرة تقاضي الإكراميات بشكل مفرط ليس بين العاملين في القطاعين الخاص والعام فحسب بل في أجهزة تنفيذية حسّاسة من مهامها حفظ الأمن في الداخل وعلى منافذ البلد. تجد هذا حتى في المطار!
كما يعامل المصريون نظام حكمهم، فهم لا يقدّرون أكثر أحزاب المعارضة التقليدية التي يراها الكثيرون الوجه الآخر لنظام الحكم الحالي، وفاقدة للصدقية في قضايا كثيرة لا تقف فقط عند حدود توريث الحكم وهو حديث الشارع اليومي، وإنتما تتخطاه لتضع علامات استفهام كبيرة حول شفافية هذه الأحزاب والفساد الذي لا يبدو أنها نجت منه هي الأخرى.
إذن "هي فوضى"، وغياب شديد الوضوح للعدالة، وأمور كثيرة بات الحديث عنها من البديهيات وجزءاً من تكرار رتيب.
ربما يكون انفجار الحسين حدثاً محدوداً في سياقه، لكنه يأتي كإشارة تحذير لمن يهمه الأمر عن المخاطر الحقيقية التي تتهدد "الأمن القومي" في مصر. فليست الأفكار هي التي تهدّد هذا الأمن الذي يحميه نظام طوارئ النظام، بل هي البيئة الخصبة لولادة أنواع كثيرة من التهديد الأكثر خطراً وأخطرها: اليأس.

Saudi Justice, Egyptian Outrage: The Case of the Two Doctors

By Joseph El-khoury

"Saudi Arabia previously pardoned a Philippine housemaid, sentenced to jailing and flogging after intervention from its government," said Ebrahim Al Zafran, a representative of the Arab Doctors' Union in Cairo.

"Are the Egyptian doctors inferior to the Philippine maids?"

GulfNews

http://www.gulfnews.com/region/Egypt/10264066.html

It is with these enlightened words that one leading Egyptian doctor protested against the flogging and jailing of two Egyptian doctors in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). In October, Drs Rauf Al Arabi 53 and Shawki Abd Rabuh were sentenced to 1500 lashes and 15 years jail for their alleged role in ‘facilitating the addiction’ of a Saudi princess. Very little is available online on the exact nature of their offence. Facilitating addiction is a vague term as it could mean anything from supplying a prescription to a patient in genuine pain to chasing the dragon with her in a crack den. Opiate painkillers (Morphine being one of them) are prescribed on a daily basis to millions of patients across the world. They are highly addictive and caution is required beyond a few weeks of chronic use. Ideally consumption should be closely monitored and capped by health professionals. Despite these measures, a small number of patients develop dependence. Although they do not necessarily fit the profile of the ‘addict’ their overall level of functioning is frequently affected.

 

Given the opaque and archaic nature of the Saudi legal system, the evidence on which the two doctors were convicted has not been disclosed. In the event that they were actually intentionally supplying Morphine to the lady in the absence of symptoms then they are in breach of their Hippocratic Oath and the ‘do no harm’ principle. In this context the term then ‘facilitating’ is misleading, these boys were dealing drugs! This would be very difficult to prove and solid specialised medical expertise should be consulted by the court. I would still argue that 1500 lashes and 15 years in jail is disproportionate, even throwing in their supposed lack of morality (Having illicit affairs pales in my mind next to drug dealing) and even for Saudi Arabia. In the event that the doctors’ sole crime was that they failed to monitor the care of the princess properly, then they are guilty of negligence and flogging them becomes gratuitous. It is interesting that few in the Arab media chose to explore the issue at hand from a scientific fact based approach. Instead, the focus was on the typically Arab styled settlement that followed: My one Camel for your two goats. In the interim, the news outraged Egyptians, who make up a high proportion of the workforce in KSA in a variety of fields. For years, they complained of being ill treated, underpaid and undervalued. Following a temporary move by the Egyptian government to ban their doctors from working in the KSA, Saudi Authorities paid lip service by promising that Egyptians workers would be given full rights. It is unlikely this promise will be extended to Philippine maids.

القطاع العام وأيديولوجيا الحمير

وائل عبد الرحيم

منذ انقلاب حسني الزعيم (1) في سورية اواخر الأربعينيات، وما تلاه من حقبة الانقلابات العسكرية في المشرق العربي ومصر، ارتبطت حركة التحرر الوطني العربية بأمثلة عسكريتارية فجّة!
تجارب 5 عقود انتجت مدارس حكم رديئة لا يزال بعضها ماثلا بقوة في حيواتنا كمجتمعات عربية.
تجارب هجينة ارتكزت على نظرية التطور اللارأسمالي (2) التي سوّقها الخبراء السوفيات لإرضاء حلفائهم "ديكتاتوريي الشرق" دون ان يرفّ لهم جفن على المذابح التي ساقها هؤلاء ضد الشيوعيين المحليين في البلدان التي يحكمونها (3).
هكذا، وبغمضة عين، تحوّل المدّ الوطني الديمقراطي الذي رافق بداية انتهاء الاستعمار القديم، إلى تمدّد قميء لعسكريتاريا ريفية استولت على الأحزاب وعلى نظم الحكم وسخّرتها لمنافعها تحت شعارات الوحدة العربية، والحرية، والاشتراكية.
خلال كل هذه الحقبة من تاريخنا أمعن هؤلاء في الاضطهاد، وفي التنكيل بالحريات، وفي زيادة الفرقة بين الدول، وفي ضرب أسس النمو الاقتصادي.
والأنكى من كل ذلك أن من جاء إلى سدّة الحكم ليقلب حكماً ملكيا أو فساداً مستشرياً، اورث أولاده، فنشأت عندنا جمهوريات الحكم الوراثي كتجربة فريدة تفتّق عنها العقل العربي.
ومن جاء إلى الحكم ليرسي وحدة عربية ما، كان بطل الانفصالات.. وليس غريبا بعد ذلك ان تكون البرجوازية السورية التي خوّنها عتاة اللجنة العسكرية البعثية (4) هي رائدة تجربة الوحدة العربية الوحيدة في مشرقنا.. وان يكون الزعيم السوري التقليدي شكري القوتلي (5) اكثر وحدوية وتقدمية من العفالقة (نسبة إلى ميشال عفلق) ومن الأرسوزيين (نسبة إلى زكي الأرسوزي)… وان يكون خالد العظم (6) رائد القومية الاقتصادية الوطنية ورائد الديمقراطية ببعدها التحرري الوطني الداخلي والخارجي متفوقاً على مدرسة الشباطيين (7) كلهّها بيسارها (صلاح جديد) ويمينها (حافظ الأسد).
أفظع ما اورثته لنا هذه الجمهوريات هو القطاع العام الذي يتغنى فيه بعض ديناصورات "الحركة الاشتراكية المؤممة" بصفته إنجازاً تاريخياً للحكومات الوطنية.
طيب، بكلمات قليلة واعترف انها ناقمة كثيراً، فلنرً ماهية هذا القطاع الذي جلب الرفاه إلى الشعوب السعيدة!.
ولنتناول تجربة البعث السورية وثورة يوليو المصرية كمثالين ما دامتا مستمرتين في البروباغندا التبريرية لحكام القاهرة ودمشق.
في دمشق الشام، بقي من القطاع العام باب سرقة كبير لقريب عائلة الأسد رامي مخلوف (8)، الذي مدّ يده ايضاً على القطاع الخاص، وصار شريكا باسم العائلة لكل مصنع صغير او كبير، ولكل شركة صغيرة ام كبيرة..
وبقي من القطاع العام نظام استشفاء بائس هو برأي بعض أنصاف مثقفي الشرق "اشتراكية" من نوع باهر حقاً، ونسوا أن حكّام الشام واولادهم عندما يمرضون يذهبون للاستشفاء في بلدان "الغرب الرأسمالي المتوحش"!
اما في القاهرة حيث لا يزال حسني مبارك يحتفل كلّ عام بذكرى ثورة يوليو "الاشتراكية" فالقطاع العام الذي بيع وُيباع بالمزاد إلى شركاء ولديه جمال وعلاء أبرز مثال على إنجازات "الاشتراكية العربية".
في دمشق والقاهرة بقي القطاع العام ليس خطّ الدفاع الاخيرعن الفقراء كما يحلو لكبار الموظفين "الاشتراكيين" تسميته، بل اداة سيطرة اقتصادية متينة للحاكمين يستخدمونه كما الجيش والأحزاب المدجّنة في سبيل إدامة سيطرتهم.
للحديث صلة، وهو مدعاة لبحث اعمق واكثر شمولاً… حتى لا "يهرينا" ماركسيو نظم الحكم المافيوزية بنظرياتهم عن الاشتراكيات الوهمية الباقية في القرن الواحد والعشرين..
فالاشتراكية يا "رفاق"، منظومة قيم إنسانية راقية قبل ان تكون إدارات عامّة وسجون وبوليس وعسكر، وشعاراً للحمير: مات الحاكم.. عاش ابنه!


1 - ضابط في الجيش السوري افتتح عهد الانقلابات العسكرية بانقلاب على الحكومة السورية المنتخبة في عام 1949.
2 - اجتهاد للينين عن التطور السياسي والاقتصادي في البلدان غير الرأسمالية جيّرها المفكرون السوفييت في عهد خروشوف وبريجينيف لإضفاء طابع التقدمية على حلفائهم من انظمة مصر وسورية والعراق وغيرها. تقول النظرية بإمكان تحقيق الاشتراكية دون المرور بمرحلة الرأسمالية، وبالتالي تلغي عملياً "الدور الطليعي" للأحزاب الشيوعية لصالح دور ممثلي "البرجوازية الصغيرة الوطنية".
3 - نفّذ عبدالناصر حملة قمع منظمة ضد الشيوعيين المصريين والسوريين في الوقت الذي كانت في علاقاته ممتازة مع السوفيات والكتلة الاشتراكية. كذلك فعل الزعيم العراقي عبدالكريم قاسم وإن كانت درجة القمع اقلّ. وفي العراق ذبح البعثيون الشيوعيين دون موقف حازم من قبل السوفيات.
4 - تكتّل ضباط بعثيين سوريين نشأ قبل استلام الحزب للسلطة وضمّ حافظ الأسد وصلاح جديد ومحمد عمران وعبدالكريم الجندي وأحمد المير.. قامت هذه العصبة بالانقلاب فيما بعد على القيادة التاريخية لحزب البعث ممثلة بميشال عفلق.
5 - الرئيس السوري المنتخب الذي طلب من عبدالناصر رسميا الوحدة مع مصر في عام 1958 وقبل بالتنحي عن الرئاسة لصالح رئيس الوحدة عبدالناصر نفسه.
6 - رئيس وزراء سوري في عهد الديمقراطية البرلمانية. اشتهر بليبراليته السياسية ومواقفه الوطنية رفضاً للسياسات الاستعمارية، وبدفاعه عن الاقتصاد السوري في مواجهة الاحتكارات الأجنبية.
7 - اللجنة العسكرية نفسها التي قامت بانقلاب على القيادة القومية العفلقية للحزب في شباط 1966. ثم اختلف الرفاق فيما بينهم فانقلب حافظ الأسد على صلاح جديد في 1970 فيما اصطلح على تسميته بـ"الحركة التصحيحية".
8 - ابن خالة بشار الأسد وصاحب شركة سورياتل للهاتف المحمول وشركات اخرى وأحد اكبر أثرياء سورية.

ملح الأرض تحت الركام يا مصر

وائل عبد الرحيم

فترة قصيرة فصلت بين الانهيار الصخري في جبل المقطّم على سكان قاطني "المنازل العشوائية" هنالك وبين وصول اجهزة الحكومة إلى المحلّة.
بعض العارفين بالشؤون المصرية يعلّقون ساخرين متندرين قائلين ان أول الواصلين إلى المكان كانت قوات الأمن المركزي وليس فرق الإغاثة التي تلتها لتنتشل اكثر من 80 جثة وعشرات الجرحى الاخرين.
وصول قوات الأمن باعداد كثيفة كان هدفه طبعاً ضمان صمت الضحايا، ففي مصر كما في معظم البلدان العربية يُسمح لك إن كنت فقيراً ان تموت، ويُسمح لأقارب الضحايا ان يدفنوا قتلاهم وان يتقبلوا التعازي بـ"قضاء الله وقدره"، ولكن من الممنوع ان يحتجّ الضحايا على الإهمال وأن يطالبوا بإزالة الظروف التي أدّت إلى الحادثة، او ان يطرحوا أسئلة على سبيل "من المسؤول عن المقتلة؟".
هذه هي سياسة الحكومات، ولاسيما الحكومة المصرية، في التعامل مع شعبها الذي يسكن عدد هائل منه في منازل وبيوت وأبنية تعرف بـ"العشوائيات" أي منازل بل مناطق باكملها مبنية دون تراخيص رسمية ودون تخطيط فقط لأن سكانها من المعدمين والفقراء الذين لا يجدون القدرة على تأمين سكن شرعي لائق لهم ولعائلاتهم.
وتفتقد هذه المناطق إلى الحدّ الأدنى من السلامة، كما إلى ابسط مقومات العيش الكريم والخدمات الاساسية.
إذن، هي سياسة حكومية تقارب الأزمات الاجتماعية من منظور امني اولاً وسياسي ثانياً، وبعدها يصبح من الطبيعي ان تشارك أجهزة المخابرات والبوليس السياسي في نقاش مسائل الفقر والبطالة والتعليم وغيرها.
تعكس الدراسات والتقارير التي تُعنى بقضية العشوائيات في مصر تضارباً مهولاً في الأرقام بين اجهزة الدولة المختلفة.
ففي حين يتحدث تقرير الأمم المتحدة للتنمية البشرية للعام 1996 (الذي تتبناه ايضاً وزارة التخطيط) عن أن 34 بالمئة من مناطق القاهرة "عشوائيات"، تشير دراسات خاصة إلى رقم الـ 60 بالمئة، كما أن لجهاز التعبئة والإحصاء أرقاماً اخرى، ولوزارة التنمية تقديراتها المختلفة.
وتشرح لي باحثة مصرية تعدّ اطروحتها الجامعية عن هذه القضية أن التضارب في الأرقام يعكس نظرة الحكومة في التعامل مع هذه المشكلة الحيوية، فهي اولا تفتقد إلى القدرة على حلّها لأنها لا تربطها بالتنمية والاقتصاد، وثانياً تعتمد مقاربة سياسية.
فغالباً ما تصدر الصحف القومية في مصر وفي عناوينها 'وبالبنط العريض مثلاً "مشروع لبناء مدارس في المنطقة الفلانية العام المقبل"، او "مشروع لتمديد مجاري الصرف الصحي خلال ثلاث سنوات"، لكن نادراً ما نقرأ في هذه الصحف عن مشروع تمّ او دشّن.
إذا كان هناك في القاهرة 18 مليوناً على الأقل، وإذا كان 50 بالمئة منهم يعيشون في مناطق وأبنية عشوائية، فهذا يعني ان 9 مليون مصري في القاهرة لوحدها مهددون بالموت في أي وقت وخصوصاً عند أي هزة ارضية او زلزال الخ.
وإذا كانت الحكومة المصرية تتدخّل لمنع اعتصام رمزي لأهالي الضحايا وناشطين في ميدان طلعت حرب وتفرق الحشد المتواضع فإن هذا يعكس الخوف الرسمي من غضب الناس حتى لو كان المعبرون عن الغضب بضع عشرات.
فماذا لو خرج 10 بالمئة فقط من 9 مليون مصري (وهذه أرقام لا ادعي حتى أنها تقريبية وأترك الحسم فيها للمختصين) ليقولوا إن الأوان قد آن كي يخرجوا من القبور ومن "العشش" ويسكنوا كبشر في منازل تضمن لهم السلامة على الأقل؟ الا يكفي هذا لكي يشعر سكان قصر هيليوبوليس وسائر القصور والعِزَب بالخطر الداهم على مصالحهم وامتيازاتهم؟
انا لا ادعو إلى ثورة.. انا اتمنى فقط ان يروي "ملح الأرض" بعضاً من غليلهم!

Suzanne, Talaat and Mohsen

By Joseph El-Khoury

I had vaguely heard of Suzanne Tamim prior to the news of her murder. Unless you follow closely the world of Arab showbiz, the succession of divas on your TV screen is akin to background elevator music: repetitive and barely distinctive. Working the necessary recipe of commercial blandness and traditional feminine sex appeal, Suzanne easily found her spot under the spotlights in the wake of her success at the 1996 edition of the Lebanese talent show ‘Studio El fan’. I had heard even less of the man who allegedly ordered her cold blood ‘execution’ in Dubai this last July. Judging from the news reports his, was a crime of passion...by proxy.
The loyal employee, Mohsen El-Sukkary, who carried out the attack, translated the passion of his ‘Beyk’ for the victim into multiple stab wounds, a slit throat and extensive disfigurement. It didn’t take much investigative work from the Emirati police to build the picture of a revenge crime involving sex, love and money. Arab audiences need look no further for drama and tragedy. This classic one, an Egyptian and Lebanese production, trumps the best Mexican Telenovela as it moves between Cairo, London and Dubai. The ‘Beyk’, Mr Hisham Talaat Mustafa motivated by anger and frustration chooses to ‘terminate’ his ex-lover. A rich businessman and public figure, he probably felt that his position as a close protégé of the Mubarak clan would confer on him immunity well beyond Egyptian borders. And not long ago it would probably have, but two factors made that difficult in 2008.
Dubai having become an international financial and societal hub had to remain an oasis of safety in the turbulent Middle East. On the other hand, the Egyptian regime has been on the defensive for a few years in the face of growing opposition to its economical policies and accusations of corruption. Not a day goes by without further revelations of succession of events and conflicts leading to the death of Suzanne. In a way this is a tragedy for all those involved and foremost for a society living in constant denial, which behaves as if ‘these things happen elsewhere’ in Hollywood, Bollywood or Mexico city while their ruling elite mixes traditional attitudes, religious piety and extravagant lifestyle in an explosive recipe. This time, Mustafa had gone too far, although it is doubtful that remorse is on the agenda.
Few Arab men endowed with money and power will accept that no amount of humiliation is worth a murder charge, especially when the humiliation is carried out by a lover. We are still a long way from the trial and as in every soap opera; the producers might have a few more surprises in their sleeve.

Remembering a Towering Personality

By Ahmad Mustafa*

Long before Francis Fukuyama published his famous article by the end of last century, an Arab thinker coined the term "End of History" in a different context. As it was in Arabic, it did not attract a lot of attention and the author was not much credited. That was one of the early books of Dr Abdul Wahab Al Messiri, who died in Cairo on the 3rd of July 2008, aged 70.
In the book, End of History: An Introduction to Structural Study of Zionist Thought, published in 1972, Al Messiri suggested that the notion of "end of history" is a sort of Western hegemonic theory imposed on the world.
An outstanding professor of English literature, Al Messiri was predominantly known for his Encyclopedia on Jews, Judaism, and Zionism. Though some dogmatic propagandists accused him of anti-Semitism, Al Messiri was the most enthusiastic proponent of Semitism, yet staunchly against Zionism as a fascist outcome of Western imperialism. In the Encyclopedia, which took 25 years of hard and continuous work, Al Messiri establishes the difference between Jews, their religion, and Zionism. He refutes the misleading demagoguery linking Zionism to Judaism, and in all his other writings he was for the peaceful co-existence of Jews, Christians and Muslims in the region. But he was always clear about the nature of the Zionist entity in occupied Palestine, created as a spearhead for Western powers to keep the region under their influence for good.
In his last year, while suffering from cancer, he led the opposition movement Kefaya (Enough) calling for political reform in Egypt. That was part of the spirit of that great thinker - determination and leading by example. Besides the Encyclopedia, Al Messiri wrote tens of books, hundreds of articles, and gave as much lectures on wide range of subjects. He was a model of the comprehensive intellectual, though the main contribution was his unrivalled, in-depth analysis of Zionism and its relevance to the Arab-Israeli struggle.

Intellectual foundation
Al Messiri spent years in the US early in the second half of last century, where he completed his post-graduate studies and worked on the early seeds of his literary project. His exposure to Western culture enriched his experience, without deforming his genuine intellectual foundations.
The most important example, for the wider public aside from his academic colleagues and apprentices, Al Messiri will be remembered with is being genuine, consistent and principled. Devotion and dedication to a cause were the mantra of the time, and he kept inspiring those who worked with him by the same principles. He was one of the knights of a generation of great people that included economist Dr Ramzi Zaki, and politician and writer Adel Hussain, who left our world before him. There remains a few of this brand such as the socio-economist Galal Ameen and writer Mohammad Hasanin Heikal.
One of the things not that well-known is Al Messiri's contribution to the renewal of Islamic thought, in a more rational yet fundamentalist way. Like many of his generation, he started as a Marxist. Then, like many others also, he moved closer to political Islam - without sacrificing the critical mentality and the scientific way of thinking.
I knew Al Messiri through his books before I met him two decades ago. Since then we met in Egypt and abroad, and every time I got that impression of a man who lives what he thinks and says - without any pretence or hypocrisy. Personal integrity, like intellectual genuine consistency, was a common feature among that generation of pioneers. I did not work closely with him in academia, nor was one of his students, but I learnt a lot from him. One precious thing about the great Arab thinker we lost is the humility of a great scholar mixed with the marvellous dignity of Sufism.
Besides his philosophical work, he was a great literary critic, a poet and novelist. I remember one of his recent analysis a few years ago was a comparison between Lebanese singer Nancy Ajram and her Egyptian colleague Ruby, and how he concluded that Nancy is more real than Ruby.
His solid belief that Palestine will one day be for the Palestinians was never shaken, and it was no coincidence that he spent his last week of his life in Palestine Hospital in Heliopolis, where he died. Al Messiri will live, not only through his literary creativity but also through the example he was living all the time.

*The writer kindly agreed to republish this article on Arabdemocracy to commemorate 40 days since Al Messiri's death.

All is not fine in Egypt

By Ahmad Mustafa*

Egyptian demonstrators carrying bread (AP)

Although there are no major riots or violent protests in Egypt that can make headlines on satellite channels, the country is not at all quiet under the surface. It appears that the honeymoon of the energetic government, installed four years ago, is coming to an end soon. You can easily feel it through what you hear from the majority of Egyptians, from all walks of life, who share one negative theme: no trust in the future.
When President Hosni Mubarak appointed Dr Ahmad Nazif as the prime minister of the country in the summer of 2004, everybody - in and out of Egypt - was talking about a new generation of government in which Mubarak's son, Jamal, has been playing a major part from behind-the-scene. With limited reshuffles, Nazif's cabinet included more business people than technocrats and the influential body within the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) led by Jamal Mubarak became more and more powerful.
At that time, many analysts and international institutions hailed the developments as they were keen to see any sort of reform in a stagnant Egypt.
Initially, the new government did live up to its expectations and did not falter. In its first couple of years, it launched an ambitious programme to reform the economy and set straight most of the books on macro-economy.
Though some of the reforms were painful and stirred internal opposition, most Egyptians gave the government the benefit of the doubt and waited to see its trickle-down effect.
Except for a section of the elite - a marginal minority in Egypt - most people did not care too much about the issue of "inheritance of power" from the father to the son and the preparation for the rise of Mubarak Jr.
Majority of the Egyptians are indifferent to the ruling regime, to the extent that in the 19th century when they had the power in their hands they brought in an Albanian (Mohammad Ali) to rule them.
Being indifferent does not essentially mean that they do not know; they know about the sins of omission and commission in their country. But they always say: OK, fine, as I can live and sustain it. But of late they are finding it difficult to meet their basic needs and foresee a bleak future.

Not successful
Clever and enthusiastic ministers in Nazif's government, especially those in charge of the economy, were not successful in gaining the trust of the people in what they were doing. They were keener to talk in English to the outside world and left the more than 70 million Egyptians to the anxious wait to see any benefit.
If it were acceptable in the first half of the government's time in office to focus on major - and sometimes shocking - moves to liberalise the economy, it might not be the case in the last couple of years.
As the government kept on its programme without any political effort to convince the people of the "light at the end of the tunnel", the tide is now turning against it and unfortunately against the much needed reforms itself.
One might argue that economic reform without political reform cannot be a remedy, especially in a country such as Egypt. Yet, even though the pace of political reform does not match the economic reform, the government is trying to force the latter with some political oppression.
That cannot work, and might even strip the economic reform of any meaning. The number of laws passed in the legislature and amendments made to them in a very short time is not a safeguard to a change; rather they are fragile rules that are forced on the people who have no say, or are just ignored as ignorant.
Self-proclaimed economic super-geeks will not be able to keep on like this. Their actions threaten the delicate socio-political fabric of the country. You cannot simply impose models that look perfect on paper and expect the tens of millions of people to cheer you as a hero.
Egypt is not a poor country and seeing the number of Egyptian millionaires living in the UK and elsewhere in Europe and North America, you can tell that the country is gifted.
It was ill-managed, right. But it does not seem to be well-managed now as far as its people are deprived of everything: basic needs and rights including having a say in what is going on in their country.

*Dr Ahmad Mustafa, a London-based Arab writer. Apart from many other journalistic activities, Dr Mustafa is a regular columnist for the Emirati Gulf News newspaper. (This article was published in Gulf News on the 29th of June 2008.

Cairo's Rubbish and the Coptic Question

By Joseph El Khoury and Bachir Habib

Video: Channel 4, Unreported World, Egypt's Rubbish People

A documentary broadcasted last week on British Television claims that the situation for Christians in Egypt has become intolerable. Through interviews with local clergymen, human rights activists and members of the public the reporter thrives to reveal to a European audience a side of Egypt that they know little about (whether they are at all interested is another matter). It comes at an interesting time, when relations between religious groups in the Middle East and beyond are tense. Only today, Sheikh Mohammed Fadlallah, spiritual leader of the Lebanese Shiite community, criticized Pope Benedict for a statement in which he states the right (and duty) of the Catholic church to proselytize and spread their version of Christianity. These tensions are also noticeable within the same faith group, with various prominent Arab leaders accusing Iranian inspired Shiism of challenging Sunni hegemony in the Arab world. Going back to the documentary, I found it unsettling and visually stimulating but also biased in that it failed to show the views of moderate Muslims or speak to some Copts who invariably will have a different perspective on things. Clearly becoming emotionally involved, the reporter was determined to make his point at any cost. One came out with the conclusion that the regime, the Muslim brotherhood and average man on the street shared the same views and attitudes towards any expression of Christianity. This is not only inaccurate but ignores the deliberate attempts by the authorities to spread paranoia between different sections of the population, acting as protectors of the Copts on one hand and guarantor of ‘Islamic values’ on the other. Also, focusing on the ‘plight’ of the Zabbaleen (Rubbish collectors) community was an unnecessary dramatization and a distraction from a serious wide-ranging issue. Over the past decades Minorities in the Middle East have found themselves marginalized, choosing to ally themselves with undemocratic unpopular regimes or aligning their interests to those of foreign powers. When the resistance to both of these is headlined by monolithic movements with an Islamist agenda, the dilemma stops being one. Some believe alienating these minorities is a price worth paying for the attainment of higher objectives but careful consideration of the consequences is required.

Egypt & Jordan: Where Strikes Fail

Picture Galley: Courtesy of http://egyptianchronicles.blogspot.com/

In some countries, Jordan and Egypt for example, the only way to make a strike succeed is for the State to call for it. Imagine a State calling its workers and citizens to protest against the rise or prices of essential goods. It is conceivable wen the authorities decide to blame “Imperialism” for it.

In Cairo, on Sunday morning, correspondents there reported a “serious” police presence in the streets. A month ago, the relative success of the strike and the incidents of Mahalla where security forces clashed with protesters were followed by a vague of arrests against traditional and virtual activists. Security forces are catching up with creativity by arresting bloggers and facebook users who might be potentially dangerous.
Remember Esraa Abdel Fattah who has been detained for hours last month just because she was behind the facebook page calling for the 6^th of April strike. And remember how the Egyptian police arrested bloggers before even starting to arrest the hundreds of demonstrators. Bloggers in Egypt seem to be perceived as a potential threat to National Security, that’s what I understand from the official Egyptian reaction.

Apparently the preventive actions against activists are the right weapon in the hands of our local tyrants.
In Jordan, on the evening of Sunday’s strike, three members of the Jordanian Left Social Movement were arrested for distributing pamphlets calling citizens to be part of the strike that will only last till 11 a.m. One more detail left, the Jordanian authorities denied arresting anyone… Classical!
Meanwhile, correspondents in Jordan say that facebook has been a tool widely used to diffuse the call for the strike. I am sure it’s a matter of time before facebookers and bloggers in Jordan become officially a National Security threat.

The outcome of these two strikes was practically a failure related partly to intimidation, but also to a lack of a political culture practiced within healthy and democratic multiparty system.
No wonder why the ruling parties in the Arab World are generally the only ones capable of mobilizing on demand. We pay the price in Fundamental, Civil, and Political Liberties for them to stay in power in the name of stablility and security.

The choice of the 4^th of May for the Egyptian strike was not a coincidence; it was the 80^th birthday of Egyptian President Hosni Mobarak. Today he can sit back and relax, he had a happy one!

According to all the international reports, food and prices crisis is a part of a global economic crisis settling down surely with no real international solutions for it, just alarming reports. So we will have to expect more demonstrations and movements related to that matter in the near future. That will hopefully give the oppositions in Arab Countries more chances to mobilize.

Incidentally, a demonstration under the same slogan is planned in Beirut on the 7^th of may, but the Clausewitzean style might be the best way of describing it before it even happens: It will just be the continuation of the struggle between the '8^th' and '14^th of March' fronts by other means.